2016 presidential campaign and media bias

President Donald Trump used a nationally televised address on July 16, 2026, to unveil a collection of declassified documents. He said these documents, which the White House posted online during the address, show serious vulnerabilities in American election systems, extensive Chinese acquisition of U.S. voter data, and an intelligence community effort to suppress reporting on those threats.

A common misconception is that declassification works like a curtain being pulled back: A “Top Secret” marking comes off, and the public sees the truth. In reality, a released record may be raw reporting, a fragment of a communication, a source’s claim or a draft assessment. Each carries a different relationship to reliability and analytic judgment.

I’m an international affairs professor with nearly 30 years of experience in the U.S. intelligence community, including executive roles in the Central Intelligence Agency, National Counterterrorism Center and National Security Agency. I would advise anyone reviewing this release – or any declassified intelligence – to keep one distinction in mind before drawing conclusions: Declassification changes who may see information, but it does not determine whether the information is true, important, current, corroborated or representative of the broader intelligence record.

The archive is not the assessment

The 17th-century French statesman Cardinal Richelieu is commonly credited as saying, “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” It’s an apt warning here – not because intelligence collection is indifferent to truth, but because of what it deliberately preserves.

Intelligence agencies collect widely and retain material across a full spectrum of reliability, including reporting that was later contradicted, downgraded or explicitly discounted, because judging what matters is supposed to happen through analysis over time, not by declining to collect something in the first place.

In my experience, that means the government’s holdings almost certainly contain a report that appears to support nearly any serious allegation someone could make about a public official, a foreign government or a disputed national event – sitting alongside the later reporting and analytic judgment that determined how much weight, if any, it deserved.

Mistaking a document’s existence for proof of its content – without the context of what came after it – is, in my assessment, the most common way declassified material can get misread.

‘Intelligence report’ is misleading

The phrase “intelligence report” adds to the confusion. It is often used as though it describes one kind of document. It does not. A report might be an unevaluated database entry, a clandestine source account, an intercepted communication or a finished assessment such as the President’s Daily Brief. These documents sit at different points in the intelligence cycle: planning, collection, processing, analysis, dissemination and evaluation. Evaluation, though it’s listed as a step in the cycle, is continuous.

A human-source report includes both what a source said and how the intelligence officer handling that source assessed the source’s access, reliability and possible motives. Those judgments help analysts weigh the reporting. They do not make it definitive. A well-placed source can misunderstand what he heard. A generally reliable source can still be wrong.

Signals intelligence can create a different kind of false confidence. Intercepted communications can appear definitive, but a single intercept shows only that something was said. It does not establish that the speaker knew the truth, that the communication was complete or that later reporting supported it.

Finished intelligence exists to weigh those questions. Analysts compare reporting streams, test assumptions, identify gaps, assign confidence levels and state what remains uncertain. Finished products can still be wrong.

This is why intelligence work runs on a cycle, with evaluation happening at every stage, not only at the end. That discipline is what keeps flawed or incomplete information from being mistaken for settled fact.

Material held by agencies such as the CIA spans a wide range of reliability, from raw reporting to finished assessments. Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo

What a declassification review exists to catch

That distinction matters in any declassification, but it becomes especially important when the process is rushed.

Removing a classification marking is only one part of the process. Review also asks what release might expose beyond the text: a human source, collection method, foreign liaison relationship, ongoing operation or analytic context needed to keep the public from being misled.

One document can also involve several agencies. A report about a foreign leader might draw on information from a CIA source, quote communications collected by the National Security Agency and discuss a diplomatic relationship managed by the State Department. Large-scale declassification is therefore normally interagency work, not simply the decision of one office.

The Biden administration’s decision to declassify intelligence on Russian preparations leading up to the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine moved unusually fast by intelligence standards. I was involved in that process while serving at the CIA. But the speed served a specific purpose: warning allies and shaping Russian calculations before an invasion occurred. The review process was compressed, not abandoned.

What to look for once something is released

Readers should ask practical questions when declassified material appears: Is this document raw reporting, an intercept, a source account, a draft or a finished assessment? Was it released with the caveats, later reporting and interagency review needed to judge its weight? If it is being used to challenge an intelligence assessment, does the release show how analysts evaluated that material, what other reporting they weighed and why they accepted or discounted it?

None of these questions requires assuming bad faith. They are the same questions intelligence professionals ask before turning information into judgment. A raw report in a classified system is evidence that something was reported. It is not, by itself, proof that the report was true.

Brian O'Neill, Professor of Practice, International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology

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

A new movement, “masculinism”, is uniting the right behind extreme anti-feminist views, chiefly in the United States. It promotes the dominant role of men in society, including the idea that men should dominate women.

Trump on Monday signed orders to impose a 50 percent tariff on a wide range of Canadian imports.

The White House claims the tariffs are a “punishment” for Canadian discrimination against American cars, dairy, and alcohol.

But the tariffs will also punish us. Remember, tariffs are import taxes — paid for by you and me and everyone else in America. So, we’re about to pay more for everything we import from Canada — plywood, paper, furniture, hockey sticks, cement, et al. Canada is our second-largest trading partner, for chrissake.

Even if the Supreme Court finds that Trump lacks authority to invoke these tariffs and the government must refund American importers for the extra cost — as the high court did with his first round of tariffs — you and I won’t be reimbursed for the extra costs we’ve paid.

Corporations aren’t giving their customers any of the $80 billion in refunds they’ve received from the Treasury Department for the first round of tariffs, so don’t expect any reimbursement on this second round. Which means we’re doubly screwed.

Worse yet, the Treasury isn’t really bearing the cost of the $80 billion in refunds. The cost is being borne by you and me and all other American taxpayers, because our money funds the government. And as taxpayers we’ll also be paying for the second round of refunds, assuming the Supreme Court orders them. Which means we’re triply screwed.

Actually, we’re quadruply screwed because Trump is imposing the new tariffs under the Tariff Act of 1930 — the notorious Smoot-Hawley tariff that worsened the Great Depression by causing other countries to retaliate and impose tariffs on goods coming from the United States. It’s likely to have a similar effect in coming months.

If you hadn’t noticed, the American economy is already shaky. Prices are rising faster than wages, which means most of us are becoming poorer even before Trump’s next round of tariffs. His war in Iran is pushing up the price of gas and, indirectly, food.

The real reason for the new tariffs is that Trump is pissed off that Canada had the temerity (and the right) to retaliate against his first round of tariffs, and it has resisted Trump’s calls to be annexed as the 51st state.

Why would Canadians ever want to live in a nation that could elect Trump?

In any event, I believe I can speak for most Americans when I apologize to our Canadian friends. We’re sorry we elected him. He’s made our lives worse. He’s a continuing embarrassment to us. (Did you see him grandstand at the World Cup? We have to live with this crap every day.)

Believe me, we’re doing everything we can to put him back in his cage.

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/.

President Donald Trump once again displayed evidence of cognitive decline, at least according to one political expert.

Speaking for The Daily Beast, analyst David Rothkopf cited Trump’s Sunday remarks shortly after arriving at Joint Base Andrews.

“What we’re doing now is we’re ending any chance where they can have a nuclear missile,” Trump said when asked about his ongoing war against Iran. “If you look at it, after a week and a half... not four weeks, a week and a half, two weeks, we stopped them from, probably—but I don’t want to have the word ‘probably.’ Thank you very much, everybody."

Rothkopf pointed to this incoherent rant as proof that something is wrong with Trump’s brain.

“But then he goes off to this thing, and he’s asked about the war, and he goes, in his brain: ‘I know, I have an answer,’” Rothkopf argued. “‘Something about nuclear, something about I had to do this, something about they’re the bad guys, something about this’ll be over soon.’” He added that Trump’s brain “misfired” and caused him to offer his talking points in a “random order.”

He added, “Because... there’s no file retrieval going on in his brain anymore at this point. And... then they lead him away to the plane because he obviously can’t be exposed to the public. That’s why... you guys have written about it.”

The pundit also pointed to another seeming sign of decline, Trump loitering on the stage and clapping during Spain’s trophy ceremony at the World Cup even as FIFA President Gianni Infantino attempted unsuccessfully to lure him away. Spain eventually photoshopped Trump out of their team image celebrating their triumph.

“His public schedule is next to zero because any time he gets in front of a camera, he embarrasses himself, he embarrasses the country, he offends somebody, he says something he shouldn’t say. And it happens when things are planned, when they’re not planned, around the clock,” Rothkopf claimed. “He is his own greatest liability at this point.”

This is not the only sign that Trump is experiencing cognitive decline. Earlier this month, longtime Trump journalist Michael Wolff characterized Trump’s ongoing fixation with the 2020 presidential election — which he lost to Joe Biden but continues to claim he won, despite all of his arguments being thoroughly debunked — as evidence of mental illness.

“I think everyone around him understands, in fact, that he absolutely believes this,” Wolff told his Joanna Coles. “No one else believes it. No one else believes that he won the 2020 election. But he does believe it.”

He continued, “And that to me is actually the kind of the scarier thing, the larger thing than that. This is another way for him to try to manipulate the election, or another way for him to set up a rationale for losing the election. There is mental illness here, and it’s kind of a result of his paranoia, his resentments, his insecurity, his inability to appreciate reality, I think you might most accurately say.”

Indeed, speaking with this journalist for Salon in 2020, former Yale University psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee predicted he would be unable to accept losing to Biden because of his mental health problems.

“Just as one once settled for adulation in lieu of love, one may settle for fear when adulation no longer seems attainable,” Lee told this journalist in October 2020. “Rage attacks are common, for people are bound to fall short of expectation for such a needy personality—and eventually everyone falls into this category. But when there is an all-encompassing loss, such as the loss of an election, it can trigger a rampage of destruction and reign of terror in revenge against an entire nation that has failed him.”

She concluded, “It is far easier for the pathological narcissist to consider destroying oneself and the world, especially its ‘laughing eyes,’ than to retreat into becoming a ‘loser’ and a ‘sucker’ — which to someone suffering from this condition will feel like psychic death.”

Trump, who turned 80 last month, will be the oldest president in American history upon completing his second term in January 2029. In May, psychiatrist Dr. Henry Abraham (formerly of Tufts University) that he and other health professionals have repeatedly raised the alarm about his apparent decline, including in statements to Congress.

“The president’s condition appears to be deteriorating,” he said, continuing that “there has been a frightening progression of symptoms. These include grandiosity without moral safeguards, paranoia, impulsivity, vindictiveness, easy misperception of being harmed, moments of omnipotence, uncontrolled rage, and sole control over the use of nuclear weapons in a time of war.”

He finished with the note, “As a psychiatrist reviewing these, I can only say Yikes!”

According to polling experts, either President Donald Trump’s Republican Party or the opposition Democratic Party will sweep both houses of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections. Yet even as Trump’s Thursday speech promoting debunked election conspiracy theories and attempts to rig the midterms suggests he fears Democrats will be the victors, these same experts say it could go either way.

“Forecasters say Democrats are favored to take the U.S. House this November while Republicans are favored to hold the Senate, yet the likeliest outcome is one party sweeping full control of Congress,” wrote The Center Square's Brett Rowland on Monday.

He added, “The split reflects two maps pulling in opposite directions: a House landscape tilted toward Democrats and a Senate field that favors Republicans. Yet Decision Desk HQ's forecast finds that a divided Congress, while possible, is less likely than a clean sweep by either party.”

Rowland then dug into the numbers, finding that in both chambers of Congress the balance of power could tip in either direction because the margins are so close.

“Sabato's Crystal Ball rates 213 seats safe, likely, or leaning Republican against 207 for Democrats, with 15 toss-ups left to decide control – a near-even split that underscores how much Republicans' mid-decade redistricting cushion still matters even in a year favoring Democrats,” Rowland wrote about the House of Representatives. “Republicans have the Senate advantage. Decision Desk HQ gives them a 59 [percent] chance of keeping the chamber.”

He added, “To seize it, Democrats would need to hold all 47 of their seats and flip four Republican ones. Forecasters agree the map runs through a familiar set of states. The Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball both rate Maine and Alaska as toss-ups – though they differ on the rest, with Cook flagging Ohio and Sabato listing Michigan and Iowa. Both give Democrats an edge in North Carolina, where former Gov. Roy Cooper leads.”

Overall, Rowland reported “that generic ballot is the clearest read on the national mood, and it points to a favorable but not overwhelming year for Democrats. The RealClearPolitics average has Democrats up 4.7 points; Nate Silver's Silver Bulletin puts the edge at 6.1, down from a 7.1-point peak on June 1. Either way, the advantage trails where Democrats stood at this point in 2018, when the generic ballot sat at 7.6 points. That gap is a large part of why control of Congress remains genuinely uncertain.”

He added, “Democrats are favored for the House, Republicans for the Senate, yet Decision Desk HQ finds the likeliest outcome isn't the divided Congress those leanings imply, but a sweep by one party. Four months out, the forecasters just can't agree on which side will do the sweeping.”

Speaking with AlterNet in July, Sabato’s Crystal Ball managing editor also pointed out that Trump squandered an opportunity to shore up his approval rating during America’s 250th birthday celebrations. To illustrate his point, he contrasted Trump’s partisan approach to the celebration to how a different Republican, President Gerald Ford, was not partisan and wound up bouncing in the polls due to the rise in patriotism.

“It is to some degree an apples to oranges comparison, because Ford was on the ballot and Trump is not, and the country was also a lot different,” Kondik told AlterNet. “But I do think in the midst of a trying decade, Ford's positive messaging helped cut through the negativity and capitalized on good feelings about the bicentennial. But there were many other reasons Ford came back, including uncertainty about whether Carter was up to the task of being president.”

At the same time, Kondik also said Trump’s Republicans could benefit in the midterms for other reasons.

“His approval has bounced back many times over the years, so maybe that still happens for reasons that aren't immediately obvious,” Kondik told AlterNet.

President Donald Trump’s Republican Party should be performing worse than it currently is against their Democratic counterparts, according to an anti-Trump conservative. The economy continues to suffer under Trump, and because voters are noticing, Trump is sending signals that he plans on rigging the midterms.

So why aren’t Democrats doing better? The Dispatch staff writer Nick Catoggio shared some of his views on Monday.

“On May 31 the RealClearPolitics tracker had Democrats ahead of Republicans by 7.6 points, teeing up the sort of midterm drubbing for incumbent presidents to which Americans have grown accustomed over the last 40 years,” Catoggio wrote. “But a funny thing happened on the way to the blue wave: That lead has now shrunk to 4.7 points and the GOP is now polling at its highest level (43.9 percent) this year.”

He added, “Nate Silver’s generic ballot tracker has seen less of a shift, but there’s movement there too. On May 31, Democrats led by 7.1 points; today they lead by 5.9. That’s meaningfully less than the 7.6-point advantage they held at this point in 2018, when they went on to sweep House races.”

Catoggio speculated that part of the reason Democrats are struggling is because their brand is now associated with “socialism,” which has long been deemed taboo in American politics.

“He and his movement desperately need a foil,” Catoggio wrote. “And now, thanks to the [Democratic Socialists of America], they have one. I’m not sold on the theory that the new red scare explains the tightening generic ballot, though. At least, not all of it.”

Yet the conservative added that he is not convinced the Democrats’ rising socialism is in itself an adequate explanation.

“Even if we concede that socialism is an albatross for the party, it’s likely less of one than Trump is for Republicans,” Catoggio wrote. “A new CNBC poll asked Americans whether finding out that a candidate belongs to a particular political movement would make them more or less likely to vote for him or her. Discovering that someone is a democratic socialist led to a 32-50 split; discovering that someone is MAGA triggered a 27-57 divide by comparison.”

He added that voters may also fluctuate in their views toward Republicans because of the rising cost of gasoline.

“The cost of gasoline began rising after the U.S. attacked Iran on February 28 and continued to climb until around April 7, when the two sides agreed to a ceasefire,” Catoggio argued. “Prices then began to inch downward on hopes that pre-war levels of oil-tanker traffic might resume in the Strait of Hormuz—only to climb higher again in May, to a peak of more than $4.50 per gallon, when Iran refused to relinquish control of the strait.”

He added, “Coincidentally, May was also when Republicans’ generic-ballot polling cratered.” Catoggio later pointed out that when gas prices fell below $4 again in mid-June, “coincidentally, this was the period when Republicans’ generic-ballot polling recovered.”

In a similar vein, Catoggio argued that fluctuating feelings about the Iran war could explain the closer-than-expected generic ballot numbers of the midterm elections.

“Most of the recent generic ballot polling showing a GOP surge has been of registered voters, as is common at this stage of an election cycle,” Catoggio said. “But not every registered voter ultimately turns out, of course; for a clearer forecast of Election Day, you need to focus on likely voters. And Democrats have a big advantage among likely voters right now.”

He added, “The same Washington Post poll released this weekend that found them ahead by 3 points among registered voters saw the lead balloon to 8 among voters who say they’re ‘absolutely certain to vote.’ The share of Democrats who say they’re certain to vote this year exceeds the share of Republicans who say so by a wider margin than the share who said so in the ‘blue wave’ year of 2018, in fact. And Democrats are considerably more likely to say that it’s ‘more important’ to vote in 2026 vis-à-vis previous midterms than Republicans are.”

Catoggio concluded, “The red scare might be scary enough to alter voters’ preferences yet not scary enough to get them off the couch on Election Day, especially with bad news about the war and the economy drowning it out. But, barring a terrorist attack on the country or something similarly terrible, it’s the best bogeyman Trump’s got.”

US President Donald Trump declared Monday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—will be safe from arrest in the United States after New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said he was exploring whether he could apprehend the fugitive during his planned visit to the United Nations in September.

“Netanyahu will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America,” Trump said on his Truth Social network.

“He is fighting against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which recently killed 52,000 innocent protestors, and has spent the last 47 years killing American Soldiers, and others,” the president continued, citing a protest death claim made by opponents of the Iranian government, which said that 3,117 people were killed.

“The only ones that should be arrested,” Trump added, “are the people that led Iran into this unprecedented SPIRAL OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, something that should have been dealt with years ago, by previous Presidents!”

The US and Israel are currently waging an illegal war of choice against Iran.

Trump’s post followed weekend remarks by Mamdani, who told The New York Times that Netanyahu “belongs in The Hague,” the Dutch city that’s home to both the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice, where a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa in 2023 is pending.

“He’s a war criminal who has been charged by the International Criminal Court,” the mayor said. “I will follow the laws that we have here in New York City because I believe that there is an importance in following the law as a leader who presides over our city.”

“Whatever the law allows me to do in New York City, that’s what we will do, but we won’t be writing our own laws to that end,” he added.

Mamdani was asked about his remarks during a Monday press conference.

“We’re speaking about someone who’s the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant,” he said of Netanyahu. “And he’s the subject of this arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity, for war crimes, and he’s the architect of the genocide against Palestinians in Gaza as Israel’s prime minister. These are not facts of my personal assessment; they are facts of public record.”

“And I believe that when someone is charged with an International Criminal Court warrant, it’s something that should be taken seriously, whether it’s Benjamin Netanyahu or it’s [Russian President] Vladimir Putin, or whomever else,” Mamdani added. “What I’ve also made clear is that my administration will follow all applicable local laws. That is our commitment.”

Although neither the US nor Israel is an ICC member, Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute, the treaty governing the tribunal, Articles 12 and 13 of the document say that individuals from nonsignatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.

Article 27 of the Rome Statute also says that serving as a head of state or government, or as any elected official, “shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility” before the court.

However, Article 98 of the treaty may limit governments’ obligation to execute an ICC arrest warrant in certain circumstances involving officials of nonparty states.

Netanyanu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, are accused of murder and forced starvation in Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, the deadliest in that country’s history.

Israeli forces have killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, over 21,500 of them children, in Gaza since October 2023, while wounding over 173,500 others, according to Palestinian officials. More than 2 million other Gazans have been forcibly displaced—often multiple times—starved, or sickened by the US-backed war, which UN and other experts say is a genocide.

While numerous Global South nations—particularly members of the Hague Group—and US allies including Belgium, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Spain have publicly said they would enforce the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, other nations including France and Hungary have said they would not try to arrest the Israelis if they entered their territory.

Political expert Charlie Cook, the founder of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said Monday he thinks Democratic State Auditor Rob Sand will win Iowa’s gubernatorial election, but the U.S. Senate race between State Rep. Josh Turek and U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson may not be as competitive as Democrats might think.

Cook said Iowa is no longer considered a “swing” state and “hasn’t been for a long time,” adding that he does not believe Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat will flip due to hyperpolarization in modern politics.

“I’m a bit more skeptical in federal races because to me, if a Republican is disaffected this year, they’re a heck of a lot more likely to not show up or to skip over various offices on the ballot than they are to vote for a Democrat,” Cook said. “We’ll have to wait and see whether the Iowa Senate flips, but I’d give it probably a 1 in 4 chance.”

The Cook Political Report changed its rating of Iowa’s U.S. Senate race from “likely Republican” to “leans Republican” on June 3. Polls released in early July showed a tight race, with Turek leading a FOX News poll released July 2 by 4 percentage points and Hinson leading a July 1 New York Times/Siena poll by 2 points.

Cook participated Monday in a Zoom call with the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative where he discussed the national political landscape, saying the party of the president typically sees lower turnout during midterm elections.

“What typically happens is that people that either belong to, or lean towards a president’s party, sometimes they’re a little complacent,” Cook said. “Sometimes they’re a little disappointed. Sometimes they’re deeply disillusioned. Rarely are they fired up, energized, and so they just simply don’t turn out in midterm elections nearly the way they do in presidential years.”

Cook said Iowa is behaving “differently” in the 2026 election cycle compared to other states, opening the door for the governor’s seat and a couple of U.S. House races to flip to Democrats. Cook did not cite specific Iowa congressional districts he believes will flip.

“The governor’s race, I think it probably will flip,” Cook said. “There’s some House races that may skip over a little bit, but we’re not seeing as much of that in other states as we are in Iowa, and we’ll have to wait and see whether the Iowa Senate (seat) flips.”

Cook highlighted the importance of independent voters, a small number of people who often sway elections.

Cook said “ticket splitting,” voting for candidates in both parties, is rare nowadays, and independents will vote for one specific party “90 to 95% of the time.”

“Really, only 10% of all registered voters are really independents that vote,” Cook said. “They tend to be fickle. They tend to get buyer’s remorse. They tend to turn against a president on a moment’s notice, and stay that way, so they disproportionately break for the opposition party these days.”

Cook cited that Trump’s average disapproval rating hovers around 50%, while his approval across multiple polls sits at approximately 39 to 40%. Based on those numbers, Cook said he believes Republicans will lose seats in Congress.

Cook added that the party that controls the presidency has lost House and Senate seats in all but two midterm elections since World War II.

“Any polling data you look at, the energy level difference between Democrats and Republicans is huge this year, with Democrats hyper-motivated and Republicans not so much, and independents breaking very solidly against the president and Republicans as well,” Cook said. “This midterm seems to be shaping up exactly like the historic norm.”

Ranked-choice voting

Cook also discussed his displeasure with the current voting system in the U.S., citing Maine and Alaska as two states that have successfully implemented ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice voting is an alternative voting system where if a candidate receives at least 50% of first-place votes, they win the election. If no candidate receives a majority, a series of instant run-off elections are held until a candidate receives 50%.

The purpose of ranked-choice voting is to fight against the United States’ two-party system by encouraging more third-party candidates, with the hope that Republicans and Democrats would look to appeal to a broader coalition.

“I think ranked choice is a good thing,” Cook said. “I think primaries where independents are allowed to vote in either party’s primary, I think that’s pretty healthy. Our system was designed by the founders, and it worked really well for 200 years, and for the last 50, it has not.”

Trump’s war with Iran has resumed (it never really stopped). The U.S. is sending more warplanes to the Middle East. Two American service members were killed in an Iranian missile attack on Jordan, and a third is missing. The Strait of Hormuz is again closed. Meanwhile, Mojtaba Khamenei issued his first statement following his father’s funeral, saying “revenge is the will of our nation” and that Iran would act against “criminals whose names are known.” In response, Trump threatened to “completely decimate and destroy” Iran if assassination threats against him were acted upon.

How long can Iran continue the war? Its economy appears reasonably stable; it has exported oil sufficient to meet its needs. Its population has become used to sanctions and economic pain, and has no voice, in any event. As shown by its attack on Jordan, as well as those on Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Syria, and Qatar, Iran has ample missile stocks and has also become more adept at evading U.S. air defense systems.

How long can the U.S. continue the war? America doesn’t have sufficient munitions to maintain the current bombing campaign indefinitely. World oil reserves are almost depleted, which means that continued blockage of the strait will cause even more economic pain. Oil has again topped $90 a barrel. Plus, there are midterm elections to think about.

So, what’s Trump’s likely next move? I’ve made the rounds of the foreign policy advisers and experts I consulted with in early March, asking what they believe Trump will do now.

Their responses are arrayed below. I’d appreciate hearing from you as well, about what you think Trump will do.

1. Continue the air strikes

Several believe the most likely scenario is for Trump to continue to rely on air strikes against Iran’s military, leadership, and infrastructure. The purpose of the strikes would be to further reduce Iran’s capacity to attack shipping targets, or at least obtain concessions at the bargaining table. The strikes would be aimed at Iran’s transportation infrastructure.

But Trump has pursued much of this strategy for months now. Iran hasn’t budged, and it has maintained its capacity to attack ships in the strait. This is also draining U.S. stockpiles of ammunition and leaving America unprepared for other conflicts around the world. It’s estimated that merely replacing the most crucial weapons expended in the Iran war so far will take at least three years of defense production.

Still, this strategy may be the least bad of several bad alternatives.

2. Make life in Iran impossible

A second scenario is for Trump to ramp up the bombing campaign to include attacks on Iran’s water infrastructure, such as dams and desalination plants — making life in Iran precarious and desperate.

But this could create a humanitarian catastrophe leading to mass deaths and a flood of refugees. It would also turn the world against the United States. In addition, Iran’s leaders have made clear that if the U.S. strikes the water infrastructure needed to keep their people alive, Iran will retaliate in kind against the Gulf States. It has already hit a water desalination plant in Kuwait. The U.S. would have difficulty defending Gulf States against this sort of attack.

Still, this strategy may be advocated by Trump’s most belligerent advisers, such as Pete Hegseth, who could convince Trump that it will show Iran and the world how tough and strong Trump and the U.S. are.

3. Launch a ground invasion

A third possibility is for the U.S. to invade Iran. This option can’t be ruled out, because Trump has mentioned it several times. Although highly risky, it’s the only option that could possibly achieve Trump’s stated objective of finding and destroying Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. Trump may also believe that, with the lives of American ground troops at stake, the U.S. public will rally around him, perhaps even giving Republicans an advantage in the midterm elections.

But the U.S. lacks the manpower and logistical support to mount a successful land invasion of Iran. Even seizing tiny Kharg Island would be highly risky, given Iran’s strategic advantage over the strait. Trump also knows that if he loses more American troops, public opinion could swing more sharply against him and his war.

Still, an invasion can’t be ruled out.

4. Declare victory and go home

The final option is for Trump simply to give in to Iran’s demands, declare that he has solved the problem and gotten the best deal imaginable, and walk away. The ill-fated “memorandum of understanding” was a move in this direction.

But Iran interpreted that agreement as giving it control over the strait — and still claims control. Allowing Iran to command the strait would leave the U.S. far more economically vulnerable than it was before February 28, when the strait was open and Trump launched his war. It’s hard to see how Trump could accept this humiliating outcome.

Still, Trump could decide that this is the least damaging option and hope to sell it as a win, figuring he can get a plurality of Americans to believe anything he says.

Hence, today’s Office Hours question: What will Trump do in Iran NOW?

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/

President Donald Trump’s economy is so bad, it is reminiscent of the economy under the doomed Republican presidency of Herbert Hoover — at least, according to one of Trump’s former advisers.

“We have a few major problems going on in America today,” Anthony Scaramucci, who briefly worked as Trump’s communications director during his first term, posted on X on Monday. He continued that there is an “affordability crisis — prices up across the board,” that Trump broke his promise to end “forever wars” by immersing America “in a quagmire in Iran” and that he continues to cover up his involvement with the late child sex trafficker and his longtime friend, pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

“That’s why his approval rating is at 33 [percent],” Scaramucci added. “As low as Herbert Hoover at the depths of the Great Depression.”

This is not the first time Scaramucci has slammed Trump’s performance on the economy and his seeming focus on only helping the rich. In May, Scaramucci argued that “if Barack Obama had done half of what Trump is doing now, Fox News would have been calling for impeachment.”.

He added, “Trump has no economic philosophy. He spent $8.2 trillion in his first term and he's on pace for $9 to $10 trillion in this one. We're at 100 percent debt to GDP held by investors — 122 percent if you count the Fed's balance sheet. Ray Dalio will tell you those numbers put you in sovereign debt crisis territory. And when that happens, the only way politicians are willing to pay for it is through inflation. Which is the cruelest possible outcome, because inflation is the worst tax you can impose on lower and middle income people.”

Earlier in May, Scaramucci observed that his own Wall Street friends are concerned about Trump’s economy.

"Trump is too dangerous,” Scaramucci observed. “It’s funny, all my Wall Street buddies voted for him and now they’re regretting the fact," although he later clarified that "most of the people are.”

"I’m of the belief that prices are higher,” Scaramucci argued. “We have an oil crisis. He imposed illegal tariffs, which raised the pricing umbrella for all the lower-middle-income people that voted for him. He’s put us in a very vulnerable state as a country and an economy. If you want to make the case that the banks have record profits in the short term, sure — but he’s also suing some of the banking executives. You are losing the predictive capability of our justice system — what our civil rights are, what our free speech rights are. It’s very, very bad for business."

Speaking with this author for Salon in 2018, Scaramucci made the case that Trump won the 2016 presidential election because of concerns about the economy.

“What I saw was in a generation we went from aspirational working class families, like the one I grew up in, to [desperate] working class families,” Scaramucci told this journalist at the time. “What I saw is a decline in wages causing some level of economic asphyxiation for a very large group of people. And so Trump being out there, going into those areas, explaining the policies that he’s going to put in place, and then executing on some of those policies. I mean it’s not me saying, it’s just go look at ‘The Wall Street Journal.’”

In June President Donald Trump endorsed Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), a far right Republican and backer of Trump’s debunked Big Lie about the 2020 election, to oppose incumbent Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA).

Now, according to one political reporter, Trump’s pick is putting the key swing state of Georgia in peril for the GOP.

“Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Collins enters the general election facing a challenge that goes beyond winning over swing voters: convincing Republicans in Georgia and Washington that he can defeat Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff,” wrote the Atlanta Journal Constitution's Greg Bluestein on Monday. “The GOP nominee trails in early polls, faces a massive fundraising disadvantage and carries the sort of political baggage that his rivals long warned could doom him in November against a rising Democratic star.”

Bluestein elaborated that Collins must simultaneously broaden his appeal beyond the base of hardcore Trump supporters and convince donors that giving to his campaign is not a lost cause. So far he has succeeded in the second goal, as the Republican Party’s Senate super PAC the Senate Leadership Fund announced a $44 million investment in April in the winner’s campaign. Yet the first task has proved more elusive, and Ossoff has maintained a lead in the polls.

“A measure of despair is seeping in,” Bluestein reported. “Even U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter, the race’s third-place finisher, acknowledged on SiriusXM that Collins was ‘way behind’ and warned that a poor showing could be a ‘drag at the top of the ticket.’” Although Rep. Carter later qualified his observation by pointing out that the race is still young, Bluestein pointed out that Trump’s political brand could prove to be a drag on the ticket.

“Ossoff decided early to cast the race as a referendum on Trump,” Bluestein reported. “But he is also taking the contest into deeply personal territory. Minutes after Collins clinched the nomination, Ossoff branded him a ‘notorious bigot, antisemite and extremist’ and released a video portraying him as a scandal-shadowed Trump lackey.”

In addition to these allegations, Collins has also been accused by the House Ethics Committee of misusing taxpayer funds so that his former top aide, Brandon Phillips, could engage in campaign work while drawing a government salary and arranged for his girlfriend to have a paid, no-show internship. Collins has denied the allegations.

In addition, after Collins fired Phillips, he hired a man named Kip Talley who became controversial after he promised to use “the levers of the legislative branch” to empower a Holocaust denier to be released from prison. Talley was also eventually let go, but that did not help Collins beat the suspicion of bigotry: His son-in-law was reported by CNN to have posted Nazi imagery, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and white nationalist propaganda on social media platforms.

And, of course, there remains Collins’ insistence that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, despite that claim being thoroughly debunked.

Polling expert Harry Enten observed in June that Collins is "starting to feel a whole lot like Herschel Walker 2.0," a reference to the football star-turned-politician who lost the 2022 Senate election because of his similar embrace of Trumpian conspiracy theories.

"Most Republicans, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, believe that the 2020 election was, in fact, stolen," Enten observed, noting that this view is not held by the general electorate.

"The Republican Party [is] all the way over on the right, and the rest of the American public is in the same camp, and the actual — this is the real world we're dealing with here," Enten explained.

Even conservatives have expressed reservations about Trump constantly harping about the 2020 election. Conservative podcaster Erick Erickson recently described Trump’s ongoing obsession with claiming the Georgia election was stolen as an “in-kind contribution to Ossoff’s campaign.”