judge boasberg

Trump’s pick in Graham race goes down in flames — with his own MAGA voters

An endorsement by President Donald Trump in South Carolina appears to be falling flat with Trump’s own voters in the weeks leading up to the Republican primary.

South Carolina is holding a special Republican primary to replace Sen. Lindsey Graham after his untimely July death. Graham’s sister, state Sen. Darline Graham, has thrown her hat in the ring for her brother’s seat. She has Trump’s endorsement, but the Bulwark reports both polls and a focus group say that endorsement is doing little to beat back Republican challengers.

Bulwark founder Sarah Longwell conducts frequent surveys with Trump supporters. And her latest reveals Trump’s 2024 fans have little patience or fondness for his most recent pick.

“She has a master's and she's helped people that are blind and she's a lovely woman advocate. But I don't feel like she has the experience,” said one 2024 Trump voter, who is a woman.

“What worries me is how quick this has to happen,” said another Trump supporter, this time a man. “[There’s] a rush to make an emotional decision for a lot of people and that emotional decision being we're going to vote in Lindsey Graham's sister because it's that emotional pull. I will not. I have been researching candidates. I will continue to research candidates and make an informed decision.”

“I think she'll probably win,” lamented another female Trump voter. “… I'm just concerned about the lack of experience. Other than that, I don't know a lot about her. I do feel like this is rushed. We don't have time to kind of dig in as much as we probably should. But yeah, I don't like the lack of experience.”

Longwell pointed out that Darlene Graham tried to check-off major conservative points in her first ad, but Longwell didn’t see the meat of a good argument.

“She hits the main ones, you know, ‘no men in women's sports’ because God knows that's the biggest issue facing Americans today. Yeah. And also, ‘I'll make sure that only American citizens can vote,’ which is actually already the law. So cool,” said Longwell.

“It's an open question as to whether that's enough to get her to more than 50 percent in the primary … on Aug. 25,” said Associated Press national politics reporter and Bulwark guest host Meg Kinnard.

It didn’t seem to be enough for Trump voters responding to Bulwark’s survey — nor was Trump’s blessing.

“Another concern for me is that with Trump, it's kind of like he wants her to take his place because I almost feel like he feels like he can just mold her into doing whatever he wants,” complained another Trump voter, a woman. “And I know that's not a nice thing to say, but I … kind of get that vibe from him. And when they were doing the funeral in Washington, D.C., some of the things that [Trump] said, I kind of felt it was from a place that because he doesn't really know her. … It was kind of like, ‘well, let's get her in there and, you know, she'll do what I want.’”

Democrats have a working-class delusion —and the data proves it

Since 2016, when Donald Trump shattered the Democrats’ blue wall by winning working-class voters across the Midwest, a cottage industry has sprung up on the left dedicated to answering a single question: How can Democrats win back the working class?

The answers come in different forms.

Sometimes it is veteran Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, railing against “the oligarchs.”

Or it’s Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, who after the 2024 election declared, “Democrats must reclaim our identity as the party of the working class.”

Or a new generation of candidates – tattooed veterans, mechanics, bartenders – whose biography is supposed to do the political work that policy has not.

Graham Platner, the Maine Senate candidate who had become the left’s latest blue-collar savior until he ended his campaign in the wake of a sexual assault allegation, put the theory in its most unguarded form.

We are in a form of class war,” he says. “And if the Democratic Party is going to have a future with working people, it needs to pick the side of working people.”

The most recent high-profile progressive candidate to embrace those working people: Abdul El-Sayed, whose economic populism helped him win the 2026 Michigan Democratic Senate primary. Called a “working class” champion by the United Auto Workers, El-Sayed performed best in wealthier, higher-educated areas of the state. His opponent, Haley Stevens, drew more support from Detroit and working-class communities.

Still, El-Sayed’s victory has led to a familiar refrain: Somewhere out there is a latent working-class majority, held together by shared economic grievances, waiting to be politically reassembled to vote for Democrats. The New Deal did it – “economic populism” can do it again.

I’m a political scientist who has written extensively about rural and working-class communities. I believe it is an open question whether these reformist Democrats are really interested in understanding working-class voters on their own terms. Because working-class voters, as they tell us themselves, are not simply waiting to be activated by the right program, messenger or phrase. “Fight the oligarchy” probably isn’t going to do it.

Working-class voters have a worldview. For 50 years, it has been growing less compatible with the Democratic Party’s – not because working-class voters changed, but because Democrats did.

Working-class identity

Since the early 1950s, the American National Election Studies has asked respondents whether they think of themselves as members of the working class. This article uses my analysis of that data.

While a larger proportion of the electorate has obtained a college degree and household incomes have risen, the share of Americans who consider themselves working class has remained remarkably stable: roughly 35% of voters for the past 70 years, 38% in 2024.

Working-class identity is more durable and culturally grounded than a description of who isn’t a billionaire. It’s a specific way of looking at the world.

Conventional definitions of the working class often miss how people understand their own place in society. In the 2024 American National Election Studies, for example, 21% of those who identify as working class have a college degree, only 5% belong to a private-sector union, and 37% own stocks. Conversely, most Americans without a college degree do not identify as working class.

Working-class voters have never been a predominantly Democratic group – not even at the height of the New Deal coalition. Based on the American National Election Studies self-report measure, the working-class share of the Democratic coalition peaked around 56% in 1960 and has fallen more or less continuously since, sitting at just about 30% today.

Meanwhile, the share of working-class voters who identify as Democrats has been declining for half a century: A majority did so in 1958, but not since.

Working-class voters have not become Republicans. Only in 2020 and 2024 – the first time in the survey’s history – did more working-class voters identify as Republican than Democrat, and even then by narrow margins.

The data shows a politically homeless working class: estranged from the Democrats, not captured by the Republicans, stuck in the middle with diminishing attachment to either party.

Economic abandonment

What drove them out?

A segment of the progressive left has a ready answer: Democrats abandoned working-class voters economically – on trade, wages and industrial policy. Working-class voters responded rationally. Fix the economics and the coalition comes back.

Trade is the strongest argument. In 1988, roughly 74% of both Democrats and working-class voters groups favored limits on imports to protect American jobs.

By 2024, only 26% of Democrats favored limits, while 54% of working-class voters continued to do so.

Unlike most Democrats, many working-class communities do not see globalization in their interest. Running alongside the trade gap is a widening divide over values that no tariffs can fix.

What fairness requires

In 1984, Democrats and working-class voters broadly agreed that treating people more equally would mean fewer social problems. A divergence opened after 2008 and accelerated after 2016, with Democrats now 28 points more likely than working-class voters to think we should worry more about equality.

In 1986, half of mainstream Democrats and a slightly smaller percentage of working-class voters agreed with the idea that Black Americans don’t succeed because they don’t try hard enough. By 2024, Democratic agreement had collapsed to 13%. Working-class voters also declined, to 32%.

That gap is not primarily a story about rising working-class racial resentment. It’s about the Democratic Party’s rapid post-2008 shift toward a worldview that places far greater explanatory weight on structural barriers and far less on individual effort and personal responsibility.

Working-class voters, who historically understood their own lives through a framework of hard work and earned reward, did not shift so dramatically.

Alignment becomes division

On cultural questions, the pattern persists: Working-class voters did not move right in reactionary revolt. Democrats moved left.

In 1986, similar levels of Democrats and working-class voters agreed with the statement “This country would have many fewer problems if there were more emphasis on traditional family ties.” By 2024 a 25-point gap emerged.

On whether religion is an important part of their life: a near-zero gap through the early 1990s, but 17 points by 2024. On abortion, a 3-point gap in 1980 became 30 points in 2024. Whether immigration levels should be increased, the two groups were virtually identical in 2000 – around 8% support. By 2020 Democrats were at 48%, working-class voters at 24%.

Even where working-class voters nominally agree with a Democratic policy goal, they don’t trust the institution asked to deliver it – a distrust decades in the making.

How the ‘system’ plays

In 1958, working-class voters and Democrats were within 5 points of each other on whether government wastes a lot of tax money. By 2024 that gap reached 27 points – not because working-class voters lurched toward anti-government extremism, but because mainstream Democrats became dramatically more trusting of government as an instrument of social change.

Working-class voters are 17 points more likely than Democrats to say people like them have no say in what government does. In 2024, 88% of working-class voters and 75% of Democrats said government is run by a few big interests. Both groups agree the system is captured.

Yet the Democratic policy response, invariably, is to expand the system.

On support for expanding government – from healthcare to jobs to environmental programs – Democrats and working-class voters have diverged dramatically since the 1980s. By 2024, there were approval gaps of between 20 and 30 points on providing government health insurance, environmental spending and a guaranteed jobs program.

On every major plank of the progressive economic agenda, Democrats are now substantially to the left of the workers they claim to champion.

Not all class war

Working-class voters have been telling pollsters for 60 years that the political system doesn’t hear them. Democrats, over the same period, have grown more comfortable with the institutions working-class voters have increasingly less faith in.

This distrust stems from specific experiences: deindustrialization that happened on government’s watch, trade deals that economists endorsed and workers paid for, a 2008 financial crisis response that saved the banks and foreclosed on their homes, an opioid epidemic that regulators missed entirely.

To be fair, this is precisely what the new crop of reform candidates say they want to fix. The argument that the right candidate can move the needle is not crazy. Candidate quality matters. Personal trust can substitute for institutional trust, at least at the margins.

But economic-grievance politics is a very small slice of what working-class voters are telling us. The data documents a comprehensive, decades-long divergence in how working-class voters and mainstream Democrats understand fairness, government, personal responsibility and social change.

Reducing that to class war jams working-class voters into a prefabricated progressive agenda rather than taking seriously what they are actually saying.

This is an updated version of a story originally published on June 2, 2026.The Conversation

Nicholas Jacobs, Goldfarb Family Distinguished Chair in American Government, Colby College; Institute for Humane Studies

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

Democrats plan to strangle Trump without a single impeachment vote

In the face of endless corruption allegations and the Trump family’s monetization of the White House, U.S. House Democrats are preparing for a possible return to power with a broad, new investigative strategy, reports the State.

“From sketchy Pentagon contracts lining the pockets of the president's sons, Trump's crypto billions, and the shady backroom deals for Trump donors, we will ensure we combat corruption when Democrats take back the House in November," Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) vowed in a statement.

Polls suggest Democrats will be stampeding the House in November, and the State reports they plan to target companies and financial firms surrounding Trump instead of trying to immediately impeach Trump, according to four people familiar with the discussions.

“Senior Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and committee aides have discussed using hearings, subpoenas and document requests to obtain records from entities tied to Trump's political and business orbit, the sources said,” reports the State. “It is a bet that investigating private companies and outside financial players will prove more fruitful than directly confronting a White House they expect to resist oversight, they said.”

"We're not going into this to impeach," said a senior Democratic aide, describing the thinking among party leaders and committee staff. "No one wants a failed vote on day one. The focus is on building a body of evidence through investigations that can hold Trump accountable."

The State reports this new approach reflects both Democratic caution and a lesson many in the party say they learned during Trump's first term: that impeachment proceedings can consume Congress while allowing Trump to cast himself as the victim of a partisan campaign. It is especially fruitless if the Republican Party remains willing, as a monolith, to either look the other way or wholeheartedly embrace Trump’s corruption.

Instead, Democrats involved in the planning envision using House investigative powers after November's midterm elections to scrutinize the administration's decision-making and examine whether Trump used his power to benefit himself, allies or donors.

Democrats expect the White House to ignore or fight information requests targeting the executive branch, which makes companies, contractors and financial firms working with the administration an important second route for obtaining information, according to sources.

“Three sources said Apple, Alphabet, Palantir, Blackstone, BlackRock and companies owned by Elon Musk, such as Tesla, have surfaced in discussions because of their contracts, regulatory exposure or administration dealings. The sources said no final target list has been established and no formal investigations have begun,” reports The State.

However, Democrats have already begun laying the groundwork for investigations, say at least two sources, with party leaders already sending letters to companies, contractors and other organizations connected to potential investigations. These preliminary requests seek records, and they could herald a wave of subpoenas if Democrats win the House.

DC’s strangest political mystery just took a bizarre left turn

In the latest twist in one of the strangest ongoing scandals in Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announced that the government would be dropping charges against the four people accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, the 2,000-foot long water basin that connects the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument. Pirro said faulty construction – not vandalism, as President Donald Trump had claimed – caused the pool’s liner to peel off in June 2026.

As I’ve followed this bizarre saga, I’ve found myself reflecting on the history of the pool itself. It was built in the 1920s, when Washington was transformed by ambitious construction projects, even as the nation grappled with political division, racial conflict and clashes between religion and secularism.

To me, everything about the pool’s early history – the debates over its placement, the innovative engineering techniques used during its construction, and its proponents’ longing for something visually and metaphorically unifying – stands in stark contrast to the slapdash renovations, blame games and abuses of power playing out today.

Coming to a consensus

In 1901, the U.S. Senate formed the McMillan Commission, a group of architects, landscape designers and artists, to develop a parks system for the nation’s capital.

The commission’s 1902 report also recommended a location for the future Lincoln Memorial. Although proposals for a memorial had emerged shortly after Lincoln’s assassination in 1865, decades of political disagreement over its design, location and purpose had delayed construction.

The report proposed situating it at the western end of the Mall, near the Potomac River. Inspired by the waterways of Versailles and the reflecting basins of the Taj Mahal, the commission envisioned a reflecting pool linking the future memorial to the Washington Monument. In this way, these two magnificent monuments could be reflected in a huge mirror of water, framed by manicured, green grass.

Over the ensuing decade, the plans continued to elicit debate and controversy, pitting supporters of the commission’s vision against members of Congress, railroad interests and real estate developers.

The American Institute of Architects and American Federation of Arts backed the report, arguing that isolation from the city’s bustle created a dignified space for reflection. They also called attention to the qualifications of the artists on the commission, and to the economic viability of the site: The land was owned by the federal government, so the project’s funds could go toward the memorial itself rather than acquiring land.

But some House leaders insisted that the memorial be built on Capitol Hill, two miles to the east, since Lincoln had preserved the Union and worked closely with Congress during the Civil War.

Railroad interests wanted the memorial near the soon-to-be-completed Union Station, a proposal backed by some real estate developers. Even the National Highways Association joined the fray, arguing that the US$2 million Congress had authorized for the memorial in 1911 would be better spent on a memorial highway named for Lincoln linking Washington and Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

The Union Station plan drew ridicule in the Washington press and failed to gain congressional support. When the proposal to replace the memorial with a highway came before Congress in 1912, the House of Representatives rejected the idea, too – despite some fears that moneyed interests would win out – and moved ahead with plans for a traditional monument.

Around the same period, plans were also put forward for Lee Highway. Named for Confederate General Robert E. Lee, the road reflected the era’s ongoing debates over how Americans memorialized the Civil War.

A pool on a swamp

With the riverside location for the monument settled, construction of the Lincoln Memorial began in 1914. The excavation of the basin for the reflecting pool started in 1920, two years before the memorial itself was completed.

Author J.W. Duffield, writing in 1922, compared the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool to the one in front of the Taj Mahal, that “exhalation of a dream.”

“It is in accord with the eternal fitness of things,” he continued, “that these memorials to America’s two greatest Presidents – Washington, under whom the nation came into being; Lincoln, by whose labors it was preserved and by whose blood it was hallowed – should stand in close proximity, as shrines to which posterity may pay pilgrimage and tribute.”

Yet there were several obstacles involved in the construction of the pool – namely, the area was swampland, so the settling of the ground and the drainage presented practical construction challenges.

Engineer Charles A. Peters Jr. worked on the pool. In a 1923 article for the journal The Military Engineer, he described some of the creative solutions.

To deal with the settling, Peters and his team developed flexible flooring lined with an impervious three-ply fabric. The drainage system had to empty the pool in less than 24 hours without leaving puddles. So it was designed with a sloped basin and drainage system that allowed crews to empty the pool for maintenance while preventing water from collecting in low spots.

An additional consideration was cold weather. Engineers had to account for the stresses of freeze-thaw cycles, which can gradually damage waterproofing layers, crack concrete and masonry, and create leaks.

The waterproofing worked: It held up for decades, and in its early years, members of the public could be seen ice skating on the frozen reflecting pool.

From Lincoln to Trump

On May 30, 1922, 50,000 people – including Robert Todd Lincoln, the late president’s only surviving son – gathered on the National Mall for the unveiling of the monument for the man whom some call “America’s secular saint.”

During the ceremony, President Warren Harding declared Lincoln’s accomplishments “so colossal that none will dispute that he was incomparably the greatest of our Presidents” due to “the greatness of his intellect, his honesty of purpose, and his kindness and gentleness.”

The same year that the Lincoln Memorial was inaugurated, the tomb of Tutankhamum was discovered in Egypt, fueling a broader fascination with ancient civilizations, monuments and the ways societies preserved memories of powerful figures. The Egyptian pharaoh Menes appears first among the lawgivers represented in the interior frieze on the South Wall of the U.S. Supreme Court building, completed in 1935. These friezes reflected the aspirations of the nation’s leaders to place America on the continuum of great civilizations.

The deliberative, thoughtful process of remaking the nation’s capital in the early 20th century bears little resemblance to Trump’s insistence on remaking the capital in his image.

After Trump announced his wish to change the color of the pool to what he calls “American flag blue,” the National Park Service awarded a no-bid contract to a politically connected firm, Atlantic Industrial Coatings, to repair leaks and paint the pool. It signed another no-bid contract to install a filtration system with Greenwater Services, a construction company whose owner had donated to Trump.

The rushed renovation that ensued – and the squabbling over whether the peeling liner was the result of vandalism – led to charges against four suspects that were eventually dropped.

The pool debacle came on the heels of other attempts to modify the nation’s capital, from a new White House ballroom to a proposed monumental arch. In October 2025, Trump dismissed all six members of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts in order to circumvent the independent design review board.

The 1920s weren’t devoid of partisanship, graft and scandal. Far from it. But unlike Trump’s top-down approach, the process for building monuments and civic spaces involved Congress, artists, architects, engineers and city planners who debated, offered their expertise and listened to public.The Conversation

Jennifer Tucker, Professor of History, Wesleyan University

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

White House strikes back with sneaky blueprint to defy the Supreme Court

The New Republic reports President Donald Trump is trying to ignore a birthright citizenship Supreme Court smackdown by lying about his defeat and reaching for the same goal another way.

“Trump issued an executive order on Thursday that purported to narrow the scope of birthright citizenship, two months after suffering a major defeat on the subject at the high court,” reports New Republic writer Matt Ford. “The order’s text claims that it targets ‘certain categories of children of aliens who do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court' in Trump v. Barbara in June.”

But a slim majority of the conservative court managed to successfully read the Constitution and see that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause says “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Trump’s January executive order purported not to recognize the citizenship of children born on U.S. soil to temporary visa holders and/or undocumented immigrants. But in Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court struck down the executive order as unconstitutional. The targeted children “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause: they are ‘born … in the United States’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth.”

But the White House invented new purported exceptions to the citizenship clause. “This order identifies, non-exhaustively, and prescribes action concerning certain categories of children of aliens who do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court,” the order claimed.

Ford said “there is no evidence that Roberts and the majority intended for the executive branch to identify new exceptions, and plenty of reasons to believe that they intended to foreclose them.”

“Reading the executive order reminds me of CDOs, otherwise known as collateralized debt obligations,” wrote Ford. “Before the financial crisis in 2008, banks would gather large numbers of risky subprime mortgage bonds and repackage them into CDOs before selling them to other banks. Credit ratings companies would give CDOs high marks because the bonds were considered less risky in the aggregate than on an individual basis. This was more or less true until it very suddenly and dramatically wasn’t.”

In so doing, Ford described Trump as an unscrupulous chef making “fish stew,” with a mixture of day-old fish and fresher ingredients to fool the customer.

“Trump’s latest executive orders work along the same lines,” he said, by excluding children born in the U.S. with at least one parent “engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship for [child], or engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship.” It also targets commercial transactions with a surrogate present in the United States.

The Trump administration explained that it hopes to specifically tackle the phenomenon of “birth tourism,” but it also targets children “born to parents who are an ‘alien enemy,’ which the order ‘defined to include any member of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization … or Specially Designated Global Terrorist.’”

“Describing someone as a terrorist does not supersede the Constitution, and depriving U.S. citizenship to otherwise eligible children based on their parents’ alleged or proven crimes would be manifestly unconstitutional and morally reprehensible,” said Ford. Plus, Trump cites no actual legal authority to justify the executive order. The text of the order does not cite the U.S. Code or any acts of Congress beyond the terrorist-designation law, which does not mention citizenship.

“If the Trump administration wants to serve a day-old fish stew to the justices, it shouldn’t be surprised when they spit it out,” said Ford.

Sleeping giant wakes to rip back control from the elites who left us scraps

According to the Federal Reserve, the share of wealth owned by the top 1% in the US recently hit a record, the highest since tracking began. The top 1% today holds $55 trillion in wealth, roughly the same amount held by the entire bottom 90% of all Americans. Today’s uber rich enjoy staggering wealth, and they wield control of traditional and online media outlets to keep it that way.

Nationwide, television, print, and major digital platforms are now controlled by a handful of largely right wing, ultra-rich individuals and corporations using those media to forge national narratives that serve their own interests. Billionaires and massive corporations use their wealth to promote and lobby for tax gifts, subsidies, write-offs, loopholes, deregulation, and weakened labor, environmental and banking laws to advance their own wealth at the expense of everyone else.

Economists say we are in our second Gilded Age, where industry scions and robber barons run roughshod over labor, the environment, and the rule of law. The long-simmering, slow-motion transfer of political power from the working electorate to wealthy elites began decades ago, through legal and regulatory changes rather than any single dramatic event. The key to transferring political power back to the middle class is understanding what took it from them.

How Republicans pulled off the oligarchs’ coup

Democracy has always depended on access to a truthful public square—from which to shape informed political judgments— where political power flowed from informed votes rather than wealth. This foundation crumbled under two major shifts: The 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, and the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United. These two developments cleared the way for the top 1% to exert outsized, largely unaccountable control over both public opinion and state and federal elections, turning the US into the billboard of inequality we are today, with broken healthcare, barely-there public education, and eroded social safety nets limping alongside staggering wealth and the most corrupt regime the nation has ever known.

The Fairness doctrine, in effect from 1949 through 1987, required broadcasters to tell the truth in the news, and, when offering opinions, to present the opposing viewpoint. After Reagan Republicans repealed the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters were suddenly free to adopt a single ideological orientation and promote it for profit, harm to public discourse be damned. Today we see the effect of building an audience around opinion, grievance and outrage instead of verified facts. It is no surprise that the percentage of Americans who still support Trump despite his nonstop parade of incompetence correlates exactly with the percentage who watch Fox News.

Then, beginning in 2010, the horrific Citizens United ruling allowed Super PACs to raise and spend unlimited sums on elections while dark money nonprofits, which are not required to disclose their donors, expanded. In result, private wealth began buying elections, converting economic power of the elites into political power.

Elon Musk alone spent $250 million on the 2024 election. Last week, right after SpaceX landed a $1.6 billion federal contract, Musk committed to spending another $120 million to increase Republican voter turnout in the midterms.

Excessive spending by high wealth political donors doing business with the federal government reinforces the anti-tax and anti-regulatory environments that increase their wealth. Republicans thus have the legally dubious political advantage of excessive megadonor, CEO and dark money contributions, and a substantial financial advantage heading into the midterms.

End stage: Trump’s illicit gains from the White House

The breakdown in our democratic system rests on the interaction between Citizens United and un-regulated news, not just their individual effects. A media environment unmoored from accuracy requirements provided the infrastructure — cable networks, talk radio, and later digital platforms — through which right wing political messaging could be aired with no competing viewpoints or facts. Campaign finance deregulation amplified that messaging at scale, letting the nation’s top 1% spread the same narratives pushed on conservative “news” outlets. Together, they produced the most corrupt administration in our nation’s history, leading to unprecedented cuts in food assistance, health care, education programs, and student loan services while serving up massive tax breaks for the ultra-rich.

In short, the uber rich have bought up media outlets to manipulate low education voters with addictive culture wars— and the denial of science— so that they can decimate government services and rob them blind.

Trump, who sued the IRS when a contractor leaked that he paid only $750 in federal taxes the year before he first ran for president, and paid zero in federal taxes for ten years before that, has turned the presidency into a personal wealth gambit to monetize the office from every angle. The Trumps have pocketed billions through foreign government bookings at Trump hotels, overseas real estate ventures, and digital asset banking, to say nothing of Eric and Don Jr.’s federally-backed adventures in defense, cryptocurrency, mining, and consumer tech. Trump collected $2.4 billion in 2025 alone from illicit cryptocurrency ventures, illegal foreign “gifts,” and collusive taxpayer-funded “settlements” of bogus legal cases. According to Forbes, Trump’s revenue last year was triple what he earned privately when out of office, and now, Patron Saint of Insider Trading, he’s “selling” early access to his social media posts.

There isn’t any real debate about Trump’s corruption. He flexes low intellect, mob boss criminality on purpose; the reptilian brain demonstrates brute power to stay alive.

Republicans and right wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation laid the tracks that brought us to Trump decades ago, through the erasure of truth in the news and the Supreme Court’s CU transfer of political power to the elites.

The second Gilded Age is indeed the age of en----ification. Although it won’t be easy, at least we know how to wipe it off: return accuracy to the news, and reverse Citizens United to get money the hell out of politics for good.

Sabrina Haake is a political analyst and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. She writes the free Substack, The Haake Take.

Carping Trump gets a dose of comeuppance after election shocker

Abdul El-Sayed’s victory in Michigan, declared Thursday morning, seems to have broken the brains of Republicans and the chattering class.

Donald Trump’s pathetic bleats notwithstanding, people voting for progressive Democrats and “democratic socialists” aren’t voting for communism or even socialism; they’re trying to get America to the same sort of economy and form of government that works for everybody — a system somewhat like the one a majority of us had before Reaganism, and that most other developed countries enjoy right now. That includes:

— A healthcare system that covers every American as a right of citizenship, where injury or illness won’t break a family. A half-million of our families lost everything to bankruptcy last year just because somebody got sick; that literally does not happen in any other developed country on Earth, just America. And wanting to free us all of that fear isn’t “communism.”

— An education system that really works for young people, instead of barely maintaining 70-year-old schoolhouses and slapping the Ten Commandments on the wall as if “Thou shalt have no other gods before me … for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” is going to incentivize students (it won’t).

— A college system like in every other developed democracy in the world where everybody, if they’re capable of handling the work, can get an education and graduate into the working world without debt. And an end to the existing ~$2 trillion in student debt, a crime visited on the generations coming up today by a handful of rich bankers and their Republican buddies.

— A political system where a foreign government, massive corporation, or a greedy billionaire can’t simply buy elections, legislators, and judges. Where citizens can easily vote without having to jump through a million hoops designed to drive down the participation of low-income people and women. Where people can trust that the government and its spokespeople are telling the truth under all circumstances.

— An environment where we can breathe the air and drink the water, the food is safe, and our collective actions have reduced the methane and CO2 that are driving climate change.

— An immigration system that reflects America’s embrace of diversity as “the great melting pot,” a phrase that was popular in the mid-20th century and is now derisively called “DEI.” No more masked secret police, no more concentration camps that lock up children and brutalize people who’ve never committed a crime (immigration violations are civil, not criminal). No more violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments, no more killing Americans for protesting, and no more arrests based on the color of a person’s skin.

— A tax system where the morbidly rich pay their fair share, instead of throwing that burden on working class people and the upper middle class — who often are now seeing their combined federal, state, and local tax rates run over 50% — while billionaires pay a fraction of 4% and absolutely nothing on literally trillions in unrealized wealth gains.

— Respect for international law, particularly the laws against violently attacking countries like Iran, Venezuela, or individuals in boats in the Caribbean who haven’t attacked us first. Defense of those countries who are under attack by Trump’s owner, Vladimir Putin, and his buddy President Xi. And respect for the human rights of Palestinians and acknowledgement of the criminal, genocidal slaughter they’ve faced under international war criminal Netanyahu.

— An economy where at least two-thirds of all American families can have what they had in 1981: the ability to buy a home, a car, take an annual vacation, put their kids through school, and have enough for a comfortable retirement. Instead, as Robert Reich points out:

“Household electricity costs are up 18%, ground beef prices are up 22%, gas prices are up 40%, ACA out-of-pocket premiums are up 58%, [and] inflation is at a three-year high.”

Americans aren’t really asking for that much: Canada has it all. England has it all. France has it all. Germany has it all. Spain has it all. As do dozens of other countries, all the way down to little Costa Rica.

This isn’t rocket science. People simply want a government that will help them and their children achieve their highest potential, an economy that’s not rigged by and for the morbidly rich, and a job that pays enough to sustain a middle-class lifestyle.

The problem we face today is that a large cohort of our billionaire and CEO class are suffering from the mental illness commonly known as hoarding syndrome, a subset of obsessive-compulsive disorder. There’s never enough for them, no matter how much they have, so they don’t care how many people must die or live in poverty for them to maintain their (tax-deductible) islands, palaces, bunkers, yachts, and private jets.

It’s like that popular meme you find these days all over the Internet:

“If a monkey hoarded more bananas than it could eat while most of the other monkeys starved, scientists would study that monkey to figure out what was wrong with it. When humans do it, we put them on the cover of Forbes.”

Those billionaires and CEOs, following the 1971 advice of notorious tobacco lawyer and sociopath Lewis Powell, built out a massive think tank and media infrastructure to transform America from a middle-class nation into a full-blown oligarchy, where every decision made by the Supreme Court, Congress, and most state legislatures would take care of their wants and desires before those of anybody else.

Nixon put Powell on the Supreme Court in 1972 and, in 1978, he authored the Bellotti decision, saying that corporations are “persons” and money is the “free speech.” That let Reagan float into the presidency two years later on a tsunami of oil industry money (along with the treasonous deal he cut with Iran’s Mullah’s to hold the American hostages until after the election), remove Jimmy Carter’s solar panels from the roof of the White House, and kill his plans for solarizing America.

Billionaires began immediately spiffing and sucking up to the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court, who returned the favor in 2010 by doubling down on Bellotti with Citizens United. Now fortunes are spent on every election cycle, including tens of millions from groups representing the interests of foreign countries.

A few hundred billionaire families, representing considerably less than one ten-thousandth of 1 percent of the American population, supplied roughly one-sixth of all the money spent on the 2024 federal elections and, in the presidential race, put down 44.5% of all the money spent by outside groups, virtually all of it for fellow billionaire Trump.

As Jimmy Carter told me almost a decade ago, America is no longer a democracy:

“Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery...”

This is what Americans are voting against this year in massive numbers, and no amount of name-calling and red-scare tactics by on-the-take Republicans and corporate Democrats, or hand-wringing by TV pundits and podcasters, is going to stop it.

Voters want fighters, and El-Sayed is a fighter. As are so many others in the Progressive Caucus and among the Zoomers, Millennials, and Gen X’ers now coming up into politics.

Americans know they’ve been screwed over the past 45 years since the GOP’s Reagan Revolution stopped seriously taxing the morbidly rich, killed off our unions, and sent our jobs overseas. And they’re rapidly waking up to exactly who it is who screwed them.

As my dear old friend Dick Gregory told me one brutally hot afternoon in Kampala as the two of us were touring Africa together in 1981 and discussing progressive change and US foreign policy:

“When you’ve got something really good, you don’t have to have to force it on people. They will steal it!”

American voters are in the process of stealing back their democracy and their middle class. Call it what you want, but it won’t be stopped.

GOP elections official arrested for siphoning thousands in public funds

Geneva County Circuit Clerk Ashley Powell has been charged with violating the state ethics law by using her office for personal gain, announced Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall on Friday.

AL.com reports the indictment alleges Powell, 52, illegally paid herself more than $93,000 out of public funds, a Class B felony. In convicted, Powell could face up to 20 years in prison.

Investigators say Powell shattered the public trust by using her official position for personal gain when she illegally routed public funds directly to herself. Her arrest was expected as Powell had been barred from the office months ago. Powell was ordered to turn in her keys in March.

Investigators did not disclose the nature of manner in which Powell allegedly paid herself with public funds.

In 2023, Judicial Circuit Chief Judge William Filmore appointed Powell to fill out the remainder of the term of former Geneva County Circuit Clerk Gale Laye. At the time, local news channel WDHN reported Powell had served with the circuit clerk’s office for seven years and “has performed all roles of the office including bookkeeping and making sure all court documents are properly filed.”

Powell told WDHN that she planned to run for Geneva County Circuit Clerk as a Republican in the 2024 election.

Alabama WTVY News Channel 4 reports another potential issue could be Powell in her job as clerk, considering she serves an important role in the election process, especially with elections only a few months away.

Geneva County Circuit Clerk Ashley Powell faces a Class B felony charge for allegedly paying herself over $93,000 in public funds.

State officials barred Powell from her courthouse duties in March after initial audits flagged missing local accounts. Following her suspension, Powell retained defense counsel as state prosecutors began presenting financial records to a grand jury. Local courts appointed an acting administrator to maintain daily clerk filings and manage local election preparations. Local political leaders expressed concern over how this scandal might influence public confidence, particularly as local committees scramble to stabilize the regional ticket ahead of the fast-approaching voting deadlines.

Many Republican voters in the South and in red states are feeling less passionate about elections, particularly with President Donald Trump’s plummeting poll numbers and voter discontent with his policies. Trump’s war on Iran is dragging on and blasting fuel and grocery prices higher as the nation slides into the midterms.

The steady drumbeat of Trump’s corruption appears to be contributing to the party’s general malaise.

Mueller prosecutor exposes massive loophole Trump’s immunity can’t protect

President Donald Trump has no love for Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor for the Department of Justice who served as a lead member of the Robert Mueller investigation. Trump has called Weissman “scum” and “a bad guy,” and name-checked him on more than one executive order, one revoking his security clearance and others, and another targeting his law firm for daring to employ him.

Weissmann says Trump can hate on him all he wants — but the president can’t escape the corruption charges that will likely badger him for years after he leaves the White House.

“The one thing I strongly suspect, if we get back to a normal rule of law administration, I think we’re going to learn about corruption,” said the author of new book, Liar’s Kingdom: How to Stop Trump’s Deceit and Save America. “We’re going to learn that it is off the charts, particularly regarding financial crime, and it’s going to be eye-popping.”

This will be bad for Trump, providing he survives his second term, because money crime prosecution has a nice long half-life.

“That is the kind of thing that can be prosecuted, and it is not covered by immunity,” Weissmann told Washington Roundtable host Jane Mayer. “… The statute of limitations, which is the time period by which you’ve brought a case, will not have run on those things. This means it won’t be too late to prosecute. So, if Donald Trump is out of office in a couple of years and you have a normal administration, even at the shortest range it’s a five-year statute of limitations, which means you have five years to bring a case.”

He added that there are also “all sort of ways” to reset the timer on the deadline: “I’m saying given the shortest amount of time is five years, but it could be much longer in effect.”

Still, a case must be brought if the nation is to ever recover from Trump’s transgressions and the stink of corruption that he’s laid over the federal government. Trump, he said, is the ultimate stress test for democracy and he shows where democracy is failing.

“We cannot be in the situation where if we get out of this we go into denial about what happened. There’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. If you have Donald Trump winning twice there will be many, many more of these [kinds of bad characters],” he said. “We’re humans. We are imperfect. The whole idea of institutional reform is to have the institution create rules that lessens these risks.”

But he added that a course correction could only happen if “we have the backbone and the smarts to realize that where there is that proof—and if it’s a righteous case not a vindictive case — that it has to be brought as a deterrent to this happening again.”

“We can’t close our eyes to it,” he warned.

Kristi Noem’s defiant statue reveal plagued by drama as husband stays away

PIERRE — Former South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem said Friday after the unveiling of a statue in her honor that she won’t rule out any future campaigns but is not planning to run for U.S. Senate in two years.

Noem, a Republican, was rumored as a possible Senate candidate this year but is not challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Mike Rounds. Another South Dakota Republican U.S. senator, Majority Leader John Thune, will face a decision about running for reelection in 2028. Politico reported earlier this week that Thune anticipates running, but the outlet anonymously quoted other senators who said he might retire.

Noem is serving as special envoy for the Shield of the Americas, a position that President Donald Trump created earlier this year. She said the job includes working with other countries to secure their borders.

“I’m not planning to run for Senate in 2028,” Noem said. “So, I’m planning to build a lot of fence, continue to help other countries build departments of homeland security and work with the State Department to help President Trump continue to be successful.”

She also expressed confidence in her ability to win if she decides to seek an elected office in the future.

“Oh, I wouldn’t take it off the table,” Noem said. “I may someday, but you know, we ran 13 races and won them all, so campaigns don’t scare me, but I’ve got a lot of other things to do, too.”

Noem’s comments to a gaggle of reporters came after a South Dakota foundation unveiled a bronze statue of her outdoors in the state’s capital city — part of a project to honor all the state’s ex-governors with statues — in front of a crowd of about 100 people. The statue is at the entrance to the Hilger’s Gulch nature area near the Capitol complex. Noem’s official portrait was also unveiled for display with other ex-governor portraits inside the Capitol building.

During her speech, Noem extended thanks to her daughters, sons-in-law, four grandchildren and mother for attending. Her son is serving as a missionary in the Middle East, Noem said, and was unable to attend. Noem said her husband, Bryon, also could not attend.

Noem praised the work of her former lieutenant governor and successor, Gov. Larry Rhoden, along with his wife, first lady Sandy Rhoden, who both attended.

“They have been incredible people of integrity to lead South Dakota,” she said. “I’ve been grateful for them and all that they have done.”

Noem’s statue was added to Pierre’s Trail of Governors.

It’s supported by a foundation that uses donations to commission, build and maintain the dozens of statues throughout the city. All former governors are now represented on the trail.

Noem’s statue depicts her leading her favorite horse, named Iceman, by the reins. It cost $150,000, which was more than past statues that cost $78,000, according to Leroy Foster of the foundation.

Donors for Noem’s statue included family members and political allies, according to the Trail of Governors website. The biggest donation was for at least $68,000, from the late Wyoming investment manager Foster Friess, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for Wyoming governor in 2018.

The sculptor, John Lopez, is an artist from Lemmon, South Dakota, known for his large, welded creations of figures including bison, horses and cowboys.

Noem’s path through politics

Noem entered politics by winning a seat in the state House of Representatives in 2006, where she served from 2007 until 2010. That year, she entered a competitive field to secure the Republican nomination for U.S. House, winning the primary election and later ousting incumbent Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

Noem was elected as the first female governor of South Dakota in 2018, with an endorsement from Trump, defeating the state’s attorney general in a Republican primary. She sparked national controversy during her first term in office with her hands-off approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Noem won a second term as governor in 2022, and then became the subject of negative headlines and scrutiny nationwide in 2024 with the release of her book, “No Going Back,” in which she recounted fatally shooting a misbehaving hunting dog and an unruly goat.

She resigned in 2025 to become secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, responsible for immigration enforcement, border security, disaster response, cyber and airline security, and protecting dignitaries.

Protests against increased enforcement activity by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is part of the department, spread across the nation during Noem’s tenure. In January, ICE agents shot and killed two American citizens during enforcement actions in Minneapolis.

Following the shootings, Noem faced congressional hearings where she was criticized for her handling of ICE and numerous other actions, even including questions from a Democratic lawmaker about multiple media reports that she has a romantic relationship with her adviser, Corey Lewandowski, who was not in attendance Friday.

Trump reassigned Noem to her newly created position in March.

The brutal truth about who swallowed the American middle class

A half-century ago, America had the largest middle class in the history of the nation and of the world.

Then, those on the “left” wanted stronger social safety nets and more public investment in schools, roads, and research. Those on the “right” sought greater reliance on the “free market.”

But as power and wealth have moved to the top in America (and, to a lesser degree, in other “rich” nations, almost everyone else — whether on the old right or the old left — has become disempowered and less secure.

America’s huge middle class has become a small shadow of what it once was. The bottom 90 percent are struggling to make ends meet. The richest 10 percent account for a large and growing portion of all consumption. The top one-tenth of one percent holds an increasing portion of all wealth.

Today the great divide is not between left and right. It’s between democracy and oligarchy.

The word “oligarchy” comes from the Greek word oligarkhes, meaning “few to rule or command.” It refers to a government of and by a handful of exceedingly rich people who control the major institutions of society and therefore have most power over other people’s lives.

Oligarchs may try to hide their power behind those institutions, or try to justify their power with platitudes about the public good, or try to excuse their power through philanthropy and “corporate social responsibility.” But no one should be fooled. Oligarchs wield power for their own benefit.

Even a system that calls itself a democracy can become an oligarchy if power becomes concentrated in the hands of a corporate and financial elite. Their power and wealth increase over time — as they make laws that favor themselves, manipulate financial markets to their advantage, and create or exploit economic monopolies that put even more wealth into their pockets.

Modern-day Russia is an oligarchy. A handful of billionaires there control most major industries and dominate politics and the economy.

What about the United States?

America has experienced oligarchy three times in its brief history.

The first was at the nation’s start. Many of the men who founded the United States were slaveholding white oligarchs. America didn’t have much of a middle class. Most white people were farmers, indentured servants, farmhands, traders, day laborers, and artisans. A fifth of the population was Black, almost all enslaved.

A century later, a second oligarchy emerged, the robber barons. They were men who amassed fortunes through their railroad, steel, oil, and financial empires — men such as J. Pierpont Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Andrew Mellon. They ushered the nation into an industrial revolution that vastly expanded economic output.

They also corrupted government, brutally suppressed wages, generated unprecedented levels of inequality and urban poverty, pillaged rivals, shut down competitors, and made out like bandits — which is why they earned the sobriquet “robber barons.”

World War I and the Great Depression of the 1930s eroded most of these robber barons’ wealth. And most of their power was eliminated after the elections of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

For the next half-century the gains from growth were more widely shared, and democracy became more responsive to the needs and aspirations of average Americans.

Although America created the largest middle class the world had ever seen, there was still much to do — civil rights and voting rights for Black Americans, wider economic opportunities for them and for women and Latinos, protection of the environment. Yet by almost every measure the nation was making progress.

A third American oligarchy emerged starting around 1980. Since then, the share of the nation’s wealth owned by the richest 400 Americans has quadrupled (from 0.8 percent to 3.7 percent).

The richest 130,000 Americans and their immediate families now own as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent — 117 million — combined. The three richest Americans own as much as the entire bottom half of the population.

The only other country with similarly high levels of wealth concentration is Russia.

All this has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in the political power of the super-wealthy and an equally dramatic decline in the political influence of everyone else.

Unlike income or wealth, power is a zero-sum game. The more of it at the top, the less of it anywhere else.

The average American now has little or no effect on public policy. Giant corporations, their CEOs, and a handful of extremely rich people have more influence than any comparable group since the robber barons.

The power shift that’s occurred in America since around 1980 is directly related to a tsunami of big money into politics.

In the 2024 election, just 300 billionaires (and their immediate family members) donated more than $3 billion to candidates — almost 20 percent of all contributions to federal elections in 2024, either directly or through political action committees.

Billionaire families gave an average total of $10 million each in 2024, roughly equal to what 100,000 typical political donors gave, combined. One of them — Elon Musk — devoted a quarter of a billion dollars to Trump’s reelection. (This doesn’t count money that billionaires contributed through dark money groups that do not have to disclose their donors.)

Five presidential elections ago, adjusting for inflation, the share of billionaire spending on elections was almost zero — 0.3 percent, to be precise. That was before the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling that lifted many remaining campaign finance restrictions.

Corporate lobbying has also soared. The voices of average people have been drowned out.

Meanwhile, and largely because of this vast power shift, taxes on the wealthy and on corporations have been slashed. Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill of July 2025 cut taxes for the richest 10 percent of Americans by more than $14,700 per year, per household, and cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans by more than $50,000 per year.

Meanwhile, safety nets for the poor and middle class have unraveled. About 3 million fewer Americans have access to Affordable Care Act marketplace coverage than they did before the second Trump regime, due to higher premium costs. Approximately 4.5 to 5 million fewer Americans receive food stamps. Public investments in education and infrastructure have also waned.

The “free market” has been taken over by crony capitalism, corporate bailouts, and corporate welfare.

The American oligarchy is back, with a vengeance.

Not all wealthy people are culpable, of course. I am not advocating class warfare, although America’s latest oligarchy has waged it against everyone else.

The abuse has occurred at the nexus of wealth and power, where those with great wealth use it to gain power and then utilize that power to accumulate more wealth. This is how oligarchy destroys democracy.

As oligarchs fill the coffers of political candidates and deploy platoons of lobbyists and public relations flaks, they buy off democracy. Oligarchs know that politicians won’t bite the hands that feed them.

Which brings me back to Jamie Dimon — chair and CEO of JPMorganChase (the largest and most profitable bank in the United States) and the most influential CEO in America.

If you want to understand the American oligarchy, you need to understand Dimon.

As a lifelong Democrat, Dimon is a friend of Bill Clinton. He supported Obama in 2008 and mentored several of the people who became high officials in the Obama White House. At Obama’s inauguration in 2008, Dimon said to the incoming president, “Tell me what you need. I’ll send people down here. I’ll do anything.” In 2009, The New York Times called Dimon “Obama’s favorite banker.”

Dimon supported Hillary Clinton in 2016.

But he can be a switch hitter. Speaking from the World Economic Forum’s confab in Davos, Switzerland, at the start of 2024, Dimon heaped praise on Trump. “Take a step back, be honest,” Dimon said. Trump was “kind of right on immigration. He grew the economy quite well. Tax reform worked.”

Hello? Trump has been dead wrong on immigration, the economy, and taxes. Why did Jamie Dimon — the most influential CEO in America — spout this nonsense in favor of Trump? Probably because he thought Trump had a good chance of becoming president again, and Dimon wanted to be in his good graces.

At a time in American history when the most powerful business leaders in America should be standing up loudly and clearly for the rule of law, for democracy, for decency, and against Trump, Dimon has led the charge in the opposite direction.

Dimon knows better. Over the years, he has frankly acknowledged the dysfunctions of the American system and urged that they be addressed.

In his 2017 letter to JPMorgan’s shareholders he warned, “We should be ringing the national alarm bell that inner city schools are failing our children.” In 2018 he told them that “middle class incomes have been stagnant for years. Income inequality has gotten worse” and cautioned that “no one can claim that the promise of equal opportunity is being offered to all Americans.” In his 2019 letter he noted that “a big chunk of [Americans] have been left behind.”

More recently, he told the Economic Club of Chicago that racial discrimination isn’t adequately understood by white people. “If you’re white, paint yourself black and walk down the street one day, and you’ll probably have a little more empathy for how some of these folks get treated,” and he called for making “a special effort because this is a special problem.”

Yet Dimon is full of contradictions. Let me list them, because Dimon represents the most responsible of the leaders of American business, and his contradictions suffuse corporate America (and are emblematic of so-called “corporate Democrats”).

1. Although he publicly worries about the plight of America’s poor, Dimon has never mentioned America’s growing concentration of wealth and power and the tight connection between the two.

He has never talked about the role of big money in politics. He has never advocated campaign finance reform. He doesn’t mention how the prospect of lucrative jobs on Wall Street upon retirement tempts some public officials to pull their punches.

To the contrary, Dimon lobbied Congress intensively for Trump’s 2017 and 2025 tax cuts. Overall, the tax cuts have rewarded the already wealthy, enriched big corporations, and exploded the federal debt while delivering no measurable benefits to America’s working class or poor; almost nothing trickled down.

Dimon is correct that many Americans have been left behind, but he has failed to address the role he and his bank have played in leaving them. For example, JPMorgan paid $13 billion to settle Justice Department claims that it defrauded borrowers and investors in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis when he was at the helm. Among its victims were many left-behind Americans.

2. Dimon has spoken about the devastating effects of climate change, including its effects on left-behind Americans who can’t afford homes able to withstand storms and floods and have no insurance against climate catastrophe.

Yet Dimon’s bank is the world’s leading financier of fossil fuels, according to the annual Banking on Climate Chaos report. This year alone, JPMorganChase pushed $58 billion toward fossil fuels, up 13 percent from 2024. A report, “Banking on Climate Change,” issued by a coalition of six major environmental groups, named Dimon the “world’s worst banker of climate change.” The likely consequence: More Americans left behind.

3. Dimon decries racial discrimination and points to the money JPMorgan is investing in poor cities.

Yet his bank has prevented Black people from getting loans. In January 2017 JPMorgan agreed to pay $55 million to settle a Justice Department lawsuit accusing it of discriminating against minority borrowers by allowing its mortgage brokers to charge them higher interest on home loans than it charged white borrowers with the same credit profile, causing the Black borrowers to pay tens of millions of dollars in additional mortgage costs. The result: More Americans left behind.

4. After the August 2019 mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, Dimon wrote a well-publicized email to his employees calling on them to “recommit ourselves to work for a more equitable, just and safe society.”

Yet Dimon’s bank is the largest source in the United States of financial services to gun makers and gun retailers, and of loans to gun buyers. If Dimon were serious about controlling the use of guns, he could stop this financing and urge other banks to do the same. He could have his banking and credit card systems track gun sales. He could use his formidable lobbying prowess to enact laws requiring that financial institutions create a world-class system for tracking gun sales with built-in safeguards.

But he has not. The result: more Americans killed, injured, and left behind.

5. Dimon has long expressed concern about gender discrimination and women’s rights.

Yet JPMorganChase maintained a long and close financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, processing $1.1 billion in more than 4,700 transactions for him across the 15 years spanning 1998 to 2013, including at least seven years after he pled guilty for solicitation of prostitution.

In a 2011 email, the bank’s general counsel, Steve Cutler, warned that Epstein “is not an honorable person in any way. He should not be a client.” Yet the bank allowed Epstein to make large, recurring cash withdrawals totaling millions of dollars. Bank accounts managed by JPMorgan were used by Epstein to facilitate financial transfers and payments to victims of his trafficking ring.

The bank later paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle lawsuits accusing it of enabling his sex-trafficking operation.

6. Dimon expresses concern about workers who don’t earn enough to live on.

Yet JPMorgan pays its bank tellers peanuts. In April 2019, at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee, Congresswoman Katie Porter noted that the starting salary for a JPMorgan bank teller in her district in Irvine, California, was $24,000, which left the teller $567 a month short of what she needed to live on. “How should she manage this budget shortfall while she’s working full-time at your bank?” Porter asked Dimon.

“I don’t know, I’d have to think about that,” Dimon said.

“Would you recommend that she take out a JPMorganChase credit card and run a deficit?” Porter continued.

“I don’t know, I’d have to think about it,” Dimon repeated.

“Would you recommend that she overdraft at your bank and be charged overdraft fees?” Porter asked.

“I don’t know, I’d have to think about it.”

“Mr. Dimon, you know how to spend $31 million in salary, and you can’t figure out how to make up a $561 shortfall?”

After Bank of America agreed to increase its minimum wage to $20 an hour by 2021, Dimon was asked if JPMorgan would match it. “It’s not an arms race,” he said.

I’ve focused on Jamie Dimon because he’s the Democrats’ favorite CEO. He’s thought to be liberal on social issues, moderate on the economy. His views are trusted by the establishment. He is the establishment.

But Dimon is awash in contradictions. He says he’s a patriot before he’s CEO, but in all the ways I’ve noted, he behaves as if his first responsibility is to maximize JPMorgan’s profits.

The underlying issue here isn’t hypocrisy. The world is filled with people who say one thing and do another. And let’s be clear: JPMorgan — its directors and shareholders — expect Dimon’s first priority to be JPMorgan’s profitability. That’s his job, and he’s paid handsomely for it.

The underlying problem is power and deception. Dimon has enormous public and political influence. But despite his rhetoric and the occasional trappings of social responsibility, he is using his public influence for private purposes: to make more money for JPMorgan.

When he takes public stands on issues, he clothes himself in the garb of the public interest. He appears to be a public leader whose primary interest is the good of the nation when he announces his support for Trump’s tax cuts, publicly opposes a wealth tax, proffers his alleged economic expertise on CNBC and other media outlets, urges members of Congress to loosen bank regulations, or warns Democrats against nominating someone other than a political moderate.

But his job is to do whatever he can to boost the profits of JPMorgan, even if and when that goal conflicts with the public interest. And one of the ways he achieves that goal is to exercise significant influence over government.

So how can the public, the media, and members of Congress ever trust his — or any oligarch’s — advice on the economy, taxes, financial regulation, the environment, widening inequality, and all else? Why should we think that he seeks any goal other than making more money for himself and his bank?

We cannot, and should not.

Dimon and his fellow oligarchs — Elon Musk and his billionaire bros; Brad Carp and many of America’s elite corporate lawyers; Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and the Ellisons — have kissed Trump’s assets to obtain corporate welfare, giant tax cuts, tariff exemptions, antitrust acquiescence, and war contracts, and to avoid his wrath. They’ve given Trump billions for his inauguration, his ballroom, his 250th birthday, his family businesses, and his superPAC.

All have sold their integrity in exchange for large profits. They’ve created media empires that won’t criticize Trump, financial empires that feed Trump’s crypto, energy empires that feed off Trump’s war, and legal empires that allow Trump to ride roughshod over the rule of law.

All have abdicated public responsibility to maintain the health of our political-economic system at a time when it is succumbing to authoritarianism.

They have used their power to siphon off the gains of the economy to give themselves unprecedented wealth — which has bought them even more power. They have justified their wealth and power as being in the interest of the public, but the public has been shafted.

They’ve changed the rules of American capitalism to favor themselves and harm most other people. They’ve eroded trust in the system. They’ve undermined democracy.

As long as the oligarchy is in control of America, there will be no meaningful response to the failure of most people’s paychecks to rise, nor to climate change, nor to the emerging dangers of Artificial Intelligence, nor racism, nor the soaring costs of health insurance, college, childcare, and housing.

These would require resources from the oligarchs or their corporations, which they don’t want to provide. As long as they control the purse strings, the oligarchs are unwilling to bear tax increases. They want their taxes to continue to drop.

As long as the oligarchy is in control, there will be no antitrust enforcement to puncture the power of their giant corporations. Instead, their corporations will continue to grow larger, raise prices for consumers, and become more politically powerful.

As long as the oligarchy is in control, there will be no meaningful constraint on Wall Street’s dangerous gambling addiction. The gambling will grow.

As long as the oligarchy is in control, there will be no limits to CEO pay, and Wall Street hedge fund and private equity managers will rake in billions more.

As long as the oligarchy is in control, government will dole out even more subsidies, bailouts, and loan guarantees to big corporations, and it will continue to eliminate protections for consumers, workers, and the environment.

The propagandists and demagogues behind the oligarchy (Donald Trump included) are pouring salt into some of the nation’s oldest wounds. They’re stoking racial resentments, describing human beings as illegal aliens, fueling hatred of immigrants, and spreading fears of communists and socialists.

This strategy gives the oligarchy freer rein: It distracts Americans from how the oligarchy is looting the nation, buying off politicians, and silencing critics.

The only way to disempower the oligarchy is for the rest of us to join together and take power back.

This will require a multiracial, multiethnic coalition of working-class, poor and middle-class Americans fighting for democracy and fighting against concentrated wealth, power, and privilege.

We must get big money out of politics. End corporate welfare and crony capitalism. Bust up monopolies. Stop voter suppression. And strengthen the countervailing powers of labor unions, employee-owned corporations, worker cooperatives, state and local banks, and grass-roots politics.

This agenda is neither “right” nor “left.” It is the bedrock for everything else America must do.

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/.

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