Corrections

Former Fox News reporter faces $800-a-day contempt charges — and jail

Editor's Note: This article has been updated to include a statement from Fox News.

Politico reporter Josh Gerstein says a DC Circuit court has declined to stay a ruling against former Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge, meaning Herridge is now staring down the barrel of an $800-a-day contempt fine and possibly jail.

As president, Politico reports President Donald Trump will “lack the power to directly waive the fine or potential jail time that Herridge faces, but he could order the Justice Department to settle an underlying lawsuit filed by the woman, Yanping Chen.”

Settling the suit would wipe away the fines and any other punishment against Herridge.

“Herridge relied on one or more anonymous sources for several 2017 stories about potential national security risks related to a Virginia school that was founded by Chen and attended by many members of the U.S. military whose tuition was paid by taxpayers,” reported Politico. “Herridge published details about an FBI investigation into Chen, including photos of her in a People’s Liberation Army uniform.”

But Chen argued that leaks about the probe damaged her reputation, and she sued several federal agencies over the disclosures. As part of that lawsuit, she issued a subpoena to Herridge to try to force her to disclose her source, but Herridge refused. Chen sued the FBI, DOJ, Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security in 2018 for monetary damages and an admission of wrongdoing from the government that leaked about her violated the Privacy Act. But after her depositions failed to reveal the leaker, Chen turned her lawyers loose on Fox News and Herridge.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper ordered Herridge to pay the $800-a-day fine for her defiance of the subpoena, but he delayed enforcement of the fine to allow Herridge to appeal. Now that she has lost her appeal, Chen’s lawyers could ask the judge for stiffer fines or even to jail Herridge if she refuses to surrender her source.

“Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee, and Judge Harry Edwards, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, both sounded dubious of Herridge’s legal argument that Cooper should have balanced the public interest in news reporting against Chen’s desire to be compensated for damage to her reputation,” reported Politico last year.

“What is this balancing test? … What does that mean?” Edwards asked in arguments, while Joe Biden appointee Judge Michelle Childs was even less supportive in her comments about who exactly qualifies as a journalist — complete with journalistic protections.

“We’re now in this social media age where people hide behind Twitter, people hide behind other social media outlets. Who are you really protecting?” Childs asked.

Herridge was an investigative TV reporter, Politico reports she left Fox News for CBS in 2019, before being laid off by CBS in 2024. She now publishes her work on Substack.

In a statement to AlterNet, Fox News said, "The D.C. Circuit’s refusal to pause these crippling fines while a petition is actively being prepared for the United States Supreme Court is deeply troubling. As we have maintained, forcing a journalist to expose a confidential source strikes at the very heart of the First Amendment and sends a chilling message to newsrooms in their ability to hold the powerful accountable. We plan to continue fighting for Catherine Herridge, and the protected rights of all journalists across the country.”

Trump’s war 'a muddled Orwellian mess' as he refuses to acknowledge reality

President Donald Trump has lost the Iran War, and not only can he not face it, but Zeteo's Asawin Suebsaeng also warns that things could get even worse as the mess grows.

Suebsaeng's morning newsletter cautions that Trump's "war has devolved into such a muddled Orwellian mess." His refusal to concede or accept a deal continues to make things worse.

Meanwhile, Trump has flip-flopped all over the place when it comes to the war. On Tuesday, Trump claimed that a deal was "two or three days" away. On Wednesday, the U.S. hit targets after an Iranian drone took down a U.S. helicopter. Trump threatened that night he would "bomb the sh—— out of them" and would be taking Kharg Island. Then, suddenly, Trump claimed that the U.S. has "ended the war with Iran."

CNN's Anderson Cooper mocked Trump on Thursday night for saying for the 39th time that there was a "deal with Iran."

Austrian economics scholar Murray Rothbard mocked, "The Iranian navy, which has been destroyed eight times, has apparently closed the Strait of Hormuz again, because the United States, for the seventh time, won the war that wasn’t a war, so now the United States has to open the Strait of Hormuz that was already open before the not-war began. The not-war began because Iran had uranium that was totally, completely, beautifully obliterated, so they can’t build the nuclear bomb they weren’t building, which is why the United States had to start the not-war it definitely didn’t start."

The president simply refuses to concede that he lost, Suebsaeng lamented. He recalled the Pentagon Papers scandal, which at its heart, was about administrations from both sides knowing full well that the U.S. lost the war in Vietnam. They just couldn't tell Americans. So, they continued to throw away money and American lives.

"President Trump is refusing to admit what most of his compatriots know: He lost, and there’s no sugar-coating it (but, boy, will Team Trump try)," explains Suebsaeng. The whiplash of deal or no deal in the war is "a perfect example of what happens when the world’s most chronically dunderheaded warmonger can’t just admit he got wrecked by a much smaller adversary."

“The chances of it change by the week,” one official tells Suebsaeng. “We think he’s going to, but then he doesn’t.”

By the time he backed off on Thursday, Trump still wasn't willing to acknowledge that he was being destroyed domestically and dragging his party down with him.

Suebsaeng compared the ordeal to Trump's host of NBC’s "Celebrity Apprentice," which made it clear that the president must "have his ego spared from two of the simplest words in the English language: 'I lost.'"

Editor's note: An opinion marker was left off this article when originally published. It has been corrected.

Furious judge warns court 'will not tolerate' Trump DOJ’s 'pattern' of blunders

Politico Senior Legal Affairs Reporter Josh Gerstein reports yet another judge is slapping down President Donald Trump’s Justice Department.

The rebuke came after the office of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro requested an extension of a deadline to complete research to make its case in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Shorelight, LLC against the U.S. government over student visa refusal rates.

“The Department represents that the remaining searches for records responsive to Parts 1-3 of Plaintiff’s FOIA request are currently ongoing, but that, due to an oversight, the Department did not realize that the Court’s Minute Order also required these searches to be completed by this same date,” wrote Assistant United States Attorney Fithawi Berhane, representing Pirro’s office. “Defendant sincerely apologizes for this oversight, and assures the Court that it is taking steps to ensure that it does not reoccur."

But Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, had no patience for Berhane’s request, considering how many other such moves her department apparently has already made.

"This is not the first nor even the second mistake made by the defendant in this case the defendant previously committed to making efforts to ensure that this case,” Sooknanan wrote. “The defendants previously committed to making efforts to ensure that this case can move forward expeditiously and in a manner that avoids unnecessarily burdening the Court.”

Sooknanan then said she agreed with plaintiff Shorelight, LLC “that despite that commitment the defendant's conduct is developing into a concerning pattern that has recurred throughout this litigation.”

“Nevertheless, to ensure this case proceeds in an orderly fashion, the court grants the defendant's motion nunc pro tunc. The Defendant shall complete its searches by June 24th 2026 and the parties shall file the previously ordered joint status report by July 1 2026,” the judge said.

However, she cautioned that “the court will not tolerate further delays caused by the defendant and it expects that the defendant will comport itself with the level of care expected of a United States agency in Federal Court.”

The rebuke amounts to an embarrassing admonition for a department that has suffered myriad resignations under President Donald Trump.

Now, experts and insiders report DOJ lawyers are few, overworked and inexperienced — to the point where the department is now trying to coax recruits with a $25k signing bonus.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to remove overly opinionated language.

Pentagon on lockdown over 'hazardous material incident'

Editor’s Note: CNN reports as of noon E.S.T. that the Pentagon lockdown is over and was a false alarm. Chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller told CNN that after the anthrax attacks in the early 2000s, sensors were put in to detect things in the air. Miller explained that a cleaning substance could ultimately be flagged because it's so sensitive. He explained that false positives happen more often than not.

Original story below.

Floors two through five and corridors four through seven in the Pentagon are locked down Thursday morning as an incident involving the air quality is being dealt with.

According to the local Arlington Fire and EMS, the Hazardous Materials team is operating there "in support of PFPA’s Hazmat Team during a hazardous materials incident."

Police are wearing gas masks and full chemical protective gear, CNN reported.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer was concerned that those working there might be in danger because they're locked down. Others are likely being evacuated, the report said.

The air quality issue is necessitated a "precautionary measure," the Pentagon spokesperson said in a statement to CNN.

Retired Colonel Cedric Leighton remarked, "There are certain facilities within the Pentagon that are windowless facilities. So the only air supply that they're going to get is from the air handling system is in the Pentagon. Then there's the NMCC, the National Military Command Center," which is in the basement of the Pentagon," Leighton explained. Those areas are "critically important to the national security of the United States and to the operations of the military." It's happening at a time when the military is at war with Iran, he noted.

He said that what must happen quickly is for those staffers to move to another operations center.

Sabrina Singh, former deputy Pentagon press secretary, explained that there are plans in place for such emergencies and they're fully prepared. She anticipates it'll resolve quickly.

There are thousands of offices in the Pentagon, and she said that it will likely impact over 20,000 people in the building.

It remains unclear what the specifics are, said Haley Britzky, CNN's senior national security reporter. She added that it is all happening quickly.

The last time there was an evacuation this large was September 11, 2001, after the plane hit the building.

Trump so 'detached from reality' he may not even know how wrecked he is: report

President Donald Trump genuinely appears in no hurry to end his self-created Iran war disaster, which is tearing down Republicans’ chances in the November midterms. And Zeteo reporter Harrison Mann believes that might be because the president is truly clueless about the pain he’s putting on grumbling voters.

It’s hard for many Americans not to feel the increased pain at the pump and the agony of steady inflation in grocery stores, but Mann said an isolated president surrounding himself with yes-men and good news artists might be totally unaware of just how wrong things have gone in Iran.

“I’m always reluctant to attribute crises to the personal shortcomings of Trump because doing so can obscure the structural, often bipartisan failures behind his policies. … But at this point, it’s hard to ignore the evidence that Trump’s lack of urgency to sign a deal with Tehran is in part because he’s been very slow to understand the actual situation on the ground,” reports Mann.

Trump went into this battle expecting an easy victory similar to the regime swap in Venezuela. Mann says you can tell because weeks later, Trump and his minions were still looking for an Iranian second-in-command to hand over the country’s reins to — as if that were a possibility.

“Trump’s trusted advisers – both in the Situation Room and on Fox News – rarely if ever deliver bad news about the war, whether out of ideological desire to see the president ‘finish the job,’ or because they’re afraid he’ll shoot the messenger,” said Mann. “Tucker Carlson’s accusation that Trump’s staff presents him with fake polling on the popularity of the war isn’t hard to believe, given reports that Trump’s Iran intel briefs don’t just minimize bad news; sometimes, they’re just videos of stuff blowing up.”

Of course, the rest of the world outside the president’s ignorant bubble knows Iranian leaders still have the drones, missiles, and underground bunkers necessary to drag the U.S. into a full-on Vietnam-style quagmire. U.S. intelligence agencies keep leaking these more honest assessments directly to the public — probably in hopes that the info will eventually “reach Trump’s ears,” said Mann.

“I’m not sure those facts are getting through; likewise, I’d be surprised if Trump has absorbed that the U.S. economy is inching toward a recession because of Tehran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” said Mann.

And it’s not like the people running U.S markets are helping, being similarly “detached from reality,” said Mann.

“Traders … maintain an almost childlike faith that Trump would end the war quickly, despite mounting evidence to the contrary,” said Mann. “Oil futures have, to the point of parody, plummeted after every Trump Truth social post or Axios article hinting at an impending deal.”

With Trump snuggled in his impenetrable sphere of obliviousness, Mann said Trump apparently views today’s “pseudo-ceasefire double-blockade impasse as a satisfactory solution to a problem he’d rather forget, instead of a ticking time bomb.”

“Unfortunately, it may take a new crisis within this crisis – an unmistakable recession or more U.S. troops killed in the Gulf – to change his mind,” said Mann.

Editor's note: An opinion marker was left off this article when originally published. It has been corrected.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

CBS News eyes podcasting legend for Anderson Cooper’s '60 Minutes' replacement

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to include new reporting disputing RadarOnline's report.

In addition to his work on CNN since the early 2000s, broadcast journalist Anderson Cooper spent more than two decades on CBS' News' "60 Minutes" — an association that ended with his farewell broadcast on May 17. CBS News is looking for a replacement for Cooper on "60 Minutes," and according to the Austin American-Statesman and RadarOnline, execs may be considering a prominent figure in the Manosphere: podcaster Joe Rogan.

But according to Senafor's Max Tani, CBS News is disputing that report.

On X, Tani posted a link to the American-Statemen's reporting and wrote, "A CBS News spokesperson tells me this is false."

The American-Statesman's Faith Bugenhagen explains, "RadarOnline, a celebrity and entertainment news site, reported that CBS considering Rogan, who boasts 20.9 million subscribers on his YouTube channel, 'PowerfulJRE,' and millions of viewers of his podcast, 'The Joe Rogan Experience,' would be 'strategy,' not 'stunt casting.' Rogan would bring 'a core connection to over 50 percent of the country,' an unnamed media executive told RadarOnline, saying the 58-year-old media mogul speaks to 'viewers who feel ignored or mocked by legacy media' — a viewership that, if reengaged, would solve the network's ratings and credibility problems."

During the United States' 2024 presidential election, Rogan's endorsement of Trump underscored the gains he was making with the Manosphere, independents and swing voters.

Although the 58-year-old Rogan leans to the right politically, he isn't ultra-MAGA in his views. Rogan has often been described as libertarian, and he considers himself socially liberal — supporting same-sex marriage and the legalization of recreational drug use. Rogan, however, is critical of liberals and progressives on gun control.

Rogan, as a broadcaster, is sometimes compared to others in the "hot talk" genre, including Howard Stern and Tom Leykis (who also appeal to a largely male audience). However, Stern and Leykis opposed Trump in the 2024 election, while Rogan supported him.

Trump appeared on Rogan's show during the 2024 race — an appearance that, Bugenhagen points out, is credited with helping increase Trump's appeal to young Generation Z men and the Manosphere. The Austin, Texas-based Rogan, however, has recently criticized some of Trump's policies, including mass deportations, the Iran war, and his campaign against late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.

"Austin-based actor Matthew McConaughey, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Texas native country star Miranda Lambert and state Rep. James Talarico (D-Austin) are among those who have been featured on the podcast," Bugenhagen notes.

Cooper, now 59, announced his retirement from "60 Minutes" in February. Post-CBS News, Cooper is still hosting the long-running "Anderson Cooper 360°" on CNN.

"60 Minutes" has been on even longer, debuting on CBS in 1968.

Army specialist warns Pentagon  basic safeguards 'are being ignored': memo

Editor's Note: This headline was updated for clarity.

The U.S. military is racing to catch up with other nations that have realized the importance of cheap, expendable drones in modern warfare, but in its hurry to innovate, an Army explosives safety specialist has warned that the Defense Department may be ignoring basic explosive safeguards, resulting in “greater risk” of accidents.

According to a memo obtained by CBS News, at least one mini-drone has already detonated, injuring an Army Special Forces officer.

The memo — written by a U.S. Army staff member with more than 20 years of experience in uniform and as a civilian employee evaluating and monitoring safety experience in the service — warned that the “drive to counter unmanned aerial threats has imposed pressures that could undermine long-established safety standards.”

"We fully understand [Special Forces]'s ability to innovate and create tactical solutions to accomplish a mission set [or] task," the memo states, but it goes on to say that the safety specialist believes that the Defense Department "is in such a rush to solve future and enduring threats related to [unmanned aerial systems]" that "basic explosive safety principles are being ignored," and "will ultimately lead to a greater risk associated with mishaps [or] accidents."

While the U.S. military has used drones for decades, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, these have relied on complex, costly designs. The war between Russia and Ukraine, and now the U.S. and Iran, however, has proven the value of low-cost, easily produced drones.

“Earlier this year,” explained CBS, “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth created Joint Interagency Task Force 401 to help accelerate the Pentagon's drone production capabilities. Late last year, the Pentagon requested information from the defense industry to gauge its ‘willingness and ability’ to make roughly 300,000 drones, following President Trump's executive order calling for more unmanned aircraft systems to be produced.”

The memo warning of safety concerns was first distributed in March and was written by an explosive safety specialist from the command safety office at Fort Polk in Louisiana, where the Army's Joint Readiness Training Center is located. It was initially sent to the director of safety at U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. It detailed an incident in which an explosive device attached to a drone detonated inside a building, injuring a soldier with “lacerations to the arm and face and a concussion,” who has since returned to duty.

A spokesperson for the center noted that “it did not receive a request to investigate the incident, explaining that for an incident to be investigated by Army center, it must ‘meet the threshold in regard to a dollar value of damages to equipment and/or a permanent injury or death.’”

Nervous GOP insiders warn Trump cares more about 'mission beyond election cycle'

Editor's Note: This headline has been updated.

President Donald Trump's ability to sway the 2026 midterms asserted itself when, on May 5, at least five of eight GOP primary challengers he endorsed unseated incumbents in Indiana State Legislature races. The incumbents Trump was angry with will not make it to the general election, but many Trump critics are warning that his ability to affect Republican primaries and his ability to affect general elections are two very different things. And according to Semafor, party insiders fear that maintaining Republican control of Congress isn't as a high a priority for Trump as it is for GOP lawmakers.

In Semafor, journalists Shelby Talcott and Burgess Everett report, "Trump is still facing questions from within the GOP about how determined he is to keep control of Congress, as he seeks longer-term, legacy-defining foreign policy achievements amid declining approval ratings."

A Republican insider, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told Semafor that Trump is "certainly not" motivated when it comes to the midterms "in the same way the rest of the party" is — adding, "His mission goes so far beyond one election cycle or one midterm.”

Although Trump is "increasingly engaged in the midterms," Talcott and Everett report, Republican insiders worry that his "choices won't always align with congressional Republicans' calculations" — and Trump pattern appears to be "trying to shape his legacy" rather than "anything else."

Trump, according to the insiders Semafor interviewed, appears to be focused on what benefits him personally rather than what benefits the Republican Party on the whole — including not losing either or both branches of Congress to Democrats in November. And he is being quite "selective" with his endorsements, Talcott and Everett note. For example, Trump has yet to make an endorsement in Texas' GOP U.S. Senate primary.

"Republicans might bristle at Trump choosing to stay out of certain races," the Semafor reporters observe, "but while the U.S. president has a strong hold over his party, he's not infallible. And he has his reasons for being so selective. In Texas or Georgia, it's not clear he can orchestrate a result like he pulled off in Kentucky. And the calculus is even more challenging in bluer states."

Top experts issue new warning about Trump's mental health

Editor's Note: This story has been corrected because Tufts was accidentally listed twice as each physician's former employer. In fact, Dr. Abraham taught at Tufts and Dr. Lee taught at Yale. It also mentioned 36 mental health professionals at one point instead of medical professionals.

A group of 36 top physicians and mental health experts issued a public statement on Tuesday warning that President Donald Trump is quite literally losing his mind — and, unless he is removed from power, will put the entire world in danger.

Referring back to a statement they issued last month, the group argued in its statement (obtained by AlterNet) that Trump’s “mental instability, coupled with his sole, unchecked authority to launch nuclear weapons, makes him a clear and present danger to the safety of all Americans.” Because they have not personally treated the president, they did not officially diagnose him, but offered instead a detailed description of his publicly-exhibited symptoms including “bizarre and impulsive behavior, rambling digressions, factual confusions, unexplained sudden changes of course in strategic matters, both national and international, and his deeply impaired judgment.”

Since their initial statement to Congress, the doctors added that Trump “has exhibited more signs of grandiosity, e.g., posting images of himself on social media shaking hands with God, acting like Jesus, and dressing as a Pope. And he has continued nocturnal bingeing on social media posts that are filled with accusations of multiple conspiracies against him, as often as 150 times a night. Most worrisome are his outbursts of extreme, seemingly uncontrollable rage, such as his threat to destroy Iran, saying, ‘A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.’”

Because the president alone can launch a nuclear attack, and do so without his orders being subject to review, the experts expressed alarm that “these policies, combined with an emotionally unstable leader, is a formula for unspeakable tragedy waiting to happen. For this reason above all others, the group of medical experts urged that lawful steps be taken to remove the president from office.”

In response to this statement, as well as specific claims made by the psychiatrists whom AlterNet interviewed for this article, White House spokesman David Ingle accused Trump’s physician critics of behaving unethically by offering an “armchair diagnosis.”

“If it quacks like a duck, it may actually just be a Democrat hack doctor,” Davis Ingle told AlterNet by email. “President Trump is the sharpest, most accessible, and energetic president in American history and any so-called medical professionals engaging in armchair diagnosis or false speculation for political purposes are clearly breaking the Hippocratic Oath they’ve sworn to.”

The letter’s chief signatory, psychiatrist Dr. Henry Abraham (formerly of Tufts University), disputed that the psychiatrists behave unethically by calling out the president’s perceived infirmities. In the 1960s, the American Psychiatric Association attempted to apply the principles of the Hippocratic Oath to modern politics through the so-called “Goldwater Rule,” which denounces psychiatrists who offer clinical assessments of public figures they have neither officially diagnosed or been given permission to analyze. By Abraham’s accounting, however, the Goldwater Rule should not be applied to Trump.

“The ‘Rule’ is more of a guideline which a past president of the American Psychiatric Association raised the possibility of resulting in ‘rigid overscrupulosity’ while another, my colleague former APA president Alan Stone famously objected that it constituted a fruitless effort to ‘legislate against stupidity,’” Abraham told AlterNet. Citing his recent Substack post which described that “this is not an academic exercise” because “the president’s condition appears to be deteriorating,” he added that “there has been a frightening progression of symptoms. These include grandiosity without moral safeguards, paranoia, impulsivity, vindictiveness, easy misperception of being harmed, moments of omnipotence, uncontrolled rage, and sole control over the use of nuclear weapons in a time of war. As a psychiatrist reviewing these, I can only say Yikes!

When asked how Trump could be legally removed from power, Abraham said that “the solutions have to be political. They include invoking the 25th amendment, impeachment, or convincing him to resign as Nixon did. None of these are an easy lift, especially with a loyalist cabinet and Congress. But the irony is that our leaders don’t lead as much as they follow. A recent poll by the Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos group found a majority of [Americans] do not believe the president is physically or mentally able to discharge his duties. The public is waking up to these dangers. As they do, the political landscape may shift towards removal of a defective and dangerous leader.”

Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a psychiatrist formerly from Yale University and one of the psychiatrists behind the letter, argued that the focus on applying the Goldwater Rule is “a fallacy.”

“Overemphasizing ‘the Goldwater rule’ was a fallacy, in my view, that has nothing to do with ethics or actual science, and served only to deprive the public of critical knowledge,” Lee told AlterNet. “As I recently told the BMJ, ‘Diagnosing, through a personal examination with confidential information, is done for the patient, while detecting signs of danger, based on publicly available data, is done for society.’”

Lee added, “The Goldwater rule only concerns the former; the former is a prohibition, while the latter is an obligation, and conflating the two could result in massive harm--as it has. We declare explicitly in our Statement that we are not diagnosing but warning against signs of danger, which are extreme to the point of warranting the president's immediate lawful removal from office, for medical reasons.” In Trump’s case, the symptoms include “marked deterioration in cognitive functioning, evidenced by disorganized and tangential speech, rambling digressions, factual confusions, unexplained sudden changes of course in strategic matters, both national and international, episodes of apparent somnolence during critical public proceedings”; “grandiose and delusional beliefs, including assertions of infallibility, imagery of himself as Pope suggestive of a divine mission, being a mythical warrior hero, depicting himself as combat pilot—dropping feces on civilians, and claims that his decision-making authority is unlimited—with no need to consider domestic and international laws and constrained only by his ‘own morality’”; and “severely impaired judgment and impulse control, reflected in reckless threats of violence, advocacy of lethal force against civilians, encouragement of extrajudicial actions by armed supporters, repeated threats and often actions—judicial, prosecutorial, police, military, and by invoking emergency powers—against political opponents and others who disagree with him.”

The symptoms also include “significant loss of self-control (disinhibition) and getting stuck on the same thoughts or actions, unable to let go or move on (perseveration), including seemingly compulsive, manic-like late-night communications—e.g., 150 social media posts in one night—fixation on perceived enemies, persecutory ideas, and prolonged, disproportionate attacks on specific individuals and institutions” and “escalating violence that threatens national and global stability. As Commander-in-Chief of our military—more than 5000 nuclear warheads in inter-continental missile silos, on submarines, and in bombers around the world, are ready for launch solely upon his order, and no one now has the authority to countermand his order.”

To eliminate the crisis posed by Trump’s deteriorating mental state, Lee urged congressional leaders to “immediately retake their constitutional authority over war, before further escalation renders the question moot, convene urgent consultations with senior military and intelligence officials, to create a circuit breaker capable of preventing the use of nuclear weapons and formally initiate Section 4 of the 25th amendment.”

Lee has a track record of accurately predicting crises that will emerge from Trump’s public mental state. Prior to the 2020 election, she predicted that Trump would attempt a coup if he lost to former President Joe Biden because of his severe narcissistic traits.

“Just as one once settled for adulation in lieu of love, one may settle for fear when adulation no longer seems attainable,” Dr. Lee told this journalist for Salon in October 2020. “Rage attacks are common, for people are bound to fall short of expectation for such a needy personality—and eventually everyone falls into this category. But when there is an all-encompassing loss, such as the loss of an election, it can trigger a rampage of destruction and reign of terror in revenge against an entire nation that has failed him.”

She continued, “It is far easier for the pathological narcissist to consider destroying oneself and the world, especially its ‘laughing eyes,’ than to retreat into becoming a ‘loser’ and a ‘sucker’ — which to someone suffering from this condition will feel like psychic death.”

While there is no precedent for a president being involuntarily removed from power through the 25th amendment, former presidential adviser David Gergen told this journalist for Salon in 2017 that his ex-boss, President Richard Nixon, was secretly subverted by his own associates when his drinking led them to fear he was losing his mind. At the time, Gergen was alarmed at Trump’s seemingly erratic behavior from his first term.

“If you go back to the Nixon era, right toward the end during the Watergate period, when Nixon was drinking heavily and had become erratic, the secretary of defense at that time was Jim Schlesinger, an extraordinarily bright man and very principled,” Gergen told Salon at the time. “And he told the joint chiefs, if you get an order from the president to fire a nuclear missile, you do not do that. Don’t take an order from the commander in chief until you call me and I give you personal approval, or you get the personal approval of the secretary of state.”

Schlesinger, Gergen pointed out, was skirting the law by acting as he did.

“Nixon was the commander in chief,” Gergen recalled, “and Schlesinger in effect was saying, ‘We’re going to override the commander in chief if in fact we think it’s coming from some sort of aggressive personality or he’s just pissed off. Whatever it may be.’ And I’ve asked people in the Defense Department, ‘Do you think there’s a similar arrangement today between [Secretary of Defense Jim] Mattis and the four-star generals?’ And the answer they’ve given me back — I don’t think there’s any reason to believe he’s giving such an order … [is] that if they’re given an order that they think comes from an erratic personality, they will double-check it with the secretary before they carry it out.”

Americans are primed for political violence — and Trump is lighting the fuse

Editor's Note: This article has been updated to include a comment from the White House.

A top economic adviser to former President Bill Clinton warned on Monday that President Donald Trump is inciting violence in America — and his political opponents are helping him do it.

After describing how Trump, his top officials and former President Barack Obama denounced the recent White House Correspondents Dinner assassination attempt against Trump, economist Dr. Robert J. Shapiro wrote in Washington Monthly that violence is increasingly baked into America’s political culture. Citing a recent University of California, Davis survey of more than 7,000 Americans from all political backgrounds, the former Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs broke down what the Violence Prevention Research Center discovered.

“[Eighty-three] percent of its sample of 1,128 MAGA followers said the American way of life was disappearing so fast that force may be required to save it, and 61 percent endorsed violence and force to stop protests by those with whom they disagree,” Shapiro wrote. “More disturbing, when MAGA believers were asked whether they would personally be willing to use violence against a federal or state official to advance their political objectives, 11 percent said yes; based on surveys of the MAGA movement, that translates to 4.4 million people. Some 5 percent also said they would be personally willing to attack people who don’t share their views.”

Shapiro added that “liberals cannot feel smug about these numbers: MAGA believers are not alone in their willingness to consider violence. Democrats, Independents, and non-MAGA Republicans may be less likely to endorse violence in politics or participate in it. But most Americans are Democrats, Independents, or non-MAGA Republicans, so those who do agree add up.”

Indeed, when asked if they believed force or violence could be required to save America’s way of life, “28 percent of Democrats and Independents and 48 percent of non-MAGA Republicans said yes, alongside the 83 percent of MAGA believers. It suggests that 57 million non-MAGA Americans see a potentially legitimate role for violence in our politics, a signal that violence-as-legitimate-recourse is well embedded in the culture.” Even though support for violence somewhat declined when pollsters asked about specific scenarios, “some 17 percent of Democrats and Independents and 14 percent of non-MAGA Republicans join the 22 percent of MAGA who say force or violence is justified to advance political ends they see as important. That translates into some 28 million non-MAGA Americans open to tolerating violence when the political cause matters to them.”

This support for violence appears again and again, in various permutations of the poll’s questions. If the question is whether force or violence should be used against the government as a matter of principle, “17 percent of non-MAGA Republicans and 13 percent of Democrats and Independents are on board, along with 27 percent of MAGA followers. That suggests that some 24 million Americans consider legitimate the use of force and violence to oppose the government when it does not share their beliefs.”

Perhaps most ominously, “the study found that 6 percent of non-MAGA Republicans and 7 percent of Democrats and Independents joined 11 percent of MAGA believers in saying they would personally be willing to engage in force or violence against an elected official when it was justified to advance an important political objective. That adds up to 11.6 million Americans.” Similarly, when asked if they would use a gun to achieve a political objective, “about 2 percent of non-MAGA Republicans, 3 percent of Democrats and Independents, and 4 percent of MAGA followers responded that it was somewhat likely, and another 1 percent of each group said it was ‘very or extremely likely.’ That hardcore 1 percent who expect to personally use a gun to advance or protect their political goals add up to nearly 2 million Americans.”

Shapiro then listed examples to demonstrate that this propensity for political violence is not merely theoretical. In addition to the three documented attempts on Trump's life, Shapiro noted that were three gunfire attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris’ various campaign offices during the 2024 election; the 2022 kidnapping and severe beating of Paul Pelosi, husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; the 2025 arson attack against Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro; the 2025 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk; the 2025 assassination of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman; the 2024 assassination of United Health CEO Brian Thompson; acts of violence against Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota; and various acts of violence, some deadly, directed toward Jewish groups, CDC headquarters, the New Mexico GOP and ICE facilities. Even ICE agents killing political protesters Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Shapiro pointed out, can be characterized as political violence.

The list includes a mix of liberal individuals and institutions (Harris, Pelosi, Shapiro, Hortman, Omar, Good, Pretti, the CDC), conservative individuals and institutions (Trump, Kirk, the New Mexico GOP, ICE) and neutral ones (Jewish groups, the United Health CEO).

“Experts on political violence also warn that unless leaders stop partisan finger-pointing and accept more responsibility, political violence in the United States could worsen,” Shapiro concluded. “Drawing on extensive data analysis, Taegyoon Kim, the Korean social scientist, has concluded that ‘the inflaming effect of partisan elites’ threatening rhetoric—and the absence of counteracting behavior—suggest a potentially pernicious dynamic where partisan elites and their followers mutually escalate violent hostility.’”

Wrapping things up, Shapiro wrote that Kim “suggests that Americans’ growing acceptance of political violence may lead to escalating bloodshed: ‘Once violence begins, it fuels itself,’ she warns. ‘Far from making people turn away in horror, political violence in the present is the greatest factor normalizing it for the future.’”

When asked by AlterNet about scholars who argue Trump’s rhetoric is similar to that of Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler, and therefore should be described as such regardless of claims that it incites violence, Shapiro agreed that anti-Trumpers should not feel intimidated into silence when making those observations.

“There is no question that Trump’s approval about violence by his supporters has been an incitement—most obviously, in the January 6th attacks—and made worse by his pardons that said clearly, political violence to promote me and my personal power is beyond the law,” Shapiro told AlterNet. “The piece tries to step back from the Trump debate to show that approval of political goes beyond Trump and his supporters and is embedded more broadly in today’s political culture, though that approval is much higher among his dedicated MAGA supporters.”

AlterNet also noted to Shapiro that, with both sides eager to entirely blame the other for political violence, it could be “political suicide” to call out both sides.

“I don’t think it’s political suicide to call out violence on your own side—Trump himself could certainly do it, if he were less narcissistic—and I think it strengthens condemnations of violence the other side,” Shapiro told AlterNet. “And if some media and pundits would criticize those on their side who condemn violence of their side, that’s what leadership is about. Otherwise, as those who’ve studied political violence caution, we’re caught in an ever-heightening cycle of violence, slanted responses, and more violence.”

Speaking to this journalist for Salon in 2024, shortly after the second assassination attempt against Trump, New School historian Dr. Federico Finchelstein argued that Trump reminded him of Hitler because he "follows Hitler's playbook in projecting onto his enemies all his desires, fantasies, and aspirations. This includes, of course, as he said, 'retribution' and violence."

In response to Finchelstein and others who compare the president to Hitler, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Salon at the time that "it's been less [than] 72 hours since the second assassination attempt on President Trump's life and the media is already back to comparing President Trump to Hitler. It's disgusting. This is why Americans have zero trust in the liberal mainstream media." The White House also commented on this article.

"As the survivor of multiple assassination attempts — and watching his dear friend Charlie be assassinated last year — no one understands the dangers of political violence more than President Trump," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson spokeswoman told AlterNet. "And President Trump, and the entire Administration, will not hesitate to speak the truth and call out Democrats for smearing their opponents as Nazis, fascists, and more.”

Insider claims Trump demanded 'nuclear codes' in April in refuted claim

Editor's Note: This story and it's headline have been updated. A previous version presented Larry Johnson's claim without adequate verification. Independent fact-checkers at Snopes have found no evidence to support the claim. AlterNet regrets the error.

During an appearance on libertarian legal analyst Andrew Napolitano's podcast, former CIA counterterrorism official Larry Johnson alleged U.S. President Donald Trump asked "to use the nuclear codes," but was refused by officials. Others who took part in the April 18 conversation, according to Johnson, included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine.

"Citing unspecified reports of the meeting," the UK-based i Paper's Kieron Monks said in an article published on April 22 "that Johnson claimed Caine 'invoked his privilege as head of the military' to refuse Trump's request, leading to 'quite the blow-up.' He showed footage of Caine apparently 'storming out' of the building…. A White House spokesperson said the claim was false and criticized its circulation."

Snopes.com has since refuted the claim, however, and deemed it false, saying blogger Johnson “has spread false and unverified claims before,” including a 2013 claim that Secretary of State John Kerry had committed sexual assault while serving in Vietnam.

"Johnson didn't point to any specific evidence, such as news reports or photographs from reputable media outlets, to support his claims. We reached out to him for corroborating information and will update this story if we receive a response," Snopes reports.

To investigate Johnson's claims, Snopes researcher claim they searched for evidence of such an emergency meeting between Trump and Caine. A review of the official White House calendar on Roll Call, a news source covering Capitol Hill, showed no record of such a meeting. Additionally, searches of Google (archived), Bing (archived) and DuckDuckGo (archived) did not yield any reporting on the event or confirmation that Caine had blocked Trump from using the nuclear codes.

In addition, Snopes reports Caine has been publicly supportive of Trump's war with Iran, saying in mid-April 2026 that the U.S. would "use force" against any ships that violated the blockade on the Strait of Hormuz — a key shipping route for oil supplies.

Trump complains after judge nixes his ballroom

Editorial Note: The headline on this story has been changed for accuracy.

President Donald Trump is angry at the judges who ruled against his ability to build a massive ballroom over the White House East Wing he destroyed, and unleashed his rant on Truth Social.

“... [A] Trump Hating, Washington, D.C. District Court Judge, a man who has gone out of his way to undermine National Security, and to make sure that this Great Gift to America gets delayed, or doesn’t get built, is attempting to prevent future Presidents and World Leaders from having a safe and secure large scale Meeting Place, or Ballroom, one with Bomb Shelters, a State of the Art Hospital and Medical Facilities, Protective Partitioning, Top Secret Military Installations, Structures, and Equipment, Protective Missile Resistant Steel, Columns, Roofs, and Beams, Drone Proof Ceilings and Roofs, Military Grade Venting, and Bullet, Ballistic, and Blast Proof Glass —which all means that no future President, living in the White House without this Ballroom, can ever be Safe and Secure at Events, Future Inaugurations, or Global Summits,” Trump said.

Judge Richard Leon, who despite being appointed by a fellow Republican (President George W. Bush), set new limits on Trump’s planned White House ballroom, saying construction could proceed only on an underground portion of the project deemed necessary by the military, and not on the 90,000-square-foot above-ground addition that Trump wants to serve as an entertainment structure.

Leon argued that “the fact that the ballroom is planned to include security features such as bulletproof windows and a drone-proof roof … may well be beneficial” but the administration has so far failed to provide “any national security justification for why these features must be installed immediately.” Even if the president’s dubious national security claims are true, “national security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity," he said.

Leon concluding that Trump is “not the owner” of the White House but merely its caretaker, and also ordered that the president and his supporters not take "any action in furtherance of the physical development of the proposed ballroom at the former site of the East Wing of the White House, including but not limited to any further demolition, site preparation work, landscape alteration, excavation, foundation work, or other construction or related work[.]"

But Trump is not taking this well, arguing that “This Magnificent Space will allow them to carry out their vital duties as the Leader of our Nation. Furthermore, the Ballroom, which is being constructed on budget and ahead of schedule, is needed now. Almost all material necessary for its construction is being built and/or on its way to the site, ready for installation and erection. Much of it has already been paid for, costing Hundreds of Millions of Dollars. If somebody, especially one with no standing, had a complaint — Why wasn’t it filed many months earlier, long before Construction was started? The Public Record was open for all to see. Everybody knew that it was planned, and going to be built. This highly political Judge, and his illegal overreach, is out of control, and costing our Nation greatly. This is a mockery to our Court System! The Ballroom is deeply important to our National Security, and no Judge can be allowed to stop this Historic and Militarily Imperative Project. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

The American public by and large overwhelmingly opposes the ballroom. The 9,000 pages of public comments issued after Trump announced its construction were almost entirely negative. The comments included statements that the ballroom is a "complete DISASTER,” insisting that there be "NO GAUDY FAKE GOLD STUFF ALL OVER THE PLACE,” saying that “no one wants to be in an adjunct building in a large crowd with lengthened security protocols,” calling it an “eyesore” and an “abomination” and “appalling.” A Republican congressman, Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio, spoke out in protest that “the stark images of the East Wing demolished in mere days were deeply disturbing to Americans who cherish preservation of our nation's history."

Former Trump supporter Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois was downright vulgar, saying that "this jack—— in the f—— White House is destroying a permanent structure that can't come back. He can't do this on his own! There's a rigorous, rigorous process to mess with the restructuring, structural changes of the White House, and he just blows right through all of that!"

Navy secretary admits 'we screwed up' as $1.9 billion submarine overhaul scrapped

Editor's Note: A previous version of this story included an erroneous claim in the headline that the Secretary of the Navy quit. AlterNet regrets the error.

President Donald Trump's Navy secretary revealed "we screwed up."

The USS Boise, a nuclear sub is being taken offline after spending about $800 million trying to overhaul it. The goal was to use what they have and rebuild, but the costs are mounting, and it isn't even halfway completed. The full maintenance cost could reach $1.9 billion. So, they've decided to scrap it and build a new one instead, Semafor reported on Friday.

Secretary John Phelan said that Trump is aiming for a new "Golden Fleet" of ships. His 2027 budget allocated less than $42 billion for 19 new battle force ships.

“We screwed up,” said Phelan, who said he was embracing “radical transparency” now that he's in charge. “We did. This doesn’t look good. It is what it is. Time to move on, and try to get going in the future and move forward.”

A Congressional Budget Office report cited that building a modern equivalent of the Boise, a Los Angeles-class submarine (SSN-764), would cost about $8.7 billion. The Navy calculates it closer to $7.1 billion. A 2024 report from The National Interest said, "Modern aircraft carriers, like the U.S. Navy’s Gerald R. Ford-class, cost around $13 billion each due to their immense complexity and advanced technology."

Trump's "golden fleet" demand would be "battleships described as highly advanced and heavily armed. The proposal requests $65.8 billion for shipbuilding, aiming to produce 18 battle force ships, 16 non-battle vessels, as well as an increase in public shipyard capacity," Business Insider reported.

“I think, by killing these programs, it’s sending a message that we’re not going to continue to send good money after bad investments, and that we’re going to try to make prudent economic decisions that are in the best interest of the fleet and the force,” Phelan explained.

He implied, however, that Trump's $65.8 billion budget request for shipbuilding won't be enough to meet the goal Trump has set for ship production.

“The ’27 budget [will have] a very big impact on this, and in trying to get after it, and really an exponential increase in our readiness,” Phelan said.

New poll reveals devastating reality for North Carolina Republicans

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to correct a mischaracterization about comments made by pollster Paul Shumaker.

Things are not going well for Republicans in North Carolina as they desperately try to hold onto a U.S. Senate seat that has been reliably Republican under Sen. Thom Tillis (R) since he nabbed the seat in 2014.

The Carolina Journal cited a new survey from Healthier United, a health care advocacy group, that shows Gov. Roy Cooper (D) is crushing challenger Michael Whatley, 50 percent to 32 percent. Libertarian Shannon Bray is pulling 4 percent support.

The poll shows that only 14 percent of voters are still undecided. If Whatley were to claim all 14 percent of undecided voters, he would still lose the election to Cooper

The Journal noted that the numbers, which were taken from a poll earlier in March after the official primary election, is quite the change from two other surveys.

"A Carolina Journal poll conducted March 22-23 put Cooper ahead 49 percent to 41 percent — an 8-point lead. A poll from Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-aligned firm, conducted March 13-14 found the race even tighter, with Cooper at 47 percent and Whatley at 44 percent, a difference within the poll’s margin of error," the report said.

Paul Shumaker of Capitol Communications, one of the pollsters, explained that Whatley's challenge is being a nobody going up against a popular governor.

“The bigger challenge for Michael Whatley right now is getting a level of identity established and defining that level of identity as it matters going into the Senate race,” he said.

“Neither political party has ownership of the future of North Carolina,” Shumaker said. “It’s going to be the unaffiliated and how they decide to break.”

As North Carolina communications consultant Travis Fain explained, Shumaker "compared the numbers to what they saw during the pandemic in 2020, but said these polls results don't concern him much because Republicans largely recovered in North Carolina ahead of the November 2020 elections." The pollster noted there's time to do the same in 2026.

Whatley also faces a depressed MAGA wing of the GOP and an energized Democratic Party eager to fight back against full GOP control in Washington. It's evident in the generic ballot for the state legislature, where Democrats hold 49 percent support, while the GOP holds 38 percent. There are 14 percent undecided there as well.

Voters are eager for the election, with nearly 78 percent rating their interest in the Senate race an eight, nine or 10 on a scale from one to 10. Whopping 73 percent of that comes from Democrats and only 59 percent of Republicans show interest in the race. Unaffiliated voters rank at 60 percent interest.

President Donald Trump won North Carolina with 50.86 percent of the vote in 2024. His approval currently stands at 40 percent in the state and 53 percent unfavorable. Meanwhile, 58 percent of voters in North Carolina say the country is going in the wrong direction. Only 35 percent say it's on the right track. Those who identify as the most engaged in the senate race show that 62 percent say the country is on the wrong track.

Democrats have a brewing scandal in swing district MAGA craves

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to include a statement from Mackenzie for Congress campaign manager Andres Weller.

Bob Brooks, a Democrat running for Congress in Pennsylvania’s 7th district, is a firefighter and owner of a lawn care/snow-removal business. Endorsed by top Democrats including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and his own state’s leader, Gov. Josh Shapiro, Brooks is a frontrunner to oppose the crucial swing district’s incumbent, Rep. Ryan Mackenzie — a MAGA Republican who has voted with President Donald Trump on almost every issue.

Yet documents obtained by AlterNet reveal Brooks could have baggage that would help Mackenzie and MAGA cling to the district: He is accused of transferring his assets to conceal a six-figure amount owed to a creditor — and, in the process, of allegedly violating a key Pennsylvania anti-fraud statute, the Uniform Voidable Transfers Act.

Filed with the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 17th, plaintiff Carol Wiley accused Brooks and his ex-spouse, referred to in the filing as “Second Wife,” of borrowing money in 2008 and then using unethical means to not fully pay the resulting debt. Specifically, it alleged that “judgment on the Underlying Debt was entered on January 10, 2022 in the amount $130,386.36” and that in the following March Brooks sold his property in Whitehead to his second wife for $10 even though “the value of the Whitehead property at the time of transfer was $413,200.00, based upon the then prevailing Common Level Ratio.”

"The wording of Quitclaim regarding the identity of 'Jennifer' was a subterfuge which obscured the identity of the female grantor," the document claimed, adding that "the camouflage gave the possible, and false impression that the female grantor was First Wife” and that “the Transfer Tax Affidavit eliminated uncertainty by declaring that the Quitclaim was a transfer between spouses, (Robert and Second Wife) and therefore, exempt from the Real estate Transfer Tax.”

Concluding, the litigation alleged “that the transfer of the Whitehead Property” was accomplished by Brooks and his second wife “to hinder and delay the plaintiff in her efforts to recover on the Underlying Debt.”

In response to these accusations, Jennifer Konstenbader (formerly Jennifer Brooks) claimed that “the attacks being made against my ex-husband are egregious and taken completely out of context by my mother, with whom I have not had any communication in over six years. In 2004, my mother gave us land to build a home. Over the following 12 years, she never once approached us to request payment for that land.”

Konstenbader added, “To use this situation now as a way to demean my ex-husband is unjust, and I cannot in good conscience remain silent. Bob has been a devoted father to our two boys, and it pains me to see the truth twisted in a way that harms a good man.”

When AlterNet asked the Brooks campaign why Brooks did not pay the debt in the four years since the debt judgment was rendered, a spokesperson replied that “Bob has always followed the advice of his attorney and continues to do so. It is clear that Bob's political opponents are desperately attempting to use a personal matter to distract from his real record.”

The spokesperson added, “Bob spent 20 years as a Bethlehem firefighter running into fires, he has advocated for better health care and higher wages for his union brothers and sisters as the president of the Pennsylvania firefighters union, and he has earned the backing of leaders ranging from Governor Josh Shapiro to Senator Bernie Sanders to Pete Buttigieg because they know he will go down to Washington and take on Donald Trump and a broken political system. Bob will win this primary and he will defeat Ryan Mackenzie in November."

Mackenzie has only represented Pennsylvania’s 7th district since 2025; for six years before that, the district was represented by a Democrat, Susan Wild, who had been preceded for more than a decade by Republican Charlie Dent. Despite being thus widely regarded as a swing district that elects moderates rather than extremists from both parties, Mackenzie has voted with Trump over 95 percent of the time. This is consistent with the overall trend of Pennsylvania Republicans becoming less moderate in the MAGA era.

Describing the district to this journalist (a longtime native) for Salon Magazine in 2021, former Democratic State Representative Rich Grucela recalled that “several Republican friends of mine, I might debate on the House and then afterwards in the evening, have dinner with them and talk about our families,” but as Donald Trump radicalized Republicans during President Barack Obama’s administration, he scared off moderate Republicans with the threat of primary challenges.

In addition to Brooks, the Democratic nomination is sought by former Northampton County Executive Lamont McClure, former member of the Pennsylvania Advisory Commission on Latino Affairs Carol Obando-Derstine and former federal prosecutor Ryan Crosswell. Yet it was Brooks who won the coveted endorsements of two influential former Democratic presidential candidates, Senator Sanders and Secretary Buttigieg (the latter of whom may run again), and the state’s Democratic governor Josh Shapiro.

The offices of Governor Shapiro, Senator Sanders, Secretary Buttigieg and Wiley’s attorney did not offer comment despite multiple requests.

After this article was published, Mackenzie for Congress campaign manager Andres Weller issued this statement to AlterNet: "It is crazy that the two leading contenders in the Democratic Primary are Carpetbagger Ryan Crosswell who never lived a day in his life in the district until he decided to run for office and Conman Bob Brooks who stole tens of thousands of dollars from seniors and is back in court on even more serious charges." Weller's comment about Crosswell refers to that candidate's controversial decision to run in the 7th district, where he was raised, despite having lived in many other places for more than a decade and only moving back to the region in 2025.

Inside Trump’s plan to round up some homeless veterans

Editor’s Note: This headline has been updated to include the word "some." The first paragraph has also been edited to clarify the proposal is for "veterans who are unable to make their own health care decisions," which indisputably includes homeless veterans. The number of veterans this proposal applies to, according to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, is clarified to be "about 700 Veterans, not all of whom are homeless." As the New York Times reports, there are about "33,000 homeless veterans in the United States." This number is not disputed by the VA.

President Donald Trump’s new proposal for addressing "veterans who are unable to make their own health care decisions" could involve forcibly institutionalizing hundreds or even thousands of them, including those who are "homeless or at risk of homelessness," according to Department of Justice public affairs department. And that policy is raising concerns about civil liberties.

“Our new partnership with the Justice Department reflects our ongoing commitment to ensuring that every veteran receives timely, appropriate care,” explained Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) Doug Collins in a public statement. The VA says that they will initiate legal guardianships for veterans who are either homeless or “at risk of homelessness,” thereby empowering the federal government to involuntarily commit them to care facilities.

"Critics say the policy shift raises significant civil liberties concerns, noting that in earlier generations, people with severe mental illness were routinely stripped of their legal rights and confined to state hospitals,” reported The New York Times.

Representative Mark Takano, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, said that “the Trump-Vance administration is pursuing policies that would push hundreds, if not thousands, of veterans into institutions and court-ordered guardianships.”

Takano added, “Guardianship should always be a last resort, after all less restrictive options have been exhausted, to ensure veterans’ rights are respected.”

By contrast, Michael Figlioli, the director of the National Veterans Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said “that some of our nation’s most vulnerable veterans must be approached through a public health and social services framework” and argued that if the program is carried out thoughtfully, guardianships could offer more “structured support” for vulnerable veterans. At the same time, he said that there would need to be due diligence taken to account for “veterans’ privacy, potential implementation gaps and the need for sufficient resources.”

As the Times reported, “There are about 33,000 homeless veterans in the United States, about 14,000 of whom live on the streets. Veterans make up around 5 percent of the unsheltered homeless population.” VA press secretary Pete Kasperowicz contacted AlterNet to clarify the proposal "will only apply to about 700 Veterans, not all of whom are homeless."

This stat implies that this policy applies to all of them, when in reality we’re looking at about 700 Veterans, not all of whom are homeless

Prior to this policy change, Trump has often disappointed veterans. He reneged earlier in March on a promise to establish a National Center for Warrior Independence, and his sweeping cuts to the federal workforce led to 62,000 veterans losing their jobs.

"Prior to this policy change, Trump has often disappointed veterans. He seemingly reneged earlier in March on a promise to establish a National Center for Warrior Independence by instead using the area to house parking lots, the UCLA baseball field, the Brentwood schools’ sports facilities, dog parks and oil wells; the Trump administration has since promised to build thousands of units, but one expert anticipates their total reaching 'maybe 5,000' which would be 'about 1,000 short of his promise to veterans.' Similarly Trump's sweeping cuts to the federal workforce led to 62,000 veterans losing their jobs."

“The Trump Administration has radically slashed the federal civilian workforce, sidestepping Congress and causing disruptions, slowdowns, and fragility in a range of critical public services that people and communities depend on,” wrote the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities earlier in March. “Veterans have been affected by these cuts both as members of the federal workforce and as recipients of federal health care and other benefits available to them based on their service.”

Trump has also been accused of showing disrespect toward veterans, such as earlier in March when he ignored protocol and left his hat on while greeting the remains of six soldiers killed in his Iran war.

“This fool has ABSOLUTELY no sense of dignity or appreciation for the moment,” Michael Steele, Republican National Committee chair from 2009 to 2011, wrote on X. “It is called the Dignified Transfer for a reason. Take your damn hat off!!”

Douglas Heye, a former communications director for the Republican National Committee, said that there is a partisan double standard.

“I know what Republicans would have said if Obama had done this — I would have written the statement,” Heye posted on X. “Shameful.”

A number of administration sources, including Trump’s former chief of staff and retired Marine Corps. General John F. Kelly, have said that Trump privately referred to soldiers as “suckers” and “losers” because he could not understand them fighting for things other than self-interest.

'Betrayed': Joe Rogan turns on Donald Trump over new issue

Editor’s Note: Dr. Steven Hassan’s book title, “Combating Cult Mind Control," has been updated.

President Donald Trump arguably owes much of his political success to the sympathetic coverage he received from right-wing podcaster Joe Rogan — yet when it comes to the Iran war, Rogan is turning on Trump.

“Well, it just seems so insane, based on what he ran on. I mean, this is why a lot of people feel betrayed, right?” Rogan said during the Tuesday episode of his podcast “The Joe Rogan Experience.” “He ran on, ‘No more wars,’ ‘End these stupid, senseless wars,’ and then we have one that we can’t even really clearly define why we did it.”

Rogan is not limiting his criticisms of Trump to the Iran war. In February he warned the administration that Trump’s ongoing cover up of documents related to the late child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, with whom Trump was close friends, looks “terrible.”

“Who knows what f — — happens with all this Epstein files s — —,” Rogan said. “It just keeps getting crazier and crazier and crazier and deeper and deeper.”

He added, “Why would your name be redacted if you’re not a victim? Like, this is what’s crazy about all this. Like, how come you redact some people and you don’t redact other people?”

Overall Rogan concluded that Trump’s refusal to be candid about the Epstein scandal “is not good. None of this is good for this administration. It looks f — — terrible. It looks terrible. It looks terrible for Trump when he was saying that none of this was real. This is all a hoax. This is not a hoax. Like, did you not know?"

In January, Rogan also called out Trump for empowering ICE in ways that the podcaster argued violate people’s basic civil liberties.

"One of the real problems is, ICE are villains," Rogan argued. “And people are looking at them like, military people that on the streets of our city. And they're masked up, which is also a problem, right? Because if you get arrested by a cop, you're allowed to ask the cop, 'what is your name and badge number?' And you can film that cop. If you get arrested by an ICE agent, you have no such right. they're wearing a mask. They don't have to tell you s——. That's a problem."

Despite his current willingness to depart from the Trump administration, Rogan has in the past been adamant in his support for MAGA. Speaking with this author for Salon Magazine in 2022, cult expert Dr. Steven Hassan pointed out that Rogan hosted him in 2015 to discuss his book “Combating Cult Mind Control,” but refused to do the same with his book “The Cult of Trump.”

“I was on Joe Rogan’s show in 2015 regarding my first book ‘Combating Cult Mind Control,'” Hassan recalled. “He loved my work and invited me back. But then when I did ‘The Cult of Trump,’ he passed.”

Economists uncover an unexpected explanation for backlash against Trump's plan

Editor's Note: The story was updated on Tuesday to include a reply from the White House.

President Donald Trump has a "wrongheaded mercantilist view of international trade,” a Johns Hopkins economist wrote for Fortune Magazine on Tuesday — and his upcoming State of the Union address will likely pander to those who share his mistaken belief that "the U.S. is victimized by foreigners, as reflected in the country’s negative external trade balance.”

“On Friday, he raged at the fresh news of his defeat by calling the high court’s justices ‘disloyal’ and immediately erected 10% tariffs on the world, revising those upward to 15% over the weekend, via social media,” Fortune’s Steve H. Hanke wrote regarding the political fallout from the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision overturning Trump’s tariffs. “As this week has progressed, he has vowed ‘to do absolutely ‘terrible’ things to foreign countries.’”

Hanke pointed out that the 1974 Trade Act does not empower Trump to unilaterally levy tariffs, despite him falsely claiming that Section 122 grants him this authority. Setting aside the legal questions for a moment, though, Hanke also argued that it is absurd to claim America’s trade deficit is an economic problem for ordinary consumers.

“This wrongheaded mercantilist view of international trade and external accounts has its roots in how individual businesses operate,” Hanke said. “A healthy business generates positive free cash flows, with revenues that exceed outlays. If a business cannot generate positive free cash flows on a sustained basis and cannot take on more debt or issue more equity to finance itself, then it will be forced to declare bankruptcy.”

Even though a trade deficit occurs when Americans spend more than they produce, “as long as Americans can finance the deficit with ease, which has been the case since 1976, the deficits are a ‘good,’ not a ‘bad,’” Hanke explained. “This is why most economists, ever since Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, reject mercantilism and all the baggage that goes with it, including tariffs.”

The White House, in turn, disputes Hanke's bleak assessment.

“The U.S. Trade Representative comprehensively laid out in a 2025 report how America’s trading partners were systematically ripping off American workers, farmers, and industries with unfair trade barriers and tariffs," White House spokesman Kush Desai told AlterNet in a statement in response to the Fortune story. "President Trump’s trade rhetoric is backed up by a clear pattern of facts and data – and both the President and his trade team are hard at work to reverse America Last policies that have left our country behind.”

Hanke is not alone among experts in denouncing Trump’s pro-tariff policies. Last week the editors of the conservative publication National Review argued Trump’s boast “that the U.S. trade deficit had been reduced by 78 percent thanks to his comprehensive tariff regime” was undercut by the annual trade report produced by Trump’s own Census Bureau, which “reveals that the U.S. trade deficit declined by just 0.2 percent in 2025 — a far cry from Trump's figure — from $903.5 billion in 2024 to $901.5 billion last year."

Because Trump’s tariffs are hitting America’s farmers especially hard, agriculture industry advocates are likewise critical of them.

"We call on Congress to exercise its oversight role to ensure trade policy supports — not undermines — America’s family farmers and ranchers,” National Farmers Union president Rob Larew said in a statement. “Over the past year, tariffs have raised input costs, disrupted export markets and triggered retaliation against U.S. agricultural goods. In an already fragile farm economy, uncertainty has hit family operations hardest.”

The libertarian Cato Institute recently determined through a data analysis that all of tariffs enacted through Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, as Trump has done after the Supreme Court overturned much of his original tariff regimen, will expire after 150 days unless they are authorized by Congress. This, in theory, will put vulnerable congressional Republicans on the spot to vote for or against the president’s signature economic policy during the 2026 midterm election cycle. As this author wrote for the think tank the Progressive Policy Institute in March, historically Democrats tend to politically outperform Republicans when they focus on lowering tariffs as their own signature issue. Anti-Trump conservative commentator Charlie Sykes warned fellow commentator Matt Lewis earlier this week that this could put the Republican-controlled Congress in a serious bind.

Further compounding matters, Democrats are calling for Trump to issue tariff refunds in light of the Supreme Court overturning the taxes.

“Across the country, businesses paid billions in unlawful duties,” lawyer Neal Katyal, who successfully argued for repealing the tariffs to the Supreme Court, recently wrote. “At several points along the way, government lawyers assured judges that there would be no ‘harm’ in allowing tariff collection to continue during the appeal process because duties later invalidated could be refunded — with interest. Businesses would be made whole.”

Steve Bannon’s gone silent on Epstein after once calling issue 'a ticking time bomb'

Editor’s Note: This headline has been updated.

Far-right firebrand Steve Bannon once said that “Epstein is a key that picks the lock on so many things." Now he has gone quiet.

CNN reported Friday that after being found extensively throughout the files, he's suddenly stopped talking about the topic.

"It’s similar to an approach Bannon once suggested for Epstein as allegations about the financier’s sex crimes resurfaced," the report observed. "In February 2019, Epstein said in a text message he would like 'true facts out.' Bannon replied, 'you should just want this to go away.'"

Epstein wanted to go public, but Bannon warned against it.

“Have you lost your f—— mind,” he wrote, “the moment you say ANYTHING this is global story [number 1].”

CNN noted that, in a statement to the New York Times, Bannon said he was simply "filming a documentary" about Epstein. Six years after Epstein's death, however, that "documentary" has never been released. The hours and hours of footage haven't been subpoenaed by Congress either.

It suggests that Bannon is adopting the strategy of staying quiet, lying low and hoping it all goes away. But the Epstein files aren't going away. After spending nearly a decade talking about a conspiracy trafficking ring of the rich and famous, the QAnon crowd isn't letting it go.

“Democrats know Epstein’s black book is a ticking time bomb. That’s why they’ve switched their focus to affordability,” Bannon once said in a July War Room episode.

Ironically, CNN noted, Bannon "has long trained his audience to distrust convenient explanations." One of his favorite phrases is “There are no conspiracies but there are no coincidences.”

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has spoken out against male MAGA, which she said is not only downplaying the files but also outright mocking the survivors of trafficking and abuse. On Bannon, she maintains, “There is no excuse for having such a friendly relationship with Epstein, post conviction."

While President Donald Trump's ally, Laura Loomer, attacked Greene over her comments, Loomer told CNN that Bannon should be “100 percent forthcoming” about his Epstein ties. She also called it “a bit hypocritical” for Bannon to spend so much time pressing for the files to be released only for him to go silent once many of them were.

Another top Trump ally and former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, agreed, writing on X that he needs to explain some things. Flynn was specifically responding to a 2018 text message between Bannon and Epstein in which Bannon says that the 25th Amendment could be used to get Trump out of office. The comment became public as Trump's mental fitness continues to be questioned.

Judge rules Trump can’t just 'decide what is true'

Editor's note: This headline has been updated, and the article has been updated to include an additional quote from Judge Rufe's order.

A U.S. District judge invoked anti-totalitarian author George Orwell to deliver a sharp rebuke of the Trump administration’s removal of items honoring the history of slavery in the United States from a Philadelphia exhibit.

“As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto ‘Ignorance is Strength,’ this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not,” declared U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe.

The lawsuit by the City of Philadelphia against U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum concerned the removal of slavery exhibits at The President’s House, which is part of Independence National Historical Park.

Judge Rufe wrote that, “in its argument, the government claims it alone has the power to erase, alter, remove and hide historical accounts on taxpayer and local government-funded monuments within its control. Its claims in this regard echo Big Brother’s domain in Orwell’s 1984.”

She also quoted from the iconic novel. A portion of that quote reads:

“The largest section of the [government’s] Records Department . . . consisted simply of persons whose duty it was to track down and collect all copies of books, newspapers, and other documents which had been superseded and were due for destruction. A number of the Times [a newspaper] which might, because of changes in political alignment, or mistaken prophesies uttered by Big Brother, have been rewritten a dozen times still stood on the files bearing its original date, and no other copy existed to contradict it.”

Rufe wrote that the U.S. government “asserts truth is no longer self-evident, but rather the property of the elected chief magistrate and his appointees and delegees, at his whim to be scraped clean, hidden, or overwritten. And why? Solely because, as Defendants state, it has the power.”

She also blasted the government’s actions, which “impede the separation of powers instituted by the Constitution.”

“Defendants acted in excess of their authority as agencies authorized by Congress within the executive branch,” she added. "An agency ... cannot arbitrarily decide what is true, based on its own whims or the whims of the new leadership."

In her 40-page memorandum, posted by Politico’s Kyle Cheney, Judge Rufe found that removal of historical panels and other items would constitute irreparable harm, and ordered that “Defendants reinstall all panels, displays, and video exhibits that were previously in place..”

'Free country!' Federal judge uses 'multiple exclamation points' in pro-Mark Kelly ruling

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated with the correct number of exclamation points.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Az.) is "winning" his lawsuit against the Pentagon, CNN reported Thursday afternoon.

The suit from Kelly was over efforts but the Department of Defense and President Donald Trump's administration to penalize him over a video reminding soldiers they’re required to disobey unconstitutional orders.

Kelly, a retired Navy officer, along with five other former soldiers or intelligence officers, made a video in which they told other soldiers they needn't worry about violating orders from superiors if those orders conflict with the U.S. Constitution. All soldiers and agents swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not to a president or a specific military official.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz reported that there is "relief from a judge stepping in and saying that the Pentagon basically can't censure him and that he should have protections."

The written statements from Judge Richard Leon in Washington D.C.included "multiple exclamation points."

Leon, a Republican-appointed judge, used no fewer than 14 exclamation points in the ruling.

“Secretary [Pete] Hegseth relies on the well-established doctrine that military servicemembers enjoy less vigorous First Amendment protections given the fundamental obligation for obedience and discipline in the armed forces,” Leon wrote.

“Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!” he added.

"Defendants respond that Senator Kelly is seeking to exempt himself from the rules of military justice that 'Congress has expressly made applicable to retired servicemembers.' Horsefeathers!" the judge exclaimed

"Per an amicus brief submitted by forty-one retired officers, many veterans are today 'declining' to 'participate
in public debate on important and contested issues' out of fear of "official reprisal," the judge noted. "That is a troubling development a free country!"

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