Resend Push Notification

Trump isn't aging well and there's a obvious reason why

I recently had a minor health scare — not unusual when you’re pushing 80. Everything is fine, at least for now.

But it got me thinking.

Trump is 10 days older than me. He doesn’t look the model of robust health.

Even though we’re almost the same age, Trump has one big health problem I don’t have: his hatefulness.

“I hate my opponents,” he says.

Hate is a corrosive. It eats away at one’s health. It attacks a hater’s central nervous system by releasing stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline. It compromises a hater’s cardiovascular system with high blood pressure and heart disease. It weakens immune systems, making the hater more vulnerable to all sorts of illnesses. It weakens gastro-intestinal systems, causing stomachaches, nausea, and other digestive problems. It leads to difficulties falling and staying asleep. It causes muscle tensions that harm the jaw and neck, such as clenching and teeth grinding, and contributes to headaches and migraines.

On Friday, Trump spent roughly three hours at the Bethesda Naval Hospital for what his doctor, Navy Capt. Sean Barbabella, called a “scheduled follow-up evaluation.” (While there, anti-vaxxers please note, Trump also got his yearly flu shot, as well as a COVID-19 booster.)

The White House initially described Trump’s Walter Reed visit as a “routine yearly checkup,” although Trump had his annual physical in April. The White House then called the Walter Reed visit a “semiannual physical.”

Even without hate, a body nearing 80 suffers from the wear and tear that accompany aging.

When I get together with old friends, our first ritual is an “organ recital” — how’s your back? Knee? Heart? Hip? Shoulder? Hearing? Prostate? Hemorrhoids? Digestion?

The recital can run — and ruin — an entire lunch.

I doubt Trump does organ recitals with old friends. That’s because I don’t think he has old friends.

When it comes to other people, Trump isn’t relational. He’s transactional. Every interaction is a deal. Transactions don’t foster friendships.

Yet as gerontologists will tell you, one of the most important ways of keeping healthy in later years is through good friendships.

Another thing I’ve been noticing when I get together with old friends is the subtle and awkward issue of mental decline.

It doesn’t arise directly. We don’t ask each other, “So, how’s the dementia coming along?” Instead, we quietly listen and notice: Are words garbled? Thoughts coherent? Syntax reasonable?

I’m becoming more forgetful. I make long lists trying to coax myself into remembering what I’m supposed to. Then I forget where I put the lists.

Inevitably, minds begin to go. Trump’s seems to be disappearing at a particularly rapid rate. Just get a transcript of the full remarks he made several weeks ago to the military top brass. It has dementia written all across it.

At Trump’s April physical, he passed a short screening test to assess brain functions. Beforehand, Trump bragged about how well he had done on his last cognitive test. “I had a perfect score. And one of the doctors said he’s almost never seen a perfect score. I had a, had a perfect score. I had the highest score. And that made me feel good.”

Let me ask you: Do you consider someone mentally healthy who needs to constantly and continuously brag about himself?

Another important way of measuring mental health is one’s sense of humor — especially of the self-deprecating sort. As I age, I’ve found that the sharpest of my friends have retained great capacities to laugh at themselves.

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen or heard Trump make a joke at his own expense. In fact, as far as I can tell, he has no sense of humor.

Probably the best predictor of how long you’ll live is how long your parents lived. Genes aren’t everything, but they’re almost everything.

My mother died at the age of 86. She was unwell for the last two years of her life. My father stuck around until two weeks before his 102nd birthday, and his mind remained sharp as a tack.

Trump’s mother died at the age of 88; his father at 93. Fred Trump was diagnosed with Alzheimers at the age of 86.

Three score and ten is the number of years of life set out in the Bible. Modern technology and Big Pharma should add at least a decade and a half, unless RFK Jr. has his way. It’s now thought a bit disappointing if a person dies before 85.

But as one approaches 80, it’s not just lifespan that looms. It’s also health span — how many years you feel good, feel able, have your wits about you.

If Trump can cause as much mayhem and suffering as he’s doing every day, I can at least keep writing and talking about how horrific he is, every day.

After all, I’m 10 days younger than him.

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/.

This is how the great sleeping giant of America awakens, roars and puts an end to it

Something dramatic has happened.

Many people who consider themselves non-political or independent, or moderate Republican, or who even voted for Trump last November, can’t avoid seeing what’s now come so clearly into the open.

And they’re finding it terrifying.

They’ve watched Trump order the Texas National Guard into Portland and Chicago, over the objections of the mayors of those cities and the governors of Oregon and Illinois. They’ve heard him call for jailing the mayor of Chicago and governor of Illinois for opposing these moves.

They’ve heard him threaten to invoke the Insurrection Act and send federal troops all over America.

They’ve watched Trump’s ICE agents drag people out of their beds in the middle of the night, zip-tie them and their children, and haul them away.

They’ve seen Trump’s prosecutors indict the attorney general of New York state because she held Trump accountable for fraud. And seen him threaten to do the same to a California senator because he conducted hearings in the House exposing Trump’s role in the attack on the Capitol.

They’ve heard Trump say he can kill anyone who he claims is an enemy combatant trafficking drugs.

They’ve heard Trump direct the IRS, FBI, and Justice Department against liberal groups that oppose him — George Soros’s Open Society Foundation; ActBlue, the Democratic fundraising organization; Indivisible, the community-based resistance organization.

And they watched him take off the air comedians who criticize him — Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel.

All across America, millions of people who have avoided politics, or identified as independents or moderate Republicans or even Trump voters, are shaken by what they’re seeing and hearing.

It’s no longer Democrat versus Republican or left versus right.

It’s now democracy versus dictatorship. Right versus wrong.

It’s no longer a war on undocumented immigrants. It’s now a war on Americans.

It’s no longer a foreign enemy. It’s now the “enemy within.”

Across the land, average Americans are realizing that they too could be dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night by Trump’s ICE agents, or tear-gassed and arrested by Trump’s National Guard, or targeted by Trump’s prosecutors, or shot by Trump’s military.

The Big Reveal is that all of us are now endangered.

Multiple polls show Trump’s approval tanking, but I think it runs deeper than this.

Something dramatic has happened over the last two weeks — as America sees more vividly than ever who Trump is, where he and his trio of lapdogs (Miller, Vought, and Vance) want to take the country, and how we’re all potential targets.

The Big Reveal is impossible not to see. Trump and his lapdogs are doing all of this completely in the open. They have no shame.

Most Americans abhor what they see, because what they see is abhorrent.

This is how the great sleeping giant of America awakens, roars, and puts an end to it.

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/.

The Supreme Court just gave Trump a 'license to kill' — and he's using it: analysis

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its controversial 6-3 immunity ruling in Trump v. the United States in 2024, some scathing dissent came from one of the Barack Obama appointees: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned that the decision gave the federal government's executive branch way too much power.

The High Court's GOP-appointed supermajority ruled that U.S. presidents enjoy absolute immunity for "official" acts committed in office but not for "unofficial" acts. And Sotomayor argued that using that standard, a president could assassinate a political rival, claim it was an "official" act, and enjoy total immune from criminal prosecution. Progressive legal expert Elie Mystal, a vehement critic of the decision, warned that there is a huge difference between "qualified immunity" and "absolute immunity" — and Trump v. the United States promised U.S. presidents absolute immunity.

In an article published on October 4, Salon's Heather Digby Parton emphasizes that the High Court's decision makes President Donald Trump's military actions against Venezuelan boats all the more dangerous.

"What happens when a leader of a democratic country believes he has a license to kill and proceeds to use it?," Parton warns. "It appears we are finding out. During the arguments in Donald J. Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court case that conferred immunity from prosecution for presidents committing crimes in the course of their official duties, the prospect of a president ordering Seal Team Six to carry out assassinations of political opponents was raised to illustrate the breadth of powers being considered. …. Right now, we are being forced to consider whether the president of the United States can legally order the military to murder 'non-international' civilians he has unilaterally declared to be drug trafficking terrorists."

Parton notes that on Friday, (October 3), U.S. forces "launched a strike on a boat off the coast of Venezuela that the administration claimed was trafficking drugs.

"Four people were killed, bringing the total number of casualties from all four strikes to 21," Parton observes. "As he has done with each operation, Trump took to Truth Social to brag: 'A boat loaded with enough drugs to kill 25 TO 50 THOUSAND PEOPLE was stopped, early this morning off the Coast of Venezuela, from entering American Territory.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth chimed in on X, 'Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike and no U.S. forces were harmed in the operation.' No evidence has been provided about the alleged drug trafficking operations."

Parton continues, "When questions have been raised about the legality of the strikes, the (Trump) Administration has brushed them aside. No evidence has been provided about the alleged drug trafficking operations…. Since we have not heard of any member of the military objecting to this action, it would seem that the reassurances we all received that the military would never agree to undertake an illegal order were a bit overblown. They are murdering civilians on the high seas on the president's order."

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

Silicon Valley's 'sickening' capitulation to Trump is a 'tyrant’s best weapon': tech exec

Former Google and Apple executive Kim Scott says in an op-ed in The New York Times that watching the intersection between the tech world and President Donald Trump echoes "the pain of watching Russia lose its briefly held freedoms."

Scott, who lived and worked in Russia, says Russia under Putin is "returning to a place of censorship, oppression and fear" — warning the shift strikes too close to home in the United States.

"People who control the social media outlets that so many Americans use to form their political views [paid] homage to Donald Trump at a White House dinner," Scott notes.

She also worries about Trump's handing TikTok "to a consortium of investors that includes companies owned by his billionaire allies" including centibillionaire Larry Ellison and his son David, who most recently became chairman and CEO of Paramount, which controls, among other things, CBS.

The kowtowing of tech execs was most recently seen Thursday, when, following pressure from the Trump administration, Apple removed the ICEBlock app and other similar applications that track Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from its App Store.

And though Scott admits that the situation in the United States is not yet as dire as Russia's, and that we "still do have a free press," she notes, she sees "how fragile our freedom is becoming."

After she moved to Russia in 1990, Scott says "the official Soviet newspaper, Pravda (or “Truth”), was still full of lies. The Russians I knew primarily purchased it to use as toilet paper, which was in short supply" — despite then-president Mikhail Gorbachev's "experiments with freedom of the press" in which "media organizations were no longer forced to publish propaganda."

But 25 years later, president Vladimir Putin "immediately targeted Russia’s newly minted media moguls," Scott writes."It was during this time that my Russian friends began speaking more guardedly and would no longer write anything critical of the regime in email or any unencrypted system."

"How frightening it has been, then, to see the freedoms we always enjoyed come under attack," she says of the current state of affairs in the U.S.

Scott also yearns for her early days in Silicon Valley, where she say she "was proud to work at companies like Apple, Google and Twitter, whose leaders eschewed an elitist, top-down, hierarchical leadership style. My early Silicon Valley bosses urged me to speak truth to power."

But her biggest fear, Scott says, isn't that an "authoritarian president and a small cadre of right-wing tech executives want to take over," but, rather, that "centibillionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk would shift the messages in their social media empires to cater to Mr. Trump."

"What is truly surprising is that everyone else — the same people who once believed in the power of technology to strengthen our society and our democracy — is allowing them to get away with it," she adds. "The same Silicon Valley leaders who used to trumpet their anti-authoritarian leadership style have gone ominously quiet."

The silence of these Silicon Valley scions, many who are "looking for a safe harbor" in Portugal and New Zealand, is what's most alarming.

"The risk is in not speaking out, because silence enables future cycles of censorship and fear ... Fear is a tyrant’s best weapon. The people in Silicon Valley who have made fortunes still have a platform and a voice. Now is the time to exercise them, and to stand together in solidarity. Our silence will not protect us," she says.

Jon Stewart viciously mocks Trump with 'administration-compliant' show after Kimmel ouster

Even though Daily Show host and executive producer Jon Stewart typically only sits at the host's desk on Monday nights, the comedian made an exception on Thursday night in the wake of ABC's abrupt decision to take late night host Jimmy Kimmel's show off the air.

The show began by introducing Stewart as the "patriotically obedient host" with Soviet-style choir singing in the background. The Daily Show host was seen at his desk wearing a crimson tie and a large American flag pin, while being surrounded by gold accents in the style of Mar-a-Lago and the Oval Office during Trump's second term.

Stewart launched into his monologue by sarcastically heaping effusive praise on Trump, telling the audience that he had a "fun, administration-compliant show" for them. He added: "If you've felt a little off the last couple of days its probably because our great father has not been home!"

Still in character, Stewart then lauded Trump's speech at a state dinner in Buckingham Palace by declaring: "The perfectly tinted Trump dazzled his hosts at dinner with a demonstration of unmatched oratory skill," before playing a clip of Trump awkwardly naming British authors like William Shakespeare, J.R.R. Tolkien and Rudyard Kipling. When the audience laughed, Stewart appeared to panic, yelling at them to "shut the f--- up!"

He concluded the segment by cutting to all of the Daily Show's seven correspondents, who were all seen standing solemnly wearing matching navy blue blazers and red ties. He asked them: "Are all the naysayers and critics right? Is Donald Trump stifling free speech?"

"Of course not Jon!" They all answered in perfect unison, holding microphones with Trump's face on them. "Americans are free to express any opinion we want! To suggest otherwise is laughable! Ha ha ha!"

Stewart's mockery of the Trump administration is particularly noteworthy, given that his show is carried by Comedy Central. Stewart's employer is owned by MTV Entertainment Group, which is owned by Paramount. The media giant has recently been in the spotlight for its $16 million settlement with Trump over his lawsuit against 60 Minutes (a production of CBS, which Paramount also owns).

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Trump's new scheme to enrich his family is endangering the entire economy

In the midst of the Trump regime’s shameful attempt to attack any and all organizations and institutions that oppose it, we must not and will not back down from holding Trump accountable for his corruption and lawlessness.

Yesterday, the New York Times — which Trump just sued for $15 billion for allegedly defaming him — reported that Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy to the Middle East, apparently made a multi-billion dollar deal with Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a member of the ultrarich ruling family of the United Arab Emirates who controls $1.5 trillion of the Emiratis’ sovereign wealth.

In return for Sheikh Tahnoon’s investment firm depositing $2 billion into World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency start-up founded by the Witkoffs and Trumps, the White House agreed to give the U.A.E. — in particular, a sprawling technology firm controlled by Sheikh Tahnoon — access to hundreds of thousands of the world’s most advanced and scarce computer chips, despite national security concerns that the chips could be shared with China.

This is just the top of the iceberg of Trump’s crypto corruption.

To understand the full extent of it, you need to go back to four days before early voting started in 2024. That’s when Trump and his sons launched the crypto firm, World Liberty Financial.

As soon as Trump won, money started pouring in.

Then, just days before returning to office, Trump launched a separate crypto scheme, selling TRUMP and MELANIA memecoins. Memecoins are a type of cryptocurrency based on an image or online joke.

Within his first six weeks in office, Trump called for a “Crypto Strategic Reserve”— a government backed stockpile of crypto assets, sort of like our oil reserve, but completely pointless. That announcement made crypto prices soar.

So far, the Trump family has made about $3 billion from crypto — with many purchases by foreign buyers. Forbes now estimates that over half of Trump’s entire net worth is crypto-based.

With Trump acting as both the President of the United States and as his own crypto brand ambassador, it’s hard to tell which job he’s doing at any given moment.

One US company said it explicitly purchased $2 million of Trump’s meme coins to influence trade policy.

The corruption goes further.

Trump’s pro-crypto SEC chair, Paul Atkins is heavily invested in crypto himself. He’s been lifting financial guardrails in ways that will make it easier for crypto firms (like the Trumps’) to spread into new markets, and going easy on crypto fraud.

Chinese billionaire Justin Sun had been charged with crypto-related fraud before Trump was elected. After Trump’s election, Sun invested more than $115 million into various Trump crypto products. What happened next? Trump’s SEC suddenly stopped prosecuting Sun.

Trump’s SEC also abandoned a lawsuit against Binance, a crypto exchange that had previously pled guilty to money laundering.

This happened just days after Binance started listing a Trump cryptocurrency on its marketplace.

The corruption goes even further.

Trump’s Justice Department even scrapped the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team, giving a green-light to all kinds of crypto crime, even though Americans lost $9.3 billion in crypto scams in 2024.

The crypto industry spent big on House and Senate races, on both Republicans and Democrats. Why? So the Senate would pass the so-called GENIUS Act — a regulatory bill that the crypto industry lobbied for. Eighteen Democrats joined with nearly all Republicans to vote yes.

The bill gives a stamp of legitimacy to so-called “stablecoins,” a type of currency that Trump’s World Liberty Financial makes and sells.

Stablecoins claim to be more stable because they’re supposedly tied to the value of other assets that are held as collateral — like the dollar or Treasury securities. But we already saw one collapse just a couple years ago, wiping out some investors’ life savings.

While the bill appropriately bans members of Congress and their families from profiting off stablecoins, it places no such restrictions on the president.

The most dangerous part of the GENIUS Act is how it allows crypto to reach into mainstream financial systems.

All this corruption is bad enough. Worse, it could tank the economy.

The GENIUS Act opens the door to institutions investing more heavily in crypto. It would even let banks and big corporations, like Walmart, Amazon, or Facebook, launch their own digital currencies — potentially thousands of them — all with little oversight.

Trump has also opened the door to letting retirement plan administrators invest 401(k) funds in crypto. That could put your savings at risk even if you never buy any cryptocurrencies.

As we saw during the 2008 financial meltdown, the more the economy becomes entwined with volatile and speculative investments, like crypto, the greater the risk to all of us. The failure of risky bets can have a domino effect.

If a single cryptocurrency began to tank — as crypto has done in the past — investors would likely rush to sell off crypto to get their real money back. This could lead to massive bank runs.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has predicted that under the GENIUS Act, crypto firms could end up holding more than $2 trillion in U.S. treasury bills as collateral. If they had to suddenly liquidate those assets to cover a bank run, the value of U.S. securities could plummet, triggering a global financial crisis.

Crypto has shown no redeeming social value and it poses huge dangers to our economy. Yet Trump is enabling it to worm into the economy because he’s taken huge crypto payoffs that have made him and his family billions of dollars.

NOW READ: 'Lucky Loser': Trump's 'psychotic' NYT lawsuit ridiculed by legal experts

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/.

'Infecting Capitol Hill': Mace faces bipartisan pushback in effort to punish Dem colleague

Chad Pergram, Senior Congressional Correspondent for Fox News, reports that although Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) wants the House to censure Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) for what Mace described as "disgraceful remarks" about the assassination of conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk, the controversial South Carolina congresswoman faces bipartisan resistance to her efforts.

On Monday, Mace announced a resolution to strip Omar of her committee assignments.

Immediately following Kirk's murder, Omar posted on X, "Political violence is absolutely unacceptable and indefensible. Unconscionable acts of violence should have no place in our country. Let’s pray for no more lives being lost to gun violence."

READ MORE: 'Hunt for the Antichrist': How MAGA is making politics a 'zero-sum holy war''

Omar, who has faced multiple death threats from people who have since been convicted, also went on journalist Mehdi Hasan's Zeteo News Channel, where she said, "These people are full of s——” in reference to what she called Trump and Musk's "effed-up" weaponization of Kirk’s killing against the left.

Mace also wants the House to censure Omar, Pergram says on his X account, which is the second highest formal mode of discipline in the House.

"By triggering the resolution today, the House has the option of considering the plan immediately or later this week. Democrats may move to table, or kill, the resolution. If the House votes to do so, it’s done. But if the House fails to kill the resolution, the House must vote, up or down, to censure her," Pergram writes.

"The House could also upend the Mace resolution by voting to refer Omar to the Ethics Committee for further investigation. Both a motion to table or a vote to refer to committee prevent the House from taking a tough vote on a divisive issue," he explains.

READ MORE: 'He has it wrong': Former CIA officer slams Trump official over new Venezuela attack'

"Some Republicans would relish to get Democrats on the record voting to support Omar in light of the Kirk murder," Pergram states.

But it may not be so easy.

Fox News is told, Pergram says, that, while "members from both sides don’t agree with Omar’s remarks and her re-tweeting of an inflammatory video denouncing Kirk in profane terms . . . they also don’t believe that sanctioning a member contributes to diminishing the invective which is now infecting Capitol Hill."

Trump's reckless violence points to something even more chilling

The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits military troops from committing unlawful killings, defined at 10 USC et. seq. Troops can kill enemy combatants on sight, but only when engaged in armed conflict, or when there is an imminent threat. Even when we are at war, it is a war crime for troops to deliberately kill civilians unless it’s an act of self-defense in response to imminent danger.

On September 2, in international waters, on suspicion that a small boat off the coast of Venezuela was carrying drugs to Trinidad, President Donald Trump ordered a strike. The boat was carrying 11 people, all of whom were killed.

There were no efforts to speak to, arrest or interdict the traffickers. There was no sharing of intelligence, no imminent threat, and no diplomacy. Instead, Trump, unencumbered by constraints of law, ordered the boat blown out of the water.

The next day, the New York Times reported that “Pentagon officials were still working… on what legal authority they would tell the public was used to back up the extraordinary strike in international waters.”

Reckless violence

After the strike, Trump posted, “Earlier this morning, on My Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!”

Pete Hegseth, the U.S. “Secretary of War,” took his own victory lap with, “We're going to go on the offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality.” His Neanderthalic bleating tracks similar talk from ICE and DHS as theyglorify militarism and violence to recruit new agents, for whom a criminal background is not an automatic disqualification.

Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has consistently defended war criminals, dismissing military law as an inconvenient intrusion onto combat authority. If his disdain for “tepid legality” in favor of maximum “lethality” in killing 11 people was not an admission of guilt — meaning he knew the order was illegal but didn’t care — nothing is.

Equally chilling, when Brian Krassenstein, a social influencer, noted online that “killing citizens of another nation who are civilians, without any due process, is called a war crime,” Vice President JD Vance wrote back, “I don’t give a s--- what you call it.”

Extrajudicial killings

When testosterone highs from the strike finally dissipated, military analysts began questioning the maneuver. They questioned, in particular, its legality.

Administration officials explained that narcotics on the boat posed an “imminent national security threat.”

But that claim doesn’t hold up, given that the boat was headed for Trinidad, even if drugs were on board. Worse, unlike typical drug interdictions by the U.S. Coast Guard, this strike was carried out without warning shots. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said simply that, “Instead of interdicting it, on the president’s orders they blew it up,” and promised more violence in the near future.

Whether drugs were on the ship or not, drug runners are criminal civilians, not enemy combatants. The closest thing I’ve seen to a law-adjacent defense is the administration’s bootstrapping claim that Trump could order a strike on Tren de Aragua because Trump has designated it a terrorist organization. But that’s like claiming the right to kill civilians by association. Experts appear to agree:

  • Frank Kendall, former secretary of the Air Force, said the kill targets, “weren’t engaged in anything like a direct attack on the United States” and weren’t afforded a trial to determine their guilt. He added: “Frankly, I can’t see how this can be considered anything other than a nonjudicial killing outside the boundaries of domestic and international law.”
  • Geoffrey Corn, a retired lieutenant colonel and former Army senior adviser on the law of war, said, “I don’t think there is any way to legitimately characterize a drug ship heading from Venezuela, arguably to Trinidad, as an actual or imminent armed attack against the United States, justifying this military response.”
  • Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer, agreed that even the designation of drug cartels as terrorist groups doesn’t translate into authority to use military force against them. Such designation enables the U.S. to levy sanctions and pursue criminal prosecutions, not to just open fire and kill them.

American lives at risk

The Venezuelan government is now legitimately accusing the U.S. of extrajudicial murder, and preparing for escalating violence. In response to Trump’s attack, President Nicolás Maduro ordered the deployment of 25,000 soldiers to Venezuela’s coastal regions, more than doubling the country’s military presence in those areas.

Maduro has said that he suspects Trump is really threatening regime change with the strike and the buildup of U.S. naval forces in the area, because Venezuela holds the world's largest proven oil reserves.

Others believe Trump’s escalating use of military force is an attempt to divert public attention away from the Epstein files, corruption and tanking economy.

Still others say Trump is dangerously unhinged, projecting imagery of power to mask his administration’s widespread ineptitude. While these motivations are not mutually exclusive, Venezuela’s long term allies, China and Russia, are watching closely.

Whatever his true reason, if Trump has the authority to unilaterally redefine civilian suspects as “combatants” even though they pose no imminent threat, he can redefine any group as a terrorist organization, and order them killed.

That may present a tidy solution to Trump’s stubborn due process problem, but it is the stuff of Nazis. Even though today’s victims are brown and Black, trapped in poverty, and therefore disposable to men like Trump, killing them extrajudicially is murder.

I don’t give a s--- what the administration calls it.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

This Republican just put the GOP's racist plan on plain display

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) took the stage at the National Conservatism Conference and declared that America is “a nation and a people.” With those five words he threw aside the pluralism that has defined this country since before its founding and embraced an ideology rooted in blood and soil, in exclusion and hierarchy. He put it in context:

“That’s what set Donald Trump apart from the old conservatism and the old liberalism alike: He knows that America is not just an abstract ‘proposition,’ but a nation and a people, with its own distinct history and heritage and interests…“When they tear down our statues and monuments, mock our history, and insult our traditions, they’re attacking our future as well as our past. By changing the stories we tell about ourselves, they believe they can build a new America — with the new myths of a new people. But America does not belong to them. It belongs to us.”

It’s not new to hear Republicans peddling this kind of racialized “us versus them” rhetoric, but it’s still shocking to see a sitting United States senator parrot phrases that would be more at home in the speeches of European fascists or Confederates in the years leading up to the Civil War than in the halls of Congress today.

Schmitt offered no acknowledgment of the millions of enslaved Africans whose stolen labor helped build this country, no recognition of the generations of immigrants from Asia, Latin America, and Africa who contributed to our prosperity, no admission of the bloody sacrifices of those who fought for civil rights, equality, and inclusion.

Instead he spoke only of a singular people and a singular nation, implicitly white, implicitly Christian, and implicitly obedient to his party’s authoritarian vision.

This is not some isolated gaffe: it’s part of a pattern. At the same moment Schmitt was narrowing the definition of who counts as American, he’d chosen as his spokesman Nathan Hochman, who was forced out of Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign after circulating a promotional video featuring Nazi imagery.

That a man with such a stain on his record can walk comfortably into the Republican fold today says everything about the party’s trajectory. It’s no accident, no oversight, no slip. The GOP is nakedly embracing white supremacy and the Confederate neofascist ethos.

They’re not ashamed of it, either, as previous generations would have been, speaking in Nixonesque “law and order” code. Today, they flaunt it. They want to redefine America itself, not as a democracy where all people are “created equal,” but as a fortress where some people’s bloodlines, wealth, and religions entitle them to power while others are cast aside or erased from memory.

This assault is not simply rhetorical. The Trump administration has already shown us the template they’re using to deconstruct a democratic America and replace it with a whites-only neofascist ethnostate.

Their racist attacks on the Smithsonian and other national museums weren’t about efficiency or budgets — they’re about rewriting history, about stripping slavery, segregation, and genocide from the story of America, and replacing it with sanitized myths that glorify the Confederate ethos and erase the Confederacy’s victims.

They want future generations to walk through America’s most important cultural institutions and see nothing of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Sitting Bull, César Chávez, or Bayard Rustin. They want a nation of children raised on the lie that America was always a white, Christian ethnostate, that pluralism and democracy were well-intentioned but impractical mistakes to be corrected.

This is how authoritarian regimes always consolidate power: as George Orwell wrote in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, which the GOP has apparently adopted as an instruction manual, control the narrative of the past and you control reality of the future.

But history refuses to be erased. The graves of the people who fought and died to end slavery and grant civil rights to nonwhite people and women are still here.

The gravestones of Black soldiers who charged Confederate lines at Fort Wagner, who bled and died under the Union flag, are still here. The blood of abolitionists lynched by mobs is still in our soil. The memories of those who marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and were beaten nearly to death by racist sheriffs are still vivid.

The soldiers of my father’s generation who fell on Omaha Beach didn’t die so that a senator from Missouri could try to turn our country into a singular “nation and a people.” They died for liberty, for equality, for a world where democracy could flourish instead of fascism. To erase their sacrifices by redefining America as a white nation is to spit on their graves.

Where are the Republicans who once called themselves the Party of Lincoln? The ones who agreed with President Ronald Reagan when he famously said:

“You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American. …“This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness. We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people — our strength — from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation.
“While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier.
“This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.”

Abraham Lincoln himself declared at Gettysburg that this was a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. He didn’t say “all white men.” He didn’t say “all Christians.” He said all men, a word that at the time encompassed all people. He understood that America’s strength was not in its uniformity but in its aspiration to universality.

Have they all been purged from the GOP? Has the last Republican who believes in a multiracial democracy been driven into silence or retirement?

Watching today’s party leaders it seems so. The few who whisper their discomfort are drowned out by the roar of those who openly embrace bigotry, authoritarianism, and historical revisionism. The Party of Lincoln has become the Party of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, right down to Trump renaming military bases after traitorous Confederate generals and Klan leaders.

This is not a mere political dispute: it’s a struggle for the soul of America.

Our choice is between the pluralistic democracy that generations of Americans fought and died to protect, or an authoritarian nationalism that dehumanizes millions and threatens to dismantle our most cherished institutions.

When Schmitt stands before a crowd and offers them a vision of America as a singular people, he’s calling for the death of the American experiment itself. When Republicans bring men like Hochman into their fold, they’re saying right out loud that Nazi imagery and Confederate ideology are no longer disqualifying, but are welcome.

When Trump and his administration try to rewrite history in the Smithsonian, they’re declaring war on truth itself. And on the concepts and ideals that made America a great nation.

The outrage is justified because the stakes are existential. A party that embraces white supremacy and fascist ethos cannot coexist with democracy. A nation that allows its museums, its textbooks, its speeches, and its laws to be purged of pluralism cannot endure as a democracy.

America has faced down this poison before. We lost 700,000 people fighting a Civil War to crush it. We passed civil rights laws to dismantle its legal scaffolding. We buried tens of thousands of soldiers in Europe who died fighting against fascism abroad.

To let it rise again here at home, wrapped in the flag of one of our two great political parties, is the ultimate betrayal.

And to put a massive punctuation mark on it, on Monday Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a shadow docket opinion for his five corrupt Republican colleagues on the Supreme Court saying that it’s now perfectly legal for ICE and other federal, state, and local police authorities to engage in racial profiling.

Protesting Republicans bringing us fully into a “your papers please“ type of race-based fascism, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that because of the Republicans on the Supreme Court:

“The Government, and now the concurrence, has all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low-wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”

The question now is whether we’ll rise to the moment. Will we allow a senator’s words to pass unchallenged, a party’s racism to be normalized, a nation’s history to be rewritten? Or will we push back with the force of truth, with the weight of history, with the unyielding conviction that America belongs to all its people, not just those deemed acceptable by the far right?

Silence is complicity, both on the part of our media and our politicians of both parties. Pretending this is normal politics is complicity. It’s time for every American who still believes in the Constitution, in equality, in pluralism, in democracy itself to speak out in favor of an inclusive America.

This is not about left versus right. This is about democracy versus fascism, inclusion versus exclusion, truth versus lies.

Eric Schmitt and those like him want us to forget who we are. They want us to forget the Declaration’s promise, Lincoln’s dedication, King’s dream, and the sacrifices of millions of ordinary Americans who fought for liberty and justice. They want us to forget the very idea of America as a pluralistic nation.

We must not forget. We must not be silent. We must not surrender America’s future to those who would drag us back into the darkest chapters of America’s past.

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.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

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."

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