In a nonpartisan U.S. Senate primary in Alaska, Democrat Mary Peltola won 48 percent of the vote — compared to only 42 percent for Dan Sullivan, the race's leading Republican. Journalist Michael Cohen discussed the implications of that primary's outcome during an appearance on The New Republic's podcast, "The Daily Blast." And he laid out some reasons why it is a "bright red light" flashing for the GOP.

The fact that Alaska is a red state that Donald Trump won in three presidential elections in a row wasn't lost on either or liberal host Greg Sargent, a former Washington Post columnist. Sargent commented that while he doesn't "want to get too optimistic" about Democrats' chances of winning that U.S. Senate race in Alaska in November, he can "see a path to" a Democratic Senate majority if that seat really is in play for them.

Cohen told Sargent, "And it's not just Peltola being up, it's also Sullivan being, you know, in the low forties. An incumbent running for reelection — that's usually a pretty bright red light that suggests you're in serious trouble to win reelection. The thing with Peltola is that she's won statewide before, right? She did this in, what, 2018, I believe —she won statewide, and she won again in 2020. And then, she lost in 2022, in a bad environment for Democrats. So, I just think that she has a track record in Alaska."

On the podcast, Cohen noted that Sullivan "appears to be an unpopular incumbent."

"The national environment is just terrible for Republicans, Cohen told Sullivan. "So yeah. And she's leading every poll. So, it does seem like she's got a chance. But ... you have to remember, these are red states. And for Democrats — I mean, you could see Democrats win two or three Senate seats in red states."

Cohen continued, "I mean, I think we have to step back here and just realize for a second how unusual a situation we're in right now, where you have this many Republican seats — places where Trump, again, won by double digits in many cases — competitive. This is just very unusual in our modern political environment. Keep in mind, right now, for example, there's not a single Democratic senator in a state that Trump won three straight elections, right? There's one Republican senator in a state that Kamala Harris won in 2024, and that would be Maine — and that’s Susan Collins, and she looks like she might, might lose."

President Donald Trump continues to push for a lavish ballroom that would be built where the White House's demolished East Wing once stood, but that isn't the only ballroom Trump is focused on. Trump is also proposing a ballroom for his Trump International Golf Links & Hotel in Doonbeg, Ireland. But according to Washington Post reporter Terrence McCoy, it is hitting a major snag despite support from many local residents.

The Irish ballroom — the "other ballroom" — McCoy reports, isn't generating nearly as much opposition as the White House proposal.

According to McCoy, "Unlike in Washington, where Trump's push to fast-track a grandiose White House ballroom set off a political and legal fight that has now reached the Supreme Court, the population of Doonbeg, which hovers around 300, had lined up behind the project."

But Liam Madden, an Ireland resident who is committed to protecting a type of endangered snail, is fighting the project.

"Questions over the fate of the threatened Vertigo angustior snail — a microscopic mollusk nestled in Doonbeg's sandy dunes — had bedeviled the golf property even before the Trump Organization owned it," McCoy explains. "But in February, (a local planning) commission approved the ballroom provided the Trumps offer a snail restoration plan ... The jubilation, however, was quickly cut short."

McCoy continues, "Days after the February approval, a lone appeal was lodged by Liam Madden, a hermetic figure notorious for blocking hundreds, if not thousands, of development projects across Ireland, including a previous expansion plan in Doonbeg. Impervious to shaming or calls for decency, he once stirred such rage that a foe attacked him with a blowtorch."

Madden told an appellate board, "Please, refuse this nonsense."

According to McCoy, the 76-year-old Madden is well-known in Ireland for "his ability to torpedo plans."

Trump, McCoy reports, is aware of concerns about the endangered snail and told Irish environmentalist Tony Lowes, "I'll be a friend to the snail." But Madden isn't convinced.

"Questions over the threatened Vertigo angustior, a fickle creature with exacting ecological needs, had long troubled the golf course," according to McCoy. "Even before it was built, Lowes' Friends of the Irish Environment had filed a lawsuit to protect the snail. A judge ordered that the snail's lot be 'maintained or improved' and a settlement agreement even allowed for the appointment of a snail expert as a sort of steward.

For years, the snail thrived, and Trump promised to sustain its roll. But Lowes said the Trumps haven't kept their word, and the snail’s population has plunged.

A decade after winning the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, U.S. President Donald Trump continues to relentlessly attack the press — often accusing reporters of spreading "fake news." And according to legal scholar and former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade, Trump has a major reason for lashing out at the press: his fear of answering tough questions.

In a Wednesday, August 19 post on X, formerly Twitter, McQuade wrote, "Attacking reporters, particularly female reporters and now even one's children, is a Trump tactic used to disguise is inability to answer a hard question. We deserve a leader with some maturity and respect for the role of the press to inform the public."

One of the female reporters that McQuade was referencing in her X post was CNN's Kristen Holmes.

During a press conference on Monday, Trump angrily lashed out at Holmes. And a social media post from the Trump White House also invoked her children, which, the Washington Post's Scott Nover noted, was "crossing a barrier rarely breached by politicians."

During the presser, Holmes asked Trump about the reduction of U.S. military exercises in South Korea and said of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, "Did he ask you specifically to scale back on those?"

Trump was infuriated by that question, telling Holmes, "You're very disrespectful" and calling her a "loud, boisterous person."

Later, the Trump White House doubled down on its attacks on Holmes with a social media post, writing, "@KristenhCNN is a disgraceful, humiliating embarrassment to her alleged profession. Someday, your children will come across your disgusting and inhumane question. They will be sickened and embarrassed to have a parent be so callous and vindictive. It's quite troubling."

Trump isn't the first U.S. president to express frustration with the press, but according to McQuade, his obsessive hatred for reporters is something else entirely.

In addition to working as a law professor at the University of Michigan, the former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor is often featured as a legal analyst for MS NOW (former MSNBC) and contributes legal and opinion articles to MS NOW's website.

McQuade criticized Trump and U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche vehemently in a Tuesday op-ed, warning that changes implemented by Blanche and his allies at DOJ could erase Watergate-era reforms to the federal government.

McQuade argued, "Under Todd Blanche, the Justice Department is transforming before our eyes from an agency that administers the rule of law to one that obeys the command of President Donald Trump. On Sunday, the recently confirmed attorney general refused to pledge to act independently of the White House."

When MAGA Republicans are asked if Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election, many of them give evasive responses — saying that there were "questions" about election security without outright saying that the election was stolen from President Donald Trump. But according to journalist Brian Beutler, such evasiveness isn't serving them well. And in some cases, Beutler stresses, Republicans have "quietly admitted that Joe Biden won."

Beutler, in a Wednesday, August 19 post on X and an article for Off Message, notes that CNN contacted five Republican gubernatorial nominees to ask who won in 2020: Arizona's Andy Biggs, Pennsylvania's Stacy Garrity, Wisconsin's Tom Tiffany, Michigan's John James and Georgia's Rick Jackson.

According to Beutler, "All five of them have lengthy track records of lying about the election, or, in some cases, even trying to overturn the election. But now that they have general elections to win, Tiffany, Garrity and Jackson have reversed themselves without explanation. Tiffany says, 'Biden won.' A Jackson spokesperson says Jackson acknowledges 'Biden's win.' Closer to the borderline, Garrity says 'Biden was elected.' But none hide behind the standard MAGA weasel words — that Biden 'was certified' the winner."

Beutler, in his tweet, writes, "Serious question: is Trump aware that these election denying GOP gubernatorial nominees have now quietly admitted that Joe Biden won? Not 'was certified,' but won."

This development, according to Beutler, underscores the desperation Republicans are feeling as the November 3 midterms draw closer — desperation that Off Message describes as a "downward spiral."

Beutler explains, "Consider the following three still-unfolding developments: Republican voters are ignoring Trump's endorsements in high profile GOP primaries. Trump-backed nominees are 'tacking to the center' by abandoning years of election denialism and admitting that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. MAGA operatives find themselves unable to achieve narrative dominance, in large part because they've shredded their own credibility."

The journalist argues that "illusions of mastery and forward motion are essential to the Trump project" — and those illusions are falling apart.

If the movement weakens, and begins to flag, its internal contradictions become much easier to detect, and everyone who’s signed up to operate its machinery is exposed. They weren’t swept along by some irresistible juggernaut; they were fully in control of their own faculties. They knew the difference between right and wrong, and chose wrong…. It's hard to say when the artifice began to crumble. But the failed censorship of Jimmy Kimmel and the success, in defiance of right-wing histrionics, of Bad Bunny's Super Bowl half-time show were two key tells: Fascists do not, in fact, dominate American culture."

During Joe Biden's four years in the Oval Office, Donald Trump and his supporters in right-wing media repeatedly attacked him for his age and claimed that "Sleepy Joe" was mentally unfit for the presidency. MAGA pundits, however, have been ignoring reports of President Trump falling asleep during meetings. And progressive radio host David Pakman is calling out right-wing media's blatant double standard.

During his Tuesday show, Pakman argued that Trump is showing "exactly" the type of problems that Republicans spent four years mocking and insulting Biden for.

Pakman, referencing Trump's Monday meeting with a 16-year-old lifeguard in the Oval Office, told listeners, "Donald Trump was photographed using a cheat sheet, the exact same type of cheat sheet that Joe Biden was using when they said it's proof that he's got dementia. And strangely, Donald Trump's card has not triggered the same diagnosis from Republicans."

Pakman attacked right-wing media as intellectually dishonest, highlighting the radical differences between their coverage of Biden and their coverage of Trump.

The 42-year-old Buenos Aires native told listeners, "This is exactly the type of thing that Republicans used to say Biden had dementia. The pictures would be circled in red. 'Biden needs pictures to know who he's with.' Fox News would be running it continuously, and right-wing influencers would be saying, 'Did Biden know where he was? Did Biden know who he was with?'"

Pakman acknowledged that a president's use of a "cheat sheet" is "just sort of like protocol," adding that "a card with names and pictures does not prove cognitive decline."

But the radio host argued that if a "cheat sheet" is problematic for Biden, it's problematic for Trump as well.

Pakman told listeners, "But if it did prove it about Joe Biden, according to these people, it must also prove it about Donald Trump. Right now, this gets to a bigger story, which is that during Biden's presidency, the right treated every glimpse of a note card as a medical emergency. They do not care about being two-faced. I actually think they get off on it. They love that they employ double standards. They say one thing about Biden if they think it will be beneficial to them, and then they just laugh when we go, 'Yeah, but Trump's doing the exact same thing.'"

Pakman continued, "These are the very same people who attacked (former President Barack) Obama for golfing when he was president. And now, when Trump golfs, they go, 'Oh, well, but Trump's doing so much, he's doing business on the golf course and all of this stuff.'"

In a Truth Social post, Donald Trump lamented the fact that embattled Rep. Cory Mills didn't drop out of a congressional race. But his message is getting a biting rebuke from journalists and political observers.

Trump, on social media, wrote, "I told Congressman Cory Mills of Florida, a friend of mine, to get out of the Race. But he wouldn't listen. He thought he could win. So who can blame him?"

Despite an array of disturbing allegations against him, Mills stayed in the race. But in the end, he lost a GOP congressional primary. And Trump congratulated and endorse the winner, Ryan Elijah.

Dupree is slamming Trump's post as too little too late.

In a Wednesday post on X, formerly Twitter, Dupree wrote, "Trump could have publicly rallied his party against a Florida GOP lawmaker who had a restraining order against him — but chose not to. Instead, it was a couple of backbenchers in Congress who helped drive Mills out."

Dupree took issue with Trump's tone, implying that Trump, as president of the U.S., could have done a lot more to get Mills out of the race in light of the disturbing allegations against him.

The MAGA congressman was facing a variety of disturbing allegations, including sexual misconduct and dating violence as well as financial crimes. But Trump, according to his post, was unable to persuade Mills to drop out of the race.

Other political observers noted the historic loss marked by MIlls' defeat.

"With Cory Mills defeat, this year had the highest number of incumbents lose their primary of any non-redistricting year since 1970," writer Ryan James Girdusky posted on X.

Veteran Ryan Shead put it more succinctly: "Corey Mills needs a job."

Democrats haven't won a statewide race in GOP-dominated Texas since the 1990s. But a U.S. Senate race in the Lone Star State, according to polls, is highly competitive. Centrist Democrat James Talarico, polls say, has a good shot against the controversial Republican nominee, far-right Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. And according to Politico, angst among rural voters could give Democrats long-awaited statewide victories in a state Republicans have dominated for decades.

Opposition to data centers, according to Politico's Shelby Webb, is a major problem for Abbott — as they are drawing stern opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. But it isn't the only problem.

"Rural voters may not stop the spread of data centers," Webb explains, "but they could stop Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. The Republican is bleeding support from small towns as he seeks a fourth term because of two late-emerging issues: power-hungry tech campuses and a planned $33 billion electric transmission build-out. Pushback against Abbott points to larger fears about losing rural identities, but also to everyday concerns about construction, pollution and tight supplies of water and electricity."

According to Webb, "Some longtime conservatives are now considering the unthinkable — voting in November for a Democrat to be Texas' next governor. And Abbott's August directive to pause Texas data center grid approvals hasn’t convinced all of them to vote for him."

Shawn Nanny, a Republican county commissioner in West Texas, describes data centers and power lines as the "straws that broke the camel's back" with Abbott and rural GOP voters.

Nanny told Politico, "They understand the repercussions of that, but you know what I'm hearing is, 'Yeah, we'll have a Democrat in there and grit our teeth and bear it, but hopefully, we'll come out of it the following election.' They're so upset; they just want (Abbott) out."

According to Jim Henson, executive director of the Texas Politics Project, told Politico, "Rural people feel like they are the ones seeing the brunt of this, and they don't like it. These issues are starting to bond together a lot of the people against data centers."

Polling from the Texas Politics Project shows Abbott's approval down to 48 percent, which according to Webb, is a major warning sign for Lone Star Republicans.

Webb reports, "Rural Americans are among the most opposed to data center development, the Politico Poll shows. Fifty-one percent of rural U.S. adults surveyed in mid-July said they are opposed to data centers, compared with 32 percent of urban residents. Those numbers reflect higher rates of rural opposition to infrastructure projects in general, including power plants, warehouses and airports, according to the poll. But the disdain for data centers is higher than those other types of buildings."

U.S. President Donald Trump has survived three assassination attempts as well as an array of assassination plots, including a reported Iranian government plot that was thwarted by the use of a decoy plane in Turkey. According to former CIA official Joe Zacks, these assassination attempts are doing a lot to fuel a major recruitment surge at the U.S. Secret Service — and the recruits aren't necessarily Trump supporters.

Writing for the UK-based i Paper, Zacks (who served as deputy assistant director for counterterrorism at the CIA) argues that attempts on Trump's life are playing a prominent role in Secret Service recruitment. The recruits, according to Zacks, don't necessarily favor Trump or his policies — the very fact that a U.S. president is being targeted repeatedly is enough to inspire them to join.

"Money, incentives and structural changes alone are not necessarily breathing new life into the Secret Service…. A patriotic spirit among the numerous applicants and new recruits is almost certainly making a difference," Zacks says in the i Paper. "Regardless of party, Americans do not like to see their political leaders targeted. It angers them and quite likely drives them to join outfits like the Secret Service."

Zacks points out that the Secret Service hired "824 trainees in the first seven months of 2026, surpassing the 786 hires in all of 2025." And "patriotism," according to the former CIA official, is motivating the recruits whatever their political leanings.

"My personal experience in leading men and women in the US Army and CIA is that patriotism and selfless service to their nation is a driving force behind both personnel recruitment and retention," Zacks explains. "Serving the greater cause of protecting America at home and abroad is an enduring organizational ethos. A revived Secret Service assuredly subscribes to these core beliefs and this is a good news story because it will keep the nation and its democratically elected leaders safe. Nevertheless, as we applaud the Secret Service's ability to attract talented Americans to fill and expand its ranks, we must devote even greater energy to reducing what appears to be a growing proclivity to resort to violence against political leaders."

Zacks adds, however, that Americans not only need to protect their political leaders —they also need to have a serious conversation about political violence.

"We must lower the temperature of political discourse and address the deepening polarization of American society and mainstreaming of fringe ideas," Zacks argues. "This includes tackling the misinformation and disinformation that is amplified by social media algorithms. We need to find ways to identify and combat growing online self-radicalization. We need to counter the loneliness and social isolation experienced by many younger Americans. Finally, we need to hold politicians accountable for failing to condemn violence and violent rhetoric from their own side."

On Monday, the New York Times reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth visited Iowa to campaign for GOP Rep. Zach Nunn, who is seeking reelection. Hegseth said he was there in strictly a "personal capacity," yet he traveled to Iowa in a taxpayer-funded military aircraft. And media figure Paul Rieckhoff, who served in the U.S. Army during the Iraq War, is calling out the visit as highly "inappropriate."

In a Tuesday afternoon post on X, formerly Twitter, Rieckhoff posted, "Unprecedented and inappropriate. Not acceptable on any level. [Donald] Rumsfeld, [Dick] Cheney, [Chucl] Hagel. None of them did this. Or would have."

Rieckhoff, in his tweet, was referring to two officials who served in the George W. Bush administration during the 2000s — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney — as well as Chuck Hagel, secretary of defense under former President Barack Obama. Although Obama led a predominantly Democratic administration, conservative ex-U.S. Sen. Hagel (R-Nebraska) was a Republican when he hired him to lead the Pentagon.

Rieckhoff, who served as a U.S. Army first lieutenant, said of Hegseth's Iowa visit, "These are lines that have never been crossed. With good reason. It's bad for our troops, bad for our politics, and bad for our democracy. Yet they continue to politicize our military like never before."

Rieckhoff was responding to a tweet by the Washington Post's Dan Lamothe, who noted, "Hegseth, a Pentagon official said, traveled to Iowa in his 'personal capacity.' Because of Hegseth's role, he used taxpayer-funded military aircraft for the trip."

CBS News' Jennifer Jacobs also described Hegseth's Iowa visit on X, tweeting, "Hegseth, gray shirt sleeves rolled up leaving his tattoos visible, stood under a sombrero-wearing trophy elk as he campaigned with Iowa US Rep. Zach Nunn at JRs Southpork Ranch on Monday."

At a campaign event for Nunn at the Iowa State Fair, Hegseth told the crowd, "We're restoring the warrior ethos inside our department because that matters. We need guys like this man right here having our back in Congress."

Hegseth also told attendees, "According to the lawyers, I'm only here in a personal capacity today, as a veteran and a patriotic American. I have to say that."

According to New York Times reporter Bayliss Wagner, "The appearance was another departure from previous norms for Mr. Hegseth, who in May, campaigned in Kentucky for Ed Gallrein. Mr. Gallrein went on to defeat Rep. Thomas Massie, one of Mr. Trump's most outspoken Republican critics. In past administrations, Pentagon officials generally kept a distance from campaign activities. Speaking to an enthusiastic crowd at a bar on the fairgrounds, Mr. Hegseth praised Mr. Nunn, an Air Force Reserve colonel, as a key supporter of the military. Mr. Nunn, who is seeking a third term, served the Air Force for nearly two decades."

Since returning to the Oval Office almost 19 months ago, U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked the United States' closest allies — from Canada to Spain to Denmark. But at the same time, Trump takes pride in having "great" relations with far-left North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un. And according to retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, Trump is destroying longtime alliances at a time when the United States needs them more than ever.

Writing for the conservative website The Bulwark, Hertling — who formerly served as commander of U.S. Army Europe — explains, "Over the weekend, President Trump made a point of complementing our enemy, North Korea, and antagonizing our ally, South Korea. Continuing the pattern yesterday, he threatened to bomb another longtime American security partner, Oman. Asked about Oman's talks with Iran concerning the Strait of Hormuz, which borders both countries, President Trump reportedly told Fox News reporter Trey Yingst, 'If Oman gets in the way, we'll bomb the s–– out of them.'"

Trump, Hertling observes "seemed to double down on" his "threat" on August 17 — which, the U.S. Army veteran laments, is typical of his "pattern" of bullying U.S. allies.

"The president is threatening to bomb a country that for nearly half a century, has quietly provided the United States with military access, logistical support, diplomatic assistance, and something increasingly rare in the Middle East: the ability to communicate with friends as well as enemies," Hertling argues. "For decades, Oman hasn't been in the way, it has often been the way."

Herlting cites South Korea as another longtime U.S. ally Trump is insulting.

"Trump ordered the Pentagon to substantially reduce the Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises with South Korea, criticizing Seoul for failing to support his Iran policy while again emphasizing his relationship with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un," Hertling writes. "Meanwhile, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) countries in Europe have been confronting increasingly brazen drone activity and suspected Russian provocations, without any kind of presidential threat directed toward Moscow. An emerging pattern is taking shape, and America's friends are certainly noticing it ... No nation expects the United States to agree with it on everything. What nations must be able to expect is that a disagreement with Washington will remain a disagreement — not suddenly become the dissolution of an alliance or even a threat of military attack."

Hertling continues, "A larger lesson here is about American leadership. Alliances are relationships built over years, administrations, wars, crises and disagreements. Presidents inherit them from their predecessors, sustain them for their successors, and occasionally strengthen them through careful diplomacy. But presidents can also destroy them."

In the 2026 GOP midterms primaries, President Donald Trump has unseated a long list of Republican incumbents he was angry with — from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana). But Republican primaries and the general election are two different things. And according to former Trump administration official Miles Taylor, many GOP candidates in swing states and swing districts are desperately trying to distance themselves from Trump between now and November 3.

Taylor served as chief of staff for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the first Trump administration, but he is very much a Never Trump conservative now. And Taylor emphasizes, in an article for the UK-based i Paper, that Trump is growing increasingly toxic to GOP candidates as November approaches.

"It's closer to a prayer than a slogan: I wish he would disappear," Taylor, in his iPaper piece, says of Republican views on the president. "The reference is to Donald Trump, of course. Never before have Republicans had to campaign under the banner of such a weak figurehead, nor one so insistent on stapling his toxic brand to the party, whether the party likes it or not."

Taylor was serving in the first Trump administration when, in the 2018 midterms, Democrats enjoyed a major blue wave in the U.S. House of Representatives. But according to a "prominent" media Republican who Taylor recently spoke to, the GOP is even more worried in 2026 than it was in 2018.

"I recounted a story from the last time GOP candidates had to survive a Trump-era off-year election, in 2018, when I was inside the first Trump administration," Taylor explains. "As the midterms approached, I remember friends on then-House Speaker Paul Ryan's team sharing a blunter plea whenever Trump's name was brought up: 'Please go the f– – away.' 'Yeah, they're sayin' that,' the GOP media personality sighed, 'but it's worse this time.'"

Taylor continues, "He’s right, and the numbers prove it. If you compare Trump's standing right now to 2018, you see a tale of two presidencies, electorally speaking. In the summer of 2018, Trump's approval ratings hovered in mid-forties; by Election Day, exit polls put him at 45 per cent. Today, he sits at around 34 per cent, with some recent surveys showing him bottoming out at 30, and with a stunning disapproval rating of around 60 per cent — worse than even Joe Biden's dismal standing at this point in 2022. By nearly every measure, my former boss enters this midterm election as the weakest president in the modern polling era."

Taylor recalls that when Democrats "flipped 41 House seats" in 2018,Trump's "numbers were far better than they are today."

"The last thing endangered Republicans want is stage time with the beleaguered president," Taylor emphasizes. "They worry the whole affair will look and feel like a presidential convention — a coronation of the man dragging them underwater — at the exact moment they need him to keep his distance. The only solace Republicans have is that they probably won't lose 41 seats this time, but not because voters are happier. Realistically, there aren't that many seats to lose. The mid-decade gerrymandering spree Trump demanded (starting in Texas) has shrunk the battlefield to a sliver. The Cook Political Report rates just 18 of 435 House seats as genuine toss-ups, with analysts saying that redistricting has 'eviscerated' competition. The seawall Trump built against the coming wave may be the only thing that saves his party from him."

U.S. President Donald Trump's net worth has continued to increase during his second presidency, reaching an estimated $6.5 billion in July (according to Forbes). The Trump-associated, cryptocurrency-oriented World Liberty Financial, which is playing a major role in Trump's profitability, became even more powerful when, on August 15, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, approved a back charter for the outfit. And journalist Rick Newman believes that Trump's "grifting" is soaring to a whole new level.

According to ABC News, "The decision marks the first time in U.S. history that a company owned by the sitting president's family has been granted bank status, as Democratic lawmakers express concerns over potential conflicts of interest."

During a Monday morning, August 17 appearance on MS NOW, Pinpoint Press founder Newman — known for his long history of financial reporting for U.S. News & World Report as well as Yahoo Finance — laid out some reasons why he finds it so troubling that World Liberty is being granted bank status.

When MS NOW host Stephanie Ruhle, sounding incredulous, commented, "This is crazy," she got no argument from Newman.

The Pinpoint Press founder told Ruhle and fellow journalist John Harwood (Ruhle's other guest during the segment), "World Bribery Financial, let's call it that. I mean, this is just the next step in Trump's self-enrichment scheme. This is not going to be a bank that holds customer deposits. So, if you're a Trump lover and you really want to put your savings in Trump's bank, you can't do that. Sorry. But what it's going to be able to allow them to do, I think, is sort of graduate from petty graft to institutional graft."

Newman continued, "So, one of the things they will be able to do with this bank is handle deposits for institutions — hedge funds or money firms or anybody else. Foreign institutions, things like that, where they have a lot of connections. They will make more money handling that stuff under the guise of: this is all part of a crypto company. So, here we go."

When Ruhle asked Harwood why major Wall Street CEOs like JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon aren't commenting on Liberty Financial being grated bank status, he responded, "They're all hiding and cowering in the corner because they know Trump is likely to go after them…. He doesn't just make crypto deals to enrich himself, he starts a bank — and he gets himself deeper into the industry."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

MAGA Republican and Trump White House Communications Director Steven Cheung is known for his snarky social media posts and frequent insults, and he is drawing plenty of mockery for a "sophomoric" X post attacking incumbent Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Georgia).

When NBC News' Sahil Kapur tweeted viral video of a campaign speech in which the Georgia senator attacked President Donald Trump, Cheung posted Ossoff "has to be the biggest c–– loser in politics. Instead of denigrating hard working people serving their country, Jon should look deep into his soul and ask himself why he's a miserable person who hates this country. It's because he's a radical, extremist Dumocrat."

Ossoff in his speech, commented that Trump "wants to build the ballroom and travel with Natalie (Harp)."

Ossoff is seeking reelection in Georgia, a key swing state where the GOP nominee, Rep. Mike Collins, is hoping to unseat him. Some polls released this summer are showing a close race, although a Fabrizio Ward/Impact Research poll from July showed Ossoff with a 9 percent lead.

It didn't take X users long to comment on Cheung's anti-Ossoff post.

Former Obama administration official Tommy Vietor tweeted, "It appears that @ossoff touched a nerve by mentioning Trump's odd relationship with 'human printer' Natalie Harp. Seems like something that media should explore!"

Podcast host Jon Favreau, known for his work as a Barack Obama speechwriter, observed, "79 days until the midterms and White House comms is firing on all cylinders."

Political strategist Mike Nellis tweeted, "They wouldn't be responding to Ossoff's attack if they weren’t scared s–– about it[.]The dam is open here."

Kirk Wagar, former U.S. ambassador to Singapore, commented, "I think you should refer to him, Rubio and Bessant as the expendables from now on."

X user Mateo Kowalsky posted, "Steven Cheung's use of sophomoric sounding insults doesn't even address the real issue at hand: Trump's lack of popularity due to his almost total incompetence as president."

Atlanta Magazine's Richard L. Eldredge wrote, "You sound really upset that Ossoff called out the person being paid by taxpayers to carry POTUS' diaper bag. Maybe instead of criticizing, you should start to examine your life choices. Believe me, you have A LOT to examine."

Letters From Leo publisher Christopher Hale tweeted, "The president's communications director refuses to deny that Trump is having another extramarital affair — this time on the taxpayers' dime."

In August 2025 — roughly seven months into his second presidency — Donald Trump threatened Colorado officials with "harsh measures" if they didn't release former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters from prison, where she was serving time for criminal charges related to her efforts to overturn 2020's presidential election results. Now, newly revealed e-mails, according to MS NOW's Steve Benen, shed light on the steps Trump took to punish the State of Colorado for Peters' incarceration.

Highlighting one of Benen's August 17 opinion columns in a post on X, formerly Twitter, journalist Kyle Griffin notes, "Emails revealed in court: As Trump publicly condemned Colorado for incarcerating convicted felon and election denier Tina Peters, the White House organized an urgent 'brainstorm call' with five federal agencies — with the goal of exploring ways to curtail federal support to Colorado. The next day, federal agencies announced they were canceling hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants for Colorado projects."

Benen, in his column, points out that the "degree to which" Trump "was serious" about punishing Colorado because of Peters "is still coming into focus."

"The New York Times reported, late last week, for example, that as Trump publicly condemned the Rocky Mountain State for incarcerating a convicted felon, the White House organized an urgent 'brainstorm call' with five federal agencies, with the goal of exploring ways to curtail federal support to Colorado," Benen explains. "The meeting, evidently, was a success — at least as far as the administration was concerned."

Trump's "assault against the Democratic-run state," Benen observes, ranged from cutting off transportation funds to taking "steps to dismantle a renowned science lab in Colorado."

"But while the pattern is not new, what is new is the newly disclosed document: We're now aware of an e-mail, sent by White House special assistant Emily Underwood just days after the president published a series of messages related to Peters, which reinforces rather obvious suspicions that the administration's campaign against Colorado was not a mere coincidence: Team Trump set out to punish the state, and then took a variety of steps to execute that plan ... It's worth emphasizing that the gambit — what was effectively an extortion plot, hatched by the White House against an American state — proved effective."

Benen continues, "In mid-May, Polis succumbed to pressure and announced his commutation for Peters, a convicted felon who illegally tried to use her office in pursuit of pro-Trump election conspiracy theories. But the fact that the scheme worked doesn't make it any more defensible."

After returning to the White House almost 19 months ago, U.S. President Donald Trump directed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE, then led by Tesla/SpaceX head Elon Musk) to target "waste, fraud and abuse." But many Trump critics argued that he was cutting essential muscle, not fat, from the federal government. Now, according to the Washington Post and the Daily Beast, national security experts are worried about the firing of up to 30 bioweapons specialists.

The Daily Beast's Will Neal reports, "The Trump administration is in a full-on scramble to bandage the deep cuts it made to research staff as fears grow that AI could supercharge development of new-age weapons straight out of a horror movie. President Donald Trump, 80, has scythed away at the number of White House researchers dedicated to biological security since retaking office last year, The Washington Post reports."

Neal notes that under Biden's presidency, "up to 30" biosecurity experts "worked on how best to protect the U.S. from deadly pathogens being weaponized by the nation's adversaries."

"Under Trump 2.0," Neal reports, "their number has shrunk to the point that, at times, no one has been committed solely to these threats, according to the newspaper."

A former federal government official, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told the Post, "They have kneecapped themselves in their ability to create any policy that would have staying power. That's the risk, they're not playing the long game."

Neal notes that in the United States' federal government, "biological security has never been the responsibility of a single federal authority."

"One of Trump's first moves after retaking office was to throw out a 2023 presidential order on artificial intelligence that explicitly called for stronger measures against biological threats," Neal explains. "He has instead relied on what the Post describes as 'a small revolving cast of employees,' among them a 'junior fellow without a security clearance,' an Air Force doctor otherwise working as 'a consultant to the White House medical office,' a part-time researcher, and 'a pair of CIA staffers with little expertise in the field'…. Ever more advanced AI models have shown aptitude for highly complex biological research, prompting fears even within the industry that those capabilities could, in the absence of safeguards, potentially 'aid even a relative amateur in carrying out a biological attack' or be used to develop weapons that 'set off a new pandemic,' the Post reports. The administration now appears to be taking that threat more seriously."

Neal adds, "Efforts to engage with the danger have included 'a recent string of briefings on biological risks between OpenAI and the White House and half a dozen agencies,' the newspaper reports, citing a source with knowledge of those talks."

After winning a second term by defeating Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004, Republican then-President George W. Bush suffered a major rebuke when Democrats flipped both branches of Congress in the 2006 midterms. Bush described the 2006 blue wave as a "thumpin'" for Republicans, and MS NOW's Steve Benen believes that President Donald Trump is setting his party up for a similar midterms fate in 2026.

During an appearance on The New Republic's podcast "The Daily Blast," Benen —known for producing "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MS NOW — cited a variety of ways in which Trump is digging a deep hole for Republicans in the 2026 midterms.

Benen told host Greg Sargent (a former Washington Post columnist), "I mean, here we are, 12 weeks out from the midterms. Polls showed that affordability and the cost of living are the number one issue on the minds of the vast majority of voters. And so, one would like to think that the head of the Republican Party, the sitting American president, would have the wherewithal to express some empathy and to say, 'Maybe I can try and help you. Maybe I care about the pain that you're dealing with right now, and I'm going to maybe promise you new policies or a better tomorrow in some way.' But no, he doesn't do any of those things."

Benen continued, "Donald Trump, instead, stands in front of a crowd full of supporters, mocks the very idea that they're suffering in any way, and denies any responsibility for the fact that he's to blame for these circumstances that people are suffering through."

The "Maddow Show" producer described Trump's recent comments on the economy and gas prices as a "gift handed to Democrats on a platter."

Benen told Sargent, "The head of the Republican Party just said he doesn't care about higher gas prices. He laughs off affordability as a scam. He doesn't accept responsibility for the fact that he's ultimately to blame for the fact that people are suffering through these higher costs, higher cost of living, higher prices. And so, I think you're quite right. For Democrats who are looking for a strategy for the final 12 weeks, for this home stretch between now and November — well, here it is. Donald Trump just handed it to you."

Benen noted that after his 2004 reelection victory, Bush "looked absolutely untouchable" — only for Republicans lose control of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008.

Benen told Sargent, "History is repeating itself. They didn't really earn a mandate in 2004 or in 2024. They overplayed their hand. Americans rejected the poor economy and a failed war in the Middle East. And it's happening just like it happened then. It's happening again now."

President Donald Trump and his MAGA allies continue to push a far-right legal doctrine known as the "unitary executive theory," arguing that the U.S. Constitution grants presidents maximum executive power. But Harvard University legal scholar Noah Feldman, in an opinion column for Bloomberg News, counters that Trump and MAGA's "maximalist view" of presidential power is not only wrong — it is also a recipe for major corruption.

Feldman emphasizes that while presidents enjoy a certain amount of "executive privilege" under the U.S. Constitution, it is nowhere near as vast as MAGA Republicans are claiming.

"The Trump administration's latest assertions about executive privilege — that it protects the confidentiality of a president's communication with private advisers who aren't part of the government — are like too much else in this White House: politically unprecedented, legally wrong and morally dubious," Feldman writes in his Bloomberg column. "From a legal standpoint, the point of executive privilege is to protect communications that occur within the government, between the president and other public officials. Politically speaking, this is a naked attempt to protect the president from congressional investigation of potentially corrupt deals with his cronies, any of whom who could be called 'advisers' to avoid subpoena."

Never Trump conservative David French, in his New York Times columns and appearances on MS NOW (formerly MSNBC), has a lot to say about Trump and the unitary executive theory. Many Trump critics are complaining that Trump fails to recognize Congress as a "co-equal branch of government," but French goes a step further — arguing that the Constitution's system of checks and balances gives doesn't make Congress co-equal to the president, but gives the federal government's legislative branch even more power than its executive branch.

Feldman, in Bloomberg, urges Congress to fully exercise the legislative powers the Constitution grants them.

"If President Donald Trump invokes this executive privilege in future fights with Congress, as seems likely, the legislative branch cannot fold," the Harvard legal scholar stresses. "It must insist on its rights, bring the issue to court, and force the Supreme Court to reject the claim ... Historically, OLC (the U.S. Office of Office of Legal Counsel) has tended to adopt a maximalist position on presidential power ... But the doctrine of executive privilege has never been extended to conversations between the president and people who were not part of the government."

According to Feldman, Trump and his allies fail to understand "why executive privilege exists in the first place."

"The core idea is that the president should be able to get the advice he needs to run the government from the people who are best suited to provide it," Feldman notes. "Those people are government officials, who take an oath to uphold the Constitution and follow the laws. They are subject to all kinds of conflict-of-interest rules designed to make sure their advice is based on the national interest…. Donald Trump, the most corrupt president of the modern age, is asserting a broad new executive privilege designed to protect precisely corrupt cronyism. Neither Congress nor the courts can let that become the law."

On Monday, August 10, Todd Blanche went from being acting U.S. attorney general to taking over the position permanently when he was sworn in by Judge Emil Bove, a Donald Trump loyalist. The former personal lawyer for Trump had been confirmed by U.S. Senate Republicans in a 50-49 vote that didn't include a single Democratic vote — not even Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania), who has shown a willingness to cross party lines and vote with Republicans at times. Blanche has been permanent AG less than a week, but according to journalist Chris Geidner, there are already troubling signs about what is in store for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under Blanche's leadership.

"There has been lots of talk, in recent months, including from federal judges, about the ways in which the Department of Justice has lost the 'presumption of regularity' that is generally afforded to government lawyers," Geidner explains in his Law Dork blog. "This week has raised a more alarming question: What happens — and how do you deal with matters — if the reality shifts even further, toward a presumption of irregularity?.... It’s a new DOJ, and the first signs are no good."

Geidner lays out a variety of reasons why he is worried about DOJ in the Blanche era.

"(On Monday), the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion concluding that a president could claim executive privilege over communications with private citizens outside of the government," Geidner warns in Law Dork. "Specifically, Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser concluded that, 'as a general matter, executive privilege can apply to presidential communications with private advisers so long as the communications: (1) relate to official presidential decision-making, (2) involve or reflect communications with the President or his direct advisers, and (3) are confidential'…. With that sleight-of-hand, Gaiser was able to conflate any historical discussion of federal officials, state officials, and private officials as being part of the same legal matter. The implications are a feature, not a bug, for Gaiser…. That's not all."

Attorney Kevin Riach is sounding the alarm about what Blanche has in store for DOJ — and believes that what we're seeing so far is merely the "tip of the iceberg."

Geidner explains, "On Wednesday night, a senior DOJ political appointee filed a brief supporting Trump's motion to block the sanctions order U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams issued in July relating to the Trump v. IRS litigation and attempted 'settlement' of the case to create the 'Anti-Weaponization' slush fund…. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan made clear that contempt was on the table in (former MS NOW host) Katie Phang's lawsuit over DOJ’s non-compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act."

In the United States, daylight savings time ends on Sunday, November 1 — only two days before the 2026 midterms. President Donald Trump would like to make daylight savings time permanent and year-round, but according to The Hill's Alexander Bolton, he is "running into stiff opposition from GOP senators whose states would be plunged into early-morning darkness during the winter."

Lawmakers have already passed a daylight savings bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, where Republicans enjoy a small majority that Democrats are hoping to eliminate on November 3. But the bill, dubbed the Sunshine Protection Act of 2026, is stalled in the U.S. Senate, and Bolton notes that Trump is "renewing pressure on Senate Republicans to pass a House-approved bill to make daylight saving time permanent."

In a Wednesday, August 12 post on his Truth Social platform, Trump argued that "people are sick and tired of having to change their clocks twice a year" — claiming that the end of daylight savings time in early November is "bad for your health in the anxiety it creates."

Trump posted, "This is an issue that Republicans, Dumocrats, and Independents can unite behind. I am asking Republican Senators to PASS THE SUNSHINE PROTECTION ACT, ASAP."

Bolton, in The Hill, reports, "It was a message similar to one the president sent last week and suggests he's not about to let the issue go. The House passed the bill a month ago to make daylight saving time permanent with a strong bipartisan majority of 308 to 117."

GOP sources in the Senate, according to Bolton, "say the legislation would not be able to pass the upper chamber with unanimous consent and warn that pushing it to the floor under regular order would take up at least a week of the Senate's time."

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) voiced his objections to making daylight savings time year-round during a recent appearance on conservative Hugh Hewitt's radio show.

The GOP senator told Hewitt, "You have to think through the second-order implications of what permanent daylight savings would mean. It may sound great in the summer months, and it may sound great if you live in Florida and you like to play golf. But if you live in Bentonville, Arkansas, the sun wouldn't come up in the depths of winter until well after 8 o'clock — maybe even 8:30."

Cotton continued, "There are places throughout the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain states that wouldn't see the sun until 9, 9:30, almost 10 o'clock, in some cases. That would be very dangerous, especially for kids who are walking to school, biking to school, being left at bus stops…. This is one of those issues that is more of a regional issue than it is a partisan issue."

Progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) sounded a lot like "Real Time" host Bill Maher when, on August 9, she criticized the excesses of the "woke" movement and told ABC News' Jonathan Karl, "Woke 1 was crazy." Maher believes that political correctness and the "woke" movement have been as terrible for the left as MAGA has been for the right, and AOC's comment (which was quoting a New York City Council member) was not unlike something Maher would say. But according to a biting op-ed for the New York Times op-ed, "wokeness" is a problem for the right as well as the left.

In their Times op-ed, Gregory Conti (a professor of politics at Princeton University in New Jersey and a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute) and the Washington Free Beacon's Aaron Sibarium argue that right-wing critics of "wokeness" are becoming every bit as rigid and dogmatic as the leftists they condemned.

"Over the years," Conti and Sibarium explain, "Republicans have portrayed Democrats as beholden to bespoke identities (they/them), obsessed with an alleged genocide (Gaza) and in thrall to anti-American revisionism (see the efforts to recenter our national narrative on slavery). We are critics of diversity, equity and inclusion programs who largely agree with that characterization. We believe the Republicans' war on woke has made America a fairer, safer place by checking some of the worst excesses of modern progressivism, from anti-white discrimination in Corporate America to biological men competing in women's sports. But we are also concerned that this backlash is morphing into something darker, dumber and ultimately self-defeating."

The Princeton professor and Washington Free Beacon staffer lay out a variety of ways in which "the right has begun to resemble its depiction of the left."

"There are invented identities like heritage American, claims of white genocide in South Africa and arguments from right-wing influencers that the Allies weren't the good guys in World War II," Conti and Sibarium warn. "The rise of this so-called woke right is sometimes blamed on the ability of podcast bros and online streamers to circumvent official GOP messaging. But it also reflects the way the Republican Party transformed in reaction to the woke era, moving further to the right on race and gender and losing its immune response to genuine cranks."

Conti and Sibarium continue, "In practice, anti-wokeness has eroded taboos against open bigotry in a party that is losing Latinos ahead of the 2026 midterms. It has made it harder to frame the GOP as the moderate option in a year when candidates who have called for defunding the police are winning Democratic primaries. And it has widened the gap between the two parties, leaving less room for a truce in the culture war…. To thread the needle, the right will need to erect a firewall between anti-wokeness, which is more than justified by progressive excess, and actual bigotry, which is not."

The term "doomscrolling" describes internet users going out of their way to find bad news online. According to psychiatrists and psychologists at Harvard University, the practice is bad for one's mental health. But it's also widespread, with everyone from liberal and progressive bloggers to far-right evangelical fundamentalists doing it. And a psychologist interviewed by the India-based WION (World Is One News) has strong views on why "Doomsday scenarios" are so popular in 2026.

On the left, "doomscrolling" might take the form of liberals and progressives who, during Donald Trump's second presidency, believe the United States is sliding into a political dystopia. And many far-right evangelicals are obsessed with the "End Times," focusing heavily on the New Testament's Book of Revelation. Mainline Protestants and Catholics also read the Book of Revelation, but it isn't nearly the fixation for them that it is for far-fight Christian nationalists and white fundamentalist evangelicals. Typically, End Timers will point to a verse in the Book of Revelation as proof that a nuclear World War 3 is just around the corner.

Journalist Anamica Singh, writing for WION, explains, "Lately, the word 'Doomsday' is everywhere. Bulgarian mystic Baba Vanga has been linked to prophecies about the end of the world; the glacier in Antarctica nicknamed 'Doomsday' is making headlines as the planet warms, and even the recent total solar eclipse caused a scare. When people learned that the eclipse, the peak of the Perseids meteor shower and a six-planet parade were happening all on the same day, they started screaming 'Doomsday' on social media…. Why is it that people love talking about the end of the world?"

Singh continues, "This planet is their home, so why would you deliberately talk about it reaching Doomsday? What attracts people to the word itself — 'doomsday' — when we know it doesn't mean anything good?"

To answer those questions, WION interviewed Dr. Munia Bhattacharya — a psychologist who works at Marengo Asia Hospital in Gurugram, Haryana, India.

Bhattacharya told WION, "Our fascination with the end of the world is hardly new. Every generation has had its own version of a Doomsday prediction. What changes is the trigger ... When several interesting astronomical events happen around the same time, people naturally start looking for a connection."

According to Bhattacharya, people who seek out "Doomsday scenarios" are looking for ways to cope with "uncertainty."

Bhattacharya told WION, "When life already feels unpredictable, a dramatic explanation can actually feel easier to process than uncertainty. Instead of 'I don't know what is going to happen,' the mind gets a definite story: This is what is going to happen."

During the early months of Donald Trump's second presidency, he vowed to fight "waste, fraud and abuse" in the federal government. Now, more than one year and a half after Trump's return to the White House and less than three months away from the 2026 midterms, Vice President JD Vance is urging Republican lawmakers to tackle alleged abuse in federal safety-net programs. But according to Politico, something that Vance and his allies hope will fire up the GOP base is running into a brick wall in Congress.

"Finding cost savings by rooting out so-called government waste and fraud in Medicare, Medicaid and the federal food assistance program known as SNAP was a top priority for House Republicans, who set out earlier this year to pass another party-line reconciliation package on the heels of last year's 'big, beautiful bill' and June's immigration enforcement measure," journalists Mia McCarthy and Robert King report in Politico. "Many Republicans believe the fraud issue will have salience with voters amid larger concerns about affordability, since it would ostensibly involve returning lost funds to government health programs."

But according to the Politico reporter, "many" Republicans are "skeptical any such bill will ultimately reach the president's desk."

Rep. Riley Moore (R-West Virginia) told Politico, "It should be one of our top priorities, and I am very much in favor of seeing this in some type of reconciliation package."

Similarly, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tennessee) told Politico that "if Congress is listening to the public," it should "have the guts" to move ahead with legislation on "fraud."

Sen. Ashley Moody (R-Florida) told Politico, "Allowing fraud to run rampant in the United States of America is a slap in the face to hard-working Americans."

But McCarthy and King report that "with less than 100 days until the midterms, Republicans who were eager to go home to their districts for August recess and fold significant fraud wins into affordability messaging have little to show for it."

House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) cautions that how Republican lawmakers tackle alleged fraud before the midterms is much different from tackling it after the midterms — which are set for Tuesday, November 3.

Arrington told Politico, "The political will that it takes to do any spending reform in 100 days prior to an historic midterm election is very different than the dynamics in the lame duck. You get past the election, and you got an invigorated body that is not thinking about their political life."

As the Iran war drags on after five and one-half months, one of the top news stories is the Iranian regime's assassination plot against U.S. President Donald Trump — which, according to reporting in the New York Times and the Washington Post, the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) thwarted in Turkey by using a decoy plane that Trump wasn't really on. Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, in the conservative website The Bulwark, applauds Secret Service agents for keeping Trump alive. But he also argues that Trump's "reckless" approach to the Iran war is creating unnecessary danger for both himself and U.S. troops.

Hertling, who formerly served as commander of U.S. Army Europe, makes his point by looking back on George W. Bush's presidency and the Iraq War.

Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq and overthrow the late Saddam Hussein's far-right dictatorship in 2003 continues to draw scathing criticism. Many of the Bush administration's critics argue that by invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein — who was known for being a brutal dictator but not a jihadist — they made terrorism worse, not better, in the Middle East.

But Hertling argues that when it came to his own safety, former President Bush didn't take unnecessary chances.

Looking back on the Iraq war of the 2000s, Hertling recalls Bush traveling to Iraq on Thanksgiving to visit the troops.

"President George W. Bush had secretly flown to Iraq to have Thanksgiving dinner with American troops," Hertling remembers. "His aircraft approached in darkness, lights extinguished and window shades drawn, and his pilots used a corkscrew pattern to reduce the possibility of being shot. The secrecy was extraordinary because the danger was extraordinary. President Bush understood that. Nicolle Wallace, who worked in his White House, once told me that Bush had a very small party for that trip, and wouldn't allow her, as the White House communications director, to accompany him. He knew the trip was too dangerous. Yet he went."

The former U.S. Army Europe commander continues, "Bush wasn't reckless. The Secret Service and military planners took every precaution possible. But after assessing the danger, he decided that being with American troops on Thanksgiving was worth accepting personal risk. Bush later explained that he wanted those in harm's way to know their commander in chief — and their country — supported them."

Wallace, a Never Trump conservative, is now one of the top hosts on liberal-leaning MS NOW (formerly MSNBC).

Herlting notes that he "thought about those five days in Baghdad" after hearing about the recent Iranian assassination plot against Trump in Turkey and the use of an Air Force One plane as a "decoy."

"Threats against an American president aren't funny, and protecting the commander in chief is an enormous responsibility," Hertling writes. "No one outside the security team knows everything they knew about the Iranian threat, and we still don't know the whole story. But the episode brought me back to Baghdad because leadership is partly about how we balance risk against mission."

Hertling continues, "Military commanders learn quickly that recklessly exposing yourself serves no purpose. But they learn something else, too: Where a leader chooses to be when conditions are dangerous sends a message."

In poll after poll, U.S. voters are citing the economy and the Iran war as the things they are the most worried about. And those worries, according to the Daily Beast and NOTUS, aren't lost on GOP lawmakers — some of whom are sounding the alarm about how long the war has dragged on.

When Trump launched the Iran war in late February, some of the more interventionist Republicans were hoping for a quick military operation like Operation Desert Storm in early 1991 — as opposed to a long-lasting, drawn-out conflict like the Vietnam War or the Iraq War. Instead, the U.S. is still at war with Iran after five and one-half months.

Senate Republican Policy Committee Chair Shelly Moore (R-West Virginia) is among the GOP lawmakers who is speaking out.

The conservative U.S. senator told NOTUS, "We've done this before where we've had very elongated engagements. People don't want to see that. They don't want to see boots on the ground. They don't want to see our money going there. There's a fatigue factor, for sure."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is voicing his frustration as well.

The outgoing senator, who lost a contentious GOP primary battle to the controversial Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton this year, told NOTUS, "I wish the president were more clear about what his objectives are. This off again, on again (cadence) is creating some confusion in people's minds ... The enemy always gets a vote. That's the problem with providing timetables and deadlines in a military conflict."

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that only 35 percent of voters have a favorable view of the Iran war. And that is the kind of polling that Republicans in Congress are concerned about with the 2026 midterms less than three months away.

The Daily Beast's Will Neal reports, "Senate Republicans are getting swamped with voter complaints about Donald Trump's interminable war on Iran less than 100 days out from November’s midterms. Trump, now 80, launched the conflict on February 28, saying that it would last a matter of weeks. GOP senators spent the spring betting on a fast, contained campaign, and that its impact on pump prices would resolve well before the midterms. Half a year on, there is no end in sight."

Trump's messaging on the war, according to Neal, has been quite erratic.

Neal observes, "He has, at times, said the war was already over, and at others, that it could last 'forever.' He has repeatedly insisted the conflict was necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and then, in private, told aides he may well now walk away without securing non-proliferation guarantees."

With the United States' 2026 midterms less than three months away, U.S. voters, according to polls, are especially worried about the economy, inflation and the Iran war. Yet President Donald Trump, according to author and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, is heavily focused on something that isn't a high priority for voters: makeover and renovation projects for Washington, DC. And she explained Trump's reasons for that focus during an interview with Axios' Mike Allen.

Haberman and fellow journalist Jonathan Swan takes an in-depth look at Trump's second presidency in their new book, "Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump" — which Haberman has been promoting in a long list of media appearances. Talking to Axios, Haberman explained why makeover projects in D.C. are so important to the president when voters are worried about the economy and the war.

Haberman told Allen, "He is spending a huge amount of energy, mental and otherwise, on these renovation projects, beautification projects around Washington, and then monuments to self. (There) is no precedent in U.S. history of a sitting president devising such endeavors in their own name…. What interests him are things that you can see and touch."

In March, Haberman and Swan interviewed Trump in the White House for their book. And she emphasized, during her Axios interview, that the makeover projects in D.C. were a higher priority for him than the Iran war — which had been launched in late February.

Haberman told Allen, "It was very clear what his mind was on while we were there. And what it was not really on was the war…. He didn't really want to talk about that. He didn't really want to talk about policy specifics. He wanted to describe himself as winning. And he wanted to show us how he had remade Washington."

Trump has been pursuing a variety of makeover and renovation projects in and around Washington D.C., with proposals ranging from a White House ballroom to a "triumphal arch" near Arlington National Cemetery. Another priority for Trump is putting his brand on the Kennedy Center.

Haberman told Swan, "You would think that on the 17th day of the war, that he would have maps of the Middle East or maps of troop deployments — who knows. He picks up these pictures, and (they're) of maple trees. And he says: 'I am choosing maple trees for the White House. I am good at picking trees.' I'm paraphrasing here, but that is pretty much what he said. Under that were designs of the ballroom. And he starts talking to us about the columns and how some of the columns are evocative of Rome. And then on the other side, the columns are evocative of Athens. And he's happy that they are a little bit either wider or more spaced apart or both than the columns at the Supreme Court. And that was like the first 15 minutes of this hour that we had."