american politics

Report exposes where Trump is desperately dumping money to avert disaster

As President Donald Trump's Republican Party candidates continue to struggle in the 2026 midterm elections, a new report reveals exactly what he is doing with the cash that is practically spilling out of GOP coffers in the month leading up to Election Day.

"President Trump’s super PAC and affiliates have injected tens of millions of dollars into pivotal Senate and House races just one month from Election Day as the GOP looks to keep control of Congress," reported The Hill's Caroline Vakil on Sunday.

Vakil added, "Trump’s MAGA Inc. and several affiliated groups — No Going Back PAC Inc. and Safety & Affordability PAC Inc. — have reported some of their biggest spending so far in the toss-up Ohio, Texas and Michigan Senate races. They have also spent heavily in a slew of competitive House races in states like Florida, New York, Michigan and Maine."

The journalist continued, "Political observers and candidates alike are keeping a close eye on Trump’s immense war chest and where he will spend next. As of late August, MAGA Inc. had $415 million on hand, and the president has pledged to spend between $400 million and $500 million in the midterms."

The fact that Trump has raised so much money for congressional candidates and yet has spent so little of it has raised questions about where the money is going. Speaking to AlterNet in September, former Trump communications director Anthony Scaramucci denounced Trump's overall approach to the presidency by arguing that he has viewed it as a moneymaking venture rather than as a public service.

"I think his endgame is to see if he can make another $10 to $20 billion for himself and then pardon himself and his family members. I think that's his endgame," Scaramucci told AlterNet. "I don't think he has a policy endgame. I don't think he cares a wick about any person that voted for him or even anybody in America. He certainly would like to leave some monuments to himself in Washington. I don't think he'll be successful in knocking down the Kennedy Center. He'll certainly be successful at building that ballroom. It'll remain indeterminate about the Trump arc, the triumph."

He added: "But Trump wants to name things after himself, he wants to make money and he wants attention. So look to see those people restored to the White House, Politico, CNN. He'll have to get them restored because they cut his air supply off. Even though he supposedly hates the journalists, he wants them there so he can get eyeballs and attention. But that's it. He doesn't have a policy endgame. He doesn't care about any of that stuff."

In July, a bombshell report raised the possibility that Trump is directly shaping his policies based on campaign contributions.

“Meredith O’Rourke, nicknamed ‘princess of darkness,’” helps Trump shape policies through his donors' contributions, reported The Wall Street Journal's Josh Dawsey, Dana Mattioli, Annie Linskey and Emily Glazer on Thursday.

“Trump asks O’Rourke which companies and donors have cut checks and which haven’t, and for how much,” the journalists continued. “He often asks her to make much larger financial requests than she was planning—for some donors the ask is $5 million, for others it is $50 million. And the president gives her names to call, often including people who have recently met with him, according to people with knowledge of the calls. “

Ex-staffer unloads on why Trump won't be the midterms' biggest loser

The midterms are widely predicted to be a disaster for the GOP as voters look to rebuke President Donald Trump, but as one of his former staffers wrote for MS NOW, he will not end up being the biggest loser in the event of a blue wave.

Matthew Bartlett previously served as a first-term appointee in Trump's State Department, but now works as a GOP strategist and media analyst, writing critiques of his former boss for places like MS NOW. On Sunday, he published his latest piece for the outlet, detailing his argument for why Trump will not be the one to suffer the most damage from a midterm wipeout, nor will it be any Republican on a ballot in November.

"Currently, the debate among Republicans is not whether the November elections will go badly, but how badly it will go," Bartlett wrote, adding later, "Yet the Republican with the most on the line come Election Day may not even be on the ballot: Vice President JD Vance."

Bartlett explained that Vance is facing increased resistance as the presumptive 2028 GOP nominee for president from party leaders, including Karl Rove, but the loyal GOP base remains committed to him, as demonstrated by chants of "48" when he spoke at the midterm convention. However, just because he might sail through the 2028 primary does not mean Vance is not running headlong into a big wall.

"But a primary walk for Vance may quickly turn to a general election crawl," Bartlett explained. "Vance’s presidential campaign may answer the question of what the fate of the Republican Party would have been if then-Vice President Dick Cheney had been the nominee in 2008 — equally unpopular as their president but possibly more unlikable."

He added later: "As the 2028 MAGA heir apparent, Vance will have to continue to parrot or attempt to excuse any erratic behavior or irrelevant idea Trump offers. There is a very real possibility he will be running in an even more toxic political environment for Republicans — all while he runs in and from Trump’s shadow. While 2026 is still unclear, it appears many Republicans are all but certain on Vance in 2028. But with Trump still as president, Vance’s fate in that race may already be certain as well."

Bartlett also highlighted reports indicating that another possible 2028 frontrunner, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has seen the writing on the wall and told those close to him that the landscape will be too toxic for Republicans to survive in 2028. Instead of running in the next cycle, Rubio has suggested that he might hold off until 2032 or 2036.

Red state parents lash out at Trump: 'Never had this problem before'

When President Donald Trump sought a second term in the 2024 election, nearly three out of five Nebraskans voted to put him back in office. Now many of those same Nebraskans are struggling to make ends meet because of one of Trump's signature programs — and they are talking about it.

"The DHHS website states that approval of a subsidy for eligible families 'may take up to six weeks to complete,'" reported the Nebraska Examiner's Cindy Gonzalez on Sunday. "The full cost may be covered. Depending on income, some may owe a monthly fee paid directly to a qualified provider. The provider bills DHHS for the remainder."

Gonzalez continued, "A DHHS spokesman acknowledged a 'temporary' increase in processing times for programs including childcare subsidy approvals — and said it stems partly from stepped up eligibility restrictions called for in President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which Congress approved in July 2025."

Gonzalez also quoted spokesman Jeff Powell, who explained that the delays have occurred because "the move away from the honor system to verification for certain eligibility criteria is requiring more staff time to process."

As one example of a suffering Nebraskan, Gonzalez told the story of Josh Wiggington.

"Josh Wigginton and his wife each went to work Friday," Gonzalez wrote. "One dropped off daughter Nayeli at their childcare center, which transports the 7-year-old to school and back. The other parent picked her up after the work day."

She added, "It’s a longtime routine that nearly collapsed earlier in the week due to what Wigginton said was an unusually long delay by the state to reauthorize the family’s annual childcare subsidy."

Wiggington told Gonzalez, "We’ve never had this problem before. An email to our caseworker came back undeliverable. I’ve been calling. I get hung up on. … I’m nervous.”

Speaking to AlterNet in August, University of Bristol cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowky explained why so many rural voters support Trump even though his economic policies ultimately wind up hurting them.

"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," Lewandowsky explained. "There's so much tied up in this. There's latent racism. There's religion. There's the general conservative idea that poor people are — it's their fault, they're just lazy, everybody is responsible for what happens to them… except me, because I'm a farmer, and therefore I'm not lazy, and I've tried everything, and I deserve a subsidy."

He continued, "There's a lot of attitudes and underlying currents tied up in this that are difficult to disentangle. But, as you said before, there is an angle of racism that I think is underlying pretty much all of this misogyny. If you sort of give an instrument to people that measures their racism and misogyny, well, it tells you about who they're gonna vote for and all that kind of stuff pretty well."

Writing for The Bulwark in June, conservative commentator Jonathan V. Last broke down an ethnographic study of Trump voters which ascertained that many of them are willing to economically suffer as long as they perceive other groups they dislike as hurting more.

“As a wise man once said: They are who we thought they were,” Jonathan V. Last wrote regarding a May study sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Agora Institute. “I want to go deep on this question because the people in the study describe a remarkable consistency about why they dislike democracy. It’s not that they’re misled, or mistaken. They have a coherent worldview. It’s just not very nice.”

Describing the average group of Trump voters as “a minority under threat from a tyrannical majority” who “believe that there is a cultural schism in America, with good, God-fearing people like themselves on one side and the wicked majority on the other. They detest this imaginary majority and fear that ‘democracy’ would allow that majority to gain political power," he continued, “We are firmly out of the realm of policy here. Or reality, even."

He concluded, "So long as there is a trans activist in San Francisco posting on BlueSky, these people will be aggrieved. Even if their preferred political party holds the presidency, controls Congress, and has an openly corrupt majority in the Supreme Court. Domination of the political system is not enough; they want the people who disgust them to disappear.”

Top Supreme Court expert says Trump's attacks and tantrums are backfiring

President Donald Trump has launched numerous attacks against the Supreme Court and had numerous tantrums when they do not rule his way, but as one top court expert told CNN, this assault is almost certainly backfiring.

Joan Biskupic is an author and reporter known for her extensive coverage of the Supreme Court dating back to 1989, having published numerous biographies of the court's justices. On Sunday, she appeared as a guest on CNN, where host Manu Raju pressed her about the situation surrounding the court, and in particular, how much Trump's increasing attacks against it are likely to sway its rulings.

As Biskupic explained, the criticisms do concern the justices to a certain degree, but they also have a way of emboldening them, in a way likely to blow up in Trump's face.

"Well, they don't like the criticism. And what they worry about is that it gins up people on the outside," she explained. "That would additionally harass the justices at a time when they're so concerned about security... But I think overall, none of them like the kind of atmosphere that they're in now, where they're getting so much criticism."

She added later: "But what it does for some of them, including, I think, the Chief Justice, is it's a little bit of a badge of honor. Because, you know, Chief Justice John Roberts and several of his conservative colleagues are often seen as, you know, in the bag for Donald Trump, that they're only ruling for Donald Trump. They're not. They've given Donald Trump plenty, but when the president criticizes them, they can say, 'See, he doesn't like us either.'"

Biskupic also noted that the increasing barrage of criticism from Trump has the court, and Roberts in particular, fearful that future leaders may expand the number of justices on the court as part of a broader reform plan. They worry that appearing to rule in lockstep with Trump would accelerate that possibility.

"What they also fear is, especially from progressives and moderates, is the idea that there are proposals out there for court expansion, for court packing," Biskupic said. "And they see that as a real threat to their integrity. So they're trying — the chief justice, John Roberts, is trying to navigate a course where he is very conservative, and he is ruling for a lot of the president's initiatives, but he doesn't want the court to be seen as linking arms with Donald Trump."

Conservative says 'narrowing' divide spells doom for GOP in major red state

President Donald Trump relied on the support of white evangelical voters to win both of his presidential elections, in 2016 and 2024 — but a conservative writer argued on Sunday that he and his fellow Republicans may be gradually losing these same religious voters.

After describing the surprising strength of Democratic nominee James Talarico compared to Republican candidate Ken Paxton in the Texas Senate election, The New York Times' David French wrote that "to understand the religious dynamics of the Texas race, it’s important to absorb the true depths of the “God gap” in American politics. That gap isn’t just about white evangelicals (although it certainly is partly about them), and it’s one of the Democrats’ chief obstacles to obtaining a durable political majority."

French continued, "Any discussion of the God gap does have to begin with white evangelicals. Their numbers are vast (far more than twice as large as Black Protestants, the most loyal religious Democratic voters), and they vote in lock step. In 2024, white evangelicals voted for Trump by a 65-point margin, 82 percent to 17 percent. Trump lost all other voters by 18 points, 58 percent to 40 percent."

Although religious groups voted more heavily Republican in 2024 than in previous elections, French speculated that this may have had less to do with a permanent shift in party allegiances than in the possibility that "people of faith may not be lost to Democrats forever so much as they’re punishing Democrats — warning with their votes against the secularization and social radicalization of the far left." To support this hypothesis, he noted that President Joe Biden outperformed Vice President Kamala Harris considerably among these groups between 2020 and 2024.

French is not alone in noting that the Christian right is losing political clout and that religious voters may swing toward the Democrats. Last month, The Bulwark's Joe Perticone wrote that, ever since national abortion rights were overturned in the 2022 Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson, Christian right organizations that relied on the abortion issue to galvanize voters have been struggling instead.

"One of the major subplots in American politics over the past half-decade is evangelical Christians—the political constituency without which Trump would have never been elected president—becoming the dog that caught the car," Perticone explained. "They just haven’t had much reason to go to the polls since June 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned the legal right to an abortion in its landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision."

Trump's behavior has also turned off some Christian voters. For example, John Whitehead – founder of the powerful Christian legal movement – has argued that the movement has “gone astray" in the Trump era.

Trump's greed 'moving the needle' like never before with fed-up voters

President Donald Trump's myriad corruption scandals are now having tangible political consequences — that is, according to one politics expert, they are costing him loads of votes.

"Corruption is moving the needle whenever voters are focused on the explosion of greed and self-enrichment by Trump and his family—easily the worst in presidential history," Larry Sabato, a political scientist and political analyst, posted on X on Sunday.

Speaking with AlterNet in September about the 2026 midterm elections, polling expert Kyle Kondik from Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball explained why Trump and his Republican Party are at a structural disadvantage.

"It's primarily the president's weak approval rating combined with the usual difficulty that the presidential party has in a midterm," Kondik explained. "I also think there may be even more for voters to react to in 2026 compared to even 2018, because Trump has acted as more of an imperial president and there is more dissatisfaction both with the economy as well as the president's foreign policy choices."

Even longtime trump supporters like right-wing podcaster Joe Rogan have turned against Trump, at least when it comes to issues like his corruption. Rogan in particular criticized Trump for earning more than $2 billion since beginning his second term, much of it in cryptocurrency.

"I think part of what's going on here, Nicole, is, number one, the scale and obvious nature of this corruption is much simpler of a story to tell than some of the more bank-shot corruption of the first term," Ben Rhodes, a former Obama administration national security adviser, told MS NOW's Nicolle Wallace on Sunday. "You know, Saudis paying a lot of money to stay in Trump hotel rooms or something like that. The scale [this time] is billions of dollars, and it's pretty clear when you juice, like, a meme coin, and then it collapses in value, and you walk away with a lot of money and all the people that you convinced to invest in it walk away losing a lot of money. Well, that's an easy story to tell. So that's the first thing: the scale of it and how clear it is."

Speaking to AlterNet in September, Dr. Justin Wolfers — a non-resident senior fellow at Brookings and the Peterson Institute and a University of Michigan professor of economics and public policy — explained how Trump's corruption hurts ordinary Americans economically.

"The problem with the Trump family corruption — and not all of it's the legal definition of corruption, by the way; some of it meets the standard English-language definition, if not a legal definition — is what you do is you change the nexus of competition," Wolfers told AlterNet. "If the best way for me to get ahead is to go to the White House bearing gifts, and then they pass a rule and they ban you from competing against me, then that means the basic dynamics of competition and markets delivering good outcomes for regular folks just gets broken."

He added, "That in turn means that if I'm the CEO of a company, I spend less time trying to create products at lower prices, trying to outcompete, or less time creating new or better products. And I spend more time and energy at Mar-a-Lago trying to win over the favor of the president. That means bad products will win. That means expensive products will win. And the way I tell the story, compare Tim Cook's job at Apple to Steve Jobs' job at Apple."

Vital tools for Trump accountability devolved into 'a circus': legal scholars

Congressional hearings ought to be vital tools to help "educate the public," inform lawmakers and hold corrupt leaders like Donald Trump to account, but as two legal scholars wrote for The Hill, they have been allowed to devolve into "a circus" with little value.

Writing for the outlet on Sunday, legal scholar David Wippman and historian Glenn C. Altschuler argued that lawmakers in the Trump era have "used oversight hearings to generate publicity and criticize administration officials of the other party, while witnesses tout their policies and dodge difficult questions." Ultimately, the belief that the hearings will not carry real consequences has done much to degrade them, and Congress has "lacked the will" to fix the issue.

"These days, oversight hearings have degenerated into partisan brawls," Wippman and Altschuler wrote. "Confident they will not be disciplined by committee chairs from their own party, administration witnesses often launch personal attacks instead of answering legitimate questions."

They added: "Congress need not permit its hearings to turn into a circus. It has the power to control witnesses and compel testimony. But in today’s hyperpartisan environment, it lacks the will."

The pair called out lawmakers from both sides of the aisle for this state of affairs. They criticized Democrats for their handling of a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for FBI Director Kash Patel, when leadership allowed them to spend much of their time attacking his lack of qualifications for the job and his involvement in "secret, insidious, and downright evil operations."

"Offensive questions and comments from some committee members, however, do not obviate administration officials’ obligation to provide Congress with the information it needs to fulfill its legislative and oversight responsibilities," the pair explained. "But instead of directing Patel to respond appropriately to legitimate questions, [GOP Sen. Chuck] Grassley let the hearing run its course."

They added later: "Congress bears some responsibility for this problem. Members deliver speeches disguised as questions, trade insults with witnesses, and grandstand for social media. Committee chairs tolerate evasive and insulting responses, despite repeated complaints from members of the other party. Under Trump, committee chairs appear to treat alignment with the administration as far more important than safeguarding Congress’s institutional prerogatives and responsibilities."

They argued that Congress could begin to "claw back" the power of these hearings if committee chairs were willing to "subpoena those who refuse to testify, direct witnesses to answer pertinent questions, and pursue contempt proceedings against uncooperative witnesses." They lamented, however, that with Republicans in charge of both chambers of Congress, meaningful reforms seem "out of reach."

Trump's abuses of power may become permanent — because of Democrats

President Donald Trump's myriad abuses of power are likely to outlast his presidency, some experts warn — and that is because Democrats will want to use them for themselves.

"Tiffany Justice, executive vice president of the conservative group Heritage Action, pointed to this history to dismiss talk of post-Trump reforms, saying the president is doing nothing Democratic presidents have not done and predicting that Democrats’ plans will go nowhere," reported The Washington Post's Naftali Bendavid on Sunday.

“They are full of baloney — I don’t think Democrats would ever limit the power of a Democratic president. The idea of Democrats saving democracy, it’s nonsense," Justice told Bendavid on Sunday.

Michael Waldman, president of the liberal-leaning think tank Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, expressed a similar concern to The Washington Post.

“Throughout American history, reform follows scandal. It does not always follow scandal, but that’s when it happens. I think there will be a real hunger, I hope from both parties, to write into law some of the protections that were assumed to be there before," Waldman told Bendavid.

“It will be very tempting for Democrats to say, ‘Oh, you think we are going to limit our abuse of the Justice Department? We don’t want to be suckers,’” Waldman argued. “But I think that would be a big mistake. Everybody benefits when the rule of law is in play across the government.”

According to Bendavid, Democrats are proposing various measures that they say will curb future corrupt presidents, although none of them will have a plausible chance of being passed unless a Democrat is also in the White House.

"Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor and potential Democratic presidential candidate, recently released an ethics proposal for all three branches of government that would ban trading stocks and betting in prediction markets, require a blind trust for anyone worth more than $1 million, and forbid individuals from accepting foreign gifts," Bendavid wrote. "Trump has traded millions of dollars worth of individual stocks since taking office and famously accepted the gift of an aircraft from the Qatari government."

The journalist continued, "And Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) has introduced a No Political Enemies Act, forbidding executive branch officials from prosecuting or punishing individuals or groups for their speech, something Trump has done relatively openly."

Earlier in October, New Republic deputy editor Jason Linkins argued that Trump's recent flurry of ads reflects his growing political desperation as Americans become disenchanted with his presidency, including his corruption.

"I also think, if anything, this fusillade of propaganda will likely backfire," Linkins argued. "These ads haven’t generated good news for Trump; very few people outside of the administration and its obvious sycophants have tried to defend them. Moreover, the media seems resistant to give this story the 'both sides' treatment. As with Trump’s 25-minute prime-time ramble last July, the political press seems wise to what’s going on. Of that aforementioned speech, TNR editor Michael Tomasky said, the overall reaction to the president’s attempt to shine us on 'tells us that that power he had over people and institutions a year or 15 months ago has evanesced.' I think these PSAs do little else than advertise that fact."

'He's a maniac': Psychiatrist catalogs the red flags in Trump's behavior

Back in May, a group of 36 health professionals wrote an open letter to Congress warning that President Donald Trump is in a state of cognitive decline. Even though the medical and political communities were willing to call out President Joe Biden's apparent decline during the 2024 election, Trump has received an inexplicable and inexcusable pass for his own obvious infirmities. Individuals are willing to sound the alarm, of course, but nothing has occurred on a systematic level to alert the American people to the fact that their president is psychologically unwell.

Below is AlterNet's exclusive interview with psychiatrist Dr. Henry Abraham, formerly of Tufts University, who said that Trump is literally a "maniac" because he displays manic traits like posting on social media late into the night. He also broke down Trump's tendency to ramble, his grandiosity and his obsession with his predecessor, President Barack Obama.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity, context and length.

Proof that Trump is in decline.

ROZSA: Can you describe, as a clinician, the symptoms you've observed of Trump experiencing seeming decline?

ABRAHAM: Oh, sure. There's a bunch off the top of my head. I'm sure I can do it.

Let me start off: The real question here is, what is baseline and what is decline? Those kinds of questions, of course, are very difficult to pin down. But having observed him for a long time, and also talking to people who have also observed him professionally in the same room with him, which I've done, I can come up with a certain number — 10 or 11 — psychiatric symptoms that are, for me, red flags. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to recognize a red flag.

I like to use the metaphor here of a man in a supermarket. He's getting in line in a supermarket, and he has a basket full of food, and he smashes it into the woman in front of him, because she has more food than he does and it's going to take a long time and he's in a rush — and what's she doing buying so much food, and get out of the way, and she's a terrible person, and I'm really in a rush and I'm far more important than she is. And he pushes it, and he really shoves her with the shopping cart. Now, if you saw that, you would say — well, you'd probably call the police, because it's really a bizarre kind of thing. But that's the whole point. It's a bizarre kind of thing. It's crazy. It's a red flag.

Now, those kinds of red flags are obvious to you because you're in the supermarket and people usually don't behave that way. And to a clinician, it's obviously a red flag. In fact, we can begin to think about various psychiatric disorders which might explain that behavior. And that's the interesting challenge here, because we really can't make a diagnosis without looking at all the facts and, of course, having the patient in some form cooperate with the examination. So we can't come away with a diagnosis, but we can come away with, "Geez, this is a symptom which is a red flag to us, and we should pursue it and we should note it and we should not forget about it."

And that's the situation that nearly all of us in the medical profession are in with respect to Donald Trump. We see red flags, we know what causes those red flags, but we don't know the specific proximate cause of the red flag. So that's the preamble.

The red flags that really jump out at me — there are a bunch. First and foremost is he falls asleep at really inopportune times. He seems to be doing it virtually every day. And yet he's up all night in a very disordered frame of mind. So how do you explain those kinds of things? Well, there are any number of explanations. We don't really have good explanations, but we do know they're red flags.

No one stays up half the night tweeting 50 or 75 or 150 times and has a normal mental status examination. If a patient comes in to me and says, "Oh, I've been up all night and I've tweeted a hundred times," I would say, "Oh, okay, that's a red flag. That's a manic behavior." There are many causes of manic behavior, and nearly all of them are treatable with proper treatment. But also manic behavior is invariably self-defeating and in many situations absolutely dangerous. So that's the first red flag: This guy is up all night, he's manic, and he's out of gas during the day and he falls asleep.

And what is the explanation for that? Well, there are a number of explanations. He could be hyped up on stimulant drugs at night. He might have a sleep disorder which prevents him from sleeping when he's pacing the halls with his laptop and says, "Oh, I can't stop thinking about Letitia James."

But actually that merges into another red flag. It's not simply that he can't sleep, or that he's awake or supercharged by some medical explanation like stimulant drugs or coffee or too much Diet Coke — I mean, any number of explanations here. But he's pathologically hyped up and manic. In fact, the noun for this is maniac. He's a maniac at night, but he's not a maniac during the day, generally. So it's a nocturnal form of mania which remains to be explained.

Let's move on, because a lot of this stuff is at night. Another red flag is his inability to control his rage. And this is pretty dangerous stuff. If he's alone at night and he's in one of these rageful states — well, he has sole access to nuclear weapons. He could, on his own, launch a nuclear attack against whatever enemy he chooses, and he has a few, but Iran comes to mind, since he's started a war with Iran. That's a very dangerous thing. In fact, that's probably the most dangerous. That probably goes at the top of my list of abnormalities of mental function which threaten literally hundreds of millions of people.

That was just number one.

ROZSA: That's number one?

ABRAHAM: That's number one. So mania, plus rage, plus access to nuclear weapons is not a healthy combination.

Other aspects that worry me, besides those worries, are that periodically he seems to be disoriented. He doesn't know where to walk. He needs to be literally led by the arm by world leaders, who have to treat him like the demented grandfather that he probably is. I mean, dementia per se has many different causes. You can say, "Oh, he has Alzheimer's disease" — probably not; at least he doesn't have a flagrant, advanced and undeniable Alzheimer's disease. If we saw his MRI, we'd say, "Oh, well, he has cortical atrophy," or he has various other radiologic evidence that he has developing dementia with organic features that actually are visible. That would be confirmatory. But we don't have that.

We also don't have the actual results of his mental state screens, the so-called MoCA examinations — the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test. It's a test which is administered in 10 minutes, and anyone can be trained to give it, and it doesn't require great expertise to give or to add up the score. It takes some skill to understand what you're looking at. Ordinarily, the MoCA is a test that we give just once — this person is coming in, how are things going? We don't do serial MoCAs, usually. If we have a need to follow someone's mental status, we don't necessarily just use a MoCA, any more than if someone came in and took their temperature and we said, "Oh, you have a fever" — we're not going to take the temperature every day. We're going to find out what the cause of the fever is.

If we're doing it on a regular basis, like once a year, well, that's a routine physical exam. If we're doing it every three months, we're looking for fever. And the same thing is true with the MoCA. If we're repeating the MoCA frequently — which we've done, I think, now four times since he's been in public office — we're obviously tracking a number. And that number could be mild cognitive impairment. It could be a significant cognitive impairment in someone who has a dementia, which is my greatest worry here.

And you can have a guy who puts a proposal together for a press conference, or reads a teleprompter and delivers a speech. But then, in the middle or at the end of his reading of the teleprompter, he has an aside or a discursive kind of discussion, and he's talking about things that just literally don't track with what he's supposed to be talking about. He's off in outer space. Or he's not in outer space, he's just in the wrong space. He's talking about Tesla, or electric vehicles, and then he's talking about electric boats, and he's talking about falling in the water, and he's talking about being attacked by sharks or maybe he'll die from electrocution — which would he prefer? And what was the topic again?

This is another red flag, and this is called tangentiality. He's tangential. He's not always tangential, but he's tangential enough to say he's tangential. He has a symptom. It's a red flag. Someone is tangential and comes into the office and exhibits that, you write it down. You don't ignore it. And you see it fits with other aspects of mental illness.

And so there he is in a press conference, and he's annoyed by someone who's questioning him, and he says, "Quiet, piggy." Now, that's really interesting. I mean, besides being offensive — we all know it's offensive — to a clinician, it's interesting, because this is someone who is in the middle of a professional kind of exchange, and he has his feelings about it, and that's fair. But he can't stop himself from the thought that pops into his head. He can't control it. In fact, he can't inhibit — the inhibitory circuits that we all walk around with, so we don't walk around telling fat people "Quiet, piggy," they're broken down.

He has another red flag here, and that red flag is disinhibition. He can't hold himself back from what he thinks is either mirthful or hurtful, or in some way it expresses a deep-seated emotion which he doesn't understand is not a socially acceptable way to engage people. It's not that he necessarily has to be like some spook from the State Department who never says anything ever until they retire. We're not talking about that. We're talking about ordinary conversation, where he loses control of an emotion that he's having.

The other day, when he was in the Oval Office — it was a home game — he was receiving the astronauts from the Artemis expedition. They were standing there, and the head of NASA was there; he was proud of his guys. And Trump was not, as far as I could tell, using a teleprompter. He was being cordial, and he was in a good mood. They're his guys. And they'd just come back from the moon, and it was a feather in everyone's cap. He was very proud. He was very pleased with what was going on. And he was doing a good job. He was being Mr. President, and he was being congratulatory, and he even was a little patronizing to one of the members of the press, when he admitted he hadn't read a certain document — which he certainly did. And I certainly knew about it, because it was a terribly important decision by the Supreme Court which had come down. And: "I don't know about it; maybe you can explain it to me." That was a little patronizing, but okay, big deal.

So he goes through the press conference and he's doing a great job. And then all of a sudden, he starts talking about the ears of the head of NASA. He says, "Oh yes, look at those ears, they're really big ears, you know?" He does have big ears, that's true. But who says such a thing? He can't keep himself from that loss of control. He can't do what other people do in ordinary circumstances.And so that's a red flag. That's disinhibition. He can't control his impulses. Pretty soon we can put it together: He's tangential, he has rage attacks, he can't control his emotions, and he has his finger on the button. These things begin to snowball in a way that's quite worrisome.

Other red flags:

ABRAHAM: One of his other red flags is that he is grandiose. Now, he's always been grandiose. And so one of the questions that I asked my friend who has been following him for some time as a journalist, a member of the White House press corps — I asked this person, who will remain anonymous: "I'm going to give you a dozen or so symptoms, and I'd like you to go through them all and tell me if any of them are the same or have gotten better or have gotten worse in the last year." And the report that I got from the person who sees him every day is that half of them have definitely gotten worse, and they're the ones that I am most interested in tracking.

One of them that has gotten particularly worse is grandiosity. He always had a grandiose side to him. He always exaggerated his sexual prowess, or talked about how intelligent he was, and he's always the smartest person in the room, and all this kind of stuff — which has very interesting psychological roots to it, which we speculate about. But regardless of the speculation — set speculation aside and see what's in front of us. And what's in front of us is the guy who dresses himself up like the Pope.

He can say, "Well, I'm just joking." I don't think so, because in another image of himself that he put on Truth Social, he was healing the sick, like Christ. And a third, which is my favorite of this whole bunch that he's put out, is Donald Trump shaking hands with God. Now, if I were to make this up, you'd say, "Well, this crazy idea — he couldn't sell this idea as a piece of fiction to my agent." That would not be a sellable concept. But it's real. He actually did this. He shook hands with God. He photographed himself shaking hands with God, and he posted it to his millions of followers.

Well, okay, what does this say? One of my colleagues, a Catholic, saw the image of him as Pope, and he was incensed by it, of course. He said, "This is blasphemous." He's not a psychiatrist, by the way. And I said to myself: blasphemy, yes, but psychopathology, yes, squared. This is more than blasphemy. This is a meaningful clinical presentation of a symptom, a red flag that we need to pay attention to. And so my friend in the press corps said to me, "The grandiosity has definitely gotten worse in the last year."

Okay, let's go back to the drawing board. Your question was, are there signs that this person is mentally deteriorating? Well, we know that the grandiosity is a pathological symptom, and now we have a report by someone who sees him every day that yes, it's gotten worse. So we tick that box in terms of progressive mental illness, and then we try to fit it in as a piece of the puzzle with other pieces of the puzzle. So he's disinhibited, he has rage, he's sometimes disoriented, so he has trouble getting around.

There are other pieces of the story. One of them is that sometimes he just doesn't make sense. It's not like he's following a tangent and going off in outer space; he's just speaking incoherently. He seems to be trying to make a point, but the points come in fragments, and you say, "Oh, this is a guy who's not able to speak logically." That's a red flag. So we put that down on the list of things, and his illogicality has been increasing as well.

So we have disinhibition, we have poor logic, we have tangential speech, we have disorientation. Now, let's talk about the 2020 election. If someone comes in and complains of a belief that they have, that they've had for a while, that doesn't change — it's fixed — and, most importantly, it's false, it's disproven by overwhelming and contradictory evidence, you have to say, at the very least, this is a fixed idea, as we say in the trade. But more likely than not, it's a delusion. And so if he truly believes that he won the 2020 election, despite overwhelming contradictory evidence, he's deluded. This may be dementia, but it can also be consistent with psychosis. So this is a big, big red flag.

Now, you could argue that, well, maybe this is an enduring political lie, the kinds of lies that most of the world's dictators and despots have told in order to build their base of power. And it's a possibility; it's consistent. But there's no evidence that he comes off the podium and says, on a hot mic, or to one of his staffers and someone else overhears, "Well, I really put one over there. I know I lost the 2020 vote." No, he doesn't say that at all.

If we take him at his word and he believes he won the election, he's deluded, and that's not a good sign. And there are many other things that he says: COVID will be gone in a week. If you just treated it with sunlight, that'll be the best treatment. There are other kinds of things which he seems to believe, but they don't necessarily rise to the occasion of anything that has the delusional power that the belief about that 2020 election does.

So his grip on reality either is stock in trade, or he's putting one over on everyone, or he's putting one over on himself, and that's the scariest possible explanation.

So what else about this guy is interesting to me? His memory is not good. He doesn't hang on to words and language the way he used to. There are people who have studied his language 40 years ago. His command of the language has become less competent over time. There was a very nice clip of speech of his, several decades old, where he could insert a dependent clause in the middle of a paragraph that he was speaking and then come back to the independent clause in a really expeditious way. He doesn't do that anymore. If he comes up with a dependent clause, he's lost. And this is not a good sign. It also is a benchmark of a deterioration in cognitive function.

Let me say that there are any number of medical explanations for the signs and symptoms of his deterioration. We don't know what they are. They could be as benign as simple aging, or they could be as serious as untreated neurosyphilis. We don't know the answer to those questions because of a lack of transparency by his caregivers. And I think that is a huge problem for the governance of the country.

Trump is intimidated by Obama.

ROZSA: When I interviewed Governor Chris Christie in 2019, he told me about Trump, "Every negotiation can't be a test of manhood. Every negotiation can't be a beat-down." Do you have a sense of why Trump treats every negotiation like a test of manhood and like a beat-down?

ABRAHAM: Well, actually, I have a slightly different take on that. I believe that much of what he's been doing as president is tearing down the legacy of Barack Obama. And I think the heart of that is because Trump is many things, but one of the things is he's a racist. And I think he has such a terrible problem with low self-esteem. He's always been the dumbest kid in the class. He's been told he's been dumb his whole life. And he's been told he's been a jerk his whole life. So what do you do when you're confronted with that kind of self-concept? Well, one very primitive way is to turn it upside down and say, "I'm not the dumbest person, because I'm the smartest. I know more about COVID than anyone. I know more about nuclear weapons than anyone. I'm a perfectly stable genius." What he's really saying is he feels the complete opposite. And we see the complete opposite, and that seems to be the problem.

But the thing with Obama — I really believe that that's the case. I think in his heart of hearts, he says, "I can't let a Black man actually do better in his job than I'm doing. And so anything that he's accomplished, I'm going to destroy one way or another." And he has been doing that, literally.

Trump reboots his most brazen scandal —and nobody's stopping him this time

President Donald Trump has been so corrupt during his second term, a recent report indicates that scandals that set the political world on fire during his first term are barely attracting attention now.

"When President Trump decided in his first term to host the annual Group of 7 summit of world leaders at his own private golf club in Miami, the act of self-dealing was so astonishing that it incited an uproar among fellow Republicans, forcing him to scrap the idea," reported The New York Times' Peter Baker on Sunday. "Now in his second term seven years later, Mr. Trump has decided to host the Group of 20 annual summit of world leaders at his private golf club in Miami in December — and this time the plan has generated practically no protest."

Baker added, "The unprecedented blitz of self-enrichment by Mr. Trump, his family and his friends since he returned to the White House last year has become so extensive, so profligate and so brazen that he has effectively moved the goal posts of what is considered out of bounds. An act that was deemed an outrage in 2019 is barely noticed in 2026."

The reporter cited a number of examples of Trump's over-the-top corruption in his second term including enriching himself by $2.2 billion since it started, accepting a luxury jet from Qatar, having his own administration grant him immunity from back-taxes he might owe, filing a trademark for Trump TV even as he supports it with taxpayer money and using taxpayer dollars to launch campaign advertisements for himself and his Republican Party during the upcoming midterm elections.

"The decision to bring the leaders of the G20 nations and their considerable entourages to Trump National Doral Miami from Dec. 14 to 15 in some ways offers the most clear-cut case study of how the standards have changed, not just from other presidencies but from Mr. Trump’s own first term," Baker reported. He then quoted Paul Rosenzweig, who served as senior counsel to Ken Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton.

“Let’s be honest — in the world of all the bad things he’s done, this is pretty small,” Rosenzweig told Baker. “But it is a really good, easily understood example of how he has defined deviancy down.”

Last month, a poll revealed that Americans are increasingly upset by the perceived corruption in the government under Trump.

"Breaking: @Gallup has dropped a new poll that’s consistent with our own corruption survey findings: the American public’s alarm over political corruption is at record highs and is driving broader distrust in government," the Brennan Center's Daniel Weiner posted on X at the time. As the Gallup Poll wrote, "Americans’ perceptions of government corruption in the U.S. are at their highest level in 20 years, with 89 [percent] of U.S. adults saying it is widespread. That figure is up 10 percentage points from last year and well above readings in the 72 [percent] to 79 [percent] range between 2010 and 2025."

One irony about Trump focusing on his golf courses to make money is that Trump is notorious for cheating while playing his favorite game. Sports journalist Rick Reilly, an expert on golf who wrote a book about Trump’s relationship with the sport called "Commander in Cheat," wrote that Trump was infamous among caddies for cheating as well as stiffing club members and staff.

Trump secretly believes he's stupid — and is scared you'll find out: biographer

President Donald Trump has a deep, dark fear, according to a journalist who has spent years studying the man — and it is that people will discover he is quite literally stupid.

"Trump’s fear of this is so great, Michael Wolff tells the Inside Trump’s Head Podcast that the president’s college transcripts may very well be what Russian President Vladimir Putin holds over him," reported The Daily Beast's Sarah-Jane Collins on Sunday. "Wolff says the theory is not just his, adding that former Trump adviser Steve Bannon raised the same possibility."

During the podcast, Wolff observed that “Steve Bannon and I were talking about what Putin might have on Trump, and Bannon went through all the things dismissing them. He said, what I think he has on him are his college transcripts.”

Wolff's co-host, Joanna Coles, pointed out that despite numerous efforts from journalists, the public has yet to see either Trump's high school transcripts or his college transcripts.

“We haven’t seen his high school transcripts. We haven’t seen either of his college transcripts,” Coles told Wolff. “They have been so successful in locking that stuff down. And, you know, if they were good, he would have floated them out there immediately.”

Wolff continued, “I think top of his list, top of the things that plagues him is being seen as stupid, for one reason: Because he is stupid.”

Coles added that the purpose of this speculation is to understand Trump, not to shame him for his potential intellectual deficiencies.

“We should say that the point of going through these fears is to understand why he is as he is, because actually, he’s a man that’s been created through his fears,” Coles said.

Trump has often fixated on his supposed intelligence as a way of boasting to voters. In September, when Trump was criticized for not supporting AI regulations, he pointed to his brain as a reason why voters did not need to worry.

“The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, “and the USA has that, in spades!”

Also in September, Wolff said that Trump's intellectual insecurities explain why he repeatedly hires incompetent people to staff his administration — namely, so that he won't feel inferior to them.

"Speaking on the Inside Trump’s Head podcast, Trump biographer Michael Wolff said, 'This is not a secret,'" reported The Daily Beast's Erkki Forster at the time, noting of Trump's Secretary of Defense that “Pete Hegseth is a... blithering incompetent... yes-man, a suck-up, a man who... knows nothing, and no logic would say he would know enough to run the military-industrial complex."

Wolff added that Hegseth's "primary qualification is that he was... a weekend television co-host. So what in the name of God would he know about running... the United States military... at a moment... in which we are in the middle of a, basically, a revolution in terms of munitions, logistics, and supply.”

He continued, “Pete Hegseth is in this job because Donald Trump is intimidated by competence. It’s not just that he doesn’t want to be bossed around by people; it’s that he can’t deal with people who know things because—for the obvious reason—because he doesn’t know things.”

In August Wolff also said that “he’s filled the administration of the second term with unqualified people, morons of one variety or another, because he can’t have people who are clearly smarter than he is.”

When AlterNet reached out to the White House in May regarding a letter signed by three dozen health professionals alleging that Trump is mentally incompetent, a spokesperson attacked the credibility of the signatories.

“If it quacks like a duck, it may actually just be a Democrat hack doctor,” Davis Ingle told AlterNet. “President Trump is the sharpest, most accessible, and energetic president in American history and any so-called medical professionals engaging in armchair diagnosis or false speculation for political purposes are clearly breaking the Hippocratic Oath they’ve sworn to.”

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