Commentary

Virginia Republicans rage against ex-GOP governor: 'Missing in action' while eyeing 2028

Republicans in Virginia are turning on the state's former GOP governor, Glenn Youngkin, according to the Wall Street Journal, accusing him of being "missing in action" in the fight against the pro-Democrat gerrymander underway in the state and decrying his ambitions to run for president in 2028.

Youngkin served as the governor of Virginia from 2022 to 2026 and was succeeded in office this year by Democrat Abigail Spanberger. Spanberger rode a wave of growing anti-MAGA sentiment into office, one of the many Democrats to post major electoral victories in 2025 by running on affordability and opposition to Donald Trump's agenda. She has wasted little time since assuming the governorship, signing numerous executive orders and throwing her support behind major Democratic legislative initiatives, including a new redistricting effort to counteract GOP gerrymanders in other states.

It was in the battle to stop this redistricting push where Virginia Republicans say that Youngkin let them down. A group of GOP lawmakers from the state told WSJ in a report published Monday that they approached the outgoing governor in November and urged him to throw his support behind the fight in a big way. Now, they say his efforts fell well short, with Youngkin neglecting to take part in fundraising efforts and appearing in no anti-redistricting ads.

Rep. Rob Wittman, a Virginia Republican at risk of losing his seat in the new Democrat-backed district map, said that the former governor was "adamant to say he was not going to get involved" in the fight during that November meeting, causing immense frustrations.

"Glenn is just missing in action," Wittman said.

Another vulnerable Virginia Republican, Rep. Ben Cline, said that Youngkin was a major opponent of redistricting while in office, but "went quiet" as soon as he left. He retained hope that the former governor would return "as one of the strongest opponents of gerrymandering" in the state soon.

As the prominent former governor of a purple state, Youngkin has long been floated as a prime candidate for a future GOP presidential nomination, with reports indicating that he may be considering a run in 2028 to potentially succeed Trump in the White House. Wittman said that Youngkin's handling of the redistricting fight has left many in the GOP with a dim view of his nationwide ambitions.

"If you’re not going to fight for your own state, for your own party, that’s pretty poor testament to what you would do if the president were to select you for a position," Wittman said.

Youngkin's representatives and allies strongly contested these characterizations of his involvement with the fight. Wittman later said that his comments were made "in the heat of the moment," and that he and the governor are now on the "same page."

How Josh Hawley learned to stop worrying and love regime change

There is a familiar Washington magic trick, and Missouri’s U.S. senators perform it with unusual confidence: Spend years denouncing the bipartisan cult of stupid wars, then salute smartly when your own president lights the fuse.

Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt have both marketed themselves as realists, skeptics of permanent intervention and the old foreign-policy catechism. Hawley said in 2019 that the point of American foreign policy is “not to remake the world,” and in 2023 said flatly that “regime change didn’t work.” Schmitt built a parallel brand in softer packaging, attacking the “failed Washington way” on foreign policy, repeatedly calling Donald Trump the “peace president” and insisting he did not want “a forever war in the Middle East.”

And then came Iran, the moment when rhetoric had to cash out and both men opposed the effort to reassert congressional authority over war powers.

Hawley — who had earlier said it would be “a whole different matter” for the United States to affirmatively strike Iran and that he would be “real concerned” by that prospect — found a way to make his peace with it once it was Trump making the call. He defended Trump’s actions as lawful so long as no ground troops were involved.

Schmitt, who had spent months selling Trump’s foreign policy in the language of restraint, landed in the same place. Suddenly the old concerns about executive overreach, strategic drift and another Middle East trap looked less like convictions than talking points with expiration dates.

That is the tell. Politicians change their minds all the time. Hawley and Schmitt change in one direction only: toward Trump.

Hawley ran the same play on Medicaid cuts, warning they would hurt Missouri’s rural hospitals and the people who depend on them. The warning was real enough. Then came the vote, and there he was, backing the bill anyway. Later he moved to soften or undo parts of what he had just supported, which is another neat bit of Washington stagecraft: denounce the harm, help cause the harm, then reappear as the man racing in with a bucket of water.

Schmitt’s contradictions are less theatrical than Hawley’s, but no less revealing. Last year he demanded the Epstein files be released — “Hell yeah. Open it up. Release the Epstein files.” — then grew markedly more careful once Trump was back in office, saying only that he was “curious” and would support releasing whatever “credible information” might be there. A self-proclaimed free speech warrior as Missouri’s attorney general, he seemed perfectly comfortable last year when government pressure bore down on late night TV host Jimmy Kimmel after a joke about the late conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk.

That is the through line with Hawley and Schmitt: every principle has an escape hatch. They are against regime change until their president bombs Iran. Against Medicaid cuts until leadership needs the vote. Against censorship until they do not like what is being said.

What Hawley and Schmitt understand, maybe better than most, is that modern political branding rewards the appearance of rebellion almost as much as rebellion itself.

You do not have to resist the machinery. You only have to speak as if you might. You can sneer at the old consensus, campaign against the old order, strike the pose of the insurgent — and then, when the moment comes, vote like a company man.

Trump joins the global Jewish conspiracy

It bears repeating that Donald Trump’s rationale for war against Iran keeps shifting because Trump himself does not believe his own rationales. The goal of this war has little to do with Iran. It has to do with creating conditions in which an old, depleted and unpopular president looks big, tough and loved on American TV.

But there may be a reason outside the president’s fear of defeat in this year’s congressional elections. While he believes that he benefits from the perception of being a war president, it looks like the decision to become one wasn’t entirely his to make.

Early reporting on the war suggested that Israel was going to attack Iran without or without Trump, and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was lobbying him to join the effort. USA Today reported yesterday that Netanyahu decided in November of last year to order a long-planned operation to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Marco Rubio confirmed that reporting on Monday: "We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

Just so I have this straight in my mind: Trump did not attack Iran in order to stop it from having nukes; in order to stop it from being a global leader in state-sponsored terrorism; in order to liberate the Iranian people; or in order to manifest world peace.

No, the president launched an illegal and unjustified war with Iran because America’s ally, Israel, put him in a no-win situation in which, as one source told the Post over the weekend, “the only debate that seemed to be remaining was whether the US would launch in concert with Israel or if the US would wait until Iran retaliated on US military targets in the region and then engage.”

Trump could have condemned Netanyahu after the fact, but apparently the appeal of being a war president was too great.

If I were the commander-in-chief of the world’s mightiest military, and if I allowed a foreign head of state to lead me around by the nose, I would also come up with a couple dozen reasons for going to war with Iran, no matter how unconvincing those reasons may be, because I would be highly motivated to draw attention away from the view that I’m not entirely in charge.

I mean, Trump can’t even take credit for Khamenei’s death. Pete Hegseth told reporters the Israeli strikes killed him Saturday. The only “credit” he can claim is having followed Netanyahu’s lead.

That it appears the decision to attack Iran was Netanyahu’s more than it was Trump’s is going to be a problem, most immediately because of the outcry in the Congress. If Trump was not acting in self-defense, and clearly he was not, then this war against Iran is a war of choice, which requires the consent of the Congress. Trump is going to be forced to explain himself, thus risking being held accountable for the spike in goods and oil prices, Tuesday’s sell-off on Wall Street and general chaos in the Middle East.

(According to journalist Steve Herman, the State Department told Americans to “immediately leave 16 countries and territories: Bahrain, Egypt, Gaza, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE, West Bank and Yemen.” NBC News reported that the mandatory orders are coming despite many airports in the region being shuttered. In Qatar, Americans who can’t get out were advised that “should not rely on the US government for assisted departure or evacuation.”)

The White House’s best rationale for war seems to be that the US was forced to attack Iran, because Iran was forced to defend itself against Israel’s attack. Such a rationale is not going to fly with most of the Congress, including many maga Republicans. That’s why Trump lied Tuesday. He said Netanyahu didn’t force my hand. I forced his. According to Kaitlan Collins, he said “it was his opinion that Iran was going to attack first if the US didn't.”

For the lie to work, however, he needs the full faith of maga. He needs the base to trust him enough to play along. To do that, he must affirm his dominance. If supporters believe he’s Netanyahu’s puppet, however, such displays of dominance will seem empty and hollow to his own people, thus creating problems much bigger than abstract debates in the Congress over war powers.

To understand the problem he has created for himself, bear in mind the true nature of America First, which has been largely sanitized by the Washington press corps. It is not rooted in high-minded principles like freedom and national sovereignty. It is rooted in conspiracy theory and antisemitism, which are often provided a veneer of respectability by rightwing intellectuals and gullible reporters. Peel away the noble-sounding language, however, about nation-builders “intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,” as Trump said last year, and what you find at the center of America First is an unshakeable belief in a global Jewish conspiracy against America.

This belief in a global Jewish conspiracy against America was the foundation beneath the push to release the Epstein files during Trump’s 2024 campaign. The belief took on a slightly different form, but the animus was the same. Trump was supposed to have been the hero sent by God to fulfill a prophecy to save America from a secret cabal of powerful Jews who sex-trafficked young girls to untouchable elites. In maga lore, Jeffrey Epstein came to represent this shadowy, malevolent syndicate. Once reelected, Trump was supposed to bring them all to justice. When he didn’t, he triggered a crisis of faith that can be registered in recent polling that lumps him in with the rest of the “wealthy elites” who act with impunity for the law – the so-called “Epstein class.”

The Times reported Tuesday on the growing uproar within the maga movement over the possibility that Netanyahu said “jump” and Trump asked “how high?” Some of the most invested maga personalities, men like Jack Posobiec, told the Times that divisions can be overcome and lingering doubts will only be relevant to future candidates to lead the maga movement.

If supporters believed Trump betrayed principles, Posobiec might be right, as they don’t really care about principles. Supporters could shift from anti-war to pro-war as seamlessly as Trump does. But what Posobiec is ignoring, because it’s in his interest to ignore it, is that America First is not rooted in high-minded principles. It’s rooted in Jew-hate. Supporters are not going to warm up to the appearance of an American president seeming to take orders from the leader of a Jewish state. Instead, they might see Trump doing to believers in America First what he has done to supporters who demanded the release of the Epstein files.

Again, this is why the president lied Tuesday. In an attempt to assert dominance, he said he was the one to force Netanyahu’s hand, not the other way around. That might have worked – the base might have trusted him enough to play along with the lie – but for his already established betrayal in the Epstein case. With Iran, he has now compounded maga’s crisis of faith. He must contend with the growing suspicion that instead of destroying the global Jewish conspiracy against America, he has joined it.

The price Americans will pay for Trump's MAGA clowns

The belated dismissal of Kristi Noem -- President Donald Trump's woefully unqualified and performatively ridiculous custodian of homeland security --- highlights the perils now faced by all Americans in an increasingly perilous world. Now that the United States is at war with a regime notorious for terror tactics, it is no longer possible to ignore the frightening incompetence of a government that we expect to keep us from harm.

Noem cut an especially clownish figure at the Department of Homeland Security -- with her constant costume changes, soap opera escapades, corrupt expenditures and abuse of Coast Guard aviation and residential facilities -- but her MAGA style of governance is all too visible across our national security agencies.

While it was apparent from the day of her appointment that Noem had no relevant experience or knowledge, she and her "special employee" Corey Lewandowski brought extreme levels of chaos and disrepute to the agencies they oversaw. Like other Trump officials, she imposed senseless waves of cuts, mass firings of veteran officials, useless expenditures and measures such as polygraph tests that destroyed staff morale.

And in her zeal to enforce the administration's absurd deportation schedule, Noem fomented a confrontation with Congress and indeed the entire country that has resulted in the DHS shutdown. With most of its employees forced to work unpaid, all its security functions are now subject to staffing shortages, rising absences and declining resolve.

It's not a good time for that to be going on: The Iranian regime, along with allies in Hezbollah and kindred terror groups, is assuredly seeking means of revenge for the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the wider war. Given Iran's known capabilities in cyber warfare, the reduced defensive capacity of the DHS-based Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency is troubling.

Yet the president has replaced Noem with another politician whose Fox News appearances he enjoys, rather than a serious figure with military, intelligence or even government experience. Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin may be popular among his peers, but his resume for this position is thinner than paper.

As Kevin Carroll, a former senior DHS official, told CNN on Thursday, "I'm not sure that Sen. Mullin is really qualified. I mean, most of the other secretaries of Homeland Security have had substantial experience in federal law enforcement or the military, or have held senior executive positions. ... He was a successful small businessman. But we're in a severe threat environment right now (with the invasion of Iran). It's probably the highest threat environment since 9/11. ... I really don't think it's time for him to be in his first national security position or his first executive position."

That disturbing vacuum of professional leadership and skill is reflected throughout Trump's government, with potentially ruinous consequences. It is especially glaring at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where the comedy team of Director Kash Patel and former Deputy Director Dan Bongino achieved so much destruction in the span of a few months. Their dismantling of FBI divisions tasked with protecting the country showed a reckless enthusiasm that must have excited our foreign enemies.

Patel has done grave harm to the bureau's national security branch, which encompasses its divisions of counterterrorism, intelligence and counterintelligence, and its special directorate for weapons of mass destruction -- all vital to protecting us at this moment of heightened threats. The FBI cyber division, like CISA at DHS, has likewise suffered from the firings and fear that have destroyed confidence among agents in Washington and in FBI offices around the country and abroad.

The impact of Patel's recurrent displays of idiocy, arrogance and abuse are felt far beyond our borders -- although the damage has become obvious in major highly publicized domestic cases like the Brown University murders and the suspected abduction of Nancy Guthrie.

Early in his tenure, at the request of the head of the United Kingdom's MI5 intelligence agency, Patel agreed to maintain a London FBI station where both countries monitor adversary activities. He violated the pledge almost immediately, earning distrust among the "Five Eyes" intelligence consortium, which includes Australia, Canada and New Zealand as well as the U.S. and UK and is critical to our counterterrorism effort.

The barely disguised contempt for Patel (and Bongino, whose position was crucial to everyday operations) among foreign security officials is a serious hindrance to the bureau's international operations division, which depends on our foreign allies to provide actionable information about threats originating overseas.

So toxic is Patel's presence in the FBI that the bureau may be better off with him spending most of his time far from headquarters, whether at his home in Las Vegas, with his country-singer girlfriend on a government jet, or at the Olympics, car races or other sporting events where he weirdly shows up.

The pattern of dubious political appointees extends into the top levels of every sector, from Tulsi Gabbard -- whom even Trump no longer pretends to respect -- at the Directorate of National Intelligence to Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon, where security breaches and outright lies have become routine.

Will we pay a hideous price for all these loitering MAGA bozos? So far, in Trump's second term, America has escaped the deadly disasters that can arise from stupid, amateurish government -- whether in an intelligence snafu like 9/11 or a botched pandemic response like COVID-19.

By now we should know that our luck won't hold forever.

Republicans asked for it

When Republicans started calling our Defense Department the “Department of War” it probably should have been a dead giveaway for what was most assuredly coming next.

When the most bloodthirsty and immoral president in American history, Donald Trump, appointed a high-octane oil slick like Pete Hegseth to lead that shell-shocked department, it should have been dreadfully obvious that human beings, not soaring prices, would be under steady attack as long as this violent regime could hold onto power.

Just 14 months into his vile second term, consumer prices are rising quickly across the board, and we are at war seemingly everywhere because it turns out Trump is the most Republican president in my long lifetime. Trump, unlike his phony predecessors in the GOP like the Bushes, isn’t even pretending he gives a damn about the myriad issues that affect Americans’ daily lives, or even life itself for that matter.

Trump knows what his voters really like, and is delivering it to them wrapped cold in body bags.

When he said with a shrug last week after the first three troops were killed in his sinful Iran War, “There will likely be more [deaths] before it ends. That’s the way it is,” he was telling us just how little he values their lives.

Because that is how it really is with Republicans, and has been my entire life.

In Trump’s world there are the billionaire elites, who prop him up and fill both his bottomless pockets and unquenchable malignant narcissism to overflowing, and there are the expendable “suckers and losers” he abuses like so many of the women who have crossed his crooked path.

Trump and his Republicans don’t value life, they celebrate violence and death, and the more brutal and bloody it is the better. This really needs to be talked about more, because it is true, and that truth — like so many countless people and places around the globe and certainly right here in America — has taken one helluva beating the past decade ...

The “shock and awe” of the senseless War in Iraq was just a warm-up act for what we are getting right now from a monster who ran on “no new wars” but has now attacked eight different countries, on four different continents to give his electorate what they really want, but would prefer we didn’t talk about.

High prices, inflation, and affordability issues were just a polite front for what really gets their cold hearts beating: death, destruction, and plenty of it.

An NPR/PBS News/Marist poll released Friday revealed that 84 percent of Republicans favor this illegal war in Iran, because if they can’t have the lower prices they lied to us they cared about, they will damn sure get the pain and punishment they have proven they crave so much.

The truth is Republicans absolutely love this illegal war in Iran, because they will have the carnage from the racist, America-attacking thug they voted for not once, not twice, but three times.

Can we all finally admit that the cruelty really is the point with Republicans?

For the Republican voter, the 2024 election was never about lowering prices. Oh, sure, that would have been a nice little perk, but Trump’s appeal to the average Republican voter was always his unlimited capacity to say and do the very worst things on their behalf.

Instead of bringing them lower prices, he has brought them blood by the bucketful, via public beatings, and murders that make the hair on the back of their necks stand at attention.

Google “ICE beatings” and you can spend the rest of your day watching masked government agents slamming heads into concrete walls and sidewalks, throwing women into the street, dragging people out of their houses by their hair, and crying children being ripped from their parents’ arms.

These voters didn’t vote for Trump in spite of all those horrible things, they voted for him because of them.

No matter how high prices get, or how bad it gets for the working folk in America, Republicans can always, always, always count on their grotesque president taking their anger out on everybody else.

They concocted stories of brown and black boogeymen eating our dogs and cats so when the time came they could justify dehumanizing them and shooting and beating them to death.

The revolting Kristi Noem wasn’t fired this week because of any of the many heinous acts under her charge — including mass murder — at the out-of-control Department of Homeland Security (DHS). No, she was finally let go, because she gave herself, and not her orange, thin-skinned boss a starring role in an absurd $200 million-plus taxpayer-funded ad campaign.

The insane commercials feature the pie-eyed, flounder-lipped Noem celebrating herself by riding around Mount Rushmore on the back of a poor horse, whose life was in danger the minute she clapped a saddle on his back.

Noem did everything Trump wanted during her revolting tenure at DHS, except get caught, and I promise you that the average Republican voter still absolutely loves her for it.

Noem’s firing was no doubt instructive to Hegseth, who has been given carte blanche to devalue as many human lives as possible, including and mostly the troops under his charge, just as long as Trump gets all the credit for bringing the Republican voters the carnage they love.

It should be inconceivable that such a low form of life would be allowed within 1,000 miles of our armed forces, much less commanding them. Under Hegseth’s crooked charge, our military is no longer being ordered to honorably take the high ground, and are instead being threatened to go just as low as possible.

His very presence atop our Defense Department puts our troops in more and more danger each day, because mark my words, the time is coming when their adversaries will dish out the same terrible punishment to them that they have been ordered by Hegseth to inflict on others.

Most of us who wore the uniform in war and peace, did so because we believed in high ideals. We took an oath to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and march in the footsteps of the thousands of brave souls who came before us, and stormed that beach, or bravely engaged that vaunted enemy carrier group.

War is hell, yes, but it is supposed to be fought with bravery, honor, and under the written laws that guide our military.

What would any of our prisoners of war through the years say about shooting men, who have long since surrendered and are helplessly clinging to the wreckage of a boat, pleading for their lives?

This is the type of thing coming for our troops if God forbid their vessel is ever blown to bits, or their boots ever hit the ground in Iran or elsewhere, because Hegseth and the draft-dodging Trump, have signaled to our enemies that our troops don’t matter much, and there are no longer any rules for engagement.

It is exactly what you would expect from a Commander-in-Chief, who disgraces the graves of our fallen and has never been brave enough to serve anybody but himself.

We are a nation at war with itself, and everybody around us, because that is exactly how the Republican Party likes it.

Violence, war and hate are their hallmarks, and the only things they have consistently delivered to the American public for the past 75 years.

There is nothing new about any of this, except that they’ve finally found a leader who can provide all that with a smile on his face.

D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here, and follow him on Bluesky here.

Democratic party wonks grapple with a disconnect from reality

Americans troops are starting to return home in coffins because of Donald Trump’s insane, illegal war in Iran, but today I wanted to touch on Tuesday’s primaries, that will go a long way in determining the candidates who will oppose this bloodthirsty felon, and his ruthless party of anti-American, anti-humane Orcs in November’s elections.

Once again, Tuesday’s primary results showed us that generalities and traditional assumptions are our enemies, and reality is our friend.

Left-leaning, and anti-Republican voters are also proving a helluva lot smarter than they’ve been given credit for, and are finally starting to realize their power in tuning out the tired, out-of-touch establishment in both of our unpopular political parties.

Take heart. I say again: People, not parties, will lead us out of the wilderness.

One size does not fit all on the Left, and man, it’s about time.

Zohran Mamdani is a generational political talent, who danced on the heads of the New York Democratic Party establishment led by Andrew Cuomo to win going away in the New York City mayoral race in November.

As mind-blowingly good as Mamdani is, he would not have been elected in neighboring New Jersey in that November race for governor, because the electorate and the issues are simply different in these places, which are separated only by a river.

So a very talented and able woman, Mikie Sherrill, a former federal prosecutor and Navy helicopter pilot, demolished her Republican opponent by 14 points in a race that was supposed to be close in New Jersey.

Again, the Democratic Party needs to return to the days when it kept the flap to their big tent wide open, and allowed candidates to run races their way in their backyards without toxic influence from the overblown Democratic National Committee (DNC).

This will also be true in a place like Maine and it’s absolutely critical Senate race in June. I will touch briefly on that one, too, after getting to a few of Tuesday night’s key results.

Starting deep in the heart of Texas, I send congratulations to the upstart James Talarico for his convincing win over Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett in that U.S. Senate primary. Polls were all over the place leading up to this one, but it looks like Talarico over-performed in his 6%-to-8% victory.

On the morbid Republican side, incumbent John Cornyn will be taking on the despicable Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a runoff for the right to face Talarico. I don’t have the time nor the inclination to type much about that disgusting race, but there is some pretty good stuff here, if you are interested in reading about train wrecks.

I believe the moderate Cornyn will prevail, but it would probably be best for Democrats if the abhorrent Paxton came out on top. Word has it Trump will be endorsing Cornyn.

Before going further, I want to direct my wrath at racist Republicans in Texas who seem to spend all their time figuring out ways to disenfranchise Black voters. I loathe them with everything inside my being.

The unmitigated c--- they pulled in Dallas, to screw with voters in that city was creatively monstrous even by their dirt-low standards.

Here is the lede in a Texas Tribune story this week:

DALLAS — Veronica Anderson walked 2 ½ miles Tuesday afternoon to the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center because she wanted to vote.
When she arrived, election workers told her she was at the wrong polling place and would need to cast her ballot at a different precinct — one she said she had never heard of. Unsure where it was or how to get there, she stood outside trying to sort out her options.
“I walked up here because I want to vote so, so bad,” she told a reporter for the Dallas Free Press and Votebeat, adding that it felt like “your self-esteem and everything is torn down.”

It felt like her “self-esteem and everything was torn down …”

This is exactly how Texan Republicans like it, and they can all go straight to hell.

Our anger should be at a simmering boil at what Black Americans continue to deal with at the polls all across America, and at what certainly happened in Texas yet again Tuesday.

NOBODY deserves better than Black voters — the true patriots in America — yet time and time again they get our worst.

I am still dubious a Democrat can win a statewide race in Texas, but am positive they can’t without the Black vote.

Crockett, who is no doubt hurting today, is still the most important person in Democratic Texas politics. If she can align with Talarico and help drive out that vital Black vote, the Republican candidate will have their hands full in the state.

In North Carolina, where I will be a resident starting next month, as my family moves away from Wisconsin after 15 years, Democratic Governor Roy Cooper will take on Trump-endorsed Michael Whatley in that key Senate race.

Now an ironclad prediction: Cooper will win this race and flip that seat blue. “Governor Roy” like Sherrill and Mamdani, is the perfect candidate for the Tar Heel State and has plenty of crossover appeal.

And get this: More than 200,000 voters participated in the Democratic primary than in the Republican primary. This is stunning.

That said: We must vote like hell in November, fellow North Carolinians! (It was fun typing that.)

This was a very bad election for moderate Democrats in purple North Carolina. The four moderates who lost to more progressive candidates have actively worked AGAINST Democratic Governor Josh Stein to defeat his vetoes on terrible Republican legislation.

Here was longtime North Carolina political observer and Catawba College political science professor Michael Bitzer’s take on these Democratic Party defectors:

"The biggest surprise was the absolute blowout in terms of the percentages, and what this really says to me is that not only are the voters party loyalists now, but the parties are expecting their elected representatives to be party loyalists — to be allegiant to the party — and when you buck the party, the party can kick back."

Takeaway: The Left-leaners in North Carolina have had more than enough of Trump-appeasers in the Democratic Party.

On the Republican side the headliner is that Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page holds a razor-thin lead over North Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger in Senate District 26. Berger might be the most evil person in North Carolina, and has singlehandedly led Republicans in their quest to undermine every good thing Democrats have tried to accomplish in the state. His loss would be seismic, and it looks like that race will go to a runoff.

Very briefly in Arkansas … A Democrat won a special election for the State House in a district north of Little Rock Tuesday night. Alex Holladay, smashed Republican Bryan Renshaw to flip that seat. Democrats have now flipped 27 state elections across America since 2024. Republicans have flipped ZERO.

Finally Maine …

The Pine Tree State’s primary is not until June, but all the races that have come before it across America are instructive. Whoever emerges as the Democratic candidate MUST BEAT SUSAN COLLINS for the party to have any chance of taking back the U.S. Senate.

I have written pretty extensively about this race, and know a little about Maine having worked at a newspaper there for six years. My ex-wife also lives in the state, also works at a paper up there, and provides occasional on-the-ground intel.

Mainers are a hearty, independent lot, who take great pride in not falling in lockstep with the other 49 states in our rattled union. From their rooftop perch in the northeast corner of the country they literally look down on the rest of the United States. This doesn’t make them haughty, it makes them properly suspicious.

You really can’t get they-uh from he-yuh, and they like it just fine that way.

Maine voters have repeatedly told us they prefer the progressive oysterman and veteran, Graham Platner, to line up against Collins in this vital election. He will be running against the state’s Democratic Governor Janet Mills.

Ever since emerging as a heavy favorite in the race, Platner has been lighting up arenas and town halls, but has also been dogged by controversy. Some of his errors have been self-inflicted, while others have been generated by heavy fire from the national Democratic machine, which has reflexively supported Mills.

Despite that, in a recent University of New Hampshire poll Platner led Mills by an astonishing 64 percent to 26 percent margin. His strength is increasing, not decreasing.

Read that again.

To be clear: I like Mills, and thank her for her service.

This is not an attack on her or her record, only what reeks of incredible hubris by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), which is sinking tons of money into the state to get rid of Platner, and set the party up for yet another fall. Democrats have not won a U.S. Senate race in Maine since 1988, when George Mitchell was reelected.

I am long past sick and tired of old career candidates running for office over and over again. Mills, who would be the oldest freshman senator ever at 78, simply will not beat Collins, 73, who will somehow look young by comparison if they were to go head to head in November.

Running Mills would be self-defeating and absolute madness in a race Democrats have to have.

Democrats have had a tremendous run since the disastrous November, 2024 elections, because they have fielded candidates who are listening to their constituents and not pointy-headed DNC wonks who are forever trapped inside the Beltway, and counting money.

That is the reality, and as we steam toward November, it’s vitally important that we continue to remember that reality is our friend.

D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here.

Montana senator's mysterious exit from re-election stinks — and voters can smell it

Wednesday was historic.

Not inspiring. Not admirable. Just…historic.

In the most “nothing to see here” political maneuver imaginable, Sen. Steve Daines waited until the final minutes before the filing deadline to drop out of his race for a third term in the U.S. Senate.

Minutes.

Then—almost magically—another candidate appeared.

A chosen one.

Republicans instantly fell in line. Like dominoes. Or perhaps like pre-written press releases waiting in a folder labeled “In Case of Emergency: Install Replacement Senator.”

Who endorsed the mystery candidate?

Let’s see.

Senator Steve Daines. Representative Ryan Zinke. Senator and wrist breaker, Tim Sheehy. Governor Greg Gianforte.

And, naturally, Donald Trump.

The endorsements came fast, very fast.

Almost as if everyone (except the public) already knew what was about to happen.

And the new candidate?

Kurt. Who?

A man who has never run for office, never held elected office and never campaigned statewide.

But suddenly—within minutes of the deadline—he’s the anointed successor to a United States Senator.

Amazing how that works.

Democracy usually involves voters, primaries, debates, competition.

But apparently we’re trying something new now — succession planning.

Apparently the voters of Montana are no longer supposed to choose their Senator. Instead, the sitting Senator (and Trump) simply appoints one.

How efficient.

No messy campaigns. No inconvenient challengers. No pesky voters asking questions. Just a quiet backroom decision.

Then—boom: “Here’s your new Senator. Please clap.”

So let’s ask the obvious questions.

Why did Daines wait until minutes before the deadline to withdraw?

Why did Kurt (who) wait until minutes before the deadline to file?

Why was there no transparency?

Why were other Republicans denied the chance to run?

Why wasn’t the party allowed to choose its own nominee in a primary?

Because make no mistake—this maneuver shut the door on competition.

Locked it, bolted it and then threw away the key.

If Daines had announced months ago he wasn’t running, there would have been a wide-open Republican primary.

Montanans could have heard ideas, evaluated candidates and compared records.

Instead, they got a political ambush — a last-minute switcheroo. A Senate seat was handed off like a family heirloom.

And the speed of those endorsements?

Impressive.

Trump posted his “complete and total endorsement.” Gianforte applauded. Daines praised.

Everyone smiled. All within hours.

Which raises another awkward question: How long was this planned?

Because this doesn’t feel spontaneous. It feels choreographed. Scripted and pre-approved.

Maybe it’s nothing.

Maybe it’s just the strangest coincidence in Montana political history.

Or maybe it’s something else. Maybe it’s a backroom deal. Maybe it’s political stage management.

Maybe it’s exactly what it looks like.

Either way, it stinks.

And voters can smell it.

Now let’s talk about the new heir apparent. Kurt Alme’s central qualification appears to be enthusiastic loyalty to Trump and his agenda.

Fine. That’s a position.

But let’s examine what that agenda actually means.

Cuts to USAID that humanitarian groups say could lead to fourteen million deaths overseas. Cuts to the Veterans Administration—thousands of doctors and nurses gone (more than 14,400). Cuts to Affordable Care Act subsidies—leaving thousands of Montanans without affordable health insurance. Cuts to HIV medication programs that keep people alive. Cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also called “food stamps.” Cuts to medical research for cancer and other diseases. Cuts to education.

Cuts to the Mansfield Center and the Critical Defense Language Institute that trains U.S. military and intelligence officers.

And tariffs. Lots of tariffs. Taxes on fertilizer. Taxes on farm equipment. Taxes on parts. Taxes on American consumers.

Because tariffs aren’t paid by foreign governments.

They’re paid by you, by farmers, by ranchers and by businesses.

Then there are the tax cuts — massive ones. The ones tilted toward millionaires and billionaires. The ones projected to add roughly $4 trillion to the national deficit. That’s a bill our kids and grandkids will pay.

But sure: “Fiscal responsibility.” Let’s go with that.

And what about Daines?

Once upon a time, he presented himself as a man of principle. A man of faith. Now he enthusiastically backs a political movement led by a convicted felon, a habitual liar, and a man found liable for sexual assault.

That’s a choice.

Everyone makes choices.

History keeps score.

So why the sudden exit?

What’s next for Daines?

A cabinet job?

An ambassadorship?

A lucrative lobbying career?

Washington has a funny way of rewarding loyalty.

But here’s what we already know: This isn’t how democracy is supposed to work. We don’t crown successors. We don’t install Senators through backdoor deadline tricks.

We hold elections, real ones; with real competition.

And if Daines truly planned to step aside, the honorable thing would have been simple: Announce it early, let Republicans compete and let voters decide.

Instead we got a last-minute maneuver designed to ensure only one chosen candidate could file.

That’s not leadership. That’s not transparency. That’s not Montana values.

It’s a political stunt.

And Montanans deserve better than political magic tricks performed at 4:52 p.m. on filing day.

Because democracy isn’t supposed to happen behind closed doors.

It’s supposed to happen in the open.

With voters watching.

Right now?

Something clearly happened. And the public deserves to know exactly what it was. Nothing good happens in darkness. What Daines and Trump did here – total darkness.

Montana citizens deserve better. We deserve the truth.

Jared Kushner has some explaining to do

Jared Kushner grew up sleeping in Benjamin Netanyahu’s bed.

That isn’t a metaphor or hyperbole. Netanyahu, during his visits to New York over the decades, was close enough to the Kushner family that, as the New York Times reported, he slept in Jared’s childhood bedroom. Jared Kushner didn’t grow up watching Netanyahu on the news the way the rest of us did. He grew up knowing the man as something close to a family institution.

And that man, who has said publicly that he has “yearned” to destroy Iran’s military and political leadership “for 40 years,” is the same man whose government may have been coordinating directly with Kushner in the days before the most consequential American military action since the invasion of Iraq or the Vietnam War.

We need to ask the question that official Washington is too timid, too compromised, or too captured by the moment’s war fever to ask: “Was Jared Kushner sitting across from Iranian negotiators in good faith? Or was he trying to get the Iranian leadership to meet together so Netanyahu could kill them all in one single decapitating strike?”

Here’s what we know. The third round of nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran wrapped up in Geneva on Feb. 26th and 27th. The Omani foreign minister, who’d been mediating the talks for months, told CBS News on the eve of the bombing that a deal was “within our reach” and that Iran had fully given in to American demands and agreed it would never produce nuclear material for a bomb, or an ICBM capable of striking the United States.

A fourth round had already been scheduled for Vienna the following week to work through the technical details following final discussions in Tehran. The Iranian foreign minister told reporters his team was ready to stay and keep talking for as long as it took.

And then, less than 48 hours after those talks in Switzerland concluded, the bombs began to fall.

On the morning of Feb. 28th, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council was gathered together in their offices for meetings. That body, the one that manages Iran’s nuclear dossier and makes the regime’s most consequential decisions, is exactly where you would expect the Iranian leadership to be sitting after a round of talks with America that their own foreign minister was calling “historic.”

They were almost certainly deliberating whether to accept or reject Kushner's American proposal. And according to the Wall Street Journal, American and Israeli intelligence had verified that senior Iranian leaders would be gathered at three locations that could be struck simultaneously. How they knew that is, as the Journal carefully noted, still unknown.

In other words, Iran’s entire decision-making apparatus was assembled in one place most likely because they were in the middle of an active negotiation with Jared Kushner. The talks had created a predictable, intelligenceable window.

Diplomats who were part of the earlier rounds of talks now tell reporters that the Iranian side has come to believe they’d been misled, and that Tehran now views the Witkoff-Kushner negotiations as, in their words, “a ruse designed to keep Iran from expecting and preparing for the surprise strikes.”

That’s not the assessment of Iranian state media spinning a narrative after a military defeat; it’s the conclusion of people who were in the room, speaking to American journalists, on the record.

Now layer on top of that what we know about who Witkoff was meeting with in the days before they sat down with the Iranians. He flew to Israel and was briefed directly by Netanyahu and senior Israeli defense officials and then, with Kushner, flew to Oman and Geneva and sat across the table from the Iranian negotiators.

The man who briefed Kushner’s partner (Witkoff) before those talks — Netanyahu — is the same man who said on the night the bombs fell that “this coalition of forces allows us to do what I have yearned to do for 40 years.” He wasn’t even remotely subdued or reluctant about the possibility of the Middle East going up in flames, perhaps even igniting World War III. He was, instead, triumphant that he finally got an American president to do something he’d been unsuccessfully pushing for decades.

We also know that the Trump regime’s explanations for why the attacks happened when they did have collapsed into open contradiction. Secretary of State Marco Rubio initially told reporters the US struck because Israel was going to attack anyway and Iran would have retaliated against American forces. Trump then went on television and flipped the scenario upside-down, saying he might’ve “forced Israel’s hand.”

The two most senior officials in the administration told two diametrically opposite stories within 48 hours of each other, and neither story explains why the diplomacy that the Omani mediator called substantively successful — that essentially got America everything we said we wanted — was abandoned without the final round.

None of this proves that Kushner was running a deliberate double-cross operation designed to concentrate Iranian leadership in a killable location. What it does prove, though, is that the question is entirely legitimate and demands an answer under oath.

This is not the first time in American history that such a question has had to be asked, or that it damaged America’s reputation on the world stage. In October of 1972, Henry Kissinger stood before the cameras and told the world that “peace is at hand” in Vietnam. The Paris negotiations, he assured everyone, were on the verge of ending the war.

But it was a lie: two months later, Nixon ordered Operation Linebacker II, the most intensive bombing campaign of the entire war, dropping more tonnage on North Vietnam in twelve days than had been dropped in all of 1969 and 1970 combined.

The Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 1973 on terms that serious historians have long argued were not meaningfully different from what had been on the table long before the bombing. Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize for those negotiations. His North Vietnamese counterpart, Le Duc Tho, however, refused to accept his share of the prize, saying that peace had not actually been achieved and the Vietnamese had been deceived because the negotiations were a sham. And he was right: the war dragged on for two more years and was ended by Jerry Ford with the fall of Saigon.

The question that has haunted the world since those 1973 negotiations is the same question hanging over Kushner’s Geneva talks today: were the talks ever meant to succeed on their own terms, or were they simply a setup to destroy the Iranian leadership even if they gave us everything we wanted?

There’s also the Ronald Reagan precedent. His campaign was credibly accused of running a back-channel to Iran to delay the release of American hostages held in Tehran so that Jimmy Carter couldn’t get a pre-election boost from securing their freedom. It took decades for anything close to a full picture to emerge, but now we know that the Reagan campaign successfully committed that treason just to get him into the White House in 1980.

We don’t have decades this time. A war is under way and Americans are already dying. The leadership of a modern, developed country of ninety million people has been decapitated. And every foreign ministry on Earth is watching and drawing conclusions about whether they’ll ever again trust American diplomacy.

If the Iranians were right that they were “negotiated” into a kill box, no government facing an existential American ultimatum will ever be able to assume our good faith again.

The damage this administration is doing to American credibility isn’t abstract or temporary: when a country uses the negotiating table as a targeting opportunity, it poisons the well for every administration that comes after it.

North Korea is watching. Iran’s neighbors are watching. China is watching. The next time an American president sends an envoy somewhere with a genuine offer of peace, why would anyone believe it? Le Duc Tho knew the answer to that question when Kissinger betrayed his Vietnamese negotiating partners in 1973. The world is apparently relearning it now.

Congress has the constitutional power and the institutional obligation to call Kushner and Witkoff before investigative committees and ask them directly: What did you know about Israeli targeting plans during the Geneva talks? When did you know it? What were you instructed to accomplish or delay? Did you communicate with Netanyahu’s government during the negotiations themselves?

The man at the center of this diplomacy grew up treating Benjamin Netanyahu like a member of the family. That’s not a reason to assume guilt, but it sure as hell is a reason to demand answers, loudly, now, before the war makes the asking impossible.

Three signs Trump's presidency is in a death spiral

President Donald Trump entered his second term with significant political advantages but, according to a former Washington Post political journalist, a “trifecta” of political blunders has put his presidency into “freefall.”

“Consider three of the biggest developments in our politics right now,” Greg Sargent wrote for The New Republic. “We just learned that the economy lost 92,000 jobs, a capstone to a terrible year in terms of job creation. President Trump has fired widely despised Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, a key architect of his mass deportations. And reports are indicating that the killing of scores of Iranian schoolchildren might have been the handiwork of the United States.”

While these three news items might seem unrelated, Sargent argued that the poor economy, his controversial immigration policies and the Iran war are all linked as part of a “trifecta” by which Trump “is frittering away the strength he and Republicans have enjoyed in recent years on three major GOP-friendly issues: The economy, immigration, and national security.”

According to Sargent, this was not inevitable. “When Trump took office last year, it was reasonable to fear that the American public would rally behind mass deportations and tariffs—that is, embrace two of the main tenets of right-wing nationalism,” he opined. “Meanwhile, the launch of the largest military attack in the Mideast in decades might have plausibly produced a rally-around-the-war-president effect. None of that is happening. And that’s significant in not-so-obvious ways.”

Sargent observed that Trump has eroded the public’s confidence in his ability to do his job at a basic level of competence. For perhaps the first time in American history, “no rally-around-the-flag effect is materializing” after America’s involvement in a major war. Citing a CNN poll which shows 59 percent of Americans do not trust Trump to make the right decisions regarding Iran, Sargent speculated that Trump and top foreign policy aides like Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are miscalculating the spirit of the American public.

“I guarantee you that Miller and Hegseth believe a latent majority out there is quietly rallying behind zero-sum malignant nationalism (tariffs regardless of the consequences), the treatment of all undocumented immigrants as criminals (mass deportations), and a kill-first-think-later military posture (what Hegseth calls the “warrior ethic”),” Sargent wrote. “This calculus assumes most voters will unthinkingly glimpse ‘strength’ in nationalist belligerence, in unshackled state violence at home and abroad, in nakedly authoritarian abuses of power.” They assume that as long as Trump persecutes the right “enemies” — “whether they’re Euroweenie elites, ‘criminal illegal aliens,’ or what Miller calls the ‘savages’ in the Mideast” — Americans will rally behind them.

“That supreme hubris is now breaking up on the shoals of Trump’s malevolence and incompetence on tariffs, his undisguised white nationalist brutality on immigration, and his sociopathic warmongering amid an obvious lack of any real war rationale,” Sargent concluded.

Trump’s political weakness is already evident in the special elections that have occurred since he took office. In these, he has been 0 for 9, with NBC News reporting that since Trump took office last year “Republicans have not flipped a single state seat controlled by Democrats.”

Mona Charen, a conservative commentator for The Bulwark, argued in February that Trump’s tariffs in particular are taking a terrible toll on Republicans’ 2026 midterm chances.

“Voters are rarely able to connect policy to outcomes, but they have done so in the case of tariffs,” Charen explained. “Back in 2024, Americans were about equally divided on the question of trade, with some favoring higher tariffs and roughly similar numbers opting for lower tariffs. Experience has changed their views.”

Because Trump’s political prospects are so poor, and historically presidents do poorly in their second-term midterm elections, conservative historian Robert Kagan told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that he is worried Trump will not accept the results if they go against him.

“It's clear that he has no intention of allowing the elections to play out and allow a Democratic victory,” Robert Kagan told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. “And I think it's important to understand his motives here. He knows perfectly well that, in effect, his presidency will be greatly diminished once the Democrats take either one or both of the Houses.”

Kagan added, “He himself is saying right now that he'll be impeached, and that is why he wants to prevent the Democrats from taking power.”

Trump left America vulnerable to retribution — and that's no accident

History doesn’t repeat, as Mark Twain allegedly said, but it sure does seem to rhyme. And right now, the rhyme between the first year of the George W. Bush presidency and the first year of Donald Trump’s second term is staring us in the face and it’s getting scary.

After “Poppy” George H.W. Bush finished his 1991 “little war” against Iraq, he left American troops stationed at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. Those soldiers on what Osama bin Laden considered sacred Muslim soil — the home to Mecca — became his primary grievance against America.

He said so publicly, raving at the New York Times and anyone else who’d listen. American men were drinking alcohol and looking at pornography and thus defiling Saudi holy land, he said, and American women were showing their bare arms and driving cars in a country where such things are absolutely forbidden. When Bin Laden declared war on us, he meant it as part of a religious and moral crusade.

That war came home on September 11, 2001, and it arrived at a miraculously convenient moment for an otherwise hapless George W. Bush. The new president had taken office under a cloud of illegitimacy after five Republicans on the Supreme Court, two of them appointed by his own father, stopped the Florida recount — that would have handed the election to Al Gore — and thus gave Bush the presidency.

Millions of Americans believed the 2000 election had been stolen, between Jeb Bush purging 90,000 Black voters from the Florida rolls just before the election, and the five Republicans on the Court handing Bush the Oval Office. His approval ratings were mediocre at best, he had no mandate, and he struggled to find any sort of an agenda beyond more tax cuts for billionaires that could excite the public.

Then the towers fell, and overnight Bush became the most popular president in the history of modern polling: his approval rating hit 90 percent. The man who’d been floundering became, overnight, a “wartime president,” which was exactly what he’d wanted all along.

Back in 1999, Bush told his ghostwriter Mickey Herskowitz that if he ever got the presidency, what he really needed was a war:

“One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander in chief ... My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it.”

Bin Laden’s 9/11 attack on the US gave Bush his “chance to invade,” his war capital. He spent it to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, and to drive an even larger tax cut for billionaires than originally anticipated.

Exposed by the Downing Street Memos, his administration had fabricated intelligence, ginned up fake connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and lied about weapons of mass destruction. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of his lies, but Bush got his “successful presidency.”

Now look at Trump.

His poll numbers right now are worse than Bush’s were in the summer of 2001; worse in many regards than any president in polling history. His approval ratings on literally every topic — from immigration to ICE to taxes to inflation to healthcare, etc., etc. — are underwater and sinking.

Further, there are allegations that the FBI is sitting on evidence related to claims Trump raped at least one and possibly two 13-year-old girls. His family is openly monetizing the presidency, with his nepo sons and son-in-law cutting real estate deals and cryptocurrency schemes with the governments of Saudi Arabia and the UAE while Trump pushes — against the advice of our intelligence agencies — to send advanced AI chips to those same countries.

The corruption is so brazen it barely qualifies as corruption anymore. Trump and his lickspittles have pulled off what was previously unimaginable: the reinvention of government as a machine to generate profit for the ruling family — much like Saddam Hussein had done in Iraq and Vladimir Putin has done in Russia — all right out in plain sight.

Meanwhile, Trump’s ICE agents are terrorizing communities across the country, beating and intimidating American citizens, deporting legal residents without due process, and violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments so routinely that constitutional scholars have stopped being shocked and started being terrified. Reports of ICE-related deaths of American citizens like Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis are piling up as the Trump regime refuses to cooperate in state-level murder investigations.

On top of all these crises, the electoral landscape for November is looking catastrophic for Republicans. Trump and the GOP are staring down a potential wipeout in the 2026 midterms, which is why red-state legislatures are gerrymandering with abandon, why Trump is floating proposals to nationalize elections, ban mail-in voting, and station ICE agents outside polling places in minority neighborhoods.

These are not the actions of a confident political party that believes it’s doing what’s best for average Americans. They are, instead, the actions of people who know they’re on the verge of losing power and facing accountability, and are therefore willing to destroy our very democracy to hold onto power.

So, Trump desperately needed something to change the subject. And right on cue, he launched an unprovoked military attack on Iran, apparently at the urging of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has his own desperate need to remain in power to keep himself out of prison for his own bribery and corruption scandals.

The bombing of Iran gave Trump a few days of wall-to-wall war coverage, pushing every other scandal (including Epstein) below the fold. It was a classic wag-the-dog maneuver, but so far it’s worked well enough to dominate the news cycle.

But here is where the rhyme with 2001 turns frighteningly dark.

Kash Patel, Trump’s FBI director, has fired or reassigned almost the entire FBI team responsible for tracking Iranian threats inside the United States. The specialists who spent years building intelligence networks to monitor Iranian-linked operatives on American soil have been purged from the agency, fired unceremoniously.

At the same time, Trump has let funding for the Department of Homeland Security lapse, leaving critical counterterrorism functions in limbo as Republicans in Congress refuse — at his insistence — to act. He’s systematically dismantled the very apparatus that exists to prevent a terrorist attack on the continental US or our assets around the world.

Ask yourself why. Why would a president who just bombed Iran simultaneously gut the very intelligence infrastructure built by previous administrations to detect and prevent Iranian retaliation? Why would you poke a hornet’s nest and then fire the guy with the EpiPen?

Unless you wanted to get stung.

The logic is almost too ugly to contemplate, but it tracks perfectly with recent history. Bush needed 9/11 and got it, and it saved his presidency. Trump needs something equally dramatic to reset his collapsing political fortunes.

A spectacular Iranian-sponsored attack on American soil, or even a major domestic attack by a radicalized actor inspired by the chaos Trump himself has created, would instantly transform him into a Bush-like “wartime president.”

It would push the bribery, the rapes, the constitutional violations, the ICE killings, and the election rigging off the front page overnight. It would give him emergency powers he has already shown he’s more than willing to abuse. It would give Republicans a reason to “rally around the flag” and postpone the reckoning that November 2026 currently promises.

This is not some wacky conspiracy theory: it’s simply pattern recognition. When a president provokes a hostile nation, then fires the people whose job it is to protect us from that nation’s retaliation, the conclusion is either staggering incompetence or something far more sinister.

We can’t afford to wait and find out which one it is.

MAGA agenda unravels as internal anxiety over election outcomes grows

Faced with a revolt among his MAGA faithful over his decision to join Israel in starting a war with Iran, our increasingly demented and delusional president declared this week that “MAGA is Trump.” He was responding to, among others, MAGA stalwarts Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly who rightfully called him out for abandoning his vow to “abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change” and his endlessly repeated lie of an “America First” agenda.

Indeed, the nation and world watch in stunned disbelief and overwhelming opposition as two-out-of-three American disapprove of this haphazard war. That’s no surprise given the fiascos over the Weapons of Mass Destruction that didn’t turn up in Iraq, the long, bloody, and losing effort in Afghanistan, and the recent kidnapping of Venezuela’s president and wife in a blatant attempt to take over the world’s largest known oil reserves.

Even worse is what seems to be utter confusion about what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. First Trump claimed an attack by Iran was “imminent” — which has been proved false even by his own intelligence agencies. Then it was necessary to “take out” Iran’s nuclear capability, which even those with short memories will recall he claimed to have “obliterated” in last year’s Israel-U.S. attack on Iran. Then it was for regime change to get rid of what he dubbed “the lunatic” 87-year old ruler. But then it was we had to attack because Israel was going to attack first — and being the stalwart ally in Israel’s Gaza genocide, our Middle East assets would also be attacked.

MAGA politicians can’t even agree if it’s a war. MAGA Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, claims “We’re not at war right now. They have declared war on us.”

Meanwhile, Montana’s own cluster of muddled MAGAs, masquerading as our congressional delegation, have all backed the bombing — a commitment which is rather specious now that half of the delegation, Rep. Zinke and Sen. Daines, have announced they will not seek reelection.

In the meantime, Montana’s super-patriot junior senator Tim Sheehy is so MAGA gung ho he physically attacked Brian McGinnis, a Marine veteran in full dress blues, who was protesting that “no one wants to go to war for Israel” during a senate hearing. The incident was captured in videos that have now gone viral.

In the meantime, gas prices are skyrocketing and are now higher than when Trump took office, the global economy is threatened by the closure of the Straits of Hormuz through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas are transported. The closure is now used as the latest justification for going to war…which, ironically, resulted in the closure.

Toss in the continuing inflation exacerbated by rising energy prices, the incredible blunders of Trump’s illegal tariffs, his radical attacks on long-time allies, the brutality of his war on immigrants, and the picture of MAGA madness comes into full focus.

Chaos is what’s emanating from the White House now and has been doing so since Trump re-claimed the presidency a year ago. But chaos is not what businesses want or need. Commerce thrives on stability where supplies, costs, and distribution are consistent and profit margins are predictable. Same goes for citizens who are trying harder every day to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

Has MAGA made America great again? Absolutely not. The utter chaos has done just opposite — which is no doubt why the MAGAs are terrified of the outcome of November’s elections.

New MAGA meltdown is about as un-American as it gets

It probably shouldn’t surprise us. After all, intolerance and hate have always been the fuel that drives and sustains right-wing movements around the world and throughout history.

Now the hosts of one of the largest-circulation “conservative” podcasts in the country are calling for a Muslim commentator to be stripped of his citizenship and deported from America.

His sin? He called for the next president to take down the Hitler-style massive banners on the Justice and Labor Department buildings that feature Donald Trump’s face, and the new one on the Education Department with Charlie Kirk’s face. And, of course, he’s a brown-skinned Muslim. As Raw Story is reporting:

“Yeah, he’s just a repulsive creature,” said one of the guys filling in for the late hard-right crusader. “We gave him citizenship for some stupid reason, and he rewards us by dumping on an American icon and an American hero. Yeah, you know what? I’ll give my primary support to whoever says, we’re going to try to find a way to strip this person’s citizenship and send him back to some dump.”“Yeah, we should, actually, we should,” his buddy agreed. “He’s a foreigner that, to Blake’s point, for some reason, in our stupid immigration system, he was allowed in. Then he’s allowed to come in here and smear the memory of Charlie Kirk, the legacy of Charlie Kirk.”
“And listen, those are the freedoms that have been bestowed upon him by a superior country and culture than his own,” he added. “And yeah, whatever, he’s British or whatever his, you know. But he’s a Muslim.”
“And so, yeah, we have a superior culture than Mehdi Hasan’s, and yet he’s come in here, and he’s been bestowed with the same freedoms that American citizens have long enjoyed.”

Mehdi Hasan is one of the smartest people I’ve ever met, and he’d absolutely destroy these two snowflakes in a debate. Which is why, of course, they’re not debating him but simply trash-talking him.

This neofascist call to use the power of government to punish a person for their speech is about as un-American as it gets. And it’s also right in line with the reactionary conservative impulse that goes back more than two centuries.

In the Adams/Jefferson election contest of 1800, as Dan Sisson and I point out in our book The American Revolution of 1800: How Jefferson Rescued Democracy from Tyranny and Faction and What This Means Today, partisan newspapers were absolutely relentless in their personal attacks against Thomas Jefferson.

John Adams fared better because, during the previous two years of his presidency, our second president had shut down around 30 anti-Federalist/anti-Adams newspapers and thrown their publishers, editors, and writers in prison for speaking ill of him. One died in jail, another fled the country, and others were financially destroyed. Adams even jailed the town drunk in Newark, New Jersey, for a comment he made to the bartender, making Luther Baldwin one of the most famous alcoholics in American history.

Then-Vice President Jefferson responded to a friend who asked, during Adams’ initial crackdown, how he felt about it all and he responded with a pithy expression of what has been, for most of America’s history, the true American credo:

“I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty.“The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people.
“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

When I was 16 years old, I published a little anti-war newspaper called The Jurist that a friend of mine and I distributed in our high school. My father — a fervent Republican activist — printed it on his mimeo machine, even though he totally disagreed with pretty much everything I wrote about the Vietnam War. In one issue I went too far, attacking the school’s principal for “suppressing our free speech”; he kicked me out of school.

It turned out well for me as I’d been on an advanced-track since Sputnik went up when I was in second grade, so I transitioned straight to community college that year, and my Republican father defended me all the way. As he would have defended anybody whose opinions differed from his.

Barry Goldwater would have agreed with my father (we went door-to-door for him in 1964 when I was 13), as would have most Republicans of that era. William F. Buckley welcomed lefties on his Firing Line show that Dad and I watched together every weekend.

But don’t try to tell today’s Republicans about pluralistic democracy or the importance of dissent in a free society. There’s nothing conservative about these right-wingers who embrace hate, violence, and the use of government force to shut up those with whom they disagree; that’s pure neofascist reactionaryism.

They and their Epstein-class billionaire backers will apparently be much happier if Trump can succeed in flipping America into a Putin-style autocracy and use the force of government to crush all the remaining anti-Trump voices.

DC insider tears apart the slimiest Trump admin spectacle ever

Trump says he’s not responsible for what happens next in Iran. “It’s up to the Iranians.”

He acts as if he’s not even responsible for what’s happening in his own government. After federal agents murdered two people in Minneapolis and Border Patrol head Greg Bovino was sacked, Trump lamely explained, “Bovino is very good, but he’s a pretty out there kind of a guy. It some cases that’s good, maybe it wasn’t good here.”

Yesterday the White House quietly removed Lori Chavez-DeRemer’s two top aides at the Labor Department because, well, they were pretty out there, too.

To paraphrase Daniel Webster when speaking to the Supreme Court about Dartmouth College in 1819, the DOL is a small department, but there are those who love it.

I loved it from the moment I entered the Frances Perkins Building on Constitution Avenue as secretary of labor in January 1992.

I loved its mission: to protect and raise the standard of living of working Americans.

I loved its history. The first secretary of labor, Frances Perkins — appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 — was also America’s first female Cabinet secretary. She was the guiding light behind the creation of Social Security, the 40-hour workweek, the National Labor Relations Act, and much more.

Her painting hung behind my desk in my huge second-floor office. Whenever I felt discouraged, I looked at her, and she bucked me up. (Although I’m Jewish, I called her Saint Frances.)

I admired the Department of Labor’s career staff, who were dedicated to helping American workers. I was deeply impressed by the assistant secretaries, the deputy secretary, the chief of staff, and other appointees with whom I toiled, often six or seven days a week from early morning to late at night.

Never before or since have I had the privilege of working with such talented people who cared so much about what they were accomplishing for the American people, and who made such a positive impact on so many lives.

We raised the minimum wage for the first time in many years, even under a Republican-controlled Congress. We implemented the Family and Medical Leave Act. We fought against sweatshops. We took on big corporations that were cheating their employees. We kept workers safe. We … well, I could go on and on. (And I have, in my book Locked in the Cabinet, which you can also find here, but please don’t order from here.)

Why am I telling you all this? Because I’m heartbroken. The wonderful department I once loved is being turned to s---.

I blame Trump. He’s the one who nominated Chavez-DeRemer to be his labor secretary.

Is it inappropriate for a former labor secretary to criticize a current one? Maybe, but I don’t care. She deserves it.

As I’ve noted, the White House yesterday told her two top aides — chief of staff Jihun Han and deputy secretary Rebecca Wright — to resign or be fired.

Investigators say the pair created a “toxic” work environment. Allegedly, they verbally abused staffers, silenced critics within the department, and concocted taxpayer-funded pleasure trips for Chavez-DeRemer by seeking out conferences or speaking engagements where she could make an appearance and then duck out.

I think Han and Wright are taking the rap for Chavez-DeRemer, who’s still facing allegations of drinking during the workday from a “stash” of alcohol in her office, taking subordinates to an Oregon strip club while on an official trip, and having an affair with a member of her security team.

In January, unnamed sources described Chavez-DeRemer as the “boss from hell,” saying she demanded staffers run personal errands for her or perform other menial tasks unrelated to their government jobs.

Meanwhile, her husband has been barred from the Frances Perkins Building after female staff accused him of unwanted sexual advances. His lawyer says the accusers are in cahoots with department employees to force Chavez-DeRemer out of office.

More than two dozen department employees from across the political spectrum describe in interviews with The New York Times a toxic workplace characterized by an absentee secretary, hostile aides, and a deeply demoralized staff.

It’s a f------ mess.

From what I hear, other departments are nearly as bad. Pete Hegseth’s Department of “War” suffers ongoing turmoil. Kristi Noem’s Department of Homeland Security is in shambles. Pam Bondi’s Justice Department is a wreck.

Almost every department and agency of the federal government has become a back-stabbing rat’s nest. Total pandemonium. Career staff against political appointees and vice versa, political appointees against other political appointees. Blatant misuses of taxpayer dollars, self-dealing, conflicts of interest, sexual predation, abuses of lower-level employees.

This is what you get when you have a president and White House staff who don’t give a rat’s a-- about who they appoint to positions of power except for their loyalty to Trump and how they look on television. Along with Republicans in Congress who don’t oversee these departments because they couldn’t care less.

The only reason the White House booted Chavez-DeRemer’s deputy and chief of staff yesterday was to protect her a--, in order to protect Trump.

Trump and his White House assistants are fine with his appointees wrecking our government because they don’t care about government. Hell, they came to government to wreck it. If the public loses confidence in, say, the Department of Labor, that’s perfectly fine. If Congress slashes its funding, so much the better.

It infuriates me because I’ve seen government work for the people. I’ve witnessed public servants who care deeply and bust their a---- in service to this country. I know how important government can be if it’s doing the job it should be doing.

I loved the Department of Labor because it has improved the lives of millions of Americans. I worked like hell as secretary of labor because I believed in what we were doing. That it’s now being treated like crap is an insult to generations of hardworking DOL employees, to American workers, to America.

The least we can all do is flip Congress in November, so senators and representatives who care about this country can oversee these departments and try to remedy some of the wreckage that Trump and his appointees have wrought.

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/

Trump breaks the law again — and the reason couldn't be more clear

Operation Epstein Fury — with a bonus to help Bibi get re-elected so he doesn’t have to face charges for his criminal behavior — is rolling on as Donald Trump ignores the constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war.

He’s also violating the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that dictates the president, if he reacts to an actual attack on America like Pearl Harbor, must notify Congress within 48 hours and have authorization within 60 days. In this case there was no actual or even imminent attack against America.

To further confuse things, Trump is throwing the Iranian protesters under the bus by saying that he’s willing to talk with the Iranian regime now that Ayatollah Khamenei is dead, much like he crapped on pro-democracy voters and protestors in Venezuela when he kept that repressive regime intact after illegally removing Nicolás Maduro and promising democracy.

This conflict is also now spreading. Khamenei was to many Shia Muslims around the world something akin to what the Pope is to Catholics (there’s no equivalent among the Sunni Muslims). Imagine the Catholic world’s fury if a country had assassinated Pope Leo XIV: we’re now seeing Shia protests and outrage from Bangladesh to Pakistan to Lebanon.

And here at home, Trump is musing about using Iranian interference in our 2020 election as an excuse to issue an emergency executive order to seize control of the upcoming November midterm election.

Which is particularly ironic, given that the well-documented Iranian intervention that year was designed to help get Trump reelected (after all, he’d just torn up the JCPOA nuclear deal) and avoid a Biden administration from coming into power.

Four Americans are dead and five in critical condition because of Iranian retaliatory strikes, as are civilians in several other US-aligned countries in the region. Along with around 200 young people in Iran after we bombed a girl’s school and a gymnasium.

And it’s early days. As Winston Churchill famously said in 1936 about war:

“Once the signal is given, no one can predict how far events will go.”

America’s Founders and the Framers of our Constitution not only would have agreed with Churchill, but saw a president seizing war powers from Congress as an existential threat to the republic. On April 20, 1795, James Madison, who had just helped shepherd through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and would become President of the United States in the following decade, wrote:

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.”

Reflecting on the ability of a president to use war as an excuse to become a virtual dictator, Madison continued his letter:

“In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [President] is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both.“No nation,” our fourth President and the Father of the Constitution concluded, “could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Since Madison’s warning, “continual warfare” has been used both in fiction and in the real world. In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, the way a seemingly democratic president kept his nation in a continual state of repression was by having a continuous war.

The lesson wasn’t lost on Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, who both extended the Vietnam war so it coincidentally ran over election cycles, knowing that a wartime president’s party is more likely to be reelected and has more power than a president in peacetime.

And, as George W. Bush told his biographer in 1999:

“One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as commander in chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

Every Republican president since Reagan has had his own “little war.” Now it’s Trump’s turn, after all the times over the years he warned that if Barak Obama was ever in trouble he’d start a war with Iran to distract us:

“In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.” (2011)“Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He’s weak and he’s ineffective…” (2011)
“@BarackObama will attack Iran in the not too distant future because it will help him win the election.” (2012)
“Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin — watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.” (2012)
“Remember what I said about @BarackObama attacking Iran before the election…” (2012)
“I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face!” (2013)

Given that Baron, Don Jr, and Eric Trump all apparently suffer from hereditary bone spurs and no Trump has ever served as a “loser” or “sucker” in our military (and his grandfather came to America as a German draft-dodger), it’s unlikely this war will mean anything other than profit-making opportunities for the Trump children.

But it compounds his constant ignoring of constitutional limits on presidential power ranging from gutting federal agencies without authorization to having ICE routinely ignore court orders, flagrantly violate the Fourth Amendment, and daily lie to the American people.

Nobody invested in peace or democracy is mourning the death of the Iranian dictator or the possible unraveling of its theocracy. But must we do it in a way that breaks both US and international law?

Trump apparently thinks so; not only will it distract from the news reports that he allegedly raped at least one and maybe more 13-year-olds — allegations he denies — and his corruption and bribe-taking but it also carves another “screwed Congress” notch in his belt.

There was no attack on America, as required by the War Powers Resolution. There wasn’t even a serious possibility of an attack on America.

Madison and the Founders of his generation had it right: this is a crime by Trump and Hegseth against our Constitution and our laws and requires a strong congressional response such as impeachment.

The truth about Roundup

Mark Twain supposedly once said, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story,” but there is a difference between a good story told in fun and a story (supposedly backed by independent scientific research) that people are led to believe because, well, science is supposed to be true. And so we come to the story of Roundup, the herbicide developed by Monsanto that swept the world because it worked and was the “safe” alternative to widely used weedkillers like Dicamba and 2,4-D,—it was said to be safer than table salt!

Roundup was developed in the 1970s as a non-selective herbicide, meaning it would kill almost any growing plant it touched. It was an effective burn-down herbicide farmers could apply prior to planting, and it assured an almost weed-free field at the beginning of the growing season. Roundup could be used in non-agricultural situations as well, to kill weeds and grass growing in sidewalk and patio cracks, around buildings, etc, but care was needed because, as noted, it was non-target and could kill whatever plant it touched.

For farmers, it worked well, except while it did kill growing weeds, buried weed seeds were not harmed, so a weed-free field at planting time did not ensure a weed-free field throughout the growing season. Weeds would continue to sprout, and more herbicide applications would be needed during the growing season.

Then Monsanto developed their big fix released in 1996, genetically engineered (GE) soybeans resistant to Roundup, followed by GE versions of other commodity crops: corn, cotton, sugar beet, and canola. Over-the-top spraying of these GE crops would kill everything but the crop, and Roundup became one of the most widely used herbicides in the world and GE crops came to dominate world commodity crop production.

Companies like Bayer have to protect their product and their profit even if they have to tell a few lies to do so.

While Monsanto sold Roundup with the slogan, “One spray is all you’ll ever need,” in time, it became clear that some weeds were developing resistance to Roundup and farmers were right back where they started, looking for herbicides that worked consistently. More genetic modifications were made to commodity crops making them resistant to other herbicides, like Dicamba and 2,4-D, the herbicides Roundup was supposed to have replaced. These multiple GE or “stacked” crops could be sprayed with a cocktail of herbicides, hopefully ensuring weed-free fields for the entire growing season.

Farmers are using more herbicide, even on the GE crops, and costs for GE seed have risen much faster than non-GE seed. Of course, the motive was never to reduce the farmer’s production costs or agricultural herbicide use but to increase it—that’s where the profit is.

For farmers who didn’t jump on the GE bandwagon, finding non-GE seed is often difficult. Even more onerous, some farmers have found it necessary to plant GE seed as a preventative measure because non-GE crops can be damaged by chemical drift from neighboring GE fields.

So much for effectiveness, what about the safety of Roundup? In 2000 a study was published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology that deemed the active ingredient in Roundup (glyphosate) was safe and not a human health risk. Since then, that study has been cited consistently as proof of Roundup’s safety. Numerous other studies have shown that glyphosate could cause cancer and that the inert ingredients that are part of the patented Roundup formulation increase the toxicity of glyphosate. Further, the practice of using Roundup as a desiccant on small grain crops (oats, wheat, and barley) prior to harvest puts Roundup directly on grain that enters the human food chain.

Since acquiring Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has paid out about $11 billion to settle almost 100,000 cancer-related lawsuits with approximately 61,000 still pending. In December of 2025 another blow to the claimed safety of Roundup came when the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal withdrew the 2000 article that had touted Roundup’s safety. While the study claimed to be independent and peer reviewed, it has come to light that Monsanto’s scientists played a significant role in conceiving and writing the article. Oops.

For decades Roundup has been sold as an effective herbicide, one that was safe for humans and the environment, and without which “consequences would be dire.” Companies like Bayer have to protect their product and their profit even if they have to tell a few lies to do so. They claim to produce safe products that help farmers thrive—real independent research refutes that. Bayer and the agribusiness industry may be thriving, but farmers are not and in these times, too few people seem to care that lies are accepted as truth.

An idea almost as awful as the lunacy Republicans started in Texas

It’s a ridiculous idea: temporarily revert to hyper-partisan reapportionment just six years after Virginia voters, weary of its abuses, put an independent bipartisan commission in charge of drawing fairer, more sensible lines.

Virginia voters are being asked to backtrack on a noble choice they made in 2020. Under a bizarre new map proposed by Democratic majorities that rule the General Assembly, Republicans could shrink from five of Virginia’s 11 U.S. House seats to just one.

To enable that, Virginians would have to ratify a state constitutional amendment in a referendum next month that momentarily suspends the independent Virginia Redistricting Commission that took decades of work to bring to life. In its place would be a brutally partisan reapportionment that makes the most notorious gerrymandering of yore seem quaint.

It’s madness — a highly contagious and virulent strain of madness engineered last summer in the laboratory of MAGA chicanery that is Texas, and released upon the body politic at the urging of MAGA’s leader, Donald Trump.

With Trump’s popularity cratering, the president exhorted GOP-ruled states to redraw their congressional districts to purge nearly all Democratic-held seats halfway through the decade of the 2020s rather than await the 2030 census.

This had nothing to do with population shifts or proportional representation. It’s a cynical hedge against an increasingly likely Democratic sweep of Congress this fall and the certainty that a Democratic House and Senate will launch one damning investigation after another into scams, scandals and coverups in Trump’s second White House term.

Lone Star Republicans eagerly raised their hands and said, “I’m your huckleberry!”

A redistricting designed to give five Democratic-held Texas U.S. House seats to the GOP cleared the Texas House on a party-line 88-52 vote. Then the state Senate did the same, also on partisan lines. On Aug. 29, the nation’s second most-populous state was carved into a new map with geopolitical distortions resembling a Rorshach test when Gov. Greg Abbott, an unfailing Trump footman, signed it into law.

Thus commenced America’s race to the bottom. The nation’s most populous state, deep blue California, responded with a map designed to flip five GOP-held seats.

Republican states are painting their districts red; Democratic ones like Virginia are painting theirs blue. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Utah have joined California and Texas in enacting new, partisan districts. Virginia is among four where legislation to do the same is pending. Indiana and Florida are considering it, both quite late to the game. Alabama, Louisiana, North Dakota and Wisconsin await court rulings or are in litigation that could force mid-cycle remapping.

For a huge swath of the electorate, this raises many questions with no good answers.

Voters, already exhausted, confused and disenchanted, didn’t want yet another rip in the fabric of American civic life. The latest polling shows most voters here prefer our current redistricting process, not the chaotic proposed remapping that’s being pitched to them now.

Tens of millions now must reorient themselves to unfamiliar elected officials and candidates in strange, misshapen new districts in which communities separated by several hours’ drive share little in common economically, historically or culturally.

Is all this really necessary?

In Virginia, where Trump is winless as a candidate and has been an albatross for Republicans in every state election when he’s been in office or on the ballot, Democrats might be able to achieve their goals under the existing congressional lines, said Mark J. Rozell, a political science professor at George Mason University and dean of its Schar School of Policy and Government.

“With the typical midterm reaction against the party in the White House and the fast-declining public approval of this president, Democrats are well-positioned to pick up seats without going through a redistricting process that will just set in motion other such efforts when they are not in power,” he said. “They might even come close to what they’re aiming to get by redistricting.”

Also, a short-term fix may have adverse long-term consequences, Rozell noted. In politics, as in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Something this drastic sets a precedent that invites in-kind retaliation later, when Republicans might control state government wall-to-wall.

Such a tit-for-tat escalation could doom independent redistricting, which Democrats once overwhelmingly embraced.

“I get it that this has become somewhat analogous to an arms race and that the Democrats don’t want to disarm,” he said. “On the other hand, there’s no denying that what the Democrats are proposing to do flies in the face of the position most of them took five years ago, which was very principled.”

Like a broad swath of Virginians, I find the GOP provocation and the Democrats’ response dispiriting.

I understand the Democrats’ argument. In the rabid partisanship ahead of November’s desperate, win-at-all-costs midterm election, expecting them not to respond to Texas Republicans’ naked power grab would be akin to expecting Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to greet Vladimir Putin and his invading Russian army at the gates of Kyiv with the key to the city.

The guardrails of civic and individual decency that once bounded acceptable political conduct are gone. Witness Trump’s seething, unhinged, ego-glutting litany of insults and grievances last Tuesday night that, at 107 minutes, was history’s longest State of the Union speech. (Virginia’s Democratic governor, Abigail Spanberger, delivered a scathing rebuttal that countered much of Trump’s vitriol.)

If Trump’s purpose was to further segregate Americans into hostile tribes and destabilize national cohesiveness, he succeeded.

I don’t know how this all ends. Nobody does. The Virginia Supreme Court has yet to take up Democratic appeals of two rulings by a Tazewell County judge in lawsuits Republicans filed to stop the referendum.

Nor do I know how — or even whether — I will vote in this referendum. I suspect I’m not alone.

I know without question that this fight has produced a malicious strain of politics in a state once known for respectful public discourse — or at least the veneer of it. I know I miss who we used to be.

Documents show Trump's election theft scheme is already in motion

Recently, Steve Bannon told an audience:

“And I will tell you right now, as God is my witness, if we lose the midterms … some in this room are going to prison — myself included.”

Now, it looks like Donald Trump and the people around him are seriously considering declaring an emergency to let them seize control of this November’s elections, according to reporting in the Washington Post:

“Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.”

Trump and the lickspittles and criminals he’s surrounded himself with are in a panic. If Democrats take the House and/or Senate in this November’s elections, they’ll have the power of subpoena so the regime’s crimes and corruption will be laid out for everybody to see. Some could even go to prison, including Trump himself.

He’s been basically screaming, “Do something!!!” at Republicans for the past year. It started publicly with his demanding that Texas and then other red states further gerrymander their elections to reduce the number of Democrats in the House.

In red states they’re purging voters in Blue cities from the rolls like there’s no tomorrow, and the GOP is trying to recruit “election observers” to challenge signatures on mail-in ballots on an industrial level. As reporter Greg Palast pointed out, this is how Trump took the White House in 2024; if it hadn’t been for over 4 million (mostly Black) fully qualified US citizens being purged or having their ballots rejected after technical challenges, Kamala Harris would be our president today.

But given how badly Trump’s doing in the polls today, even all these efforts don’t look like they’ll be enough to keep the House and Senate in Republican hands.

So now Trump toadies like Jerome Corsi (the creator of the Birther movement and the Swift Boat slurs, who’s been a guest on my program multiple times) have an idea: just imitate what Putin, Orbán, Hitler, and other dictators have done to hang onto power when they get unpopular: declare an emergency and use it to rig the election.

Yesterday, the Post detailed how MAGA-aligned activists are now openly discussing manufacturing or exaggerating a national emergency to justify Trump’s agents in the federal government to interfere in this November’s elections.

These aren’t fringe anonymous trolls on some obscure message board; they’re people operating in proximity to the president of the United States. Corsi arguably destroyed John Kerry’s chances in 2004 and lit the Birther fuse that catapulted Trump into political fame.

And they’re floating the idea that if normal democratic processes don’t produce the “right” outcome, they could help create a fake crisis to seize control of the election nationally.

If you’ve studied history — and you know I have — that’s the moment when the hair on the back of your neck should stand up.

Because this isn’t new, creative, or even uniquely American: it’s straight out of the authoritarian playbook.

In 1933, Germany’s parliament building, the Reichstag, went up in flames at the hands of a mentally ill Dutch communist who was probably maneuvered into the act by the Nazis. Adolf Hitler declared it “proof” of an existential communist threat. Civil liberties were suspended overnight. Gone in the blink of an eye were freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble as Hitler’s goons began to round up his political opponents and throw them into his new concentration camp at Dachau.

Elections were technically still held, but under conditions so distorted they no longer qualified as free or fair in any meaningful sense, and the so-called “temporary” emergency became Hitler’s legal bridge to a permanent dictatorship.

Similarly, in Turkey in 2016, elements of the military tried to pull off a coup against Recep Tayyip Erdoğan while he was out of town. Erdoğan declared a national state of emergency and then kept it in place permanently. Tens of thousands of protesters were arrested. Judges and teachers were purged from their jobs, and media outlets were closed down for being “fake news.”

While emergency rule was in effect, Turkey held an election that transformed its parliamentary democracy into a hyper-presidential system tailored to give virtually all federal power to Erdoğan himself. It was the end of democracy in Turkey.

Vladimir Putin’s rise offers another variation. In 1999, a series of apartment bombings killed hundreds of Russians and the Kremlin blamed Chechen terrorists. The attacks propelled Putin, then a relatively unknown prime minister, into the presidency on a wave of fear and fury.

Putin then declared a state of emergency that expanded his police powers, gave him tighter media control, and let him seize control of the elections process. In the years since then, elections in Russia have become ritual rather than reality. The ballots are printed every few years, and the votes are counted, but the outcome is never in doubt.

Viktor Orbán in Hungary shows yet another model. He declared a “state of crisis” over migration by Syrian refugees in 2015 and kept renewing it long after migration levels collapsed. During the COVID pandemic, he got the parliament to give him the authority to rule by decree on an indefinite basis; it’s still in effect.

As a result, elections still happen (there’s one coming up), but the media landscape was completely taken over by Orbán-friendly billionaires (see: CBS, WaPo, LA Times, Fox “News,” Sinclair, Wall St. Journal, NY Post, and 1,500 rightwing radio stations). Orbán didn’t need to cancel Hungary’s elections; he simply reshaped the legal and political environment in which they happened.

There’s a common thread in all of this. The crisis wannabe dictators inevitably declare — real, exaggerated, or cynically manipulated — become the justification for seizing extraordinary powers. Those powers narrow dissent, intimidate opponents, and functionally rig the elections.

That’s why this shocking new reporting in the Washington Post is so alarming. When political actors like Corsi begin talking openly about declaring an emergency to override or interfere with elections, they’re not blowing smoke: they’re testing a classic dictator’s narrative.

They’re trying to figure out — and will learn from the national reaction to this Post reporting — whether they can persuade the public that normal election processes are too dangerous to trust. After all, in each of the cases I listed above, the machinery of democracy was used to hollow out democracy itself.

And they may not even have to manufacture an emergency: if Trump can sufficiently provoke Iran, they may activate their proxy network around the world and in the United States, and we could be facing a genuine crisis on the order of 9/11. This is one of the few ways to make sense of today’s massive military buildup in the Middle East.

The danger here isn’t just a fabricated catastrophe or a retaliatory strike by Iran, although those are pretty damn severe. It’s the normalization of the idea that if the electorate appears likely to choose “wrongly,” an emergency can justify changing the rules of democracy.

History shows us, over and over again, that when a nation loses its democracy to an aspiring autocrat, the language and strategy used is always the same. “The nation is under threat.” “The moment is an emergency.” “Normal rules must be suspended — just temporarily — to save the country.”

And in every case, “temporary” turned out to be the most dangerous word of all.

We’re now at that moment where influential figures are publicly contemplating that path, and the lesson from history isn’t subtle. The real emergency, in a constitutional republic, begins when leaders like Putin, Orbán, Erdoğan and Trump — and their toadies like Corsi, Bondi, Noem, and Gabbard — decide that elections themselves are the problem.

Multiple observers have noted that this plan is grossly unconstitutional. But so were Trump’s tariffs (which also used IEEPA emergency authority as their rationale), and the Supreme Court let him run with them for almost a year before stopping him.

Similarly, ICE goons kicking in people’s front doors and smashing their car windows to drag them off without a judicial warrant is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, but Trump’s agents continued to do it every day. Something being against the law or the Constitution has never stopped our convicted felon/rapist/insurrectionist president in the past.

Trump's obviously winging it — and it may be his undoing

Trump said Monday that the United States would continue attacking Iran for “whatever it takes.”

But what’s the “it” in that sentence?

He also said: “We’re destroying Iran’s missile capability” and “annihilating their navy” and ensuring that “this sick and sinister regime” in Iran “can never obtain a nuclear weapon.”

But how will we know when we’ve achieved any of this?

American intelligence officials say Iran has not tried to rebuild its main nuclear sites since the U.S. attack in June. Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium are still buried deep under rubble. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says his agency has found no evidence that Iran resumed enriching uranium since June.

Yet even more U.S. forces are headed to the Middle East, and Trump says bigger waves of airstrikes are coming. He hasn’t ruled out sending in ground troops.

Neither Trump nor anyone else in his regime has provided any clarity about how we’ll know whether we’ve “won” this war.

He has no endgame. He’s given out different timelines and goals, depending on when and to whom he’s speaking. Asked by NBC News what his objectives are, he said, “Number one is decapitating them, getting rid of their whole group of killers and thugs.” He told The Washington Post, “All I want is freedom” for the Iranian people.

Trump told ABC News’ Rachel Scott on Sunday that he had a “beautiful plan” for Iran’s future. He told other outlets there were “good” candidates to take over, but later told ABC’s Jon Karl that the people he had in mind were all dead.

I can’t help thinking about the Vietnam War, which preoccupied much of my youth (and, since he’s almost exactly my age, presumably Trump’s as well). There was no clear endgame there, either.

The biggest difference between Trump’s Iran war and Lyndon Johnson’s in Vietnam was that during Vietnam, America had a draft — which meant the administration had to repeatedly justify the war to the American people. As that misbegotten war escalated and its justification became ever more elusive, it grew to become a central focus of American politics, eventually causing LBJ to drop out of the 1968 presidential race.

But Trump feels no pressure to justify or explain anything. He has no f------ clue what he’s doing in Iran. He’s winging it. He believes he can somehow pull it off because he thinks he’s invincible.

It’s Trump’s M.O. He loves to create chaos because chaos allows him to improvise — to impose his own narrative on a flood of events, dodge responsibility for failures, take credit for successes, and create illusions of glory and victory.

But the chaos he’s ignited in the Middle East is so large that the narrative may already be out of his control. The conflagration is escalating and spreading too fast. Just three days in, he’s making conflicting and inconsistent decisions and providing conflicting accounts.

He assumed a war would be helpful to him. It would justify emergency measures at home. It would deflect attention from his multiple failures. It would make him seem larger.

But it is already making him smaller, more hostage to what’s occurring than leader, more Netanyahu’s patsy than senior partner, another American president sucked into the giant maw of the Middle East.

Americans have short memories, but they do recall that Trump was reelected to accomplish three things: First, to get prices down. He hasn’t done this. Inflation is growing at an annualized rate of nearly 3 percent. Oil prices are about to go through the roof because of the war he’s ignited in the Middle East.

Second, he promised to get control of the nation’s southern border. He’s done this by unleashing immigration agents inside America on people here legally, and doing so with such barbarity — including at least two murders — that most Americans think he’s gone too far.

His third promise was to avoid foreign entanglements. He said during the 2024 campaign that he’d “break the cycle of regime change” and avoid “reckless” policies. He noted that toppling regimes without plans creates “power vacuums that are filled simply by terrorists.” He wanted to shift America away from being “the policeman of the world.” He repeatedly promised to “expel the warmongers” from government. On election night in November 2024, he declared, “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”

Trump has broken this pledge with astounding negligence. He has launched a war in the Middle East without a plan, without a strategy, and without any clear idea about where it leads or how it ends.

Even absent a draft, Americans will not tolerate this for long. If Trump’s War costs many American lives, they will not forgive him.

For all these reasons, Trump’s War may be his undoing. I pray it’s not also the undoing of 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/.

President-from-Hell Trump brings us one step closer to the point of no return

I grew up with a vision of a possible instant apocalypse, inspired (if, under the circumstances, such a word can even be used) by the nuclear obliteration of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. It could happen at any moment, even if you were “ducking and covering” under your school desk, as I did in those years. And I was hardly alone. That was a genuine generational nightmare of the 1950s and early 1960s — the possibility of a nuclear war between my country and the Soviet Union that might devastate my city, New York (or your city, FILL IN THE BLANK), and our world. But in those years what I never could have imagined was that, even without an atomic blast, I might already be living through the extremely slow-motion equivalent of just such an apocalypse, which should, of course, be the definition of climate change.

And with that in mind, let me start this piece with a distinctly slow-motion apocalyptic moment some seven decades later, one I’m living through not as a young kid under that desk at school but as an old man under the presidency of Donald J. Trump. Recently, in a White House ceremony, the president was crowned the “undisputed champion of beautiful clean coal” by the Washington Coal Club, an event attended by Environmental Protection Agency (or do I mean Environmental Destruction Agency?) administrator Lee Zeldin, as well as Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, both, as the Guardian reported, “staunch coal advocates.” The ceremony was in honor of the “signing of an executive order directing the defense department to secure long-term power purchase agreements with coal plants for military installations and other ‘mission-critical facilities.’”

And honestly, you don’t need to know much more to grasp that this world — as the Guardian also reported recently — is heading for a potential “point of no return” on the way to becoming an all too literal (if still reasonably slow-motion) hell on Earth, a genuine “hothouse planet.” Imagine that! And imagine that, in the future, the Trump administration is working so energetically to make far hotter, far faster, there will be no desks to duck under. And imagine as well that the man “we” chose to elect to a second term in office in November 2024 is now working all too feverishly to ensure that he’ll be remembered as the president of no return and that, before he’s done, it won’t just be the East Wing of the White House that he will have turned into rubble.

In that context, let me tell you just whom I feel bad for: the reporters on the beat in Washington, D.C., covering… yes, that genuine nightmare, President Donald J. Trump, the second time around. I often dream about trying to tell my parents (who died in 1977 and 1983) about this world of ours and You Know Who. But there would honestly be no way to do so. If they were to appear now, I’d be at a complete loss and, in any case, they would never believe me. Whatever I told them would, from the perspective of their ancient American world, seem like the most ludicrous form of fiction imaginable, not even a good (or bad) joke. A president like Donald J. Trump? Dream on. (Or more pointedly, of course, nightmare on.)

And yet here we indeed are. No question about it. And imagine this: the American people, or at least 49.7% of us, elected for a second time a man whose most essential goal remains the literal fossil-fuelization of planet Earth. Though all too few of us say so, Donald J. Trump as president of the United States should distinctly be considered the nightmare of our age, or possibly of any age. Once upon a time, you couldn’t have made such a thing up and yet, unbelievably enough, he wasn’t just elected president once (after all, anyone can make a mistake, even a truly grim one) but — yes! — twice! How could that have been possible, especially for a candidate so intent on taking our world down with him? Indeed, in November 2024, the American public reelected a former president who seemed to be itching to turn the United States into his personal property, while working all too literally to incinerate this planet. Just try to imagine that!

Can Donald Trump Flip American Democracy on Its Behind?

And that should indeed be considered a nightmare and a half. In this piece, then, let me offer both my pity and compassion to the reporters who have to cover Donald J. Trump for at least the next three years. Yes, hard as it might be to believe, barring a health disaster, always possible for someone who is going to turn 80 in July, we indeed do have (almost) three more years of him — and I should undoubtedly add “at least” to that. After all, he’s already clearly thinking about how to flip the more than two-century-old American political system on its head (or do I mean its butt?) and turn it into something else entirely — transform it, in fact, into his personal property. (Exactly what he and his associates have recently been trying to do with this country’s elections, which the president would now like to “nationalize.”) And to hell with the Constitution or anything or anyone else who might try to stop him! (As he wrote at one point on Truth Social, “RECORD NUMBERS ALL OVER THE PLACE! SHOULD I TRY FOR A FOURTH TERM?”) And don’t forget that the Trump Organization is already selling “Trump 2028” hats for a mere $55.

So, make that possibly five, six, seven, or more flaming years of him working to shut down (or at least endlessly stall) wind and solar projects in this country while continuing to fossil-fuelize the United States (and, naturally, the planet) in a striking fashion.

Of course, I’m perfectly aware that all of that might indeed not happen. Despite this ever eerier present we’re now living through, it might only be my grim fantasy of our future. Even Donald J. Trump might not be able to literally flip the American system on its ass. But given what we’ve gone through so far, don’t count on it not happening either.

And, of course, we’re not just talking about the man who wants to flip the system on its butt, we’re talking about the guy who seems all too intent on doing the same thing to planet Earth. Someday, Donald Trump may be known as the end-times president, since he and his Republican confederates (and I use that word advisedly) seem remarkably intent on ensuring that this planet will indeed become a hellhole for our children and grandchildren. At some level, it should be considered beyond remarkable that even 49.7% of Americans voted for a presidential candidate intent, perhaps above all else, on burning this planet to the ground.

Giving Imperial Decline a New Name

I mean, just imagine that, in Donald Trump’s world (as well as Vladimir Putin’s and Benjamin Netanyahu’s, since there’s nothing like a good war to drive staggering amounts of planet-heating fossil-fuel gasses into the atmosphere), this planet is his birthday cake and he’s intent on lighting the candles (most recently, of course, with his war in Iran).

After all, 2023, 2024, and 2025 were, as a threesome, already record-setting when it came to the (over)heating of our world. They were the three warmest years on record, and undoubtedly 2026 won’t be an anomaly when it comes to heating the Earth to the boiling point. In short, to make a particularly depressing point, whether you’re talking about fires, floods, droughts, or heat waves, what once would have been considered extreme weather is becoming ever less so, year by grim year. In the United States in 2025, there were 23 — yes, 23! — extreme climate-related disasters, each of which cost us more than a billion dollars. In short, the extremity of climate change is slowly becoming the norm.

In other words, we’re already on a different planet — and one only becoming ever more so thanks to those wars and world leaders like Donald Trump who remain so committed to the use of fossil fuels. And sadly, by the time they’re done, the resulting slow-motion apocalypse will be one where children won’t even be able to imagine ducking under their desks for protection.

In short, President Donald J. Trump is bringing us ever closer to “a point of no return” when it comes to climate-tipping points. Even in his own terms, by emphasizing fossil fuels the way he does, and trying to put the — yes, torch! — to anything associated with green energy, including electric vehicles, he’s turning whatever future we still have on this planet over to the Chinese in a fashion that should give imperial decline a new meaning. After all, despite the fact that China is still using staggering amounts of fossil fuels, the leaders of that country are also putting no less staggering financial resources and effort into creating green-power systems of every sort, which they’re already selling around the world. Meanwhile, they’re producing and exporting Electric Vehicles, or EVs, in a dramatic fashion. In fact, for the first time last year, the Chinese deployed more clean power in their country than fossil-fuel generating capacity.

On this planet right now, if you want a sign of imperial rise and decline, just check out the opposite ways China and the U.S. are dealing with clean energy. In the end, Donald Trump and crew would rather blow up boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, militarily seize the president of Venezuela, plan for taking control (in whatever fashion) of Greenland, and… well, do I really need to keep going? But climate change? No change there, just more of the same.

In short, President Trump remains remarkably intent on fossil-fuelizing our climate (and us) to death. Just the other week, in fact, he announced that, as the New York Times reported, he was “erasing the scientific finding that climate change endangers human health and the environment, ending the federal government’s legal authority to control the pollution that is dangerously heating the planet… a key step in removing limits on carbon dioxide, methane, and four other greenhouse gases that scientists say are supercharging heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather.” And count on this: for the next three years, that’s only the beginning when it comes to the president who has all too bluntly called the very idea that climate change might be a threat to public health “a scam.”

And count on something else as well: blowing up boats will prove to be nothing compared to setting fire to this planet.

Once upon a time in the previous century in this country, “red” was short for communist. In 2026, however, red should be short for fire, for the burning of this planet. Though Donald Trump is certainly no commie, he stands every chance of turning himself into the reddest president ever (and I’m not just thinking of those blazing red ties and hats he wears). Someday, his name will undoubtedly be synonymous with wildfire, drought, and unbearable heat, while “Trumping the planet” will mean heating it to the weather version of the boiling point.

In some fashion, give him credit. Donald Trump is all too literally intent on making himself into the president from hell, the president of no return, while ensuring that the rest of us will be living on one hell of a planet.

Truth already dead as Trump train wreck stumbles

On the third day of his illegal war with Iran, the bedraggled Donald Trump harrumphed in front of an overmatched podium in the East Room of a White House that is already under siege from this wrecking ball of a man.

Instead of formally and somberly addressing the terrible, needless deaths of four of our troops in this unnecessary war, and honoring their shattered families, this foul-mouthed, ill-bred coward spent his time castigating the gathered press, bragging about a ballroom that would allegedly grow from his rubble, and battering Democrats just for sport.

By this afternoon the U.S. death toll had marched to six.

Only hours before Trump spoke at the White House, not one … not two … but THREE American fighter jets were somehow shot down by Kuwaiti air defenses during an alleged "friendly fire incident” that leaves far more serious questions than answers, such as this one: How in the hell could this have possibly happened?

It really is incomprehensible, but everything connected with Trump often is.

It was an abhorrent display on the world stage, even by Trump’s dirt-low standards, and so I’ll ask another question: WHEN will Republicans stand on the side of decency and finally stop supporting this wreck of a man and his crusade to treat us all to the nonstop madness that bangs around his broken mind?

I will be brief this evening, but want to type with precision about the greatest danger that is most assuredly coming at us in the days and weeks ahead: more and more dangerous lies and accusations, and incoherent messaging that will contradict themselves by the hour.

The pollutants coming from Trump and his ghastly regime are sure to manufacture a fog of war so thick that anybody with eyes or ears will choke from being in their general vicinity.

Nothing can be believed by a serial liar, who from Day 1 of his disastrous presidency has worked tirelessly to drag our armed forces down to his pathetic level.

He will continue to deploy our troops in abhorrent ways that will benefit only him and not our country.

His Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is a stupid, loud man, who confuses screaming at people with leadership and clarity. He has no answers or manners, so he berates those who dare to ask him questions, and challenge his qualifications to lead our armed forces into needless battles.

I promise you that fully three-quarters of the military and civilian personnel inside our cavernous Pentagon, view him as a terrible joke without a clever punchline. He is a man without substance, who wears his ignorance on his sleeve. He is the perfect power tool for his mess of a boss to plug in and use however he sees fit.

Our military public affairs staffs deployed here and abroad, who are taught on the first day of their defense information training to deliver battlefield updates with “maximum disclosure and minimum delay” will be under siege, as they are instructed to forget everything they learned about the truth, by an administration that does nothing but tell lies.

I promise you that in the days and weeks ahead, as this war drags on to and fro throughout the most volatile region in the world, and takes more and more of our troops, the one common theme you will hear over and over again is the lack of any coherent message.

Hegseth will say one thing, his public affairs staff will say another, and the Lord of the Lies will contradict both.

And when the only thing achieved is chaos, death, and yet more instability, at some point they will all declare victory, and move onto stirring up trouble elsewhere always making sure to keep everybody terrified and on edge.

Whatever the terrible end looks like, you can count on it being every bit as chaotic as the beginning.

The truth will be nowhere to be seen ...

D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here.

Trump never meant a word he said

The list of reasons for the president’s illegal and unjustified war against Iran keeps growing. First, it was because Iran had nuclear weapons. (It didn’t.) Then it was because the Iranian people longed for democracy and human rights. Then it was because Iran is a leader in state-sponsored terrorism. Now it’s because of America’s obligation as “a free people” to liberate the oppressed.

But Donald Trump doesn’t mean a word of what he says about his reasons for attacking Iran without the consent of the Congress, because he is a man who never means a word he says. He will say virtually anything to achieve his objectives, no matter how petty or consequential those objectives may be, and if achieving them requires him to contradict previous statements, so be it.

In 2011, Trump famously accused President Barack Obama, who was struggling in the polls, of planning to “start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He’s weak and he’s ineffective so the only way he figures that he’s going to get reelected, and as sure as you’re sitting there, is to start a war with Iran.” In saying this, he appeared to believe that a president who starts a war to protect power is a cheat and a criminal.

He did not mean a word of it, unless he meant that it’s bad when a Democratic president does it but okie-dokie when he does. Either way, that allegation was levied in bad faith in order to deceive – to make Americans believe, in 2011, that Trump cared about things like principles and morality when principles and morality have always been mere tools for achieving his goals.

That Trump does not believe anything he says is illustrated moreover by the fact that he’s been calling individual reporters to determine which war rationales sound best in persuading a skeptical public. One in four say they support war with Iran, Reuters said today. According to an AP poll released last week, just 27 percent trust him to make good choices when it comes to using military force. Meanwhile, a CNN poll released last week found a stunning 68 percent believe he has the wrong priorities.

In that context, The Economist’s Gregg Carlstrom noticed Trump has been workshopping goals and rationales with reporters. To the Post, he said the goal is "freedom for the people.” He told Axios he can get Iran to make a deal “in two or three days.” He told the Times a deal might take "four to five weeks.” (He even suggested that he has “three very good choices" as to who would control Iran.) However, he told ABC News, actually nevermind.

“He doesn't sound convinced by any of it,” Gregg Carlstrom wrote on Twitter today. “He's throwing spaghetti at the wall. Ultimately I suspect he just wants to say he ‘solved’ a problem that has vexed every American president since Jimmy Carter. But there's no clear idea what that looks like and no plan for how to get there. And there are plenty of possible scenarios in which Trump declares victory and leaves the region with an absolute mess.”

The president does not sound convinced of his own words, because, again, he does not believe in his own words. He didn’t mean it when he said he would lower the cost of living. He didn’t mean it when he said he would bring “the Epstein class” to justice. He didn’t mean it when he said only “bad immigrants” would be deported. And now, after a decade of presenting himself as a peace-seeking isolationist who serves America’s needs first, he’s going to war, because he never meant a word.

Everything he is saying right now has one goal, which is creating conditions in which the unpopular president looks big and tough on TV for the purpose of gaining support in advance of this year’s midterms. You could say Trump is doing exactly what he accused Obama of doing. But you also say he’s doing what Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu is currently doing: waging a forever war in order to stay in power forever. Trump has been bragging for months about ending “eight wars.” (He said as much during the State of the Union address.) He believed being seen as a peace-making president would rally the base. That’s not working, so he now believes victory lies in the path of war-making. That this is a diametric reversal of a decade of isolationist rhetoric is irrelevant to him, because everything he said was intended in bad faith.

In the absence of an actual emergency, most Americans aren’t buying the rationale for war. Today, a new CNN found that nearly 60 percent disapprove. That’s before body bags start coming home. How high will disapproval go after the press corps focuses on the war dead? (Pete Hegseth said today he has not ruled out a ground invasion. Trump said today that the war could last four to five weeks.) And that poll was taken in the context of Trump’s heelturn. Every report I have read about Trump’s war has noted how it stands in stark contrast with his previous disdain for “forever wars” – a disdain now revealed to be totally fake.

The Democrats in the Congress are concentrating their energy on a bipartisan war-powers resolution. The goal is to reclaim constitutional authority from an executive who is abusing his. The president has to ask for permission to go to war, and many of the Democrats seem certain that the answer is going to be no.

That’s good, but the president’s betrayal of his stated principles in pursuit of a war to maintain his power presents a bigger opportunity – to dismantle what remains of the public’s trust and, most specifically, to accelerate the demoralization of his base. Maga voters are almost certainly not going to vote for a Democrat, but the Democrats can give reasons to stay home.

I’ll end by quoting Democrat Eric Swallwell, the California congressman: “This guy has lied to the American people about everything he promised he would do. … He said he would lower prices on day one. Instead, he put in his idiotic tariff policy that has raised Price. He said that he would get rid of war and now we are … a year into the administration. We have two new wars on the map in Venezuela and Iran. He has done the exact opposite this entire presidency of what he told he was going to do.”

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