public banking

Last year, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman warned that President Donald Trump's economy was starting to have conditions similar to those that existed before the onset of the Great Recession in 2007. Now a center-right think tank has revealed that a key data point in the American economy is eerily similar to the pre-Great Recession status quo.

"On July 31, 2026, the 30-year Treasury bond yield closed at 5.27 percent, its highest mark since 2007," reported the Peter G. Peterson Foundation on Wednesday. "While there are many interactive and complex factors in the global economy that affect the interest rate environment, investors are demanding higher compensation for holding U.S. debt. As ratings agencies have serially warned, U.S. debt growth is unsustainable, and global investors appear to be weighing the risks of financing U.S. deficits more heavily."

They added, "These pressures have only intensified since July. On August 19, the U.S. Treasury announced that starting September 9, it would 'at least double' the size of its long-dated security buybacks in an effort to lower yields. While yields briefly dipped, they rebounded by the next day, reflecting the fundamental forces that drive bond prices, including continued market worry about the state of U.S. finances."

The report proceeded to explain why Trump's bond yield rates are so problematic for the economy as a whole.

"A critical, cyclical relationship exists between debt, interest rates, and interest costs," the report argued. "All else equal, as debt increases, bond purchasers demand greater yields which makes it more expensive to borrow."

It continued, "While this pattern has been historically proven across many countries over time, today’s higher yields and increasing interest costs are actually a return to trends that prevailed prior to the Great Financial Crisis. For more than a decade, the United States was able to borrow cheaply, at well below preceding historic norms, despite increasing debt. The pandemic, the spending that followed, consistent above target inflation since 2021, and projections of continued large deficits into the future have pushed the US towards back to the historical norm."

It concluded by pointing out that two of the three factors causing the ongoing strain to the bond market, the Iran War and the tariffs, can be directly placed at Trump's feet.

"Current economic events, including the Iran War, tariff refunds, and persistent inflation, are significant contributors to the interest rate environment; the nation’s fiscal outlook is also driving long-term bond prices upward," the report declared. "The United States will spend more than $16 trillion on net interest costs over the next decade — but that is a conservative estimate, and those costs could be higher if rates rise further. The August buyback episode should send a loud and clear message to policymakers that instead of attempting to control prices, a more constructive approach is to address the structural forces driving deficits and the debt higher."

Speaking to AlterNet in August, a top economist who helped craft the economic conditions that led to four budget surpluses observed that the size of America's deficits — which Trump has exploded — has so drastically ballooned that the bond markets can't help but react to them.

"In politics, you generally only notice the cost of deficits once that cost becomes very large," Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, who served as President Bill Clinton's Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs and advised his successful 1992 campaign, told AlterNet. "That's why the bond market is noticing it now — the deficit has gotten so large, and it's happening at a time of rising inflation, which is the other element here."

He added, "Our tax burden — all taxes at every level, as a share of GDP — is smaller than that of any other developed nation comparable to the United States.We have become an outlier in all of these ways, and the bond market is beginning to say: you can't sustain this. We are playing with dynamite."

If President Donald Trump is waiting for some kind of salvation to yank himself and Republicans from the jaws of calamity in November, conservative National Review writer Dan McLaughlin says he should probably stop watching the skies. Because that’s not happening.

“A perennial phenomenon every election season is the ‘October surprise,’ or some lesser version of the same: an event after Labor Day that, rather than boost or damage just one statewide or local candidate, changes the trajectory of elections nationwide,” said McLaughlin. “… Donald Trump has one very large rabbit he could still pull out of his hat: a successful end to the war with Iran. But with early voting beginning as soon as the start of October in some jurisdictions, time is running short.”

Trump’s problem is twofold, said McLaughlin. For starters, wars don’t end quick—and it’s a pity Trump fooled himself into thinking it would when he launched his first attack against Iran in February. While it may be possible for Trump to declare defeat and hope Iranian leaders are onboard with ending the conflict without a pound out of Trump’s hide, reaching a status quo that can be plausibly called a success isn’t likely to be quick.

And even then, the war isn’t over as far as voters can tell, because the inflation that Trump caused by starting it likely won’t tamp down by November.

The second problem for Trump is chronic, said McLaughlin: “Americans don’t trust what Trump tells them, or what an administration that answers to Trump tells them.”

Trump won two national elections because people trust him in some ways, said McLaughlin. They trust him to be tough on the border and immigration. They trust him to disregard norms, and conventional wisdom “when these work to subordinate American interests to wider global interests.” Until he blew his credit with a tariff frenzy, they trusted him to deliver prosperity, said McLaughlin.

“But even many people who vote for Trump have always understood that he’s a blowhard ... who will always put the best spin for himself on anything,” said McLaughlin. “That bit him badly during Covid, when there was no enemy to fight and people needed a leader they could trust to be straight with them. And it’s bad news in wartime, when the same trustworthiness is needed.”

Alas, all of this means the rabbit is likely “to stay stuck in the hat through Election Day,” said McLaughlin.

“Trump can probably get out of this looking like a winner only if the Iranians fold — and they are never inclined to do that, even if a purely rational reading of the American electoral situation would teach them that Trump will never be more dangerous or unconstrained than in the two months between getting a midterm electoral pasting and having to deal with a newly elected Democratic Congress,” McLaughlin added.

President Donald Trump's ongoing war against Iran remains unpopular both with the American public and with the international community. Now a new report reveals that experts are convinced the president's "rinse and repeat" approach to handling the conflict reveals that he lacks either a plan to win or a means of gracefully exiting.

"Foreign policy experts say the latest round of hostilities point to a reality that has become increasingly clear of Mr. Trump’s handling of the war: He has run out of options," reported by The New York Times' Erica L. Green on Wednesday. Green proceeded to interview Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist who worked in the State Department during Trump's first term.

“The strategy has been rinse and repeat, whether it’s rhetorical or kinetic action,” Bartlett told Green. “It’s been absolutely shocking how the United States has been exposed for a lack of a plan of engagement, and a lack of a plan to either win or exit this war.”

Bartlett also pointed out that Trump's repeatedly professed hope that the Iranian people might take over the government exposes the fact that he has no strategy for winning the conflict with the American military.

“When you get to the bottom,” he added, “you go back to the top of the ladder of engagement.”

In addition to Bartlett, a top think tank scholar pointed out that Trump's actions in Iran reveal that he planned on prevailing through the use of overwhelming raw power when the situation on the ground is more complicated.

“The U.S. has demonstrated its capacity, and that it continues to have one of the most effective militaries in the world,” Michael Froman, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, told Green. “I think the challenge is this asymmetric warfare — where we do have the most effective military in the world, but smaller powers with far less capacity, strategically deployed, could still wreak havoc and make it difficult for us to achieve 100 percent of our objectives.”

Green elaborated on exactly how Trump's foreign policy moves in Iran have tipped his hand and revealed the weakness of the cards he is playing.

"The post followed a 24-hour stretch during which Mr. Trump’s by-now familiar playbook for the conflict was on full display," Green wrote. "The president went from boasting that Iran was defeated militarily, a 'failed nation' in economic disarray, to threatening an apocalyptic attack that would leave “very little left” of the country after it had defied his declarations and demands."

She added, "By Wednesday morning, as Iran and the United States assessed the damage of the most recent attacks, Mr. Trump was back to trolling the country on social media, asking his followers whether the United States should name the Strait of Hormuz the 'Trump Strait.' Foreign policy experts say the latest round of hostilities point to a reality that has become increasingly clear of Mr. Trump’s handling of the war: He has run out of options."

Speaking to AlterNet in April, an expert economist noted that the ongoing war is exerting pressure on the American people because — by closing the Strait of Hormuz — Iran has exacerbated America's pre-existing inflation problem.

“I would guess that yes, destruction of Iranian (and some other) energy facilities in the Persian Gulf area will have at least a medium-term effect keeping prices for crude oil and chemical fertilizer high, and that in turn means gasoline prices may come down only slowly,” Dr. Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at the Progressive Policy Institute, told AlterNet. “Same for other petroleum-based products such as plastics, skin creams, and so on. The high potential of conflict also adds risk premiums to shipping and other costs.”

He continued, “Longer-term, lots of open questions. One is whether the administration will really concede that Iran has a right to close the Strait of Hormuz and assess tolls on shipping passing through it. That would make the smaller Gulf monarchies and to some extent Iraq reliant on Iranian good will for all of their exports. Likewise, Asian countries are the main buyers of Persian Gulf energy, and their supplies would be much less secure.”

MAGA pollster Rich Baris has interviewed countless Trump voters to get a gauge on Republicans’ chances in November. But standing in the way of salvation for Republicans is the fact that the 2024 version of Trump stinks.

“[I]f we're having an honest discussion, you could be a supporter of the president and you can still be honest. I don't just see what sycophants see: how that helps anybody. I mean, ultimately, it's my job to convey what people are telling me. And they wanted the old Trump back.,” said Baris, speaking with former George Bush speechwriter and Bulwark podcaster Tim Miller on Wednesday.

Baris said Michigan and Georgia are effectively locks for Democrats in the upcoming Senate race, and the outlook looks scary in many “safe” districts thanks to a declining Trump 2.0, which is nothing like the Trump of his first administration.

“People felt like,’ you know what? I think we might have had it a little bit better than we thought. Can we go back and have a redo?’ But this administration has not been a redo of 1.0 in many ways,” Baris told Miller.

Baris pointed out that his company releases a monthly summary report of what people tell them in interviews and a common theme keeps coming up over in every survey.

“And you could see it if you don't read the transcripts, the interviews, you could see in the word clouds, clear as day. They thought that the first Trump administration was much more focused on domestic policy. And Americans, they're not stupid. They know that the president's job has a lot [on its plate] but it's in the name right there: America First,” Baris said. “Look, I mean, I feel like I have a hard time speaking to some people on the right who are being intellectually dishonest with themselves. I mean, it's in the name, guys.”

Trump is a candidate and a two-time president who ran against “no new wars in the Middle East,” said Baris, and Trump’s voters very clearly plan to hold him to account on that. MAGA clearly loved what he was doing in the first three to five months in his second term, especially younger people, but that was a long time ago in terms of politics. Now, Republicans are running off the rails fast.

Trump’s economy, in the meantime, is in chaos thanks to tariffs and rising fuel and grocery prices.

“Republicans are going to run out of a coalition soon if they don't build on what he started to build in 24. And a lot of those gains are squandered because of the direction they took,” said Baris. “I mean, they decided by spring, certainly by summer, before Charlie [Kirk] was killed, to conduct Operation Midnight Hammer. And that was Kind of like a PTSD moment for a huge part of Trump's coalition.”

“They just thought, ‘here we go again. No, please.’ And they gave him a lot of grace and they waited and waited and waited, but he never took that pivot back to the domestic,” Baris added.

President Donald Trump's second term has been rife with accusations of corruption, from the president earning between $1 billion and $2 billion from his cryptocurrency ventures and offering a $1.8 billion slush fund to his political supporters to his sons getting involved in a lucrative Kazakhstan tungsten mine deal. According to a recent survey, all of this corruption has caused Americans to suspect that corruption is pervasive in their government — and to feel that way at an unprecedented scale.

"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 on Wednesday. As the Gallup Poll itself noted, "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."

The poll added, "Democrats’ perceptions of government corruption have risen the most sharply since 2024 compared with other party groups. In former President Joe Biden’s final year in office, 57 [percent] of Democrats said corruption was widespread in government; that rose to 76 [percent] in 2025, the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, and reached 91 [percent] this year. The figure among political independents (90 [percent]) aligns more closely with Democrats’ than with Republicans’ (83 [percent]) and is up 12 points since 2024."

Notably, one large group of Americans do not feel that way — Republicans.

"Republicans’ views of corruption have changed far less in the same period," Gallup added. "For the past two years, about eight in 10 have said corruption is widespread, broadly in line with 2024, when 87 [percent] said the same."

The Washington Post's Praveena Somasundaram elaborated on what all of this means for the American people.

"As November has grown nearer, Democratic leaders have homed in on anti-corruption messages in their quest to retake Congress," Somasundaram wrote. "Democrats repeatedly accused the president of breaking his promise to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse in Washington, instead enriching himself, his family and his allies through the federal government."

Somasundaram added, "During an event to mark the final 100 days before the midterm elections, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) debuted a new line in his stump speech: 'We are going to hold the crooks accountable.' On the other side of the aisle, Republicans’ view of corruption has stayed relatively steady since 2024, suggesting that their perception of the issue does not hinge on the party in power as much as it does for Democrats. This year, 83 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of independents said corruption was widespread. That finding suggests that Americans are accessing political news and information — and that corruption is breaking through as an issue, said David Szakonyi, a political science professor at George Washington University.

“There is a broad base consensus for the fact that something is broken in Washington,” Szakonyi told Somasundaram.

President Donald Trump is alarmed that Democrats may retake the House of Representatives during the upcoming midterm elections, which in turn would empower them to impeach him. Yet according to one expert, Democrats will not have an easy job gaining control of that legislative chamber, despite their seeming advantages.

"President Donald Trump’s low job approval ratings, coupled with large Democratic leads in generic congressional polling, have most analysts expecting the House to flip to team blue in November," wrote Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, for The Washington Post on Wednesday. "That’s still the most likely outcome, but a seat-by-seat analysis reveals a tougher challenge for Democrats than the overall picture suggests."

Olsen began by pointing out the raw numerical strength held by Republicans.

"Large midterm gains usually occur when the party in power loses seats that typically lean toward the other side. In 2018, Republicans held 25 House seats Hillary Clinton had carried two years earlier; they lost 22 of them," Olsen wrote. "But thanks to increased polarization (and mid-cycle redistricting shenanigans), the GOP only holds eight seats won by Democrat Kamala Harris in 2024."

He added, "Redistricting has also shifted the House map sharply in the GOP’s favor. The median House seat — the 218th seat required for House control — under the 2024 maps was Arizona’s 1st District, which Trump carried by 3.1 percentage points. Now it’s Virginia’s 1st District, which he won by 4.9 points. Winning that district plus every single House seat Trump carried by less than that will be a tall order."

On top of Democrats needing to win these swing districts, they will also need to pull off some upsets, which Olsen characterized as unlikely.

"No party ever sweeps all the seats a baseline partisan analysis suggests it can win," Olsen argued. "That means Democrats probably need to take a few of the seats above the median to secure control of the House. Those seats are demographically even tougher."

Ultimately, Olsen did not discount Democrats' advantages, but simply urged political observers to be cautious before overstating their chances of prevailing.

"Democrats have wind in their sails," Olsen concluded. "Trump is highly unpopular, and they have every reason to believe their voters will turn out for them. But that doesn’t mean House control is assured. Their path to a House majority runs through 2024 Trump voters, and convincing enough of them to switch allegiances won’t be easy."

Despite Republicans' non-zero chances of retaining both chambers, Trump has made it clear that he plans on meddling in the midterms. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine refused last month to rule out the possibility of sending the military to stop Democrats from winning, instead merely saying he "has no plans" to do so, and Trump has considered many other measures to intimidate Democrats from appearing at the polls.

“I think there are two things to consider,” Pooja Chaudhuri, Senior Counsel/Deputy Legal Director at Democracy Defenders Fund who specializes in voting rights as well as election law litigation and advocacy, told AlterNet in June. “One is that the election is made up of voters, and so the outcome depends on people turning out to the polls and voting. The problem is ... the chilling effect on voters.”

Chaudhuri continued, “When voters hear that ICE may be deployed to the polls, that mail-in voting rules are changing close to the election, a lot of voters might say, ‘I'm just not going to go out and vote.’ That could happen in many different ways. There are vulnerable communities — people may come from mixed-status families — they're US citizens, but they might decide, 'I'm not going to vote.' So one aspect is the chilling effect on voters that all of these actions would have.” Nor is that the only card Trump may play.

“We're going to see consequences in terms of voters saying, ‘I don't want the FBI to get my personal ballot in the future,’” Chaudhuri concluded. “So, to sum up, I do agree that putting it all together, it does paint an ominous picture.”

President Donald Trump's assistant, Natalie Harp, is about as devoted as flunkies can get, but a psychologist reveals that even Harp has her limits — and if crossed, she could do enormous damage to the president.

“Harp, 35, has dominated several news cycles with her shocking loyalty to the president, which has at times bordered on creepy. As a reward for her never-ending fealty, the president has granted her access to meetings and people that a normal aide would not usually have,” reports the Mirror.

Her dangerous proximity to potentially dangerous or embarrassing information has alarmed White House officials and Secret Service agents, who worry that Harp could become a threat should she go rogue, for whatever reason.

“Sitting down with The Mirror U.S., Boston University professor William Kahn revealed that there is only one thing that would ever set Harp against her beloved president,” the Mirror reports.

“I would say the only thing that would do it is if she experienced herself truly betrayed by him," Kahn said. "Whatever that looks like. … But if there's a powerful sense of betrayal, then it's quite possible that she would 'turn' on him.

Kahn said that it’s difficult to see Harp turning on Trump considering her extreme level of devotion, saying she “has essentially given up a separate sense of herself."

Trump’s young aide regularly gets blistered on social media as the aging president increasingly mumbles and rambles through his day. Trump is not young, and his ever-present blonde helper gained unenviable labels, with users on social media dubbing Harp the president's "diaper nurse," a dig at Trump’s age, 80, as he is one of the oldest presidents in American history.

Spawning rumors is a book by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan claiming Harp leaves deeply personal letters for the aging president to discover in his private spaces. In one, she reportedly wrote, "You are all that matters to me."

But this kind of dedication to a man possibly expects a modicum of faith from the other end—and Trump is not known for his faithfulness.

“When pressed about what might cause Harp and the president to "split," Kahn told the Mirror that it would only happen should the president's affections "turn to someone else." Specifically, Kahn added, if they turned to "another young woman."

The Mirror then asked if Kahn ever got the sense that Harp was jealous of former White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, “who also enjoyed the president's warm words.”

The professor commented that he wasn't sure whether that was what was happening between Leavitt and Harp, but "I wouldn't be surprised if it were."

Republican strategist Scott Jennings (who may be in line for a job at the White House) is working hard to answer for the antics of President Donald Trump and his sinking popularity, and not every response is a winner.

Jennings attempt to divert attention from Republicans’ encroaching Senate disaster in Texas, for example, was a clumsy counter that did not go well on CNN “the Arena” with Kasie Hunt and panelists.

“[Republican Senate candidate] Ken Paxton is a bad candidate. Not only does he have flaws, he's not raising money. That state is a state where Republicans should be going gangbusters with raising money,” said DNC former communications director Xochitl Hinjosa. “That is a state where there are unlimited contributions on the gubernatorial side and on the Senate side, you have a whole array of Republican donors, including Elon Musk, who are willing to put in money into that state. But Republicans are genuinely frustrated. They're also frustrated with the fact that these attacks on [Democratic candidate] James Talarico have not been working. Poll after poll after poll shows him ahead or the race essentially tied.”

Confronted with the truth of failing polls in an unexpected red state, Jennings did what he does best: pivot to Democrats.

“Nobody around here seems to want to talk about the fact that [U.S. Rep.] Jasmine Crockett (R-Texas) does nothing for James Talarico, has been attacking the Democratic Party after that very divisive primary. I even saw the other day, she was talking like maybe she's not even a Democrat anymore,” said Jennings, claiming he suspected Talarico would have “problems on his left flank” and “problems with African American voters” in Texas.

“So we spent a lot of time around here talking about Republican issues. The Democrats internally have issues in Texas and Michigan, and if they lose those two states, the path to a senate would be difficult.”

“Jasmine Crockett will vote for Talarico and down ballot,” barked Hinjosa back at him.

“How do you know she will,” Challenged Scott.

“Because I’m friends with her. I know she will.”

“Why is she crapping on him?” pressed Jennings, getting testy.

“She's not going to vote for Ken Paxton. Give me a break,” Hinjosa snapped.

Presidential historian Leah Wright Rigueur, an associate professor of History at John Hopkins University, agreed that Democrats have some fractions, but said Republicans and Trump are “falling into the same trap that Democrats actually faced in 2022 and 2024, which is we have a lot of great ideas, but we're not actually acting on them.”

She added that 71 percent of voters say that they disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy, including 40 percent of Republicans.

“This is why everything is in play right now,” Rigueur added.

“I feel bad,” insisted Jennings in response. “I feel bad for Jasmine Crockett that they did that. That liberal, white male socialist did her dirty in Texas. If I were — if I were her, I’d have to—"

At that point the panel erupted in crosstalk with Hunt saying “lets stick with the theme of having their own challenges,” before moving quickly to the issue of Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

- YouTube youtu.be

President Donald Trump has a mouth and he loves to use it to shout bluster at his perceived enemies. But New York Times editor Bill Saporito says Trump’s business sense may be incapable of seeing more than one or two steps ahead.

He added that if Trump had used any kind of business savvy, or listened to economic advice from intelligent people, he would know, for instance, that there are some things the U.S. cannot twist into a homegrown commodity, no matter how hard he tries to tariff the competition.

“[T]he tariffs on aluminum show most starkly the irrationality of President Trump’s trade war with our northern neighbor,” said Saporito, pointing out that Canada shipped nearly $10 billion in aluminum products to the United States last year.

The metal is used in the U.S. automotive and furniture industries, and it floods the nation’s beverage manufacturing sectors. Ans while Trump has every obligation to enforce trade laws and prevent other nations from taking unfair advantage of us, Canadian aluminum is not one of the ways Canada is taking any kind of advantage. Canada produces aluminum because it can do it easier and at less cost than the U.S..

“Aluminum isn’t cooked like steel; it’s made from alumina, a powder refined from bauxite ore and zapped with electricity until it renders into a metal,” explains Saporito. “The electric bill alone can account for up to 40 percent of the manufacturing cost. When you think about trade with Canada, it’s useful to imagine aluminum not as a metal but as electricity in solid form.”

But with its abundant snow, lakes and rivers, Canada has huge hydroelectric power resources, many in sparsely populated areas. As a result, the country has lots of reliable, inexpensive electricity, which gives it an edge over its southern neighbor when it comes to aluminum smelting.

“Today there are eight smelters operating in Quebec and one in British Columbia, producing about 3.6 million tons of metal annually. The United States gets 60 to 70 percent of its imported aluminum from Canada,” said Saporito.

He added that Trump was ‘nuts’ to tariff a metal the U.S. can’t produce without impossible electric investment. When the U.S. first tried to establish an aluminum smelting industry the electricity costs shuttered many. Since 1980, almost 30 American smelters have shut down, usually over the supply and price of power.

“You can’t just hope that there’s enough juice to run the smelter,” said Sapporito. “The closure of struggling American smelters means that the United States must import — and that the cost of tariffs is destructive to American industry. As of March, the automobile industry had paid more than $35 billion since 2025, thanks to tariffs on aluminum, steel and car parts and other items. This is money that carmakers could have spent on research and development or lowering car prices.”

Meanwhile, our electric grid is in terrible shape, with electricity rates rising — just in time for the Trump administration to discourage new sources of power, such as renewables. And no one can tell when Trump will change his mind on tariffs yet again. No deal is final with this president.

“Try selling your board of directors a multibillion-dollar, two- or three-year investment on that basis. Emirates Global might be willing to shoulder the risk, but few other companies are,” Sapporito said.

“Who would flout this logic, trashing a 150-plus-year relationship with a close ally in a disruptive attempt to separate two interdependent economies? Oh, right,” he concluded.