SmartNews

This 'complicated' legal rule might leave Trump's ballroom untouchable

The Supreme Court shot down a lawsuit trying to block President Donald Trump's hugely unpopular White House ballroom project, and according to a new breakdown from The Hill, a "complicated" legal rule means that it is highly unlikely that anyone else will be able to stop it.

In a 5-4 decision earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled that the lawsuit brought against the Trump administration by the National Trust for Historic Preservation lacked legal standing, allowing the project to continue. A lower court had previously ruled in the case, blocking the construction from continuing without congressional approval, something unlikely to happen given the ballroom's toxic reputation with voters.

As reporters Zach Schonfeld and Sophie Brams explained for The Hill on Wednesday morning, it is entirely possible that a future plaintiff could have more luck if the court found that it had more standing, but also explained in-depth why this "complicated" rule meant that such a scenario would be highly unlikely.

"Courts have historically understood that to mean that a plaintiff must prove a concrete, particularized injury to have the right to sue in federal court. That injury must be imminent or already happening," the pair explained. “In other words, the alleged harm must be real and specific, not abstract. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia famously put it, 'what’s it to you?' That can be a high hurdle ... Standing doctrine is complicated, with many different tracks."

The lawsuit attempted to argue that the preservationist plaintiffs had standing to oppose the ballroom due to "aesthetic" injury, suggesting that a "historic preservationist is aesthetically injured by the transformation of a historic building like the White House, just like an environmentalist suffers from an animal’s extinction." The majority decision found that this argument amounted to mere "distaste," and could potentially allow any U.S. citizens to sue against any project they do not personally like.

In light of that argument, Schonfeld and Brams wrote that "it’s not clear anyone will" be able to convince the Supreme Court that they have sufficient standing.

“The court has occasionally allowed some pretty exotic forms of standing,” Georgetown Law professor David Super told The Hill. “But I think the greater likelihood is that this will only be litigated if a majority of at least one chamber of Congress decides that it is offensive.”

"With Republicans in control of Congress, there’s no current political will for Congress to try to assert standing as an institution," the pair explained further. "And for any Democrats who want to try it alone, they’ll have to grapple with the limits the Supreme Court placed on individual lawmaker suits in its 1997 Raines v. Byrd decision. It leaves President Trump taking the win."

MAGA donors on pins and needles over brewing voter revolt

When Donald Trump broadened his coalition during the 2024 presidential race, tech CEOs like Elon Musk and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel were among his ardent supporters. But with the 2026 midterms a little over two months away, both GOP and Democratic voters are rebelling against something Trump passionately supports: data centers. And according to Salon's Amanda Marcotte, this revolt has major "tech elites" on pins and needles.

Marcotte, in Salon, reports that "tech elites" are spending a fortune to get Republicans to join Trump in supporting data centers. But that "lavish spending," according to Marcotte, isn't necessarily changing voters' minds — even those who vote Republican.

"Republicans have always been an anti-regulation party devoted to serving the rich at the expense of everyone else, making them a natural fit for Silicon Valley donors," Marcotte explains. "The lavish spending is certainly paying off in the GOP ranks. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., recently denounced the anti-data center movement as driven by 'hardcore left-wing values.' On Monday, Vice President JD Vance dismissed the opposition to data centers as an easily resolved dispute over power usage, and insisted 'they're an important part of the AI economy.' That's why people hate them, JD!"

Marcotte continues, "Trump, with his usual contempt for voters, sneered that opponents of data centers will be 'backwards and poor,' saying that those who want to be 'successful and rich' will 'let Data Reign.'"

Moreover, according to Marcotte, many Republicans who are fighting for survival in the midterms aren't joining Trump, Vance and Cruz in their support of data centers — and they are "scrambling to get on the right side of this issue" by "speaking negatively about data centers." Tech companies, according to Marcotte, are responding to those negative comments by ramping up their spending and lobbying.

"The tech elite are likely hoping that they can convince Republican politicians to betray their own voters and focus their favors on the donor class once in office," Marcotte writes. "But the size of the spending betrays how worried they are about people power. They clearly think it will take a lot of money to drown out the increasingly loud voices of everyday voters who see clearly that the tech industry is predatory, and are demanding that government do something about it. This midterm will be a test of who can be louder: people or money. So far, the people have the momentum."

Trump chief 'talking about muscles' is damaging Army: military officials

The resignation from Army Secretary Dan Driscoll sent shockwaves through the government and the military as Driscoll made it clear to President Donald Trump that things were not going well in the Department of Defense.

CNN reported on Wednesday that sources said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is doing damage to the Army's effort to adapt as a new era of warfare evolves. Those in the armed forces believe that they must "adapt to the modern battlefield," but Hegseth is too busy focusing on far-right culture war issues.

“It’s conflicting because yeah, he put out a memo saying this is important, but … he’s talking about muscles, dudes in dresses, testosterone,” an official said. “We don’t see a change at that level.”

The sources said that Hegseth is more interested in creating his own personal image of "the American warfighter." Anyone who doesn't match that vision is being shoved out, eliminating expertise and creating a brain drain.

Another source said that Driscoll brought up “concerns with the administration surrounding Army transformation and readiness and Hegseth’s blocking those efforts specifically by firing the generals who were responsible.”

Many top leaders in the military agreed with Driscoll and the concerns he raised, the report said.

“It’s critical that you have key leaders [who] understand technology and have the temperament to deal with industry and turn that into the formation,” said one former senior Army official when speaking to CNN. “When you fire these guys for arbitrary reasons, it creates confusion and a void … the Army is enduring turbulence right now.”

Rather than focusing on the military, senior officials are privately saying that they're being plagued by "political pressure" under Hegseth.

One defense official in Europe said that Hegseth may talk a good game about technology reform, but in practice, the leadership is more focused on the culture war.

“It’s conflicting because yeah he put out a memo saying this is important, but … he’s talking about muscles, dudes in dresses, testosterone,” the official said. “We don’t see a change at that level.”

In a statement, Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said that all of the statements were a “total fabrication to claim that Secretary Hegseth is not focused on modernization” and that the “entire Department is unified” behind his vision.

“Secretary Hegseth has been a transformative leader for the Department of War and, at President Trump’s Direction, has ushered in a new era of Peace Through Strength,” Parnell said. “Standards and merit are back, our arsenal is stronger than ever before, and morale and recruitment across every service are at all time highs. Secretary Hegseth has slashed bureaucracy, unleashed innovation, and delivered for our warfighters every step of the way.”

Hegseth said that he sought to reduce the number of four-star generals and admirals in the military, but that doesn't seem to be the strategy behind the firings. As a result of Driscoll, the Army will not have a chief of staff or Secretary at a time when the U.S. is at war with Iran.

“He’s so obsessed with these false vendettas and battles,” said Mike O’Hanlon, the Philip H. Knight Chair in Defense and Strategy at the Brookings Institution,. “If anything I think he’s pretty good on transformation, but because he wants to engage on culture wars he distracts from the real priorities.”

Trump approaching line the could turn MAGA into 'failed experiment'

President Donald Trump's approval ratings are cratering fast towards a historic milestone, and one that, according to one top conservative analyst, could finally leave MAGA a "failed experiment."

Sarah Longwell is a long-tenured conservative political analyst, best known now for her extensive focus group work and as the publisher of the anti-Trump outlet, The Bulwark. This week, she appeared as a guest on the latest episode of the "Fast Politics" podcast with host Molly Jong-Fast, who questioned her about Trump reaching the "Bush Line," a concept that Longwell is credited with coining.

As she described it, the Bush Line refers to the abysmal average approval rating that George W. Bush left office with in 2009, around 32 percent. At that level, not only did Democrats handily win the following two presidential elections, but Bush was also turned into a pariah within the GOP, and left the party a "hollowed-out" husk ripe to be remade by the Tea Party and MAGA movements. Trump is currently hovering near that line — with some polls putting him well below it — with over two years left in his term, which gave Longwell hope for the country's ability to move past MAGA.

"And so for me, I think there's a bunch of things that Trump being well below the Bush line would do," Longwell explained. "One, it would say that this was a failure, the MAGA experiment was a failure. Two, it would hang around. We want Trump's presidency to hang around future Republicans like J.D. Vance, like Marco Rubio, like an albatross. We don't want it to be a thing that bolsters him. But also the lower he is going into the midterms, like right now, Gallup's got him at 33 percent."

She added: "Like we are approaching the Bush line. Some polls have him at the Bush line or below. And that bodes well for the out-of-power party in the midterms. And so I want to drive Trump's approval as far down as possible because I want it to be a failed experiment that never happens again."

Jong-Fast later pressed Longwell about the things she has heard from Trump voters about their disappointment with his second term, and about what issues seemed to have been the turning point for them. She explained that these voters gave Trump a lot of leeway about not fixing the economy immediately, but by now, their patience has mostly run out. She also noted that the Epstein Files fiasco probably represented the first major betrayal, with Trump fully going back on a major promise. A similar reaction emerged when it became clear that the Iran conflict would not be a quick operation like Venezuela.

'Are you tone deaf?' Republican cornered in panel battle over Trump economy

A battle broke out on CNN Wednesday morning as a Democratic pundit fact-checked the GOP panelist about the work he claims the White House is doing to help on the affordability crisis.

The debate began with reporting that the midterm "convention" event in Texas would be charging nearly $89,000 to snag a photo with President Donald Trump. A roundtable with Trump will cost $250,000. This pairs with the $25,000 that each elected official is being charged to attend the event.

When CNN's Manu Raju asked congressional officials whether they plan to attend, those he spoke to made it clear that they need to be in their districts, focusing on their own elections.

"Trump is sitting on more than $400 million. He has money to burn. So why is there a convention?" asked CNN host Audie Cornish to Semafor economics reporter Eleanor Mueller.

"I think the bigger problem than the charging for the photo and the invitation, which is honestly pretty on par with what they've been charging for the last two years, is the cost to House Republicans to travel and attend the convention," said Mueller. "So much of this is about them keeping their majority, and the fact that, as we saw, so many have decided to not go is, I think, is going to really hamper these fundraising efforts that they are so clearly determined to ramp up here."

Cornish was confused, saying that the whole point of the convention appears to be an effort to tout Trump's record.

"My record is good. All of you are chumps. No one likes you, right? That's the sort of Trump argument against congressional Republicans. And the best thing I can do for you is be more visible to make it a referendum on me," Cornish said.

New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman told the Legal AF podcast this week that she hasn't spoken to a single Republican who is happy about this. They feel put upon by this. It stays off of the trail to have to go do this. It's very confusing what the purpose is beyond just celebrating Donald Trump. And as you say, they have — it's very hard for a lot of these folks to run on ... aspects of Trump's record right now."

Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright mocked Trump's response to the affordability crisis, saying that even a photo with Trump costs over $88,000.

"Look, the reality is this is how out of touch Donald Trump and Republicans are as they continue to pimp the presidency and the office. Americans in the states Donald Trump won are suffering from the high cost of living. 18.2 million, my good friend Terry, in places that Donald Trump won, are seeing their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles rise as much as $1,000 per month. People are dying, literally because of these decisions that this White House and this president has made."

Republican Terry Schilling called BS on that, saying that no one is dying.

The Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania and the Yale School of Public Health conducted an impact study examining how the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill" would affect Americans and found that it would lead to over 50,000 preventable deaths per year, largely due to healthcare cuts. Slashing subsidies to the Affordable Care Act is calculated to cost an estimated 20,000 deaths, while there will be 13,000 annual deaths that come from rolling back mandatory safe-staffing requirements at nursing homes. About 18,200 deaths will come from "the loss of Medicaid coverage among 1.38 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries, causing loss of access to low-income prescription drug subsidies."

Schilling disagreed that this was accurate, as Seawright maintained that the GOP's bill was the "largest transfer of wealth in American history."

"No, no. That's that is a garbage line. It's been debunked left and right. It is not. President Trump. >> Is holding this convention. >> The American people and working families had their tax cuts made permanent, which Democrats will repeal and raise their taxes on day one, as soon as they get into office," claimed Schilling.

Schilling explained that the convention is necessary to promote all of the things that Trump has done in his first two years in office. The GOP convention will remind voters of this, he said.

"He has $400 million!" emphasized Cornish.

"Let's deal with the real issue at hand: You're telling me that the do-nothing Congress and do-nothing President's agenda is selling to the American people selling to the American people? Are you tone deaf to what every single — why are you tone deaf?" Seawright said as Schilling kept trying to talk over him. "Let me — let me finish. Let me finish. Have you seen the polling data for Democrats, Republicans, and everyday Americans and what they feel about this president's agenda? The president and the Congress are underwater on every single major issue they campaigned on, and voters are going to pull the plug in November as a result of their failure."

Schilling said that Democrats aren't doing much better, but Seawright made it clear Republicans are in charge of every branch of government. There are no Democrats to blame.

"One thing," Seawright continued. "Name one thing this White House has done to lower costs for the American people they promised on day one."

Schilling said everything they've done was in an effort to lower prices.

"Point to it. Point to it. Point to one thing that's lower cost for the American people," Seawright asked, but Schilling couldn't. "I love you, you cannot point to one thing that's lower cost for everyday Americans in this country."


- YouTube www.youtube.com

'Chaos monkeys' are back: Krugman thinks the economy is on borrowed time

Roughly 19 and one-half months into his second presidency, Donald Trump continues to insist that the U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders. But many polls are showing that Americans feel worried, not optimistic, about the economy. The United States isn't in a recession, but according to liberal economist Paul Krugman, the economy can endure only so much of the "ever-growing chaos" that Trump is inflicting.

"Here's the good news: The U.S. economy has proved remarkably resilient since the chaos monkeys, AKA Donald Trump and company, took over the zoo," Krugman explains in an early September Substack column. "There has been shock after shock — a trade war against everyone; a shooting war against Iran in which the vaunted U.S. military performed very poorly; loss of trust on the part of all our erstwhile allies; the degradation of U.S. government capacity and competence, on the civilian side by Elon Musk, on the military side by Pete Hegseth; mass deportations; a surge in long-term interest rates to levels not seen in decades. Yet the economy keeps plodding along."

Krugman argues that only "Trump sycophants" really believe the U.S. is "in a golden age," yet adds that "normal indicators like GDP growth and the unemployment rate aren't flashing red.

"Here's the bad news: The shocks just keep coming," Krugman warns. "To an important extent, the economy's resilience has depended on the widespread belief by investors and businesses that the Trump shocks are one-time events. Businesses can live with 10 or 15 percent tariffs, if that's the new normal. The world economy can even manage in the face of significantly reduced flows of oil from the Persian Gulf. But it's much harder to deal with a trade war in which Trump keeps finding new enemies — with a spiraling conflict with Canada, of all places, a nation whose auto industry, in particular, is so integrated with U.S. manufacturing that separating them is almost impossible to manage."

The former New York Times columnist continues, "The Iran War has been a disaster, but markets were beginning to believe that the worst was over — until Trump began bombing Iran again with no clear objective beyond the visceral desire to reach out and hurt someone, doing so despite overwhelming evidence that the U.S. military is desperately short of munitions and that (Defense Secretary Pete) Hegseth has pushed out many of its competent leaders … Maybe the economy can cope with the ever-growing chaos. But the fact that it has muddled through so far is no guarantee that it can deal equally well with the hits that just keep coming."

Trump making his own worst fear inevitable: 'Daring them to do it'

President Donald Trump appears to fear a third impeachment above almost anything else his enemies could level at him, but according to The Hill, he has been making one "inevitable" following the midterms, with his many unlawful actions essentially "daring them to do it."

The Hill's Chris Stirewalt published a new analysis of the situation on Monday morning, noting the different polling outfits consistently predict Democrats will retake the House majority in the November midterms, with predictions varying from a 12- to a 16-seat majority. While some in the opposition party have signaled a hesitance to pursue another impeachment that will fail in the Senate, many others are still pushing for it, making the process seem inevitable.

As Stirewalt argued, Trump has certainly made this inevitability easier for the Democrats, given the conduct of his administration since his return to the White House. The only difficulty they might run into, he suggested, would be choosing which high crime or misdemeanor to go after.

"In the three modern impeachments, the very act of beginning the process has unlocked congressional superpowers," he explained. "And Trump would be daring them to do it — he of the crypto billions, the gifted jumbo jet, the drug boat kill teams and the budget impoundment. The biggest challenge would be deciding what to include and what to leave out."

Democrats also have a real shot, if not a sure-fire shot, at retaking the Senate majority as well, and this, Stirewalt added, would give a third impeachment some real weight, even if they ultimately would lack the two-thirds supermajority needed to remove Trump from office altogether.

"Of course, if Republicans hold the Senate in November, those powers will quickly wear off," he added. "Trump’s first two impeachment trials were perfunctory matters conducted in a Republican-controlled Senate, lasting 20 days in 2020 and just five days in 2021. This is the world in which a fast, failed impeachment may actually help Trump rally his party around him."

Stirewalt continued: "A Democratic Senate, however, would be different. In 1868, a hostile Senate spent 82 days on the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson. The 2027 version could make that look like a cakewalk, with week after week of testimony and document dumps. And the rules say that all the while no other actions may come to the floor. It’s the ultimate gridlock. Those may be the real stakes in the battle for the Senate. Not whether Trump is impeached again, but whether it is another stunt or something that actually draws blood."

Even the best propaganda can't rescue Trump from Americans' wrath

A new University of Massachusetts-Amherst opinion poll, conducted August 21-26, finds profound American disillusionment with President Donald Trump, with his Iran War, and with its economic fallout in their lives.

Apparently the Ellison family’s attempt to drum up support for Donald Trump and his Iran War by buying up CBS News and gutting it as a respected news organization was a costly failure. Likewise, Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp and his various pro-Trump organs, from Fox Cable News to The Wall Street Journal, have not pulled the wool over the public’s eyes in the ways that Murdoch hoped. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted of the effort he expended convincing the American people to go to war with Iran, saying he had a thousand hours on US television , but while he may have prevailed on the gullible and avaricious Trump to fall on that country like a ravenous wolf, he did not succeed in altering the views of the American public on the desirability of such a war. The only significant impact of Netanyahu on most Americans has been to convince them that the Israeli government is a combination of genocidal maniacs and welfare queens that Americans should cut off economically and perhaps even militarily.

The UMass poll asked a weighted sample of respondents how well Trump has handled his Iran War. The response of 55% of those asked this question was “not well at all.” Ouch. Another 13% replied “not too well.” So 68%, over two-thirds, think he has done a piss-poor job on his Iran War, which was his war of choice. Two-thirds is the percentage needed in the Senate to impeach and remove a president, so if our representatives actually mirrored public opinion, Trump would be toast.

That question had to do with Trump’s handling of the war. Asked whether they approved of the war on Iran, a majority, 54%, said they strongly or somewhat disapproved, and another 20% were noncommittal, which I would interpret as not actively supporting the war even if they didn’t particularly oppose it. Those statistics yield a picture of a war that nearly three-fourths of Americans either oppose or about which they just don’t care. It isn’t what the commander of a war would want to hear from his own public.

Trump and the Republicans are always campaigning on being the party of business and therefore the party that knows how to handle the economy, but only a tiny minority, 7%, think Trump is handling the economy very well.

A majority think the war was a mistake and question whether it has made the US safer or forestalled an Iranian bomb.

Another way of putting it is that only about a quarter of respondents think the US should have gone to war with Iran, and that the US is winning.

The UMass report on the opinion poll noted that Raymond La Raja, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll, said, “Americans are overwhelmingly negative about Trump on the Iran situation.” He continued: “Only 1 in 4 Americans thinks he is handling Iran well. The real divide is increasingly between Trump’s hardcore MAGA base and almost everyone else. Among Republicans who identify very strongly with MAGA, 87% approve of Trump’s handling of Iran. But that falls to 58% among Republicans who are ‘somewhat MAGA’ and just 30% among Republicans who say they are ‘not MAGA at all.’ The more loosely attached Republicans are to the MAGA identity, the more skeptical they are of the war.”

Conducting a war in the Middle East, as even the cowboys in the G. W. Bush administration recognized, requires at least some allies. But Americans don’t think Trump plays well with other children. Asked how he has handled working with allies in global affairs, 52% say “not well at all” and 12% say “not too well,” showing that nearly two-thirds view his foreign policy performance negatively.

Based on this sounding, we can further project that Americans are even more angry about the main fallout of the failed war on Iran, which is high inflation. Fully 80% of respondents said that the Iran War has increased the cost of gasoline and groceries. Asked about how Trump has dealt with inflation, 57% responded, “not well at all.” A further 18% said “not too well.” That is 75%, fully three-fourths, who disapprove of his handling of inflation. Trump and the Republicans are always campaigning on being the party of business and therefore the party that knows how to handle the economy, but only a tiny minority, 7%, think Trump is handling the economy very well, and I presume they are wealthy investors in Trump’s casino stock market. The tech-heavy Nasdaq is up 14-16% so far this year.

Trump's massive new economic boast exists only inside his head

Donald Trump is not very good at running the economy, but he does have a great imagination about how he runs the economy. Trump continually boasts about the incredible amount of foreign investment coming into the country. It was $20 trillion last I heard, but it might be up to $30 or $40 trillion the next time Trump decides to boast about it.

This boast has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Contrary to what Trump says, there is no boom in auto factories or any other factories coming into the United States. Factory construction has actually plummeted since Trump came into the White House, after booming under Biden.

The looniness about the investment boom should be kept in mind when considering Trump’s deal to take control of 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s oil. Trump is promising that this deal will both lower gas prices and be used to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserves that he has largely drained as a result of his war on Iran.

If Venezuela doesn’t honor this deal, what will a future administration do, take them to court? Or will they send US soldiers to die for Venezuela’s oil?

While people are naturally offended by the blatant imperialism in this deal, that is precisely the reason why there is not much cause to be concerned. The basic story is, because the deal is so transparently an effort by the United States to steal oil from a country that it controls militarily, it is virtually guaranteed that as soon as the country is not run by a U.S.-installed dictator, Trump’s deal will be dumped in the trash.

This point was well-made by Venezuelan economist and opposition leader Ricardo Haussman (also cited in a piece by Michael Tomasky in The New Republic). The deal is seen as a joke by pretty much everyone in Venezuela.

If Venezuela doesn’t honor this deal, what will a future administration do, take them to court? Or will they send US soldiers to die for Venezuela’s oil?

In terms of its immediate impact, there is not some spigot that can be turned on that will get massive amounts of Venezuela’s oil flowing. It’s currently producing around 1.25 million barrels a day. While it has massive reserves, its production facilities deteriorated badly as a result of U.S. sanctions. The country was largely unable to get needed parts, and it lacked funding because it was prevented from selling its oil to much of the world.

Oil production can only get back to its 3 million barrel a day turn-of-the-century pace with billions of dollars of foreign investment. It is unlikely that this deal will make companies happier about putting large sums at risk. Any investment will only pay off over many years, long after Trump will be out of office.

It also is not plausible to use Venezuela’s oil to refill the Strategic Reserves. Venezuela’s oil is very heavy and highly acidic. The Strategic Reserve is designed for light, alkaline oil. It could not easily store Venezuela’s oil.

In short, file Trump’s Venezuelan oil deal with the $60 trillion in foreign investment pouring into the country. It exists only in his head.

The Supreme Court’s 'cry wolf' defense explodes after new Trump ruling

Supreme Court justices have gone on the road in recent months to defend their decision-making as strict obedience to law rather than to politics.

But their actions continue to show a heavy political tilt when Donald Trump is involved.

The decision on Monday to allow construction of Trump’s gilded ballroom complex on the wreckage of the destroyed White House East Wing is a good example. A bare majority of the court hung their approval on a finding that the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit chartered by Congress to guard public buildings, lacked “standing” to claim injury.

Simply put, the majority made a technical ruling and refused to look at the legality of the project, the balance-of-powers concerns underscoring the case, or the diffidence of Trump’s stop-me-if-you-can approach. In fact, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with liberal justices in a dissent that specifically said the building activity is “likely unlawful,” a finding unpersuasive to the right-leaning justices who made up the majority.

Neither a federal district court nor an appeals court had trouble with “standing.” Who has standing is Congress, which, of course, cannot decide on such matters as whether daylight savings time ought to be permanent, never mind a constitutional question about their own powers.

This technical ruling rejecting an injunction on continuing construction rather than on the broader issues was just an available out to avoid crossing Trump, whose powers this court continues to expand. Since the majority did not even bother to explain its ruling, we don’t know if a unilateral presidential decision to tear down the entire White House to massage the Trump ego is a problem.

What happened to judges as “officers of the law” to act on illegality when they see it? What happened to a court that sees Constitutional issues in all direction unless they involve Trump? What happened to bringing a supposedly narrow issue before the court only to find that justices wanted to widen it to question the historical justifications or the original meaning of Founding Fathers who granted authority over such questions to Congress?

What happened to the idea that construction promised to be based on private donations alone is now socking taxpayers with a billion-dollar bill with no congressional authorization?

Apparently, Trump is right. With few exceptions, he can do whatever he wants by this court majority. No wonder we’re in for a mighty debate if there is a new majority after November about the makeup of the court’s justices.

The first ruling of this court last week on Trump interference with delivery of mail ballot applications also hung on a technical point – that the lawsuit challenging the executive order was too early. Now the Trump Justice Department is arguing that the next one is too late. The court decided to ignore the actual underlying issue. Now a whistleblower within the administrator is saying the administration is flaunting judicial orders to stand down. Where is the Supreme Court to tell Trump to follow the rules?

The cry-wolf plaints of Supreme Court justices stung by public criticism that they are acting in blatantly political ways won’t disappear until this court decides to enforce the laws as they touch Trump.

Terry H. Schwadron retired as a senior editor at The New York Times, Deputy Managing Editor at The Los Angeles Times and leadership jobs at The Providence (RI) Journal-Bulletin. He was part of a Pulitzer Gold Medal team in Los Angeles, and his team part of several Pulitzers in New York.

Americans were fooled by a Pentagon scheme no one is talking about

What should we Americans do when it comes out that our Secretary of Defense has been committing crimes in plain sight and nobody in the administration seems concerned about it?

Back in 2008, New York Times reporter David Barstow revealed that the Pentagon under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, starting in the fall of 2002, had recruited dozens of retired military officers to go on TV as if they were independent military analysts.

They were paid to push the Bush administration’s propaganda about weapons of mass destruction, mushroom clouds, and other lies to build support for the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that the president and vice president had lied us into.

The hired guns got their talking points from the Pentagon, and internal documents called them “message force multipliers.” One participant later described it as “psyops on steroids.” Barstow disclosed how this was pure propaganda, noting:

“[M]embers of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated.”

Those unnecessary and illegal wars cost America the lives of about 7,000 troops and 7,600 contractors, led more than 30,000 service members and veterans of those conflicts to later commit suicide, 52,000+ wounded for life, and added roughly $5 trillion to our national debt with an estimated $2 trillion in veterans care and interest still to be paid.

Barstow won a Pulitzer Prize for his work and Congress — responding to widespread horror among the public that America would start targeting the civilian and voting population with propaganda the same way Hitler routinely did in the 1930s and Putin does daily in Russia — passed 10 U.S.C. 2241a, which says simply:

“Funds available to the Department of Defense may not be obligated or expended for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not otherwise specifically authorized by law.”

Ever since, every Pentagon appropriation has carried a similar restriction known as Section 8001, following a similar prohibition passed 74 years ago as the Federal Labor-Security Act of 1952 which says:

“No part of any appropriation . . . shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.”

Propagandizing the American people has been a crime for more years than Hegseth has been alive: there shouldn’t be any doubt that our government using our tax dollars to target us with psyops is illegal. But don’t bother telling that to Whiskey Pete. He apparently doesn’t care.

This past Sunday, Dan Lamothe and Tara Copp revealed in The Washington Post (Pentagon Secretly Installs Military Influencers in Civilian Roles) that Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon has been quietly moving several conservative military veterans with large online followings into government roles, all while refusing to answer any questions about what they actually do.

What we do know is that most have been using their public personas to push stories favorable to Pete and Trump and to trash-talk opponents of this administration’s policies.

Just like another influencer, this one a deaf Utah housewife with nearly a million followers on social media and until June an accredited Pentagon reporter. Since July, though, she’s been a “special government employee” at the Department of Defense, something that she didn’t bother to disclose to her audience when she started the DSA Explorer, an interactive map of Americans she claims are associated with the antiwar Democratic Socialists of America.

The Pentagon refuses to explain what she does for them or which office she runs this McCarthy-esque operation out of; she claims it’s a private project.

It brings to mind Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who said in Congress in 1948, as he tried to “restate the existing prohibitions on domestic dissemination” of American-produced propaganda designed to hit Russia:

“By law, the USIA cannot engage in domestic propaganda. This distinguishes us, as a free society, from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity. … The American taxpayer certainly does not need or want his tax dollars used to support U.S. Government propaganda directed at him or her.”

If authorizing and paying for all of this with our tax dollars is a crime, it doesn’t seem to bother Whiskey Pete. Of course, he’s never been all that concerned with following the law.

It’s also a crime in both American and international law to murder survivors of a shipwreck, even if you caused it in a war, but that didn’t stop Pete from ordering a double-tap on one of the boats he was targeting in the Caribbean.

Law professors told TIME magazine that intentionally killing a shipwrecked person is a war crime, and that absent an actual armed conflict it’s simply criminal murder, punishable by life in prison. Congress asked for the video of the killing and the written orders, but fifteen months later neither Congress nor the American public have seen either one.

Or the killings of the unnamed and unidentified men piloting small boats who’ve never been charged with a crime or faced any sort of due process.

Or the Signal affair, where the Pentagon’s inspector general (before being demoted) concluded that Hegseth illegally transmitted the number and strike times of manned American aircraft over hostile territory through a commercial app on his personal phone hours before those aircraft flew.

Pete declined to be interviewed, never turned over the phone, and some of the messages had auto-deleted before anyone could capture them.

When the Bush administration secretly paid Armstrong Williams to push No Child Left Behind, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled that Bush’s Education Department had violated Congress’ multiple prohibitions on government-funded propaganda directed at American citizens.

They also ruled that by spending money Congress hadn’t specifically authorized, the Bush administration had violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1350, a class E felony which carries two years in prison for the people who break it and goes back to 1905. (Bush declined to have his Attorney General prosecute his Secretary of Education.)

And here is Whiskey Pete doing it all over again.

Back in 2018, when a federal grand jury determined that Putin’s Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg had built fake American social media profiles to influence American public opinion in favor of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential run, they criminally indicted thirteen Russians and three Russian companies. Although they didn’t have Pentagon email addresses, they were doing essentially the same thing on behalf of Trump that these retired military officers are accused of.

It appears that history is repeating itself, although this time it’s Hegseth doing it instead of Putin.

Odds are close to impossible that Trump will have Todd Blanche indict Pete for these crimes, any more than Bush was willing to indict his Education Secretary Rod Paige over the Armstrong Williams crime. But there are other options.

— Any member of Congress can request the GAO to investigate and issue a formal legal decision on whether any of these arrangements violate Section 2241a and Section 8001.

— The Defense Department’s inspector general can be made to produce for Congress the appointment memoranda, position descriptions, ethics opinions, timekeeping records, and compensation for every “special government employee” and “highly qualified expert” hired into Hegseth’s office since January 2025.

— There’s also the Office of Special Counsel, which can take Hatch Act complaints about federal employees engaged in partisan political activity.

— And then there’s impeachment. A cabinet secretary is a civil officer of the United States under Article II, Section 4 and thus vulnerable to impeachment and removal from office. While rare — only US Grant’s Secretary of War, William Balknap, has been impeached (in 1876) for corruptly using his office — but it’s still an option should Democrats take over Congress come January.

And, in fact, there are already two articles of impeachment that have been dropped in the House against Whiskey Pete.

Shri Thanedar filed H.Res. 935 in December over the campaign of lethal strikes against small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, and Yassamin Ansari led fourteen members in filing H.Res. 1177 in April, containing six articles covering the “unauthorized war against Iran,” “violations of the law of armed conflict and the targeting of civilians,” “the reckless handling of sensitive military information,” “obstruction of congressional oversight,” and “conduct bringing disrepute upon the armed forces.”

Impeachment doesn’t have to just be about getting a conviction and removal from office. Even if it never makes it to the Senate, the process in the House forces evidence into the permanent public record under oath, and establishes for history that a crime was committed, even if it was never punished.

Both impeachment resolutions are sitting in the House Judiciary Committee, where congressional Republicans are trying to pretend they don’t exist.

Meanwhile, Hegseth appears to be exploring a run for president. Talk about deluded! And yesterday, Dan Driscoll, the Secretary of the Army, resigned, apparently because he is disgusted with Hegseth’s lack of competence and management skills.

Secret Service report blows hole in Trump's bizarre case against Comey

Even though President Donald Trump insists that former FBI Director James Comey threatened his life by photographing seashells that spelled "8647," a new Secret Service report indicates that even those charged with investigating the ex-lawman are suspicious of the president's case.

"The Secret Service categorized Comey's seashells prosecution as 'non-referred' — and the probe's participants called certain steps 'overkill' and 'legally questionable,' per a new defense brief," posted Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief of All Rise News, on X on Tuesday.

Klsafield shared an embedded government document which said that the government had failed to observe "that its investigation here predated the Virginia indictment undermine the likelihood of vindictiveness. Shortly after the Secret Service opened the investigation—and undertook steps that its participants described as 'overkill' and 'legally questionable,' Mot. 9-10—the Secret Service categorized the case as 'non-referred.'"

By contrast, Trump's attorney general Todd Blanche claimed during his confirmation hearing in May that the "8647" post was part of a pattern of behavior by Comey that jeopardized the president's life.

“This is not just about a single Instagram post,” Blanche said at the time. “This is about a body of evidence that [prosecutors] collected over the series of about 11 months. That evidence was presented to the grand jury.”

CBS News reported in August that Trump is angry at Comey at least in part because the erstwhile bureaucrat inadvertently led to the FBI's investigation known as Oxferd Comma, which examined possible collusion between the then-Republican presidential nominee and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election. After Trump fired Comey shortly into the start of his first term, the FBI began in secret the Oxferd Comma aspect of its Trump-Russia investigation.

"The official said the investigation, known as Oxferd Comma, was a subcomponent of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI probe into potential collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russian government — an investigation that has long drawn Mr. Trump's ire," CBS News reported at the time. "The predicate of Oxferd Comma was the newly elected president's decision to fire Comey in 2017. The case was marked sensitive, which is generally done to keep a case off the books from other agents, the official said. The agents who opened the case said they believe it was going to be the least intrusive method to address a serious national security risk."

CBS News also quoted an official who said, "I was unaware that the predicate for the obstruction included a claim that Donald Trump was somehow acting on behalf of Vladimir Putin. The short of it is, almost everything in the FBI's possession at that point had debunked or ruled out that Trump or his campaign was colluding with Russia at that time."

Pro-Trump town turns on president over 'Lake America' fiasco

By renaming Lake Ontario as Lake America, President Donald Trump has aroused the wrath not only of most Canadians, but of a majority of Americans as well. Indeed, his swipe at the nation against whom he started a trade war has even angered a community that overwhelmingly supported the Republican's election campaigns — and which shares the same name by which the lake in question is known to the rest of the world.

"In the upstate New York town named after Lake Ontario, some supporters of Donald Trump oppose his executive order renaming the body of water 'Lake America,'" reported The Daily Beast's William Vaillancourt on Tuesday. At a different point in the article, Vaillancourt added that "according to a new Reuters/Ipsos survey, only 14 percent of respondents approved, while 63 percent did not. The same poll found that only one in five respondents supported Trump’s tariffs on Canada."

The outlet also observed that as a result of Trump's renaming, Google Maps changed the lake’s name for American users, prompting a resurgence in the app MapQuest that caused it to become the No. 1 overall free app in Apple's U.S. App Store by Monday.

Residents of Ontario echoed that ire.

“I don’t think the lake’s name should be changed because it’s history,” Dave Rupp, the operator of Ontario’s liquidation store and a 2024 supporter of Trump, told The Washington Post's Laura Beveridge on Tuesday. “And I don’t like changing history.” Similarly Cassandra Tylenda, a farmer and Trump voter, admitted that “I like Lake Ontario better, but there’s nothing I can do about it.” (She continues to support Trump's tariffs against Canada.)

One Ontario resident who did not support Trump, Serena Eaton, told The Washington Post that she believes Trump renamed the lake in order to distract from the US-Israel war against Gaza and his refusal to release files related to his close friend, the late child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

“America doesn’t just own the lake,” the 24-year-old Eaton pointed out. “I’m not going to call it Lake America. But my town is really redneck. I’m sure a lot of people will just switch their brains off and tune out sensible reason.” Another individual who lived near Ontario, Cayuga Nation member Charles Smith, made a deeper historical argument, telling the Post while standing outside a Dunkin that “it’s been Lake Ontario for a very, very long time, and it will always be Lake Ontario.”

Not every Ontario resident opposed Trump's behavior.

“I would like it if they changed the name here to the Town of America: The Town of America on the Lake of America,” Serafino Rosso, a 41-year-old telecoms manager and Trump supporter, said to The Washington Post. “It makes me feel really patriotic. It felt Canadian before.”

Similarly a 33-year-old man named Frankie Amalfi echoed Trump's rhetoric, declaring that "he will tell you right off the bat that Canada’s been getting us for years. He doesn’t let them walk all over us.”

He added, “We have the Gulf of America, the Lake of America. All we need now is the Ocean of America.”

Despite what Amalfi claimed, Canada did not provoke the trade war against the United States. To understand how so many Trump supporters could bully a weaker nation and enjoy it, AlterNet spoke in August with Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive scientist and professor of cognitive science at the University of Bristol.

"I used to live in Oklahoma for five years, so you can imagine — I'm familiar with farmers and that mindset, though that was a long time ago (laughs)," Lewandowsky explained. "Look, human beings do all sorts of things, and sometimes you just look at it and think, "What on earth?" Being hypocritical — feeling pain for yourself but not making the connection that maybe this other person is also in pain, and maybe we should support each other rather than throwing welfare recipients under the bus so I can have my subsidy — different people come to different conclusions about that."

AlterNet also spoke in August with Dr. Steven Hassan, cult expert and author of "Combating Cult Mind Control" and "The Cult of Trump," who shed light on how they can change their views on issues like US-Canada relations purely on the word of a cult-like leader such as Trump.

"These destructive groups, like the Trump movement, are lying all the time," Hassan told AlterNet. "And part of the appeal is really about using emotionally leading rhetoric to scare people, to create "the other," to demonize. I'll quote Eric Hoffer's 1951 book, 'The True Believer.' He said, 'The strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil.'"

As for Trump's tariffs, economist Dr. Robert J. Shapiro — who advised Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — told AlterNet in August that they will only worsen America's ongoing inflation problem.

"There's no good news on inflation," Shapiro said. "Just this week, Trump announced 50 percent tariffs on our largest trading partner, Canada, which will further increase inflation."

Chaos as 'screeching' hecklers derail Tuesday night GOP lovefest in Florida

Republicans were running out of responses as a legion of hecklers kept interrupting a Tuesday night “leadership forum” in Tampa, reports Florida Politics.

Featured onstage were Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds, Attorney General James Uthmeier, CFO Blaise Ingoglia and Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson. But Florida Politics writer A.G. Gancarski points out that the GOP team “found out quickly” that not all attendees were on the same page.

“Pipe it down, buddy” commanded DeSantis, as Donalds urged attendees to “ignore the hecklers.”

But the hecklers weren’t done, said Gancarski, who described them as "an enduring Greek chorus for the play on stage."

Ingoglia, a former chair of the Florida GOP, was in the middle of accusing Democratic Socialists of “infiltrate[ing] the Democrat Party of Florida” when yet another protester piped up with shouting from the audience.

“This sort of makes my point, because the DSA and the socialists and the Democrats of Florida today do not have any solutions,’ Ingoglia said, getting riled at the catcalls. “All they have is signs and placards enabled to shout and disrupt. Because they do not have any ideas. They cannot win on the battlefield of ideas.”

But then another protester lined up to hit Simpson with shouts and harassment. At that point, “DeSantis seemed to believe he’d lost control of the event from there and returned to the Soros motif,” reports Florida Politics.

“Let me just give you guys some advice. Standing up and screaming is not effective, okay? I’ve seen people try to do this over the years. Some are more effective than others. I remember I had Antifa charge me and one of our FDLE leveled them, and it was funny. And it was good. But here’s the deal. I think Soros is tightening his wallet, because the people he’s paying are terrible at this. He used to hire people who were really good. Now they’re just screeching, and it’s almost like, I don’t even know what it is. And so, listen, you should be respectful. You should listen. This is part of the civic process and do that. But if you’re not going to do that, do a better job at protesting, please. Gosh.”

But trash-talkers in Florida apparently do not come in small batches at Republican presentations. Just as Uthmeier was talking about his office’s efforts to stop child predators in online forums yet another demonstrator jumped in from the audience, denouncing President Donald Trump, who is himself accused of sexual conduct with minors.

Uthmeier proclaimed that the protestor was “probably one of the people on these platforms, by the way, that we gotta worry about,” as opposed to Trump, who is listed in the Epstein files as a potential abuser.

“DeSantis jumped in thereafter, mocking the latest interrupter but clearly running out of material,” reports Florida Politics.

“Oh, my gosh. What a brilliant, oh, you’re just so great. Oh, what a great protester. Oh, man, you showed us. You really showed us. Wow. Oh man,” DeSantis fumed.

Inside the strategy to tear down Trump's legacy with a 'sledgehammer'

President Donald Trump is struggling in the polls due to the ongoing unpopularity of his war in Iran and stewardship of the American economy. Yet according to a former Republican speechwriter, his biggest political fear should be having all of his achievements reversed by a potential Democratic successor in the White House.

The Bulwark's Tim Miller declared on his podcast that he expects "someone in 2028 to take the mantle of 'I have the authority now from the Supreme Court' going to tear this shit down one brick at a time."

He added, "We're going to fund it to bring people in, everyone. I don't know what any tools are. Their jackhammer. I want a mallet. What's a big mallet called? A sledgehammer. There's big demolition excavators."

Fellow Bulwark commentator Jonathan Last added "Like the ones that are big enough to be in a quarry, right? By the German company that makes them. And I actually feel like the next Democratic president should take his oath of office, not from Congress, but actually while seated in the pilot's chair for a giant demolition excavator. With a hard hat. Take it."

At the same time, Miller expressed concern that the Supreme Court is so partisan that they will allow Trump to do far worse things to America rather than stop him.

"Let's say the president went to Fort Knox," Miller said. "Stole a bunch of gold bars, took them for himself... Gave them to Ivanka. Ivanka flew to Albania, sold them on the private market. And then some good government group files an objection to this. And the Supreme Court takes them. They're like, well... They don't actually have any standing over Fort Knox."

Last agreed and speculated that, if a Democratic president tries to reverse Trump's achievements, the same Supreme Court that has argued Trump can do whatever he wants will suddenly be upset with a Democrats' liberal use of power.

"They will get around to the actual constitutionality when a Democrat tries to tear it down," Last said. "Right. So they'll punt, punt, punt until it's fait accompli. So it's just done. Like, well, I can't really rule on it. It's finished. Can't go on the merits."

Indeed, Trump has already managed to undo the legacies of several of his Democratic predecessors while in office. His war against Iran was often framed as a rebuking of President Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal and his $40 trillion debt runs in contrast to President Bill Clinton's four budget surpluses and successful debt reduction.

"Clinton convinced Democrats in Congress to double down with larger tax increases for wealthy people, raised the corporate tax rate, increased Medicare taxes for wealthy people, and hiked the federal gasoline tax," Clinton's economic adviser Dr. Robert J. Shapiro wrote in August. "It worked: Those changes, along with strong economic growth, increased federal revenues 54 percent after inflation over his two terms. Clinton also convinced Democrats to cut defense spending by 12 percent on a sustained basis, another first."

Strategist corrects former Trump spox to his face on GOP capitulation

Democratic strategist Maria Cardona did not let President Donald Trump’s former communication director Mike Dubke write off Speaker Mike Johnson’s attempt to duck blame for the party’s rampant unpopularity.

The Tuesday exchange began after CNN anchor Phil Mattingly spoke with reporter Manu Raju about his confrontation with Johnson in the halls of Congress.

“On Iran, you said repeatedly that this war was going to be over soon. You said that this would be a temporary blip on short term on gas prices. It is more than six months. People are getting hurt still at the pump,” said Raju, trailing Johnson during a scrum. “Should the American people not also judge you on your projections here that were clearly off base?”

“Manu, that is one of the stupidest questions you've ever had,” Johnson said. “I have nothing to do with the prosecution of the war across the globe. I am—”

“You are responsible,” Raju insisted, interrupting him. “You are selling this [war] to the American public, are you not?”

“So should the House speaker be held responsible for the duration of a military conflict around the globe? You answer that question,” Johnson fussed.

“There is authority,” Mattingly insisted, turning to Dubke on the panel. “He is the Speaker of the House.”

But Dubke called Johnson’s answer accurate, if delivered brusquely.

“The question was really about should they should you be held accountable for making a statement, a guess or whatever on the prosecution of the war? I did not like how the speaker said ‘I'm not qualified.’ I thought that was a terrible way to address it. On the earlier thing, I think I think his answer here is fine. I don't like to use of the word ‘stupid,’ but I think he's fine pushing back and saying, ‘look, I'm not the person that is in control of the prosecution of this war.’ Uh, and that's and that's what he was referring to when he was giving his comment back to Manu.”

“But he does have responsibility for the budget of the war for controlling what kind of money goes into the war,” countered Cardona quickly. “So a big part of that is the prosecution of the war. … [T]o me, it continues to underscore this notion, Mike, that I think voters are aware of and are going to hold Republicans accountable for, which is they have completely given up any control whatsoever that they ever had about anything that President Trump does.”

“What voters want more than anything in this election is to hold this president accountable, to have some kind of guardrails on what he is doing or not doing, because they believe — and we have seen this in poll after poll after poll — that he has betrayed the American people on so many issues, including the Iran War," added Cardona. “... They have done nothing to reign Trump in."

- YouTube youtu.be

Americans' disgust of latest Trump scheme hits pitiless new low

"Voters have turned against Donald Trump's crusade against Canada, rejecting his rebranding of Lake Ontario as 'Lake America' by more than two to one," wrote The Daily Mail's Phillip Nieto on Tuesday. "A new Daily Mail/JL Partners poll finds only 20 percent of Americans support the name change, while 46 percent oppose it. Even Americans who previously voted for Trump in 2024 only supported it by 33 percent, while 31 percent rejected the name change."

Nieto added, "Trump first floated the name last week after trade negotiations between the two countries collapsed. He declared that the US did not expect to be 'doing much business with Ontario any longer.' He followed through two days later with an executive order directing the federal government to use 'Lake America.' Soon after, Washington slapped 50 percent tariffs on $20 billion in Canadian goods and Ottawa announced retaliatory levies of its own."

The journalist added, "A trade war to the north could also deepen Trump's midterm headache as Republicans fight to protect their small congressional majorities. The Iran war has already pushed oil above $90 a barrel, and gas past $4 a gallon for most Americans. Just thirty-two percent of voters supported the new tariffs against Canada, with 36 percent opposing the levies. Thirty-seven percent blame US officials for the breakdown, compared with just 14 percent who fault Canada. However, 31 percent hold both sides equally responsible."

Similarly, Nieto reported that "Trump's repeated talk of absorbing Canada as the 51st state also remains fringe, backed by 21 percent of Americans and 31 percent of his voters. The poll was conducted between August 28-31 among 1,015 registered US voters online with a margin of error of 3.1 percent."

Beyond the polls, there is anecdotal evidence that Trump's renaming of Lake Ontario is losing him support among his political base.

"The real reason Trump made the move, [is to] 'distract you from the fact that we’re in a war that we can’t win in Iran,'" said right-wing podcaster and Trump supporter Joe Rogan on Tuesday.

Rogan went on to assert that the renaming 'doesn’t make any sense' otherwise: 'Like, who cares? It’s Lake Ontario. It’s a good name. We’ve had that name forever.'"

Similarly, Slate's Ben Jacobs wrote on Monday that Trump is losing his political touch, pointing out that "throughout his political career, Trump’s signature skill has been to drive the conversation where he wanted it to go. He declares victory when things have not been won. He ducks attribution with the rhetorical tic 'many people are saying,' frequently followed by things that people are decidedly not saying. He posts outrageous graphics on social media."

Jacobs added, "And, of course, he renames things: Political opponents get nicknames, buildings get Trump’s name, and bodies of water get America’s name."

Attorney Seth Abramson has even characterized Trump's actions as being a literal war against Canada.“The argument that Trump invaded Canada today is more compelling than many realize,” Abramson wrote. “The border between Canada and the U.S. runs through the middle of Lake Ontario. By claiming to have the power to rename the entire lake, Trump is claiming the lake. That's invasion by declaration.”

Panic as Trump’s rotten economy sends traders 'scrambling'

President Donald Trump can brag all he wants about the economy and make the biggest boasts at campaign stops, but Bloomberg says Wall Street investors just aren’t buying it.

“Traders are scrambling to shield their portfolios against further losses in Treasuries, as worries over the budget deficit and inflation push yields toward multiyear highs,” reports Bloomberg.

“Right now, it’s difficult to see a change in fortune for bonds,” said David Roberts, head of fixed income at Nedgroup Investments. “Certainly, a long-term solution to the Iranian situation would help.”

But that’s not coming, by the look of things, and investors are rushing to shore up what looks like a terrifying floor rattle involving U.S. treasury investments, prompted by Trump’s soaring debt and bad policies.

“The rush to hedge comes on the back of a global slide in bond prices, which are being squeezed by a range of catalysts including ongoing fiscal challenges and a war-fueled oil price surge that has further stoked inflation fears,” reports Bloomberg. “Investors have been particularly keen to avoid longer-dated tenors, which are more sensitive to inflation risks: The 30-year yield has averaged 4.96 percent year-to-date, on track for the highest annual level since 2004, according to Bloomberg data.”

It also appears investors have no faith in the once respected words of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, whose reputation appears to have taken a nosedive since he started working for Trump.

"Within days of Mr. Bessent’s confirmation, at least, it was obvious this was a misjudgment," The Bulwark's economics editor Catherine Rampell told The New York Times last week. "… Now, after criticizing his predecessor for allegedly trying to juice the economy ahead of an election, Mr. Bessent appears to have attempted exactly that.”

Bessent announced that the U.S. Treasury would ramp up repurchases of its long-term government bonds to reduce their interest, in an effort to save Republicans from a grueling midterm race.

“But Bessent’s plan backfired. Instead, after a brief dip, bond rates rose," Rampell said.

“Investor unease over bond prices has persisted even after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced expanded buybacks last month in an effort to keep yields contained,” confirmed Bloomberg. “Options skew on long-bond futures, which is favoring puts, shows that traders are starting to pay a higher premium for hedging a bond market selloff over a rally.”

“Bond anxiety will likely persist at the long end, not the short end that the Fed controls,” Ashok Bhatia, CIO and global head of fixed income at Neuberger Berman, told Bloomberg.

Joe Rogan blurts exactly why Trump wants to rename a lake

President Donald Trump controversially renamed Lake Ontario as Lake America as part of his escalating trade war against Canada — and pro-Trump podcaster Joe Rogan has a theory why.

"The real reason Trump made the move, Rogan said, is to 'distract you from the fact that we’re in a war that we can’t win in Iran,'" according to a report by The Daily Beast's Eboni Boykin-Patterson. "Rogan went on to assert that the renaming 'doesn’t make any sense' otherwise. 'Like, who cares? It’s Lake Ontario. It’s a good name. We’ve had that name forever.'"

The Daily Beast provided further detail on why Rogan's criticism of Trump is so important — and why there are also limits to its significance.

"Rogan, who endorsed Trump in 2024, may have made it known that he was one of many Americans who find the renaming pointless—but that doesn’t mean he’s come to his senses," The Daily Beast wrote. "The podcaster also dedicated a portion of his show to peddling more conspiracy theories about the COVID vaccine. He echoed Republican Sen. Ron Johnson’s revival of an old and inaccurate theory that the vaccine increases the risk of miscarriage in the first trimester."

The Daily Beast added, "The theory gained traction after senators released text messages during their investigation into the former COVID czar that showed Fauci expressing apprehension during the shots’ early rollout."

Even so, Rogan's separation from Trump on the issue demonstrates that he has lost his populist touch in getting supporters to believe anything he says, at least according to one analyst.

"Throughout his political career, Trump’s signature skill has been to drive the conversation where he wanted it to go. He declares victory when things have not been won," wrote Slate's Ben Jacobs on Monday. "He ducks attribution with the rhetorical tic 'many people are saying,' frequently followed by things that people are decidedly not saying. He posts outrageous graphics on social media. And, of course, he renames things: Political opponents get nicknames, buildings get Trump’s name, and bodies of water get America’s name."

Speaking with AlterNet in August, cult expert Dr. Steven Hassan explained how Trump's cult-like hold on his followers could weaken when acolytes like Rogan began to part ways with him.

"So if they really love Joe Rogan, they're going to follow a lot of his views. And consequently, when he turns against Trump, Trump loses a lot of followers,"

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Trump official describes millions of voters as 'underachievers'

President Donald Trump has been using "Red Scare" techniques in the 2026 midterm elections, characterizing all Democrats as democratic socialists regardless of whether they actually are (like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani) or not (Michigan US Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed). Now Trump's Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, is describing people who support candidates like Mamdani — and perhaps even like El-Sayed — as being underachievers.

“When you talk about socialism here in the U.S., and when you look at the demographic of those voters, they are over-educated and under-earning,” Bessent told Fox Business' Larry Kudlow while speaking at the Group of 20 finance ministers' summit in Asheville, NC.

He added, “These are underachievers who are jealous of those who want to go and work every day."

One irony of this argument is that many experts perceive Trump's own policies as socialistic, at least insofar as he directly meddles in the economy rather than allowing the free market to work unimpeded.

“I don't think of it as communism, although the Trump administration is actually a very big-government presidency — taking stakes in big companies and trying to manage them in a fairly inappropriate way,” Dr. Ed Gresser, the Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at the liberal-leaning think tank Progressive Policy Institute, told AlterNet in July. “So it's a bit odd to see them drumming up fears of socialism, since that's very much in the background of a lot of what they've done."

Gresser was not alone in saying this.

“Trump operates with a form of crony capitalism,” Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, a former top economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, told AlterNet in July. “The people who get US contracts, the people who get preferences on tariffs, are those who have influence with him. It ranges from the absurd — where the guy who did the coating for the swimming pool gets a no-bid contract to do the reflecting pool — to all the other no-bid contracts. That's all crony capitalism. And certainly, opening this up could create more opportunities for that.”

Meanwhile a former Republican National Committee Chairman argued that Trump implements socialistic policies for his supporters, but denies it to others.

“Y'all know the Farm Bill is socialism; y'all know that, right?” Michael Steele said on MS NOW in August. “I mean, when you start talking about socialism, it's socialism for you. It's not socialism when I'm accessing the system and I'm getting that SNAP check, and I'm getting that welfare check, and I'm getting that free lunch program, and I'm getting those things that, because I cannot afford it, are part of a safety net. And I wish we would just fundamentally get off our lazy behinds and start understanding how this government uses all of those tools to provide for its citizens.”

Trump’s history of bankruptcy now his greatest gift to America: economist

An MS NOW economist could not let a discussion about the national debt slip past without properly tagging the president responsible for the brunt of it with a parting snap on Tuesday.

Henrietta Treyz, director of economic policy at Veda partners, reminded MS NOW anchor Katy Tur that President Donald Trump had a huge hand in putting the nation on the cusp of financial failure due to the nation’s exploding debt.

“It's hard to wrap your head around because it doesn't really make sense. And I'd also note that President Trump is personally responsible for $12 billion — excuse me, $12 trillion — worth of the deficit that has been incurred throughout American history just in the last six years,” barked Treyz, speaking of an IRS audit revealing a 35 percent drop in revenue in just one year after Trump and DOGE wiped out agency jobs.

“So that's 30 percent of all of it. That is because they've passed tax cuts and the tax cuts are inordinately expensive,” continued Trez. “And that is kind of the rub here. The President, the Republican Party, they aren’t cutting your taxes. These are taxes that you owe. So from the IRS, they're not finding new ways to tax you. They're just collecting what they've already agreed upon. So, if you're looking for fraud, waste and abuse to cut, this is literally it. And they have created it.”

A host of self-inflicted economic wounds have, among other things, led to the national debt surpassing $40 trillion. In fact, according to a recent report, the debt has ballooned so badly that even economists who previously didn’t focus on deficit issues are increasingly alarmed.

“One camp of economists has been warning about the perils of high debt for years: Budget hawks predicted that if the country kept spending and didn’t raise taxes enough to keep pace, the resulting fiscal crisis could be devastating,” wrote The Atlantic's Will Gottsegen recently. “But others — the doves — have brushed it off. Their perspective was that as long as the U.S. GDP was growing faster than the interest rate it was paying on its debt, the Treasury would be able to keep rolling over its bonds without too much of a problem. For much of the 2010s, this was essentially the status quo, and debt panic was muted.”

But national borrowing rates are rising because of deficit panic, Gottsegen added. There is now concern about the expansion of the national debt and the government’s ability to sustain it.

“Investors are starting to think of long-term Treasurys as riskier than they once did, and they’re demanding more money in exchange for taking on America’s debt. At the same time, the federal government has shown no real appetite to pull its two main levers for reducing the debt: cutting spending and raising taxes,” Gottsegen said.

Meanwhile, Trump has exhibited little knack for money by declaring bankruptcy on multiple business ventures, including multiple Atlantic City casinos, as well as Trump Airline, Trump Steaks, and Trump Magazine, as well as “Trump University” —a fraud scheme that ended in a $25 million settlement to reimburse defrauded students.

“He stiffed contractors, defaulted on debts, and used the legal system as a weapon against people who were owed money,” the Alternet reported. “And when his own businesses collapsed, daddy's money was there to catch him. Most people, if they had that track record, would be in prison or working as a car salesman somewhere. But Trump had inherited enough wealth that he could never actually fail.”

- YouTube youtu.be

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