Bank

Congress is now 'trying to confront a monster it helped create': Senate reporter

Punchbowl News reporter Andrew Desiderio is on the ground in Denmark as President Donald Trump escalates tensions with European allies over his possible military takeover of Greenland.

U.S. lawmakers visited Copenhagen in an effort to "credibly reassure an ally" that the U.S. will not violate the NATO treaty.

"The consequences extend far beyond the potential unraveling of NATO. In many ways, this particular CODEL was an example of Congress trying to confront a monster it helped create: An Institution so feeble that constitutional checks and balances are no longer an effective reassurance," the report said.

Congress has yet to confront Trump over his antics, allowing him to rewrite tariff rules and decide which congressionally funded programs will be cut. Now that Trump is talking about a potential war with Europe, Congress seems desperate to deescalate international tensions.

"Yeah, Donald Trump concerns me, but what really concerns me is our willingness to give it up because we don't want to make hard decisions," said Rep Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)

Punchbowl News also spoke with Danish Democratic counterpart, Flemming Møller Mortensen, who said that reassurances from congressional lawmakers are meaningful but they're not a promise.

Trump will be at the Davos conference on Thursday. That same day the European Union will hold an emergency meeting to discuss his threats.

See the update here.

Republican pollster corrects misconception about independent voters

For independents, lack of party loyalty can be a badge of honor. Independents often say that they are focused on issues, not whether one is a Republican or a Democrat. And in a close election, they can make or break a campaign.

But conservative GOP pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, in an op-ed published by the New York Times on January 19, emphasizes that lack of party affiliation doesn't necessarily mean that one is centrist or moderate.

"In 2004, the percentage of Americans identifying as political independents hit the lowest point since Gallup began regularly tracking party identification in 1988," Anderson explains. "That year, only 31 percent said they were independent, while Republicans and Democrats were evenly matched among those choosing a party. That percentage has risen from that record low in 2004 to a record high today — a whopping 45 percent, according to Gallup."

According to Anderson, it is "important to first remember what the word independent is not."

"These days, it does not necessarily signify moderation or centrism," Anderson notes. "Less than half of independents today consider themselves moderate in the Gallup data, with 27 percent identifying as conservative or very conservative and 24 percent identifying as liberal or very liberal. Plenty of people who are independent declare themselves as such because they find both parties ideologically unsatisfactory, not because they feel they fit somewhere in the middle."

The GOP pollster points out that according to the Pew Research Center, many of the independents who voted in the 2024 presidential election "acknowledged they generally leaned more toward one party or another." And that included both Donald Trump voters and Kamala Harris voters.

"Of those who said they leaned more toward the GOP," Anderson observes, "87 percent voted for Mr. Trump, while 91 percent of Democratic-leaning independents voted for Ms. Harris. Each voter may initially tell a pollster like me that they are an independent, but in truth, they behave much more like their Republican and Democratic brethren when they get to the ballot box."

Anderson adds, "In my own surveys, most voters who identify as independents do go on, when pressed, to say they lean more toward one party than the other. Ultimately, I find only that only 9 percent of voters firmly insist they do not pick one side more often than the other."

Kristen Soltis Anderson's full op-ed for the New York Times is available at this link (subscription required).

'Look what you made me do': Trump ridiculed for 'insane' threat over snub

In a message posted overnight, President Donald Trump said that the reason he wants to take Greenland has to do with Norway not giving him the Nobel Peace Prize.

Nobel Prizes are given for actions done in the previous year and Trump wasn't even in office in 2024.

PBS "News Hour" foreign affairs reporter Nick Schifrin posted the letter text, reading, "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a 'right of ownership' anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also."

Trump went on to say that he's done more for NATO than any other president.

The status update was then shared by international relations Professor Nicholas Grossman, from the University of Illinois.

"Multi-layered 'look what you made me do' lie," Grossman said. "Because Norway didn’t give a him prize (it doesn’t decide winners) for ending wars (he didn’t end) the US won’t be peaceful anymore (bombing multiple countries) and will take Greenland (part of Denmark, not Norway) to stop Russia (it’d help Russia)."

Lawyer, journalist and podcaster Imani Gandy demanded, "someone ask him to list the 8 wars he's stopped." She also lamented, "everything is just absurd. 10 years of this a--hole is 10 years too many."

Anesthesiologist Dr. Josh Rubin pointed out that Norway not only doesn't give out the peace prize, it doesn't own Greenland either.

"So he doesn’t know the difference between Norway and Denmark," he wrote on BlueSky.

Democratic influencer Harry Sisson called the matter "insane."

"Trump just wrote a letter to the prime minister of Norway essentially saying 'you didn’t give me the Nobel Peace Prize so I’m choosing to invade Greenland because of it.' This is INSANE. It’s about to get a lot worse," he expects.

Norwegian Helsinki Committee human rights worker Aage Borchgrevink threatened, "Dear Trump. Here’s a deal. Back off from Greenland and Norway will not destroy your economy by unloading the 180bn usd of your debt owned by the Norwegian Oil Fund."

Lawyer and commentator David Lurie joked, "Little known fact, Hitler invaded Poland because he didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize. Will Norway ever learn?"

However, ‪Dmitry Grozoubinski, negotiations and trade policy expert, wrote on BlueSky, "I'm honestly less mad at the President, who is clearly not well, that I am at his outriders and enablers. They see messages like this and then, with straight faces, go on television or write op-eds retroactively constructing grand strategy justifications. Pathetic."

Trump’s greatest strength in 2024 is now a debilitating weakness: poll

The United States 2024 presidential election was a real horserace, with GOP nominee Donald Trump ultimately defeating the Democratic nominee, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, by roughly 1.5 percent in the national popular vote. And according to polls, the economy — especially frustration over inflation — was the thing that did the most to give him a narrow victory in the end.

But a new CBS News/YouGov poll shows that what was Trump's greatest strength in 2024 is now a major weakness.

The poll, released on Sunday, January 18, found that 74 percent of Americans believe that Trump isn't focused enough on inflation.

NJ Advance Media/NJ.com reporter Lauren Sforza explains, "Despite Trump's promises to bring down costs, 76 percent of Americans said their income is not keeping up with inflation. Just 24 percent reported that their income was keeping up with inflation, according to the poll. Trump repeatedly pledged throughout his 2024 campaign to end inflation and lower the cost of living for Americans. However, Trump's widespread tariffs on imported goods have increased prices for U.S. consumers despite Trump claiming that it was boosting revenue for the country."

CBS News/YouGov found that only 39 percent of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the economy, while his overall approval is at 41 percent.

The poll comes almost a year after Trump's return to the White House and nine and one-half months before the 2026 midterms.

European leader issues bleak warning in NYT editorial

Alain Berset, secretary general of the Council of Europe, wrote a column in the New York Times in which he stated he never thought he would have to contend with a possible military confrontation between Europe and the United States.

Trump sent a letter to the prime minister of Norway overnight, claiming he no longer feels obligated to support peace in Europe because he did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel committee awards the prize, not Norway. Additionally, Greenland is part of Denmark, not Norway.

"His statements about the territory have strained relations between states and called into question the rights, consent and democratic choices of Greenland's people," wrote Berset. "For now, this remains talk. But recent events in Venezuela show how quickly words can harden into action."

Berset recalled that following World War II, the Council of Europe was established to ensure "law, not raw power, must guarantee the dignity and rights of individuals and the sovereign equality of states."

Berset noted that while Trump has claimed he needs Greenland for national security, the United States already has access for such efforts.

Berset described Trump's position as reflecting "an old strategic reflex: a Cold War mind-set." Trump believes that Russia's proximity to Greenland could present a security threat.

"The Council of Europe stands ready to support Denmark and Greenland through concrete legal and institutional cooperation. If Europe fails to articulate a legal and political vision, others will fill the vacuum, shifting security from law to strategic leverage," Berset wrote.

"International law is either universal or meaningless. Greenland will show which one we choose," Berset stated.

Read the full column here.

'Small ray of light': Trump voters are quietly ditching MAGA

In the United States' 2024 presidential election, there were two very different types of Donald Trump voters: MAGA diehards and frustrated independents. And the latter are a lot more flexible, as some of them voted for Democratic Joe Biden in 2020 but, in 2024, were frustrated over inflation and liked Trump's promise to lower prices "on Day 1."

Salon's Amanda Marcotte has written extensively about "low-information" independents who don't necessarily pay close attention to politics but were drawn to Trump's messaging on the economy in 2024. And those independents and swing voters don't have the intense devotion to Trump that his hardcore MAGA base does.

In an article published on January 19, however, Marcotte takes a look at Republicans who were enthusiastically MAGA in 2024 yet are now "quietly" slipping away from the 2024 coalition.

"A decade into our collective Donald Trump nightmare," Marcotte laments, "most of the reality-based population has given up on hoping MAGA voters will wake up and see the light. We've come to realize that he could eat a live kitten on TV and they, unwilling to admit his critics were right all along, would argue that kitten was 'Antifa' and liberals are the ones who are stupid for not seeing the threat the kitten posed to our safety. I predicted this miserable state of affairs back in 2017, after interviewing psychology experts on cognitive dissonance."

Marcotte continues, "For Trump voters, the pain of saying 'I was wrong' is too great. They would rather burn the country to the ground than accept fault. If anything, the worse Trump acts, the harder they cling to him because the psychic price of saying 'liberals were right all along' grows steeper. The situation can feel hopeless, especially in the face of events like the recent killing of Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minneapolis."

The Salon journalist notes, however, that "there is a small ray of light in all this darkness."

"Polling suggests that a small but important number of Trump voters are trying to pull an Irish exit, abandoning the coalition quietly rather than continuing the miserable task of pretending what he's doing is OK," Marcotte explains. "On Friday, (January 16), data journalist G. Elliott Morris analyzed and compared the past year's polls to Trump's first term…. . According to Morris, 'Republican identification dropped from 46 percent in 2024 to just 40 percent in Q4 of 2025 — a 6-point decline, triple the 2-point drop during Trump’s first term."

Marcotte adds, "It's still a small number, but it's significant because it suggests people are starting to find it embarrassing to say they are Republicans. They're looking for a way to distance themselves from Trump and the MAGA movement without admitting fault…. Even if most of these quiet defectors aren't going to vote for Democrats, this polling shift — especially taken with Trump's declining approval ratings — suggests that enthusiasm for Republicans is sliding downhill.

Amanda Marcotte's full article for Salon is available at this link.

How Trump is making 'public discourse' increasingly profane

In the past, U.S. politicians would use profanity behind closed doors but were careful to avoid it in public speeches. President Donald Trump, however, isn't shy about using profanity when speaking publicly. And he isn't alone.

Axios' Avery Lotz, in an article published on January 17, reports that more and more U.S. politicians are increasing their use of profanity in public.

"American politics has gotten dirty — and so have officials' mouths," Lotz reports. "The big picture: In the era of politics often defined by the in-your-face style of President Trump, lawmakers are dropping f-bombs like 'The Wolf of Wall Street' went to Washington…. Case in point: In a high-intensity press briefing after a federal agent shot and killed a driver in Minneapolis, the city's mayor, Jacob Frey, didn't mince words as he ripped into ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), demanding officers 'get the f--- out.'"

According to Robert Thompson — founding director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University in Upstate New York — American politicians operated in "two parallel languages" in the past: the "language of public discourse" and how they spoke behind closed doors. But the Trump era, Thompson says, has brought "new rules."

Thompson told Axios, "One could argue that until these past couple of years, that separation was still pretty extreme."

Michael Adams, an English professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, believes that Fry's recent use of profanity was politically effective for the Democratic Minneapolis mayor.

Adams told Axios, "It was an instance in which I think it's fair to say that swearing was eloquent."

Lotz notes that both Republicans and Democrats are ramping up their use of profanity in public.

"Trump is a top offender," Lotz observes. "In October, he told reporters, as cameras were rolling, that since-captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro didn't 'want to f--- around with the United States' — a profanity-laden punch the administration was quick to promote with its 'FAFO' catchphrase…. Vice President Vance has taken a page out of Trump's book, calling a podcast host a 'dip---- on social media and saying, in a speech to troops, that people who like turkey were 'full of s---.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also told a room of the nation's top military officials that the department was 'done with that s---," meaning social justice and diversity initiatives…. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has flaunted the f-word: dropping 'No f------ way' in a video shared amid the government shutdown and saying the administration can't 'f--- around' over the Epstein files release."

Read Avery Lotz's full article at this link.

What stops Trump from calling up  troops after the 2026 midterms

Regrets — we’ve all had a few. One of President Donald Trump’s, apparently, is not directing the National Guard to seize voting machines after the 2020 election in search of evidence of fraud.

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

That revelation, part of a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times on Jan. 7, commands particular attention in a world where Trump has already sought to push the boundaries of his power, deploying the National Guard to multiple U.S. cities to crack down on protests and crime. The November midterms will be the first federal general election with Trump as president since that 2020 contest, and even before his comments to the Times, plenty of people were already worried that Trump would attempt to deploy the National Guard around the 2026 election.

The National Guard isn’t necessarily the problem here; the Guard actually has a history of helping with election administration, such as when troops in civilian clothing helped fill in for absent poll workers during the pandemic in 2020. But many Democrats and election officials are worried that Trump could, say, send them to polling places to interfere with voting on Election Day. If troops were to take possession of voting machines or other equipment, it could break the chain of custody and invalidate scads of ballots. And if troops just show up outside polling places, even if they don’t try to impede the administration of the election, their presence could still intimidate voters.

That’s a worst-case scenario. However, there are significant legal and practical barriers to Trump doing this.

First, it’s clearly illegal: Federal law prohibits stationing “troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.” It’s also illegal for members of the military to prevent, or attempt to prevent, an eligible voter from voting and to interfere “in any manner with an election officer’s discharge of his duties.” That could include taking possession of voting machines.

Even the Insurrection Act — which grants the president wide leeway to use the military for domestic law enforcement in emergencies, and which Trump threatened to invoke just last week in Minneapolis — wouldn’t give troops the right to break these laws, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Second, courts have so far significantly reined in Trump’s existing National Guard deployments — raising questions about whether he’d even have control of the Guard in key states. In December, the Supreme Court signed off on a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from deploying troops to Illinois, whose Democratic governor had challenged his authority to do so. (National Guard troops are usually under the command of their state’s governor.)

The Supreme Court’s order for now functionally limits Trump to deploying the National Guard in states where he has the governor’s consent. And the 2026 midterm elections are likely to be decided in states whose governors mostly aren’t the type to let Trump deploy troops there. Of the 60 U.S. House seats currently listed as “in play” by Inside Elections, an election handicapping website, 38 are in states with Democratic governors.

And while the path to the U.S. Senate majority does mostly run through red states, and Republicans have, on the whole, not shown much interest in standing up to Trump, it’s not a given that every Republican governor would acquiesce to Trump sending in troops — especially for as norm-shattering a reason as to police an election.

The New York Times also reported this week that multiple Republican politicians privately criticized Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. And plenty of sitting Republican governors have had their differences with Trump publicly as well:

  • Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio (home to three competitive House seats and a pivotal Senate race) is very much an old guard Republican who has objected to Trump’s most controversial behavior.
  • Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa (also home to three competitive House seats and a potentially interesting Senate race) endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over Trump in the 2024 Republican presidential primaries and is not running for reelection this year.
  • Gov. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire (home to two competitive House seats and a vulnerable Democratic-held Senate seat) is a moderate Republican who disavowed Trump in 2016 and waited a conspicuously long time to endorse him in 2024.
  • Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia (home to another vulnerable Democratic Senate seat) famously rebuffed Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election result in his state.

The Trump administration has thrown cold water all over the idea that it will mobilize the National Guard this November. A White House spokesperson told NPR in November that concerns about troops at polling places were “baseless conspiracy theories and Democrat talking points.” And in an interview with Vanity Fair late last year, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said that “it is categorically false, will not happen.”

But given Trump’s avowed interest in using the National Guard to subvert an election, many officials aren’t taking any chances. At a conference of local election administrators earlier this month in Virginia, attendees were already gaming out what to do in a scenario where armed troops arrive at a polling place.

Any attempt to use the military to influence the election — even if it’s quickly extinguished by a court — would be one of the most brazen acts of election interference in modern times. Whether or not it ultimately affected the outcome of the election, it could still shatter many Americans’ belief in the sanctity of the voting booth.

Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

Inside Trump's new strategy to compromise the midterms

With President Donald Trump suffering low approval ratings in poll after poll, Democratic strategists are felling increasingly optimistic about flipping the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms. And Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Chair Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) is saying that the U.S. Senate isn't out of reach for Democrats.

But Salon's Chauncey DeVega, in an article published on January 18, warns that Democrats are facing "a coordinated effort by Trump and the anti-democracy right-wing to secure victory before a single ballot has even been counted."

As the Washington Post reported on Monday, (January 12)," DeVega explains, "the events of January 6, 2021 were a trial run. Then, he 'pressured Republican county election officials, state lawmakers, and members of Congress to find him votes after he lost his reelection bid. Now, he's seeking to change the rules before ballots are cast.' These strategies include 'challenging long-established democratic norms' and making 'unprecedented demands that Republican state lawmakers redraw congressional districts before the constitutionally required 10-year schedule, the prosecution of political opponents, a push to toughen voter registration rules and attempts to end the use of voting machines and mail ballots.'"

The Trump Administration, according to DeVega, "has installed election deniers and other conspiracists — believers in the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen — in key positions throughout the FBI, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and other parts of the government."

"In short," DeVega argues, "the wolves are watching the chicken coop….. Republicans and other members of the antidemocracy right-wing have repeatedly used language about the 'quality' of voters and 'voter integrity,' and they have made false allegations of widespread fraud in 'urban areas' to signal their belief that the votes of Black and brown people are not legitimate."

The Salon journalist continues, "The ultimate goal is to create a 21st-Century version of Jim and Jane Crow, where Black and brown people are made into second-class citizens…. If Trump and his MAGA forces and the broader right-wing can execute even some of their plans, the integrity and legitimacy of the country's elections will be further undermined. The result will be what political scientists describe as 'competitive authoritarianism.' In such a pseudo-democracy, the United States would be like Putin’s Russia, where there are elections but a victory by the ruling party is all but assured."

Chauncey DeVega's full article for Salon is available at this link.

'Cracks beginning to appear' in Trump’s coalition as world 'does business around America'

CNN’s Richard Quest wrote for iPaper that the second iteration of President Donald Trump’s “America First” movement has become synonymous with a sort of modern manifest destiny. However, he now sees some cracks forming in that coalition.

In an extensive interview with the New York Times last week, Trump said, “There is one thing: my own morality, my own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me. I don’t need international law.”

Given what Trump has already done with Venezuelan and his escalating threats over Greenland, few believe Trump “is not serious.”

Quest recalled Trump’s past trips to Davos, where the ultra-wealthy fawned over him. “Back then, the WEF rolled out the red carpet more in hope than expectation, and Trump just about concealed his disdain for its elitist, intellectual trappings,” Quest recalled.

Now, the WEF appears to be “creaking under pressure of its own making.” The era of “international niceties” may be over.

"All of this begs an obvious question: if Davos is truly irrelevant, then why is Trump bothering to head up into the Swiss Alps at all? Based on his last visit, there is no doubt that he will get attention, and any long-time observer will tell you that alone can be incentive enough for Mr Trump. He could simply take the opportunity to rub delegates noses in their impotence, expand his 'Donroe doctrine,' and remind everyone that if they want a deal, they must get it on his terms – or else," Quest wrote.

Quest wants to see Trump courting those attendees again. He spoke to Fisher Investments CEO Ken Fisher, who said that 2025 was a better year for businesses outside the U.S. “This is a world where the world’s doing business around America, and sometimes in America,” he told Quest. “But the rest of the world is what’s leading the capital markets, not the United States.”

Yet cracks are forming around the MAGA Republican coalition, particularly when it comes to the Epstein files. Trump’s war against the Federal Reserve is sending traditional Republicans on Wall Street running for cover. Then there is the matter of Trump starting a possible war with Greenland after he invaded Venezuela, and his apparent willingness to contemplate conflict with multiple countries, including Iran. To make matters worse, the 2026 election is shaping up to be painful for Republicans.

Ultimately, Quest wants to see Trump go to Davos and get some deals done, or at the very least present some kind of plan.

Read the full column here.

DC officials 'alarmed' as Trump move threatens to boost China’s currency on world stage

Many economists, from the University of Michigan's Justin Wolfers to former New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and ex-Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich, are warning that if President Donald Trump succeeds in compromising the independence of the U.S. Federal Reserve, the results will be disastrous for the American economy. And they typically cite Argentina and Turkey as glaring examples of countries that suffered severe economic crises and devalued currencies when the independence of their central banks was compromised.

In an article published late Saturday night, January 17, the Wall Street Journal's Rory Jones lays out some reasons why chaos with the U.S. Federal Reserve — including a federal criminal investigation of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell — could benefit Mainland China and their currency, the yuan.

"The criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell is being viewed globally as an effort by the Trump Administration to wrest control of monetary policy from the central bank," Jones explains. "That, according to some economists, risks damaging investor confidence in the U.S. financial system and the dollar, just as China is expanding use of its own currency around the world…. China's push to globalize its own currency — recently given renewed importance by Beijing in a five-year policy plan — has already alarmed officials in Washington."

The WSJ reporter adds, "Before entering office, President Trump warned about China's push to globalize the yuan and has since threatened tariffs on the Brics bloc of emerging-market countries — which includes China — should they create an alternative to the dollar. Wider use of the yuan could also allow adversaries to avoid the scrutiny of the dollar-based financial system."

One of the people who is sounding the alarm is Bert Hofman, a former World Bank director for China.

Hofman told the Journal, "The institutional setup of the U.S. — through actions like those against the Fed — is being undermined. Holding dollars becomes a relatively less attractive proposition as a form of safety."

Jones notes that the Chinese government is "competing with the U.S. for global influence by chipping away at the dollar's ubiquity in certain areas such as bank payments."

"The dollar reigns in part because countries and companies consider the U.S. political system stable and appreciate having reliable places to park their extra dollars, especially U.S. Treasury's," the WSJ reporter observes. "Political control of central banks in countries such as Turkey has led to high inflation, which, if repeated in the U.S., would undermine the role of U.S. government debt and reduce confidence in the dollar."

Read the full Wall Street Journal article at this link (subscription required).

Trump voters in disbelief after his first veto stuns MAGA

President Donald Trump's first veto of his second term involved spending to rebuild the infrastructure of a small, predominantly Republican region of Colorado. The funding would have provided fresh and safe drinking water to an area in which the groundwater had been contaminated with salt and radiation.

The project started with a planning process in the 1930s. But it was never completed. The New York Times reported that even years later, Americans can't drink water out of their taps safely. Far-right GOP lawmaker, Lauren Boebert (R-Col.), sponsored a bill that would complete the pipeline that would bring clean water to her district. It was passed by Congress in 2025 but Trump killed it.

Democrats believe Trump's veto is his attempt to punish Democrats who lead the state.

“I can’t believe he would do that to us,” Republican Mayor Shirley Adams told the Times. She oversees the small farming community of Manzanola, which has groundwater poisoned with uranium. While she voted for Trump in 2024, she's hurt by the veto.

But Manzanola wouldn't be the only town to benefit. A total of 39 towns would finally be guaranteed clean drinking water from the tap.

Adams explained that the water project isn't a political issue and a pipeline is the only solution they'll ever have. Local officials want to move forward with it, but without the help of the federal government, the state won't get the best funding available.

Brandi Rivera, another Manzanola resident, said that her family gets cases of bottled water from Walmart each week. They won't wash their faces or brush their teeth with the water from the tap.

“People don’t think about small towns,” she lamented. “We worked so long for this."

"I’m very disappointed,” agreed Benita Gonzales after serving lunch at a senior center in Swink, Colorado, a town not too far from Manzanola. “There are certain things you do not politicize. Water is the most basic thing.”

Dave Esgar, whose family has been in eastern Colorado for five generations told the Times, “Most of us will be dead by the time it ever gets here.”

He called it a "total waste."

Read the full report here.

Trump rapidly squandering his 2024 voters: report

After the United States' 2024 presidential election, Democratic strategists spent months asking what went wrong for their party. It was a close election: Donald Trump won the national popular vote by roughly 1.5 percent. But the fact that Trump flipped six states Joe Biden won in 2020 (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona) and made gains among Latinos, Generation Z, independents and swing voters was a source of major frustration for Democrats.

Trump, according to Pew Research, won 48 percent of the Latino vote in 2024 compared to 51 percent for Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. Biden, in contrast, won 61 percent of the Latino vote in 2020.

But according to The New Republic's Alex Shephard, Trump is rapidly squandering the gains he made in 2024.

"A year ago, Donald Trump was riding high," Shephard recalls in an article published on January 17. "The man who had lost the presidency four years earlier, then led a failed insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, was now about to be inaugurated again after improbably winning a nonconsecutive second term. Almost everyone seemed to agree something seismic had just occurred. Trump was no longer just the leader of a powerful movement. He had 'remade the electorate,' as CNN's Harry Enten said in February: Republicans were surging not only with men — particularly those without college degrees — but also, with young people and Latinos…. What a difference a year makes."

Shephard adds, "Today, that widely accepted consensus about the 2024 election seems absurd. Trump hadn't reshaped the electorate at all — he had simply won another toss-up election. Yes, he narrowly won the popular vote this time, but by a margin — in both popular and Electoral College terms — that was not historically impressive. And now, those new voters he brought in have already abandoned him."

Shephard notes that a CNN poll released on January 16, "found that" Trump "is 29 points underwater with independents and 30 points down with both Latinos and young voters."

"Trump's new coalition is already in tatters," Shephard writes. "And there is no sign that these voters will be coming back to the president or his party anytime soon…. Fifty-eight percent of the electorate already sees his second term as a failure. He receives failing marks from a majority of voters in every policy area, including the two — the economy and immigration — that played the most decisive role in his 2024 victory."

Read Alex Shephard's full article for The New Republic at this link.

Former pardon attorney: DOJ is 'complicit' in a cover-up

Liz Oyer, a former Justice Department pardon attorney, told Jim Acosta that the DOJ is participating in a massive cover-up over the shooting of a Minneapolis woman in Minnesota.

Among the revelations reported this week, Renee Nicole Good, who was shot by an ICE agent, still had a pulse when first responders arrived on scene. ICE denied a doctor access to Good who wanted to render her aid.

Oyer said that it may mean that there are other ICE officers who could be culpable in Good's death.

Both she and Acosta agreed that an investigation into the entire situation was warranted. However, the deputy attorney general already decided that there would not be an investigation into the shooting.

"I don't think I'm exaggerating, Jim, when I say that DOJ is effectively participating in a cover-up of any potential crime that may have occurred," said Oyer. "Now, it wouldn't be proper for the deputy attorney general to jump to the conclusion that this officer should be prosecuted. But it would be absolutely expected that the deputy attorney general would be calling for a thorough investigation, so that the Justice Department could determine whether a prosecution is warranted."

She added that the fact that that isn't happening in this case is alarming.

"The fact that prosecutors in the civil rights division have been told that they cannot go to the scene and participate in an investigation — it is really — I cannot overstate how absolutely how shocking and wrong that is to the degree that DOJ is really complicit," she said. "The leadership of DOJ is complicit in covering up what happened during this incident."

Acosta added he wouldn't be surprised if this matter went all the way up to Attorney General Pam Bondi if not Donald Trump himself.



Breaking News on Renee Good. My discussion with Former DOJ Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer and Steve Schmidt by Jim Acosta

Plus Jim notes Trump is not the first person to get handed a Nobel Peace Prize.

Read on Substack

DEA has opened nearly a dozen investigations into Trump’s pic for Venezuelan president

President Donald Trump met with Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado this week, who election monitors said was the rightfully elected president in the 2024 election. But after arresting Venezuela's president, Nicolás Maduro, Trump allowed Vice President Delcy Rodríguez take over.

The Associated Press revealed that she has a history of investigations with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), topping nearly a dozen.

Documents obtained show that in 2022, Rodríguez was rated a “priority target,” a level that is typically reserved for suspects the DEA believes have a “significant impact” on the drug trade. Three current and former DEA agents spoke to the AP about the documents.

There is a considerable intelligence file on Rodríguez with details dating back to at least 2018 under Trump's first administration. It lists her "known associates and allegations ranging from drug trafficking to gold smuggling."

A confidential informant told the DEA in 2021 that the now-acting president was using "Caribbean resort of Isla Margarita 'as a front to launder money.'" The records also show that as recently as 2024, she was working with Maduro's accused "bag man" Alex Saab, who was arrested by the U.S. in 2020, also under the Trump administration.

Investigations into Rodríguez have popped up in field offices like Paraguay, Ecuador, Phoenix and New York, the AP reported. However, the documents did not deal the specifics or reasoning behind the probes.

“She was on the rise, so it’s not surprising that she might become a high-priority target with her role,” former federal prosecutor Kurt Lunkenheimer, out of Miami, told the AP. He's handled many cases involving Venezuela. “The issue is when people talk about you and you become a high-priority target, there’s a difference between that and evidence supporting an indictment.”

Trump has referred to Rodríguez as a “terrific person," and said that she's in "close contact" with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials.

Read the full report here.

Trump admin orders federal employees to investigate researchers

The Trump administration is directing employees at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to investigate foreign scientists who collaborate with the agency on research papers for evidence of “subversive or criminal activity.”

The new directive, part of a broader effort to increase scrutiny of research done with foreign partners, asks workers in the agency’s research arm to use Google to check the backgrounds of all foreign nationals collaborating with its scientists. The names of flagged scientists are being sent to national security experts at the agency, according to records reviewed by ProPublica.

At a meeting last month, USDA supervisors pushed back against the instructions, with one calling it “dystopic” and others expressing shock and confusion, according to an audio recording reviewed by ProPublica.

The USDA frequently collaborates with scientists based at universities in the U.S. and abroad. Some agency workers told ProPublica they were uncomfortable with the new requirement because they felt it could put those scientists in the crosshairs of the administration. Students and postdocs are particularly vulnerable as many are in the U.S. on temporary visas and green cards, the employees said.

Jennifer Jones, director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the directive a “throwback to McCarthyism” that could encourage scientists to avoid working with the “best and brightest” researchers from around the world.

“Asking scientists to spy on and report on their fellow co-authors” is a “classic hallmark of authoritarianism,” Jones said. The Union of Concerned Scientists is an organization that advocates for scientific integrity.

Jones, who hadn’t heard of the instructions until contacted by ProPublica, said she had never witnessed policies so extreme during prior administrations or in her former career as an academic scientist.

The new policy applies to pending scientific publications co-authored by employees in the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, which conducts research on crop yields, invasive species, plant genetics and other agricultural issues.

The USDA instructed employees to stop agency researchers from collaborating on or publishing papers with scientists from “countries of concern,” including China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela.

But the agency is also vetting scientists from nations not considered “countries of concern” before deciding whether USDA researchers can publish papers with them. Employees are including the names of foreign co-authors from nations such as Canada and Germany on lists shared with the department’s Office of Homeland Security, according to records reviewed by ProPublica. That office leads the USDA’s security initiatives and includes a division that works with federal intelligence agencies. The records don’t say what the office plans to do with the lists of names.

Asked about the changes, the USDA sent a statement noting that in his first term, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum designed to strengthen protections of U.S.-funded research across the federal government against foreign government interference. “USDA under the Biden Administration spent four years failing to implement this directive,” the statement said. The agency said Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins last year rolled out “long-needed changes within USDA’s research enterprise, including a prohibition on authoring a publication with a foreign national from a country of concern.”

International research has been essential to the Agricultural Research Service’s work, according to a page of the USDA website last updated in 2024: “From learning how to mitigate diseases before they reach the United States, to testing models and crops in diverse growing conditions, to accessing resources not available in the United States, cooperation with international partners provides solutions to current and future agricultural challenges.”

Still, the U.S. government has long been worried about agricultural researchers acting as spies, sometimes with good reason. In 2016, the Chinese scientist Mo Hailong was sentenced to three years in prison for conspiring to steal patented corn seeds. And in 2022, Xiang Haitao, admitted to stealing a trade secret from Monsanto.

National security questions have also been raised about recent increases in foreign ownership of agricultural land. In 2022, Congress allocated money for a center to educate U.S. researchers about how to safeguard their data in international collaborations.

Since Trump took office last year, foreign researchers have faced increased obstacles. In March, a French researcher traveling to a conference was denied entry to the U.S. after a search of his phone at the airport turned up messages critical of Trump. The National Institutes of Health blocked researchers from China, Russia and other “countries of concern” from accessing various biomedical databases last spring. And in August, the Department of Homeland Security proposed shortening the length of time foreign students could remain in the country.

But the latest USDA instructions represent a significant escalation, casting suspicion on all researchers from outside the U.S. and asking agency staff to vet the foreign nationals they collaborate with. It’s unclear if employees at other federal agencies have been given similar directions.

The new USDA policy was announced internally in November and followed a July memo from Rollins that highlighted the national security risks of working with scientists who are not U.S. citizens.

“Foreign competitors benefit from USDA-funded projects, receiving loans that support overseas businesses, and grants that enable foreign competitors to undermine U.S. economic and strategic interests,” Rollins wrote in the memo. “Preventing this is the responsibility of every USDA employee.” The memo called for the department to “place America First” by taking a number of steps, including scrutinizing and making lists of the agency’s arrangements to work with foreign researchers and prohibiting USDA employees from participating in foreign programs to recruit scientists, “malign or otherwise.”

Rollins, a lawyer who studied agricultural development, co-founded the pro-Trump America First Policy Institute before being tapped to head the agency.

There have long been restrictions on collaborating with researchers from certain countries, such as Iran and China. But these new instructions create blanket bans on working with scientists from “countries of concern.”

In a late November email to staff members of the Agricultural Research Service at one area office, a research leader instructed managers to immediately stop all research with scientists who come from — or collaborate with institutions in — “countries of concern.”

The email also instructed employees to reject papers with foreign authors if they deal with “sensitive subjects” such as “diversity” or “climate change.” National security concerns were listed as another cause for rejection, with USDA research service employees instructed to ask if a foreigner could use the research against American farmers.

In the audio recording of the December meeting, some employees expressed alarm about the instructions to investigate their fellow scientists. The “part of figuring out if they are foreign … by Googling is very dystopic,” said one person at the meeting, which involved leadership from the Agricultural Research Service.

Faced with questions about how to ascertain the citizenship of a co-author, another person at the meeting said researchers should do their best with a Google search, then put the name on the list “and let Homeland Security do their behind the scenes search.”

Rollins’ July memo specifies that, within 60 days of receiving a list of “current arrangements” that involve foreign people or entities, the USDA’s Office of Homeland Security along with its offices of Chief Scientist and General Counsel should decide which arrangements to terminate. The USDA laid off 70 employees from “countries of concern” last summer as a result of the policy change laid out in the memo, NPR reported.

The USDA and Department of Homeland Security declined to answer questions about what happens to the foreign researchers flagged by the staff beyond potentially having their research papers rejected.

The documents also suggested new guidance would be issued on Jan. 1, but the USDA employees ProPublica interviewed said that the vetting work was continuing and that they had not received any written updates. The staff spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to talk publicly.

Scientists are often evaluated based on their output of new scientific research. Delaying or denying publication of pending papers could derail a researcher’s career. Over the past 40 years, the number of international collaborations among scientists has increased across the board, according to Caroline Wagner, an emeritus professor of public policy at the Ohio State University. “The more elite the researcher, the more likely they’re working at the international level,” said Wagner, who has spent more than 25 years researching international collaboration in science and technology.

The changes in how the USDA is approaching collaboration with foreign researchers, she said, “will certainly reduce the novelty, the innovative nature of science and decrease these flows of knowledge that have been extremely productive for science over the last years.”

How Trump is 'stress-testing American law'

New York Times columnist David French examined accountability options in the case of Minneapolis resident Renee Nicole Good, who was shot and killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Writing Sunday, French discussed legal barriers to accountability in this case.

French noted that state laws present limited options for prosecution. According to French, there is a doctrine called supremacy clause immunity that prohibits state officials from prosecuting federal officers when they are acting in their official capacity.

"There is a doctrine called supremacy clause immunity that prohibits state officials from prosecuting federal officers when they're reasonably acting in their official capacity. It's not absolute immunity like the administration claims, but it's still a high hurdle for any prosecution to overcome," French wrote.

Civil cases face similar obstacles. While laws allow for suing state and local officers, no equivalent option exists for federal agents.

"And there you have it," French continued, "that's the challenge any citizen faces when he or she tries to hold the federal government responsible for violating the Constitution. The government is defended by a phalanx of immunities and privileges, buttressed by the president's unchecked pardon power — a vestige of royal authority that has been challenged as outdated in constitutional debates."

French characterized this as a test of American law's effectiveness. When multiple checks and balances fail, accountability becomes difficult.

"And so we manufactured doctrine after doctrine, year after year, that insulated the executive branch from legal accountability," wrote French. "This web of immunities — combined with limited congressional oversight — affects legal accountability mechanisms."

French cited Nazi-era legal theorist Ernst Fraenkel's concept of "the dual state."

"The two components of the dual state are the normative state — the seemingly normal world that you and I inhabit, where, as [Aziz Huq, a University of Chicago law professor] writes, the 'ordinary legal system of rules, procedures and precedents' applies — and the prerogative state, which is marked (in Fraenkel's words) by 'unlimited arbitrariness and violence unchecked by any legal guarantees,'" French quoted.

"The key here," Huq said, "is that this prerogative state does not immediately and completely overrun the normative state. Rather, Fraenkel argued, dictatorships create a lawless zone that runs alongside the normative state."

French referenced Federalist No. 51, in which James Madison wrote, "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

French discussed how checks and balances function when officials are accountable to law. He noted the need for legal frameworks that apply equally to all actors.

French observed that structural legal protections have evolved through doctrine and legislation. He discussed the concept of "Reconstruction" as applied to institutional reform and suggested that legal systems require ongoing examination to maintain effectiveness.

Former Trump lawyer claims he felt coerced at fraud trial

President Donald Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, penned a column on Friday that detailed coercion from the New York Attorney General's Office.

Writing on his Substack, Cohen said that he has witnessed firsthand being "leaned on."

"I experienced a similar dynamic in the Attorney General’s civil case. Letitia James made it publicly known during her 2018 campaign for attorney general that, if elected, she would go after President Trump. Her office made clear that the testimony they wanted from me was testimony that would help them do just that. Again, I felt compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking," said Cohen.

He added that James and New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg share the same playbook to pressure and coerce witnesses. He was also pushed into providing "information and testimony that would satisfy the government’s desire to build the cases against and secure a judgment and convictions against President Trump."

"Both used their platforms to elevate their profiles, to claim the mantle of the officials who 'took down Trump,'" Cohen continued. "In doing so, they blurred the line between justice and politics; and in that blur, the credibility of both suffered."

He commented that he's speaking out about it now because he's seen that prosecutors pick a target first and then search for the evidence to justify that opinion.

"I have lived inside that process. I have suffered from that process. My family has suffered from that process. And as courts now reconsider where the Bragg and James cases belong, how they were brought and how they were tried; that experience is relevant. More today than ever before," he added.

In November, Cohen noted, the three-judge panel at the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to begin another discussion about Trump's effort to erase the hush-money convictions. If U.S. District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein agrees to revisit the ruling to keep the case in state court. Trump wants the case in federal court because he thinks he could argue he has presidential immunity.

Cohen closed by saying that the most important thing to gather from Hellerstein's decision is that "Justice must be more than effective; it must be credible. When politics and prosecution become indistinguishable, public trust erodes; not just in individual cases, like mine and Trump’s, but in the system itself. That erosion serves no one, regardless of party, personality, or power."

Read the full column here.

FBI is using its files to conduct 'oppo research' on Jack Smith and other Trump critics

President Donald Trump is deploying old-school tactics against some of his enemies: using FBI files to target them.

The New York Times reported Sunday morning that FBI Director Kash Patel is helping Trump target his foes using the information it has collected.

Now, the report said, "the bureau has added payback to its portfolio."

While Trump spent years alleging the “weaponization” of law enforcement against political foes, the new administration is “using federal law enforcement to carry out a partisan opposition research operation.”

The report said that Patel has been poring over files, trying to uncover documents that can “expose and discredit federal law enforcement officials who investigated Mr. Trump and his allies.”

The Times noted that it is currently unknown how “wide-ranging” Patel’s coordination with political appointees and Republican allies has been. The official overseeing the operation was Patel’s deputy, Dan Bongino, who recently left the FBI after a tumultuous year in the post. Internally, they referred to Bongino’s unit as the “director’s advisory team.”

Most of the focus has been on the investigation into the 2020 efforts to overturn the election and stage an attack on the U.S. Capitol. Former special counsel Jack Smith spoke to the House late last year about the findings of the probe and said he had "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that what Trump did was unlawful.

During Trump’s last administration, the IRS was used to go after former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe.

While President Joe Biden’s administration refused to turn over documents tied to the ongoing investigation, Patel is now claiming that Smith broke the law. Speaking to the House, Smith said that all of the information he gathered was approved by a federal judge, which will make it difficult to argue that he went rogue or violated the law with his probes.

J. Edgar Hoover ran his own operations while overseeing the FBI. Recently released information detailed the way in which the FBI was surveilling civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. As the Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences detailed, the counterintelligence campaign against MLK involved "illegal wiretaps on his phone and bugging hotel rooms when he traveled."

The FBI also spread misinformation about King being an "immoral communist."

The Times reported that the FBI now claims it is the “most transparent in history,” even as it refuses to release the legally required files on the investigation into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The bureau has strategically released batches of anti-Smith material right before he testified behind closed doors.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who once cast himself as a champion of whistleblowers, is now helping funnel FBI leaks through his office. An unnamed FBI whistleblower, for example, alleged that one member of Jack Smith’s team was not “impartial.”

That agent, who no longer works at the FBI, is Walter Giardina, whom Trump has personally attacked for supposedly having “animosity” toward him. “Mr. Giardina vehemently denied those allegations in a meeting with bureau officials last July, two days after the funeral of his wife, who died of adrenal cancer at 49,” the report continued.

Lawyers representing FBI agents who have been fired under the Trump administration’s weaponization effort are calling out the double standard of using the government to attack someone for their politics while accusing others of doing the same. Those making the accusations are granted anonymity, allowing them to hide behind their own partisan protectors.

Read the full report here.

More resignations expected in Minnesota US Attorney’s office

Thus far, six Justice Department prosecutors resigned in the wake of the decision to go after the family of slain Minneapolis mom, Renee Nicole Good. Now it appears more might be forthcoming.

Of the six prosecutors who quit, three were with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota. The office has been overwhelmed with cases while ICE continues to arrest Americans and take undocumented immigrants into custody.

Mother Jones reported that Minnesota knows more prosecutors will flee.

“I have heard there may be more people leaving, people I would consider senior and respected career prosecutors,” said former acting U.S. attorney Anders Folk.

In an email obtained by the Sahan Journal from Minnesota Federal Defender Katherian Roe, “more resignations are anticipated” at the US Attorney’s Office. “It’s a sign that something is not right,” there. Folk still speaks with old colleagues of the office and is now running for office to become Hennepin County Attorney.

In the mass resignations seen this week, the prosecutors were told to investigate Good's wife for her role in the shooting and many refused.

There were also five resignations this week by those working in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in D.C. The Washington Post reported it was part of a unit that investigated police killings.

In the Minnesota office, there were fewer than 30 prosecutors left, which is less than half of what staffing should be.

Read the full report here.

The next move against Trump's mayhem

Tomorrow we honor the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr.

Trump has removed MLK Jr.’s birthday from the National Park Service’s fee-free days and substituted his own birthday of June 14 as a fee-free day.

I write this more in sorrow than in anger.

All told, I feel profound sorrow for America. Sorrow for the people of Minneapolis who are enduring this Trump-made hell. Sorrow for Renee Good’s three children and wife.

I also feel sorrow for Greenlanders and Venezuelans and others around the world fearing what the sociopath in the Oval Office may do next. Sorrow for everyone justifiably worried about the future of America and the planet because of him.

I’m old enough to remember when Martin Luther King Jr.’s mission seemed impossible. Just as the mission you and I must now engage in — defeating Trumpism and creating a new and better America out of the rubble and chaos he is wreaking — may seem impossible at this moment.

Martin Luther King Jr. accomplished more than anyone thought he could when he began. He did it with patience and perseverance, with the strength of conviction. He did it with calmness, reason, and quiet passion.

And he did it with civil disobedience — what one of his assistants, the late great congressman John Lewis, called “good trouble.”

Good trouble meant mobilizing the nation against racial injustice by making sure almost everyone saw its horrors. Night after night on the news — watching peaceful civil rights marchers getting clobbered by white supremacists.

I remember watching Bull Connor, commissioner of public safety in Birmingham, and his goons use firehoses and attack dogs against Black people — including children — who were peacefully standing up for their rights.

The scenes horrified America and much of the world. Yet were it not for our painful national exposure to racist brutality, we wouldn’t have gotten the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act.

I’ve been thinking of those scenes as I’ve watched ICE thugs patrolling Minneapolis. Watched armed agents pulling people out of cars, using chokeholds, demanding proof of citizenship. Masked agents in unmarked vehicles grabbing neighbors off the streets, using tear gas and pepper spray, shooting innocent people exercising their First Amendment rights to protest.

This time it isn’t Bull Connor and his racist goons. It’s Donald Trump, JD Vance, Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller, and their fascist goons. It’s armed agents of the president of the United States who are bullying and brutalizing people. Committing a cold-blooded murder of a middle-class white woman in broad daylight who tried to get out of their way. Shooting and injuring others.

This time it’s Trump and the thugs around him making up stories to justify this brutality, lying about the protester’s motives, and threatening even more brutality.

Take a wider look and you see their lawless bullying on a different scale: a criminal investigation of the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board for failing to lower interest rates as fast as Trump wants. Criminal investigations of U.S. senators and representatives for telling America’s soldiers that they don’t have to follow illegal orders. Criminal investigations of the governor of Minnesota and mayor of Minneapolis for refusing to cooperate with Trump’s brown shirts.

The Justice Department searching the home of a Washington Post reporter and seizing her laptops and other devices.

Trump raising tariffs on our trusted allies — until and unless they support him in taking over Greenland. Greenland!

A crazy old man saying “f--- you, f--- you” and giving the finger to an American factory worker who criticizes him in public. The crazy old man is president of the United States, and the worker has lost his job because he dared criticize that crazy old man.

I remember the good trouble that occurred 65 years ago. I believe it’s time for it again. Time for all of us — every one of us — to cause it.

What kind of good trouble?

A huge national demonstration, far larger than anything before. Everyone in the streets.

A giant general strike where we stop purchasing all products for two weeks (stocking up beforehand).

A massive boycott of all businesses sucking up to Trump.

A coordinated effort to get all our employers, our churches and synagogues, our unions, our universities to condemn this madness.

A loud demand that our members of Congress impeach and convict him of his high crimes.

There is no longer any neutral place to stand. Either you’re standing up for democracy, the rule of law, and social justice, or you’re complicit in the fascist mayhem Trump has unleashed.

That, for me, is the lesson of all this.

Trump and his thugs have brought us to this point. They are the Bull Connors of today.

We stand with the people of Minneapolis and with the people of every other town and city where Trump’s thugs are prowling or will prowl, and where people are resisting.

We stand with the citizens of Greenland and Venezuela. With Canadians and Europeans. With every nation now threatened by Trump’s lawless abuses of power.

We stand proudly and sturdily everywhere the bright lights of freedom and truth still shine.

We will overcome the darkness of Trump’s fascism. We reject the hate, the bigotry, the fear, and the murderous lawlessness of his regime. We dedicate ourselves to causing good trouble -- ending this mayhem, and building a new and better America.

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

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