Resend Push Notification

Emotionally damaged Trump is a born loser

I must admit, if Trump wasn't such a power-hungry demagogue, a danger to democracy, a sexual predator, racist, sociopath, pathological liar, bully, and impulsive and unstable megalomaniac, I might feel sorry for him.

He has no real friends, just sycophants. All his relationships are transactions, including with his three wives and his children. When people are no longer useful to him—wives, lawyers, advisors, Cabinet members—he discards them.

His current wife Melania is transactional, too. She married him for his money. She obviously doesn't love or respect him and she occasionally displays her disdain for him in public. She didn’t even campaign for him last year, except to make a few public appearances.

Trump hardly ever laughs. He has an almost-constant angry scowl on his face. To Trump, the world is a dark and foreboding place, where, like him, people are consumed by greed and lust. He relies on money and intimidation to get what he wants because he has no capacity for empathy or love—or any belief that people can be motivated by idealism and compassion.

Trump grew up in a world of vast privilege, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't emotionally wounded.

Both the federal raids on immigrants in Los Angeles and the upcoming military parade in Washington, D.C. reflect Trump’s need to look tough, manly, and in control.

According to his niece Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist, he was bullied by his father, who must have told Donald that he wasn't smart and that he was (or should be worried about being) a loser. In 2017, 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts published a book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, warning that he was erratic and unstable as pressures mounted on him. Two years later, they updated the book—this time with 37 experts weighing in on Trump’s troubled mental health.

He has no strong beliefs about governing or public policy. His major motivations are money, power, revenge, racism, and adulation.

One of Trump’s few joys in life are the cheers from his fans at MAGA rallies. So, to compensate for his insecurities, feed his ego, and to mobilize his MAGA followers, he has planned this massive parade on June 14—today—ostensibly to celebrate the U.S. Army’s 250th birthday, but which also just happens to coincide with this 79th birthday. The plan is to include 6,600 soldiers, 150 vehicles, 50 helicopters, and seven military bands, and 34 horses—at a cost of about $50 million—money that could otherwise be spent on improving the lives of soldiers and military veterans. The event will require the closure of Ronald Reagan National Airport to accommodate flyovers and fireworks displays. Trump intends it as a display of force, domination, and personal power. It is more about him than about honoring our soldiers and veterans.

In U.S. history, large military parades have typically come at the end of wars as part of demobilizing troops and celebrating getting the country back to normal. But such spectacles have a long tradition in authoritarian countries, where dictators, including the current rulers of Russian and North Korea, seek to bind themselves to national identity. The most disreputable of these displays of dominance were the mass rallies and parades organized by the Nazis to celebrate Adolf Hitler, depicted in Leni Riefenstahl’s pathbreaking propaganda film “Triumph of the Will,” that celebrated Hitler speaking at a massive Nazi Party rally in Nurenberg in 1934.

Having won a second term, Trump is now wants to consolidate his grip on power. He’s sought to bend those whom he views as his critics and opponents—universities, media companies, law firms, judges, businesses, scientists, artists and performers, and even professional sports teams—to his will. Both the federal raids on immigrants in Los Angeles and the upcoming military parade in Washington, D.C. reflect Trump’s need to look tough, manly, and in control.

From his father, who was arrested at a Klan rally in 1927, he also absorbed the racist ideas of the fake science of eugenics, which was popular in America in the early 1900s.

In 1988, he told Oprah Winfrey that a person had “to have the right genes” in order to achieve great fortune. In 2010, he told CNN that he was a “gene believer,” explaining that “when you connect two racehorses, you usually end up with a fast horse.” He compared his own “gene pool” to that of successful thoroughbreds. During a 2020 campaign speech to a crowd of white supporters in Minnesota, Trump said, “You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it, don’t you believe? You have good genes in Minnesota.”

But in fact, Trump has thus always been insecure about his family's genes. His father lied about his family's heritage, pretending that the Trumps were from Swedish, not German, ancestry. Trump repeated the lie in his book, The Art of the Deal. (He later said that he wouldn't mind if the US had more immigrants from Scandinavia, but kept out immigrants from "shithole countries," an outrageously racist comment). Trump said at a rally in Iowa that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of the country. They're destroying the fabric of our country, and we're going to have to get them out."

Trump believes that most white Americans share his racism toward immigrants and that he can weaponize that hatred by carrying out a mass deportation of people he calls “illegal” and “criminals.” He’s sent federal agents to Los Angeles to arrest immigrant workers and parents, followed by National Guard troops to intimidate and arrest those who are protesting the anti-immigrant raids. This is all designed to create fear and chaos to give Trump cover as the “law and order” president and, as Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA) noted, “an excuse to declare martial law in California.” The timing is no accident. The federal raids—which Trump is likely to expand to other cities—are meant to divert public attention from Trump’s legislative plan to cut Medicaid and other essential programs in order to give a huge tax cut to the super-rich.

Trump often claims that he's a self-made billionaire. In fact, he inherited his father's wealth, as reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig explain in their 2024 book, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success. His father bankrolled his developments and bailed him out when they failed. Despite his boasts, he knows that most of his business ventures—his casinos, hotels, golf courses, fake university, airline, football team, clothing line, steaks, and others—failed. Most banks won't go near Trump, because they consider him a toxic grifter who consistently defrauds his subcontractors, employees, and lenders. According to Forbes magazine—which ranks the world’s billionaires—Trump was never as wealthy as he claimed to be.

The timing is no accident. The federal raids—which Trump is likely to expand to other cities—are meant to divert public attention from Trump’s legislative plan to cut Medicaid and other essential programs in order to give a huge tax cut to the super-rich.

Trump's favorite insults, directed toward people he considers his enemies, are "not smart" and "losers." Clearly the man is projecting.

Trump was terrified of losing last year’s election because he might have had to go to prison and also because he'd be viewed as a "loser," which in his mind is the worst thing you can be, a consequence of his father's disparagement and his mother's neglect. He was doubly worried that he might lose to a Black woman, Kamala Harris, whom he described as “not smart.”

Trump is clearly insecure about his mental abilities and worries that it's due to his inferior genes. He’s boasted that he comes from a superior genetic stock and that he is a "very stable genius." For years, he has constantly insisted that "I'm smart." “Throughout my life,” Trump tweeted in 2018, “my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.” He lied about being first in his class in college. He didn't even make the Dean's List. Whenever he has defended his intelligence, it isn't clear if he's trying to convince his interviewers or himself.

He’s even defensive about his vocabulary. He claims to have "great words," although linguists who have studied his speeches and other statements say he has the vocabulary of an adolescent. He doesn't read—for pleasure or work. As president, he doesn’t read the memos prepared for him by his staff, including intelligence briefs. Some observers attributed this to his arrogance. But more likely it is because he can’t understand what is in them. He'd rather be considered arrogant than stupid.

At least 26 of his top aides publicly said that Trump was unfit to be president. They questioned his competence, character, impulsiveness, narcissism, judgement, intelligence, and even his sanity.

According to Michael Wolff, in his book, Fire and Fury, both former chief of staff Reince Priebus and ex-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin called Trump an “idiot.” Trump’s one-time economic adviser Gary Cohn said Trump was “dumb as shit.” His national security adviser H.R. McMaster described the president as a “dope.” In July 2017, news stories reported that Rex Tillerson, Trump’s first Secretary of State, called the president a “moron.” When asked, he did not deny using that term. In an interview with Foreign Affairs magazine, Tillerson recounted that Trump’s “understanding of global events, his understanding of global history, his understanding of U.S. history was really limited.” He said, “It’s really hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t even understand the concept for why we’re talking about this.”

“Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” said his former Vice President, Mike Pence. Mark Esper, one of Trump’s Defense Secretaries, said that Trump is not “fit for office because he puts himself first, and I think anybody running for office should put the country first.” In his farewell speech, Mark Milley, a retired Army general who served as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2023, warned “We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator,” clearly referring to Trump. John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps four-star general who served as chief of staff from 2017 to 2019, said that Trump “admires autocrats and murderous dictators” and “has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.”

Soon after the January 6, 2021 insurrection, McMaster, the former national security advisor, told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Trump had incited the riot through “sustained disinformation… spreading these unfounded conspiracy theories.” He accused Trump of “undermining rule of law.” Sarah Matthews, deputy White House press secretary during Trump’s first term, witnessed Trump staffers trying, without success, to get the president to condemn the January 6 violence. “In my eyes, it was a complete dereliction of duty that he did not uphold his oath of office,” she told USA Today. “I lost all faith in him that day” and resigned from her job. Trump’s “continuation of pushing this lie that the election is stolen has made him wholly unfit to hold office every again,” Matthews said.

What kind of president invites the media to attend Cabinet meetings where each member is required to humiliate themselves by telling Trump how wonderful he is?

But let's give Trump some credit. He does have the kind of intelligence, sometimes called "street smarts," attributed to hustlers, con men, and grifters. That seems to have worked for him.

Trump knows that many Republicans in Congress laugh at him behind his back but don't say anything in public because they fear him—particularly his ability to find candidates to run against them in the GOP primaries.

He also knows that most world leaders don't respect him. We’ve now been witness to the ritualized Oval Office meetings between Trump and his counterparts, where Trump seeks to bully, coerce, and humiliate them. A few have challenged him, which gets him angry enough to seek revenge. His meetings with Putin are somewhat different, since he envies the Russian autocrat’s power. Trump’s bromance and recent break-up with Elon Musk is partly about policy but mostly a battle of egos and wills.

What kind of person craves being famous for telling people, "You're fired"? But that's how he became a TV celebrity. What kind of president invites the media to attend Cabinet meetings where each member is required to humiliate themselves by telling Trump how wonderful he is? To Trump, respect is a zero-sum game. He likes to demean others to boost himself.

Trump will try, and fail, to cancel the 2028 elections and remain in power. But don't expect him to fade away. He will seek to become the leader of a white nationalist supremacist movement while continuing to dominate the Republican Party. The MAGA forces he’s unleashed since 2016 will also still be around. It is no accident that racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitic incidents have spiked since Trump began campaigning for president. Trump verbalizes, encourages, enables, tolerates, winks at, and makes excuses for hate groups, most notably when he said that some of the Nazis marching in Charlottesville in 2017 were “good people.”

When Trump dies from the side effects of obesity, the nation and the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief.

But as he gets crazier and crazier, and no longer has the power of the presidency, most of his followers will abandon him, crowds at his rallies will be smaller and smaller, and he’ll become a lonely, decrepit old man, a fallen idol like the Orson Welles character (Charles Kane) in the 1941 film "Citizen Kane" and the Andy Griffith character (Lonesome Rhodes) in the 1957 film "A Face in the Crowd."

He'll retreat to Mar-a-Lago—his Xanadu—by himself and with his paid staff. Or perhaps he'll spend much of his remaining years in federal prison, seething over how he was the victim of conspiracies.

When Trump dies from the side effects of obesity, the nation and the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief. And while he can't quite admit it to himself, he knows it, and it terrifies him.

NOW READ: Here's how Trump could be stopped in his tracks

Inside Trump's downfall — and the thing that will finally do him in

I’m old enough to remember when American politics was divided between those who wanted less government (they were called “conservatives,” or the Right) and those who wanted more social safety nets (called “progressives,” or the Left).

It’s hard to find Right or Left these days. Instead we have something no one has ever seen in America — a personal takeover of nearly all the institutions of government and, increasingly, the private sector, by a would-be dictator.

Trump is on the way to occupying Democratic-led cities with the Army, National Guard, and ICE — in what appears to be a dress rehearsal for the 2026 midterms.

He is telling Republican states to super-gerrymander in order to squeeze out more Republican seats in Congress, to help retain Republican control of the House after the 2026 midterm elections.

He is trying to silence criticism from universities, museums, law firms, and the media. And targeting critics for prosecution, such as Adam Schiff and John Bolton.

But that’s hardly all of it.

At the same time, Trump is taking personal control of the U.S. economy.

He’s trying to control the Federal Reserve Board, threatening Jerome Powell with unflattering stories about his expenditures on the Fed’s building and Fed governor Lisa Cook with stories about her home loan.

He’s imposing his will on key industries, from semi-conductors to steel.

He’s given the chip giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices export licenses to sell their semiconductors to China on condition that they pay the U.S. government 15 percent of what they make on those sales. (Not incidentally, Trump has reported substantial personal holdings in Nvidia.)

He’s converting nearly $11 billion of grants that the government had given Intel (part of the Biden administration’s CHIPS and Science Act) into a 10 percent stake in the company, worth $8.9 billion, held by the government. Presumably, this would let Trump decide on its CEO.

His White House has even created a scorecard that rates American corporations on how loyal they are to Trump. Corporations with “strong” ratings (among them, Uber, DoorDash, United, Delta, AT&T, and Cisco) are to be rewarded with tax and regulatory benefits, while “low” rated corporations could face retribution ranging from Justice Department and regulatory lawsuits to damaging executive orders, harsh regulations, and unbridled scorn from Trump.

Before they poured money into Trump’s initiatives and PACs, many Big Tech corporations were facing federal investigations and enforcement lawsuits. Those investigations and lawsuits are now being dropped.

Trump’s import taxes (tariffs) are the results of individual deals between Trump and particular countries, as well as between Trump and big American corporations. So far, America’s trading partners have agreed to invest over $1 trillion in the American economy. Who will oversee such investments? Trump.

In sum, an increasing part of our economy is no longer being determined by supply and demand but by the deals Trump is striking.

Authoritarians rely on vast bureaucracies to control industry, as does China’s Xi Jinping.

But the new order being imposed on American industry doesn’t come from a vast authoritarian bureaucracy. It’s personal and arbitrary. A single so-called “strongman” is beginning to control everything.

I don’t know the proper term for this. State capitalism? Fascist capitalism?

Whatever we call it, it will be Trump’s downfall because his arbitrary and mercurial decisions are making the private sector nervous about investing in the U.S. economy, causing global lenders to demand a higher risk premium for lending to the U.S., and pushing the economy toward both inflation and recession — so-called “stagflation.”

If nothing else brings him down, the economy surely will.

***

Just a reminder that my new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org.

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/

MAGA is panicking as Trump finally meets his match

Gavin Newsom knows that politics isn’t just about policy papers or legislative roll calls — it’s about culture, imagery, and the stories people tell each other. That’s why he’s been trolling Donald Trump online with parody memes and razor-sharp mockery that’s spread faster than any campaign ad ever could.

The effect is unmistakable: the California governor is shifting the cultural battlefield, showing that Democrats can seize the same terrain of humor and symbolism Republicans have dominated since Richard Nixon’s “law and order” days. Newsom has left conservative pundits — particularly on Fox “News” — sputtering.

It’s the kind of cultural jujitsu that Antonio Gramsci imagined — flipping power by seizing the symbols and frames of your opponent — and it’s the kind of thing Democrats have needed to do for years but haven’t successfully pulled off since the days of FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society.

Gramsci sat in one of Mussolini’s prison cells in the 1920s and 1930s, scribbling his Prison Notebooks and thinking about power. The Italian Marxist theorist recognized something most political leaders of his era missed: raw political control is never enough.

To truly rule with the broad consent of a nation’s citizens, he realized, you have to shape the culture. You have to convince people that your worldview is “common sense,” that your version of reality is the only normal, natural way to see the world.

He called this “cultural hegemony.” The churches, the schools, the newspapers, the songs people sang, the plays they watched and the stories they told all carried values. And those values shaped politics far more than any speech in parliament.

If you win the cultural battle, he argued, you will inevitably win the political one.

Gramsci’s ideas didn’t stay locked up with him. They passed through post-war European intellectuals, the British cultural theorists of the 1950s and 60s, and the American left in the academy. But conservatives were reading too, and by the 1990s a handful of right-wing thinkers had begun warning that liberals were using “cultural Marxism” to dominate universities and Hollywood.

Their solution was simple: steal Gramsci’s insight and use it to push back. Andrew Breitbart put the slogan on bumper stickers: “Politics is downstream from culture.” Steve Bannon made it into a strategy for the Trump White House.

Change the story the nation tells itself, control the cultural conversation, and politics will follow.

Republicans have taken that playbook and used it ruthlessly. Following Frank Luntz and other experts’ advice, they reduce every issue to a frame that touches the gut, not the head, and then repeat it until it becomes the background noise of American life.

Nixon gave us one of the earliest, ugliest examples. His “law and order” campaign wasn’t about crime in general; it was code for crushing the civil rights movement and suppressing Black political power.

His “war on drugs” wasn’t a moral crusade against addiction; as his aide John Ehrlichman later admitted, it was a way to criminalize Black people and anti-war activists. They couldn’t outlaw being Black or protesting the Vietnam War, but they could associate both with drugs and then use police and prisons to break movements and communities.

That was cultural framing at its most cynical and vicious. Nixon didn’t have to talk about race. He just had to say “law and order” and “drugs,” and racist white voters understood the code.

The pattern has repeated itself ever since.

When Republicans attack reproductive rights, they don’t say they want to outlaw abortion or strip women of autonomy; they say they’re defending “life.” That single word is a cultural sledgehammer. Democrats, for years, answered with “choice,” which at least carried some emotional punch, but over time they got pulled into defending Planned Parenthood against smears and explaining the economic dimensions of reproductive healthcare as a women’s “economic issue.” Important arguments, yes, but they don’t resonate at the same visceral level as “life.”

On healthcare, Republicans took the word “choice” and made it their own. “Choose your own doctor” became the mantra of those defending corporate-controlled healthcare and insurance. Democrats talked about “single payer” or “public options,” language that could have come out of an actuary’s report. “Choice” sounds American, even when it means choosing between bad insurance plans or facing bankruptcy.

When Republicans use Reagan’s favorite phrase “small government,” people picture a plucky individual freed from bureaucrats and taxes, a man out west on horseback making a life for himself and his family out of the wilderness. What they mean, though, is making government too weak to tax billionaires, regulate corporate pollution, or protect people from discrimination.

But Democrats never met this frame with one of their own. Instead of talking about “government that works for all,” as FDR and LBJ once did, Democrats let the conversation drift into debates over the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges or the technical structure of regulatory agencies.

FDR understood that people don’t want less government or more government; they want a government that works for them. That is a cultural message, not a policy paper, and Democrats have abandoned it ever since Jimmy Carter’s well-intentioned but wonk-driven presidency.

Republicans say “tax relief,” and suddenly taxes are a disease from which you need to be liberated. Democrats counter with discussions about marginal rates and progressive brackets instead of using FDR’s old line that, “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society. Too many individuals, however, want civilization at a discount.”

Republicans say “red tape,” and instantly every rule protecting you from being poisoned, cheated, or injured is recast as a useless nuisance. Democrats instead talk about the importance of “regulation,” something all of us would like less of in our lives.

Republicans say “freedom,” and people see flags and hear the national anthem. Instead Democrats, too often, talk about “programs” or “safety nets.”

The same dynamic plays out on guns. Republicans wrap the issue in the word “freedom” and the power to “fight tyranny.” Democrats come back with talk about universal background checks and assault weapons bans. Important, necessary measures, but they don’t touch the same cultural nerve.

Democrats could have framed gun control differently: freedom from being shot at school, freedom from being afraid in a grocery store, freedom from the constant terror that your child might not come home. That’s freedom that resonates with ordinary people. But by ceding the cultural word “freedom” to the GOP, Democrats let Republicans define what freedom means in America.

On immigration, Republicans talk about “secure borders” and “sovereignty.” Democrats talk about “pathways to citizenship.” Republicans make it about the survival of the nation, Democrats make it about paperwork. The Democratic Party is the party of the Statue of Liberty (that was installed during Democrat Grover Cleveland’s presidency), yet Republicans have stolen the cultural image of America and turned it into one of a fortress under siege.

Education has become another cultural battlefield. Republicans push “parents’ rights” and book bans “to protect our children.” Democrats respond with statistics about test scores and defenses of teachers’ unions. But the cultural high ground belongs to the idea that every child has the right to learn the truth, and every parent has the right to send their kid to school without censorship or fear. Republicans frame themselves as liberators of children, even as they chain them to ignorance. Democrats need to call that out for what it is, in cultural terms that are impossible to ignore.

The lesson is the same in every case. Republicans don’t win by having better policies: their policies are almost uniformly cruel, corrupt, and designed to serve the morbidly rich at the expense of everyone else. They win because they fight at the cultural level. They win because they tell a story, over and over, that makes people feel. Democrats, for decades, have responded with charts that only tickle the intellect.

It wasn’t always this way. During the New Deal and the Great Society, Democrats owned the culture wars. FDR didn’t talk about the Securities and Exchange Commission; he talked about “saving capitalism from itself,” about “restoring faith in America,” about “freedom from want and fear.”

Lyndon Johnson didn’t just present Medicare as a program; he said it was part of building a Great Society where people could live with dignity. He sold the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts with similar rhetoric. Those were cultural narratives, not policy briefs. They tied the Democratic party to the most powerful emotions and aspirations of the American people.

If Democrats want to win again, they have to stop ceding the cultural battlefield. Instead, they need to seize today’s opportunities to fully engage in the culture wars, from policy prescriptions to Gavin Newsom ridiculing Trump to JB Pritzker calling out the GOP’s embrace of fascism.

That means reframing every major issue not just in terms of policy mechanics, but in terms of the classic and compelling American values of freedom, fairness, safety, dignity, and opportunity.

Taxes aren’t a burden; they are the way we all pay for the freedom and opportunity America makes possible.

Regulations aren’t red tape; they are the rules that keep the game fair.

Healthcare isn’t about exchanges; it’s about whether you have the right to live without fear of medical bankruptcy.

Guns aren’t about background checks; they’re about whether your child comes home from school alive.

Immigration isn’t about paperwork; it’s about whether America still stands for the promise on the Statue of Liberty.

Republicans learned from Gramsci and weaponized culture. They turned it into dog whistles, slogans, and memes that bypass reason and lodge themselves in the national gut. Democrats can learn from the same source without resorting to the GOP’s lying, cruelty, and thinly coded racism.

The closest Democrats have come in recent years was Barack Obama’s “Hope and Change” campaign in 2008, revisited in 2012. But those terms, while culturally potent, lost their impact as the Democratic Party continued to bow to the demands of the banks (not a single bankster went to prison for the 2008 crash they caused) and health insurance (Obamacare was written by the Heritage Foundation and gifted the industry with trillions after Obama dropped the public option) industries.

We can tell the story of freedom that is big enough to include everyone. We can tell the story of America not as a fortress for billionaires but as a community where everyone has a fair shot and nobody is left behind.

Like FDR and LBJ, Democrats can again talk about America realizing its potential as a “we society” instead of the selfish Ayn Rand “me society” that Republicans idolize with their “I got mine, screw the middle class” policies and memes.

The alternative is to keep losing ground to a Republican Party that has mastered the art of cultural hegemony in the worst sense of the term. Nixon showed how destructive that could be with his law and order rhetoric. Reagan perfected it with his “welfare queen” lies. Trump and Bannon have pushed it into the realm of authoritarian spectacle, where politics becomes theater and culture becomes a weapon to bludgeon democracy itself.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

The Democrats of the New Deal and Great Society eras knew how to speak to the heart as well as the head. They knew that politics is not just about what laws are passed but about what stories a nation tells itself about who it is. They knew that culture is not an afterthought; it is the riverbed through which politics flows.

Republicans now know it too, and they’ve been poisoning that river for half a century. If Democrats want to save democracy, they must reclaim the story of America, the cultural high ground, and the word freedom itself.

NOW READ: Behind Trump's latest purge — and why MAGA's no longer pretending

'They know what's coming': NYT's Haberman says Trump's nervous over upcoming Epstein release

President Donald Trump's administration is becoming increasingly worried about the ramifications of Congress reviewing documents relating to convicted child predator Jeffrey Epstein.

That's according to New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman, who reported on the administration's nervousness over the partial release of some of the Epstein files in a Thursday appearance on CNN. Haberman told host Brianna Keilar that Trump's photo-op with law enforcement in Washington D.C. on Thursday night could be viewed as an attempt to distract the media from Friday's release of documents to the House Oversight Committee.

"He is mindful. It is in the back of his mind to try to keep Epstein out of the news," she said. "I think we don't quite know what this is going to look like tomorrow, but he, absolutely, and certainly a lot of his advisers, were happy that Epstein has not been front-and-center as an issue for the last few weeks."

READ MORE: 'Trump started this': Scathing WSJ editorial blasts president over 'gerrymander brawl'

As PBS reported earlier this week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is planning on releasing some of the estimated 100,000 pages of Epstein-related files to the Oversight Committee in response to a recent subpoena. The administration has so far not said what would be in the initial release of documents, and it remains unclear whether the committee will make those files publicly available following its review. ABC News has reported that some of the unreleased evidence categorized by the FBI includes logbooks of visitors to Epstein's "Little Saint James" Island (which housed his private compound) and "a document with names," which could be the rumored "Epstein list" that Attorney General Pam Bondi has publicly insisted does not exist.

When Keilar asked Haberman how the Trump administration was preparing for eventual media coverage surrounding the new documents, the Times reporter said the DOJ knew unfavorable coverage was "sort of baked in for them." Haberman added that the "big question" of whether to share the files with the public still remains open.

"Do they ever turn these files over publicly, which they clearly have the ability to do and just have chosen not to do it, and instead have looked for judges to release grand jury testimony?" Haberman said. "The judges have said [the grand jury records] don't contain some kind of a smoking gun."

"They know what's coming and they have their talking points," she added. "It's just that it's not a topic that any of them enjoy."

READ MORE: (Opinion) Trump just crossed a line no other president ever dared to

Watch the segment below, or by clicking this link.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

'Do it!' Trump orders top Republican to bulldoze obstacle stopping far-right prosecutors

President Donald Trump is now pushing for the Senate Republican in charge of the committee overseeing the federal courts to get rid of a longstanding tradition that would allow him to more easily prosecute his political opponents.

That's according to a Tuesday article in Courthouse News Service, which reported that Trump has now set his sights on Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). As chair of the powerful committee, Grassley is in a position to do away with the custom of "blue slips," in which senators from states under the jurisdiction of a presidential appointee to a federal judgeship or a U.S. attorney's office can effectively veto a nomination by refusing to turn in blue slips in agreement with the appointment.

One particular example is Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Andy Kim (D-N.J.) not submitting blue slips in favor of controversial acting U.S. attorney Alina Habba for the District of New Jersey, who the Trump administration has allowed to remain in her post by exploiting a loophole in the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. In a Truth Social post on Tuesday night, Trump raged against the blue slip system, and called on Grassley to end it so he can ram through a slew of far-right prosecutors in Democratic-run states.

READ MORE: 'All power to Trump': Worst modern chief justice John Roberts bashed in scathing editorial

"Democrats like Schumer, Warner, Kaine, Booker, Schiff, and others, SLEAZEBAGS ALL, have an ironclad stoppage of Great Republican Candidates," Trump wrote in his signature style of oddly placed capital letters. "Put simply, the President of the United States will never be permitted to appoint the person of his choice because of an ancient, and probably Unconstitutional, “CUSTOM,” that if you have, even one person in the opposite Party serving in the U.S. Senate, he/she must give consent, thereby completely stopping the opposite Party’s Nomination."

"The only way to beat this Hoax is to appoint a Democrat or, a weak and ineffective Republican," he continued. "Therefore, I would never be able to appoint Great Judges or U.S. Attorneys in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Virginia, and other places, where there is, coincidentally, the highest level of crime and corruption — The places where fantastic people are most needed! ... Chuck, I know you have the Courage to do this, DO IT!"

As Courthouse News Service's Benjamin S. Weiss wrote, Trump gave no evidence that the blue slip system was "probably Unconstitutional," and that the Constitution in fact gives the Senate the power of "advice and consent" regarding presidential nominees. Weiss also noted that Trump's claim that Democrats "openly broke" the blue slip tradition was unfounded.

Democrats have abided by the blue slip system even to their own detriment. In 2023, then-President Joe Biden withdrew the nomination of Scott Colom, whom he had nominated to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) refused to return a blue slip for Colom's confirmation, and then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) refused to abolish the blue slip system to confirm Colom.

READ MORE: 'I thought consumers weren't paying?' MAGA rips Josh Hawley over 'out of touch' proposal

Click here to read Courthouse News Service's full report.

The hidden insight that changes everything you know about Donald Trump: analysis

In an article for the Guardian published Sunday, anthropologist Arjun Appadurai argued that the key to understanding President Donald Trump is seeing that his entrepreneurial identity is not rooted in innovation or management, but in adversarial dealmaking that serves his narcissistic brand and his unquenchable greed.

Appadurai argued that Trump’s entire career illustrated a form of entrepreneurship where every deal began with his needs and served his wants — a relentless pursuit of the next monetary gain, even after achieving every material benchmark of satisfaction. While this might appear typical among the wealthy, Appadurai explained that Trump was distinct because his dealmaking was performative and adversarial, rather than strategic or market‑oriented.

"Trump’s entire career is built on deals, and his own narcissism is tied up with dealmaking. This is because of his early socialization into his father’s real-estate dealings in and around New York. Real estate in the United States, unlike the money-making modes of super-rich individuals in other countries, relies on deals based on personal reputation, speculation on future asset values, and the ability to launder spotty career records. Profits and losses over time can be hard to identify and quantify precisely, as Trump’s auditors and opponents have often confirmed, since profits, which depend on speculation and unknown future value, are by definition uncertain," he wrote.

READ MORE: 'Guess where the money came from?' Outrage sparked as cost of 'free' Air Force One is revealed

Appadurai emphasized that for Trump, deals functioned as engagements, not finalized contracts — meaning they didn’t need to succeed to serve their purpose.

They enabled him to claim victory publicly while easily redirecting blame if negotiations faltered. This approach, the anthropologist argues, undermined impersonal market efficiency: deals are personal and adversarial — ideal for publicity and ego projection — with little downside risk and no enforceable consequences unless fully executed.

The article noted: "Everything the US president does is for money – and in serving his avarice, he’s managed to triumph over the market."

"Trump has figured out to an exceptional degree that dealmaking does not need to be successful in order to massively increase his wealth," the author further said.

Trump's new strategy is going to backfire — and even his lunatic base won't be appeased

Ghislaine Maxwell is a pedophile, a sex trafficker and a perjurer, and Donald Trump needs her to vouch for him.

In an act of witness tampering as reality TV, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche raced to Florida to meet with Maxwell on Thursday, before she could speak to congressional investigators pursuant to a subpoena.

Never before has a deputy AG met with a convicted felon under these circumstances. Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence for luring underage girls for Trump’s former best friend Jeffrey Epstein. Two victims testified at her trial that she sexually abused them from the age of 14.

Blanche is Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer and AG Pam Bondi worked on his impeachment case. Trump squashed the long-promised release of the Epstein files after Bondi and Blanche warned him his name appeared in the files. Trump denied being told he was in the files, but Justice Department officials now admit they briefed him. Now, Alan Dershowitz, who represented both Trump and Epstein, is practically begging Trump to make a deal with Maxwell.

The Maxwell gambit exemplifies Trump’s erratic and self-defeating approach to the metastasizing scandal. The Maxwell arc will keep everyone riveted on a story that he’s desperately trying to kill. Will Maxwell vouch for Trump? Will Trump pardon the only person doing time for the Epstein atrocities?

Maxwell probably would have helped Trump even without a sensational meeting. The two are old friends, after all. Trump even said he wished her well. More importantly, Maxwell is a sophisticated criminal who knows Trump holds the power to pardon her, commute her sentence, or simply make her life more comfortable in federal prison. Now that Trump has made a big show of dispatching his deputy AG for a private audience, nobody will take Maxwell seriously if she swears Epstein’s notorious 50th birthday book is a figment of the Wall Street Journal’s imagination.

It was Maxwell who compiled the infamous 50th birthday album in which Trump allegedly wrote a raunchy note to Epstein in the silhouette of a naked woman with his famously spiky signature doing double duty as the pubes: “Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

In addition to testimony before Congress, Maxwell’s testimony could figure prominently in the $10 billion lawsuit that Trump filed against the Wall Street Journal for defamation. Bradley Edwards, a lawyer who has represented over 200 Epstein victims, says the Epstein estate has the book and that Congress could easily obtain it. Critically, Edwards said some of his clients helped to assemble the scrapbook, so we don’t have to take Maxwell’s word about how it came together.

Maxwell is not a credible witness. In addition to the sex crimes, she was charged with perjury for lying about what she knew about Epstein’s crimes in a 2016 lawsuit. "In short, the defendant decides when she wishes to disclose facts to the Court, and those facts shift when it serves the defendant's interests," prosecutors wrote in her sentencing memo.

In the course of her criminal trial and countless lawsuits, Maxwell has locked herself into the story that she didn’t know what Epstein was up to. So it would look suspicious if she suddenly claimed to know salacious details about Trump’s political enemies. The more details Maxwell offered up, the guiltier she’d look, and the more politically costly it would be for Trump to pardon her.

Nevertheless, Trump is notorious for abusing the Justice Department’s vast powers. He used his purported Article II Powers to fire the prosecutor who put Maxwell behind bars. His Justice Department extended a quid pro quo to New York mayor Eric Adams, offering to dismiss his federal bribery case if he supported the administration’s brutal immigration policies. Trump rewarded the January 6th insurrectionists with pardons on his first day in office. Pam Bondi even tried to mollify the lunatic base by dismissing charges against a doctor who destroyed covid vaccines, tricked his child patients, and forged vaccination cards to cover his tracks.

The news that Trump killed the release of the Epstein files after learning he was in them and lied about doing so has moved this scandal to the realm of a coverup. Trump spent years chasing girls with Epstein and the files may prove embarrassing even if they are not incriminating. Whether or not the Epstein files hold evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, he promised to release the files and then reneged to protect himself. Then he lied about knowing he was in the files. Todd Blanche’s hurried trip to Florida to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell should raise further alarm that Donald Trump is once again perverting the course of justice.

Donald Trump is not going to beat the pedophilia suspicions by calling in a favor from the nation’s most notorious living pedophile.

Media ignores 'crisis' as Trump slides further into 'cognitive decline': analysis

MSNBC Columnist Michael A. Cohen says it’s past time to reconsider President Donald Trump’s emerging mental illness.

“Right now, as we speak, the president of the United States is showing substantial … public evidence of possible cognitive decline,” writes Cohen. “Trump at times is unaware of what is happening inside his administration, can seem clueless about major policy events, and doesn’t always appear to understand the very legislation that he is promoting.”

Cohen ticks down a list of puzzling statements from the U.S. president that have no connection to reality. During a recent Pittsburgh summit, Trump claimed his uncle John Trump, a former professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, taught the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, despite Kaczynski never attending MIT.

READ MORE: 'Did not do this alone': Epstein exposer demands Trump DOJ investigate his diabolic network

He also fabricated a “what was that like?” conversation between Trump and his uncle that must have been impossible because his uncle had died years before Kaczynski was outed as the notorious bomber.

When asked to explain these obvious fabrications, Cohen says White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt admonishes and deflects. But Trump keeps racking up unreality and hallucinations, including the delusion that it was Biden who appointed Trump’s favored enemy Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, when in fact it was Trump.

“I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended (his tenure),” claims Trump, after first lamenting “I was surprised he was appointed.”

Only Powell “was appointed” by Trump in 2017. And there are other things that Cohen said appear to be creeping past the oblivious president. Certain big things, he said.

READ MORE: 'Made that impossible': Attorney reveals 'big problem' guaranteed to sink Trump's lawsuit

“Trump appeared to be unaware that his administration had paused military aid shipments to Ukraine, even going so far as to ask a reporter whether she knew who had ordered the halt,” Cohen reports.

It appears to be a “governing crisis” that the national media is happy to ignore, despite lavishing praise upon reporters who trumpeted the cognitive decline of former President Joe Biden.

“Axios reporter Alex Thompson was given the Aldo Beckman Award for Overall Excellence, in recognition of his ‘aggressive reporting on President Biden’,” Cohen notes, and CNN anchor Jake Tapper, wrote a bestselling book that explored the White House’s attempt to conceal his impairment.

“One can certainly debate the extent to which Biden was truly experiencing cognitive decline. But if reporters are going to argue that the media dropped the ball in not giving that story greater coverage, then how does one explain not even talking about what is happening right now?” asked Cohen.

READ MORE: Trump just made a big mistake — and he has no one to blame but himself

Read the full MSNBC report at this link.

Born loser: Inside Donald Trump's troubled life

I must admit, if Trump wasn't such a power-hungry demagogue, a danger to democracy, a sexual predator, racist, sociopath, pathological liar, bully, and impulsive and unstable megalomaniac, I might feel sorry for him.

He has no real friends, just sycophants. All his relationships are transactions, including with his three wives and his children. When people are no longer useful to him—wives, lawyers, advisors, Cabinet members—he discards them.

His current wife Melania is transactional, too. She married him for his money. She obviously doesn't love or respect him and she occasionally displays her disdain for him in public. She didn’t even campaign for him last year, except to make a few public appearances.

Trump hardly ever laughs. He has an almost-constant angry scowl on his face. To Trump, the world is a dark and foreboding place, where, like him, people are consumed by greed and lust. He relies on money and intimidation to get what he wants because he has no capacity for empathy or love—or any belief that people can be motivated by idealism and compassion.

Trump grew up in a world of vast privilege, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't emotionally wounded.

Both the federal raids on immigrants in Los Angeles and the upcoming military parade in Washington, D.C. reflect Trump’s need to look tough, manly, and in control.

According to his niece Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist, he was bullied by his father, who must have told Donald that he wasn't smart and that he was (or should be worried about being) a loser. In 2017, 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts published a book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, warning that he was erratic and unstable as pressures mounted on him. Two years later, they updated the book—this time with 37 experts weighing in on Trump’s troubled mental health.

He has no strong beliefs about governing or public policy. His major motivations are money, power, revenge, racism, and adulation.

One of Trump’s few joys in life are the cheers from his fans at MAGA rallies. So, to compensate for his insecurities, feed his ego, and to mobilize his MAGA followers, he has planned this massive parade on June 14—today—ostensibly to celebrate the U.S. Army’s 250th birthday, but which also just happens to coincide with this 79th birthday. The plan is to include 6,600 soldiers, 150 vehicles, 50 helicopters, and seven military bands, and 34 horses—at a cost of about $50 million—money that could otherwise be spent on improving the lives of soldiers and military veterans. The event will require the closure of Ronald Reagan National Airport to accommodate flyovers and fireworks displays. Trump intends it as a display of force, domination, and personal power. It is more about him than about honoring our soldiers and veterans.

In U.S. history, large military parades have typically come at the end of wars as part of demobilizing troops and celebrating getting the country back to normal. But such spectacles have a long tradition in authoritarian countries, where dictators, including the current rulers of Russian and North Korea, seek to bind themselves to national identity. The most disreputable of these displays of dominance were the mass rallies and parades organized by the Nazis to celebrate Adolf Hitler, depicted in Leni Riefenstahl’s pathbreaking propaganda film “Triumph of the Will,” that celebrated Hitler speaking at a massive Nazi Party rally in Nurenberg in 1934.

Having won a second term, Trump is now wants to consolidate his grip on power. He’s sought to bend those whom he views as his critics and opponents—universities, media companies, law firms, judges, businesses, scientists, artists and performers, and even professional sports teams—to his will. Both the federal raids on immigrants in Los Angeles and the upcoming military parade in Washington, D.C. reflect Trump’s need to look tough, manly, and in control.

From his father, who was arrested at a Klan rally in 1927, he also absorbed the racist ideas of the fake science of eugenics, which was popular in America in the early 1900s.

In 1988, he told Oprah Winfrey that a person had “to have the right genes” in order to achieve great fortune. In 2010, he told CNN that he was a “gene believer,” explaining that “when you connect two racehorses, you usually end up with a fast horse.” He compared his own “gene pool” to that of successful thoroughbreds. During a 2020 campaign speech to a crowd of white supporters in Minnesota, Trump said, “You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it, don’t you believe? You have good genes in Minnesota.”

But in fact, Trump has thus always been insecure about his family's genes. His father lied about his family's heritage, pretending that the Trumps were from Swedish, not German, ancestry. Trump repeated the lie in his book, The Art of the Deal. (He later said that he wouldn't mind if the US had more immigrants from Scandinavia, but kept out immigrants from "shithole countries," an outrageously racist comment). Trump said at a rally in Iowa that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of the country. They're destroying the fabric of our country, and we're going to have to get them out."

Trump believes that most white Americans share his racism toward immigrants and that he can weaponize that hatred by carrying out a mass deportation of people he calls “illegal” and “criminals.” He’s sent federal agents to Los Angeles to arrest immigrant workers and parents, followed by National Guard troops to intimidate and arrest those who are protesting the anti-immigrant raids. This is all designed to create fear and chaos to give Trump cover as the “law and order” president and, as Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA) noted, “an excuse to declare martial law in California.” The timing is no accident. The federal raids—which Trump is likely to expand to other cities—are meant to divert public attention from Trump’s legislative plan to cut Medicaid and other essential programs in order to give a huge tax cut to the super-rich.

Trump often claims that he's a self-made billionaire. In fact, he inherited his father's wealth, as reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig explain in their 2024 book, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success. His father bankrolled his developments and bailed him out when they failed. Despite his boasts, he knows that most of his business ventures—his casinos, hotels, golf courses, fake university, airline, football team, clothing line, steaks, and others—failed. Most banks won't go near Trump, because they consider him a toxic grifter who consistently defrauds his subcontractors, employees, and lenders. According to Forbes magazine—which ranks the world’s billionaires—Trump was never as wealthy as he claimed to be.

The timing is no accident. The federal raids—which Trump is likely to expand to other cities—are meant to divert public attention from Trump’s legislative plan to cut Medicaid and other essential programs in order to give a huge tax cut to the super-rich.

Trump's favorite insults, directed toward people he considers his enemies, are "not smart" and "losers." Clearly the man is projecting.

Trump was terrified of losing last year’s election because he might have had to go to prison and also because he'd be viewed as a "loser," which in his mind is the worst thing you can be, a consequence of his father's disparagement and his mother's neglect. He was doubly worried that he might lose to a Black woman, Kamala Harris, whom he described as “not smart.”

Trump is clearly insecure about his mental abilities and worries that it's due to his inferior genes. He’s boasted that he comes from a superior genetic stock and that he is a "very stable genius." For years, he has constantly insisted that "I'm smart." “Throughout my life,” Trump tweeted in 2018, “my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.” He lied about being first in his class in college. He didn't even make the Dean's List. Whenever he has defended his intelligence, it isn't clear if he's trying to convince his interviewers or himself.

He’s even defensive about his vocabulary. He claims to have "great words," although linguists who have studied his speeches and other statements say he has the vocabulary of an adolescent. He doesn't read—for pleasure or work. As president, he doesn’t read the memos prepared for him by his staff, including intelligence briefs. Some observers attributed this to his arrogance. But more likely it is because he can’t understand what is in them. He'd rather be considered arrogant than stupid.

At least 26 of his top aides publicly said that Trump was unfit to be president. They questioned his competence, character, impulsiveness, narcissism, judgement, intelligence, and even his sanity.

According to Michael Wolff, in his book, Fire and Fury, both former chief of staff Reince Priebus and ex-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin called Trump an “idiot.” Trump’s one-time economic adviser Gary Cohn said Trump was “dumb as shit.” His national security adviser H.R. McMaster described the president as a “dope.” In July 2017, news stories reported that Rex Tillerson, Trump’s first Secretary of State, called the president a “moron.” When asked, he did not deny using that term. In an interview with Foreign Affairs magazine, Tillerson recounted that Trump’s “understanding of global events, his understanding of global history, his understanding of U.S. history was really limited.” He said, “It’s really hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t even understand the concept for why we’re talking about this.”

“Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” said his former Vice President, Mike Pence. Mark Esper, one of Trump’s Defense Secretaries, said that Trump is not “fit for office because he puts himself first, and I think anybody running for office should put the country first.” In his farewell speech, Mark Milley, a retired Army general who served as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2023, warned “We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator,” clearly referring to Trump. John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps four-star general who served as chief of staff from 2017 to 2019, said that Trump “admires autocrats and murderous dictators” and “has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.”

Soon after the January 6, 2021 insurrection, McMaster, the former national security advisor, told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Trump had incited the riot through “sustained disinformation… spreading these unfounded conspiracy theories.” He accused Trump of “undermining rule of law.” Sarah Matthews, deputy White House press secretary during Trump’s first term, witnessed Trump staffers trying, without success, to get the president to condemn the January 6 violence. “In my eyes, it was a complete dereliction of duty that he did not uphold his oath of office,” she told USA Today. “I lost all faith in him that day” and resigned from her job. Trump’s “continuation of pushing this lie that the election is stolen has made him wholly unfit to hold office every again,” Matthews said.

What kind of president invites the media to attend Cabinet meetings where each member is required to humiliate themselves by telling Trump how wonderful he is?

But let's give Trump some credit. He does have the kind of intelligence, sometimes called "street smarts," attributed to hustlers, con men, and grifters. That seems to have worked for him.

Trump knows that many Republicans in Congress laugh at him behind his back but don't say anything in public because they fear him—particularly his ability to find candidates to run against them in the GOP primaries.

He also knows that most world leaders don't respect him. We’ve now been witness to the ritualized Oval Office meetings between Trump and his counterparts, where Trump seeks to bully, coerce, and humiliate them. A few have challenged him, which gets him angry enough to seek revenge. His meetings with Putin are somewhat different, since he envies the Russian autocrat’s power. Trump’s bromance and recent break-up with Elon Musk is partly about policy but mostly a battle of egos and wills.

What kind of person craves being famous for telling people, "You're fired"? But that's how he became a TV celebrity. What kind of president invites the media to attend Cabinet meetings where each member is required to humiliate themselves by telling Trump how wonderful he is? To Trump, respect is a zero-sum game. He likes to demean others to boost himself.

Trump will try, and fail, to cancel the 2028 elections and remain in power. But don't expect him to fade away. He will seek to become the leader of a white nationalist supremacist movement while continuing to dominate the Republican Party. The MAGA forces he’s unleashed since 2016 will also still be around. It is no accident that racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitic incidents have spiked since Trump began campaigning for president. Trump verbalizes, encourages, enables, tolerates, winks at, and makes excuses for hate groups, most notably when he said that some of the Nazis marching in Charlottesville in 2017 were “good people.”

WhenTrump dies from the side effects of obesity, the nation and the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief.

But as he gets crazier and crazier, and no longer has the power of the presidency, most of his followers will abandon him, crowds at his rallies will be smaller and smaller, and he’ll become a lonely, decrepit old man, a fallen idol like the Orson Welles character (Charles Kane) in the 1941 film "Citizen Kane" and the Andy Griffith character (Lonesome Rhodes) in the 1957 film "A Face in the Crowd."

He'll retreat to Mar-a-Lago—his Xanadu—by himself and with his paid staff. Or perhaps he'll spend much of his remaining years in federal prison, seething over how he was the victim of conspiracies.

When Trump dies from the side effects of obesity, the nation and the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief. And while he can't quite admit it to himself, he knows it, and it terrifies him.

NOW READ: Here's how Trump could be stopped in his tracks

'I know this sounds crazy': Shock as theory emerges about Trump's recent 'breakup'

Intelligencer editor Benjamin Hart admits he was surprised to discover from Axios White House reporter Marc Caputo that President Donald Trump’s guise of being injured by former advisor and friend Elon Musk is more than guise.

“I know this sounds crazy,” Caputo told Hart in a recent interview. “I didn’t report it at the time, because I would need a little more reporting — but one very well-placed source told me that Trump’s feelings were hurt.

“He has feelings?” demanded Hart.

READ MORE: 'Can't you just shoot them?' Inside Trump's threat to deal with 'radical left thugs' in America

“Yeah. A lot of people think Donald Trump doesn’t have feelings, but his feelings were actually hurt. And Trump was incredibly muted in response to what Musk was saying [about Trump’s budget bill], compared to anyone else. No one else would’ve gotten away with that,” said Caputo, adding that the White House can be an isolating place. “… [President] can be a lonely position, because you kind of don’t have a friend. Everyone wants something from you or is your employee.”

However real the hurt, Caputo said Trump would likely be the happiest for a reconciliation. Caputo described Trump as essentially an ‘As Trump World Turns’ “TV show figure” playing in his own personal “telenovela or soap opera” with “characters that come and go,” and relationships that magically heal like “storylines from wrestling.” But Musk's feelings are less fleeting. Musk can hold a grudge.

“The reality is Elon Musk’s history has shown he does have nasty breakups, whether it’s one of his baby mamas or some of his prior business associates,” Caputo argued.

Musk allegedly first fell out with former president Joe Biden because Biden failed to invite him to an electric vehicle summit, and Caputo said the world’s richest man is now irritated that Trump removed EV credits from his budget bill—even though Musk himself opposed the credits last year.

READ MORE: 'I didn’t vote for this': Pro-Trump Appalachians are 'living on the edge'

“[Musk] would not be the first person who pretends he doesn’t want something, but actually wants something,” Caputo said. “I’m told by very reliable people — and the evidence demonstrates including the actual paid lobbying by Tesla — that Musk was lobbying for it behind the scenes.”

If the two were to make-up, Caputo said Musk would probably have to make the first move.

“If you were to score everything out of a spreadsheet, who talked the most s--t about whom? Musk was much more aggressive and insulting than Trump was. And so, my best guess is that not only was Trump hurt, but he was more aggrieved. So, I would think, and this is just a guess, that were there to be a rapprochement, Elon Musk would probably have to begin with a call where he says he’s sorry.”

Hart said even though Musk holds the most bitterness, Trump ultimately has the power, however.

READ MORE: How this horrid show ends

“Trump has a lot more leverage over him than vice versa, I think,” Hart said. “… Trump can really screw with his companies.”

“If Trump wants to go full dictator, Elon Musk is in serious trouble,” Caputo agreed.

Read the full interview at The Intelligencer link here.

'They’ll believe it': Analyst details 'decades-long Republican trick' of robbing constituents

The New Republic’s ‘Daily Blast’ with Greg Sargent touched on the uncomfortable truths some Republican Senators are admitting about President Donald Trump’s massive budget measure.

Lawmakers like Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Josh Hawley (Ohio) are nervous that 10 million mostly red state residents could lose access to Medicaid under the Trump’s bill, which would also cut food stamps while delivering a huge tax cut for the rich and redistribute resources upward, with the top 10 percent of households gaining and the bottom 10 percent losing

Paul Waldman, co-author of ‘White Rural Rage’ pointed out that the Republican Party appears to be the party of the white working class, but only in terms of which constituents support them. More educated voters with college degrees are likely to vote for Democrats, while mostly white voters without college degrees are much more likely to vote Republicans.

READ MORE: Senator says Trump's 'corruption and thievery' rapidly turning off his base

“But one of the implications of that is that people more likely to vote for Trump are much more reliant on government services, both as individuals and in the areas they live,” Waldman told Sargent. “And you layer on top of that a lot of the specific things [Republicans] are going after, like green energy subsidies. About 80 percent of the manufacturing subsidies that the Biden administration put in goes to Republican districts. … They’re actually going to hurt their own constituents and the people who voted for Trump most.”

But Waldman said Trump believes his own voters are “bigoted and simple-minded and they believe anything he tells them.”

“I think he does believe … that he can tell them something’s good for them when it’s actually bad for them and they’ll believe it,” Waldman said. “There are times in his first term when … he hurt them and they still voted for them. In a lot of coal country in West Virginia and Kentucky, he promised to bring back coal jobs and he didn’t. … Yet they voted for him in as high rates or higher as they did in 2020. They felt like it didn’t matter that he didn’t keep his promise.”

This illogical faith allows Trump and the GOP to invoke “fiscal savings” as a way to slash their voters’ safety net while delivering a huge tax cut to the rich and imposing deficits on the children and the grandchildren of GOP voters.

READ MORE: 'Who will tell him?' Senate GOP leader slammed for comment about low-income Americans

“It’s a decades-long Republican trick,” said Waldman. “If they feel they can get away with that it’s because they’ve gotten away with it before. … Every time Republicans take power they cut taxes for the wealthy. And every time they make the same argument, which is ‘this is going to cause such an explosion of economic growth that we won’t be able to count all the money we take in from new tax revenue and nobody will feel a thing. They say that every single time, and every single time they’re wrong, but they keep coming back to it.”

Waldman explained “the core of the Republican political project” is that if you’re going to advance ethe interest of a small, wealthy sliver of the population “you have to convince the rest of the population that it’s good for them, too.”

“The fact that it never works out, well, people have short memories and the next time there’s a Republican president and a Republican Congress they’re gonna come up with another tax bill with tax cuts for the wealthy and they’re gonna say the same thing. … They don’t have to win the argument. They just have to fight to a draw.”

Waldman predicted the Republican Party and Trump would likely get the massive tax cut to the finish line this year, but “once the cuts hit you can’t convince somebody that they didn’t lose they’re health insurance, that they were ‘the waste’ Republicans were out to cut.”

READ MORE:

He added that the party will likely try to finagle the worst of it to hit after midterm elections to protect themselves from the political fallout.

NOW READ: MAGA rhetoric backfires as far-right activist suggests violence against Trump admin officials

Hear the full ‘Daily Blast’ podcast at this link.

Outrage grows over a single paragraph buried deep in Republicans' 'Big Beautiful Bill'

A single paragraph buried deep in a spending bill that passed the GOP-controlled House of Representatives earlier this month is causing growing concern among democracy watchdogs who warn the provision will make it so only the well-to-do would be in a good position to launch legal challenges against a Trump administration that has shown over and over again its disdain and disregard for oversight or judicial restraint of any kind.

Coming just about half-way through what President Donald Trump has dubbed the Republican Party's so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"—which progressive critics point out is a giant giveaway to the nation's wealthiest at the expense of the working class and the common good—the language in question is slight, but could have far-reaching impacts.

"This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."

On Saturday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted in a detailed social media thread how the provision "hasn't gotten nearly enough scrutiny" from lawmakers or the public.

A recent piece by USA Today columnist Chris Brennan put it this way:

One paragraph, on pages 562 and 563 of the 1,116-page bill, raised alarms for reasons that have nothing to do with America's budget or safety-net programs or debt. That paragraph invokes a federal rule for civil court procedures, requiring anyone seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order to block an action by the Trump administration to post a financial bond.Want to challenge Trump? Pay up, the provision said in a way that could make it financially prohibitive for Americans to contest Trump's actions in court.

HRW details how the provision, if included in the final legislation, "would make it more expensive to fight Trump's policies in court by invoking a federal rule that effectively punishes anyone willing to stand up against the administration."

Anyone seeking a legal action that would involve an injunction request against a presidential order or policy, the group said, would to face a much larger barrier because Republicans would make it so that anyone challenging Trump in court in this way would "have to pay up in the form of a posted bond—something many people can't afford to do. That means only the wealthy will be able to even attempt to challenge the most powerful man in the country."

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, was among the first to highlight the buried provision, calling it both "unprecedented" and "terrible" in a May 19 essay in which he argued that the ultimate effect of the provision is to shield members of the administration from contempt of court orders through the extraordinary limit on those who can bring challenges in the first place. Chemerinsky writes:

By its very terms this provision is meant to limit the power of federal courts to use their contempt power. It does so by relying on a relatively rarely used provision of the Rules that govern civil cases in federal court. Rule 65(c) says that judges may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order "only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."But federal courts understandably rarely require that a bond be posted by those who are restraining unconstitutional federal, state, or local government actions. Those seeking such court orders generally do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review. It always has been understood that courts can choose to set the bond at zero.

Given his critique, Chemerinsky argued, "There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. The House and the Senate should reject this effort to limit judicial power."

Human Rights Watch appeared to agree with the profound dangers to the rule of law if the provision survives to Trump's desk for signature.

"This is yet another sign of Trump's brazen attempts to stop the judicial branch from holding him accountable," the group warned. "This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."

A sick obsession is killing workers, democracy and our planet

It happens every few generations. It’s what drove the fascist oligarchs of the Confederacy to reach out and try to conquer the entire United States in the 1860s. It caused the Robber Barons to murder union organizers and ultimately crash America into the Republican Great Depression in the early decades of the 20th century. And it’s why wages have been stagnant while billionaires’ wealth has exploded in the years since the Reagan Revolution.

What I’m talking about here is the rise of greedy oligarchs who are driven by an identifiable mental illness, what’s either a subset of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) or a defect in impulse control called Hoarding Syndrome.

Because most hoarders never invite people into their homes, it’s an almost invisible illness. But, as Drs. Randy Frost and Gail Steketee write in their book Stuff: Compulsive Hoarding and the Meaning of Things:

“Recent studies of hoarding put the prevalence rate at somewhere between 2 and 5 percent of the population. That means that six million to fifteen million Americans suffer from hoarding that causes them distress or interferes with their ability to live.”

That’s tough enough; people afflicted with hoarding syndrome are often tortured by their obsession and socially embarrassed to the point of removing themselves from all but the most essential social situations. They’re functionally invisible. But, from a societal point of view, they’re generally only harming themselves: hoarding syndrome is considered a psychiatric condition, not a crisis for democracy itself.

With one giant exception: morbidly rich people who are also afflicted with hoarding syndrome but don’t live in or even close to poverty.

When people with hoarding syndrome are born with or come into massive wealth, suddenly what was once a personal, psychiatric issue can become a crisis for all of society.

Like Scrooge McDuck of Disney comics fame, instead of filling their mansions with old newspapers, tin cans, and balls of string they obsessively fill their money bins, overseas bank accounts, and investment portfolios with billions of dollars.

And then, driven to continuously hoard more and more money — that now being the object of their addiction — they reach out to use the power of government itself to redirect more and more cash into their greedy hands.

As historian and political scientist Michael Parenti notes:

“Wealth becomes addictive. Fortune whets the appetite for still more fortune. There is no end to the amount of money one might wish to accumulate, driven onward by the auri sacra fames, the cursed hunger for gold.
“So the money addicts grab more and more for themselves, more than can be spent in a thousand lifetimes of limitless indulgence, driven by what begins to resemble an obsessional pathology, a monomania that blots out every other human consideration.”

It blots out their concern for their fellow humans. It blots out their willingness to take climate science seriously. It blots out their ability to see the damage they’re doing to their own country and its democratic institutions.

Ultimately, they don’t care about the damage they do to society; such considerations are overwhelmed by their obsession. They don’t care how many children must grow up in poverty or even die young to support their massive wealth. They don’t care about destroying everybody else’s future, so long as they can get more, more, more money!

We defeated Confederate oligarchs with this disease back in 1865. We beat money hoarders back again after the Republican Great Depression with FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. We thought we were safe, as the middle class grew from around 10 percent of us to around two-thirds of us (with a single paycheck!) by the late 1970s.

But then, in 1978, in the Bellotti decision written by “Powell Memo” author Lewis Powell himself, five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court ruled that money is actually “free speech” and corporations are “persons.” It floated Reagan into office in 1981 on a tsunami of oil and banking industry money. Five other corrupted SCOTUS Republicans doubled down on that bizarre ruling in 2010 with Citizens United, creating an entirely new form of corrupt political bribery via something they created out of thin air that are called SuperPACs.

As a result, today these morbidly rich hoarders shovel small amounts (millions) into the pockets of captured politicians who then provide them with tax breaks, profit-driving deregulation, and government subsidies that return billions to them. And the impact on average Americans over the past 47 years that we’ve been living in the Reagan Revolution has been dramatic.

While every other developed country in the world offers free or nearly-free healthcare to its citizens, free or nearly-free education including college, and almost universal unionization and a high minimum wage, we’re stuck living in the nation these billionaires have forced on us just to satisfy their own avaricious obsession with more, more, more money:

— Almost 30 million Americans lack health insurance altogether, and 43 percent of Americans are so badly under-insured that any illness or accident costing them more than $1000 in co-pays or deductibles would wipe them out.

— Almost 12 percent of Americans, over 37 million of us, live in dire poverty, and 60% of us live in poverty, 201 million Americans. According to OECD numbers, while only 5 percent of Italians and 11 percent of Japanese workers toil in low-wage jobs, as CBS News reports, “For the bottom 60% of U.S. households, a minimal quality of life is out of reach.” (And low-income Japanese and Italians have free healthcare and college.)

— More than one-in-five Americans — 21 percent — are illiterate. By fourth grade, a mere 35 percent of American children are literate at grade level, as our public schools have suffered from a sustained, four-decade-long attack by Republicans at both state and federal levels to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.

— Fully a quarter of Americans (26 percent) suffer from a diagnosable mental illness in any given year: over half of them (54 percent) never receive treatment and, because of cost and a lack of access to mental health care, of the 46 percent who do get help, the average time from onset of symptoms to the first treatment is 11 years.

— Every day in America an average of 316 people are shot and 110 die from their wounds. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for American children, a situation not suffered by the children of any other country in the world.

And these are just the tip of the iceberg of statistics about how Americans suffer from Reagan’s forty-year-long GOP war on working-class and poor people that has managed to make America the nation with the world’s largest number of the world’s wealthiest billionaires.

— Almost half (44 percent) of American adults carry student debt, a burden virtually unknown in any other developed country in the world (dozens of countries actually pay their young people to go to college).

— Americans spend more than twice as much for healthcare and pharmaceuticals than citizens of any other developed country. We pay $11,912 per person per year for healthcare; it’s $5,463 in Australia, $4,666 in Japan, $5,496 in France, and $7,382 in Germany (the most expensive country outside of us).

And we don’t get better health or a longer lifespan for all the money; instead, it’s just lining the pockets of rich insurance, pharma, and hospital executives and investors, with hundreds of billions in profits every year going to the morbidly rich. “Dollar Bill” McGuire, the former CEO of UnitedHealth, for example, took over a billion dollars in compensation.

— The average American life expectancy is 78.8 years: Canada is 82.3, Australia is 82.9, Japan is 84.4, France is 83.0, and Germany is 81.3.

— Our public schools are an underfunded mess, as are our highways and public transportation systems. While every other developed country in the world has high-speed train service, we still suffer under a privatized rail system that prevents Amtrak from running even their most modern trains at anything close to their top speeds.

In the forty-two years since the start of the Reagan Revolution, bought-off politicians have so altered our tax code that fully $51 trillion has moved from the homes and savings of working class Americans into the money bins of the morbidly rich money hoarders.

As a result, America today is the most unequal developed nation in the world and the situation gets worse every day: many of our billionaires are richer than any pharaoh or king in the history of the world, while a family lifestyle that could be comfortably supported by a single income in 1980 takes two people working full-time to maintain today.

In the years since the Court first began down this road in 1976, the GOP has come to be entirely captured by this handful of mentally ill billionaires and the industries that made them rich.

As a result, Republican politicians refuse to do anything about the slaughter of our schoolchildren with weapons of war; ignore or ridicule the damage fossil fuel-caused global warming is doing to our nation and planet; and continue to lower billionaire and corporate taxes every time they get full control of the federal or a state government.

All because our courts and politicians, now well-captured by rightwing billionaires, refuse to do anything about the ravages of hoarding syndrome among the very wealthy.

Solving this problem won’t be easy but also isn’t complicated. Just like we did with the Robber Barons, the first step is to identify and publicize the problem of mentally ill people among the morbidly rich having seized control of our political system.

We did this before.

As President Grover Cleveland — the only Democrat elected during that post-Civil War period — proclaimed in his 1887 State of the Union address:

“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”

And as FDR pointed out when he began to pull America out of the Republican Great Depression:

“For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. … It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself.”

FDR took on those “economic royalists” and defeated them. He explicitly called them out when the Democratic Party renominated him for president in 1936 in Philadelphia:

“These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America,” Roosevelt said. “What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power.”
He paused for a moment, then thundered, “Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!”

The crowd roared, delighted that he’d turned back the Republican Great Depression and put millions to work while undoing the climate-destroying Dust Bowl by creating, among other three-letter agencies, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to plant millions of trees across the country. And he raised the top tax rate on the obscenely wealthy back up to 90 percent, while stopping an effort to kidnap him and turn the government fascist.

“In vain,” Roosevelt said, “they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.”

Cleveland’s and Roosevelt’s work now falls to us, as a new generation of obsessively money-hoarding Robber Barons have emerged from Reagan’s tax cuts and these horrible Supreme Court decisions. It’s thus now our job to educate the American people about the mental illness that’s frozen our economy and is dismantling our democracy.

Our task in this time of crisis is to create a societal consensus across America that we’re done indulging these wealthy pampered babies’ every desire, and begin the serious reforms necessary to put an end to this crisis and, like in the 1890s and 1930s, break up monopolies and raise their damn taxes so we can begin to pay down our nation’s debt and rebuild the middle class.

It’ll take a few years, in all probability, but it’s been done before. We can do it again.

The one character trait glaringly common among Trump supporters spotted by researchers

Since the start of his second term in office, US president Donald Trump has cultivated a political atmosphere that discourages freedom of thought. He also actively villainises and punishes any dissenting opinion. Worryingly, this atmosphere looks like it is spreading across other democracies.

Commentators have described Trump as both narcissistic and authoritarian. Yet, running parallel to these factors, one character trait is glaringly common among Trump supporters: sycophancy.

You just have to examine the pre-election rhetoric of Trump loyalists. One backer, Stephen Miller, declared him “the most stylish president … in our lifetimes”. Miller is now deputy White House chief of staff.

And South Dakota governor Kristi Noem gifted Trump a four-foot Mount Rushmore replica – with Trump’s face added alongside the original four presidents. Noem, who is now secretary of homeland security, epitomises the elevation of loyal sycophants over those with arguably better credentials.

Research has examined the dangers of sycophantic behaviour in the workplace, finding it reduces peer respect and morale, and leads to dissonance and lower productivity.

Other research has shown that someone who chooses to employ these tactics can enjoy improved promotion prospects, rewards such as the first refusal on business trips, easier access to company resources and a higher salary compared to their peers. But studies have also shown sycophants often suffer emotional exhaustion from the dual stresses of manipulation and responsibility.

Ongoing research I (Neil) am doing on workplace sycophancy reveals similar patterns. Interviews, spanning from junior staff to CEOs, show reduced motivation, falling team morale and declining respect for sycophants.

One participant highlighted the effect on teamwork that sycophantic behaviour can have within the workplace.

Sycophancy means raising yourself in somebody’s esteem, at the expense of somebody else, on the ladder. And so… it’s going to impact upon on the ability to be part of a team.

Another participant offered a comparison to a different deviant workplace behaviour – intimidation.

I’d say that sycophantic behaviour is coming into the same category as bullying. And it’s hard sometimes, especially with bullying and sycophantic behaviour, you are dealing with a lot of people that are manipulative, and manipulating people are quite charismatic. And when you’re charismatic, you’re more believable because you’re a storyteller.

One solution that emerges from the research is workforce education – teaching employees to recognise and mitigate a culture of ingratiation.

As an employee, many people might find it difficult not to bow to peer pressure. If the senior colleague encourages and rewards those who suck up, how do other colleagues, who do not choose to utilise such tactics, compete?

Dangerous ideas take root

Another factor to consider is the tendency for some workers to “kiss up and kick down”. What this means is that staff who are lower down the hierarchical ladder suffer detrimental treatment from the colleagues who are trying to suck their way up the same ladder.

If workforces were educated on what these tactics looked and felt like, perhaps included in corporate codes of conduct, HR departments and management could identify potential issues and deal with them.

But this is not merely an HR concern. Previous research also shows a link between ingratiation, high turnover rates and poorer performance by the organisation as a whole.

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of sycophancy is the push for conformity when it comes to opinions. If leadership hears nothing but agreement, dangerous ideas can be reinforced. Things like the leader’s own skills or the competence of the organisation as a whole can become wildly exaggerated – with disastrous consequences.

When leaders are surrounded by “yes-men”, they’re deprived of critical input that could challenge assumptions or highlight potential flaws. This can lead to cognitive entrenchment where decision-makers become overconfident and resistant to change. Bad decisions then proceed unchecked, often escalating into systemic failures.

In return, this can lead to groupthink, a phenomenon where a desire for harmony overrides rational evaluation. Environments that suffer from groupthink often ignore red flags, silence whistleblowers and overvalue consensus. All of these things are damaging to an organisation’s ability to remain agile and competitive.

Which brings us back to Trump. In his case this isn’t a corporate crisis. It’s a geopolitical one. At stake is not shareholder value but national security and global stability.

With sycophants backing poor decisions, the risk ranges from damaged diplomacy to outright conflict. If loyalty replaces truth, the cost could be catastrophic. Trump’s regime may ultimately collapse under the weight of its own delusions – but the collateral damage could be profound.The Conversation

Neil Beasley, PhD Candidate in Business and Law, Liverpool John Moores University and Madeleine Pickles, Reader in Organisational Transformation and Teaching Innovation, Liverpool John Moores University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

'Worst food I've ever had': Underwhelmed Trump investors criticize private dinner event

25-year-old TikTok prankster Nicholas Pinto, who was among the guests at President Donald Trump's exclusive dinner for buyers of his meme coin Thursday, was unimpressed by the event.

“It was the worst food I’ve ever had at a Trump golf course.The only good thing was bread and butter," he told WIRED.

Trump reportedly left the event immediately after his speech. He departed the venue in a golf cart bound for his helicopter, per the WIRED report. “Trump could have at least given the top people their watches himself," Pinto said.

READ MORE: 'Nuclear option': GOP senators threaten to cross 'red line' they warned Dems against

The crypto-themed gathering drew a quirky and eclectic mix. Independent traders mingled with crypto executives, devoted Trump supporters, and even some professional athletes, according to the report.

Former NBA star Lamar Odom stood out in the crowd. A few attendees wore Bitcoin-orange bowties, while others showed off flashy gold Trump sneakers.

An independent crypto trader, who was not identified by WIRED, hadn’t originally planned on attending the dinner. Their goal was to profit from a potential price increase in the TRUMP token triggered by the competition.

However, with the trade currently in the red, they decided to make the most of the situation and enjoy the upscale dinner instead.Trump is said to have made a typically meandering and off-topic speech, which insiders say ran for about 25 minutes. Eventually, he addressed the topic of cryptocurrency.

READ MORE: 'Evil and depraved': Kristi Noem buried over 'embarrassing' social media post

“Did you see the helicopter?” Trump asked as he arrived at the venue in Marine One.

“Yeah, super cool!” someone shouted in reply.

Democratic lawmakers strongly criticized the president ahead of the private dinner.

“Donald Trump’s dinner is an orgy of corruption,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday at a press conference. “That’s what this is all about. We are here today to talk about exactly one topic: corruption, corruption in its ugliest form," she added.

READ MORE: There's a hidden provision in that big ugly bill that makes Trump king

Warren continued: “Donald Trump is using the presidency of the United States to make himself richer through crypto, and he’s doing it right out there in plain sight."

There's a hidden provision in that big ugly bill that makes Trump king

I’ve been following with a mixture of dismay and disgust Trump’s One Big Ugly Bill, soon to emerge from the House. I’ll report back to you on it.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The bill passed the House earlier this morning on May 22, 2025.

But I want to alert you to one detail inside it that’s especially alarming. With one stroke, it would allow Trump to crown himself king.

As you know, Trump has been trying to neuter the courts by ignoring them.

The Supreme Court has told Trump to “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia, a legal resident of the United States whom even the Trump regime admits was erroneously sent to a brutal prison in El Salvador. Trump has essentially thumbed his nose at the Court by doing nothing.

Lower federal courts have told him to stop deporting migrants without giving them a chance to know the charges against them and have the charges and evidence reviewed by a neutral judge or magistrate (the minimum of due process). Again, nothing.

Judge James Boasberg, Chief Judge of the federal district court for the District of Columbia, issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump regime from flying individuals to the prison in El Salvador without due process.

Judge Boasberg has found that the Trump regime has willfully disregarded his order.

What can the courts do in response to Trump’s open defiance of the judges and justices?

The courts have one power to make their orders stick: holding federal officials in contempt and enforcing such contempt citations against them.

Enforcing a contempt citation means fining or jailing the Trump lawyers who argue before them, and possibly invoking contempt all the way up the line to Trump.

Boasberg said that if Trump’s legal team does not give the dozens of Venezuelan men sent to the Salvadorian prison a chance to legally challenge their removal, he’ll begin contempt proceedings against the administration.

In a separate case, U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis has demanded that the Trump administration explain why it is not complying with the Supreme Court order to “facilitate” the release of Abrego Garcia.

Xinis questions whether the administration intends to comply with the order at all, citing a statement from U.S. Department of Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem that Abrego Garcia "will never be allowed to return to the United States." According to Xinis, "That sounds to me like an admission. That's about as clear as it can get."

So what’s next? Will the Supreme Court and lower courts hold the administration in contempt and enforce contempt citations?

Not if the Big Ugly Bill is enacted with the following provision, now hidden in the bill:

“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued….”

Translated: No federal court may enforce a contempt citation.

Obviously, courts need appropriated funds to do anything because Congress appropriates money to enable the courts to function. To require a security or bond to be given in civil proceedings seeking to stop alleged abuses by the federal government would effectively immunize such conduct from judicial review because those seeking such court orders generally don’t have the resources to post a bond.

Hence, with a stroke, the provision removes the judiciary’s capacity to hold officials in contempt.

As U.C. Berkeley School of Law Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law Erwin Chemerinsky notes, this provision would eliminate any restraint on Trump.

‘Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored. There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. …
‘This would be a stunning restriction on the power of the federal courts. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts. Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard.”

With this single provision, in other words, Trump will have crowned himself king. No congress and no court could stop him. Even if a future Congress were to try to stop him, it could not do so without the power of the courts to enforce their hearings, investigations, subpoenas, and laws.

What can you do? To begin with, call your members of Congress and tell them not to pass Trump’s One Big Ugly Bill.

NOW READ: The one way to stop Trump's off-the-rails rampage

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

Trump 'lied': Shock as GOP bill would trigger more than $500 billion in Medicare cuts

The sprawling reconciliation package that House Republicans are rushing through committee would trigger over $500 billion in automatic cuts to Medicare, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate released late Tuesday.

The CBO analysis, requested by Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), came just hours before Republicans convened a dead-of-night House Rules Committee hearing on the budget legislation as they scramble to meet their Memorial Day deadline.

If enacted, the Republican bill would add trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade by delivering another round of tax cuts skewed to the rich, partially offset by huge cuts to Medicaid and other programs.

According to the CBO, the bill's addition to the deficit would trigger a process known as sequestration under the Statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go (PAYGO) Act of 2010, a law long reviled by progressives that requires spending cuts equal to legislation's average deficit impact.

Unless lawmakers offset the deficit impact of the Republican bill or agree to waive the PAYGO requirements—which the GOP measure does not do—the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "would be required to issue a sequestration order not more than 14 days after the end of the current session of Congress (excluding weekends and holidays) to reduce spending by $230 billion in fiscal year 2026," the CBO said.

"The deficit will explode so badly it will trigger automatic cuts, including over half a trillion dollars from Medicare."

Under PAYGO, automatic Medicare cuts are capped at 4%. The CBO estimates that the Republican legislation would trigger roughly $45 billion in Medicare cuts in 2026 and a total of $490 billion in cuts to the program between 2027 and 2034.

"This Republican budget bill is one of the most expensive—and dangerous—bills Congress has seen in decades," said Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. "The nonpartisan CBO makes it clear: The deficit will explode so badly it will trigger automatic cuts, including over half a trillion dollars from Medicare."

"This is what Republicans do—pay for massive tax breaks for billionaires by going after programs families rely on the most: Medicaid, food assistance, and now Medicare," Boyle added. "It's reckless, dishonest, and deeply harmful to the middle class."

Boyle highlighted the CBO's findings during his testimony at the House Rules Committee hearing, which began in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

"This is really the breaking news," Boyle said. "Over the last several months, there's been no discussion of Medicare at all. There has been of Medicaid, but not of Medicare."

"Because of the size of the deficits, because of the PAYGO or Pay-As-You-Go Act, that would trigger sequestration of Medicare, and it would total over $500 billion," Boyle continued. "The official figure that CBO confirms is $535 billion in cuts to Medicare."

Boyle and other Democrats said the looming Medicare cuts amount to a betrayal of President Donald Trump's vow to shield the program—a promise that was included in the GOP's 2024 election platform.

"They're not just cutting Medicaid," said Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.), referring to the reconciliation bill's roughly $600 billion in proposed cuts to the healthcare program for low-income Americans. "They're cutting Medicare too."

House Budget Committee Democrats wrote on social media that "Trump promised to protect Medicare."

"He lied," they added.

NOW READ: Inside MAGA's real motive for trying to destroy America

From Your Site Articles

'I made a mistake': Here's what moved the bar for one former Trump supporter

There are so many horrible injustices perpetrated by Donald Trump—from brutal attacks on immigrants to the targeting of law firms and universities—but none of this is registering with the MAGA base in recent days quite like the $400 million jet Trump’s claiming he will accept as a gift from Qatar to replace Air Force One, which may cost almost $1 billion to upgrade.

Some soft Trump voters have been horrified by those other issues, seeing students snatched on the streets and law firms bowing to Trump—and we’ve seen Trump’s approval numbers on immigration go down—but the extremist MAGA personalities like Ben Shapiro, Laura Loomer, radio host Mark Levin and others have mostly been silent on those issues or defending Trump, while they have been slamming the Qatari gift.

Also speaking out against it are MAGA Republican members of Congress, from Ted Cruz to Josh Hawley, who never criticize Trump. Enough Republican senators have come out against it that the gift would be voted down by Congress, which, by law, actually must approve gifts of this kind to the country.

Of course, the outrage is not enough that these cowards in the GOP will actually be moved to force a vote and try to stop Trump. But they’re likely feeling pressured to publicly express the opinions of their constituents who are contacting them, the MAGA base—who follow the MAGA online personalities, who have big platforms. And those opinions are like that of a caller to my SiriusXM show yesterday, a three-time Trump voter, who is so angry about the jet—and about Trump’s $45 million military parade to celebrate his birthday—that he’s dumping Trump.

The hardcore MAGA couldn’t care less about Trump’s brutality against people—they actually love it—so events like immigrants sent to torture prisons and parents being taken from their children don’t move the needle much with them.

And while many are claiming their opposition to the Qatari royal family’s gifted jet is about taking something from a country that has supported Hamas, this is much more about them, and their own pocketbooks. The only thing that moves these people is how something affects themselves. Don’t forget: They’ve given Trump a pass or even cheered him for emboldening more dangerous foreign leaders than the Emir of Qatar, such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

No, the true reason the Qatar jet has broken through is that it connects to the other issues that have jolted the MAGA base: Trump’s tariffs, the faltering economy and rising prices. Trump promised to bring down prices on day one and instead sent the economy into a downward spiral with tariffs. Many of the same MAGA personalities attacking the gifted jet also criticized Trump on tariffs, like Shapiro. They saw their stock portfolios plummet and watched prices continue to rise.

More so, they heard from their millions of followers—the people who line their pockets, many of whom have been struggling—and the Republicans in Congress heard from their constituents. They’re hearing what the caller to my show, Albert from Cleveland, said about the military parade and the Qatari jet; you can listen to that call here.

Albert voted for Trump three times, but now he’s off the Trump train because of the military parade—and the millions spent on it “when their are people starving in this country”—and the Qatari jet.

As I’ve said in the past, I don’t give a really hard time to these MAGA callers who apologize for their vote—which he did, saying, “I made a mistake”—even as their claims are mind-boggling.

I ask a few questions to challenge them and to learn their motivations past and present—and their answers are not even remotely satisfying—but I don’t push too hard. (Usually, I ask if they will work to elect a Democrat in the mid-terms—which I think should be our priority right now over pushing them away—but I actually didn’t have the time on this one because I had to go to a guest.)

I think that if prices were down, and if tariffs weren’t creating havoc on the economy, these people would be fine with Trump accepting the “palace in the sky,” having a military parade and using government dollars on himself.

But they’re not getting theirs, while Trump is treating himself like a king and enriching himself. They’re fine with lot of other people suffering; their deal with Trump was that he was supposedly going to make things better for them, even if he and his family would be grifting, as they did in his first term.

Trump doesn’t seem to get how broadly his tariff disaster has now affected him, as more of these flashpoints will arise, and wake people up. All of it presents opportunities for Democrats.

NOW READ: At least one Trump attack dog just killed their career

At least one Trump attack dog just killed their career

The Attorney General of the United States is considered the nation's top lawyer. As head of the Department of Justice, Pam Bondi leads the nation's largest law office. No federal precedent, and nothing in her oath of office, exempts her from the code of ethics, federal pleading rules, or the rule of law all attorneys swear to uphold.

Lawyers who work for the government have a duty to seek justice, whether facts lead to acquittal or conviction. For that reason, they are expected to avoid public statements displaying partiality because such statements undermine public trust in the legal system. The American Bar Association directs in Rule 3.6 that:

“A lawyer who is participating… in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial (outside the court) statement that … will be disseminated (publicly) and have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing (a case.)”

In other words, try your case in court, not on TV. Only supported facts of evidence are allowed in a court room; demagoguery, and assertions of opinion unsupported by admissible evidence, are not allowed. That is why judges have frequently admonished Trump attorneys that statements to the press are not evidence.

Despite the clarity of the ABA rule, Bondi has consistently argued pending cases in the media, particularly Fox News, where she falsely asserts that it is up to Trump to decide what the law requires. Every first-year law student is taught that the judicial branch, not the executive, decides what the law is.

Intentionally misconstrued orders

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court directed the Trump administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was deported to El Salvador without constitutionally required process. Under Bondi’s direction, DOJ lawyers argued that they don’t understand plain English, spinning the term “facilitate” to mean “removing any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here.”

The word “domestic” does not appear anywhere in SCOTUS’ order to the government “to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.”

Rather than respect the plain language of the order, Bondi’s strategy is to play games to either render the ruling null due to delay or worse, to challenge the court’s authority. As an example of the latter, the Justice Department filed an emergency motion to stay the Abrego Garcia order from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, aggressively challenging federal courts’ authority even after the Supreme Court ruled, pleading that, “The federal courts do not have the authority to press-gang the President or his agents into taking any particular act of diplomacy.”

The appellate court was appropriately triggered. Without waiting for plaintiffs’ response, the Fourth Circuit court of appeals issued a sharp rebuke, written by a Reagan appointee, describing the US strategy as “shocking:”

“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

Abuse of pleading rules

Federal pleading rules require attorneys to certify that what they assert is warranted by existing law or a reasonable argument for modifying the law, and that their factual contentions have evidentiary support. Rule 11 states that a court may impose sanctions on any attorney responsible for violating the pleading rule, including supervising attorneys.

As far as I can discern from public record, none of the facts in the El Salvador deportations have been pled with evidentiary support; Donald Trump’s opinion that someone is a violent gang member is not evidence. This means Bondi has either allowed — or directed — attorneys under her supervision to file unsupported pleadings. That a conservative judge called the latest motion “shocking” also sets it outside the rule.

Not only is Bondi authorizing her attorneys to file unsupported pleadings, she has punished staff for making accurate statements to the court. In April, she directed the dismissal of Erez Reuveni, a career lawyer, for acknowledging to the court that Abrego Garcia had been deported to El Salvador in error. Shortly thereafter, a 10-year veteran of the same unit resigned, saying he could not “with clean conscience” defend the department’s actions under Bondi, claiming they ran counter to the law, the Constitution and “basic principles of fairness and humanity.”

Trump’s personal law firm

Bondi’s latest transgression has not yet made it to court, but it likely will. Last week, Bondi declared that, under the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Trump can legally accept a “flying palace 747 jumbo jet” as a gift from Qatar, a country that has directly funded Hamas terrorism.

Qatar's financial and political ties to Hamas have long been known. In a memorandum, Bondi concluded that the gift was “legally permissible,” apparently reasoning that because the gift is not officially conditioned on any official act, it does not constitute bribery.

No such limiting language appears in the Constitution — Bondi just put it there. Her analysis also concluded that the gift complies with the law because the plane is not being given to an individual, but rather to the United States Air Force and, eventually, to the presidential library foundation, where Trump will then make personal use of it. Pity the DOJ lawyer flunky Bondi will force to sign that bad faith legal jujitsu when it gets before a judge.

The facts are that when Trump leaves office, the 747 would be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library. This is plainly a $400 million gift from a foreign government to Trump himself, perhaps meant as a “tip” following Trump’s private $5.5 billion golf course deal with Dar Global and Qatari Diar, a company created from Qatar's sovereign wealth fund in 2005. It's painfully obvious to anyone outside the Fox News bubble that Trump, who has not divested from his private ventures, is using the Oval Office to enrich himself, aided by unethical counsel.

Follow the dirty money

Former federal prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig observed that Bondi’s actions have radically transformed and politicized the DOJ, transmuting it “into Trump’s personal law firm,” which is “a rejection of the founding principle of the rule of law.”

Although four years feels interminable, Trump is not a permanent fixture, and he will be out of office while Bondi still needs her law license. Bondi seems not to care, suggesting she has no intention of practicing law after Trump’s departure. Perhaps she will return to lobbying, where she earned over $100,000 a month lobbying for Qatar. (Conflict of interest, anyone?)

As I see it, Bondi has already met the threshold of bad faith for disbarment. An attorney who trashes the rule of law must know that eventually she will be barred from practicing it.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25 year litigator specializing in 1st and 14th Amendment defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

'Hole in his head': Trump official torn apart for stumbling answers during SCOTUS hearing

On Thursday morning, May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court held a hearing that examined the injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's executive order against birthright citizenship.

Trump' critics are attacking the order as unconstitutional, as birthright citizenship is protected by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. But Trump and his allies insist that lower federal court judges have no business blocking his orders.

MSNBC's Ana Cabrera, covering the hearing, pointed out that it wasn't really about birthright citizenship per se, but about lower federal courts' ability to issue universal injunctions blocking a president's executive orders.

READ MORE: James Comey's cryptic '8647' doesn't mean what Trump voters say it means

During the hearing, Solicitor General John Sauer was questioned by Amy Conway Barrett, Elena Kagan and other High Court justices. Conservative attorney George Conway weighed in on Barrett's questioning during a Saturday morning, May 17 appearance on MSNBC's "The Weekend" — and argued that Trump appointee Barrett made Trump ally Sauer look very bad.

Conway told the panel, "(Justice Barrett was) looking at John Sauer like he had a hole in his head. Like, you know, basically, she's asking: OK, let's say you lose the case. Are you going to obey it in the next case? And he's like: Well, generally. And basically, the answer is: We're going to do whatever the heck we want. And they realize that killing nationwide injunctions, killing universal injunctions at this moment in time is just the prescription for utter chaos and lawlessness."

Georgetown University law professor Michele Goodwin, also on the panel, warned that the U.S. will be facing a dire constitutional crisis if Trump is able to openly defy federal courts — including the U.S. Supreme Court — and fail to honor the role they play in the United States' system of checks and balances.

Goodwin told the panel, "This is the real concern that Americans worry about. What happens when Donald Trump says, I don't have to listen to the United States Supreme Court. So what, Justice Roberts? I don't care how many talks you give saying that the rule of law matters and that judges and justices need to have autonomy. I can do as I want because I'm Donald Trump."

READ MORE: 'A for-sale sign': Experts rip Trump for putting new grifting 'on full display'

Watch the full video below or at this link.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

'Ram this through': The Trump admin targeted African countries with one goal in mind

Reporting Highlights

  • “Maximum Pressure”: The State Department conducted a monthslong campaign to push a small African country to help Musk’s satellite internet company, records and interviews show.
  • “Ram This Through”: Working closely with executives at Starlink, the U.S. government has made a global push to help expand Musk’s business empire in the developing world.
  • “Crony Capitalism”: Diplomats said the events were an alarming departure from standard practice — because of both the tactics used and the person who would benefit most from them.

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

In early February, Sharon Cromer, U.S. ambassador to Gambia, went to visit one of the country’s Cabinet ministers at his agency’s headquarters, above a partially abandoned strip mall off a dirt road. It had been two weeks since President Donald Trump took office, and Cromer had pressing business to discuss. She needed the minister to fall in line to help Elon Musk.

Starlink, Musk’s satellite internet company, had spent months trying to secure regulatory approval to sell internet access in the impoverished West African country. As head of Gambia’s communications ministry, Lamin Jabbi oversees the government’s review of Starlink’s license application. Jabbi had been slow to sign off and the company had grown impatient. Now the top U.S. government official in Gambia was in Jabbi’s office to intervene.

Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency loomed over the conversation. The administration had already begun freezing foreign aid projects, and early in the meeting, Cromer, a Biden appointee, said something that rattled Gambian officials in the room. She listed the ways that the U.S. was supporting the country, according to two people present and contemporaneous notes, noting that key initiatives — like one that funds a $25 million project to improve the electrical system — were currently under review.

Jabbi’s top deputy, Hassan Jallow, told ProPublica he saw Cromer’s message as a veiled threat: If Starlink doesn’t get its license, the U.S. could cut off the desperately needed funds. “The implication was that they were connected,” Jallow said.

In recent months, senior State Department officials in both Washington and Gambia have coordinated with Starlink executives to coax, lobby and browbeat at least seven Gambian government ministers to help Musk, records and interviews show. One of those Cabinet officials told ProPublica his government is under “maximum pressure” to yield.

In mid-March, Cromer escalated the campaign by writing to Gambia’s president with an “important request.” That day, a contentious D.C. meeting between Musk employees and Jabbi had ended in an impasse. She urged the president to circumvent Jabbi and “facilitate the necessary approvals for Starlink to commence operations,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by ProPublica. Jabbi told confidantes he felt the ambassador was trying to get him fired.

The saga in Gambia is the starkest known example of the Trump administration wielding the U.S. government’s foreign policy apparatus to advance the business interests of Musk, a top Trump adviser and the world’s richest man.

Since Trump’s inauguration, the State Department has intervened on behalf of Starlink in Gambia and at least four other developing nations, previously unreported records and interviews show.

As the Trump administration has gutted foreign aid, U.S. diplomats have pressed governments to fast-track licenses for Starlink and arranged conversations between company employees and foreign leaders. In cables, U.S. officials have said that for their foreign counterparts, helping Starlink is a chance to prove their commitment to good relations with the U.S.

In one country last month, the U.S. embassy bragged that Starlink’s license was approved despite concerns it wasn’t abiding by rules that its competitors had to follow.

“If this was done by another country, we absolutely would call this corruption,” said Kristofer Harrison, who served as a high-level State Department official in the George W. Bush administration. “Because it is corruption.”

Helping U.S. businesses has long been part of the State Department’s mission, but former ambassadors said they sought to do this by making the positive case for the benefits of U.S. investment. When seeking deals for U.S. companies, they said they took care to avoid the appearance of conflicts or leaving the impression that punitive measures were on the table.

Ten current and former State Department officials said the recent drive was an alarming departure from standard diplomatic practice — because of both the tactics used and the person who would benefit most from them. “I honestly didn’t think we were capable of doing this,” one official told ProPublica. “That is bad on every level.” Kenneth Fairfax, a retired career diplomat who served as U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan, said the global push for Musk “could lead to the impression that the U.S. is engaging in a form of crony capitalism.”

The Washington Post previously reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has instructed U.S. diplomats to help Starlink so it can beat its Chinese and Russian competitors. Multiple countries, including India, have sped up license approvals for Starlink to try to build goodwill in tariff negotiations with the Trump administration, the Post reported.

ProPublica’s reporting provides a detailed picture of what that push has looked like in practice. After Gambia’s ambassador to the U.S. declined an interview about Starlink — a topic seen as highly sensitive given Musk’s position — ProPublica reporters traveled to the capital, Banjul, to piece together the events. This account is based on internal State Department documents and interviews with dozens of current and former officials from both countries, most of whom requested anonymity for fear of retaliation.

In response to detailed questions, the State Department issued a statement celebrating Starlink. “Starlink is an America-made product that has been a game changer in helping remote areas around the world gain internet connectivity,” a spokesperson wrote. “Any patriotic American should want to see an American company’s success on the global stage, especially over compromised Chinese competitors.” Cromer and Starlink did not respond to requests for comment, nor did the office of the president of Gambia. Jabbi made Jallow available to discuss the situation.

During the Biden administration, State Department officials worked with Starlink to help the company navigate bureaucracies abroad. But the agency’s approach appears to have become significantly more aggressive and expansive since Trump’s return to power, according to internal records and current and former government officials.

Foreign leaders are acutely aware of Musk’s unprecedented position in the government, which he has used to help rewrite U.S. foreign policy. After Musk spent at least $288 million on the 2024 election, Trump gave the billionaire a powerful post in the White House. In mere months, Musk’s team has directed the firing of thousands of federal workers, canceled billions of dollars in programs and dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, which supported humanitarian projects around the world. African nations have been particularly hard-hit by the cuts.

At the same time, Musk continues to run Starlink and the rest of his corporate empire. In past administrations, government ethics lawyers carefully vetted potential conflicts of interest. Though Trump once said that “we won’t let him get near” conflicts, the White House has also suggested Musk is responsible for policing himself. The billionaire has waved away criticisms of the arrangement, saying “I’ll recuse myself” if conflicts arise. “My companies are suffering because I’m in the government,” Musk said.

In a statement, the White House said Musk has nothing to do with deals involving Starlink and that every administration official follows ethical guidelines. “For the umpteenth time, President Trump will not tolerate any conflicts of interest,” spokesperson Harrison Fields said in an email.

Executives at Starlink have seized the moment to expand. An April State Department cable to D.C. obtained by ProPublica quoted a Starlink employee describing the company’s approach to securing a license in Djibouti, a key U.S. ally in Africa that hosts an American military base: “We’re pushing from the top and the bottom to ram this through.”

Musk entered the White House at a pivotal moment for Starlink. When the service launched in 2020, it had a novel approach to internet access. Rather than relying on underground cables or cell towers like traditional telecom companies, Starlink uses low-orbiting satellites that let it provide fast internet in places its competitors had struggled to reach. Expectations for the startup were sky high. Bullish Morgan Stanley analysts predicted that by 2040, Starlink would have up to 364 million subscribers worldwide — more than the current population of the U.S.

Starlink quickly became a central pillar of Musk’s fortune. His stake in Starlink’s parent company, SpaceX, is estimated to be worth about $150 billion of his roughly $400 billion net worth.

Although the company says its user base has grown to over 5 million people, it remains a bit player compared to the largest internet providers. And the satellite internet market is set to become more competitive as well-funded companies launch services modeled on Starlink. Jeff Bezos’ Project Kuiper, a unit of Amazon, has said it expects to start serving customers later this year. Satellite upstarts headquartered in Europe and China aren’t far behind either.

“They want to get as far and as fast as they can before Amazon Kuiper gets online,” said Chris Quilty, a veteran space industry analyst.

In internal cables, State Department officials have said they are eager to help Musk get ahead of foreign satellite companies. Securing licenses in the next 18 months is critical for Starlink due to the growing competition, one cable said last month. Senior diplomats have written that they hope to give Musk’s company a “first-mover advantage.”

Africa represents a lucrative prize. Much of the continent lacks reliable internet. Success in Africa could mean dominating a market with the fastest-growing population on earth.

As of last November, Starlink had reportedly launched in 15 of Africa’s 54 countries, but it was beginning to spark a backlash. Last year, Cameroon and Namibia cracked down on Musk’s company for allegedly operating in their countries illegally. In South Africa — where Starlink has so far failed to get a license — Musk exacerbated tensions by publicly accusing the government of anti-white racism. Since Trump won the election, at least five African countries have granted licenses to Starlink: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho and Chad.

Now Musk’s campaign of cuts has given him leverage inside the State Department. A Trump administration memo that leaked to the press last month proposed closing six embassies in Africa.

The Gambian embassy was on the list of proposed cuts.

An 8-year-old democracy, Gambia’s 2.7 million residents live on a sliver of land once used as a hub in the transatlantic slave trade. For two decades until 2017, the nation was ruled by a despot who had his opponents assassinated and plundered public funds to buy himself luxuries like a Rolls-Royce collection and a private zoo. When the dictator was ousted, the economy was in tatters. Today Gambia is one of the poorest countries in the world, with about half the country living on less than $4 a day.

In this fragile environment, the telecom industry that Jabbi oversees is vitally important to Gambian authorities. According to the government, the sector provides at least 20% of the country’s tax revenue. Ads for the country’s multiple internet providers are ubiquitous, painted onto dozens of public works — parks, police booths, schools.

It’s unclear why Starlink’s efforts in Gambia, a tiny market, have been so intense.

Cromer’s efforts on behalf of the company started under the Biden administration, as she documented last December in a cable sent back to Washington. Last spring, Starlink began the process of securing necessary approvals from a local utilities regulator and the Gambian communications agency. The utilities regulator wanted Starlink to pay an $85,000 license fee, which the company felt was too expensive. Cromer spoke to local officials, who then “pressured” the regulator to remove “this unnecessary barrier to entry,” the ambassador wrote.

Gambian supporters of Starlink felt that its product would be a boon for consumers and for economic growth in the country, where internet service remains unreliable and slow. “The ripple effects could be extraordinary,” Cromer said in the December cable, contending it could enable telehealth and improve education.

Opponents argued that local internet providers were one of Gambia’s few stable sources of jobs and infrastructure investments. If Starlink killed off its competition and then jacked up its prices — in Nigeria, the company announced last year it would suddenly double its fees — authorities could have little leverage to manage the fallout. When Musk refused to turn on Starlink in part of Ukraine during the war there, it heightened concerns about handing control of internet access to the mercurial billionaire, industry analysts said. One Musk tweet about foreign regulators’ ability to police his company caught the attention of Gambian critics: “They can shake their fist at the sky,” Musk said in 2021.

The ultimate authority for granting Starlink a license lies with Jabbi, an attorney who spent years in the local telecom sector. Gambian telecom companies that don’t want competition from Musk see Jabbi as an ally.

Jallow, Jabbi’s top deputy, told ProPublica that the ministry is not opposed to Starlink operating in Gambia. But he said Jabbi is doing due diligence to ensure laws and regulations are being followed before opening up the country to a consequential change.

After Trump’s inauguration, Jabbi’s position pitted him against not only Starlink but also the U.S. government. In the weeks after the February meeting where Cromer reminded Jabbi about the tenuous state of American funding to his country, the ambassador told other diplomats that getting Starlink approved was a high priority, according to a Western official familiar with her comments.

The stance surprised some of Cromer’s peers. Cromer had spent her career at USAID before President Joe Biden appointed her as ambassador. Her tenure in Gambia often focused on human rights and democracy building.

In March, when Jabbi and Jallow traveled to D.C. to attend a World Bank summit, the State Department helped arrange a series of meetings for them. The first, on March 19, was with Starlink representatives including Ben MacWilliams, a former U.S. diplomat who leads the company’s expansion efforts in Africa. The second was with U.S. government officials at the State Department’s headquarters.

The meeting with the company quickly became contentious. Huddled in a conference room at the World Bank, MacWilliams accused Jabbi of standing in the way of his nation’s progress and harming ordinary Gambians, according to Jallow, who was in the meeting, and four others briefed on the event. “We want our license now,” Jallow recalled MacWilliams saying. “Why are you delaying it?”

The conversation ended in a stalemate. In the hours that followed, Starlink and the U.S. government’s campaign intensified in a way that underscored the degree of coordination between the two parties. The company told Jabbi it would cancel his scheduled D.C. meeting with State Department officials because “there was no more need,” Jallow said.

The State Department meeting never happened. Instead, 4,000 miles away in Gambia’s capital, Cromer would try an even more aggressive approach.

That same day, Cromer had already met with Gambia’s equivalent of a commerce secretary to lobby him to help pave the way for Starlink. Then she was informed about the disappointing meeting Starlink had had in D.C., according to State Department records. By day’s end, Cromer had sent a letter to the nation’s president.

“I am writing to seek your support to allow Starlink to operate in The Gambia,” the letter opened. Over three pages, the ambassador described her concerns about Jabbi’s agency and listed the ways that Gambians could benefit from Starlink. She also said the company had satisfied conditions set by Jabbi’s predecessor.

“I respectfully urge you to facilitate the necessary approvals for Starlink to commence operations in The Gambia,” Cromer concluded. “I look forward to your favorable response.”

In the weeks since, Jabbi has refused to budge. The U.S. government’s efforts have continued. In late April, Gambia’s attorney general met in D.C. with senior State Department officials, according to a person familiar with the matter, where they again discussed the Starlink issue.

Diplomats were troubled by how the pressure campaign could hurt America’s image overseas. “This is not Iran or a rogue African state run by a dictator — this is a democracy, a natural ally,” said another senior Western diplomat in the region, noting that Gambia is “a prime partner of the West” in United Nations votes. “You beat up the smallest and the best boy in the class.”

Gambia is not the only country being leaned on. Since Trump took office, embassies around the world have sent a flurry of cables to D.C. documenting their meetings with Starlink executives and their efforts to cajole developing countries into helping Musk’s business. The cables all describe a problem similar to what happened in Gambia: The company has struggled to win a license from local regulators. In some countries, ambassadors reported, their work appears to be yielding results. (The embassies and their host countries did not respond to requests for comment.)

The U.S. embassy in Cameroon wrote that the country could prove its commitment to Trump’s agenda by letting Starlink expand its presence there. In the same missive, embassy officials discussed the impact of U.S. aid cuts and deportations and cited a humanitarian official who was reckoning with America’s shifting foreign policy: “They may not be happy with what they see, but they are trying to adapt as best they can.”

In Lesotho, where embassy officials had spent weeks trying to help Starlink get a license, the company finalized a deal after Trump imposed 50% tariffs on the tiny landlocked country. Lesotho officials told embassy staff they hoped the license would help in their urgent push to reduce the levies, according to Mother Jones. A major multinational company complained that Starlink was getting preferential treatment, embassy documents obtained by ProPublica show, since Musk’s firm had been exempted from requirements its competitors still had to follow.

In cables sent from the U.S. embassy in Djibouti this spring, State Department officials recounted their meetings with the company and pledged to continue working with “Starlink in identifying government officials and facilitating discussions.”

In Bangladesh, U.S. diplomats pressed Starlink’s case “early and often” with local officials, partnered with Starlink to “build an educational strategy” for their counterparts and helped arrange a conversation between Musk and the nation’s head of state, according to a recent cable. The embassy’s work started under Biden but bore fruit only after Trump took office.

Their efforts resulted in Bangladesh approving Starlink’s request to do business in the country, the top U.S. diplomat there said last month, a sign-off that Musk’s company had sought for years.

Do you have information about Elon Musk’s businesses or the Trump administration? Josh Kaplan can be reached by email at joshua.kaplan@propublica.org and by Signal or WhatsApp at 734-834-9383. Brett Murphy can be reached at 508-523-5195 or by email at brett.murphy@propublica.org.

Anna Maria Barry-Jester contributed reporting.

@2025 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.