News & Politics

Democrats have been speculating about and prepping for the numerous ways in which President Donald Trump could meddle with forthcoming midterms, but according to a new piece from The New York Times, there is one person he could fire that would completely upend the results — and it is completely legal.

Writing on Monday for the Times, veteran reporter Jeffrey Toobin stressed that Trump's "obsession" with preventing a GOP wipeout in the midterms remains a very live threat, even as his efforts to spread claims about election fraud have fallen flat so far. Toobin spoke with Rep. Joe Morelle, a New York Democrat, about his efforts to game out various scenarios, including ways that the president could try to block the certification of certain results after the elections, an idea that has gotten less attention recently as Trump has focused on efforts to control who is allowed to vote.

"The process for installing a new House of Representatives begins when the states certify the results in each of the 435 races. The rules vary by state, but most require election officials to certify by late November or early December," Toobin explained. "In recent years, Trump-aligned local officials have frequently used false claims of fraud or noncitizens voting as justification to decline to certify election results. Since 2020, more than 30 local officials in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina and Pennsylvania have refused to certify election results, many in hopes of forestalling Democratic victories."

Morelle said that the plan for this possibility is to take Trump to court over it, something the "Democrats have had success" with recently, using courts to force local officials to certify results.

Still, there is another person that Trump could potentially target as a way to halt the process of swearing in a new Democratic-majority: the House of Representatives Clerk, who has "the job of assembling the 'roll' of new members to be sworn in on Jan. 3, 2027." The current clerk, Kevin McCumber, is widely considered to be a "nonpartisan" figure, and would be unlikely to go along with demands from Trump to interfere with the swearing-in process.

"One disaster scenario, according to Mr. Morelle, would be this: After results show the Democrats winning a majority in the House, the president declares that the election is full of fraud and the winners don’t need to be certified," Toobin explained. "Mr. Trump could then demand that Speaker Mike Johnson fire Mr. McCumber, which Mr. Johnson has the legal right to do. Under the procedures of the House, the speaker can install a more compliant successor — that is, a G.O.P. toady. In this scenario, Speaker Johnson’s designee, at Mr. Trump’s instigation, would produce a roll of new House members that included Republicans in races that Democrats believed they had won."

He added: "While the speaker does have the unilateral power to remove the clerk, his choice for a permanent replacement would have to be approved by a vote of House members. Mr. Morelle said that in that case, Speaker Johnson might not be able to persuade his slim Republican majority to replace Mr. McCumber."

“You’d have a number of members who are retiring, who I think would no longer be beholden to Johnson or the president, who I think would take a very, very dim view of efforts to overturn the election," Morelle said.

President Donald Trump remains trapped in a stalemate over the war in Iran, and as one prominent conservative commentator noted recently, he has been left "genuinely shocked" in the face of an enemy he cannot simply pay off.

Charlie Sykes is a notable anti-Trump conservative, best known for helping co-found The Bulwark, for which he also previously served as editor-at-large. In the latest edition of the "Fast Politics" podcast, Sykes spoke with host and fellow commentator Molly Jong-Fast about the deteriorating state of Trump's war, and why his fundamental flaws make him uniquely ill-suited to ending it peacefully.

Iniitially, Sykes noted the absurdity of how often Trump and his Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have declared that the operation in Iran has been a sweeping success, with Iran left in shambles and the U.S. good to leave soon. Despite all of those claims, however, Trump still finds himself in a "widening, escalating war that he can't figure out." He also suggested that, at this point in the conflict, there is little apparent reason why the Iranians should be in any hurry to make a deal with Trump.

Jong-Fast noted further that, when Trump was eager to push his prior "memorandum of understanding" through, fearing an impact on the midterms, he seemed willing to offer "big payoffs," but now, Iran does not seem interested in anything like that. Sykes said that this was "an interesting point," and explained how it exposed the fatal flaws in Trump's worldview.

"This is actually an interesting point, because in Donald Trump's world, he just assumes that... everybody is transactional," Sykes explained. "And he appears to be genuinely shocked to find out that the Mullahs [in Iran] may have a different set of incentives."

He continued: "And also, he seems genuinely shocked that — having on day one assassinated the supreme leader of Iran, his wife, the family of all of them, their dogs, who knows? — Genuinely surprised... 'I'm going to give them a lot of money, right? Shouldn't they be our friends?"

Sykes also noted that Iran, as well as Saudi Arabia, has learned a key point about the way Trump approaches dealmaking, which is that the nature of any given deal with him "is only what he thinks it is on any given day."

"So that you can sit down, negotiate a deal, sign and seal the deal," he continued. "Donald Trump wakes up, sees somebody on Twitter, and changes the deal. Canada has discovered that. Europe has discovered that. Ukraine has discovered that. And so the Iranians are going, can we even trust this guy to stick to any deal that we give him, especially since he killed our supreme leader?"

Calling him out for an unprecedented level of "shameless corruption and sheer moral repugnance" as he attempts to cash in on his father's office, a new breakdown from MS NOW argued that Donald Trump Jr. just might be the "worst presidential relative ever."

In a piece published Sunday morning, author and commentator Paul Waldman noted that "problematic presidential family members are an American tradition as old as the republic," noting examples like Theodore Roosevelt's hot-headed daughter, Alice, and Jimmy Carter's "colorful buffoon" brother, Billy. Under the second administration of President Donald Trump, however, he argued that his oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., has become the "new standard by which all future misbehavior among presidential offspring should be judged."

While admitting that the younger Trump has not actually committed any crimes, Waldman argued that in an age when anti-corruption rules are so lax, "all that stops Don Jr. from enriching himself at public expense is shame or a sense of morality — and he is clearly possessed of neither." He also, seemingly, has been spurred on by his father's own relentless pursuit of self-enrichment.

"When it comes to grasping for taxpayer money, shameless corruption and sheer moral repugnance, none who came before can hold a candle to Donald Trump Jr.," Waldman wrote. "He has cemented his position as perhaps the most distasteful and ethically compromised presidential relative in American history — and his father isn’t even halfway through his second term."

He continued later: "Don Jr. wasn’t just going to sit by and watch Dad have all the fun. So he has undertaken his own frenzy of dealmaking, all of it seemingly based on the fact that he’s the president’s son. Some of the enterprises are joint ventures with the whole family. There’s World Liberty Financial, a crypto company that has been the vehicle for some of the biggest players looking to give payoffs to the Trumps and get something in return. As an investigative report revealed, the United Arab Emirates’ national security adviser secretly invested half a billion dollars in the company. Not long after, the Trump administration lifted export controls on computer chips the UAE desperately wants to create its own artificial intelligence infrastructure (Commerce Department staff objected to the change, but the White House cites the UAE’s position as a U.S. ally.)"

Donald Trump Jr., alongside his younger brother, Eric Trump, have also found ways to consistently cash in on the U.S. government's increased defense spending. As Waldman described the dynamic, the siblings have made investments in smaller defense companies, "then watch as huge government contracts magically materialize." Another company they are extensively invested in, Kaz Resources, received $1.6 billion in investments from the federal government, and saw the president himself intervene to make sure the company received special access to tungsten mines in Kazakhstan as part of a new deal with the country.

"Don Jr. has always had the air of a man desperate to please his indifferent father," Waldman concluded. "This spring, the president couldn’t even be bothered to attend his son’s wedding. But if he keeps this up, he’ll be able to say, 'See Dad, I’m just as greedy and corrupt as you!' It’s an achievement no presidential relative can match."

President Donald Trump is going to be the main issue in the 2026 midterms, but experts disagree as to whether the impending electoral disaster will be experienced by the Republicans or the Democrats. Now an election expert is shedding light on the situation.

“It’s a competitive situation in both the Senate and the House,” DDHQ’s chief elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley told The Hill's Julia Mueller on Sunday. He later added that “the big question is: will the Iranian conflict … will people being concerned about that ratcheting up, is that going to create reverberations in things like the generic ballot that signal ‘OK, Democrats’ advantage is growing again’?”

Skelley also pointed out that Democrats’ lead increases when there is bad news about Iran and gas prices go up, but shrinks when the conflict subsides and gas prices drop.

“The challenge for Republicans is the Iranian conflict is heating up again,” Skelley argued.

Mueller reported, “Democrats are favored to win the House but are slight underdogs in the fight for the Senate with 100 days to go before the midterms, according to the latest forecast from Decision Desk HQ (DDHQ).”

She added, “Both parties are dealing with headwinds as they head into the home stretch of the high-stakes election.” While Republicans are worried about the Iran war, oil prices and lingering high inflation, Democrats have their own internal issues with which to grapple.

“Wins by democratic socialist and antiestablishment candidates in House primaries across the country have sparked concerns from centrists that their party will be characterized as too extreme,” Mueller reported. “It’s a line of attack being emphasized by President Trump and GOP leaders in Washington working to convince voters not to hand power to the Democratic Party.”

She continued, “The result is a situation 100 days out that gives both parties reasons to be hopeful and worried.”

The polls are similarly concerning for the Democrats.

“At this point in the 2018 cycle, when Democrats won big in the so-called blue wave, the generic ballot showed Democrats up by an average of 7 points or 8 points, DDHQ said, which is double the current edge,” Mueller wrote.

She added, “With just more than three months until Election Day, the tight forecasts make races like the Michigan Senate fight must-wins for both parties, adding urgency to the handful of toss-up contests that could decide control on Capitol Hill.”

The New York Times similarly reported on Democrats’ perceived incompetence on Sunday.

“At the center is Ken Martin, the 53-year-old party chairman, who has found himself increasingly isolated, gripped by the fear that he will lose his job and relying on a vanishingly small circle of people he trusts, according to interviews with more than two dozen Democrats, including current and former D.N.C. officials and members,” wrote The New York Times’ Shane Goldmacher and Reid J. Epstein on Sunday. “Most of them spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the party’s troubled state of affairs.”

Goldmacher and Epstein continued, “Mr. Martin’s fraying nerves are showing. In a pique of frustration in early July, he threw his phone at the desk of a junior aide while upbraiding the person. The phone-tossing incident resulted in a formal complaint to the D.N.C.’s human resources department.”

Some of President Donald Trump’s most prominent right-wing supporters are denouncing director Christopher Nolan’s adaptation of “The Odyssey” because of its diverse casting. Yet one conservative commentator says they could actually learn an important “small-c conservative” lesson about Trump’s billions in grifting from watching it.

“A president enriches himself at a scale never seen before in the United States. An Epstein class of abusive libertines always seems to evade accountability for its crimes,” conservative columnist David French wrote for The New York Times on Sunday. “Government officials break the law with impunity, banking on presidential pardons to excuse their crimes — all while truth is buried under an avalanche of lies, lies that are shared with gusto by cadres of grifters and fools.”

He added, “Without saying one word about modern politics, Christopher Nolan has rebuked the spirit of the age. His retelling of ‘The Odyssey’ is an admonition: Moral transgressions always carry a consequence.”

French went on to describe how Odysseus, as depicted by Nolan, is haunted morally and practically by his decision to violate Zeus’ law. In ancient Greece, individuals were expected to show hospitality when faced with guests and to be hospitable if they are guests. By invading Troy by hiding in a supposedly gifted wooden horse, Odysseus and his men violated this rule by being the least hospitable type of guest — that is, one who murders, steals and destroys everything he can.

“In the movie’s powerful third act (spoiler alert, for those who care about spoiling a modern take on an almost 3,000-year-old epic poem), Odysseus connects all the dots,” French wrote. “The Trojan War wasn’t a great victory conducted in service of a righteous cause. It was a war fought for greed and power under the pretext of fighting to bring Helen of Troy home.”

He continued, “And the Trojan Horse? Odysseus’s strategic masterstroke? In Nolan’s depiction, it is essentially a war crime — an act of subterfuge that takes advantage of ancient customs to unleash the horrifying sack of the city after Troy’s army is defeated. Odysseus is determined to get home, but he is also wracked with guilt.”

Because Odysseus committed these horrible acts, French explained, Nolan concludes his version of the Homeric poem by not having Odysseus “come home to Ithaca to sit on his throne, but to confess, to rescue his wife from the clutches of evil men and to choose exile.” From there he pointed out that “The Odyssey” actually has a fundamentally conservative message, despite right-wingers like X CEO Elon Musk and The Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh complaining about its diverse casting.

“It’s a reminder of how stupid and petty much of the right has become that anyone would think this movie was ‘woke,’” French wrote. “Yes, a Black actor — Lupita Nyong’o — plays Helen of Troy, and a trans actor — Elliot Page — plays Sinon, the Greek warrior who unwittingly tricks the Trojans into accepting the Trojan Horse as a gift. But to label a movie woke simply because of the identity of the actors is to indulge in a caricatured version of the same identity politics that the right claims to loathe.”

French instead argued that “in reality, Nolan’s ‘Odyssey’ is one of the most small-c conservative movies I’ve ever seen. I can easily imagine a natural law theorist watching the movie, nodding his head and saying, ‘Yes, there are universal moral laws, and this is exactly what happens when prideful men believe they know more than God.’”

This means that “The Odyssey” issues a warning for Trump and his cohorts, who are blatantly profiting from Trump’s presidency.

“Defy the gods? Deny the dignity of your neighbor?” French wrote. “You certainly can, if you so choose. And you may prosper for a time. But the narrative arc of the movie tells us our destiny if that’s the path we choose. It turns out that there are rules for rule breakers, just as there are for everyone else, and those rules have persisted throughout human history.”

He concluded, “Here’s one, arguably the central truth of the film: Heedless people, you will pay for what you destroy.”

In addition to the conservative French, the liberal commentator Thom Hartmann similarly opined that “The Odyssey” has valuable lessons for people who are open to it, especially on the Trump right.

“When you go to see Christopher Nolan’s new epic film ‘The Odyssey’ (as Louise and I did on Saturday), you’ll be bathed in the revelation that Trump and his military lickspittles are breaking the most ancient law that created what we today call Western civilization,” Hartmann wrote. “The movie even explains Iran’s rageful response to Trump’s violations of ‘Zeus’ Law’ and tells us of the possible consequences of his illegal and morally criminal attack on that country (which had not attacked us first) as his war of choice plays out.”

As both French and Hartmann noted in their editorials, conservatives have had a meltdown over “The Odyssey,” complaining that it is “woke” because of Nolan’s casting choices. Nolan himself dismissed the criticisms as “irrelevant.”

As the Daily Beast reported earlier this month, “His comments come after MAGA commentators — including X owner Elon Musk — trashed the film for months over Nolan’s choice to cast Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy and trans actor Elliot Page as the Greek warrior Sinon.”

“Musk, Newsmax host Robert Finnerty, and more have slammed the film, which isn’t out until July 17, as a ‘rewriting of history’ and Nolan as ‘racist’ for casting a Black actress in a fictional Greek character’s role,” The Daily Beast continued.

President Donald Trump will probably never hear the tough truth about his latest "bombed" speech, because according to his one-time biographer, his team has consistently done everything they can to protect his ego from reality.

Michael Wolff is a longtime author and reporter best known for his extensive coverage of Trump's political career, including several books about his tumultuous first term in the White House. In the latest episode of his Daily Beast podcast, "Inside Trump's Head," Wolff discussed Trump's speech at Friday evening's White House Correspondents' Dinner (WHCD) and claimed that his staff will almost certainly have told him "you were fantastic," despite how poorly the address went. In turn, Trump will almost certainly believe that he did great.

"I can tell you that he came off that stage, everybody said that 'you were fantastic,' and that's exactly what he will believe," Wolff told co-host Joanna Coles, after she suggested that Trump was aware that his speech had been a flop. "Donald Trump, I feel safe to say, has never once in his life even entertained the possibility that he has bombed."

Wolff further argued that Trump appeared "desperate" throughout the address as he continually flubbed jokes, but nonetheless, the former biographer suggested that he felt some level of "fondness" towards the president for his approach to the WHCD crowd.

“Sometimes I get something like almost a little flash of fondness, could it be for Donald Trump? I mean, I hate this White House Correspondents’ crowd,” Wolff told Coles. “I hate them for their self-satisfaction, for their shared references, for their shared jokes, for their profound lack of originality at any level. So the idea that Donald Trump would go in there and say, you know, ‘I basically I don’t give a s——t about you.’"

He added: “And the interesting thing is that so many other politicians and presidents certainly have tried to adapt to what the White House press corps wants, what the press wants. And Donald Trump, even in his symbiotic relationship with the press, has just never done that.”

Coles responded that Trump, despite his attacks on press freedom, "loves the press," largely because "He couldn’t exist without the press." Even with that being true, Wolff asserted that Trump "has never done what they want him to do."

"He has never become what they want him to be, which every other politician has,” Wolff explained. “I feel this is a somewhat awkward position to suddenly be defending Donald Trump... but, you know, he doesn’t grovel.”

Coles added: “He was flailing. We’ve said he feels desperate. You know, the White House is leaking. He’s stuck in a war he can’t do anything about. And he read like an old Catskill comedian who was on his last desperate material.”

President Donald Trump is so weak that political experts anticipate potentially Democrats flipping the House of Representatives, Senate or both — and yet an anti-Trump Republican strategist warns they may be undone by incompetence at the top of their organization.

“The Democratic National Committee is failing every person reading these words,” Steve Schmidt, who advised President George W. Bush, wrote for his Substack on Sunday. “You should be very angry about it because that failure is neither providential nor pre-ordained. It’s a choice — like Trump — and it’s killing the United States of America.”

Schmidt reviewed the party’s financial travails, writing that “the MAGA Republicans have more than $128.5 million cash on hand compared to the Democratic National Committee, which is more than $2 million in debt. It’s also on track to spend exponentially more money on politics in Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianas, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa than across Mississippi and Louisiana, both of which have great US Senate candidates.”

He added, “It’s unacceptable. The DNC is terribly led by Chairman Ken Martin. A sign of the political ineptitude of both [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer and [House Minority Leader] Hakeem Jeffries is their inability to deal with what must be dealt with.”

He went on to quote The New York Times story that shed light on these travails. The report found that when it came to Democrats’ troubles “at the center is Ken Martin, the 53-year-old party chairman, who has found himself increasingly isolated, gripped by the fear that he will lose his job and relying on a vanishingly small circle of people he trusts, according to interviews with more than two dozen Democrats, including current and former D.N.C. officials and members. Most of them spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the party’s troubled state of affairs.”

The Times added, “Mr. Martin’s fraying nerves are showing. In a pique of frustration in early July, he threw his phone at the desk of a junior aide while upbraiding the person. The phone-tossing incident resulted in a formal complaint to the D.N.C.’s human resources department.”

Schmidt condemned Martin’s reported behavior, writing that “personally, I’m sick of the tolerance for losing and the Democratic Party mediocrities, careerists and hustlers who can’t, won’t, and will never stop losing because deep down they’re simply doing what they’re good at: losing.”

He continued, “The problem is that we’re losing the country because it isn’t being properly defended by the institution that’s built to stand up to MAGA and be for something better. It’s one of the foremost tragedies of this whole era. It’s deeply true and very real.”

AlterNet previously reported on criticisms of Martin’s performance. In June anonymous high-ranking DNC sources told AlterNet that Martin has failed to prepare for Trump’s attacks on mail-in voting, mishandled releasing an autopsy of its failed 2024 presidential campaign and refused to adequately address threats to voting security on electronic machines, even though it admitted that "any assessment of the state of technology in the Democratic party would be incomplete without an acknowledgement that comprehensive data warehouses like Phoenix represent an irresistible target for hackers and other bad actors seeking to undermine the integrity of the modern political process."

President Donald Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, accidentally blew up one of his favorite talking points — namely, that he can defy the Constitution by running for a third term.

“I view this job as public service,” Leavitt told Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law, in a Fox News interview that aired on Friday. She added, “And I realize it’s temporary. President Trump is only here in D.C. for four years.”

While Leavitt is correct in stating that Trump can legally only serve as president until Jan. 20, 2029, Trump himself has repeatedly claimed he can run for a third term, most recently during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Friday. He has also worn a Trump 2028 hat and argued that he deserves a third term because he lost the 2020 presidential election.

“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” reads the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, “and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

This is not the first occasion when Leavitt has put her foot in her mouth. Earlier this month, her criticisms of Senate Majority Leader John Thune were so harsh that the South Dakotan lashed out, "Well, maybe she or somebody else ought to get on the phone and get the votes. Right?" Also in July, Leavitt was criticized for being out of touch when she described young Americans by saying, “My generation — I hate to say it, Gen Z and those younger than me —have been raised with just silver spoons in their mouths, just getting everything handed to them.”

Leavitt has also mangled a metaphor on at least one occasion, commenting in July that Trump’s rhetoric "will shock you if you have an honest eye listening to the president.” A former Trump adviser for his Department of Homeland Security, Miles Taylor, joked by saying that “yes, and if your ears watch closely, you'll be doubly stunned.”

This journalist also has a direct interaction with Leavitt’s penchant for gaffes. Speaking to me for Salon shortly after the second assassination attempt against Trump in 2024, Leavitt complained about a historian who compared Trump’s ongoing vilification of his opponents to the rhetoric of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

“It's been less [than] 72 hours since the second assassination attempt on President Trump's life and the media is already back to comparing President Trump to Hitler,” Leavitt told this reporter. “It's disgusting. This is why Americans have zero trust in the liberal mainstream media."

Republicans are once again in panic mode over the 2026 midterms, according to The Washington Post, as "scary" new data about their voters' enthusiasm gap shows that they might not care anymore.

According to the Post's new report from Sunday morning, GOP pollsters and strategists "are raising the alarm" about the party's voters, warning that they are feeling "listless and demotivated" at a time when the party needs them to be energized for the midterms. This comes at a time when the GOP already had ample reason to worry about getting wiped out by Democrats.

"A raft of discouraging data from polling, door knocking and focus groups is unsettling Republicans as their party heads into a midterm election season that would be challenging no matter what, given President Donald Trump’s low standing in polls and the fact that the party in control in Washington almost always loses seats," the Post explained. "The lack of enthusiasm is reaching deep into Republicans’ loyal base, spreading to the party’s most consistent voters — who have shown up to vote in all of the past four primaries and general elections, according to an analysis done by Americans for Prosperity Action, a conservative super PAC that was founded by billionaire Charles Koch. This new issue with the base adds to the party’s more enduring problem of turning out less-frequent voters who support Trump but often skip midterm elections."

The report continued: "About 1 in 5 reliable Republican base voters are at risk this November, according to Nathan Nascimento, executive director at AFP Action. Those voters in Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, Montana, New Hampshire and Michigan are either saying they may stay home or are weighing voting for Democrats, according to their data, which is based on polling and extensive efforts to engage targeted Republican voters by knocking on their doors. The voters are primarily worried about inflation and the economy."

“This is a big chunk,” Nascimento said. “This is a scary number.”

Nascimento further noted that this issue appears to be separate from another problem the party has faced over the last decade: the significant chunk of "low-propensity" voters who only show up to vote Republican during presidential elections when Trump is on the ballot. The president's pull on these voters as a candidate has been described as "mythical" by some observers, but has created a major problem for the GOP during off-years and midterms, as well as a grave problem going forward, now that he is term-limited.

“We have a high-propensity base problem,” Nascimento added.

The Post's report also quoted Lance Sulentic, a 56-year-old three-time Trump voter from Iowa who called their past support of the president "the worst three mistakes I’ve ever made in my life," lamenting his failure to keep his 2024 campaign promises and the new pain he is feeling at the pump.

“We voted for Trump, and he did the opposite of what he said he was going to do,” Sulentic said. “Gas prices were going to be two dollars, food was going to be cheaper, energy prices was going to be in half, we were going to get two rebate checks to the American people, and we weren’t going to have any new wars, and we were going to build a wall and deport 30 million illegal aliens, and he did none of it.”

President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing the details of a "massive" new attack on Iran, but as two legal scholars warned for The Hill, his typical approach of threatening "apocalypse now, or in a few hours" is doomed to backfire once again.

The Trump administration's much-hyped "memorandum of understanding" peace deal with Iran has imploded in recent weeks, putting the countries on another collision course for war. Amid reports that he is considering the options available to him and plotting an immense new round of airstrikes against Iran, Trump has also gone back to his previous tactic of threatening to target key civilian infrastructure, like bridges and power stations. Critics are also, once again, warning that such attacks would constitute war crimes.

David Wippman is the emeritus president of Hamilton College, and Glenn C. Altschuler is the Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. Together, the pair of legal scholars published a new piece on Sunday for The Hill, in which they warned that this approach was doomed to backfire on Trump, even while admitting the escalation from military to civilian targets "is not unusual" in modern conflicts. While international law forbids the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure, certain targets, such as train lines or airports, can be "dual use," meaning they could also serve military needs. In that case, an army would need to show the "definite military advantage" of their strike to avoid repercussions.

In the case of Trump and his war with Iran, the pair noted that, while this plan might not be out of the ordinary, the targeting of civilian infrastructure by itself will not be an effective strategy, citing experts who have argued that "bombing alone rarely compels capitulation."

"Instead, attacks that inflict widespread civilian suffering often strengthen national resolve, as Britain’s response to the Blitz, North Vietnam’s endurance during Operation Rolling Thunder, and Ukraine’s response to Russia’s attacks on its electrical grid all illustrate," they detailed. "During the 1991 Gulf War, coalition forces attacked Iraq’s electrical grid, bridges and transportation networks, oil facilities and defense industries. Although most of these installations supported Iraq’s military, their destruction also crippled food systems, hospitals, water treatment facilities, sewage plants and economic life, at enormous long-term cost to civilians. But it took a ground invasion to force Iraq out of Kuwait."

They concluded: "U.S. policymakers would do well to ask whether upping the ante with bombs is likely to end this conflict, or deepen it by dragging in other countries in the Middle East and dragging down the global economy. And even though Iran’s government, which is no stranger to war crimes, may not care if its own civilians suffer, we should."

President Donald Trump’s management of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been full of controversy, from his massive layoffs to his promise to right-wing podcaster Joe Rogan to legalize certain psychedelics. Yet according to a recent report, one particular scandal — a cyclospora in lettuce outbreak that has led to at least 11,000 cases of explosive diarrhea — speaks to much deeper problems with how the agency is run.

“The FDA believes that the biggest outbreak this season, the one affecting nine states so far, came to us aboard contaminated iceberg lettuce from Mexico,” reported CBS News' David Pogue on Sunday. “That lettuce was shipped nationwide by Taylor Farms, a huge distributor that supplies thousands of groceries and restaurants.”

Susan Mayne, an adjunct professor at the Yale School of Public Health who ran the FDA’s food-safety department from 2015 to 2023, said, "We've never seen anything like this. This is just an astonishingly large outbreak, record-setting outbreak."

She added, "It could be inadequate bathroom facilities, inadequate hand-washing facilities. Somehow that water is getting contaminated from some other source – sewage, some other source."

CBS News went on to report that Trump has cut roughly 20 percent of the staff from the FDA and roughly 25 percent of the staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Specifically, the CDC now has only three scientists tracking food parasites, whereas they used to have 11 scientists doing that.

"We had a national advisory committee, a committee that advised FDA and USDA on how to prevent microbial contamination in food," Mayne said. "That advisory committee was disbanded. We used to convene meetings with our Mexican counterparts on how we can work together to improve food safety. That entire team was let go."

CBS News further reported, “And then there's FoodNet, a joint venture of the FDA, the CDC, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture that provided an early-warning surveillance program that used to track eight particularly nasty microbes. But now, it tracks only two – and cyclospora is not one of them.”

As a result, if cyclospora strikes America in 2027, the FDA will still be unable to trace it without intervention from either the executive branch or Congress.

"We've had no cuts in our surveillance program," Health and Human Services Director Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement responding to people. "We did cuts in the FoodNet program, but they were for redundant surveillance."

Mayne countered that by telling CBS News that, "No, it's not accurate. I mean, clearly there have been cuts."

The typically conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board ripped into President Donald Trump in a new piece, lambasting him for an "obsession" he cannot quit despite the major "harm" it is causing mere months from the midterms.

Owned by conservative mogul Rupert Murdoch, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board is often viewed as a leading voice reflecting the stances and temperaments of the modern conservative movement. In a piece published Friday evening, the board published a new piece questioning the wisdom of Trump's decision to reinstitute several tariffs, despite the import tax policies being widely viewed as one of his least popular with voters.

"Tariffs are an obsession for President Trump, much as climate was for the Biden Administration," the board observed.
"How else to explain his imposition of yet another round of border taxes three months before the November election despite their political unpopularity and economic harm?"

Many of these new tariffs come under the supposed authority of "Section 301," a trade law that allows the president to impose tariffs in response to "unfair foreign acts, policies, or practices affecting U.S. commerce," including new rates leveled against Canada and Brazil, two nations on Trump's bad side for one reason or another. As the WSJ board argued, these rates are just another example of Trump attempting to use tariffs as a weapon, with the justifications given being flimsy.

"The Administration says America’s trading partners—including Canada and the European Union—are unfairly discriminating against the U.S. by not doing enough to stop imports made with forced labor. Yes, the slave traders of Toronto strike again," the board added. "Last week the President announced Section 301 tariffs of 25% on Brazil because he doesn’t like its leftwing leader Lula da Silva. Note how Mr. Trump weaponizes tariffs: He picks a target. Then his team finds a pretext for tariffs."

Some of the tariffs against Canada have come under the authority of Section 338, a provision of the infamous 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, which "no president has used... before." In doing so, the WSJ board noted, Trump has effectively trapped the U.S. in a "needless trade war with its second-largest trading partner."

"Mr. Trump’s tariff defenders point to the buoyant stock market as evidence that his border taxes aren’t harmful," the board added. "But last year’s tax bill—especially the business provisions like full investment expensing—has offset some of the damage from his tariffs. So has the AI investment boom."

It concluded: "Imagine how strong the economy would be without the tariffs and their uncertainty for business. Americans remain unhappy about the economy, and higher prices are a big reason. They know that tariffs are adding to their pain even if they don’t see the cost as a line-item on a bill. Republicans could pay the price in November."

President Donald Trump appeared to reveal much about his own inner workings during his appearance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, but according to a new breakdown from The Daily Beast, he also exposed a major "weakness that will be his undoing."

In a piece published Saturday afternoon, The Daily Beast's chief national correspondent, David Gardner, observed how his "faith in [Trump] and his administration has dwindled a little more" each day that he has covered them, despite his ability as a journalist to
find the positive in the most heinous situations." Trump, he added, "has eaten at my soul."

In spite of this mounting despair, Gardner said that what he saw during the correspondents' dinner on Friday gave him "some hope," exposing how much Trump, and his political power, is tied up in his obsession with TV and getting attention.

"It seemed a good sign that Trump wanted to give it another go, and the early signs looked promising," Gardner wrote. "He was clearly catching up with some sleep when he first arrived. Maybe because it wasn’t about him. But he came alive when the award ceremony began. He shrugged. He smiled. He smirked. He spoke out of the side of his mouth to Karoline Leavitt with quips and asides that felt to the audience like he was genuinely enjoying himself."

Even as he watched the Wall Street Journal receive an award for coverage of his relationship to Jeffrey Epstein, during the presentation of which CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer did not avoid criticizing him, Trump appeared to be "a good sport" about the situation, to Gardner's shock. Even as his own mockery of the press took a "dark" turn later in the evening, it was evident throughout the event how much Trump depends on the media to project his all-important image — a dependency that could ultimately prove to be his undoing.

"If there is one thing the president understands, it’s good TV," he continued. "And he woke up from his table nap to realize that he was the star of some surprisingly hilarious television. No matter that he was the butt of the joke. He was still the center of attention. And that’s what drives him."

He added later: "Press freedom is undeniably under threat from Trump and his acolytes like Stephen Miller. But Trump needs to understand that he needs the press. On some level, he must know that when the camera lights fade away, so does he. And by that time, there will be plenty lining up to make his legacy known—first and foremost, that it just wasn’t a very good show."

President Donald Trump's reactions at a recent awards ceremony were extremely telling about his true feelings, with one body language expert highlighting all the signs of his "anger and embarrassment" that got caught on live TV.

Trump was in attendance during Friday evening's White House Correspondents' Dinner, which was rescheduled after an attempted shooting at the previous attempt to hold the annual event. During the event, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer presented the Katharine Graham Award for Courage and Accountability to the team of Wall Street Journal reporters for their story relating to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his past connections to Trump, which included the bombshell revelations about the sexually suggestive birthday note the president sent to Epstein.

Trump previously attempted to sue the outlet, owned by major conservative backer Rupert Murdoch, over the story, leading many to note his awkward and frustrated reactions during the presentation of the award.

In a video shared Saturday, Dr. John Paul Garrison, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist with expertise in body language, broke down the segment moment by moment in order to highlight all of the signs pointing to Trump's unease.

Early on in the video, Garrison noted Trump's "classic look of disapproval" as Blitzer introduced the award, something he has pointed out in numerous other past examinations of the president's body language.

A short time later, as Blitzer is discussing the "thousands of documents" contained in the Epstein files, Trump appeared to look away momentarily.

"It's because this is too intense. It's too anger-inducing," Garrison explained. "He cannot continue to look at Wolf Blitzer because it's making him mad. So, he looks away to try to get support from someone else. So, right now he's turning to face [White House Press Secretary] Karoline Leavitt."

While he was looking away, Garrison noted that Trump then gave a "half smile," which appeared to reveal his "contempt, because contempt is the only emotion that's only on one side of the face." The psychologist suggested that Trump might have been attempting to hide his feelings of contempt with the smile, but it was still unmistakably there. The president then transitioned to a look of "fake confusion."

"Now he's trying to appear confused. He's feeling awkward," Garrison explained. "He doesn't know how to react to something like this. So he's facing away. He's looking confused, although not really confused, but trying to feign confusion. So, at this point right here, this is everything he can do to disengage from what's going on right now because he absolutely does not want to have to sit and listen to this."

Several more times, Garrison noted how Trump showed looks of disapproval as Blitzer continued to talk. When the address turned to Trump's $20 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, Trump then appeared to show a happy expression over something he felt "pride" about, but Garrison suggested that "he's not actually feeling happy right now, but he's willing to show a fake smile to draw attention to himself."

When the reporters were finally brought on-stage, Trump showed various signs of faux-embarrassment and disbelief over the situations, which Garrison said were meant to convey "I can't believe this just happened to me," before he moved on to an expression of "tension."

"What we saw was anger and embarrassment, but he tried to cover it by playing to the audience," Garrison concluded.

First Lady Melania Trump is engaged in an ongoing legal spat with an outspoken former biographer of her husband, and according to said author, her approach has "Trump law in a nutshell" and exposed how the family uses courts to "harass and intimidate" their enemies.

Michael Wolff, the longtime author and reporter who has extensively covered the political career of President Donald Trump, filed an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the first lady earlier this year, after she herself threatened to sue him over his comments about her connections to Jeffrey Epstein. In May, Trump-appointed New York District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed Wolff's suit, ruling that he would have to wait for an actual defamation suit from Melania Trump before filing his own response.

Later still, Vyskocil warned the first lady against plans to seek sanctions against Wolff's legal team and an effort to force them to pay her legal fees, explaining that the bar for such a motion was high and urging her to take matters outside of the legal system.

"I wonder if it’s in the interest of the parties to continue litigating in this court," she said. "I think sometimes people get so caught up in the fervor of the moment that they don’t really stop and think about the cost-benefit analysis of motions that are contemplated and the burden you put a court to."

Nevertheless, this past week, the first lady's team filed a motion for sanctions against Wolff, moving forward with her plan to seek payment.

“Plaintiff filed a patently meritless lawsuit and used it to harass Mrs. Trump in public,” the motion read. “Plaintiff and his counsel asserted a legally frivolous claim, propped it up with factual contentions that lacked any evidentiary support, and used them to run a political and commercial campaign. They should pay for Mrs. Trump’s fees and expenses incurred for the process they abused.”

During the latest episode of his Daily Beast podcast, "Inside Trump's Head," the author touched on this latest development in his legal dispute with Melania Trump, saying that one might have expected that she and her lawyers "would have their tail between their legs," after Vyskocil's warning, "But instead, they actually have gone through."

In doing so, Wolff explained, the first lady has exposed the whole playbook behind her husband's approach to legal warfare.

"And, of course, nobody knows what’s gonna happen there," Wolff said. "But the larger point is that they will have added months and months and months to the legal calendar... and countless expense. So that is... Trump law in a nutshell—delay, harass, intimidate, exhaust, and avoid... testifying at all costs."

Elsewhere in the episode, Wolff claimed that his lawsuit had caught everyone in the White House off-guard, citing conversations with a source inside the administration. His success raising $837,000 for the legal battle via GoFundMe also allegedly scared "the bejesus out of... Melania and her lawyers."

President Donald Trump is walking into what could end up being "the worst nuclear deal in history," one leading security expert warned for MS NOW, as his new deal with Saudi Arabia "could unleash a flood of new nuclear programs."

Joseph Cirincione is a national security expert who currently serves as the vice chair of the Center for International Policy Board of Directors. On Saturday, he published a piece for MS NOW digging into Trump's recently announced nuclear deal with the Saudi government, which will allow the Middle Eastern country — where Trump's family has done numerous business deals — to "enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium, the two ingredients used in nuclear bombs."

This comes despite Trump and his administration's dogged insistence that "nuclear technology is a grave threat in the hands of Iran’s ruling regime," and that it would inevitably use these materials to create a nuclear bomb. The ruling family of Saudi Arabia has in the past asserted that it would pursue the development of such weapons if Iran ever came to possess one. Cirincione warned in his piece that this situation could become a perilous slippery slope, arguing that "If the Saudis get this technology, others will demand it too."

"Since the dawn of the Nuclear Age, U.S. policy has denied the ability to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium to other nations because it is a shortcut to nuclear weapons," Cirincione explained. "The huge and expensive facilities can be developed openly and legally until a government takes the quick jump from making fuel rods to making the cores of bombs. With this deal, Trump has effectively just green-lit a Saudi nuclear bomb program. How did we get here?"

Despite Saudi Arabia's past claims about an interest in nuclear power, Cirincione saw numerous flaws in that logic, noting that "Nuclear is the most expensive way to produce electricity, and Saudi Arabia sits on an ocean of oil and is ideally suited for much cheaper solar and wind energy production." The nation pushing for nuclear power would "make little economic sense."

"Saudi Arabia wants the entire nuclear fuel cycle," he continued. "It wants to make the fuel for the reactors, then reprocess the spent fuel rods when they are used up. The same centrifuges that spin uranium gas to enrich it to the low levels required for nuclear fuel can spin it to the high levels for the cores of nuclear bombs. The same reprocessing plants that can break down used fuel rods for waste disposal can separate out the reactor-produced plutonium in those rods for use in nuclear bombs. With these plants, Saudi Arabia would have both pathways to the bomb. The Hiroshima atomic bomb was made of uranium; the Nagasaki bomb, plutonium."

He concluded: "... Saudi influence in Washington is powerful, particularly with Trump and his business partners, who could profit handsomely from the deal. It will take an all-out effort to block what could be the worst nuclear deal in history."

Markets have responded to President Donald Trump’s evaporating ceasefire by wiping out whatever gains it made after Trump’s premature announcement.

And now CNN Table for Five host Abby Phillip reports the president is announcing new tariffs between 10 and 12 percentage points to dozens of U.S. trading partners, even as rising oil prices and inflation fears rattle the world's largest bond market and send the 10-year U.S. treasury yield “to its highest level since Trump reclaimed office.”

But Saturday morning Table for Five panelist Marc LoPresti, CEO and Senior Market Strategist of Market Rebellion, did not agree with the news.

“I kind of respectfully disagree with some of the fundamental premises there. I mean, the economy is actually doing quite well,’ claimed LoPresti. “We just were in the middle of another earnings season where earnings are beating on average expectations. That makes the earnings quarter over quarter in a row of earnings that have beat expectations of high average individuals.”

“You're talking about corporations,” said CNN Global Affairs pundit Sabrina Singh. “Yeah, corporations are doing great,”

“Well, that's an indication of how the economy is doing,” LoPresti argued.

“I would say the family that's going to fill up a gallon of gas that's over $4 from where it was in May, would say it does not,” Singh countered.

Phillip pointed out that while the economy has indeed been resilient, that is in spite of Trump's war and tariff policies, which have heaped new unnecessary costs upon Americans.

But LoPresti said it was all for a good cause: “What the president's been trying to do, as it relates to tariffs and other policies, are to level the playing field, it's long-term gain for some short-term inflationary pressure.”

“For who,” Phillip said.

“For everyone,” said LoPresti.

“What do you mean ‘leveling the playing field’? Who is paying the tariffs?” demanded Phillip.

At that point, Singh busted in: “The tariffs get shifted to the consumer, which are Americans who buy goods from countries that are being taxed like Canada or Mexico.”

“The last three quarters of corporate earnings nave not demonstrated that,” LoPresti said

“You’re talking about corporate earnings, which is very different from a family living in Michigan, who is going to the gas pump to fill up with either diesel or gas, and they're seeing higher gas prices, higher diesel prices, and then they go to the grocery store,” said Singh. “So, on top of the higher gas prices, then they get to get the gift of driving to the grocery store to see grocery prices higher. Because guess what diesel does? It takes the goods coming off of those trucks and [makes them more costly.] So yes, those supermarkets or the corporations might be getting a higher earning paycheck here, but the average family is not.”

“That's not the message that I'm trying to transmit here,” LoPresti insisted. “In breaking down corporate earnings reports since Liberation Day, corporations have reported by and large that they are not raising prices and passing the costs.”

“That's not true,” Singh countered flatly. “They absolutely are. Grocery prices are higher.”

Kmele Foster, editor at large at Tangle news, warned that LoPresti’s argument, which reflects corporations’ take, is doing nothing to encourage voters.

“Actually, it seems like any single any moment you have politicians and pundits who are saying things are actually pretty good when in fact people feel otherwise is probably [not a good look.]” said Foster.

LoPresti eventually lamented: “there’s no economic patriotism.”

- YouTube youtu.be

Amid swirling rumors that President Donald Trump and his administration are plotting a "massive" renewed military assault on Iran, experts who spoke with The Hill dumped cold water on the idea, warning that such a thing likely would not be enough to subdue Iran.

In a report published Saturday morning, The Hill cited conversations with various foreign affairs and defense experts who warned about the efficacy of "an intensified air strike campaign" against Iran, even one that might, as Trump has threatened repeatedly, target "bridges, water facilities and electricity plants." They warned that even this sort of plan would not be enough to extract major concessions from Iran in the ongoing peace talks.

“I don’t think it will change Iran’s calculation in any way, because from Iran’s perspective, this is when they said it publicly, that this is a war of survival for them. So bombing from the air is not going to change Iran’s calculation, even if the U.S. intensifies it,” Sina Azodi, director of the Middle East Studies Program at George Washington University, told the outlet. “The only thing that will happen is that, first of all, the entire region is going to suffer more. The Iranians have made it very clear. I think it destroys any chance of diplomacy.”

He added: "You can’t just do a ceasefire. You need a comprehensive agreement that it’s language is no longer open to interpretation. And quite frankly, U.S. has to, when it makes a commitment, it needs to abide by it."

Another source, described as an anonymous "former senior U.S. defense official, told The Hill that airstrikes are unlikely to yield any meaningful progress, and argued that it would be impossible "without collectively enforcing the naval blockade, securing to some degree the traffic going through the Strait of Hormuz and absorbing some of the international economic cost as a long-term strategy."

"But you’re not going to bomb yourself into a ceasefire," they said. "I think you’ve got to be able to put the economic instrument of power just as make it just as significant as what you’re doing [militarily]."

Michael “Mick” Mulroy, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, also cast doubt on the efficacy of heavy airstrikes, but also noted that the options left to the U.S. at this point "aren’t good."

"If we allow them to sell their oil, if we unfreeze assets, they’re going to use it to rebuild those capacities potentially faster than we really rebuild the precision munitions and interceptors that we use during a conflict, and we have to get into a new nuclear agreement," Mulroy explained. "If we don’t, then this, at least from the nuclear side, would be a perpetual conflict, because the other way of preventing them from ever getting a nuclear weapon is to periodically target the facilities that are making the potential nuclear weapon. So the options are not good.”

President Donald Trump was reportedly furious the day reports began to circulate that he had to switch planes to avoid safety hazards posed by his luxurious Qatari gift jet. But the extent of just how badly his precious prize from the Qatari royal family needed updates and the costs it required were not fully known until now.

“Trump’s February 2025 tour of the Qatari jet led to a frantic sprint inside the White House and the Pentagon,” reports the New York Times. “The administration sought to upgrade the plane in time to meet his demand for it to be ready by the nation’s 250th birthday this summer, with an accelerated retrofit.”

But an investigation by The New York Times found that the president’s push to get the luxury aircraft ready fast led to ballooning costs and trade-offs in safety features that potentially left Trump and his Air Force One guests vulnerable.

“Several key security and safety features on the Boeing planes that have been used for decades as Air Force One are not visible on the upgraded jet, including a lower-level exit for high-risk situations, additional backup power capacity and an advanced antimissile system,” reports the Times, citing public Air Force records and photographs.

The 747-8 plane was overhauled on a compressed timeline of just about eight months, when experts said the jet needed several years for a full upgrade — costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase equipment to train pilots to fly the 747-8 plane so quickly, on top of the approximately $400 million cost of the upgrades that the administration has publicly acknowledged.

The Times notes the Pentagon tried to mask the total price tag from Congress by snatching the funds from a classified budget for nuclear modernization.

“Hundreds of miles of electrical wiring and electronic components have to be shielded from an electromagnetic pulse, such as from a nuclear weapon detonation,” said the Times. “The official planes also require a second small engine — known as an auxiliary power unit — to be installed near the rear of the jet to serve as a backup for communication systems and other vital electronics gear. They also need some of the most advanced communications equipment and what the Pentagon has called a “self-defense system.”

The company overseeing Trump’s rocket-speed outfitting schedule assigned as many as 400 employees, working around the clock over three shifts, to supercharge the effort. The rushed process also led to costs far beyond the roughly $400 million in taxpayer money that the Air Force estimated would be spent to retrofit the jet. And even then, it was clear there would be some limits, including bulkhead adjustments and no upgraded safety exits. And curious the arrangement of seats offered their own safety issues.

“During that process, the Air Force had to accelerate training for its pilots, as the 747-8 has a different cockpit than the old jets. To do so, the Air Force leased an Atlas Air cargo 747-8 jet from October until February, a plane that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a month, to use for ‘interim pilot qualification training,’” the Times reports. “The Air Force did not disclose how much it paid for the lease.”

Because of the deadline, the Air Force moved in December to buy yet another expensive 747-8, to serve as a “dedicated trainer aircraft for aircrew” so that the Pentagon had “immediate operational readiness,” the Air Force said in a statement. It also purchased a second plane to supply spare parts.

“The total cost for both: another $400 million,” according to an anonymous Air Force official said.