swine flu

What just happened in Germany should have every American spooked

While Americans were celebrating this Labor Day weekend, in Magdenburg, Germany a 35-year-old neofascist, Ulrich Siegmund, told a cheering crowd that his rightwing Alternative für Deutschland party was “taking our country back.” They’d just pulled 44 percent of the vote in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt, double what it’d been just five years ago.

Their platform was simple: expel brown-skinned immigrants, dump the EU and NATO to instead build an alliance with Russia, and tear up the tech, climate, and energy rules so the fossil fuel and tech billionaires could take over Germany’s government like they are America’s under Trump.

It was a stunning victory for Vladimir Putin, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump, who all went online (Putin through spokesman Kirill Dmitriev) and immediately congratulated the heirs to Hitler’s party on their showing in the election.

That same weekend, Fareed Zakaria aired a conversation with Chrystia Freeland, Francis Fukuyama, and David French about why liberal democracy is in retreat, and Freeland argued that China’s so-far-successful model of state-directed capitalism is the biggest threat to democracy around the world.

And there’s a lot of truth in that, since China’s success proves that capitalism doesn’t need democracy to flourish and, in fact, may do even better in an authoritarian state like modern China and 1930s Germany.

Become a Hartmann Report Supporter

But the most serious threat to American democracy isn’t coming from Beijing; it’s coming out of Wichita, Silicon Valley, Mar-a-Lago, and from Republicans in black robes who’ve been taking gifts from billionaires for years. Here’s why.

At the end of the day, capitalism is just a game we play, which is why pro football is such a good analogy. Football is a phenomenal engine for producing it’s goal — entertainment — and it works because there are rules, referees who enforce them, and a league that ruthlessly punishes cheaters.

But imagine a Trump-run NFL announcing that whichever team wrote the biggest check to the league’s head guy could put fourteen men on the field, pull face masks, and throw kidney punches with no flags. The richest team would win every game, the entertainment value would ultimately collapse, and within a few seasons the game itself would be dead.

Capitalism is exactly that kind of engine. Since Deng Xiaoping opened China to markets in 1978, according to the World Bank, growth of the Chinese economy has averaged over nine percent a year, lifting nearly 800 million people out of extreme poverty, the largest reduction of human misery in recorded history.

I spent the month of November, 1986 in Beijing studying acupuncture; the city was poor, the air choked with coal smoke, and capitalism was just getting off the block with experimental “special economic zones” like Shenzhen. Nobody voted for it; China was then and is now essentially a totalitarian state, proving that capitalism doesn’t need democracy to be successful.

As the Chinese figured out in the 1970s when they rejected Reagan’s neoliberalism and instead embraced state-run capitalism (I wrote about this at length in The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America), in order to work well and produce general prosperity, capitalism just requires rules that prevent the most successful capitalists from rising up and taking over the state (as is happening here).

For example, when China’s richest man (Jack Ma) started complaining in 2020 that government regulators were holding his companies back from maximum profitability, the Chinese government killed off Ma’s Ant Group’s IPO and fined his Alibaba $2.8 billion for the monopolistic behavior of forcing merchants into exclusive contracts. Ma himself vanished from public view for a few months while he was “rehabilitated.”

I’m no admirer of a one-party state, and I’d never want to live under one. But the Chinese Communist Party figured out more than fifty years ago — from watching the failures in our example — that if you let the winners of capitalism write the rules of capitalism, they’ll first destroy the competition and then come for the government that hosts them.

They instead regulated their billionaires and their companies, in other words, because they knew what unregulated billionaires typically do to whoever’s in charge.

We Americans once understood that, and had a president who spoke about it in simple, straightforward terms.

Become a Hartmann Report Supporter

President Franklin D. Roosevelt came into office in 1933 to clean up the GOP’s mess of the Republican Great Depression; he fought back against his generation’s oligarchs, declaring in 1936:

“For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. …
“It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself.”

FDR took on those “economic royalists” and defeated them. He explicitly called them out when the Democratic Party renominated him for president in 1936 in Philadelphia:

“These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power.”
He paused for a moment, then thundered, “Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!”

The crowd roared, delighted that he’d put millions to work while stripping that day’s oligarchs of their power. And he raised the top tax rate on the morbidly rich back up to 90 percent, while stopping an effort to kidnap him and turn our government fascist.

“In vain,” Roosevelt said, “they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.”

Four months later at Madison Square Garden FDR named the forces of “monopoly, speculation, and reckless banking,” said they were “unanimous in their hate” for him, and told the crowd he welcomed their hatred.

He wasn’t trying to abolish capitalism. He was putting it back under control of the people’s rulebook: Glass-Steagall, the SEC, the Wagner Act, antitrust enforcement, a minimum wage, and a top tax rate of 90%.

Republicans fought it all, calling it “socialism” in increasingly hysterical tones, but it worked and FDR put America back together and built the world’s first middle class that was more than half of a nation’s people.

The American oligarchs of that era, in response, pulled out of politics and went back to just doing business and getting rich, until Nixon put Lewis Powell on the Supreme Court and Powell began the process — from the bench — of turning America into a full-blown oligarchy.

During FDR’s era, fascism had risen out of the ashes of the Republican Great Depression, sweeping in a few short years across Italy, Germany, Austria, and Spain.

History tells us that when ordinary people are forced to watch the rich buy their government and that government then fails to sustain them, they lose faith in democracy long before they realize it was actually unregulated capitalism that screwed them.

Become a Hartmann Report Supporter

Invariably, that’s when a strongman shows up promising to “take their country back,” and they cheer.

Roosevelt’s answer was to make democracy deliver for the working people, and to make the morbidly rich pay for it. And it worked: over the next forty years America built the largest middle class the world had ever seen.

I’ve spent most of my adult life inside capitalism; over the past fifty-five years Louise and I have started and run five small businesses. Not once in all those years did we go to a politician with a wad of cash and ask him to change the rules so we could get richer. We were working under FDR’s rules.

Then along came the fossil fuel billionaires funding Reagan, and it all changed in a single generation. The Powell Memo laid out the plan in 1971, and Fred Koch’s sons, along with Coors, Scaife, Olin, Murdoch, and Bradley built the think tanks, the media, and captured the university chairs to indoctrinate the next generation.

What Reagan added was a new sales pitch Americans hadn’t heard before: government is the problem, the rules are the enemy, and your real opponent is the Black family down the street or the woman you think took your promotion.

In one fell swoop, the richest men in America dismantled four decades of FDR’s restraints and taxes while working people argued with each other about whether Reagan’s reviled “union bosses,” immigrants, “welfare queens,” or queer people were responsible for their troubles.

Then in 2010 the five corrupt Republican appointees on the Supreme Court handed down Citizens United and told the billionaires they could buy American democracy’s referees openly. Several of those justices, we later learned from ProPublica, had spent years accepting undisclosed yacht cruises, private jets, and luxury vacations from billionaire donors with business before the Court while John Robert’s wife took millions from the same law firms that argued in front of her husband.

The result of this “football game” being corrupted by America’s capitalists is measurable. In the 2024 election, just 100 billionaire families spent $2.6 billion on federal races, one of every six dollars spent by anyone, and roughly 160 times what billionaires spent before Citizens United.

Virtually all of that money went to support Republican candidates who are back to Reagan’s old trick of blaming the middle class’ ills on the poorest and least powerful among us while jacking trillions into the money bins of Zuck, Musk, Trump, and Bezos.

Musk alone put up $278 million, then got handed the keys to the federal government so he could shut down investigations into himself and his businesses. And the man who moved JD Vance from obscure writer to vice president, Peter Thiel, wrote in 2009 that he no longer believed freedom and democracy were compatible, a perspective both Putin and Xi heartily endorse.

These men aren’t confused about how they’re trying to transform America: they’ve watched Chinese state-run capitalism produce vast wealth without elections and concluded, correctly, that the elections were the unnecessary part, if only the people can be sufficiently intimidated or brainwashed.

Europe’s been running this same neoliberal experiment since the Reagan/Thatcher 1980s, and Saxony-Anhalt is its poster child. Decades of privatization, austerity, and deregulation left eastern Germans feeling that the government in Berlin had forgotten about them.

Into that void came a party whose leading figures have been under investigation for taking money from a Kremlin-linked influence network and whose richest cheerleader lives in Texas and controls the social media outlet that was arguably largely responsible for AfD’s success.

When Putin took over the new, fragile Russian democracy at the beginning of this millennium, his first job was to get control of the oligarchs who largely owned the economy. He killed some, imprisoned others, and made those who’d swear total loyalty and fealty to him richer than Midas.

Trump appears to be following that same plan, which is why America’s oligarchs are beating a path to his door, bearing gifts.

Become a Hartmann Report Supporter

Democracy not only isn’t necessary in the minds of these “new Republicans”; it’s there to be bought-and-sold, bent to their will with billions spent on elections and propaganda, and ultimately turned against itself to create an authoritarian surveillance state of, by, and for the wealthiest capitalists.

Regulation is capitalism’s immune system and works for an economy the same way the NFL’s rules work for that game. Antitrust laws, campaign finance limits, financial transparency rules, and progressive taxation keep the richest teams from “buying the league” and corrupting the entire system.

Roosevelt understood that the “privileged princes” would always reach for control over government, and that the only defense was a government strong enough to say no. We had that for forty years, from the 1930s to the 1980s.

We can have it again, but only if the people who benefit from an honest game outvote the followers of the billionaires like Trump and Musk who’ve been paying to rig it.

We need a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United like I detail in Who Killed the American Dream?, real antitrust enforcement, free or low-cost healthcare and college for the middle class, more widespread unionization, rational immigration reform, and a return to high taxes on the morbidly rich: all programs the billionaires and their lickspittle elected Republicans oppose.

Check your registration at vote.org and find out who’s running for your state legislature at openstates.org, because the rulebook gets rewritten in statehouses too.

And if you found this useful, please subscribe to and share the Hartmann Report, because independent media that isn’t owned by a billionaire is also a major part of democracy’s immune system.

'Bad time' for vulnerable Republicans as Trump puts key Senate seats in play

President Donald Trump's ongoing battle with Canada is now starting to hurt Republican candidates with just 55 days until the November 3 election.

The Hill reported on Wednesday that Trump's ongoing trade war with Canada appears to be helping Democrats more than they hoped for by putting vulnerable Republican Senate candidates in yet another bind.

Trump's tariffs on Canada began on Tuesday, prompting several Republicans to speak out against Trump publicly. These exposed Republican are now being forced to defend Trump while his policy threatens jobs in their states.

For Sen. Roger Marshall (R) in Kansas, it was revealed Tuesday that his state could lose 1,200 jobs as Trump threatened to go after Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier.

Marshall said he raised the issue with Trump while still endorsing the goal of bringing more manufacturing to Wichita. However, his statement drew criticism online and prompted CNN analysts to assert that vulnerable Republicans must now distance themselves from Trump’s trade war. Other Kansas Republicans, including Sen. Jerry Moran (R) and Ron Estes (R), also urged Trump to offer exemptions, but commentators warned they'll still face voters’ anger over tariffs, rising costs and threatened jobs.

In Maine, Trump's decision is putting Republican Sen. Susan Collins in further political peril. Despite her loyal Trump voting record, she is now also trying to distance herself from his tariffs.

“There’s no one who has been more vocal than I have against Canadian tariffs,” she told reporters, according to The Hill. “I voted against them on the Senate floor months ago when the president was first proposing that there be tariffs."

She went on to say she spoke briefly to the Trump trade representative about the impact these decisions will have on Maine.

“Take something like road salt, we get all of our road salt from Canada,” said Collins. She went on to claim that Trump's tariffs could increase costs for some small towns by as much as $10,000 a year just for road salt. Maine’s close economic and cultural ties with Canada, including lumber, fisheries and tourism, make the trade war particularly politically sensitive.

Professor emerita of political science at the University of Maine, Amy Fried, told The Hill, “Maine and Canada have had very close relations over the years. There’s a lot of different ways in which the Maine and the Canadian economies have intersected. It affected the lumber industry, there have been fisheries issues, a lot of tourism back and forth.”

“A lot of Maine people feel an attachment to Canada and have benefited from those relationships, and Sen. Collins is trying to separate herself from it by saying she doesn’t approve of the tariffs, but Troy Jackson is also talking about it,” she added.

Meanwhile, Democrats are tying Collins to Trump's actions.

“Clearly, the economy in Maine is affected by tariffs,” Fried said. Indeed, Maine has a lot of Canadian tourism, to the tune of $500 million annually, according to the Portland Press Herald.

The state isn't the only one to face tourism problems. Just one month into Trump's second term, Canadian tourists began canceling trips to the U.S. Just after one year, U.S. businesses lost $4.5 billion in tourism just from Canadians.

MAGA melts down after 'traitor' Kavanaugh defies Trump

A Donald Trump-appointed Supreme Court justice is facing backlash among MAGA loyalists.

On Tuesday, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh decided that the Court would not hear an emergency bid demanding to redraw the congressional map for Republicans in Missouri. Like many red states, GOP leaders have tried to gerrymander their congressional maps, a process that is generally done every 10 years after an updated census of U.S. voters. Trump urged redistricting before 2026 to give Republicans an edge.

In Missouri's effort, courts have shut down the changes, and late Tuesday, Kavanaugh ruled that it would not be heard by the High Court. There was no explanation why. It means that the state likely won't lose the only two Democratic seats it has in Congress that cover western Kansas City and East St. Louis.

"A lower court in Missouri blocked Republican efforts to bank themself an extra seat in the state last week. Kavanaugh’s Tuesday ruling on an appeal against that decision effectively told the state to keep using its old maps, rather than the new ones drawn up by the GOP," said the Beast.

Oddly, a lower federal district court judge then attempted to ignore the Supreme Court's ruling by ordering the 7 Republican — 1 Democrat map to be used for the November election. It sets up a constitutional crisis as elected leaders must now decide whether to defy a Supreme Court order. That order will now likely go to the Supreme Court to be appealed, meaning the battle for last-minute maps still isn't over.

The Daily Beast noticed that MAGA is furious, with accounts sharing versions of the same post calling Kavanaugh a traitor.

The Beast cited Pro-Trump pundit Eric Daughtery, who called it “SERIOUSLY disappointing.” While conservative outlets like RedWave Press declared it to be “unbelievable!” MAGA influencer SteveLovesAmmo said it showed how “SCOTUS is severely compromised.”

A number of accounts using the images and names of famous GOP celebrities like Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson and Ivanka Trump all echoed the same sentiment.

"Kavanaugh is a pathetic disgusting traitor TRUMP should have let him go and replaced this traitor," said one account named Proud White America.

That person later added, "Kavanaugh is a MCCONNELL BUSH TRAITOR"

"Brett Kavanaugh is the male version of Amy Comey Barrett. Change my mind," lambasted one person with an American flag emoji in their handle.

Trump pulls the plug on swing state industry —shocking local workers

For years, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has been working to make the state a welcoming home for clean energy manufacturing — EVs, solar panels, batteries for storage. The state went all out with tax breaks and a worker training program to attract EV and battery makers — and for a while it was working.

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here.

Georgia-based bus manufacturer Blue Bird started selling electric buses commercially in 2018 and built an expanded factory for electric buses in 2023. In 2022, Hyundai built a plant near Savannah that it said would be dedicated to making EVs. In 2024, Kia started making EVs at its West Point plant. And in 2025, Rivian broke ground on its manufacturing plant near Atlanta. The Hyundai and Rivian operations are two of the biggest economic development projects in Georgia history. The state has also worked to attract other parts of the EV and clean energy manufacturing sector, including battery makers and recyclers and solar panel companies.

Under the second Trump administration, the economic outlook for these companies has been destabilized. In addition to ending federal EV tax credits, the Trump administration has imposed tariffs on battery packs, charger hardware, and other components; loosened rules around emissions from gas-powered cars; and ended the Biden administration’s push to make government vehicle fleets electric. And a year ago, federal immigration agents raided an electric vehicle battery plant and arrested more than 400 people, most of them South Korean workers there to help get the new factory off the ground.

The past year and a half has been a grim moment for what was a booming industry in Georgia. But the EV makers are still forging ahead, even if that means making some adjustments.

At Kia’s plant in West Point, a long and constantly varied line of vehicles moves steadily forward on the assembly line, step by step gaining all the trimmings that turn metal shells into driveable cars. But this plant functions more like a short-order cook than a traditional assembly line. Instead of producing big, uniform batches, Kia has designed the plant to manufacture cars according to unique specifications — each one a different model, color, trim, or even drive train — that is, gas-powered, hybrid, or electric. Kia says it has done this to make more of the cars people most want to buy at any given moment. Right now, that means hybrids.

“What we’ve seen is a transition back away from maybe full EV vehicle building to this kind of a middle-of-the-road opportunity,” said factory CEO Stuart Countess.

Electric cars are still the future, he said. But for several reasons, including price and charging access, consumers just aren’t there yet. Changes to federal policy are a major factor, too.

“We had a tax incentive credit that did go away,” Countess said. “Sales were really moving in the right direction, but once it went away, it became a much different environment.”

Just as Kia has ramped up hybrid production, its sister company Hyundai has added hybrid production to the lineup produced at its massive plant near Savannah, which was originally built to make EVs.

“It’s kind of a messy period we’re in right now,” said Stephanie Valdez-Streaty, director of industry insights at Cox Automotive. “But I think the manufacturers are adjusting.”

At the same time, battery makers throughout the state have started shifting to producing storage batteries for electricity in addition to ones made to power vehicles.

“The state continues to have a lot riding on the success of both the electric vehicle but also the battery market,” said Stan Cross of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, or SACE.

Georgia leads the region in EV and battery manufacturing, but the growth has stumbled, with layoffs at SK Battery earlier this year. More than $4 billion in investment has been canceled or scaled back in the last year across the Southeast, according to SACE.

That’s dwarfed, though, by the nearly $74 billion in manufacturing investment that’s moving ahead. Still, one open question, Cross said, is whether Georgians will buy the hybrids and EVs being made in the state.

Despite actively pursuing EV manufacturing, Georgia doesn’t have incentives to encourage EV adoption like some other states. In fact, there’s an extra registration fee designed to make up for lost gas taxes. And the thorny politics may extend beyond state policy and the now-ended federal incentives. “When it comes to electric vehicles, Georgia politics remains utterly confused,” Cross said.

Private investment continues, though. Kia and Hyundai are part of a charging consortium called IONNA that has installed several charging stations around the state, including one at the Kia factory site in West Point. Electric utilities are investing more in vehicle charging too. Across the region, EV-related investment by utilities increased by 14 percent this year, according to SACE.

“Though we’re not seeing a lot of activity on the legislative side, we do see potential on the regulatory side and really are encouraging Georgia Power to step up and help kind of fill the void that policymakers in the state are creating,” Cross said.

Valdez-Streaty believes that, over time, making EVs in Georgia will likely lead to more people in Georgia buying them.

“It’s like that familiarity, right?” she said. “People have jobs at those companies and familiarity with those products.”

Though shaky for the last 18 months or so, she said the EV market is starting to stabilize — and the auto industry is still going electric, it’s just taking a little longer.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/transportation/georgia-bet-big-on-ev-manufacturing-trump-pulled-the-plug/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to reporting on climate change.

Trump increasingly 'detached from reality' as he lives 'isolated existence'

In contrast to first presidency — which found him often clashing with traditional GOP conservatives he appointed to his administration — Donald Trump has made a point of surrounding himself with loyalists since returning to the White House roughly 19 and one-half months ago. This has led to what the New York Times' Maggie Haberman describes as "unusually isolated existence" during his second presidency. And according to the Daily Beast, Trump's isolation is making him increasingly "detached from reality."

The Daily Beast's Ewan Palmer reports, "Donald Trump has shielded himself from hearing about a voter backlash by being surrounded by a small group of yes-men, according to a report … He has scaled back on the rallies that have defined his political career while choosing to surround himself with a select cadre of advisers and officials. This inner circle does not tell him about his dire poll numbers, with Trump becoming increasingly unaware of how unpopular he is, (Haberman) added."

Palmer adds, "Even negative information from polling and focus groups conducted by his own team — showing how unhappy voters are with Trump's handling of the economy and rising gas prices, the war in Iran and the botched release of the Jeffrey Epstein files — is not getting through to the president."

Palmer notes that Trump is making a "frantic attempt to stop a GOP wipeout in November's midterm elections." And that includes an unprecedented midterms convention set for Wednesday and Thursday in Dallas. But "scores of Republican lawmakers," according to Palmer, are "avoiding" the event "because they believe distancing themselves from the president will improve their election chances."

"It has previously been reported that Trump is considering holding near-daily rallies in competitive states and districts in the run-up to the November 3 elections to drum up enthusiasm among his MAGA base and get voters out to the polls when he is not on the ballot," Palmer reports. "Trump told his advisers, soon after he returned to the White House, that he did not want to keep holding rallies and that part of his political career was effectively over, the (New York) Times reported."

Palmer adds, "When Trump has left the White House for domestic travel this year, some trips were tacked onto visits to places like Florida or Sterling, Virginia, or Bedminster, New Jersey, where his private golf clubs are located so that the president could play a few rounds. However, with the GOP expected to suffer brutal midterm defeats and potentially lose control of the House and the Senate, Trump is rolling the dice and returning to face a public overwhelmingly unhappy and frustrated with his performance as president."

Canada hits Trump where it hurts

President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war with Canada is creating headaches for Republicans ahead of November’s midterms as high prices remain a top concern among voters.

Responding to Trump’s increased tariffs, Canadian officials have said they’re deliberately targeting goods from states where there are close elections. And GOP candidates in Kansas, Maine and Ohio among others have been forced to balance supporting Trump with defending local manufacturers.

Trump has repeatedly targeted Canada, traditionally a close American ally, since returning to the White House last year. But his August move to impose 50% tariffs on billions of dollars of Canadian imports has heightened tensions, pushing Canada to retaliate with its own tariffs on hundreds of American-made products that went into effect Tuesday.

Nearly $28 billion in U.S. exports to Canada now carry up to 50% tariffs, a dollar-for-dollar match on Trump’s taxes on Canadian goods imposed last month, according to Canadian officials.

Trump has long argued that Canada is taking advantage of the United States because of a longstanding trade deficit — meaning more Canadian products are imported here than American products are exported to Canada.

“They don’t pay for anything, and they want to be treated like a state, but they’re not a state,” Trump said last month after trade talks fell apart.

The fallout could affect consumers and businesses across the country, but Canada targeted many of its tariffs to inflict political pain just ahead of the crucial U.S. midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

The trade standoff has put Republican candidates in a tough position with an electorate already fed up with high prices and underscores ongoing concerns about how federal trade policy will affect American business and state economies.

On Labor Day, Trump threatened to halt sales of the Canadian airplane manufacturer Bombardier, saying its planes weren’t good enough and the company was treating America as a “piggybank.”

That became immediate political fodder in Kansas, home to Bombardier’s U.S. headquarters and competitive races for governor and U.S. Senate this year. The company employs more than 1,000 people in Wichita, the state’s most populous city that calls itself the “Air Capital of the World” with a local economy dominated by aerospace and aviation manufacturing.

The state’s senior Republican U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran immediately defended Bombardier, as did Ty Masterson, the Republican nominee for governor and current state Senate presidentBut the issue has put pressure on the state’s junior Sen. Roger Marshall, a close Trump ally running for reelection in a competitive race.

“We cannot allow this chaotic economic policy to continue to hurt Kansans; they deserve so much better. As your Senator, I will always stand up for Kansas workers,” the Democratic nominee in the race, Adam Hamilton, wrote on X Monday.

On Tuesday, Marshall said he would fight to keep Bombardier’s jobs in Kansas, posting on social media, “I’ve already taken that concern inside the Oval Office.” Marshall said he agreed with Trump’s aim of bringing more manufacturing jobs, particularly in Bombardier’s case because the company sells half its products in the United States.

Tariffs on Canadian and American goods are poised to especially hurt Northern and Midwestern states, according to an analysis from Oxford Economics. It identified North Dakota, Montana, Michigan, Illinois and Vermont as the states most likely to be affected because they trade the most with Canada.

Minnesota State Auditor Julie Blaha, a Democrat, said the trade feud is just the latest federal move to push up costs for businesses, consumers and local governments. Her office oversees some $56 billion in local government spending through financial integrity audits and budget analyses. She said Minnesota cities and townships have had no choice but to raise property taxes as they encounter rising prices.

“It’s just one wave after another. And it’s piling up,” she said. “All these rising costs are just coming home to roost, and they’re hitting Main Street.”

Minnesota shares a 547-mile border with Canada. Blaha said the state’s crucial agricultural industry is especially threatened as businesses constantly send products back and forth for processing. She highlighted General Mills, the maker of well known cereals, including Cheerios. The firm buys Canadian grain that is processed in Minneapolis before being distributed to domestic cereal plants and sold across the U.S. and Canada.

Grain is not on Canada’s list of targeted products for retaliatory tariffs, but the country did enact new tariffs on agricultural equipment, dairy and other food products.

“These tariffs have a bigger impact than just one just one hit on a price,” she said.

Canada’s political pressure

Canada’s retaliatory tariffs were aimed at pressuring the White House by targeting certain states and industries.

“We’re being wise and strategic to put political pressure,” Canada’s Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said last week.

Canadian data show countermeasures will hit Ohio harder than any other state, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported. Ohio is home to one of the most competitive Senate races this cycle as Republican Sen. Jon Husted defends his seat from former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown.

Husted has largely defended Trump’s tariffs in the Senate. In an August interview with MS Now, he acknowledged the president’s decision-making was not in line with how he would negotiate, but declined to second guess Trump’s stance on Canada.

“It depends on how it ends,” the senator said. “If we get a good deal, both Canada and America can come out of this well, but it’s going to require both sides.”

Canada is Ohio’s biggest export market, sending $17.5 billion in goods across the border — roughly a third of the state’s total exports. More than half of the state’s exports to Canada come from the equipment and machinery and the transportation industries. Ohio is a leading producer of automobiles, an industry deeply affected by tariffs because of interconnected supply chains that span American, Canadian and Mexican factories.

Trump’s tariff “decision is going to make it very difficult for folks in the automobile supply chain to be able to succeed in Ohio,” Rob Moore, principal at public policy firm Scioto Analysis, told the Ohio Capital Journal.

While Canada’s countermeasures were politically targeted, they will sweep across the country, affecting solidly conservative and liberal states.

Connecticut State Treasuer Erick Russell, a Democrat, said the trade war will especially hurt New England states that trade more with Canada. He said the tariffs could raise prices of everything from electricity to consumer goods.

Though tariffs will hit businesses and consumers first, Russell said they will eventually put more strain on local and state government budgets.

And the president’s on-and-off-again history with imposing and rescinding tariffs injects more uncertainty for both business and government, he said.

“Where things are right now, there isn’t any certainty or clarity around where this is ultimately going to land,” he said. “What is consistent through all of this is that consumers in Connecticut and all across the country are going to continue to pay for this tariff war.”

Concerns across New England states

The trade standoff could further hurt New England’s tourism industry that depends on steady Canadian traffic.

In New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont, tourism is big business year-round as travelers flock to beaches in the summer, leaf peeping in the autumn and skiing in the winter. Those businesses have suffered a drop in Canadian visitors amid Trump’s ongoing aggression with the country.

Steve Wright, general manager of Jay Peak Resort in Vermont’s Green Mountains, recently assured Canadians that they were welcome to the resort that sits just a few miles from the border and a roughly two-hour drive from Montreal.

“The border may feel different right now,” Wright wrote online. “We do not. You are our neighbors. You are our friends. You are part of this place.”

Vermont Republican Gov. Phil Scott recently characterized the president’s executive order to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America as “petty and disappointing.” Scott, who is favored in polls to win reelection in November, said the trade war harms communities on both sides of the border.

“Further escalating tensions does nothing to help American or Canadian families and businesses,” he added.

In neighboring Maine, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins has criticized the tariffs and urged the administration to resolve its dispute with Canada. A Republican in a competitive race for reelection, Collins grew up just 20 miles from the Canadian border.

Troy Jackson, her Democratic opponent, has blamed Collins for not stopping Trump’s trade policies.

Last week, Collins told reporters that the White House viewed tariffs in a macro sense without appreciating how damaging they are to border states such as Maine. Collins said Trump’s tariffs were already hurting local governments that rely on Canada for imported salt to treat roads in winter and could further hurt the state’s crucial lumber and blueberry industries.

While Maine’s important lobster industry was spared retaliatory tariffs, Canada did impose 50% tariffs on wood products and agricultural products.

“Canada is not China. It is not an adversarial nation,” Collins said. “It is our closest ally, our neighbor, our friend. And our economy is so intertwined with Canada that I am very worried about what the impact will be.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at

GOP operatives skeptical as Trump 'party' risks 'creating more harm'

With the 2026 midterms less than two months ago, President Donald Trump is hoping that his midterms convention — set for Thursday and Friday in Dallas — will give Republican candidates a boost. But according to GOP insiders interviewed by Politico, the convention is doing more harm than good.

Journalists Alex Gangitano and Megan Messerly, in Politico, report that "many" Republicans — including "some who plan to attend the convention" are "skeptical that the confab will be worth the time and money expended."

A North Carolina-based GOP operative, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told Politico, "When Republicans go spend a bunch of money to go to a convention when you got people back home who worry about paying their gas next week to get to work … What's the optics of that? It runs the risk of creating more harm. They're going to see politicians doing politics and not taking care of them at home."

The operative also told Politico, "The economy is the key driver here. Words and conventions are not going to fix the problem. It's going to be results at the gas pump but, more importantly, results at the grocery store. If the convention is able to show relief at the grocery store and the gas pump, then it will be beneficial. In absence of the relief, there's a risk of doing more harm than good."

Another GOP source, who Gangitano and Messerly describe as someone "close to the White House," told Politico, "Do you really think that the party is going to get a bump for two nights of random talking points? One of the issues that we have seen over the last eight years is that when (Trump is) not on the ballot, people are not as motivated."

GOP strategist Matt Whitlock, a former senior adviser for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), described the challenges that Trump faces from a messaging standpoint.

Whitlock told Politico, "He wants to find a way to paint a picture without saying you're doing great, but saying things that we have done have improved the situation in a trajectory towards making your life better. While simultaneously being able to make the argument: if you put the other people in charge, things are going to get a lot worse. And here's some of their worst socialist ideas."

The Politico reporters note that although Trump "made gains with working class voters in 2024, including Black and Latino voters frustrated with the Biden-era economy … only one in four Americans who self-identify as working-class say politicians genuinely want to help them, according to new results from the Politico Poll."

Gangitano and Messerly note, "Half of self-identified working class Americans say Trump has spent too much time focusing on international affairs instead of on domestic issues and 35 percent say Trump, not (former President Joe) Biden, is fully responsible for the economy."

Reporters 'know Trump's brain is broken' — and do nothing: insider

For about a fortnight, I have been offering readers a variation on a theme of insanity. The effort is paying off. During a September 11 memorial service this morning, the president of the United States said he was at ground zero in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack. "We thought it was coming down on top of us, and two firemen, big, strong guys ... grabbed me under the arm, said, ‘got to get out of here!’ And they literally lifted me up."

For two weeks, I have been saying he's insane and it's getting worse.

And lo, Donald Trump keeps proving me right.

But to truly appreciate the insanity, we must consider what he is trying to do. Trump believes deep in his bones that he's The Alpha. No matter what the situation, no matter who's involved, he believes he's the dominant figure in every room. He is the main character of a story he's telling about himself. (Not even 9/11 could interrupt the narrative. He famously lied about his building being the tallest in downtown Manhattan after the Twin Towers came down.) He has, as Paul Waldman put it last month, an "obsession with dominance."

"This is how he believes conflict, or really any relationship, works," Waldman wrote. "There is a stronger party and a weaker party; the stronger party shows they’re stronger by threatening or hurting the weaker party; and the weaker party capitulates. When it doesn’t actually work that way — because people, systems, and nations are more complicated than that — he’s at a loss. The only thing he can think of is to do the same thing, only harder."

The paradox of Trump's obsession with dominance can be seen in his relations with Canada and Iran. Canada is not surrendering to his threats. This morning, it announced retaliatory tariffs on US imports. Iran is not surrendering either. This morning, it announced it would keep widening the scope of war to include strikes on US oil interests in the Gulf. Both are standing up to him and Trump has no answer. Standing up to him wasn't in the story!

Waldman said this obsession with dominance is what makes Trump "such a loser." True, but I think it also makes him insane. Fewer people are listening to his story, so he increasingly turns to social media to reassert the authority he's lost. There, he can post pictures claiming that North America is one big US state, that the Strait of Hormuz is a US territory, that New Mexico has been renamed "New America" – all manner of imagery he believes demonstrates his dominance, no matter how detached they are from reality.

You would think a sitting president's insanity would make for banner headlines, but that's not the case. "Major media are afraid if they report the obvious fact that the president is crazy, he'll do something crazy to harm them," Mark Jacob, a former editor of the Chicago Tribune, wrote on Bluesky this morning. "That's one reason they're normalizing his craziness."

For months, Mark Jacobs has been trying to get the press corps to focus on Trump's crazed mind. In this interview with me (see below), the co-author of 11 books and writer of the Stop the Presses, a newsletter about the news, explains why normalizing insanity is favoritism by other means. "They think treating it as normal makes them look unbiased," Mark told me. "When the president invades a country like Venezuela, abducts its leader, chooses his successor and then grabs a huge share of their oil reserves, that’s not an 'oil deal' – it’s armed robbery. But the news media call it an oil deal because they think that’s objective. It’s not."

The president said Friday that "we could do tremendous good for ourselves by just not trading with countries." I don't know where to start with that, except to say it's insane. Are DC reporters seeing what we're seeing?

National political reporters are certainly seeing it. They know Trump’s brain is broken. But their bosses would punish them if they said it loudly and clearly, because the bosses know Trump would punish their news organizations for reporting that. So they try to stay out of his crosshairs. It’s like if you’re in eighth grade and the school bully comes into class looking for a victim. You keep your eyes down and hope he walks past you. Mainstream media are behaving like that. So instead of sweeping stories saying Trump is out of his mind, they do piecemeal reporting on each individual crazy thing he does and leave it to the public to do the math.

It is insane to keep doing what Trump is doing in the face of a mounting backlash. Yet the press keep treating it as normal. Why?

Because they think treating it as normal makes them look unbiased. When the president invades a country like Venezuela, abducts its leader, chooses his successor and then grabs a huge share of their oil reserves, that’s not an “oil deal” – it’s armed robbery. But the news media call it an oil deal because they think that’s objective. It’s not. By normalizing it, they’re taking a side – and it’s the wrong side, I would say.

If there was ever a time for the press to be truly adversarial, it would be during a war against Iran that's going very badly, harming the people at home, and radicalizing the war president's base against him. Yet the press is virtually hands off.

When it comes to the Iran war, I have to push back on you a bit. The press has been handicapped by a lack of access. Unlike in the Iraq war, no journalists are embedded with the troops, and news conferences by the Pentagon are extremely rare. Journalists are reporting with the help of unidentified sources, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is giving polygraph tests to his underlings to try to root out leakers. The regime is trying to hide the war from the public – to “low-key it,” in Trump’s words. But even with those obstacles, there has been some high-impact war reporting. The New York Times, for example, did an analysis of the deadly attack on the Iranian girls school and found clear signs that the US was to blame, even though the regime still has not admitted that and Trump even blamed the Iranians for it. Could major media be doing more? Yes. Are they doing a bad job? I don't think so. They’ve actually been tougher on Trump’s war than on many of his other atrocities.

This administration is the most censorial of our lifetimes. The press corps isn't even pretending to be sanctimonious about free speech anymore. What happened?

This is really disappointing, John. You would think journalists would be more energetic in defending the free press. Hardly any industries are mentioned in the Constitution. Journalism is. Yet you had that shameful White House Correspondents' Dinner where reporters partied with their oppressors. There was video of NBC anchor Kristen Welker laughing with ethnic-cleansing czar Stephen Miller at the dinner, and weeks later, Trump called on the Federal Communications Commission to punish Welker for stating that Trump's political endorsements have had "mixed results.” The national press in general seems to have accepted the idea that they’re part of a game in which they ask questions and the regime lies, and everyone can go away thinking they’ve done their job, with the public completely ill-served. The press’s lame reaction to a president openly assaulting facts is either cowardice or complicity, or both.

What is the remedy to a press corps that's so deferential to GOP power?

People should support media that are outside the United States' legacy corporations. ProPublica, for example. And the United Kingdom-based Guardian is doing a better job of covering American politics than American outlets are. They’re certainly more willing to state blunt truths. As for US corporate media, there are a few signs of pushback. CBS is a lost cause now – owned by a Trump-friendly oligarch. But ABC has been rallying the public to help it fight off the FCC’s intimidation. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr clearly wants to silence “The View” and kick Jimmy Kimmel off the air. People need to support ABC’s efforts and boycott outlets that bend the knee to the dictator. The fight for honest media is the fight for our democracy. You can’t have one without the other.

The voting battle's explosive twist: Legal maneuver gridlocks Trump's plan

The Trump administration’s proposal to crack down on voting by mail in federal elections – articulated in a March 2026 executive order – faces its toughest legal test so far, as the Supreme Court decides whether to allow the measure to go ahead, or maintains a lower court’s block on its implementation.

Despite offering no evidence of widespread fraud, the White House has said the many measures it wants to put in place will “enhance election integrity via the United States Mail.” Those measures include using the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Justice to vet the eligibility of voters, establish new standards for mail ballots and who can use them, and investigate and prosecute any state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters, including noncitizens.

Two major lawsuits were filed to stop the administration from carrying out plans related to the Postal Service. The lawsuits say the plans would result in widespread disenfranchisement and that the administration had no constitutionally granted authority to interfere in how states run elections.

The cases have worked their way through lower courts, and now the Supreme Court is considering the plans for the second time, having allowed them on Aug. 24, 2026, to go ahead in a technical decision that did not deal with the substance of the administration’s plans. A federal court then issued an injunction to stop the rollout of the Postal Service plans, and after the Trump administration appealed that injunction, the Supreme Court is now, finally, considering whether the injunction should be lifted and the administration’s plan regarding new mail-in ballot rules can be carried out. The Conversation U.S. Politics and Legal Affairs Editor Naomi Schalit spoke about the importance of the legal battle with John E. Jones III, the president of Dickinson College, who served for almost two decades as a federal court judge.

Schalit: I’d like to talk less about the legal issues and more with you about the importance of this case. I thought I’d start with a really obnoxious kind of question that I have never asked before in my whole career: On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most important and 1 being the least, how important is this?

Jones: Ultimately, the decision in this case is at least a 9, if not a 10. It has the potential, if decided in a certain way, to interfere with the franchise of voting in a way that the federal government has never attempted to do, and certainly the president has never attempted to do before. It literally could disenfranchise thousands and thousands of voters, depending on where the decision lands.

Has it happened before that such a momentous case with potential ramifications for voting has come to the Supreme Court this close to an election? The midterms are less than 60 days away.

I can’t think of any historical analog to this case. My overarching sense from a process standpoint is that it didn’t have to be this way. The Supreme Court could have decided it on the first go-round, when it rendered the decision that allowed the order to go ahead by staying the injunction from the lower court and would not address the merits of the challenger’s claims.

You’re a former federal judge. You understand the culture, how things work. How will the justices approach consideration of this case?

The Supreme Court doesn’t convene its term until October. It is not uncommon for the justices to sort of scatter and do different things. Some teach, some lecture, some write books, some probably relax during the break. That creates some logistical difficulties when there needs to be a coalescing of the members of the court.

The briefs are immediately due, and it does not appear that they’re going to have oral argument, since this is coming off the so-called shadow or emergency docket.

Given all those things, and the urgency with which some resolution is required in light of the upcoming election, I am going to go out on a judicial limb and say that I think what the court will likely do is engage in an exercise in balancing. We call it a balancing of the equities. To determine whether one side or the other will suffer irreparable harm.

In other words, who is harmed more? That’s what happens when you enter an injunction. You have to weigh the equities. That’s what courts do.

So it would be easy to see that the justices could say that, because of state elections apparatus, the states stand to be harmed more than the administration if this kind of patched-together regime is implemented by the Postal Service. They could say, in fact, it may be impossible to implement it in time for the midterm elections.

I think it is highly possible that they will deny a stay of the lower court’s injunction and not allow the executive order to be implemented, at least the part involving the U.S. Postal Service, which is the problematic part in terms of this election. And they may not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order until sometime after the election, perhaps after they conduct oral argument and they have an opportunity to more thoroughly consider the case.

So instead of entering this discussion thinking about whether the executive order was constitutional, they would be beginning their consideration by looking at the very immediate problems that may be caused by it, and asking, “Where’s the greatest damage going to be done if we let this go on or if we stop it?”

That’s precisely correct. An injunction or a temporary restraining order is not a decision on the merits of a case. When a court enters an injunction or vacates an injunction, the court has got to look at where the greater harm occurs if it acts and when it acts.

The government’s argument, which is that the greater harm is to our democracy because of the potential for fraud and for noncitizens to vote, is not supported by the record in this case.

From the standpoint of the challengers, they assert the almost sheer impossibility of implementing this. In fact, there are major logistical problems. It appears that the Postal Service is cobbling the process together on the run, so to speak.

I think the court might say that the public interest and equities lead us to say that we’re just going to deny the stay and thus keep the injunction in place. It’s not workable for this election. But we will reserve for another day – another election, so to speak – whether in fact the executive order is unconstitutional.The Conversation

John E. Jones III, President, Dickinson College

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

MAGA darling berates 'crackpot ghouls' ruining the movement

Conservative columnist and podcaster Josh Hammer has expressed sharp criticism regarding the internal direction of the populist conservative movement following the death of former Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Hammer stated that the movement is experiencing a tumultuous shift, with fringe figures and conspiracy theories threatening to tear down its foundation.

"Since Kirk's death, the madness has only ratcheted up," Hammer told the Daily Mail. "Crackpot, revisionist historians now appear regularly on the world's largest podcasts, conservatives-in-name-only traffic in ancient hatreds and sincere commentators are increasingly drowned out." He added that there has been "a breakdown in the ability of many on the Right to distinguish between fact and fiction, truth and lie, right and wrong."

Hammer argued that the rise of these fringe theories stems from a loss of public trust caused by institutional actions. He cited several events, including the Russia investigation, the institutional response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and the legal prosecutions of Donald Trump. According to Hammer, these events led many people to conclude that they cannot trust mainstream information, creating a vacuum for opportunistic commentators.

"Into this vacuum have crawled opportunistic ghouls who are willing to sacrifice credibility for clicks," Hammer said. "But there is nothing good down that rabbit hole, only suffering and immiseration, the very toxic mentality that Kirk fought against so passionately."

Following Kirk's death, podcaster Candace Owens launched a public campaign against Hammer, who is Jewish, accusing him of being complicit in Kirk's murder. Hammer described Owens' claims as "vile and utterly baseless smears," noting that the common denominator among those targeted by such rhetoric is often their Jewish faith or public support for Israel.

Hammer also criticized political leaders for failing to address these elements within the movement. He highlighted Vice President JD Vance's response to questions about his ongoing relationship with commentator Tucker Carlson, whom Hammer considers a primary source of online conspiracy theories.

When asked about Carlson, Vance stated, "Tucker is a friend, despite the fact that we disagree on a number of things. I'm not going to play the game where I throw friends under the bus because I have political disagreements with them."

Hammer rejected that characterization, countering that the issue goes far beyond standard policy debates. "If this were a matter of political disagreement, I may agree," Hammer said. "But it is not. If Carlson were just some friend of the Vice President's, I may let it pass. But he isn't."

Hammer concluded by stating that the conservative movement must regain its footing. "America's conservatives cannot abandon the work of discerning right from wrong," Hammer said.

'Had to lay off people': Trump's trade war bleeds red state businessman

Aaron Simon, owner of Farm to Fork meat processing, told CNN anchor Jake Tapper that President Donald Trump’s policies are hitting him at every level and putting his and other businesses in jeopardy.

The higher cost of livestock due to Trump’s inflation was driving up his retail prices as well as the company’s wholesale pricing for restaurants. Worse, Americans facing higher costs at grocery stores and gas pumps are having a more difficult time justifying the purchase of expensive proteins like beef.

Economists blame rising costs in flood and fuel on Trump’s unilateral war with Iran and his ongoing trade wars with U.S. economic partners

The higher costs, Simon added, are also discouraging livestock owners from “bringing in as many animals to have processed.”

“It's definitely a real issue,” Simon told Tapper on Tuesday. “We've had to lay off people. We've also had to raise our retail costs. You know, we're selling, for example, burger today at significantly more than it was a year ago today. And we're just trying to keep up with the high input costs, even though we're making less and less on it. There has to be a happy, a happy [medium] somewhere where people can still access good local fresh food and fresh meat. And at the same time, farmers and producers being paid fairly and treated square. But these high prices make that very difficult.”

In addition to livestock, Simon said Trump’s tariffs are causing “a big increase over the past year on our packaging materials, including plastic vacuum sealed bags and seasonings and spices” used in a variety of products.

“And there's also surcharges on the shipping,” complained Simon, whose company is based in Ripley, West Virginia. “Something that might use to be a $500 minimum order is now a $1,000 minimum order. And that's definitely adding a lot to the increased costs.”

West Virginia voted for Trump in the last election, with the race having been called early on Election Day and at a comfortable margin. But now Simon says Trump needs to have “boots on the ground” to hear the desperate pleas of ailing American growers and processors in the Trump economy.

“And you need to have people meeting with small meat processing facilities and producers like myself, as well as farmers and ranchers to work together to come up with a plan because you have to know what the issue is to allow you to build the framework to fix the issue,” said Simon.

- YouTube youtu.be

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