Frontpage news and politics

They told us to evacuate on 9/11—and we locked the doors instead

AUTHOR’S NOTE: Today, on the 25th anniversary of this terrible attack, freedom of the press, the troops’ newspaper and Democracy itself are under siege by a Trump Administration that views truth as the enemy, and lying a virtue. The 2,977 people who lost their lives that day, and the men and women who fell on the battlefield avenging that attack, deserve far better.

It was just another Tuesday morning in the Stars & Stripes newsroom located on the third floor of the National Press Building in Washington, D.C., 25 years years ago today.

I had just grabbed a second cup of coffee, and was a bit bleary-eyed after staying up late the night before watching my beloved N.Y. Giants lose again on Monday Night Football. I cracked open my computer to begin getting a pulse of the world, and a sense of the news we would dish out to our readers around the world that day.

As I shuffled out of my office, which looked out over a windowless sea of cubicles, one of our junior editors, a daughter of Nebraska, said something that was uncommonly negative, as she openly challenged the print gods to a duel.

“Man, I am sick and tired of these slow darn news days!”

Now just about anybody else who worked in that newsroom would have chosen spicier language, but that’s about as frustrated and angry as Stephanie ever got.

Five minutes later, another editor who was watching the bank of TVs on the starboard side of the newsroom screamed. A passenger jet had just slammed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center.

All those slow news days began their descent into hell …

Another plane blasted into the other Trade Center tower, another slammed into the Pentagon, and still another that we later learned was headed for the White House and/or Capitol Building just a few blocks away from us, went down in a Pennsylvania field.

How many damn planes were there????

We had two reporters in the Pentagon, and spent what seemed like forever getting (please, God) confirmation they had survived the blast. When we finally learned they were OK, we also learned they were going to be busy pulling bodies from the wreckage.

There were more important jobs to do than being a newspaper person on that terrible day.

Sandra and Lisa were two of the finest reporters I’ve ever worked with, and were even better people.

Sandra, a trained EMT, literally helped save lives.

“I treated one guy, he had second-and third-degree burns over 80 percent of his body, and another guy with less [burns],” Sandra old me on the phone. “At first, triage was [chaos], too many people were trying to call the shots, but things have settled a bit.”

“It’s basically a body-recovery operation; nobody has come out for hours … I see them bringing in dogs, I think body-sniffing dogs,” Lisa said.

They both filed a helluva story many hours later that described that dark, deadly day in their workplace. I could go on all day gushing about them and their incredible work on what might have been the grimmest Tuesday in American history.

For this report, however, they will be part of the larger point that needs underlining.

Back in the newsroom a few miles away from the burning Pentagon, we were sorting out the biggest news day of our professional lives.

Stars & Stripes is an editorially independent daily newspaper which serves the troops and their families overseas. It has news bureaus all over the world, and two main hubs in Germany and Japan with remote printing operations in several other countries.

At the time, the Central Office in D.C., collected all the news coming out of the those news bureaus which were based with our troops and built six editions of the paper each day, supplemented with wire copy targeted at the areas in which those troops served.

Once the pages of these editions had been laid out and blessed by many discerning eyes in the Central Office, they were beamed via satellite to those remote printing locations overseas, and distributed to the troops and their families stationed around the world.

No paper has a more expansive distribution route than Stripes. When it delivered to war zones, which it was about to do following the attack on 9/11, things really got sporty.

It was one helluva an irony then, that the journalists who were putting the papers together for our troops and their families overseas that gruesome day, were the ones who were currently under attack in Washington.

As the hours passed, and we were slowly coming to grips with this terrible, terrible event, I called a meeting in our large conference room with all the editorial staff.

I reckon there were about 35 folks in that meeting — mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, boyfriends, girlfriends … journalists.

I wanted them to know that because they were mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, boyfriends, and girlfriends there might be more important places to be than where they were, making sense of hell, and getting the paper out that day.

It looked like we were safe for now, and there would be no more incoming planes aimed at our city. But nobody knew for sure. This kind of attack wasn’t supposed to happen on American soil, a country protected by our two largest oceans.

And another quick anecdote about the city itself that day:

I remember shortly after the attack, making a point of taking a few minutes to head out of the building and into the street to get a sense of things.

As I stood on 3rd Street facing in the direction of the White House, it reminded me of a scene out of a Godzilla movie. People were running this way and that. Some were screaming, most were in despair, all were bewildered. There were loudspeakers imploring people to remain calm, and directing them out of the city.

I knocked back a third cup of coffee, wished I had a cigarette, shook my head, and went back upstairs.

When I had climbed the stairs back to the third floor, I was told by security personnel outside the glass doors to the newsroom, that they were ordering an evacuation of the building. I told them that we weren’t going anywhere. I told them that we had a newspaper to get out to the most important readers in the world.

I pushed past them and through those doors, locked them behind me, and never heard from them again.

Back in the meeting of the mothers and fathers … daughters and sons … I made it clear that anybody who wanted to go home to loved ones should leave right away. Nobody would think any differently if they did. We all could have used a hug at this point.

It got quiet.

Nobody moved.

Not one.

I learned a couple of people had even walked across the 14th Street Bridge from Virginia to GET INTO the office, so they could help get the paper out to our readers, who as it turns out, were about to put their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our reporters were about to do the same, because Stars & Stripes goes with the troops to report on the troops.

Look, journalists get a lot of crap. It comes with the job. Readers should know the best of us hold ourselves to a higher standard than the people who give us all that crap ever could. The people I worked with in that newsroom and in the Pentagon on that hellish day didn’t blink.

So we all left the conference room, and got to work cobbling together six editions of the paper, including an extra bulldog edition targeted to our readers in Europe.

There were no more planes.

Sandra and Lisa filed their stories, and we checked in with our staffers around the world to begin planning for coverage of the most serious attack on America’s mainland in history.

When the paper was finally put to bed, people quietly starting shuffling out of the newsroom. The slow news day wouldn’t visit that newsroom for another decade.

We went with the slammer AMERICA ATTACKED on the front page.

I got the last train out of the city shortly past midnight.

It was now 9/12.

As the Blue Line train of the D.C. Metro system slowly rumbled through the Pentagon Station toward my home in Virginia, you could smell the smoke and death. There would be no stopping there that night. The adrenaline of the day had quit pumping and I finally allowed myself to open the door a crack for some reflection.

And then it hit me.

Things would never be the same.

That’s when I cried.

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

Your loans are getting way more expensive —and Trump just made it worse

U.S. government bond yields have jumped to new multiyear highs — which will result in higher costs for mortgages, car loans, student loans, and all other borrowing.

In other words, the affordability crisis is growing even worse.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent isn’t the cause (I’ll get to that in a moment), but he’s making a colossal mess of it.

At 11 a.m. ET yesterday, his Treasury Department announced that it would repurchase $6 billion worth of 10- to 20-year government bonds, hoping that fewer bonds on the market would drive up demand, pushing down rates (yields) that have soared to levels not seen in decades.

Instead most Treasury yields sharply jumped on the announcement. The 10-year bond yield surged to as high as 4.85 percent, its highest since November 2023. The 20- and 30-year bond yields surged to as high as 5.3 percent. (Note: When Treasuries fall, their yields rise.)

Bessent can’t beat the bond market. To the contrary, his interventions are causing traders to worry all the more about the stability and intelligence of the United States when it comes to economic policy.

Bonds are being driven upward mainly by concerns about inflation. Where are these concerns coming from? First and foremost, from Trump’s war in Iran, which is driving up oil prices. Brent crude futures are trading above $107 a barrel, while the 10-year Treasury yield climbed above 4.9 percent — its highest intraday level since October 2023.

Following a flare-up in attacks by both sides, Trump advisers are now privately suggesting the conflict could drag on through the end of his term in 2029.

Reacting to the same inflation concerns, the European Central Bank raised interest rates Thursday, saying it expected inflation to remain above target for an extended period.

And then there’s Trump’s vow yesterday to pay each of America’s 270 million adults a $5,000 check if Republicans keep control of Congress in November, which would cost $1.3 trillion — making such a plan prohibitively costly for a country with a $40 trillion national debt. (By the way, it’s illegal to pay people to vote your way.)

It won’t happen, of course, but the mere possibility is fueling further inflation fears.

Why didn’t Bessent try to dissuade Trump from making this incredibly stupid vow?

Global inflation fears are also being driven by Trump’s inane tariffs, including his trade war with Canada.

Why hasn’t Bessent tried to dissuade Trump from entering this trade war?

And what is Bessent saying in public about any of this? Is he using the bully pulpit to reassure world markets?

Just the opposite. He’s sounding as looney as his boss.

In Bessent’s speech at yesterday’s Republican event, he warned that the progressive left is relentless in trying to turn America into a “socialist hellscape.”

“The radical left is relentless in their pursuit to remake America in the image of every socialist hellscape of the last century, to import the misery of failed workers’ paradises like the Soviet Bloc, Caracas and Havana.”

Bessent added that their “version of equality would drag everyone down instead of lift everyone up” and urged attendees to continue the political fight to push back against socialism.

Bad enough that this is just demented Cold War communist witch-hunt crap. Worse, it’s coming from the mouth of the U.S. secretary of the treasury, who’s supposed to be the adult in the room.

The credibility of a treasury secretary is critical to soothing markets and maintaining worldwide faith in the dollar. Bessent seems to be doing everything possible to lose credibility.

I’ve worked with several treasury secretaries and closely watched others, and I can honestly say that Scott Bessent is the worst I’ve ever witnessed.

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

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Jared Kushner's dad uses his power to get revenge on the French

President Donald Trump's administration is refusing to allow an ambassador swap with France, Puck News reported on Friday, calling the matter a "very French" scandal.

French Ambassador Laurent Bili hosted a kind of open house after the Washington Embassy underwent a large renovation. After a tour for D.C. journalists, Bili dropped the surprise announcement that he would imminently leave the French foreign service. His term wasn't set to end until next year.

French President Emmanuel Macron had decided to replace him early with Aurélien Lechevallier, who currently serves as the chief of staff to the French foreign minister. Puck described him as a member of Macron's inner circle of men who followed him into power.

Lechevallier was set to begin on September 20, but now it appears there's a problem that connects back to Jared Kushner's father, pardoned felon Charles, who is currently the U.S. ambassador to France. Lechevallier’s close relationship to Macron made him "an easy mark," a French source told Puck reporter Julia Ioffe.

Lechevallier has been reportedly telling people in Paris that Trump is "flummoxed by the war in Iran" and calls Macron desperately searching for advice.

“Flattery always works in the end,” the source said. “And he’s very, very good at flattery.”

But the elder Kushner has been good at using his power to carry out Trump's revenge on Macron.

“The U.S. embassy here in Paris has been pretty good at Trump administration sociology,” said one source in Paris when speaking toIoffe.

Kushner, the source said, “has been doing a pretty good job at targeting someone who’s pretty close to Macron,” this person added. “That’s where they’re reading our system properly. They’ve practiced nepotism so much that they know what it looks like when they see it.”

Twice, Kushner was called to be reprimanded for using his diplomatic post to interfere with local French politics. At one point, Kushner publicly bashed Macron and offered French Jews asylum in the U.S. Kushner never showed up to the meetings. So, French foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot threatened to ban him from meetings with French officials. Lechevallier was Barrot’s chief of staff at the time.

Now, Kushner is getting his revenge, and the private fight then moved to social media. The U.S. State Department wouldn't grant Lechevallier's agreement unless the "French mission to the U.N. in Geneva" deleted a tweet the Americans found offensive, two French sources said. The post in question had already gone viral, so the French resisted the request and instead proposed that they'd send out a new tweet that praised the U.S. for sharing values over human rights.

Two months later, however, no tweet went out, and the diplomatic sources told Iofee that the French don't seem that interested in fighting for Lechevallier. The diplomatic sources think that the appointment is a little late, given that Macron is a lame-duck president with little time left in his administration. But Macron won't back down.

Those in Paris are curious if Lechevallier is waiting for Macron to bring it up with Trump personally.

Meanwhile, those in the diplomatic corps don't like the way Bili is being treated after so many years of service.

From Your Site Articles

Trump loses bid to keep old coal plant open

President Donald Trump's administration has lost its lawsuit over a Michigan power plant that was slated to be decommissioned last year and replaced by renewable energy.

In 2024, Trump campaigned on a promise to end what he called Joe Biden’s “war on American energy." Trump's vision involved an effort to restore fossil-fuel production and cut environmental rules. A perennial critic of wind energy, Trump has promised to make energy cheaper while also eliminating renewable energy. His familiar “clean coal” rhetoric framed coal plants as a source of jobs, dependable power and U.S. energy dominance.

So, when he entered office, he issued an emergency order mandating that the J.H. Campbell remain operational despite Congress' prior authorization to decommission the plant.

States and environmental groups sued and have been battling in court ever since.

However, on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the Michigan attorney general. It overturns the Department of Energy's "emergency order" to keep the coal plant operating despite the state's plans to close it.

Pennsylvania State University's Institute of Energy and the Environment explained last year that even with Trump's advocacy and help in keeping coal plants afloat, the cost of energy from coal was still two to three times higher than alternatives.

Appeals Court Judge Cornelia Pillard wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel that the DOE's use of the section of the Federal Power Act, which allows emergency orders, “is essentially a narrow, last-resort backstop mechanism empowering DOE to address certain electricity supply emergencies."

The judge explained, "That section authorizes the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) to compel generation of electricity only '[d]uring the continuance of any war in which the United States is engaged' or when the Secretary 'determines that an emergency exists by reason of a sudden increase in the demand for electric energy, or a shortage of electric energy or of facilities for the generation or transmission of electric energy, or of fuel or water for generating facilities, or other causes.'"

The law, the appeals court ruled, stemmed from a World War I issue involving a "serious power shortage," which isn't the case in the U.S. today. There was “no ‘emergency’ within the meaning” of the statute, the ruling said.

Pillard also said that by reversing the plant’s “long and carefully planned retirement ... the results are disruptive.

Officials said that keeping the Michigan plant open cost the state at least $135 million in 2025 alone.

There are still more legal battles states face against the Department of Energy as Trump used that emergency power to stop a half-dozen coal-fired plants from closing, the Associated Press reported in April.

From Your Site Articles

Republican civil war erupts over its 'big government' future

As it becomes increasingly clear that President Donald Trump’s era of political dominance is coming to an end, there has been a growing fight over the future of the Republican Party. According to Wall Street Journal contributor Matthew Continetti, a battle over a little-known program has turned into a major civil war over whether the GOP is the party of “big government.”

“Trumpapalooza is over, but the debate over the GOP’s future is just beginning,” wrote Continetti on Friday. “Another skirmish broke out last week with news that the Trump administration is planning a change in family policy. What might seem at first like a minor tweak to a forgotten program has turned into a fight over JD Vance, 2028 and the direction of the conservative movement.”

On its surface, the issue may not seem like one that would plunge a political party into infighting. As Continetti explained, “The Health and Human Services Department is preparing a rule that would grant stay-at-home parents access to the Child Care and Development Fund, a $12 billion program that currently subsidizes child care for low-income workers. Since the 1990s, the fund has provided eligible parents some $9,000 a year to help pay the cost of child care. Most recipients are single moms. Households where one spouse works and the other stays at home with children could also collect subsidies under the proposed rule. The goal would be encouraging marriage and reducing the cost of raising children. But because the rule change wouldn’t be accompanied by a budget increase — at least for now — money likely would flow from single moms and commercial daycares to married parents.”

Democrats have argued that the plan will “rob” money from single mothers so Republicans can impose “their preferred definition of what a family should look like.” And according to Continetti, many conservatives are opposed to the policy for their own reasons. As he puts it, “Family policy is another fault line dividing limited-government conservatives from nationalist conservatives such as Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who have long backed aid to married couples with children.”

Since the plan leaked, Continetti says there has been surprisingly “lively” debate among conservatives. As he explains, “Limited-government conservatives point out the potential cost of the program, its perverse incentives (that $9,000 vanishes as soon as dad gets a raise) and its reliance on social engineering. ‘Who works or does not work; who takes care of a child; or who takes a child to childcare is the family’s business,’ wrote former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin. ‘It is certainly not the place of the federal government to put its thumb on the scale using taxpayer dollars.’”

According to Continetti, “One group resists government action for economic, social and constitutional reasons; another wants to use government power for conservative ends.” Aspects of this fight have been simmering for decades, and in the past, those in the latter camp have criticized “neoconservatives” like George W. Bush for expanding the role of government. But, says Continetti, “the irony is that today’s advocates of using government for conservative purposes are some of the most prominent critics of neoconservatism and of Mr. Bush. They’re due for a refresher course in history. Their nationalism is a different name for an old idea.”

Continetti argues that “nationalists in favor of subsidizing stay-at-home parents fit the definition of ‘big government conservatives’ that journalist Fred Barnes first described in a 1990 article for the American Spectator. Big government conservatives, Mr. Barnes wrote, are ‘realistic’ about the chances of cutting federal spending — namely, that it’s next to impossible. They favor programs that put them ‘on the political offensive.’ They have a benign, even positive view of government. And finally, ‘big government conservatives aggressively seek to broaden the scope and maximize the funding of their programs.’”

Supporters of Vance and Rubio's family policy, says Continetti, voice this stance openly. “The welfare state already exists,” wrote Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts. “The subsidies already exist. And conservatives do not have the votes to dismantle either. Until that changes, taxpayer dollars should reward family formation, not subsidize its decline.” Heritage vice president and former Trump administration official Roger Severino agreed, saying, “To respond to a clear improvement in allocation of existing funds with cries of ‘socialist!’ is either grossly unserious or grossly uninformed.” The message is plain: Subsidizing stay-at-home moms is realistic, forward-looking, and harmless.

The arguments of big government conservatives have changed, while the limited government stance has remained consistent. As Continetti writes, “When he was in Congress 20 years ago, Mike Pence led a revolt of limited-government conservatives against President Bush’s spending plans. Today, fellows at Mr. Pence’s think tank Advancing American Freedom make the same arguments against executive overreach, tariffs and big government.” Another example is conservative commentator and Trump-loyalist Mark Levin, who has been speaking against the proposed family policy change.

Continetti doesn’t think the fight will be settled anytime soon, concluding, “Expect the contrast between big-government and limited-government conservatism to grow. Mr. Vance clearly believes in using government to advance nationalist goals, and he’s likely to face at least one challenger who believes in limited government. That challenger is also likely to be someone from outside the administration — a senator or governor or former official who will take up the mantle of constitutionalism and free enterprise. And though Mr. Vance is favored to win that contest, the argument within conservatism will endure.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Signs of 'neurological issue' as slumped Trump 'can’t keep his eyes open'

President Donald Trump spoke at the Sept. 11 memorial ceremony at the Pentagon on Friday as families gathered to remember lost loved ones. Viewers couldn't help but notice that the president didn't look well.

During the 2025 event, Trump was photographed with one side of his mouth appearing to droop down. Critics accused him of dozing off at the event.

So, during the ceremony on Friday, Trump was under increased scrutiny. Observers believe they saw a similar facial drooping again.

"He does not look good," said Forbes columnist Mark Joyella. "He must know he can't doze off during a 9/11 ceremony, but it appears to be one hell of a struggle."

Others questioned whether Trump had, in fact, dozed off. Daily Beast reporter Leigh Kimmins McManus was one of those who posted a photo saying Trump "appears to be asleep" during the speech from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The New Republic's deputy editor, Adrienne Mahsa Varkiani, posted a video of the moment showing that if Trump was blinking, his eyes were closed for more than 15 seconds.

"See how Melania seated next to him seems fully awake while he isn't even moving," she wrote on X.

"Guy can’t even keep his eyes open at the 9/11 ceremony," Podcast host "BostonBrian" wrote.

Influencer Lucas Sanders questioned, "Donald Trump's face appears to droops as he attends the 9/11 ceremony this morning at the Pentagon[.] Is he suffering from a stroke?"

"Looks like a neurological issue," said Army veteran and former Republican Drew Rogers. "Yet another 'What if Biden?' moment for Trump. He’s in much worse physical or mental shape than POTUS Biden ever was, yet the media will not talk about it. That’s a big problem."

An anonymous legal commentator recalled the double standard with Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "Lest we forget the week long news cycle in 2016 when Hillary, fighting off pneumonia, sat at the NYC memorial for almost 90 minutes in hot and humid conditions and then got a little light headed on her way out of the event. Trump dozed off today? You'll never hear about it."

The influencer account "Wu Tang is for The Kids," posted a photo of the president, mocking the White House claims that Trump was merely "blinking."

Another took photos of Trump slumped with his eyes closed and contrasted it with a photo of former President Joe Biden standing with his hand over his heart.

Bloomberg News reporter Gerry Doyle captured a headline reading "25 Years After 9/11, Trump Personifies a Nation Moving On."

Others recalled that in 2020, the Trump administration was found to have drained the 9/11 fund that was meant for first responders.


From Your Site Articles

How a bogus map exposes 'one reason for Trump's obsession with Greenland'

On Monday, September 7, U.S. President Donald Trump published a fictional "map" on his Truth Social platform that depicted Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean as part of the "United States of America." The "map" inspired an angry outcry from Denmark and Iceland. Meanwhile, a different map debate raged in the United Nations World Assembly, and only one country voted against a UN resolution: the United States.

At issue in the "Correct the Map" resolution debate in the UN, according to Bloomberg News, is the "Mercator projection" — which, Bloomberg notes, "makes Africa and other parts of the Global South appear smaller than they are, while Europe and other northern regions appear larger." The Equal Earth projection, approved in the UN vote, shows Africa in its true size relative to other parts of the world.

Bloomberg News opinion columnist Andreas Kluth, known for his heavy focus on national security and geopolitics, examines the "Correct the Map" debate in his September 11 column — explaining why the U.S. voted against the resolution and arguing that it says a lot about the Trump administration's world view.

"The African diplomats who drafted a recent resolution by the United Nations to 'Correct the Map' of the world made a tactical error when they oversold their bit of common sense with flamboyant claims to 'cognitive justice and memorial reparation,'" Kluth argues in his column. "That kind of language, as they should have known, triggers Donald Trump and his MAGA followers. In the American president's worldview, the wording and the resolution provided yet more proof of wokeness to be expunged at the lefty, globalist and risible UN. And so, the world had to behold another embarrassing spectacle this month: As 164 countries voted to pass the map resolution at the UN General Assembly, only one nation voted against: the United States."

Kluth continues, "It fell to Yaryna Ferencevych, an American diplomat, to read out her government's rationale. 'While this initiative is presented as an anodyne effort to update cartographic proportions,' she said, 'it cannot be separated from the much larger and more radical ideological project it belongs to.' Picking on that unfortunate turn of phrase about cognitive justice, Ferencevych called such resolutions 'barnacles on our work here, and the reason this institution is losing its credibility.' Then, she called on all other countries to reject the text. None did."

Kluth notes that the UN resolution "does not ban any type of map" but rather, "recommends that schools, universities, charities and other institutions consider replacing one of the traditional map types, called the Mercator projection, with a newer one, the Equal Earth projection."

Kluth says of the Mercator map, "Greenland is especially exaggerated: It appears to be 14 times larger than all of Africa, when in fact, it is smaller than Algeria. That seems to be one reason for Trump's obsession with Greenland and his threats to seize it from Denmark, which have elicited a mixture of horror and ridicule among American allies."

"The Mercator distortion may also help explain why Trump, like other European and American statesmen for centuries, shows little interest in Africa, except when using it as a prop for his political memes," Kluth writes. "Many Africans, and others, assume he disdains their continent."

Kluth points out that Trump, on Truth Social, "painted the Stars and Stripes on a map showing countries from Cuba and Mexico to Canada, Greenland and Iceland."

"Reykjavik, far from amused, summoned the U.S. ambassador," Kluth writes. "On another map, Trump labeled the Strait of Hormuz as a 'New U.S. Territory.' All this implies more than mere confusion or ignorance. It suggests — let's use Yaryna Ferencevyc's phrase — a much larger and more radical ideological project: Nothing intellectual, mind you — just a brutish sense that maps had better show the world the way Trump likes to imagine it … It's not that leaders who wield coercive power use maps to shape their understanding of the world. It's that they start using their worldview to shape the maps."

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

NYT sparks outrage with claim Trump’s US has 'moved on' from post-9/11 era

A New York Times headline is drawing criticism Friday for implying that President Donald Trump is "moving on" after 25 years of remembering the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Reporter Peter Baker penned a column highlighting how far away President Donald Trump was from Ground Zero at the ceremony Friday. All former presidents were in New York City for the event, while Trump was at the Pentagon. According to reports, Trump didn't want to go to Ground Zero because politicians are not allowed to speak. Trump denied this, saying that if he wanted to speak, he's certain they would have let him.

Baker noted that it paints quite a picture of Trump as an outside of American presidents.

"The disparate images will be stark and telling: four presidents of both parties standing together where the twin towers fell, four presidents whose time in office was shaped to one extent or another by the war on terrorism that gripped the nation for so long. And then the sitting president honoring the occasion at another attack site, estranged from his predecessors and governing at a time when fear of foreign attack has receded into the background of American life," said Baker.

"With the distance of a quarter century, Mr. Trump’s presidency has moved past the days when terrorism drove the agenda. Just as memories of Pearl Harbor lingered long after World War II ended, the memories of Sept. 11 remain powerful long after the death of Osama bin Laden. But the country and its politics have moved on," Baker continued.

The idea of moving on from Sept. 11 sent the internet into a fury. Many felt the characterization is painting a rosy picture of the romanticized "coming together" part of Sept. 11 and its aftermath. The consequences of Sept. 11 remain, many argued, embedded in surveillance and anti-Muslim sentiment, all of which are alive and well in Trump's presidency.

Bloomberg reporter Gerry Doyle questioned, "I'm sorry what," seeing the headline. "I understand what each word means individually but I am struggling with them being in this order."

"The headline says everything about what is now vs. what used to be the New York Times (RIP)..." said one New Yorker.

"He literally just launched an illegal and unprovoked war in the Middle East that will take a really long time to lose," said The Guardian's Julia Wong. "How does Peter Baker tie his shoes in the morning? I mean my lord. It's honestly hard to think of a single relevant aspect of trumpism as it's remaking American life in 2026 that is not rooted in the post-9/11 expansion of the surveillance state, attacks on civil liberties and politicized xenophobia and bigotry but okay sure."

Journalism professor Jerry Berger quoted a key piece in the column reading, "Americans today are more afraid of one another than they are of foreign terrorists."

"What could The New York Times possibly mean by this headline? Maybe it got cut off and they meant 'moving on to become a fascist dictatorship'? Maybe instead of 'moving on' they meant to write 'sinking under'?" asked Ken Calderia, of the research consortium Conceptual Investigations Unit.

From Your Site Articles

Republicans fume as Trump breaks his own abysmal economic record

On Friday, it was revealed that U.S. consumer sentiment has plunged to a new low, falling below the previous record-breaking low set in August. What’s more, Republican sentiment has “tumbled” sharply, which is bad news for President Donald Trump with the midterms looming.

This is according to the widely trusted Consumer Sentiment Index charted by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers, which found that sentiment has dropped to 47.8 in September, down from 51.7 the previous month. This is lower than was forecast by economists, who, according to a survey conducted by Reuters, expected it to drop to 51. The numbers from August were already the lowest in the survey’s history, so in light of the new report, Trump’s economy has hit a new low. As the survey explains, “With a resurgence in fuel prices and trade tensions, consumers anticipate greater pressures on their pocketbooks to come.”

What’s more, the survey found that consumers expect inflation to rise by 4.6 percent over the next year, while they only thought it would rise by 4 percent in August. Consumers also have higher inflation expectations over the next 5 to 10 years. And for the first time since 2023, a majority of consumers expect interest rates to rise in the year ahead as the Federal Reserve moves to slow inflation.

According to the report, the worse-than-predicted numbers are driven by “sizeable declines” among Democrats and Republicans. As Bloomberg contributor Joe Weisenthal noted, “Economic sentiment even among Republicans has been tumbling sharply all year.” He pointed to a chart provided by the University of Michigan that shows Republicans experienced a major upswing in economic optimism in 2024, which peaked around when Trump took office. After some downswings and upswings, Republican consumer sentiment began a steady decline after Trump launched war with Iran, and it has been in freefall since July.

As the report explains, “Notably, even Republicans, who generally supported economic policy under the current administration, have exhibited a marked decline in favorability. As recently as March this year, a solid 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government was doing a good job with the economy. This month, the share fell to 35 percent, the lowest reading of the current administration and below nearly all readings during the first Trump administration.”

The news dropped amidst a flurry of bad economic indicators. A separate report found that inflation has remained persistently above projections, hitting 3.4 percent in August versus the 2 percent target. Inflation has also outpaced wage gains.

“Americans are getting financially squeezed,” said Navy Federal Chief Economist Heather Long. “Many American households have to belt tighten and make difficult choices on what to cut back on. This is why consumption appears to be slowing.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

'Downward spiral': US 'on road to MAGA nightmare' long before Trump

Economist Paul Krugman has long been a scathing critic of President Donald Trump and the far-right MAGA movement. But in a Substack column published on the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Krugman argues that the United States was "on the road to" a "MAGA nightmare" long before Trump.

"When the Twin Towers fell, it seemed to many like a second Pearl Harbor — a day of infamy, but one that would bring the nation together," Krugman explains. "And if you believed that, the state of the nation today must seem utterly shocking. But the truth is that the seeds of where we are now had already been planted well before 9/11. There was an initial façade of national unity, but the ruthless political — and financial — exploitation of the attack began almost immediately … The past two years have been worse than almost anyone could have imagined, but the truth is that we were already well on the road to this MAGA nightmare on the day the towers fell."

Krugman continues, "It hasn't been an inexorable downward spiral. The election of our first Black president really was a significant moment — the truth is that while there are plenty of haters, overall, we are a better, more tolerant society than we were in 2001. The expansion of healthcare under (President Barack) Obama wasn't just good policy, it represented real moral progress."

Krugman was a columnist for the New York Times when al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. And he highlights a Times column published on November 21, 2001 — roughly two and one-half months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks — and headlined "Reckonings: An Alternate Reality."

In that column, the economist argued that although "the vast majority of Americans" were "resolute and generous" after the attacks, many "politicians and businessmen" were "behaving badly" and exploiting 9/11 for their own selfish ends.

With Trumpism, Krugman warns, the United States' dark side came to the forefront.

"Although there has been a concerted effort to smear the policymakers who responded to COVID, the truth is that we managed the economic fallout from that crisis very well, and the rapid development of a vaccine was a scientific and medical miracle," Krugman writes. "But the evil now running wild in America didn't begin when Trump descended that escalator. It has been building for decades."

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Presidential immunity won’t save Trump from his latest crime: ex-US attorney

On Friday, a distinguished legal analyst and former U.S. attorney noted not only that President Donald Trump's latest move breaks the law, but that his much-touted “presidential immunity” won’t be able to save him from consequences. This is according to MS NOW legal expert Barb McQuade, who was responding to a controversial claim Trump made during the Republican midterm convention in Dallas.

On the first day of the convention, Trump promised to send every American adult a $5,000 check if Republicans retain control of the U.S. House and Senate after the midterm elections. "If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000," Trump declared. "It will be called the Trump dividend." His proposal sparked widespread shock and outrage – including among many Republicans – but the president went on to make the claim again the following day.

“Paying for votes is a crime for the payer and the recipient,” noted McQuade, pointing to U.S. Code 18 USC 597. “With five-year statute of limitations,” she elaborated, “the next DOJ could bring charges. And the conduct would be beyond the scope of presidential immunity for Trump.”

While many have suggested that Trump’s proposal could be considered a bribe, McQuade’s take brings two important details into the conversation. First, the specific legal code itself. Commentators have argued that, based on his previous history of promising payouts then not delivering, Trump will never deliver the checks in any case. This has prompted speculation as to whether Trump’s “dividend” would count as a bribe if it never gets paid out. But the law makes it clear, stating, “Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate…Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” The emphasis on “offers to make” was added, because it makes it blatant that Trump’s promise is in itself illegal.

What’s more, because it specifically involves campaigning and not duties performed officially, Trump would not be shielded by the presidential immunity extended to him by the Supreme Court. And with its five-year statute of limitations, should a Democrat win the next presidency, a motivated Justice Department could seek prosecution.

Trump’s promise has sparked pushback from across the political spectrum. National Review senior editor Charles Cooke slammed the idea as “socialism,” calling it “morally, practically, and politically catastrophic.” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has been careful to stay in Trump’s good graces, asserted the payouts would “lead to more debt and more inflation.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

GOP donors roll their eyes as Trump official’s closed-door strategy leaks

A key piece of President Donald Trump's convention in Dallas, Texas, this week was getting GOP strategists in a room with big donors to explain why they should be dumping more money into campaigns analysts see as unwinnable.

Politico reported on Friday that big donors came together behind the scenes to discuss the president's new strategy for the 2026 midterm elections so everyone could be on the same message. That message is to attack Democrats and gin up fear, which didn't impress the donors who think the GOP needs to be doing much more.

Politico recalled that Senate Leadership Fund president Alex Latcham said in July, “This needs to be an election about fear.”

"As both sides continue to move resources into redder territory, turning out the GOP base with dire warnings about Democrats becomes more important," the report said. "In those states, the GOP may be able to stanch the bleeding simply by mobilizing their own voters in droves rather than persuading disaffected independents."

Senate leadership held an event Wednesday to discuss the fund that must be sent to red states like Texas and Iowa, which Trump won by double digits just two years ago. The report noted that Vice President JD Vance is heading to deep-red Kansas because, for the first time in 90 years, there's a chance that a Republican senator could be removed.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Ks.) is facing off against a church pastor and the race has become surprisingly competitive, particularly after Trump's trade war with Canada targeted a business jet manufacturer headquartered in Montreal with more than 1,200 jobs located in Kansas. Marshall complained to the White House. Marshall was told Republicans had to "own it."

A Politico reporter overheard a convention attendee from Kansas "bemoaning Marshall's situation." This week, a former two-term Republican governor of the state endorsed Marshall's democratic opponent.

Another meeting unfolded Thursday with Senate leadership attempting to "ease donors’ concerns about" Trump's policies and that they could lead to hefty losses in November. Two people in the room, who "granted anonymity to discuss the private meeting,' told Politico that, again, the plan was to attack Democrats. One of those who spoke to the site recorded the comments from Vance.

“We’ve got to nationalize this election. We’ve got to talk about all the crazy things Democrats are doing,” Vance claimed in the audio.

One top GOP House operative lamented that the party should make the election “a choice, not a referendum.” But a referendum on Trump's policies is exactly what the election has become as Americans face an affordability crisis and another Middle East war.

“Republicans would be well served to paint that choice in as clear terms as possible,” the operative said.

Bill Riggs, spokesperson for Americans for Prosperity Action, which is funded by the Koch brothers' fortune, told Politico, “The right strategy is not just to attack the other side and attack those policy proposals. You need to do that, but it’s not going to be enough. You also have to provide a credible alternative to voters that they trust. Driving that contrast is where we’re continuing to advocate."

Republicans have held the House, Senate and White House for two years, which could make it difficult for them to attack the other party's policies.

One main piece of the argument that is being promoted by the White House is aligning Democrats with the Democratic Socialists of America and socialism. That, however, shifted in a big way this week during the convention as Republicans changed their attacks on the left from socialist to communist. One reporter and author explained that history suggests the strategy will "backfire."

The biggest problem for Trump, however, is that while attacking socialism and communism, one of his new plans is to promise Americans $5,000 stimulus checks, which many said was an example of socialism itself.

"That drew private eyerolls from some Republicans who said the proposal directly clashes with their effort to paint the midterms as a choice between commonsense Republicans and socialist Democrats," Politico reported.

One House Republican official complained, “We’re supposed to be fighting socialism. This seems a lot like socialism.”

“It’s not enough just to defend,” said Michigan GOP candidate Mike Bouchard, who’s running in a battleground district. “We must advance, and to do that, we must have real solutions.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Trump begs Dallas crowd not to use bathroom in humiliating day 2 speech

President Donald Trump followed up his flop-filled Wednesday speech at the 2026 Republican midterms convention with an equally blunder-brimming sequel on Thursday. Even as many of Trump's fellow Republicans urge him to stop focusing on himself during an election cycle when his approval ratings are under water by double digits, Trump's speech to the still-sparse crowd — which came on the heels of an overlong, deadline-bursting oration by Vice President JD Vance and an off-key rendition by musician Lee Greenwood of his song "God Bless The USA" — continued his habit of self-promoting regardless of either political expertise or objective numerical metrics.

The humiliating highlights included:

1. He falsely insisted the convention was "packed" just like it was "packed last night." The various images of empty seats on both occasions begged to differ. Later he claimed the "highest rafter" was packed and urged people to not go to the bathroom so the media could not capture as many images of empty seats. He went on to say the arena was "packed last night" with "thousands" waiting outside, then pointed to random parts of the arena that were supposedly full while ignoring areas that were empty. Later he admitted he shouldn't have looked "back there" at one section where he didn't like "the little bit of skin" showing in that section of the venue.

2. He coined the word "mutilization." First in the sentence "I ended the transgender mutilization of our beautiful children — no more of that," Trump repeatedly claimed that Democrats supported the "mutilization" of American children. Not only did this mischaracterize the reality of transgender medical treatment, but "mutilization" is not a word. He likely meant to say "mutilation."

3. Repeating a claim that was met with a notably tepid response on Wednesday, Trump insisted that he had ended the era in which America is a "laughingstock." Yet even as he claimed that America is more respected than ever, America is currently losing both its literal war against Iran and its trade war against Canada. In the former conflict, Trump is stuck in a quagmire because Iran has seized control of the Strait of Hormuz, raising prices on vital American goods such as oil and fertilizer; per the latter, Prime Minister Mark Carney has outmaneuvered Trump both economically and in the court of public opinion. As Dr. Richard Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told AlterNet earlier this month, "It's not just Mr. Carney, he is the expression of something that he knows as a politician is now a very popular view in Canada. He's not going to be held to blame because this or that difficulty happens. If he can show, as he often can, that the United States' hostility, tariff policy number one, is the root cause, then he gets a pass. The kind of anger that might often be addressed to a politician won't be, because they correctly perceive that the problem is something else. And so they appeal to the politician when he comes up with solutions or attempted solution to keep workers' needs in mind."

4. Shortly before his "laughingstock" line, Trump said that "in 19 months, I've delivered on every single promise I made, and I think I delivered on far more. Joe Biden and the radical Democrats created the worst inflation in American history." In addition to ignoring that Americans are spending on average $700 more due to inflation during Trump's second term, and that his approval rating on inflation is worse than Biden's ever was, in fact President Jimmy Carter had the worst year-to-year inflation of any president in American history. Speaking to Alternet in August, Dr. Robert J. Shapiro — an economist who worked for President Bill Clinton, who actually did preside over low inflation — broke down how Trump's various policies have raised inflation. These include his ongoing trade wars with nations like Canada, his war against Iran and his bullying of the Federal Reserve.

"Trump has been attacking the Fed for as long as he's been in office for not cutting interest rates," Shapiro wrote. "But you don't cut interest rates when inflation is rising, because cutting rates stimulates the economy — meaning you increase demand without increasing supply, so prices go up. Powell refused to cut rates because he said, in effect, 'We're in an inflationary period; once we contain inflation, we can cut rates.' Trump has made that much harder by increasing inflation through both the tariffs and the effects of the war on Iran. Even [Kevin] Warsh, Trump's handpicked successor to [Jerome] Powell, hasn't cut rates. But the market believes there's a significant possibility that he will, given the pressure Trump has been putting on him — and in anticipation of that, they've been driving long-term rates up."

5. Near the end he closed by forcing the crowd to pledge an allegiance not to America, not to God, but to "the greatest president" who loves them "so much he can't even breathe" to get out and vote for him, as well as get their personal networks to do likewise. He even said that if they don't go and vote, presumably for him, they will "go to hell."

Surely that will do much to disabuse the widespread perception that Trump is leading a cult.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Floor collapses beneath Trump as MAGA implodes

The MAGA base that helped build Republican power in the U.S. for the past decade appears to be showing signs of rupture, according to new surveys from UMassAmherst.

The survey, conducted Aug. 21-26, has found a 9-percentage point drop among Republicans who identify with the MAGA movement since the last survey was conducted in March, reported the university, representing an extreme drop for such a short window of time. The most significant drop — 6 percentage points — was among those who reported only to be ‘somewhat’ identified as MAGA, but even those who ‘very much’ identified as MAGA fell 3 percentage points, according to surveys.

"We find a decline in the number of Republicans identifying as MAGA, suggesting cracks in the movement’s foundation," said Tatishe Nteta, director of UMass Poll.

MAGA is the name for President Donald Trump’s most loyal adherents who form the floor of approval keeping the president’s approval in the mid-thirties in national polls. So the polling revelation comes at an ill time amid the Republican Party's midterm convention underway this week in Dallas.

In any case, conservative analysts warn that the Republican Party is in trouble if they’re relying on Trump’s loyal MAGA cavalry to save them from angry voters this year.

“There’s no question the president is uniquely motivating for MAGA voters, but MAGA voters aren’t sufficient to win in swing districts or states,” Republican pollster Whit Ayres told the Wall Street Journal, adding that even “nationalizing an election does not make sense when the president is at 38 percent job approval.”

But Republican strategists are banking on the Dallas convention to “help the GOP by increasing turnout among Republican voters who have so far this cycle been less likely to say they’ll come out this November.” Only problem is, polling aggregates suggest a convention with Trump in it doesn’t appear to be stirring low-interest GOP voters to show up for the midterms.

Plus, if the high-interest MAGA contingent of the Republican Party is also shrinking, according to surveys, it could spell even more trouble for ailing Republicans this year.

The Amherst poll also found that the Republicans who were still most likely to identify as MAGA were those who attained a high school degree or less, or those making less than $40,000 a year. It was also liable to contain those over the age of 55. But among moderate Republicans, there was a nearly even split, with 51 percent identifying as MAGA and 49 percent not. Only 16 percent of moderates said they were “very much” MAGA, according to surveys.

In an additional twist, the same survey discovered that policies associated with democratic socialism have "considerably broader appeal than the DSA label itself."

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Awkward silence: Trump-a-Palooza a ratings flop for Fox News

President Donald Trump has vowed to increase enthusiasm for the Republican Party and its affiliates for the upcoming midterm elections, yet a recent report reveals that the pro-Republican Fox News network did not benefit at all last night.

"President Trump has long been a marquee draw on television, with Fox News viewers in particular often showing up in droves to watch his fiery and grievance-filled speeches," reported The New York Times' Michael M. Grynbaum on Thursday. "But the president’s 105-minute stemwinder on Wednesday in Dallas, at an unusual midterm convention meant to stoke Republican enthusiasm before November, did not appear to generate the usual Trump Bump."

He added, "An average of 2.5 million people tuned in to watch Mr. Trump between 9 and 11 p.m. Eastern on Fox News, one of the few major TV networks that aired his remarks in full. It was more or less an average prime-time audience for Fox News, based on the most recent quarterly statistics."

This is not the first occasion on Wednesday in which Trump's administration proved to be bad news for Fox News. Speaking to MS NOW's Ari Melber, Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro blasted Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott for firing host Maria Bartiromo after the latter shared with Navarro a corporate memo requiring the news team to not perpetuate Trump's dishonest claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

"There was no expectation of confidentiality," Navarro told Melber. "There was an expectation that the White House would be informed,' continuing that "basically, what Suzanne Scott should have done when the White House contacted her was apologize and acknowledge that it was disrespectful to the president and to people in this country — not to have that network even talk about the address."

Navarro further attempted to diminish Fox News' brand among Trump supporters.

"There's this misconception among viewers on the right and left that somehow that Fox is a conservative messenger and supports Donald Trump and. Fox in a heartbeat will tell you about transgender stuff and illegal aliens rape and killing as well they should," Navarro told Melber, then insisting that "there's certain guardrails they put up. Election integrity is one that you mentioned."

There were also signs of the midterm convention's flopping by the numerous shots on Wednesday night showing empty seats at a stadium that Trump insisted would be packed. He also received embarrassing responses from the crowd, which though usually enthusiastic for him gave a notably tepid response when he tried to convince them that he had made America less of a "laughingstock" than before he took office. It has recently made news that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has defeated Trump both in the court of public opinion and in getting the better of trade negotiations.

"It's not just Mr. Carney, he is the expression of something that he knows as a politician is now a very popular view in Canada," Dr. Richard Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts, told AlterNet earlier in September. "He's not going to be held to blame because this or that difficulty happens. If he can show, as he often can, that the United States' hostility, tariff policy number one, is the root cause, then he gets a pass. The kind of anger that might often be addressed to a politician won't be, because they correctly perceive that the problem is something else. And so they appeal to the politician when he comes up with solutions or attempted solution to keep workers' needs in mind."

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Leakers 'truly freaked' as Trump’s 'Colonel Vodka' runs rampant: biographer

President Donald Trump’s biographer Michael Wolff claims “there is nobody anywhere in Washington or across the defense industry who doesn’t believe Trump’s Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has to go.”

“[They all believe] that he’s a menace, an incalculable danger, an existential threat,” reports Wolff. “Daily leaks about his blunders, stupidity, malfeasance, and weird conduct — his wife has moved into the Pentagon as his effective second-in-command — have become part of a growing rear-guard rebellion to get him out.”

Over in the White House, Wolff said “the president’s closest circle of advisors believe Hegseth needs to be fired — yesterday is their timetable.”

“Everyone is alarmed — truly, freaked out.” Reports Wolff. “He has no supporters left anywhere. Except for Donald Trump.”

Wolff’s information come on the heels of several revelations as leakers approach the press with news of outlandish behavior, undue firings and a litany of policy missteps.

Wolff said until Trump entered the White House for his second term, everybody in the past who had overseen the planet’s biggest military budget “has had extensive military, corporate, or political experience,” regardless of whether or not voters judged them successful. Each had careers and resumes that “logically placed them in the post.”

“Because the job is so do-or-die, no president, in the modern age, has chosen to appoint anyone who might be considered an outlier,” said Wolff.

But, of course, that was before Trump, he added.

“Hegseth’s resume is not just sparse but lacks all relevant experience otherwise associated with running any complex organization — not to mention the largest organization on earth. It is, in fact, mostly marked by significant failures,” said Wolff, quoting research and source information. “His efforts at a political career and then in running veterans’ organizations — after a stint in the National Guard — were characterized most by his alcoholism and financial mismanagement.”

“His personal life, also characterized by his alcoholism, includes multiple sexual abuse allegations, three marriages, and his fathering of a child with one woman when he was married to another,” Wolff said. “His most substantial employment was as the co-host of a weekend television show on Fox News, where his boss, Roger Ailes, called him ‘Colonel Vodka’ because he talked so often about his National Guard service and then, reliably, passed out in a drunken stupor.”

But Wolff said Hegseth holds his current job not because of expertise, experience, and victories “but precisely because he is lacking them.” During Trump’s first administration, Wolff said the people running Trump’s military were clearly more intelligent than Trump, and they couldn’t hide their contempt for Trump’s stupidity.

“Almost every top-tier commander was struck by the determined ignorance of the commander-in-chief—and too frequently, they didn’t hide their feelings. Hence, Trump, in his second attempt at being president, hires ‘Colonel Vodka’ to run his Defense Department,” said Wolff, adding that Hegseth immediately set out to purge the Pentagon of people who were smarter than Trump.

“Hegseth understood that part of his job was to cleanse the Pentagon of layers of commanders who might believe that their expertise ought logically to provide a counterpoint to the president’s (and his Defense Secretary’s) lack of expertise,” said Wolff.

And now Wolff said the Pentagon is in trouble as munitions run low and a series of mistakes and bad decisions send Trump’s entirely voluntary war on Iran to creep into the November midterms.

“There isn’t anyone who believes Pete Hegseth is up to that job,” said Wolff, and insiders are pouring their opinions to the press.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Darline Graham flees when asked about Trump's latest promise

Sen. Darline Graham (R-SC), who is her party's nominee for another term in the US Senate, fled from a reporter on Thursday after being asked about President Donald Trump's proposed $5,000 checks for citizens.

"After presiding over a pro forma Senate session, Sen. Darline Graham says $5,000 checks proposed by Trump are a “good idea” but otherwise declines to answer questions and says she has to get to the airport," Semafor's Burgess Everett reported on X on Thursday.

This is not the first time Graham has fled from uncomfortable questions. In August, when asked about Trump's repeated Big Lie that he actually won the 2020 presidential election, Graham simply said she would support his proposed voter suppression legislation before bolting.

"MS NOW’s Mychael Schnell asked the appointed senator about this during a Monday press conference," MS NOW's Steve Benen reported at the time. "She apparently didn’t want to talk about it."

Benen added that she was then asked “Senator, you just mentioned that you agree with your brother on everything except for one matter, that being illegal immigration, you’d go farther than him on that. That being said, I’m curious, do you agree with him about the 2020 election, that Joe Biden was certified the winner of that election, was lawfully elected, and that you would’ve voted to certify the election, as your brother did?”

He reported that Graham replied, “I think our election system is broken,” which Benen characterized as "pushing a line that was both outrageously false and irrelevant to the underlying question. She then quickly shifted to emphasizing her support for the voter suppression package the White House has spent much of the year pushing."

Benen followed up by concluding, "You won’t commit to having certified the results of the 2020 election?” Benen reported that Graham handled this by ignoring the query, reporting that she "refused to engage and moved on."

Graham's most controversial refusal to answer a question occurred during her Senate primary debate with Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC), during which she demurred from answering a question on America's relationship with its longtime ally, Taiwan.

“Are Taiwan and the south China Sea national security issues for the United States, and if so, why or how?” a host asked.

Graham replied, “I'm just going to be honest here. I'm not on national security, that I'm not that informed on national security. So—but I do support the military.”

After that controversial reply, Democratic strategist James Carville publicly commented that "she’s too stupid" to be in the Senate when it comes to issues like international dialogue. He continued that Democrats would be well advised to “hammer that home” if Graham appears before a live audience for another debate.

“She’s does good work with handicapped people but she’s a dumb as concrete,” Carville argued.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

A massive earthquake is coming and the GOP has only one move left

When the GOP is taking a beating like this the party’s default response always comes down to one tactic, says New York Times columnist Lisa Lerer.

“As they took the stage at the party’s unusual midterm gathering in Dallas on Wednesday night, amid growing Republican anxiety about the midterm elections, speaker after speaker focused on what they characterized as an urgent threat to American life: a Democratic Party they claimed had veered beyond its traditional liberal principles into a dangerous, un-American ideology,” reports Lerer.

Democrats running for Congress were characterized as “evil,” or “communists and anarchists.” Speakers also claimed Democrats wanted to turn the nation into “a socialist hellscape.”

“I call it the Bolshevik Revolution in the Democratic Party,” said House majority leader Rep. Steve Scalise. “Let’s make sure that when we wake up the morning after Election Day we know we did everything we could to defeat socialism.”

Lerer said President Donald Trump has “long been a master of the politics of fear, regularly stoking anxiety about immigration and crime.”

“Now, as his party faces its most difficult political environment in years, the president and his supporters are attempting — once more — to channel fear into electoral victory,” Lerer said. “It’s a strategy that is both old and new, playing off the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America to stoke Cold War-era fears of communism and socialism.”

She added that by the time Trump took the stage Democratic extremism had been woven into “nearly every aspect of the six-hour program.”

Trump boasted about his tariff policy, lauded his work on the White House ballroom and vowed he would soon win the Iran war he started, but Lerer said Republican candidates appeared to have little to brag about and instead “made little mention of those issues.”

This comes at a time when the party appears to have veery little to talk about beyond the passage of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, which has received mixed reviews from critics, and has left even red state legislatures fighting to fill holes Trump’s new budget gouged into safety net programs.

“Historically, the president’s party loses seats in the midterm elections. But for Mr. Trump, the political landscape looks bleaker than most,” reports Lerer. “Surveys indicate that, with the exception of Richard Nixon, Mr. Trump is the most unpopular second-term president at this stage in his tenure in the history of polling going back to the 1940s. On issues where he once was strong — like the economy, national security and immigration — Mr. Trump is now underwater. The wound has been largely self-inflicted, with his support weakened by the unpopularity of several of his signature policies, including tariffs, the war in Iran, Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and various legacy renovation projects in Washington.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Cost of MAGA merch skyrockets —thanks to Trump

On Thursday, a new report revealed that MAGA merchandise sold at the Republican Midterm Convention has been hit by inflation. According to the Bulwark, not only have prices climbed on mementos championing President Donald Trump – who repeatedly promised on the 2024 campaign trail that he’d bring down prices “on day one” – but pro-MAGA retailers have seen general sales decline as Trump’s approval rating has plummeted.

Costs have shot up following Trump’s decision to launch war with Iran, and as the Bulwark writes, “It turns out that not even campaign merchandise is immune to inflation. Many of the same kinds of campaign items Trump’s GOP was selling while their man was campaigning on a promise to fix everything in 2024 have gotten noticeably more expensive in 2026.” For example, the t-shirts promoting the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee were $35, but cotton tees for the Republican midterm convention in Dallas this week are $40, and they no longer include a chest pocket. In 2024, a tumbler cup was $30. Now, the RNC sells virtually the same ones for $5 more.

At the same time, the Bulwark notes that Democratic merch prices have remained “surprisingly steady. A rainbow Pride flag donkey tee is $32 in 2026, just as it was in 2024. Their 'Good Trouble' mug honoring civil rights icon and former Georgia Rep. John Lewis has stayed even at $20. If you want a Republican mug instead, you’ll need to shell out $10 more.”

According to the Bulwark, “Trump-themed swag retailers outside the FEC-regulated merchandising sphere are feeling a financial strain, as the Wall Street Journal reported last week, although inflation isn’t the only factor: The president’s historic levels of unpopularity may also have something to do with their woes. Many MAGA-centered merchandise retailers and their suppliers are seeing sales dwindle, according to interviews with wholesalers, sales representatives, business owners and employees. As the president’s approval rating hovers near all-time lows, imperiling Republicans’ control of Congress, store owners blame a stagnant economy and weaker MAGA enthusiasm for lower sales. Some stores are closing permanently.”

Despite the suffering economy, argues the Bulwark, “The Republican party’s official merchandise operation shouldn’t need to jack up its product prices, because political donations, which is what their sales are, are about volume, not wringing extra dollars out of individual sales. And the volume will come naturally provided the campaign itself has the right appeal. But squeezing individual buyers for a few extra bucks becomes more attractive when voter enthusiasm — and with it, donor volume — is on the decline.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Trump blames Dems when Fox News' Ingraham corners him on potential bribes

On Thursday, after President Donald Trump claimed he would send American adults checks for $5,000 if Republicans retained control of Congress after the midterms, he offered a confused explanation to Fox News as to why he couldn’t pay out the money “now.” According to Trump, it’s the Democrats’ fault. What’s more, he argued that the sky-high price tag of the payouts would be covered by a thoroughly debunked economic strategy.

“Why not give the money now?” asked Fox News host Laura Ingraham, a staunch Trump ally. “If you have the money, why not give it now?” While some conservatives have backed the plan, many have questioned how it would be funded and raised other practical concerns – like whether it amounts to socialism.

Trump dodged with a characteristically rambling response. “Because the Democrats can’t do it,” declared the president. “Because with them it’s negative growth. With us it’s so positive. We’re taking in $21 trillion. No country has ever taken in anywhere near that. It’s four or five times higher than the next one. All because of that beautiful word that you and I love more than most others. Tariffs.”

Blaming the Democrats is one of Trump’s most common tactics, but in this case it’s a particularly confusing attack. He and the GOP have been adamant that a Democratic victory in the midterms would result in socialism, but as even conservative commentators have noted, his $5,000 proposal is itself a form of redistributing wealth – in other words, socialism. According to National Review Senior Editor Charles Cooke, Trump’s move “joins socialists” and “embraces bribery.” The whole concept, said Cooke, is “morally, practically, and politically catastrophic.”

And Republicans aren’t the only ones pushing back against Trump’s plan: so is economic reality. Trump’s claim that the U.S. has collected $21 trillion from tariffs has no basis in fact. Quite the opposite. Trump’s tariffs were largely declared illegal by the Supreme Court, which forced him to pay the fees back to businesses, which in turn was a large contributor to the skyrocketing national deficit. What’s more, tariffs are paid for by the consumer, so even if Trump was paying out $5,000 checks using tariff money, it would essentially amount to Americans paying themselves.

As Cooke put it, “His pledge of $5,000 ‘dividends’ to voters if Republicans win is just preposterous.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Ex-federal judge reveals Trump’s plan for 'catastrophic end' of democracy

On Thursday, a former federal judge detailed what he deemed “the final battle for America’s democracy,” laying out President Donald Trump’s plan to seize power on January 3, 2027. This is according to attorney and former U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Luttig, who warns that “Trump and his MAGA Republicans might bury our democracy once and for all.”

“Trump instigated a war against America’s democracy on January 6, 2021,” asserts Luttig. “Today, almost six years later, Donald Trump and his Republican congressional allies are even more determined to prosecute the president’s war against American democracy to its catastrophic end than they were on January 6, 2021. That catastrophic end could well come on January 3, 2027, when Trump and his Republican congressional allies wage the final battle in Trump’s determined war to corrupt America’s democracy and deliver a lasting political victory over the Democrats for his MAGA Republican Party.”

Over the course of his second term, says Luttig, Trump has taken steps to “seize control of the midterms” to ensure that Republicans retain a majority in the 120th Congress. As Trump himself declared in February, “The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over. We should take over the voting.’ ... The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.” And the Republicans, notes Luttig, “have dutifully fallen in line … So unalterably subjugated to Trump is today’s Republican House that even a decisive victory for Democrats and a resounding repudiation of Trump and the MAGA Republicans at the polls in November will not guarantee that a Democratic majority-elect will be seated in the 120th Congress on January 3.”

The core of the plan involves a Republican plot to claim the election was rigged after they lose. According to Luttig, “This is how the crisis would unfold. The precursor of the crisis will come sometime before noon on January 3, when Speaker [Mike] Johnson (R-LA) removes current House Clerk Kevin McCumber and replaces him with a person loyal to Johnson and House Republicans who they know will refuse to list on the statutory roll of representatives-elect to the 120th Congress any Democrat-elect whom Johnson and the Republicans direct him or her not to list. Under Rule II, Clause 1 of the Rules of the House, the Speaker of the House has the unilateral power to remove the incumbent clerk, and then the power under Title 2 U.S.C. § 5501(a) to replace him temporarily with whomever he wishes until the House elects a successor. McCumber is a Republican appointed by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. He is widely respected for his integrity and faithful adherence to the Constitution and is reputed to be unwilling to carry out orders he considers to be unconstitutional.”

“he constitutional crisis will begin, warns Luttig, when “sometime before the 120th Congress has been gaveled into session, the loyal temporary clerk refuses to list Democrat representatives-elect on the clerk’s roll of representatives-elect that determines who may participate in organizing the new Congress.” Such action will be met with lawsuits arguing that the clerk must perform its mandated action, which will work their way through appeals. “The next moment of constitutional crisis will come if and when,” says Luttig, the court orders the elected Democratic representatives be seated and the clerk refuses. “Judicial review of the House’s decision not to seat Democratic representatives-elect in the 120th Congress would take weeks, if not months, during which time the United States would be in the throes of a paralyzing constitutional crisis.”

From there, the matter would end up before the Supreme Court, which would be forced to answer “perhaps the most fundamental question under the Constitution: Is the United States of America a democracy, in which ‘We the People’ elect our representatives to the Congress and to the presidency, or is it not?” Should the Court decide to side with Republican claims of fraud, Luttig concludes, “two hundred and fifty years into the greatest experiment in self-government in the history of the world, the Republican Party would finally meet the fate to which it has been destined since January 6, 2021, and cement its place in history as the most corrupt political party ever to emerge in the United States of America.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.