robert mueller

President Donald Trump joked about Iran attacking a pair of liberal California cities during a campaign rally in which he defended his decision to wage an unprovoked war against the Middle Eastern country.

"It's a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe," Trump said at a Nebraska rally on Monday, according to MS NOW producer Kyle Griffin on X. "They can take out a city. Let them take— let it, let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay, and it's going to be over very soon. It's essentially almost over with, and they might keep going a little long. You know, they always say they have a big threshold for pain. They need it."

Trump also reassured the audience that gas prices would eventually go down, reiterating a pledge that he has made repeatedly without it materializing. He similarly has frequently claimed the war would soon end, even though it has dragged on for more than half a year. In September, Trump promised that the war would end shortly after the midterm elections.

"I think the war is gonna end immediately after the election," Trump said, before repeating that "I think the war will end immediately after the election."

In order to retaliate against America for declaring war, Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which has caused gas prices to skyrocket. In August University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer told Australian journalist Tom Switzer that he believed Trump was willing to accept Iran imposing tolls on the Strait of Hormuz because he has effectively lost the war.

“It’s very simple... he has no choice,” Mearsheimer said. “He lost the war. This is a devastating defeat for the United States. Can you tell me what the United States should do to regain leverage over Iran? I actually think you can’t tell me because we have no solution.”

Speaking to AlterNet in April, an expert economist explained why gas prices are likely to remain high even after the war has wrapped up.

“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.”

President Donald Trump could not stop from gushing over his 35-year-old aide, Natalie Harp, whose ongoing presence in his inner circle and fawning devotion to the Republican leader have prompted many Washington tongues to wag.

"'I’d like to ask Natalie to come out, Natalie, come out, bring it out here, Natalie,' Trump said of the order to expand access to tax-exempt diesel," reported The Daily Beast's Cameron Adams on Monday.

"'Bring it out, I’ll sign it right here,' Trump commanded before Harp handed him the order. 'She reminds me [of], like, The Price is Right,' Trump said after she left the stage, referencing the TV game show. Roleplaying like he was on the show, Trump continued, ''Thank you, Natalie.’ This perfect person comes up, hands it, walks up. We should go on television with this show, right?'"

Harp's relationship with Trump has raised eyebrows because, as author and journalist Kurt Andersen told The Daily Beast's Joanna Coles in August, "she is a rich fictional character only because the whole nature of her motives and intentions are unclear. Except for like, whoa, she’s like a stalker who got the job."

Described as "the human printer" because she follows Trump around with a portable printer to print articles and online content for him to read, Harp was also revealed to have left intimate letters to the president in private and personal spaces.

"I also am sorry if I was an embarrassment walking the course in Scotland," Harp wrote in one letter. "The first day I was told there were no carts, and people walked, which is why I walked. The second day, I was specifically asked by, I forget who his name was, but one of the main people who worked there, if I could continue walking, and tell any other girls who would head out there to do the same to spare the Course any more Carts. If there is anything else I have done to cause you trouble, please forgive me. I know that some people have said I haven't been texting them back, and there have been some International cell issues (John was having technical issues on the Plane too, so asked me to help him out)."

She continued, "I want things to always be right between us. I also know I've been distracted all week (forgetting to eat throughout the days, and even forgetting to sleep, and only catching a couple hours at a time). I haven't been myself, dwelling on the Past, and the pain of losing my Dad, and I started letting the remarks of people who haven't bothered me before, get to me—not because I care what others think, but because I see myself being lowered in your eyes and good opinion. That is the fear you see, because I never want to bring you anything but joy. I'm sorry I lost my focus. You are all that matters to me. I don't want to ever let you down. Thank you for being my Guardian and Protector in this Life." She signed off "with all my heart."

In another letter, Harp wrote "now this is the Note I wanted to write (But the apology needed to come first.) I have learned so much about myself on this Trip—I always knew coming home to my roots would be enlightening, but I had no idea how much. For the first time, in I don't know how long, you forced me to 'unplug.' We could be out on the Course, with no machines, and even forget what time it was! I didn't have to be 'Human Printer.' I could take time to enjoy good conversation, and still get all my work done at the end of the day. In fact, I even had time to take long morning and evening walks to enjoy each Sunrise and Sunset (though I did forget to eat and sleep!)."

She continued, "With so much thinking time, I confess it did have a slightly negative effect at times, that I know you picked up on, but the end result, I believe, will be worth it. I had no idea how rapidly I was approaching burnout, and starting to envy those whose only 'job' seems to be to talk with you, and look pretty. I want that job!! So many times, I'm just trying to stay afloat with all that's coming in for you, I look like a hunchback who didn't have time to freshen up (at least you know what I should look like)! Plus, I miss the days when you used to call, during my Talkshow days, and we'd talk about everything and nothing. I want to get back to that synergy. We shouldn't have to talk about work all the time!! I've always felt like an in-betweener, somewhere between Staff and those you enjoy talking to on the Plane or at Dinner, because that's who I used to be to you when I was a 'Talkshow Host' (as much as I hated that actual job!)."

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told CNN anchor Jake Tapper on Monday that many Republicans in Congress oppose President Donald Trump's policies and might under normal circumstances stand up to him — but that they are simply too scared of losing their political careers to do so.

"In the book, you talk about Republicans against Trump," Tapper told Tillis, referring to the outgoing senator's new book "How to Lose Friends and Antagonize Presidents." "We all follow, our viewers follow this closely. We only hear about a couple in the Senate, you being one of them, and we can get into that."

Tapper then quoted Tillis writing, "at least 30 by my count expressed reservations to put it mildly." Pretty much, that's the majority of your caucus. So you're saying they're all, like, to this level or more, and they're too scared to say it."

Tillis described the situation as "transactional."

"I think it's all transactional," Tillis told Tapper. "What I didn't mean is there's a group of 30 people that, they spoke out. It's like my position on [Federal Reserve Chair Kevin] Warsh, for example and so it's not like there's a coalition that agrees on that every disagreement that I've had with the president, they agreed with, but there are enough people that for a variety of reasons are not stepping up."

When Tapper pushed him on why they are remaining quiet, Tillis replied "they work maybe more quietly than I do. But at the end of the day, if you don't use the devices in power — you know, the thing I love most about this job is some of my greatest accomplishments using leverage, you all will never know about it. I know, but I don't want to, because I want to prove the point that when senators take the leverage they have that come from a Senate that has a filibuster, they can be enormously powerful and they can help their president. This is all about helping the president of the United States, who happens to be a Republican."

He continued, "Why would anybody think, as elected Republican, I would knowingly do something that would hurt our party? He's the head of the party. I support the president because he's the head of the party, not because he's Donald J. Trump, but because he is the face of our party and I want my party to be in the best position for elections."

Despite reportedly cursing at Trump in June when asked how he would have reacted to the president directly threatening him with a primary challenge, Tillis has been much more supportive of him in his publicity tour for his book. Speaking to Joe Scarborough earlier on Monday, for example, Tillis refused to describe some of Trump's personally profiting from his office as corrupt.

"Where the president's family has taken at least $2 to $3 [billion], where sons of the president are getting, what, $600, $700 million loans on new companies that are starting up from the Pentagon. Is there any moral equivalency because you said, well, every administration has problems," Scarborough said. "You would agree this administration's problems are far more extreme on the issue of corruption than any that we've seen in our lifetime. Right?"

Tillis discounted Scarborough's characterization.

"There's a lot of bad looks, but you've got to prove corruption," Tillis said. "And I have no problem with going through the due diligence and to provide counsel and to let people go through a process of discovery."

Scarborough was unconvinced, arguing "do you not think these meme coins, where the Trumps made billions of dollars and 98 percent of their supporters lost their money? Is that not corrupt?"

Tillis refused to admit directly that this would indeed be corrupt.

"I think it's worth looking at," Tillis said. "Again, there's a difference between breaking a law and a bad look. I'll give you a good example. And it's this nonsense of an oligarch helping pay for a wedding for Don Jr.'s wedding. My God. Who that's working with Trump, or Don Jr. would have thought that was a good idea? Should that be elected, too? Sure, I think so."

- YouTube youtu.be

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) squirmed when confronted by CNN's Jake Tapper about his claim that all Democrats are both socialists and anti-Semites.

"CNN’s Jake Tapper confronted Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) for painting Democrats “with a rather broad brush” in his comments on Monday’s The Lead," reported Mediate's Jennifer Bowers Bahney.

Barney added that Scott told Tapper, “Well, I think the point is, you know, the Democrats have all become socialists. They’re antisemitic, they’re anti-police. They want open borders. They want bigger and bigger government. They hate fossil fuels."

He added, “So, you know, it’s not where I can tell you where Floridians are. That’s not, you know, and that’s not how I won my races.I talked about balancing the budget and reducing regulation and focus on jobs. And that’s what, that’s how we’re going to win in November. And I’m still, Jake, I’m optimistic. We’re going to win. We have great candidates. We’ve raised money. So, as long as they get their message out, we’re going to win.”

This is not Scott's first encounter with bad publicity due to a high profile news interview. Appearing on the CNN show hosted by anchor Kaitlin Collins in April, Scott was called out for an inconsistency in his views on the filibuster.

“They use this 60-vote threshold filibuster, which I think we ought to get rid of,” Scott told Collins.

“Just a moment,” Collins interjected. “Since you mentioned the filibuster and you said you should get rid of it, when Republicans were in the minority you described it repeatedly as vital and necessary to protect minority party’s rights. … Why do you have a different position now that Republicans are in the majority?”

Scott replied, “Well, let's do the filibuster. But it means you talk. I mean, we're not making people talk. The filibuster was set up – so I'm fine with if we were going to do the filibuster, where people have to talk. The filibuster … was … used to say, we're going to have a conversation. And then at some point, once we're done, we vote. I'm, I'm fine with that. But we don't make people talk. So, if we're not going to make people talk —”

“But Republicans are in charge,” Collins said.

“Well, I mean, look, I'm from Florida," Scott responded. This is what I — this is what I believe in. I talk to the people in my state. They agree with me. I've been clear on what I believe."

Despite these controversies, Scott has reportedly had his sights set on being the leader of the Senate Republicans.

"What has become eminently clear in recent weeks is that Scott — after a long career in business, two terms as governor and nearly eight years as senator — just isn't a back-bench kind of guy," Politico reported in June. "He has lots of thoughts on how the Senate should be run and a willingness to express them, even if it puts him at odds with Thune's vision. The leader, who trounced Scott in a 2024 conference election, has largely avoided holding doomed votes that would split Republicans and, like many GOP senators, would like nothing more than to get past the months-long intra-party fight over the SAVE America Act, the elections bill pushed by Trump."

President Donald Trump's administration is asking a judge who frequently rules in their favor, and has been accused of bias, to delay a case involving the disclosure of potentially embarrassing documents until after the midterm elections.

"JUST IN: Trump trying to re-delay argument in repeatedly delayed 11th Circuit appeal on release of Jack Smith's Mar-a-Lago docs report," reported Politico's Josh Gerstein on Monday. "Lawyers for Trump's ex-co-defendants say they have scheduling conflicts with Nov. 2, urge Jan. 2027."

In their filing, the Trump administration asked that "Wherefore, Defendants-Appellees hereby respectfully request that this Court continue the oral argument presently scheduled for November 2, 2026, and reset oral argument for a date convenient to the Court and counsel in or after January 2027, as previously scheduled."

Because the case was sent to Cannon, it is quite likely that Trump will get what he wants. In 2022, when presiding over the case involving Trump misappropriating classified documents and moving them to Mar-a-Lago, Cannon halted the Justice Department's review of the documents and appointed a special master as Trump requested. A higher court overturned Cannon's decision, saying she has overstepped her authority. Two years later Cannon dismissed the government's case by arguing that Smith's appointment violated the Constitution, a decision that ignored decades of precedent and was made seemingly out of whole cloth. Then this year, Cannon ruled that the Justice Department could never publicly discuss the details of the Smith prosecution against Trump.

That last decision put officials in a bind, as they later wrote that "the government recently requested—and now, in some cases, subpoenaed—specific clients to provide non-public information about the classified documents case to individuals outside of the Department of Justice ('DOJ')" in a filing.

They added, "Specifically, clients seek to confirm that they can freely discuss non-public information related to their work on the investigation with individuals outside of the DOJ, including but not limited to a federal grand jury and clients' own counsel, without running afoul of the terms of the order."

More recently, the Trump administration's fixation on Smith led to a different kind of embarrassment for them. When Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) attempted to catch Smith committing perjury by claiming Smith lied about being in Atlanta, on the grounds that they could prove Smith had attended an Atlanta Hawks game, it quickly came out that Smith had actually been at a University of Iowa Hawkeyes game held in Smith's home state of Maryland.

Neither Schmitt nor the Trump Justice Department which furnished him with the documents have apologized, even though it later came out Schmitt never the information had not been vetted.

If you claim to love or otherwise care about the health and future of the United States, you have a civic and moral obligation to read President Trump’s full 75-minute, 11,000-word interview with Time magazine journalists Eric Cortellessa and Sam Jacobs, published last Thursday.

Do not rely on a summary, something paraphrased or translated by the media — or even the account of a trusted journalist or other public voice.

Do not assume that you have heard this all before. “What is new about this? I know exactly what Trump is going to say because I have been hearing it for years….” is neither adequate nor reasonable.

And please do not surrender to the excuse: “I am burned out, exhausted, and just want the midterms to get here so that Trump will be a lame duck in a few weeks.”

To do any of this is to abdicate your responsibilities.

Read Trump’s interview in its entirety. Sit with it. Process it. Then consider what you are really seeing and what it all means.

Here is a window into the mind of the world’s most powerful man. These are selections, not a substitute for reading the entire interview. What you will see is not good or comforting. The interview repeatedly shows grievance, grandiosity, a rejection of reality, unjust anger, and a deep attraction to violence.

Speaking about how the media covers his rallies and crowds, Trump said:

If I did something spectacular by any standard, and they would write about it, they will only write badly. Sometimes I'm amazed at how they can — you know, yesterday I got tremendous applause from massive crowds that came to Duncan. And I said to the people, “Don't feel bad tomorrow when you read that I got booed out of the place.” I didn't get booed out of the place.

I went to Tennessee. The crowd went wild. I went to, yesterday, to Chicago. Got the big golf tent. President’s coming. The crowd went absolutely wild.

The evidence suggests that the crowds at Trump’s recent rallies have been very modest, with many empty seats. More broadly, the responses have been extremely muted and low-energy compared with earlier Trump rallies during the 2024, 2020, and 2016 campaigns.

When asked about his earlier promise that the Iran war would be over quickly, Trump blamed the media. Here is the exchange:

Do you think the American people misunderstood that? I feel like most people heard you say four to six weeks.

No, I think the press fed it to them.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to annihilate Iran. Asked how he reconciles those threats with his claim that he wants to be a president of peace, Trump responded:

Because by annihilating Iran, we've created peace in the world. With Iran, I don't think you could ever have peace.

To reiterate: Trump told Time that destroying an entire nation and its people is a prerequisite for peace.

Trump’s public approval ratings are in the low thirties.

Trump’s response was:

They’re fake numbers. I would beat anybody running today by 20 points. Your numbers that you have are fake. The pollsters are corrupt. They’re almost as corrupt as the writers.

Trump described his economic record in grand terms:

I care about the American economy more than any human being that's ever been president, but I also have to put out the fire. I have to put out the fire in the Islamic Republic…

When I took over, I inherited the greatest inflation in history. I inherited the greatest price hikes in history. Remember when they started screaming at me about eggs in my first day, because eggs had gone up like five times higher than they were in my administration. Now I've got them down. I've got—I've gotten much of it down. The only thing I have to get down now is the gas, and almost everything else is coming down rapidly.

Asked about deploying ICE agents (and presumably other federal forces, including the military) during the upcoming midterms, Trump replied:

Do you plan to dispatch ICE agents to polling places in the midterms?

Haven't thought of it.

Would you rule out declaring a state of emergency in the lead up to the midterms unless there's widespread violence in the streets?

I don't rule anything out or in. We'll see. You mean the Insurrection Act?

Yeah.

No, I've never used it. I could use it. A lot of people think I should use it sometimes….

Near the end of the interview, Trump became furious, complaining that they had not asked him about his White House construction projects and other “successes” and “accomplishments” in a sufficiently positive way:

You haven’t asked me one f------- positive question. All of this. What about this? What about that? What about that? What about this? All negative. Why are you devoting all this time to the White House? . . .

I asked Dr. Bandy Lee, a forensic and social psychiatrist, one of the world’s leading experts on violence, and the editor of the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President, to analyze Trump’s Time interview.

Lee told me that he is a “spellbinder”:

Mental health experts have known this from the start of his first presidency, but I believe the Time magazine interview has demonstrated for the lay public that this is not a mentally well man. What people may have been unaware of is that some of the most psychologically dangerous individuals are often also the most charming and manipulative. In political psychology, they are often called, “spellbinders.”

Adolf Hitler himself was called a “seismograph of crowds.” They compensate for their defects in human qualities, such as compassion and a conscience, by mimicking the opposite, and the nation was hypnotized into voting in — twice — a dangerously psychopathic man whose only talent was hiding his extreme mental impairments well.

Lee warns that Trump’s dangerousness is increasing, not decreasing:

What people do not understand is that violent individuals are the most dangerous, not when they feel strong, but when they feel the weakest.

Now that he is markedly declining cognitively and emotionally — unable to get the “fuel” he needs from the adulation of crowds—his “smoke and mirrors” tactics are waning, too. This is when the public can get complacent, believing that Donald Trump will finally have his reckoning.

This is what I have asserted from the very beginning, but never has it been more exigent.

Lee makes clear that she does not see Trump’s threats to destroy an entire country and its people as hollow fantasies, but as part of an escalating pattern of behavior:

We should not ignore what he said during his earlier United Nations speech: “Do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance…? Do I drive them into hell, with no chance of survival and no hope of future…?” We must remember that this is a man with a history of violence who is now continually fantasizing about nuclear annihilation of another country—which will mean the annihilation of humankind.

Dr. Vincent Greenwood’s analysis echoes Dr. Lee’s findings. Greenwood is a psychologist and executive director of the Washington Center for Cognitive Therapy. He believes that Trump exhibits a profound and rare level of apparent dangerousness, along with behavior that may be pathological.

He explains the methodology behind his assessment:

This assessment process for clinical psychopathy is rigorous and possesses solid reliability and validity metrics.

Most critically, it does not require a personal interview since it is based on the appraisal of traits and well-established behavior patterns that require life history information, not information gleaned from a face-to-face exam of symptoms or mental status. Of course, with Trump, abundant life history information is available from the public record.

If one is panning for clinical psychopathy in the Time interview, you will find a motherlode.

Greenwood highlights several examples from the Time interview, beginning with Trump’s apparent impulsivity:

Trump’s impulsivity shows up in “I don’t rule anything out or in. We’ll see…” when he mentions possibly weaponizing the Insurrection Act in the upcoming elections. There is no mention of any kind of limiting principle. All policy is subjugated to his egocentric desires. On one thorny issue after another, such as rising costs, ammunition shortages, or prolonged war, he offers expansive, glib reassurances without any hint of a plan or serious reflection.

Greenwood then explores what appears to be remorselessness, a lack of conscience, and a desire for domination:

His remorselessness is reflected most strongly in his response to questions about Iran and exemplified in his recurring threats of “annihilation” of innocent people without any expression of concern. He seems oblivious to harmful consequences; indeed, he comes across as celebrating the harm he can unleash.

Another example of his lack of conscience is saying he would give pre-emptive pardons without examining wrongdoing (“Yeah, sure I’d do that.”)

Trump’s drive to dominate is revealed in his constant insistence that other entities — Iran, the Supreme Court, CNN, the Kennedy Center, major companies — recognize his dominant position or face punishment. The punishments range from “annihilation” and punitive tariffs to restricting access to the press and demolishing the building.

Greenwood concludes:

Trump is in the throes of this trifecta of destructive traits. They rule every move he takes, every comment he makes.

The Time interview shows that Donald Trump, in one narrow sense, is the most honest president in American history. This is not honesty born of moral virtue or profound ethics. He has shown himself to be a serial, if not pathological, liar. Trump’s honesty is instead a kind of raw transparency: an increasingly uncensored and unrestrained man and mind.

In less than a month, the midterm election will be here. Based on the historical trends and the high levels of disapproval for Trump and the Republicans, the Democrats are highly favored to win control of the House, and they will be relieved and jubilant. But it could be one of the most perilous times in American history. Trump will be enraged. His Time interview shows that he is capable of doing almost anything to keep total power.

When the authoritarian speaks, believe him.

Chauncey DeVega is a politics and opinion writer whose work considers American democracy, inequality, political power, and the enduring significance of race in American society and the wider world. He was formerly a senior politics writer at Salon. His essays and commentary have been cited by The New York Times, The Washington Post, the BBC, NPR, The Atlantic, and other leading publications. He hosts two podcasts: The Chauncey DeVega Show and The Truth Report.

The Supreme Court is kicking off its next term and preparing "to trample even more of our rights," but as one legal scholar argued for The Nation, "we, the people, are not powerless in the face of their power grab."

Elie Mystal is a former litigator turned outspoken legal news analyst and liberal judicial reform advocate, who also works as a justice correspondent and columnist for The Nation. In his latest piece from Monday, Mystal lamented that "things weren’t supposed to play out like this way," as a new Gallup poll found a record-low public approval for the court and a growing frustration among citizens toward its justices getting to "rule over the American people, more or less, without their consent," for lifetime appointments.

"The people who wrote the Constitution wanted the court to be insulated from public pressure, to be sure, but they never intended those insulated judges to be imbued with this much political power," he explained. "In our republic, the representatives are supposed to make the important legal and political decisions, while the unelected, unaccountable judges are charged with mediating disputes between the states. That’s why the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases in which one state is suing another."

He added later: "This term, the court will continue its dread work, despite the will of the American people. Human rights will be smashed. Popular laws will be vanquished. And the world the Supreme Court leaves to our children will become ever dirtier and more violent."

Mystal further detailed the various cases before the court and the most likely rulings the conservative majority will hand down, few of which "will be popular."

"Republicans would never be able to overturn popular laws like the National Voter Registration Act or Title IX at the ballot box," Mystal argued. "People in Washington State voted to protect runaways, while people in Chicago voted to ban assault weapons. And the fossil-fuel industry counts among the least-popular mustache-twirling capitalists in our society. The fact that none of these Republican-aligned cases could win in front of the people is the reason they’re in front of the Supreme Court. The court is where Republicans go to do what the people reject."

He added further: "But we are not powerless. While the political branches will never buck the Supreme Court on their own, we can demand it — and push and push until they rein in this rogue branch of government. There’s a lot that our elected leaders can do, much of it through simple legislation. They can change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. They can cut its funding. And, at the end of the day, they can strip its jurisdiction over laws passed by Congress. Indeed, all of these things can be done without the need of a constitutional amendment."

Mystal concluded that "this Supreme Court can be stopped," but also warned that "Congress will not take back power for the people unless the people recognize how much power they’ve lost." Therefore, it falls to voters to demand in large numbers that Washington take action reform the court.

Voters from many different walks of life took a chance on President Donald Trump in 2024, and according to a new piece from MS NOW, his second presidency has badly failed one key group that put "the greatest hope" for their future in him.

Writing for the network on Monday morning, author and reporter Paul Waldman exposed "the unmanly truth" about the Trump administration, citing the most recent federal jobs report as proof that "Americans continue to fall behind on affording the necessities of life." He further suggested that the almost apocalyptically bad poll numbers for Trump and the GOP might be explained by the acute disappointment of one particular group that broke for him in a big way in 2024.

"To look at President Donald Trump’s poll ratings, one would think we’re in the middle of an outright depression, not just a mediocre economy that isn’t providing the kind of security and opportunity people want," Waldman wrote. "That may be explained by a yawning gap between what Trump promised and what he has delivered — especially for those people, including young men, who put the greatest hope in him to improve their lives"

He added later: "It was clearly a mistake for Trump to say on the campaign trail in 2024, 'When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One.' But that’s not all he hasn’t been able to deliver. Ever since he ran in 2016, he has offered a vision of a return to an America of the past, one in which manufacturing was the driver of the economy and the people who today feel they have been left behind — especially men, and especially men in rural areas — could rely on well-paid, secure jobs that offered not just a good living but also a sense of accomplishment and status."

Waldman noted that it was almost certainly impossible for Trump to bring down prices as swiftly and dramatically as he promised, as it would be for any president. However, the major sting voters are feeling now is because of the actions he took that directly made things worse "for the people who counted on him the most," including his war with Iran, which has inflated gas prices, hitting harder in rural Trump-supporting areas where "residents have to travel longer distances and many of them drive pickups."

"If you were driving to one of the great manufacturing jobs that Trump claims he has created, you might be willing to absorb that cost. But there has been no factory boom," Waldman argued. "In fact, there are fewer manufacturing jobs now than there were when Trump took office."

Among the few sectors seeing job growth under Trump have been home healthcare and social services, professions that don't "involve manly men pounding raw materials into finished products," and are therefore not the sort of jobs that "Trump will encourage men to go into."

"If Trump had chosen to, he could have used his influence with young men to convince them that the economy of tomorrow isn’t going to be about upper-body strength," Waldman continued. "Instead, he told them that the past could be recaptured. With the help of a thousand right-wing podcasters and social media influencers, his administration has worked to promote a vision of manhood based on bullying, violence and anxiety. Just look at the comically insecure secretary of defense, who throws insults at every vulnerable group and is obsessed with testosterone levels."

He concluded: "Even so, when you ask young men what’s necessary to be a man, the top answer will usually be providing for their families. They don’t want to be isolated and atomized, desperately injecting themselves with supplements but unable to find a good job. With the election just a month away, they know Trump hasn’t delivered what he promised — and like other voters, they may have run out of patience"

President Donald Trump's immigration policies have often found themselves in the crosshairs of America's legal system. Now a judge appointed by Trump himself has blasted federal agents for arresting people even when they are not undocumented immigrants and then claiming to have misidentified them.

"Judge Gary Brown, a Trump appointee in New York, rebukes ICE for arresting two people erroneously — including a U.S. citizen — and later claiming 'mistaken identity,'" reported Politico's Kyle Cheney on Monday on X. He quoted Brown as saying, "ICE agents falsified official records."

In his decision, Brown condemned ICE's overall approach to enforcing the law.

"In countless ICE habeas petitions involving individuals detained for civil — not criminal — proceedings, respondents advised judges of this court that various petitioners had been jailed due to misidentification: officers erroneously identified the petitioner as a 'target' of an ICE 'operation' based on similarities of height, weight, description, and sometimes a photograph," Brown wrote. "The undersigned has, in prior cases, accepted this explanation based on representations of counsel and/or sworn statements by ICE agents. This case required exploring that proffered justification in connection with two such non-criminal arrests."

This is not the first time Brown has slammed Trump's immigration policies. In March, Brown harshly criticized ICE for detaining an honors student swept up in a raid despite possessing Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status. Honduran national Hester Asaf Garcia Lanza, who came to the United States at the age of 9 and worked lawfully in the United States for years, was picked up in an ICE/DHS sweep. Garcia Lanza was then subjected to removal proceedings in defiance of his legal certifications, and after the court determined Garcia Lanza should be released because he was in the United States legally, ICE imposed unsanctioned conditions and DHS added a large fine.

“This isn’t how things are supposed to work in America,” Brown argued in his decision, further describing the actions as "unimaginable cruelty" and concluding, "The laws of human decency condemn such villainy.”

Brown is not alone among Trump-appointed judges to denounce the administration. U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif and U.S. District Judges Timothy J. Kelly, Karen Immergut, Thomas Cullen, Stephanie Gallagher, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., Trevor N. McFadden and Mary S. McElroy have all ruled against Trump in high profile cases, even though the president appointed them.

"To date, GOP-appointed judges have ruled against the administration in more than a dozen high-profile cases," CNN's Aaron Blake wrote last year. "They’ve also often used strong language that suggested Trump and his administration were blatantly violating the law."