Election 2024

During his 2024 campaign, Donald Trump vowed to protect Social Security, Medicare and other safety-net programs. But since returning to the White House, his policies have defunded the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) as well as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Obamacare subsidies.

In a column posted on his Substack page on March 3, liberal economist Paul Krugman warns that Trump's decision to go to war with Iran will make life worse for the poor in the United States.

"Linda Bilmes of Harvard's Kennedy School estimates that Trump's largely unsuccessful bombing campaign last year against the Iran-backed Islamist Houthis in Yemen — a far softer target than Iran itself — cost between $2.76 billion and $4.95 billion," Krugman explains. "Operation Midnight Hammer, Trump's one-day strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities, cost between $2.04 billion and $2.26 billion. The current war is being waged not only with massive bombing, but also, with the use of large numbers of expensive interceptors to defend U.S. bases and U.S. allies against Iranian drones and missiles."

Krugman continues, "So in just a few days, we have surely incurred billions of dollars in cost. And if this war continues for an extended period, the costs could easily rise to the 20-to-30-billion-dollar range."

The former New York Times columnist notes that "U.S.-style war" is "incredibly expensive."

"Conservatives complain constantly about the level of federal spending, claiming that we are spending more than we can afford on social programs," Krugman observes. "Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act imposes harsh cuts in nutritional and healthcare assistance, supposedly because the cost of food stamps and Medicaid is excessive. This, despite the fact that study after study has shown that the long run costs of not providing food stamps and Medicaid are far higher than the cost of providing them. And if we compare the cost of this war to what we spend to help needy Americans, then it's clear that this war is extremely expensive compared with other ways we could have spent the funds."

Krugman continues, "Put it this way: SNAP — the Supplemental Nutritional Food Assistance Program, formerly food stamps — spends an average of about $2400 a year per recipient. CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program administered under Medicaid, provides comprehensive health care for about $3000 per child. So just replacing those three jets shot down over Kuwait — each of them, remember, with a price tag of $97 million — will cost about as much as providing 125,000 Americans with crucial food aid or providing healthcare to 100,000 American children. And the war might very well end up costing 100 times as much as the price of those jets."

National Public Radio's (NPR) Stephen Fowler and MS NOW legal analyst Lisa Rubin reported, in late February, that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) withheld several Jeffrey Epstein documents that mention sexual abuse allegations against President Donald Trump. Those allegations have not been proven, but according to i Paper reporter Matthew Bailey, the fact that those files were withheld is adding to resentment over DOJ's handling of the Epstein files.

"The Epstein files are Donald Trump's 'political kryptonite,' experts say, as new evidence emerges that suggests his Justice Department has withheld documents relating to allegations that he sexually abused a minor," Fowler reports in an article published by the UK website in February 26. "Anger has grown since only around half of the six million files relating to…. Jeffrey Epstein held by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) were released last month. The Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed in November 2025, was meant to force the whole tranche of documents to be made public."

Fowler continues, "Now, an investigation by U.S. outlet NPR has claimed the DOJ removed some documents mentioning Trump from the public database of files linked to the late financier. These include what appear to be more than 50 pages of FBI interviews as well as notes from conversations with a woman who, in 2019. accused the president of sexually abusing her in 1983, when she was 13. She claimed Epstein introduced her to Trump, who tried to force her to perform a sex act before punching her in the head. Trump's representatives have rebuffed the claims…. The allegation against Trump only briefly appears in the documents."

David Andersen, who teaches U.S. politics at Durham University in the U.K., believes the DOJ files in question were "withheld to protect President Trump."

Anderson told the i Paper, "He is terrified that his base will react negatively to his name appearing in the files…. (Trump) clearly put out the message through his administration that he has been completely exonerated and has no connection with Epstein whatsoever. It seems like this is directly contradicted by the evidence that there is unreleased material."

The Durham professor added, "I don't think there's anybody in America who expected the Trump Administration to actually release information that could be damaging to Trump… It is both surprising that it was so clumsily done and yet unsurprising that they tried to hide it."

Mark Shanahan, who teaches politics at the University of Surrey — another British university — described the Epstein files as "Trump's political kryptonite."

Shanahan told the i Paper, "There is something within those overall 6 million documents that worries him hugely. Any allegations of misconduct from Trump in the files that NPR have discovered would need to be investigated and substantiated. If it was substantiated, it could turn MAGA against him — particularly the evangelical Christian religious wing, which makes up a significant portion of MAGA.… What it will turn off, more and more, is independents who've leant Republican for the last couple of election cycles."

Shanahan continued, "They're not seeing the economic benefit, and here is a good reason to vote for the other side…. Under the law, the DOJ has the right to withhold files if releasing them would be prejudicial to the survivors or if it is an issue of national security. However, under the law and through the Epstein Papers Transparency Act of November 2025, it should not be about protecting political or powerful figures."

Watching MS NOW (formerly MSNBC), one is often reminded that President Donald Trump is not universally loved on the right. The cable news outlet leans liberal or center-left, yet some of its hosts are conservative Trump critics who were prominent figures in the GOP in the past — including former Rep. Joe Scarborough, ex-White House Communications Director Nicolle Wallace and former Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele. Moreover, Never Trump conservatives and libertarians are frequent MS NOW guests, including attorney George Conway, New York Times columnist David French, former Judge J. Michael Luttig, The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson and The Bulwark's Tim Miller.

But the anti-Trump conservatives and libertarians who are plentiful on MS NOW or write for The Bulwark are no longer major players in the Republican Party. Many have left the GOP altogether. And in an article published by the New York Times on February 22, reporter Tim Balk examines the debates Never Trump conservatives are having over anti-MAGA strategies.

"Some of President Trump's most vocal Republican critics are divided over the future of a party that has pushed them to the margins, reflecting a fractured movement still trying to find its footing a decade after Mr. Trump rose to power," Balk explains. "Their differing views about what should come after the Trump Administration were evident as they gathered at a summit near Washington that has become an annual stop for figures in what is known as the 'Never Trump' movement."

Balk continues, "Mr. Trump's 2024 election win reinforced his grip on the GOP and left many of his critics inside the party without a natural political domain. Now, members of this splintering faction are contemplating their route back to relevance once Trump leaves office. There is much they disagree on, interviews show, including who would make an appealing presidential candidate in 2028. Does the most promising path involve, as some believe, expanding a foothold in a Democratic Party strongly opposed to Mr. Trump? Is it simply a matter, as others maintain, of waiting — hoping, perhaps — for Republicans to move on from the president and his MAGA movement once he leaves office?"

Although still conservative, Conway and former Rep. Joe Walsh — who was a prominent figure in the Tea Party during Barack Obama's presidency — are now registered Democrats.

John Giles, who formerly served as mayor of Mesa, Arizona as a Republican, isn't optimistic about the GOP moving away from Trumpism.

Giles, one of the conservatives who endorsed Kamala Harris when he spokes at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, told the Times, "I'm not sure what I'm fighting for at this. I don't see any kind of pushback in the Republican Party right now."

Although President Donald Trump maintains a strong bond with far-right white evangelicals and Christian nationalists, his relations with Catholics, Mainline Protestants, Jews and other non-fundamentalists are much more complicated. Some of Trump's most scathing critics are known for being quite religious, from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) to Sen. Raphael Warnock (a Georgia Democrat and Baptist minister).

In an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark in early February, journalist Lauren Egan reports that Democrats — with the 2026 midterms a little over nine months away — are ramping up their outreach to voters of faith.

"As Democrats scope out the emerging midterm landscape," Egan reports, "party strategists and officials have grown excited about the number of candidates for whom religion is a major part of their biography and identity. The most prominent so far is James Talarico, the middle school teacher turned Texas state representative running for U.S. Senate. The grandson of a Baptist preacher, Talarico is an outspoken Christian and an aspiring Presbyterian minister. But Talarico is far from the only Democratic candidate notable for the role of faith in his life. There is also Sarah Trone Garriott, a Lutheran minister, who has a shot at flipping Iowa's 3rd Congressional District."

Egan continues, "Meanwhile, in the state's 2nd Congressional District, Lindsay James, an ordained Presbyterian pastor, and Clint Twedt-Ball, a United Methodist pastor, are both vying for the party's nomination. Matt Schultz, the head pastor of Anchorage's First Presbyterian Church, is running for Alaska’s sole congressional seat. Chaz Molder, a small-town mayor and Sunday school teacher, is running in Tennessee's fifth district. The list goes on."

Many of the people of faith running in the 2026 midterms, according to Egan, reflect "the public recoiling at the immorality and cruelty of the Trump Administration."

Schultz, a Mainline Protestant, told The Bulwark, "All of these people are coming to me and saying, 'Please, won't you help me? Please, won't somebody do something to stop this onslaught of cruelty? We're crying out in pain.' And as a pastor, it's my duty to stand between the abusers and the abused."

Michael Wear, who oversaw former President Barack Obama's faith-based outreach during the 2012 presidential race, believes that the challenge for Democrats is to excite their religious voters without alienating those who are not religious.

Wear told The Bulwark, "The Democratic Party contains some of the most religious people in America and some of the least religious people in America. It's not just (that) there's a God gap between Democrats and Republicans — there's a God gap within the Democratic Party itself. One of the ways to navigate that is to just take it off the table. But the problem when you take it off the table is you leave a pretty profound lane for someone like Donald Trump to say, 'Well, they don't care about you. They don't hear you, but I do.' And that's a lot of what has happened over the last 12 years."

Lauren Egan's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

When Donald Trump won the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, two of the four criminal prosecutions he was facing at the time stemmed from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results: a federal indictment prosecuted by then-special counsel Jack Smith, and a Georgia indictment prosecuted by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Both of those election interference cases were doomed when Trump defeated Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in 2024's general election, and the president continues to claim, without evidence, that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

One of Trump's most aggressive supporters after he lost Georgia to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020 was attorney Sidney Powell, who promoted a range of conspiracy theories on the election results in Georgia. And now, Powell is resurfacing after an FBI search in that state.

On Wednesday, January 28, FBI agents searched a Georgia election center, looking for records on the 2020 election. And the following day on X, formerly Twitter, Ed Martin (a Trump appointee to the U.S. Department of Justice) posted a photo of him with Powell — writing, "Good morning, America. How are ya?"

The Bulwark's Will Sommer, in response to Martin's tweet, posted, "After FBI raid on GA election office for 2020 ballots, top DOJ official posts a picture with leading election conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell."

Attorney David Colapinto, responding to the Martin/Powell photo, tweeted, "Are these two in charge of recounting the ballots?"

Powell was among Trump's many co-defendants in Willis' election interference case. In October 2023, she pleaded guilty to six misdemeanor charges and avoided jail time but was sentenced to six months of probation.

In September 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed an intergovernmental organized that would be called the Board of Peace and led by the United States. And its stated goal was to "promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict" — including Gaza.

Around 60 countries were invited to join, and Trump announced its formation on his Truth Social platform on January 15. But according to Bloomberg News reporters Alex Wickham and Alberto Nardelli, the Board of Peace is "off to a rough start" — as it is being "questioned by Europe, criticized by Israel and celebrated by friends of the Kremlin."

"Trump wants the full constitution and remit of the committee signed in Davos on Thursday, according to people familiar with the matter," Wickham and Nardelli report in an article published on January 19. "But some elements of the small print have left invitees wondering whether to accept."

Trump is demanding that countries pay $1 billion in U.S. currency in order to join — a demand that, according to Wickham and Nardelli "blindsided world leaders and left many bewildered."

"Potential members of the board — conceived last year as a Trump-headed body to oversee the redevelopment of post-war Gaza — began to filter out over the weekend," the Bloomberg News reporters explain. "Invitees include world leaders from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Much of the concern centers on the wording of the peace board's charter, seen by Bloomberg, which appears to place its ultimate decision-making power with Trump."

Wickham and Nardelli continue, "That raises many questions — not least over where the payments for long-term membership would go, the people said…. Argentina's Javier Milei confirmed he'll become a founding member and Italy's Giorgia Meloni has pitched herself as a mediator who is 'ready to do our part.' Former British premier Tony Blair, who was appointed as an executive to the board, is playing a key role behind the scenes along with Trump's envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the people familiar with the situation added."

Read the full Bloomberg News article at this link (subscription required).

Christian nationalist themes were alive and well at Turning Point USA's AmericaFest 2025 gathering at the Phoenix Convention Center, which found Vice President JD Vance declaring that the United States "always will be a Christian nation." But that claim was debunked by MS NOW's Steve Benen, who noted what the Founding Fathers had to say on the subject — for example, John Adams, in 1797, writing that "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," and Thomas Jefferson saying, in 1802, that the U.S. Constitution created "a wall of separation between church and state."

Another prominent Christian nationalist theme at AmericaFest 2025 is that the U.S. is seeing a widespread evangelical renaissance, which is also what the Moral Majority's Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr. claimed during the 1980s. But Salon's Amanda Marcotte, in an article published on January 7, counters that the U.S. is moving in a more "secular" direction — not converting to evangelical Christian fundamentalism in huge numbers.

"For decades now," Marcotte explains, "the Christian Right has been the most powerful and influential force in the GOP, and yet even by their standards, this marked a dramatic shift toward the theocratic impulse. From a purely rational perspective, this is bad politics. Only 23 percent of Americans identify as evangelicals. Trump was able to win in 2024 only by convincing large numbers of people outside of evangelical Christianity that he has a secular worldview. This was aided by the fact that he quite clearly doesn't believe all the Christian language, both coded and overt, his aides coax him to say."

The Salon journalist continues, "But none of that seems to register with MAGA leadership right now. They've convinced themselves — or at least are trying to persuade their donors and followers — that the U.S. is undergoing a massive religious revival. Right-wing media has been pushing the view that huge numbers of Americans, especially young Americans, are converting to fundamentalist Christianity."

Right-wing media, Marcotte observes, are claiming that the murder of Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk in September is fueling a "tidal wave of Americans, especially young Americans, discovering or returning to Christianity." But that "imaginary religious awakening," she stresses, isn't materializing.

"There is no evidence-based reason to believe there's a religious revival among the young that is about to create massive election windfalls for Republicans," Marcotte writes. "On the contrary, a December report from Pew Research found that, 'on average, young adults remain much less religious than older Americans. Today's young adults also are less religious than young people were a decade ago.'"

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

When President Donald Trump nominated then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) for secretary of state, he was unanimously confirmed, 99-0, in the U.S. Senate. Democratic senators were united in their opposition to many of Trump's far-right MAGA nominees, but not a single Senate Democrat voted against Rubio.

Although Trump has surrounded himself with ultra-MAGA loyalists during his second presidency — from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — Rubio is known for being a traditional conservative. And he is often described as "the adult in the room" by Trump's critics.

In a biting post-Christmas article published on December 26, however, The New Republic's Alex Shephard argues that Rubio isn't really "the adult in the room," but rather, an aggressive promoter of some of Trump's worst policies.

Shephard notes that during his years in the U.S. Senate, the conservative Cuban-American from Florida "built a reputation as level-headed, reasonable, and compromise-minded — at least by the standards of the MAGA-era Republican Party."

"You no doubt remember the 'adults in the room' reporting meme during Trump's first term: a reference to establishment figures in the administration who, it was believed, brought much needed stability and experience to a presidency that sorely lacked both; these men would temper Trump's worst instincts," Shephard explains. "But come January, Trump 2.0 was shaping up much differently. He was sick of adults; his administration was going to be stuffed to the gills with crazies, losers, and incompetents. Rubio was an exception, however. He would be an adult in the room—perhaps the only one."

Shephard, however, stresses that Marco — who once compared Trump to a "Third World strongman" — isn't really the voice of reason he is often described as being.

"While Trump's second term has been defined by gross overreach, incompetence, and chaos, the State Department has largely gone about its business without drawing controversy," Shephard writes. "But that's the problem — Rubio's work this year should be controversial. Since assuming office, he has transformed the State Department into a ruthless and effective arm of the (Trump) Administration's larger push to quash dissent and demonize and punish immigrants, both legal and undocumented. Perhaps more surprising, given his long record as a foreign policy hawk, he has slavishly worked to remake American foreign policy to Trump's precise specifications: unraveling longstanding alliances and cozying up to dictatorial regimes while making the world a more dangerous and unstable place. Now, as the year draws to a close, he is pushing the United States toward war."

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

Now 11 months into his second presidency, Donald Trump continues to use the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as a tool of retaliation against his political foes — including New York State Attorney General Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey, and ex-National Security Director John Bolton. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie, on November 24, threw out federal charges against James and Comey, but the Trump DOJ has tried to reindict James — so far, without success.

While James is a Democrat, Bolton is a neocon and a longtime Republican — which demonstrates that Trump and his allies aren't shy about attacking conservatives. Many of the Trump Administration's targets, however, are on the left. And in an article published on December 21, Salon's Heather Digby Party warns that Trump will likely expand his attacks on the left in the months to come.

"As Reuters reported in October," Parton explains, "White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is spearheading a program to defund left-leaning organizations such as Democratic donor George Soros' Open Society Foundations; ActBlue, the funding arm of the Democratic Party; Indivisible; and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights by claiming they are funding domestic violence."

Parton adds, "When pressed for examples, the White House 'highlighted seven political protests in 2023 and 2025 that included acts of violence directed against law enforcement officials, and two incidents of vandalism at Tesla dealerships this year as well as half a dozen social media posts celebrating the damage.'"

Parton notes that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered an investigation of "anti-Americanism," "anti-capitalism," "anti-Christianity," and "opposition to law and immigration enforcement" as well as "radical gender ideology" and "hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality" — which, the Salon journalist warns, "are elastic-enough terms" that "could cover at least half the population."

"In the past, when the government embarked on one of these paranoid campaigns," Parton explains, "public pressure managed to put an end to it once the agenda became clear. When you combine this latest plan with the (Trump) Administration's violent crackdown on immigrants, the nation is about to be overwhelmed by scenes of mayhem and cruelty at the hands of federal agents."

Parton adds, "Will the people step up to stop this next chapter in domestic political repression? If past is prologue, it will happen. Unfortunately, as always, there will be a whole lot of carnage left in its wake."

Heather Digby Parton's full article for Salon is available at this link.

Although the MAGA movement and much of the Republican Party are still quite loyal to President Donald Trump, there are some major divisions within his coalition.

Trump aggressively reached out to Silicon Valley tech bros in 2024, enjoying strong support from Tesla/SpaceX/X.com leader Elon Musk as well as billionaire donor Peter Thiel. But longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon, host of the "War Room" podcast and former White House chief strategist in the first Trump Administration, is an outspoken critic of Trump's alliances in the tech world — including his alliance with billionaire venture capitalist David Sacks, the president's artificial intelligence (AI) and cryptocurrency czar.

In an article published on December 5, The Verge's Tina Nguyen describes the tensions between Trump's tech bro allies and MAGA Republicans who believe those alliances aren't serving him well, including Bannon.

"Washington lawmakers had barely finished processing the news that Congress would not put a state AI law ban into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) when a new rumor began trickling out of the White House on Wednesday, (December 3): President Donald Trump would, indeed, sign an executive order that would ostensibly assign the federal government the ability to punish states for writing their own AI laws," Nguyen explains. "There was the possibility that it would be as drastic as the one that had leaked from the White House weeks before, which would have given David Sacks, billionaire venture capitalist and the White House's AI and crypto czar, immense influence over setting AI policy…. Steve Bannon's 'War Room' devoted a massive segment on Wednesday night, sounding the alarm that the order was still alive, and hoped to re-run the playbook that they'd used to kill last summer’s attempt at an AI moratorium."

Nguyen adds, "Their argument against a moratorium has grown more nakedly far right ever since."

Tweeting her article on December 5, Nguyen noted, "It’s inevitable that Trump will sign some sort of executive order about AI pre-emption, simply because he’s stated that he wants it done. But the broligarchy's pursuit of a moratorium has made the concept politically radioactive. Case in point: MAGA hates it.

Many MAGA Republicans, Nguyen emphasizes, view AI technology as a recipe for major job losses.

"Recent polling indicates that a vast, bipartisan majority of Americans oppose the idea of a state AI law moratorium," Nguyen observes. "And few demographics are more hostile to the idea than the Republican MAGA base, who have long distrusted Big Tech and view AI as a threat to job security, traditional family values, and the mental health of their children. Backing a moratorium would be disastrous for potential Republican presidential candidates aligned with the MAGA base, such as Vice President JD Vance."

Read Tina Nguyen's full article for The Verve at this link.

When Tuesday night, November 4 arrived, Democratic strategists were on pins and needles as they awaited returns in 2025's off-year elections. And there was a lot of good news for Democrats, from double-digit victories in gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey to landslide wins in three Pennsylvania Supreme Court retention votes.

Those elections were widely viewed as a referendum on Donald Trump's second presidency, giving Democrats some optimism about the 2026 midterms.

Now, Democratic and GOP strategists are paying close attention to a U.S. House special election in Tennessee that will be held this Tuesday, December 2. With former Rep. Mark Green having retired from Congress, the election finds Democratic State Rep. Aftyn Behn up against Republican Matt Van Epps.

Reporting for USA Today in late November, reporters Joey Garrison and Zac Anderson explain, "Fresh off Democrats' domination in the off-year elections, a congressional race in Tennessee has become an unlikely test for whether a national blue wave is building that could produce a seismic shakeup in next year's midterm election."

Behn and Van Epps are competing in a very GOP-leaning congressional district. Yet Behn is surprisingly competitive in polls.

"Tennessee's 7th Congressional District was never supposed to be competitive," Garrison and Anderson report. "It's the creation of Tennessee's Republican-controlled legislature, which drew its boundaries in 2022 by splitting Democrat-stronghold Nashville into three districts, each dominated by conservative rural counties and different Middle Tennessee suburbs. One was District 7, which includes parts of Nashville's Davidson County and 13 other countries."

The USA Today reporters add, "Trump won Tennessee's Congressional District 7 by 22 percentage points over Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. But both Democrats and Republicans are bracing for a close election next week. A poll from Emerson College Polling/The Hill found Van Epps leading by only 2 percentage points, 48 percent to 46 percent, within the survey's margin of error. Even if Behn doesn't win the race — something that would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago — a defeat by single-digits could signal major trouble for Republicans in the 2026 midterms."

Read the full USA Today article at this link.

In right-wing media and on Manosphere websites, a MAGA theory known as "The Great Feminization" is receiving a great deal of attention. The theory argues that the more influence women have, the more business, government, law and education deteriorate.

Many feminists are calling out the "Great Feminization" theory as blatant misogyny, but the criticism isn't limited to liberals and progressives. In an opinion column published by The New York Times on October 23, Never Trump conservative and evangelical Christian David French lays out a variety of reasons why he finds the theory painfully flawed.

French points to an essay by Helen Andrews that was published by Compact Magazine on October 16 and headlined "The Great Feminization." And he takes issue with the reasoning of Andrews and others who are promoting the theory.

"The supposed feminine commitment to 'empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition' manifests itself as the dread wokeness and ultimately destroys institutions and professions — that's the core thesis of an essay by Andrews that was based on a speech she gave at the National Conservatism conference in September," French explains. "Both the essay and the speech are generating an immense amount of conversation."

French takes issue with the argument that men are inherently logical while women are inherently emotional.

"When you encounter the young men of the new right — their faces all too often twisted in rage — 'rational' is often not the first word that comes to mind," the conservative columnist laments. "Andrews vastly understates the role of emotion in masculinity…. As the workplace has become more inclusive, Americans have become more prosperous. As women have gained more political power, our nation has become more just. Consider the immense and positive social changes in the United States since women won the right to vote in 1920."

French continues, "That's not because women are better than men, but it is a consequence of bringing half of humanity, with all of the gifts and talents of countless millions of women, into full and equal participation in our national life. In many ways, Andrews' piece is an essay-length argument for the old Ben Shapiro line, 'Facts don't care about your feelings.' Facts, in this telling, are rational and masculine. Feelings are irrational and feminine. Facts can be trusted. Feelings cannot. That's an impoverished view of moral reasoning."

French argues that MAGA's "right-wing gender wars" of 2025 "are committing the very sins they attribute to the enemies they detest."

"Their emotions have gotten the best of them," the Never Trumper writes. "In the name of masculine toughness, their fear and insecurity lead them astray."

David French's full New York Times column is available at this link (subscription required).

President Donald Trump's allies, from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) to House Minority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minnesota), are going out of their way to demonize the No Kings Days protests scheduled for this Saturday, October 18 in cities all over the United States. According to organizers, roughly 2500 protests in opposition to Trump's policies will take place.

Johnson is claiming that the protests will be full of Antifa and "pro-Hamas" agitators and have a "hate America" theme. But MSNBC host and former Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele, in his October 16 column for MSNBC's website, argues that MAGA's "unhinged" talking points attacking the No Kings events are detached from reality.

"House Republican Whip Tom Emmer claimed that 'you'll see the hate for America all over this thing when they show up' for the rally," Steele explains. "Sen. Roger Marshall claimed protesters were being paid and suggested the National Guard might need to show up. Trust me when I say these comments aren't spontaneous. When I was chairman of the Republican National Committee, I sat in countless meetings where we carefully crafted the talking points for the week, fine-tuning the language so everyone from local lawmakers to friendly cable news pundits could stay on message. But when we did that, it was to keep someone from upending the party message by saying something unhinged."

Steele adds, "This time, the unhinged comments are the message."

The Never Trump conservative goes on to argue that Trump allies are offended by the "No Kings" messaging because they want Trump to have the dictatorial powers of a monarch.

"Organizers of the 'No Kings' protests have a simple message: America is a democracy, not a dictatorship," Steele observes. "It's right there in the name of the rally. So it's bizarre to see Republican leaders seek in advance to paint this as dangerous, unpatriotic astroturfing…. Whether opposing King George or a wannabe king named Trump, our civic resolve to protect this fragile experiment remains the same."

Steele continues, "But Trump-era Republicans do not want to govern for the American people anymore. They want a king. The same party that once celebrated individual liberty and limited government now demands loyalty to a single leader, punishes dissent and attacks the free press. Which is why any unrest this weekend will be used to justify further erosion of our civil liberties. But the protesters gathering on Saturday know this. They are not radicals; nor are they a dangerous threat except to those who seek to strangle freedom of speech. They are citizens who refuse to accept authoritarianism as the new normal."

Michael Steele's full MSNBC column is available at this link.

This Saturday, October 18, roughly 2500 No Kings Day protests will, according to organizers, be held in cities all over the United States. The demonstrations are expressing opposition to President Donald Trump's policies and are a follow-up to the No Kings Day protests held four months ago on Saturday, June 14, when the flagship event in Philadelphia reportedly attracted over 100,000 participants.

Allies of Trump, from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, are going out of their way to demonize the No Kings gatherings. Johnson is claiming that the protests are "Hate America" events consisting of Hamas supporters and Antifa agitators, but in fact, the June 14 gatherings were much different from the way the House speaker characterized them and drew a wide range of participants — from liberals to centrist Democrats to democratic socialists to right-wing libertarians and Never Trump conservatives.

Now, Bessent has a new talking point against the No Kings protests and is blaming them for the partial shutdown of the federal government, which has been going on for half a month.

The New Republic's Edith Olmsted, in an article published on October 15, reports, "Republicans are rushing to recast upcoming protests against President Donald Trump as anti-American rallies that are somehow prolonging the government shutdown. During an interview on CNBC Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent blamed the Democrats for a lack of movement on reopening the federal government, claiming that they were waiting to move until after the 'No Kings Day' rally planned for October 18 opposing the (Trump) Administration's authoritarian tilt."

Bessent told CNBC, "No Kings equal no paycheck."

Johnson, at a press conference, told reporters, "Let’s see who shows up for that. I bet you see pro-Hamas supporters. I bet you see antifa-types. I bet you see the Marxists in full display. The people who don't want to stand and defend the foundational truths of this republic, and that’s what we're here doing every single day."

Bessent's claim that the No Kings protests are to blame for the shutdown is generating a lot of comments on X, formerly Twitter.

KrassenCast's Brian Krassenstein tweeted, "You hear that America? Scott Bessent just said that 'no kings equal no paycheck.' Seems pretty pro kings to me."

X user Pramod Sharma wrote, "Bessent's 'no kings, no paychecks' remark is a cynical deflection from the administration's shutdown failures, undermining protest rights and distorting reality. It's a troubling prioritization of politics over governance. #NoKings #GovernmentShutdown."

New Jersey resident Kimberly Clem posted, "Now they're blaming the shutdown on the NO KINGS PEACEFUL PROTESTS?? Seriously, f— these lying m— and RELEASE THE TRUMPSTEIN FILES!!"

X user Maddened Ranter commented, "Such BS. The rally has nothing to do with the shutdown. It was planned months ago. @SecScottBessent always lies. It's not crazy to protest a president who clearly wants to be a dictator and king. That is not what the US is about."

Another X user, Mark Cavanaugh, wrote, "The two events are not connected but these GOP ghouls certainly seem scared by the No Kings rallies. Funny since NO KINGS is a founding principle of our government."s

Read Edith Olmsted's full article for The New Republic at this link.

Conservatives often mock the physical appearances of liberals and progressives, and vice-versa. While the right stereotypes Millennial left-wing activists as having purple hair and a lot of tattoos, liberals and progressives point to the stereotypical American flag shirts worn by people on the right.

But in an article published by The Guardian on October 15, journalist Einav Rabinovitch Fox describes a trend on the right that is different from stereotypical conservative attire: "fascist" fashion.

"Fascism is back in style," Fox reports. "Forget the old symbols: swastikas, nooses, Confederate flags, skinheads' shaved heads and combat boots. Extremism has a new look, and it is as fashionable as ever. Today's extremist styles are more diverse and more subtle. Beyond t-shirts that advertise blatant racism, polo shirts with coded symbols create a shared in-group identity and signal support of violence to other believers."

Fox adds, "Tradwife-style prairie dresses and beauty regimens promote conservative visions of family. Clothing is a powerful tool to spread fascist ideas to promote authoritarianism and recruit new members to this cause."

According to Fox, the "the far right's weaponization of fashion" has a long history, going back to the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the late 19th Century.

"Fascist movements have long understood the power of aesthetics," Fox explains. "In 1920s Italy, Benito Mussolini harnessed black shirts and the ancient Roman symbol of the fasces — a bundle of sticks with an axe, which stands for power and authority — to build his power and his brand. German clothier Hugo Boss, a card-carrying Nazi, designed the uniforms of the Schutzstaffel (SS) paramilitary and the Hitler Youth. Hate came with a slick, tailored look."

Fox continues, "In the U.S., the white robes of the Ku Klux Klan and burning crosses have long been trademarks of white supremacy. In the 1980s, the original fascists' skinhead successors appropriated and repurposed bomber jackets, shaved heads and combat boots as their distinct form of military-ish chic. Now, welcome to fascist fashion 3.0."

According to University of Georgia professor Monica Sklar, these 2025 fashion express one's sense of identity.

Sklar told The Guardian, "The idea is not being quite a subculture but to be embedded in the power structure. Instead of coding things to move away from the masses, this fashion is coding things to move into the masses."

Read Einav Rabinovitch Fox's full article for The Guardian at this link.

During an early October broadcast of her SiriusXM show, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly attacked ex-MSNBC host Joy Reid and former CNN host Don Lemon for their recent comments on Black-on-Black crime. Kelly accused both Reid and Lemon of "racializing" crime statistics.

Reid discussed Kelly's comments during an appearance on Tommy Christopher's Substack show on Thursday, October 2, and she had some scathing words for the far-right SiriusXM star.

Reid noted that Kelly "took selfies with Alex Jones," adding, "She's become a troll. Her thing is just trolling…. She's basically the blonde Laura Loomer. That lady is saying who's a real journalist?"

The former MSNBC host noted that after leaving Fox News, Kelly "failed as a dayside host because they tried to make Megyn fun and approachable and girlfriend material —and clearly, she's not that."

Reid, in the past, has described Kelly as "the ultimate mean girl" — a description she doubled down on during her conversation with Christopher.

Reid told Christopher, "She's one of the angriest, most miserable rich people I've ever seen in my life. Like, she's so angry. I mean, I guess the premise of her show is: It's your angry ex-wife. What is the purpose of that show? The premise of it is: I'm the meanest blonde you've ever seen."

Although 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris carried a handful of western states — including California, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon and Washington — Nevada and Arizona were nail-biters that Donald Trump won by single digits in the end. Utah, however, remained deep red, with Trump winning it by 22 percent.

Yet one of Utah's biggest employers, an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) center in Ogden, is being adversely affected by the mass layoffs of federal workers being carried out by the Trump Administration with the help of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Now, Ogden is receiving another financial blow thanks to the partial government shutdown that went into effect on October 1.

MSNBC's "Morning Joe" took a look at Ogden's troubles in a report aired on Friday morning, October 3.

Reporting from Ogden, MSNBC's Rosa Flores described the "trickle-down effect" that the IRS center's problems are having in the Utah city: When IRS workers have less money to spend, the local businesses that they patronize also take a hit.

Flores emphasized that the businesses' "bottom lines" are hurting, adding, "There's also an emotional toll to the business owners who really devote their heart and soul to those businesses."

Flores interviewed Larry Whitnack, a 78-year-old man who, she reported, "had a coffee shop here on this street for 20 years," Jesse Jean's Café, before he had to close down. The business, according to Whitnack, suffered a range of hardships — from a previous government shutdown to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A tearful Whitnack told Flores, "It was family. The people we got to know — and so many have come and gone. So many have lived and died that it's provided life experience for me I never would have had without Jesse Jean's Café."

Flores told MSNBC's Jonathan Lemire, "You probably heard the emotion in Larry's voice. And he said that that pain is the price of human connection. And he said that human connection is what's missing in Washington right now. That human connection is what he says can cross the divides and unite America."

During the United States' 2024 presidential race, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris warned that if Donald Trump won the election and followed through on the steep tariffs he was proposing, Americans could look forward to much higher prices. Yet it was Trump who, according to polls, had the advantage on inflation, hammering Harris and then-President Joe Biden relentlessly on that issue. And it was enough of an advantage for Trump to narrowly win the popular vote by roughly 1.5 percent.

Many polls cited the economy as a top reason why a small majority of voters favored Trump over Harris in the end. But now, eight months into his second presidency, Associated Press (AP) polling is showing that what was once Trump's greatest advantage — the economy — is now a major weakness.

Associated Press (AP) reporter Linley Sanders, in an article published on September 24, explains, "Once strengthened by economic issues, Trump's approval is now relatively low on the economy — and he's leaning on his stronger issues of crime, border security and immigration. Concerns about the economy and immigration helped propel him to the White House, but polling over the past year shows that Americans' faith in the Republican president's handling of the economy is low — particularly among independents — and his approval on immigration has fallen slightly."

Sanders continues, "Now, Trump's strongest issues are border security and crime, but there were signs of potential weakness on crime in the most recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research."

According to AP/NORC, only 37 percent of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the economy. And Trump fares slightly worse on his handling of health care, with 35 percent approval.

However, Trump enjoys 55 percent approval on border security, according to AP/NORC found that. And his overall approval, AP/NORC finds, is 39 percent.

Although four U.S. presidents have faced articles of impeachment — Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump — none of them were actually removed from office via a U.S. Senate trial. Johnson, Clinton and Trump were found "not guilty" in their Senate trials, and Nixon stepped down as president in August 1974 before a Senate trial had a chance to come about.

Americans who witnessed the Watergate scandal first hand — including Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks and journalists Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and Dan Rather — have often been asked to compare Nixon and Trump. And all of them have said, without hesitation, that Trump is much worse. Woodward described Trump as "far worse than Richard Nixon."

In an article published on September 23, Salon's Heather Digby Parton stresses that Trump is crossing lines that Nixon wouldn't have dared to cross.

"Until very recently," Parton explains, "the consensus among historians and political observers was that Richard Nixon was the most corrupt president in American history. There had been other scandals, of course, but none of them featured the same crude, gangster quality of Watergate, the details of which shocked and appalled the American people as they were slowly uncovered between 1972 and 1974. We learned that the president of the United States acted like a common thug in private, issuing orders to his enforcers in language closer to that used by the mobsters featured in the recent hit movie 'The Godfather' than the dignified leader of the Free World."

But Parton argues that even though "the Nixon Administration's corruption and abuse of power was overwhelming," Nixon "was an amateur compared to Donald Trump."

"When the evidence in Watergate became undeniable," Parton explains, "Republicans in Congress abandoned Nixon. Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater famously led a delegation of congressional Republicans to the White House and told the president he would be impeached and removed from office. Nixon was forced to resign. But Trump has gone farther than Nixon ever contemplated."

Parton continues, "After his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, along with the infamous events of January 6, Trump was rewarded with a triumphant return to the White House four years later. Now, as his corruption and retribution have gone into overdrive, he maintains the full and enthusiastic support of his party.

Heather Digby Parton's full article for Salon is available at this link.

MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) has drawn plenty of criticism in opinion columns and op-eds published by MSNBC, many of which describe her as a far-right conspiracy theorist who is more interested in performative antics than in governance. But an op-ed published by MSNBC on September 9 is quite favorable to MTG, applauding her recent efforts on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein survivors.

In the op-ed, Ray Brescia — a law professor at Albany Law School in Upstate New York — argues that Greene has become an increasingly valuable advocate for Epstein survivors and the push to make U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) files on him public.

MTG joined Reps. Ro Khanna (D-California) and Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) at a bipartisan September 3 press conference on Capitol Hill, where survivors of Epstein's sex crimes spoke and the Georgia congressman vowed to keep fighting on their behalf.

READ MORE: This could end the galling stupidity that keeps Trump in power

"Most GOP lawmakers are defending — or at least avoiding criticizing — the president amid the Epstein 'hoax,' as (President Donald) Trump continues to call it," Brescia explains. "Yet one of his most ardent supporters, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., has said she will side with the survivors of Epstein's sex trafficking operation. And Greene can use one of the most powerful tools of her office to aid them. With calls to release the files from across the political spectrum growing louder and louder, the Department of Justice and Republicans in Congress have largely run interference for the president."

Brescia continues, "They've professed a commitment to justice for the survivors, but blocked any efforts at meaningful transparency. In July, Speaker Mike Johnson sent the House home early for its summer recess to prevent more votes on proposals to require the Justice Department to release the Epstein files."

Khanna and Massie are trying to gather enough votes for a petition calling for DOJ to release all of its files on Epstein — and MTG has signed the petition even though Trump considers a signature a "hostile act."

"In the face of this stonewalling and threats," Brescia observes, "the survivors are speaking up more than ever…. If Epstein's victims also name names, they could quickly find themselves defendants in defamation suits, too. That's where Greene — and the Constitution — come in. Thanks to the 'speech and debate' clause in the Constitution, members of Congress have immunity for statements and acts carried out as part of their official duties, especially when they make statements within the legislative chambers or pursuant to their legitimate legislative powers…. That immunity allows Greene to say, as she did last week, that if the survivors 'want to give me a list, I will walk in that Capitol on the House floor and I'll say every damn name that abused these women. I can do that for them, and I’d be proud to do it.'"

READ MORE: 'Disturbing': Top Dem says new Trump-Epstein photo 'more incriminating' than birthday book

The Albany Law School professor adds, "Unlike the victims who might speak out, then, Greene, Massie and any federal legislator who wants to communicate the testimony of the victims would be completely immune from claims of defamation for their statements."

READ MORE: 'Come over here weenie': Video shows GOP congressman taunting protester before altercation

Ray Brescia's full MSNBC op-ed is available at this link.