Bank

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Thursday insisted that the “best days are ahead of us,” just hours after a sharply critical report charged that some “House Republican women are in open revolt” against him.

Speaking from inside the U.S. Capitol, Johnson on Thursday told reporters, “steady at the wheel, everybody,” and, “it’s going to be fine. Our best days are ahead of us. Americans are going to be feeling a lot better in the early part of next year,” according to Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman.

“Speaker Mike Johnson is staring down a revolt from House Republican women,” NBC News reported, adding: “a number of high-profile Republican women are fleeing the House for other opportunities, weighing retirement or quitting Congress early, fueling some concern that GOP women’s ranks could be depleted in the next Congress.”

Politico this week described Johnson’s House of Representatives as “spinning out of control.”

Suggesting that House Republicans “can’t stand each other,” NOTUS added that “rank-and-file Republicans are increasingly frustrated with their leadership — and much of that frustration is spilling out into the open.”

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), whose resignation from Congress shocked the political sphere, told NOTUS, “My bills which reflect many of President Trump’s executive orders … just sit collecting dust. That’s how it is for most members of Congress’s bills, the Speaker never brings them to the floor for a vote.”

NBC News cited action taken by U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), filing a discharge petition on banning congressional stock trading, as an effort to “go around Johnson and force a floor vote.”

Publicly, Luna expressed that she is “frustrated” and “pissed” — while also calling Johnson “a good guy.”

Apart from Greene’s broadsides against Johnson, perhaps the most publicly extreme attack on Johnson has been from a member of his own leadership team.

“Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the chair of House Republican Leadership, not only signed on to Luna’s petition but also publicly unloaded on Johnson over an unrelated issue in the national defense bill, suggesting in a series of social media posts that Johnson lied about the matter,” NBC noted.

Stefanik’s feud with Johnson was so damaging that President Donald Trump on Tuesday night had to intervene.

“After a productive discussion I had last night with President Trump and Speaker Johnson, the provision requiring Congressional disclosure when the FBI opens counterintelligence investigations into presidential and federal candidates seeking office will be included in the IAA/NDAA bill on the floor,” Stefanik declared on Wednesday. “This is a significant legislative win delivered against the illegal weaponization of the deep state.”

Stefanik reportedly had threatened to tank the must-pass national defense bill.

Politico’s Jason Beeferman reported on Wednesday that Stefanik’s “victory (and sudden peace) in her public fight” with the House Speaker “comes after she told me last night that Johnson ‘has catastrophic, plummeting support among Republican voters.’”

Axios reported that “Stefanik’s stance sets up another test of Johnson’s ability to hold together his razor-thin majority.”

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), “has told people she is so frustrated” with Johnson, “and sick of the way he has run the House — particularly how women are treated there — that she is planning to huddle with Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia next week to discuss following her lead and retiring early from Congress,” The New York Times reported. Mace, who is running for governor, adamantly denied she is considering retiring from Congress early.

According to NBC, two House Republican women “said that they feel they have been passed over for opportunities, that their priorities don’t always get taken as seriously under Johnson’s leadership and that they believe that could be driving some of the exits and public fights with him.”

“We aren’t taken seriously,” one of the women said. “You have women who are very accomplished, very successful, who have earned the merit, who aren’t given the time of the day.”

After President Donald Trump returned to the White House on January 20, his administration aggressively downsized a long list of federal government agencies with the help of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its then-leader, Tesla/SpaceX/X.com head Elon Musk. Trump claimed that his goal was reducing "waste, fraud and abuse," but critics of the Trump Administration/DOGE cuts argued that they were robbing the agencies of crucial personnel they need in order to function properly — from the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) to the National Weather Service (NWS) to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Another agency that has been suffering chaos during Trump's second presidency is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In an article published on December 4, Axios' Pete Sullivan describes the FDA departures that are contributing to instability at the agency.

"Another abrupt departure of a high-ranking Food and Drug Administration official is raising alarm about a brain drain that could mean new drugs take longer to reach the public," Sullivan reports. "Why it matters: Biotech and pharmaceutical companies rely on the FDA for dependable guidance as they spend huge sums developing new treatments. The American public needs the agency to ensure treatments are safe and effective…. Driving the news: The latest uproar surrounds the unexpected departure of Richard Pazdur, a respected oncologist who just three weeks ago became the fourth person to direct the FDA's drug center this year."

Sullivan adds, "Pazdur's appointment had helped calm nerves to some degree within industry after months of turmoil. But now, executives and even former FDA commissioners are publicly questioning the agency's direction."

One of the people who is sounding the alarm about the FDA is Biotechnology Innovation Organization CEO John Crowley.

Crowley told Axios, "This constant turmoil is undermining America's leadership in biotechnology, creating unprecedented regulatory instability and unpredictability, and risks ceding this critical sector to China."

According to Sullivan, "morale" has "plummeted" at the FDA.

A former FDA staffer, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told Axios, "They don't talk to each other. They go to the bathroom, they come (back), they shut their door."

Read Peter Sullivan's full article for Axios is available at this link.

The New York Times is being criticized for giving Erika Kirk, CEO of Turning Point USA and the widow of slain MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk, a platform at their 2025 DealBook Summit Wednesday in New York City.

During her interview with NYT financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin, Kirk discussed her new leadership role, the murder of her husband and her views on "career-driven" women.

Kirk also "said her pain at losing Mr. Kirk had 'morphed into a form of purpose that you see will outlive you,' and that realization offered her comfort," the Times reports.

According to the event's official X account, "Kirk called it 'ironic' that so many women voted for Zohran Mamdani in New York's mayoral election" at the 2025 DealBook Summit. She expressed concern that career-driven women view the government as a "replacement" for family, potentially leading them to delay marriage and having kids."

Journalist Jonathan Cohn called the newspaper of record out on X, saying, "The anti-feminist grift going back to Phyllis Schlafly is to travel the country, run a well-funded nonprofit, and ignore their own children in order to focus on telling other women that they belong in the kitchen."

"Erika Kirk: Has multiple degrees and is currently studying for a doctorate • Got married in her early 30s and had children in her mid-30s, on her own timeline • Was 5 years older than Charlie Kirk • Is a CEO and businesswoman …She’s not going to 'end' feminism. She is a product of feminism," noted X user Jamie Bonkiewicz.

Another X user wanted to know "why is the New York Times giving Erika Kirk a platform to tell the women of nNew York (a place she doesn’t live) to not be career driven (as she grifts off her husband’s death)?" to which another X account replied, "She’s was most likely prepped with a bunch of questions. It’s so obvious she’s so well rehearsed. She doesn’t know what the average young woman is facing because if she did, she would have a completely different view."

A doctor tells the Irish Star that he suspects that President Donald Trump's October MRI is not only sketchy, but that they may have scanned the wrong part of his body.

Dr. Jeff Foster, director of British men's health company Manual, says "the information provided gives a limited indication of cardiovascular health only. It doesn't even give a measure of heart disease."

Foster also notes that “an MRI scan may give information about heart size, and heart failure, but you cannot see if arteries are blocked or damaged (it is not an angiogram), you cannot see if he has high cholesterol, diabetes or even high blood pressure."

While Trump feigned ignorance over what the MRI was for, after much pressure from the public and Governor Tim Walz (D-MN), the White House released information about "advanced imaging tests," about which his physician, Dr. Sean Barbabella, stated the results were "perfectly normal" and indicated he remains in "excellent overall health."

On Tuesday, Trump was seen with two large Band-Aids on his hands, where he is prone to bruising, the Daily Beast reports.

Dr. John Gartner, a former assistant professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, has said that Trump exhibits "clinical signs of dementia" which may be exacerbating an underlying personality disorder.

Gartner, who hosts a podcast called "Shrinking Trump" where he and other mental health professionals discuss these observations and the potential dangers they pose, also says Trump is experiencing a "gross, progressive deterioration" of his cognitive function.

Barbabella said the scans were of Trump's cardiovascular systemcardiovascular system and abdomen, but Foster remains skeptical and even questions the accuracy of the scan's alleged targets.

“Most importantly, if the question is related to brain function and questions over competency, you have simply scanned the wrong area," Foster says.

Economic bad news keep piling up for President Donald Trump, and in response he is making an increasingly rare public uncommon public appearance in a key swing state to convince voters he is focused on affordability, in a move the Daily Beast summed up as "panicked."

News of Trump's travel plans emerged in a report from Axios on Thursday. According to the outlet, the president will make an appearance in Pennsylvania, one of the most important election swing states, to make a pitch about his economic agenda. This comes as poll after poll finds that Americans are feeling worse about the economy under Trump, and as affordability promises are propelling Democrats to big election wins.

That won't be the end of this new affordability push, as Trump is expected to make several more appearances in the months to come, including more throughout December, and then on into 2026 as the all-important midterm elections near. With voters sour on Trump's performance, Republicans and pundits have begun to predict major losses for the GOP next year, including their already-narrow house majority, and possibly even the Senate.

"With Republicans in danger of losing control of the House next November, Trump needs to be a lift — not a drag — in tough districts if the GOP is to defy powerful historic trends and keep its majority," Axios reported. "White House aides see Trump as the Republican Party's best salesman — and its best chance to reverse falling poll numbers for both the president and his party. Trump is expected to use Tuesday's event to highlight what he's done to help the economy during his second term in office."

On Thursday, Trump's trouble with affordability were crystallized again with a new poll from Politico, in which nearly half of respondents, 46 percent said the cost of living was currently worse than they could ever remember it being, including over a third, 37 percent, of Trump supporters surveyed.

"Americans also say that the affordability crisis is Trump’s responsibility, with 46 percent saying it is his economy now and his administration is responsible for the costs they struggle with," Politico's piece explained.

The Axios report added that Trump is expected to "aggressively push back against criticism over the cost of everyday essentials," an approach he has already undertaken to some degree, decrying affordability concerns as a "scam" perpetuated by Democrats to distract from his accomplishments. Pundits have been wary of this approach, warning that comments disagreeing with voter sentiment about the economy helped sink Joe Biden's approval ratings, and the electoral prospects of his successor, Kamala Harris.

President Donald Trump is worried that Republicans will lose a seat in Congress if Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) moves to Texas to run for a redistricted seat there, according to Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX).

Journalist Mark Davis posted on X, "Per Rep @LanceGooden: Rep Ronny Jackson informs the TX delegation that Pres Trump has asked Issa to run in his current seat “because they are worried a new person has no chance of winning it and the President thinks Darrell can.”

According to a report by Punchbowl News, Issa is considering a run for a House seat in Texas if the Supreme Court upholds California's redrawn congressional district map.

California's congressional district maps were recently redrawn after voters approved Proposition 50 in a special election in November.

The new maps, which are considered a partisan response to Republican-led redistricting efforts in other states like Texas, are designed to favor Democrats and will be in effect for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections.

Reps. Issa and Jackson previously filed a lawsuit challenging California's redistricting effort, claiming it was an assault on representative democracy. But a Texas federal judge dismissed the case before the special election.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Anna Elsasser told ABC's San Diego affiliate, “Darrell Issa knows his record of self-dealing, raising costs, and gutting health care is going to cost him his seat, so he’s ready to move over 600 miles to keep doing Mike Johnson and Donald Trump’s bidding, before facing the Californians he’s failed. It’s cowardice at its finest. The mere fact that he’s considering this proves Darrell Issa doesn’t care about - or work - for the people, he only wants to stay in power to enrich himself.”

During former President Joe Biden's four years in the White House, liberal economist and former New York Times columnist Paul Krugman repeatedly praised his economic record — emphasizing that the United States enjoyed record-low unemployment rates under Biden's watch. Biden, Krugman notes, inherited a deadly pandemic that ultimately killed more than 1 million Americans, yet in early 2023, U.S. unemployment was as low as 3.4 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

But frustration over inflation, polls showed, gave Donald Trump an advantage in the 2024 election, and he defeated Democratic nominee Kamala Harris by roughly 1.5 percent in the national popular vote. Now, ten and one-half months into Trump's second presidency, Krugman is warning that a variety of Trump policies — from steep new tariffs to compromising the independence of the U.S. Federal Reserve — are putting the U.S. economy in grave danger.

The United States, in late 2025, isn't in a recession. But in an opinion column published on December 4, Hamish McRae — a columnist for the i Paper in the UK — lays out some reasons why the U.S. could face a recession in 2026.

"The American economy is heading for trouble, and it may go into recession next year," McRae warns. "If that happens, it would be bad news for the rest of us, including the UK. That old adage still applies: when the U.S. sneezes, Europe catches a cold. At first sight, that might seem an overly pessimistic outlook. U.S. shares are still close to their all-time highs, with the S&P 500 index up 16 per cent this year. Unemployment, at 4.4 per cent, is the highest since 2021, but is only creeping upwards. And while consumer confidence fell sharply last month, that was probably associated with the government shutdown, which is now over."

McRae goes on to list some "powerful reasons to expect things to slow down sharply in the coming months."

"One is that the stock market boom has been driven by its technology giants, with the top 10 companies accounting for more than one-third of the total capitalization, up from 18 per cent 10 years ago," the i Paper columnist explains. "Another is that U.S. house prices have weakened. They are not facing an overall collapse, though in some regions, notably Florida, they are very soft. But the big rises of recent years have come to an end, and prices overall are expected to run behind pay increases. The greatest concern, however, is what artificial intelligence will do to the job market. In the long-run it is clear that AI will give a huge boost to the overall efficiency of the world economy, and since the U.S. is in the forefront of its development, it should in theory at least be the principal beneficiary. But in the short-run, it is killing jobs."

McRae adds, "An analysis by a U.S. firm, Challenger, Gray & Christmas showed that AI was cited in U.S. company reports and presentations in enabling a headcount reduction of nearly 50,000 jobs this year. Some 31,000 of those were cut in October alone."

The British columnist stresses that if the U.S. goes into a recession, there is no way the UK won't be affected by it.

"First, the chances are that recession would pop the equity bubble in America and would inevitably affect share prices in London too," McRae argues. "Not a catastrophe, for our markets are much more reasonably valued than the U.S. ones. But it would cast a cloud. Second, any economic slowdown in the U.S. affects our economy directly because it is our largest single export market, though smaller than the EU as a whole. Third, the forces that are cutting jobs there are the same as those affecting employment here."

Hamish McRae's full i Paper column is available at this link.

Greatly influenced by Patrick Buchanan's American First ideology, President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement are often described as "isolationists" who reject the hawkish foreign policy of past GOP presidents like Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Trump and his allies, from "War Room" host Steve Bannon to former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, are openly disdainful of neocons.

But in 2025, Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are being increasingly confrontational with Venezuela — carrying out a series of military strikes against Venezuelan boats they claim were smuggling illegal drugs to the United States and reportedly pushing for regime change with leftist Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

One of the attacks on a Venezuelan boat involved a fatal second strike after the people on board had already been shipwrecked because of a first strike. And according to Business Insider's Kelsey Baker, that reported second strike is a violation of the Pentagon's own guidelines.

"The Pentagon's manual on the law of war doesn't list every possible illegal order," Baker explains, "but on some points, it's explicit. 'Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked,' it says, 'would be clearly illegal.' The 1200-page manual repeatedly stresses that a combatant who is unable to continue fighting is entitled to fundamental protections. It uses shipwreck survivors as a key example — which is why a September 2 counter-narcotics strike in the Caribbean is drawing intense scrutiny."

Baker continues, "During the mission, which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has said he watched live, the U.S. military struck a suspected drug-smuggling vessel twice. The first strike appeared to kill nine people on the vessel; then, the U.S. military launched a second strike on the stricken boat that killed the two remaining survivors, the Washington Post reported last week, citing seven people with knowledge of the strike."

Business Insider discussed the September 2 strikes with Ohio Northern University law professor and former U.S. Army judge Dan Maurer — who considers the second strike a "patent violation" of military law.

Maurer told Business Insider, "No one who is at all trained on the law of war would think that that's OK. Whether they're wounded or sick or a POW or shipwrecked at sea, unless they're shooting at you, they are not a threat, and they cannot be attacked. There's actually an affirmative duty to pick them up, to rescue them, so they don't drown."

Read Kelsey Baker's full article for Business Insider at this link.

Americans are blaming President Donald Trump for high costs and that blame, reports Politico, is starting to shift politics, as the president continues to lose the affordability battle to Democrats.

According to a new Politico poll, 46 percent of Americans say the cost of living in the U.S. is "the worst they can ever remember it being, a view held by 37 percent of 2024 Trump voters."

That same 46 percent also say that the affordability crisis is Trump’s responsibility, saying it is his economy now and his administration is responsible for the high costs.

Politico says this is a huge warning to Republicans, as "some of the very groups that powered Trump’s victory last year are showing signs of breaking from that coalition, and it’s the high cost of living that’s driving them away."

The Democrats, they write, have seized upon this "growing vulnerability," as the focus on affordability led to their sweeps in the November elections as well as "an overperformance in a deep-red House seat in Tennessee on Tuesday."

GOP strategist Ford O’Connell says it's a warning sign, especially after Tuesday's Tennessee election in which Republican Matt Van Epps beat Democrat Aftyn Behn by 9 points, "but underperformed against Trump’s 22-point margin in 2024," Politico notes.

“This is a small warning, but it’s one that Republicans need to understand, is that to hold the House in 2026, it’s going to be an all-hands-on-deck effort,” O'Connell says.

The Politico poll "found that despite Trump’s continued support among the Republican base, his softest supporters — the ones the GOP most needs to hold onto next year — are expressing concern."

"Republicans were already worried about how they can turn out lower-propensity voters during a midterm cycle when Trump himself is not on the ballot. Now Democrats are also trying to peel away their voters by focusing aggressively on affordability, which remains a top priority for 56 percent of Americans," according to the poll.

Arizona-based Republican strategist Barrett Marson also agrees the GOP is in trouble, saying, "Republicans have long had the advantage on dealing with the economy, but if [it] remains in the doldrums and prices remain high, it’s harder to find a good job, they will blame the party in power, and that’s Republicans."

This trouble, Politico writes, presents "an emerging splintering in Trump’s 2024 winning coalition as his party heads into a high-stakes midterm fight."

Trump's weakness is especially seen among Republicans who do not identify as MAGA, Politico explains.

"His numbers are far weaker among those who say they voted for him, but do not identify as MAGA Republicans — 61 percent, compared to 88 percent of MAGA-aligned voters — pointing to a possible weak spot in his coalition," they note.

This poll, Politico notes, shows how the economy is the issue that will overshadow next year's elections, much to the dismay of Republicans.

"The poll underscores just how pervasive the affordability crisis cuts across Americans’ everyday lives," they say.

Marson says that even those who continued to blame President Joe Biden for Trump's faltering economy will move on from that narrative.

“Voters aren’t going to go, ‘I voted for Trump to better the economy, but Biden just hamstrung [him] too much,’” Marson says. “Voters are going to very quickly forget about Joe Biden and just as quickly turn their ire to Trump unless things get better.”

Republicans "who repeatedly hammered Biden over his handling of affordability concerns are increasingly concerned that Trump is taking a similar tact," Politico notes.

Michael Strain, the director of Economic Policy Studies at the historically conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, agrees.

“It’s striking to see President Trump make the same mistake,” he says.

Democrats, meanwhile, are ramping up the message less than a year out from the midterms.

CJ Warnke, a spokesperson for the Democratic super PAC House Majority PAC, says "House Republicans should 100 percent expect to see ads next year calling them out for their broken promise to lower prices and for supporting Trump’s tariffs."

Republicans are growing increasingly frustrated on their inability to sell the American people on the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," reports Al Weaver in The Hill.

"Talk about the massive tax package largely evaporated after Labor Day amid high-stakes fights over releasing documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and the 43-day government shutdown. Yet even before those controversies, polls showed the GOP legislation was unpopular," Weaver writes.

As Democrats hammer Republicans on the issue of affordability, he writes, GOP lawmakers are concerned by their lackluster sales pitch on their party's signature accomplishment.

When asked if he was happy about his party's message on the bill, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), said "No. There’s so much good stuff in there, and I just think it’s inherently difficult to sell something that has that many moving parts and is that complex.”

"We hopefully learned a lesson that while the ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill [Act]’ doesn’t poll well by that name, if you change it to the ‘Working Family’s Tax Cuts Act,’ it polls much better,” Cornyn said, "referring to the GOP’s attempted rebranding of the bill’s name dating back to near Labor Day," Weaver notes.

“So we need to go back to Marketing 101, I guess," Cornyn said.

The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (H.R. 1) was signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4, 2025. The expansive law makes permanent many provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and introduces new, temporary tax deductions alongside significant spending cuts to programs like Medicaid and SNAP.

Roughly two-thirds (63 percent) of the public hold an unfavorable view of the law, compared to only 36 percent who view it favorably, according to a July 2025 poll by KFF. Other polls show similar figures, making it one of the most unpopular major pieces of legislation passed since at least 1990.

In addition to its unpopularity, the "measure has largely gotten buried," Weaver writes, thanks to the government shutdown and the Epstein scandal.

When asked how much the tax package comes up on the campaign trail with voters, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), who is running to become the next governor of Alabama in 2027, replied: “Not much.”

“Most people don’t really understand what’s in it,” he said.

An anonymous GOP source tells Weaver, "It’s way too f—— expensive to live in this country right now. We need to be seen as at least caring about that.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) says the party needs to work on better messaging for the bill, saying, "I think it is one of the most … undertold [stories], and we need to change that."

Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), the chair of the House GOP’s campaign arm, agrees , reportedly telling "lawmakers this week that more work has to be done in the coming weeks and months to sell the bill and popular components of it, including no tax on tips, the expansion of the child tax credit and the tax cut extension," Weaver reports.

The president hasn't done much to sell the bill lately, either, and Republicans are frustrated by that as well, Weaver says.

"Has the president gone to a single event about OBBBA? Have they gone to Toledo? Have they gone to Scranton? … I don’t know — use the bully pulpit for a minute while we’re at it? Would be nice," the anonymous GOP source says.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WVa) agrees, saying, "I think we could do better. I wouldn’t give us an ‘A.’”

Much has been of President Donald Trump's loosening grip on the Republican Party amid mounting scandals and floundering voter support, with a New York Times opinion piece explaining why he is "a lame duck getting lamer by the second" and why GOP allies are finally "inching away" from him.

Writing for the Times on Thursday, political contributor Michelle Cottle observed that, as the week after Thanksgiving has progressed, Republicans in Washington have shown "signs of spinal fortitude" in response to the Trump administration. She specifically singled out the growing scandal surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the bombshell story that he directed U.S. forces to fire on a boat in the Caribbean Sea twice, likely in violation of the law.

She also noted that "key lawmakers" in Congress, from both sides of the aisle, are calling for “vigorous oversight” and “directed inquiries” into the Pentagon's operations concerning Venezuela, as Trump and his officials have signaled the possibility of a ground operation to force President Nicolás Maduro to step down. On Wednesday, Republican Sen. Rand Paul joined with top Democrats Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine to put forward a resolution forbidding the president from taking action in Venezuela with approval from Congress.

"... [This] rare pushback is bigger than any one policy disagreement or operational misstep,' Cottle wrote. "It reflects the newly precarious situation in which the president finds himself. Through a mix of bad timing and the fallout from his own blunders, Mr. Trump is taking heat from multiple directions: He has let down some of the MAGA faithful at the same moment that his growing unpopularity and lame-duck status are opening the door for his congressional team to start inching away from him."

Cottle further noted that Trump's approval from voters has plummeted over the first year of his second term, as he has failed "his No. 1 job in the eyes of those who voted for him last year, especially those outside the MAGA base," which was to get the soaring cost of living under control. Between his wide-ranging tariff policies and mass deportation agenda, prices for everyday U.S. consumers have actually gotten higher under Trump's watch, and voter discontent with this state of affairs helped propel Democrats to major victories in the recent round of elections.

All these factors taken together, Cottle explained, are making Republicans more eager to distance themselves from Trump, whose electoral influence will only get smaller now as he is unable to run for president again, and consider their political futures without him around.

"Like all second-term presidents, Mr. Trump is also at the mercy of the calendar — a lame duck getting lamer by the second," Cottle wrote. "Mr. Trump has a way of driving his voters to the polls when he is on the ballot, but his days as a presidential contender are done. Even under the best of circumstances, other Republicans would be pondering their future without him. But with a leader this unpopular, the need for post-Trump strategizing is all the more urgent."

Near the end of his life, the late conservative Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) vehemently attacked U.S. President Donald Trump's dealings with far-right Russian President Vladimir Putin — arguing that Trump was negotiating from a position of extreme weakness. Trump, at times, criticizes Putin during his second presidency, but his tone is one of disappointment rather than outrage or intense disdain.

The New York Times' Thomas L. Friedman, in his December 4 column, calls out MAGA Republicans he considers "useful idiots" when it comes to Putin.

"I can think of no other American president who would have acted as if America's values and interests dictated that we now be a neutral arbiter between Russia and Ukraine and, on top of that, an arbiter who tries to make a profit from each side in the process — as Trump has done," the conservative columnist laments. "This is one of the most shameful episodes in American foreign policy, and the entire Republican Party is complicit in its perpetuation. I also can think of no other U.S. foreign policy leader who would have said about Putin what (envoy Steve) Witkoff said about this dictator whose political rivals often end up dead, who engages in vast corruption for himself and his cronies and who does everything he can to undermine free and fair elections in America and the West: 'I don't regard Putin as a bad guy.'"

Friedman adds, "Russian communists had a term for foreigners who held such views about their leaders: 'useful idiots.'"

Friedman not only criticizes Trump and Witkoff for their "isolationist" views, but also, Vice President JD Vance.

"You can imagine this retort from JD Vance isolationists: 'Hey, Friedman, you and your pals just want to drag America into endless wars,'" the conservative journalist argues. "Nope, sorry, you have the wrong cowboy. I have written since the first weeks of this war, and repeatedly thereafter, that it is only going to end in, at best, a 'dirty deal.' Russia is too big compared with Ukraine, and its willingness to fight on dictates that ending the war will require Ukraine to make concessions. Sad but true — and most Ukrainians will tell you the same today."

Friedman continues, "But as I wrote last month, there is a huge difference between a 'filthy deal' that maximizes Putin's interests, profits and ability to restart the war at any point of his choosing, and a 'dirty deal.'"

Thomas L. Friedman's full New York Times column is available at this link (subscription required).