true the vote

How one 1971 letter changed everything for America — and gave us Trump

America seems to be failing, both at home and around the world. But why?

David French published a thoughtful op-ed in Monday’s New York Times titled The Fire of Stupidity Can’t Be Contained, identifying many of the symptoms of our national decline and wondering out loud why this is happening now.

His best guess is that we’re not remembering the horrors of both fascism and communism from the last century, which is why people — particularly young people — are embracing both. He notes:

“A disturbing number of young people on the right are fascinated with fascism. An extraordinary 34 percent of young people overall express a favorable view of communism, and young Americans are far more likely than their parents or grandparents to say that political violence is ‘sometimes OK.’”

Katy Tur opened an hour of her MSNOW show with French’s article; she similarly was wondering what happened that has so torn our country apart. Could it be that we’re just not as well educated about our history as we once were? Is it the economy? Demagogues like Trump in politics?

Millions of words have been rightly devoted to this sort of inquiry, but most miss the most obvious answer: it’s the billionaires, stupid. Follow along and I think you’ll get it.

When FDR took over America in March of 1933, we’d been a largely laissez-faire nation since our founding. There wasn’t much government help for anybody other than the rich and powerful.

Three preceding Republican presidents (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover) had dismantled what little regulation was left from the progressive Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft) and dropped Wilson’s 91% top income tax rate down to 25%, kicking off the Republican Great Depression.

In 1933 a third of America was unemployed, hunger and homelessness were rampant, and only about 20 percent of us were in the middle class; the country had never gone above a third of us in that class. So, FDR, his wife Eleanor, and Labor Secretary Francis Perkins set out to reinvent America. They legalized unions, restored the 90% income tax rate on the morbidly rich, made government the employer of last resort, and instituted the minimum wage, unemployment insurance, Social Security, built schools and infrastructure nationwide, etc.

The result was dramatic. By 1981, when Ronald Reagan took office, fully a third of us had good union jobs and they set the wage floor for another third of us; as a result, two-thirds of us were in the middle class, and could do it with a single paycheck. A single-family home, a car, an annual vacation, send the kids to college, and retire on a good pension.

But from 1933 forward, FDR’s New Deal had been under continuous attack from a handful of extremely wealthy oligarchs who resented capping their paychecks to avoid that top 91% tax rate and hated the regulations that made both consumer products and the workplace safer but cut into their profits.

That backlash movement found its voice with Lewis Powell’s infamous Memo in 1971, and Nixon put Powell on the Supreme Court the following year.

The Memo called for the creation of rightwing think tanks that could influence public opinion, taking over schools and colleges, buying and running media operations, seizing control of the courts (particularly the Supreme Court), aggressive pushback against the Civil Rights movement, and the promotion of “free market” ideology. It was essential, Powell wrote, to “save” America from an incipient communist takeover.

The Memo electrified what we today call the Epstein/Billionaire Class of morbidly rich men. They endowed and built all of that infrastructure, spending literally billions in today’s dollars, putting a right-wing radio station in every city and town, right-wing TV networks, well-paid pundits, “alternative” colleges like Hillsdale, a billion-dollar effort to pack the courts, challenges to textbooks, and an embrace of hard-right Christianity.

Their main message was that the government had grown “too big,” a result of the New Deal that must be reversed, and the GOP they own has run with it ever since.

Although the federal government of the US was smaller as a percentage of either population or GDP compared to virtually every other developed country in the world, it was a meme that resonated with average people who were horrified that we’d been lied into the bloody Vietnam War, resented paying taxes, and felt they were being left behind as a result of the severe oil-shock inflation of the Nixon/Ford '70s.

Their plan worked. Trust in the American government went from nearly 80 percent in the early 1960s to a mere 17% last year. And, just like a marriage doesn’t work when the partners don’t trust each other, neither does a society or a government.

Reagan cemented this by declaring in his first inaugural speech that “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” It was the perfect encapsulation of the billionaire hatred of taxation and regulation, but was sold so well that a majority of Americans bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Reagan and the billionaire-owned Republicans in Congress broke the back of the union movement, slashed taxes on the morbidly rich and corporations, stopped enforcing our anti-monopoly laws, sold off federal lands, increased subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, slashed federal spending on education and college, enabled stock manipulation through stock buy-backs, etc., etc.

Five corrupt Republicans who the Powell movement billionaires had helped install on the Supreme Court helped amplify the damage with their 5-4 Bellotti (written by Powell) and 5-4 Citizens United decisions, freeing both billionaires and corporations to buy elections by claiming that “corporations are persons” and “money is free speech.”

As a result, our elections now typically go to the highest bidder and billionaires are the biggest players in our political system. Just 100 billionaires put $2.6 billion into the 2024 election, about a fifth of all spending, and will probably beat that number this fall; in recent elections, roughly nine times out of 10 the better‑funded candidate wins, especially in House races.

Meanwhile, 45 years of Powell Memo-style Reaganomics have gutted the middle class. Only around 43 percent of us can now claim that status, and it takes two full-time paychecks today to live like one could in 1981.

Nobody has halted this slide from a highly functioning government and a vibrant, healthy middle class into the mess we have today, all as the result of nearly a half-century of Reaganomics.

The income tax rates are still stupidly low, incentivizing yachts for billionaires and massive bonuses for corporate executives. Bill Clinton declared “the era of big government is over” as was “welfare as we know it.” Obama turned our healthcare funding system over to a handful of massive insurance companies who are now turning the screws to extract as much wealth from us as they can.

So, people are — quite reasonably — p----- off. Our legislators are bought-and-sold, sometimes even by foreign-loyal entities like AIPAC, our judges are hand-picked by billionaires, and Trump has gutted our “big” government even further.

By the end of 2025, the federal civilian workforce had shrunk by roughly 300,000+ employees compared with its size at Trump’s inauguration, a drop of around 10% in a single year.

Education Department staff fell by 43% in 2025 alone, the U.S. Agency for International Development was effectively dissolved, the agency housing the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities lost more than half its staff; AmeriCorps shrank by 44%; the Small Business Administration by 33%; the agency overseeing Voice of America and other international broadcasters by roughly 33%; and the National Science Foundation by about 30%.

During the 2025 shutdown, the Trump administration used that crisis it created to carry out at least 4,200 immediate layoffs across seven agencies in a single day, rather than furloughing workers. Cuts hit Treasury (1,446 workers), Health and Human Services (around 1,100–1,200), Education (466 on that day, after earlier large cuts), Housing and Urban Development (442), Commerce (315), Energy (187) and Homeland Security (176), with additional reductions at EPA and the Patent Office.

Laying off over 7,000 people at Social Security has left seniors with frustrating day-long hold times and a lack of in-person appointments, while the feds under Dr. Oz are experimenting with partially privatizing and starting pre-clearances done by big insurance companies and inflicted on traditional Medicare recipients in six states, Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington.

As our government is gutted, our social services are crushed, our unions are enfeebled, wages are flattened, and our politicians and judges are wholly-owned properties of a handful of billionaire families and industries, Americans are justified in looking for alternatives.

Ironically — and perhaps alarmingly — billionaires are now looking for alternatives, too.

Peter Thiel, the guy who funded JD Vance’s political career who, through Palantir, has access to mind-boggling amounts of data on us and our future, just moved his entire family to Argentina. Mark Zuckerberg has a 5,000 square-foot doomsday bunker in Hawaii, and Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Larry Ellison are reported to have similar “bolt-holes” in case the public gets too restive or Trump starts a nuclear war.

The bunkers-for-billionaires business is among the fastest-growing in America, with Survival Condo, Oppidum Bunkers and Vivos advertising architect-designed what Oppidium calls “ultra-luxury fortified underground residences.”

Meanwhile, because of Reagan’s cuts to education and civics, two generations have grown up without a good understanding of how government works in a democracy; only 1 in 20 Americans can name the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment, and a third of Americans can’t name the three branches of government. No wonder they’re curious about fascism and communism.

So, the next time somebody asks you why America is in such a mess, why people no longer care or even despair about the future, let them know the simple and real answer: “It’s the billionaires, stupid.”

Senate GOP leader torn apart for complaining Trump foe is making senators work overtime

After a lengthy Capitol Hill voting session on funding for immigration and national security agencies, tensions between two prominent Republicans — Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) and outgoing Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) — flared up. Thune argued that Cassidy dragged the session on longer than he needed to, and the Senate majority leader is now drawing criticism for his complaint. Thune's critics are defending Cassidy, stressing that there's nothing wrong with the Louisiana Republican expecting lawmakers to put in extra hours to get their job done.

Punchbowl News' Laura Weiss, early Friday morning on X, reported, "THUNE also took a swipe at GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy and Dems after 18-hour vote-a-rama. Cassidy spent hours & hours trying to find amendment language on 'anti-weaponization fund' at 50-vote threshold. ' "They spend — wasted 15 hours doing it. So you guys got to stay here for a long time and so did we. I mean, all these votes could have been held 12, 15 hours ago but that's what drug this thing out for that long.'"

Responding to Weiss' tweet, New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush made it clear that he had no sympathy for U.S. senators having to put in some occasional overtime.

"A lot of Americans are force to work multiple jobs in which double digit work hours are not just a twice a year interruption to a series of recesses," Thrush posted on X.

The lengthy voting session that Thune complained about came to a conclusion early Friday morning when the Senate passed, 52-47, a $70 billion bill that, NBC News reports, "would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol through the end of (President Donald) Trump's term."

The final vote came down along largely partisan lines, and Sen. Lisa Murowski (R-Alabama) was the lone GOP senator to vote "no" on the final package.

According to NBC News reporters Frank Thorp V, Brennan Leach and Sahil Kapur, "The bill includes $38.6 billion for ICE, $22.6 billion for the Border Patrol, $5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security and $108.5 million for child exploitation investigations. It does not include security funding for the White House ballroom, or any guardrails on the creation of a pot of money seen by Democrats and some Republicans as a 'slush fund' to funnel taxpayer money to potentially pay January 6 rioters and other Trump allies."

The reporters added, "The final vote, shortly before 5 a.m., followed an 18-hour 'vote-a-rama' during which senators could offer amendments. Senators from both parties proposed 29 amendments and motions before voting on final passage, with some Republicans supporting amendments that broke with Trump's priorities."

Cassidy kept the "vote-a-rama" going by sponsoring an amendment that called for the Trump administration to be blocked from reviving its $1.7 billion "anti-weaponization fund" — which the administration has reportedly abandoned, at least for now. Cassidy opposed the fund, and several Republican senators joining him in voting "yes" on the amendment: Murkowski, Maine's Susan Collins, North Carolina's Thom Tillis, Alaska's Dan Sullivan, and Ohio's John Husted. Most GOP senators, however, voted "no" on Cassidy's amendment.

The Hill's Alexander Bolton noted, "Cassidy's amendment would have repurposed the anti-weaponization fund for the sole purpose of providing for law enforcement officers who suffered injury or economic loss while defending the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. It would have appropriated $100 million to pay claims to police officers and surviving family."

Fox News called 'disgusting trash' after Hannity disclaimer reveals Blanche lies

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche spoke with Fox News host Sean Hannity on his podcast Thursday, but at the end of the interview, there was a lengthy disclaimer.

During his interview, Blanche alleged that there was a "room full of evidence" from special counsel Jack Smith's investigation, the video showed.

"It's not fair to say it was a secret room, but it's a room that had a lot of material in it," Blanche said. "It was actually from the Jack Smith investigation, and nobody knew it existed."

Hannity asked Blanche if there was damning evidence inside. Blanche claimed, "Yes, we're looking at it." However, he said that a significant amount of the files had already been turned over to Senate Republicans.

Documents and information pertaining to an investigation at the Justice Department would fall under federal guidelines for record preservation.

According to the National Archives and Records Administration, “Records include all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the government or because of the informational value of data in them.”

In a separate conversation, Blanche also conceded that if President Donald Trump didn't win in 2024, he'd be facing prison time. Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He likely would have been sentenced with consequences. Another Justice Department also likely would have been able to move forward on Trump's classified documents scandal.

"There's no scenario in which he wasn't going to send President Trump to prison — and he didn't only because the president won," Blanche said of the New York case.

Blanche also tried to rewrite special counsel Robert Mueller's report, in which he said that investigators found it was a "hoax." In fact, Mueller found the opposite. He testified to the House six years ago, explaining that Russia did make outreach to the Trump campaign and meddled in the 2016 election. His full report confirms that.

After all of these allegations, Hannity then ran a disclaimer conceding that everything Blanche said could have been false. New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush discovered it and posted a screen capture of it on X.

It read: "John Brennan, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Matthew Colangelo, Arthur Engoron, and James Clapper have not been charged with any crimes in connection with any alleged conspiracy. Charges against James Comey related to alleged false statements and obstruction of justice have been dismissed. There have been no findings that Rod Rosenstein, Tim Walz, Gavin Newsom or Jacob Frey engaged in professional misconduct," it read according to a screen capture.

Thrush commented with disbelief, "This is really, actually, no-kidding the disclaimer Hannity ran after his interview with Todd Blanche."

Journalist John Harwood said, "Fox is disgusting trash."

"Astonishing disclaimer," said Paul Farhi, who writes about the news media for publications like Vanity Fair and The Atlantic. "Next question: Who made the statements Fox News is disclaiming — Blanche or Hannity? Or both?"

One X user, Greg Spencer, noted, "You do this after you get nailed with a $787 million fine." It's a reference to the lawsuits that Fox and other conservative outlets have faced from voting-software companies such as Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems. Several have settled suits, but the Smartmatic case against Fox remains active.

Longtime allies now view America as a threat — thanks to Trump: Bush DHS official

After World War 2, the term "Pax Americana" was used to describe the United States' alliance with European countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). "Pax" is Latin for "peace" (similar to "paz" in Spanish or "pace" in Italian), and the idea behind the term was that together, the United States, Canada and Europe were preventing the type of widespread carnage that occurred during two world wars. But according to Never Trump conservative Paul Rosenzweig, U.S. President Donald Trump has undermined the "American Peace" so badly that longtime allies now "distrust" and even "fear" the U.S.

Writing for the conservative website The Bulwark, Rosenzweig — an attorney who served in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under former President George W. Bush — lays out a variety of reasons why longtime allies are growing increasingly distrustful of the U.S. during Trump's second presidency.

"For more than 80 years," Rosenzweig explains in his Bulwark article, "the Pax Americana has protected the world. Imperfect and incomplete as it was, American reliability was a pillar of Cold War stability. NATO membership and the American nuclear umbrella were, to a large degree, the reason for European safety from Russian threats. American alliances — including mutual defense treaties — plus American pressure also allowed Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines to democratize. Our strategic support, albeit in a more ambiguous way, was also the basis for Taiwanese security."

Rosenzweig continues, "But the underpinning for all of that was American trustworthiness — the faith and confidence our allies had in America's promise that we would come to their aid when needed. That faith and confidence is fading."

Signs that "faith" in the U.S. is "diminishing" among longtime allies, Rosenzweig warns, "are large and obvious."

"Recently, Norway, a NATO founding member, became the ninth European country to sign up for French nuclear protection," the former DHS official observes. "Given the Russian threats and the broadly faltering trust in U.S. reliability, France has offered to extend its nuclear umbrella — with its roughly 290 nuclear warheads — to protect all of Europe as a replacement for American promises. But our allies are not only less willing to rely on and trust America. They are also coming to see America as a threat. Association with America is now a risk that needs to be taken into account and, if possible, reduced."

Rosenzweig continues, "Here's one example: Increasingly European governments are moving away from U.S. tech giants as service providers…. But the more insidious and troubling problem is that the belligerence of the Trump administration towards the continent has generated fears that bellicose language will be translated into hostile action. After Trump's sanctions against the International Criminal Court cut off six judges from their banks, credit cards, and even e-mail addresses, Europeans have a legitimate fear that that Silicon Valley giants could be compelled to cut off access to critical services for a whole government or even a whole country. It's no wonder that Europe is, increasingly, seeking to reduce its digital dependence on the United States."

Fetterman caves to Trump on PA judge after moaning he’s been burned by president

Sen. John Fetterman, the Pennsylvania Democrat known for causing the party numerous headaches, caved to President Donald Trump, per Punchbowl News, giving him a pass that no other Senate Democrat has during his second term.

On Friday morning, Punchbowl reported that Fetterman — sometimes hailed as "Trump's favorite Democrat" for his often right-leaning stances and votes — would be allowing one of the president's federal judicial nominees in Pennsylvania, "waiving" his right to refuse a "blue slip." As the report noted, this is "the first time in Trump’s second term that a Senate Democrat has turned in a blue slip for one of Trump’s judicial picks."

A congressional tradition dating back over a century, senators from each state hold the right to refuse to give their support to a president's judicial nominee in their home state, with the act of giving their support referred to as giving them their "blue slip." Refusing to give the slip, typically, results in the nominee getting blocked outright, or at least delayed significantly.

Both of a state's senators must give a judicial nominee their blue slip in order for their nomination to progress. As Pennsylvania's other senator, David McCormick, is a Republican, only Fetterman was likely to offer any pushback at all in the process. Critics of Trump have pushed Democrats to be unyielding in the blue slip refusal under Trump's second term, given that these judges will go on to serve lifetime appointments.

Trump previously railed against the blue slip process, but Senate Republicans offered a rare rebuke and defended it.

"The move is already setting off yet another battle between Fetterman and his numerous critics on the left, who demand unyielding opposition to Trump, particularly on lifetime appointments to the federal bench," Punchbowl reported.

It continued: "This is also a new test for Senate Democrats. Trump only recently nominated a pair of judges for federal district courts in states with one or two Democratic senators. Trump tapped Antonio Pozos for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Michael Martin for the Eastern District of Michigan. Fetterman turned in his blue slip for Pozos to allow the nomination process to move forward, according to a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Democrat. Michigan’s two Democratic senators haven’t turned in their blue slips for Martin."

Demand Justice, a "key liberal group," is now prepping a major ad campaign to attack Fetterman for his approval of Pozos' nomination, and threatening similar attacks against any Democrat who does the same going forward.

“These are not normal times, and any senator who thinks that this is standard operating procedure and that any of these nominations are normal course of operations is deluding themselves,” Demand Justice President Josh Orton told Punchbowl.

These MAGA voters still support Trump — but their doubts are growing

In the 2024 presidential race, Donald Trump not only fired up his hardcore MAGA base — he also made an aggressive outreach to independents and swing voters who many reporters described as "Trump-curious." Poll after poll is showing that independents are now abandoning Trump in droves, while staunch MAGA voters are still on board. But according to New York Times reporter Ruth Igielnik, even MAGA voters are showing signs of skepticism.

"Among Republicans," Igielnik explains in the Times, "the president enjoys an 82 percent approval rating, according to the latest New York Times/Siena poll, even as his overall approval ratings have reached new lows. But there is more doubt among his base than what is generally acknowledged. In fact, one-third of the voters who approve of the president's job performance also say they disapprove of his handling of various issues, including the economy, Iran, relations with Israel or immigration. What could account for that discrepancy, and could this group represent a faint crack in the Republican bulwark?"

The Times, according to Igielnik, interviewed "two dozen of these loyal but skeptical Trump supporters" — many of whom "resent their depiction as knee-jerk MAGA voters."

"These voters see themselves as making pragmatic choices from an unappetizing set of options," Igielnik reports. "If they are unsure at times of Mr. Trump, they have all but lost faith in the Democratic brand. At least, many say, the president has tried to fulfill his promises — especially on immigration. Many of this group say they have stuck with Mr. Trump, despite doubts, because he has delivered on campaign promises."

Donna Awana, a 77-year-old Honolulu resident and one of the interviewees, still likes Trump on immigration but believes he needs to be talking about the economy more.

Awana told the Times, "I used to really like him, and I still like him, but I'm at the point where I'm nervous about things that are transpiring. With the war in Iran and the economy, I'm just a little hesitant about him right now…. I wish he took the economy just as seriously as he does immigration."

David Baldonado, a 47-year-old Oxnard, California resident who voted for Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024, told the Times he gives Trump a "C minus" on the economy and the war in Iran but would vote for him again nonetheless.

"Immigration enforcement," Igielnik notes, "stands apart as the issue where Trump supporters are most satisfied." And Kathryn MacKinney, a 32-year-old emergency medical technician in the Dayton, Ohio area, told the Times, "We can get steamrolled by other countries. I'm very happy that he's made other countries listen to us and back down."

The reason Trump keeps failing

If you hadn’t noticed, Trump is failing.

Iran is more dangerous today than it was when went to war on it, and energy prices are far higher.

Trump’s brutal efforts to crackdown on undocumented people in the United States have generated a huge backlash, including among Latinos who voted for him in 2024 but are moving into the Democratic camp.

His attempt to cover up the Epstein files continues to rankle MAGA voters.

His $1.8 billion “slush” fund and family immunization from future IRS audits, in “settlement” of his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, has drawn widespread bipartisan scorn and hit judicial roadblocks.

I could go on, but you get the point. Trump’s failures are mounting.

Why?

I’ve worked for three presidents and advised a fourth. All of them solicited honest feedback, including criticism.

Trump solicits only praise. He relishes compliments. He needs everyone around him to pander to his egomaniacal need for admiration. He punishes the bearers of bad news.

He promotes people who kiss his assets, such as Bill Pulte, the home-building heir Trump put in charge of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and who Trump is now making acting director of national intelligence.

And Todd Blanche, the lawyer who represented him in his multiple lawsuits and who Trump now wants to become Attorney General.

Pulte, with no known experience in national security, got the job because he told Trump what Trump wanted to hear. He weaponized the housing agency and tried to dig up dirt on Trump enemies — specifically, the Fed’s Lisa Cook, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

As the person in charge of national intelligence, Pulte will continue to tell Trump whatever he wants to hear. Trump won’t get national intelligence; he’ll get national stupidity.

Trump has so many people “he could be listening to,” said a former Trump official, “and he listens to Pulte, who just continually f---- things up.”

Blanche got the nod for Attorney General because he went even further than his predecessor, Pam Bondi, was willing to go in throwing integrity and principles odown the toilet in favor of going after Trump’s enemies. He secured a second felony indictment against the former FBI Director James Comey, alleging Comey threatened Trump ia a social media post that arranged seashells to spell “86 47.” Blanche also commenced a bonkers criminal investigation of Fed chief Jerome Powell, and tried to establish a $1.8 billion slush fund for Trump as well as immunity from I.R.S. audits as a fake “settlement” of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the I.R.S.

So how does Trump make decisions if he doesn’t have people telling him the truth?

He relies, he has said, on his gut. “My gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.” He told The Washington Post that he reaches decisions “with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I [already have], plus the words ‘common sense,’ because I have a lot of common sense.”

In other words, he doesn’t listen to anyone — especially not anyone who tells him anything he doesn’t want to hear.

Presto. He makes colossal mistakes.

Even normal people don’t like to get negative feedback. And most people don’t want to give it.

Yet receiving and giving truthful feedback are absolutely essential in a complex world.

If you have power over other people, it’s even more important to get negative feedback, because your mistakes could harm many others. Yet the more power you have, the less willing people are to give you negative feedback, since they have more reason to fear your reaction to it. Which means you have to go out of your way to solicit it.

The best leaders I’ve had the privilege of serving during my nearly 60 years of working life have been people who have actively sought and rewarded negative feedback.

Trump does just the opposite. Small wonder he’s one of the worst leaders the nation has ever endured.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

Billionaire Democrats are letting Trump win —and insiders say it's 'disgusting'

Remember what Trump and Musk once said about voting and “computers”?

Some of the Democratic Party’s most knowledgeable insiders are living with a deep, unshakeable fear — not only of President Donald Trump, but of their own party’s leadership. Speaking to AlterNet on condition of anonymity, several Democratic operatives and party officials argued billionaire money is overriding the Democratic Party’s obligations to its own rank-and-file Democrats… and, by extension, to America as a whole.

In early November 2024 — shortly before then-former President Donald Trump squared off against then-Vice President Kamala Harris in that year’s presidential election — the richest man in the world appeared on former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s broadcast. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who openly supported and helped fund Trump’s campaign, allowed his young son to tell Carlson that Americans will “never know” what actually happened on Election Day, laughing hysterically before his father ended that interview.

Many Democrats at the time became suspicious that this indicated Musk would use his vast control over American technology to somehow steal the election, a suspicion reinforced at a victory rally shortly before Trump’s 2025 inauguration. Trump, at that time the president-elect, praised his billionaire friend for having “journeyed to Pennsylvania where he spent like a month and a half campaigning for me in Pennsylvania, and he's a popular guy, and he was very effective. And he knows those computers better than anybody, all those computers, those vote counting computers.”

Trump added, “And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like, in a landslide, so it was pretty good, it was pretty good. So, thank you to Elon.”

Despite these two hints at something nefarious, overall Democrats have dismissed the idea that there could have been any election interference. Yet when speaking to AlterNet for this article, a Democratic Party insider argued that they always wondered whether there might have been something more there. The White House, on the other hand, did not directly respond to questions about whether the election tampering accusations were accurate, instead insulting AlterNet and reiterating Trump’s support for new laws regulating voting.

“AlterNet does nothing more than pump out glorified press releases for the Democrats that are chock full of left-wing conspiracy theories,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told AlterNet. “For the three people reading this, here’s the truth: President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections. The President has urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act and other legislative proposals that would establish a uniform standard of photo ID for voting, prohibit no-excuse mail-in voting, and end the practice of ballot harvesting.”

While the aforementioned insider was the only one to explicitly speculate that Trump and Musk stole the election, the DNC’s reticence to more aggressively challenge billionaires like Musk is seemingly symptomatic of a deeper problem. All of the sources who spoke to AlterNet agreed on two things: First, that billionaires are severely weakening the Democratic Party in its quest to defeat Trump and the Republican Party; and second, that they all wished to speak anonymously — and not even be directly quoted, lest details of what they say somehow reveal their identities.

As the conversations proceeded, this reporter could not shake the sense that these Democrats were nervous about career reprisals for making observations that a Democratic Party focused on self-improvement would welcome. Instead there appears to be a climate of fear in the party as inherited by Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin of Minnesota, who was chosen as the new leader in February over Ben Wikler of Wisconsin and Martin O’Malley of Maryland.

To protect these sources, their observations below are paraphrased, the first time this reporter has made this decision in his 14-year-career, and a choice made because of the clear career jeopardy in which they were placing themselves. The DNC has not yet responded to AlterNet’s requests for comment from Martin or its spokespeople.

One source, a longtime member of the DNC Women’s Caucus, told AlterNet that they are convinced that Trump wants to get rid of mail-in voting because unlike electronic voting systems, mail-in voting is much more difficult to manipulate. Yet in addition to supporting mail-in voting, this source argued that Martin has a responsibility to engage in massive voter protection campaigns to counter potential theft in the future.

Instead, this source said, Martin prefers to pretend that the possible problem does not even exist. Even in light of internal pressures to transition from electronic to paper voting so that there can always be receipts of tabulations, Martin apparently has not moved at all. The party’s so-called “autopsy” last month acknowledged that "any assessment of the state of technology in the Democratic party would be incomplete without an acknowledgement that comprehensive data warehouses like Phoenix represent an irresistible target for hackers and other bad actors seeking to undermine the integrity of the modern political process."

The autopsy, which despite purporting to address the DNC’s mistakes went out of its way to add the caveat that "this document reflects the views of the author, not the DNC,” further argued that "the mere existence of the kind of data collected and analyzed by the party requires sophisticated protective efforts to rebuff the kinds of cyber attacks experienced by the party in 2015 and 2016, when various groups of Russian-sponsored computer hackers and intelligence agencies infiltrated the DNC computer network to aid in Donald Trump’s ascent to the presidency."

It concluded, however, that "because of a commitment to deploying robust and advanced protection tools to safeguard the data, the DNC and its vendors repelled over 6.1 billion malicious requests between October 31st and November 6th, more than double the volume seen during the entire months of September and October." Later it bragged that "overall, what 2024 showed us is that our tech infrastructure finally began to work as it was intended."

To be clear, the autopsy's cybersecurity concerns are about the party's own data infrastructure and not voting machines themselves, but the two vulnerabilities are not as separate as they might appear: it all speaks, broadly, to a party that treats the threat of third-party meddling as a problem they are on top of, rather than one where they might be behind the proverbial ball.

Is the DNC keeping up with Republicans in winning the game of politics?

The vendors who own electronic voting machines and other technology infrastructure, as well as the billionaires who could potentially tamper with them, seemingly remain secure in their positions. Nor is this the only way that Martin seemed to act in ways that are more favorable to America’s billionaire class than ordinary Americans. Speaking to AlterNet, a top Democrat with extensive experience working with the DNC argued that the Democratic Party has as an organization failed to move the needle when it comes to registering people to vote as Democrats. The DNC’s leaders have also, this source argued, failed to meet organizational goals including crafting a consistent theme for its party brand, raising adequate money and recruiting quality candidates up and down the ballot.

In addition to faulting the DNC’s leaders, this source also argued that the party’s elected leaders bear a great deal of blame as well, as they have seemed to make choices as much with billionaire interests in mind as those of ordinary people.

In the sole exception to the “paraphrase, do not quote” rule, this background source strongly criticized the billionaire influence over the Democratic Party today.

"Our so-called Democratic billionaires are out of control,” the top Democrat told AlterNet. “They are buying up candidates beholden to their special interests in Democratic primaries all across our country. It is legal after Citizens United, but it’s not democratic. It’s not good for the life of the Republic. And it’s disgusting.”

The source added, “If the voters were told, they’d be outraged. But no one is telling them — no one in the mainstream media and no one in our Party."

A Democratic operative with years of experience working in the party offered a specific example of how they observed this happening. Describing a key race in the 2026 midterm elections, this person observed an overwhelming amount of money from cryptocurrency billionaires, pointing to studies showing how the rising cryptocurrency industry has influenced politics to a degree not seen before with other major industries.

A nonpartisan consumer advocacy nonprofit, Public Citizen, released a report in 2024 detailing exactly how dramatically cryptocurrency has taken over American politics.

“Crypto corporations are by far the dominant corporate political spenders in 2024 as nearly half (48 percent) of all corporate money contributed during this year’s elections ($248 million so far) came from crypto backers,” Public Citizen wrote in its press release accompanying the report. “Direct corporate election spending at this scale is unprecedented. Crypto corporations’ total spending in the past three election cycles – $129 million – already amounts to 15 percent of all known corporate contributions since the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United.”

The report added, “Since Citizens United, the crypto corporations are now second in total election-related spending, trailing only fossil fuel corporations, which have spent $176 million over the past 14 years, including $73 million from Koch Industries. The crypto sector’s Fairshake PAC and its affiliates have received nearly $114 million directly from corporate backers, far more than any other outside spender this cycle.”

It continued, “Fairshake’s corporate backing is unprecedented. Though unlimited corporate contributions have been enabled since 2010 by Citizens United, this newcomer is already second only to the super PAC dedicated to electing Republicans to the U.S. Senate in terms of corporate money received. That super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, has received nearly $119 million directly from corporations over the past 14 years, largely from fossil fuel corporations but including many other sectors, including crypto, tobacco, and for-profit prisons.”

Wherefore art thou, Obama?

Multiple sources identified the peak of the Democratic Party’s influence with ordinary voters as existing during President Barack Obama’s administration, who was able to inspire voter turnout and mobilize the party around consistent and popular messages like getting special interests out of government, ending the second Iraq war and passing meaningful health care reform. Even that acknowledgment, though, is qualified by the concern that Obama encouraged directing resources away from the DNC and toward his own nonprofit, Organizing for America. This may have further eroded the DNC’s ability to effectively organize and fund the official Democratic Party.

Each of these sources made it clear that they are not trying to hurt the Democratic Party or the Democratic National Committee. Quite the opposite, their goal is to splash cold water on their faces so they can wake up to potentially serious problems that are harming their party brand and could cost it in important elections. After all, as an expert at the good government nonprofit Common Cause recently told AlterNet, Trump is seemingly determined to rig the 2026 midterm elections.

“What they all add up to is a desire to avoid any accountability to the voters in the midterm elections — to ensure, to preordain the outcome of a midterm that he thinks is going to go badly for him,” Senior Policy Director for Voting and Fair Representation Dan Vicuña told AlterNet earlier this week. “We know, from the Big Lie of the 2020 election to spurring on a violent revolt to overthrow a free and fair election, that he has no respect for democratic norms, for the voice of the people. This is entirely about his own power and his own ego. He will even invest in protecting that ego and protecting his power at the expense of the needs of the public. People are suffering with high gas prices and affordability issues, and he does not care. All that matters is protecting his power, and he has no interest in whether he does that through democratic means.”

Vicuña concluded, “I think this all adds up to a desire to ensure that his party stays in power and his ability to do what he wants — to attack vulnerable communities — remains intact.”

This is another point on which the sources that spoke to AlterNet were united: Trump wants to steal future elections. Their argument, quite simply, seems to be that the Democrats cannot do so without first standing up to their own billionaire class.

Ex-right wing influencer warns MAGA still a dangerous cult

A former top MAGA influencer still blasts the MAGA cult and the operators that drive the movement from the top.

“The structure and the architecture of MAGA is very indistinguishable from a cult,” explained Ashley St. Clair, Elon Musk's ex-lover, former MAGA influencer and the mother of one of his children, in a podcast appearance with The Left Hook’s Wajahat Ali. Describing how she dropped out of college to be a full-time MAGA influencer while dating an older man who served MAGA under the name DC Drano, she described how “he was molding me. He was like, ‘Here's what you put on the sign outside of the ICE detention center,’ directing my content. ‘Here's how you monetize Instagram, here's how you do all this.’ So I was very much molded by that.”

Described by Ali as a former "dutiful MAGA bot" who once repeated "all the cliché talking points," St. Clair now says leaving the cult is one of the hardest things to do.

"[O]nce ... you're with this very controversial crowd online, you cannot just change your political views. Changing your political views means you're blowing up your whole life — your social community, the way you provide for your family, the roof over your head. It's not just like, ‘Oh, now I believe in less fiscal conservatism.’ It is really going against people who do not take kindly to people leaving their gang.”

St. Clair continued, “You're on the receiving end of a lot of smear campaigns, attacks, and harassment — things that frankly put your family in danger — to speak out and go against the grain. And not that it's an excuse — I don't want anyone to think that the things I'm saying right now are an excuse for the rhetoric I was involved in — but rather I'm trying to understand the pathology of how people get stuck in this, and feel like they don't have a way out.”

Later in the conversation, Ali returned to the subject of why so many people in the Trump movement stand by him. He found a potential motive in addition to it being a political cult.

“When I was a contributor at CNN — a contributor, rather, I should say — in the green room, this was right before COVID, nearly every single Trump supporter that I went on and debated with on a panel, pretty much across the board — I would say except two at the time, actually: Paris Denard and Geoffrey Lord — everyone in the green room said, ‘I can't stand Trump, he's so annoying, the MAGA movement is so stupid, look at these idiots.’”

Once the cameras started rolling, however, Ali said all he heard from them was “MAGA talking point, MAGA talking point, MAGA talking point.” He claimed he responded by telling them “‘You know, no one's putting a gun to your head. You could literally just join me and call them out.’ And they said, ‘Yeah, but this is where my bread is buttered. This is how you stay relevant.’”

St. Clair is not the only ex-Trumper to describe the MAGA movement as a cult. In February, former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) made the same point in a Substack post while describing Trump’s militant behavior toward Greenland, Venezuela and Iran.

“I thought you wanted him to end wars all over the world,” Walsh said. “You said you wanted him to end American entanglement in conflicts and wars around the world. America shouldn’t be involved in these wars, you said. That’s why you’re voting for Trump, you said.” Then, despite Trump’s actions against Denmark, Venezuela and Iran, they still support him.

Walsh continued, “You’ve got no argument against people calling you a cult. And if he takes us to war against Iran, and you clap and applaud and throw him flowers, Trump supporters, I will be at the front of the parade calling you a cult.”

Trump already knows nobody will 'honor him when he's gone': ex-staffer

According to one of President Donald Trump’s former advisers, the president suspects that Americans will not respect him once he is removed from power — and that is why he is obsessed with building monuments to himself now.

“He loves to build, that's his background,” Sarah Matthews, former Trump White House deputy press secretary, told CNN’s Erin Burnett on Thursday. “So I think he's looking at these little pet projects, and this is what excites him. This is what gets him jazzed up.”

She added, “He's probably bored talking about Iran. He doesn't want to talk about inflation and all of these things. We've seen him say, when it comes to affordability, that this is a hoax created by the Democrats — even though that's what the American people are actually focused on: the affordability crisis that he has only exacerbated with his choice to launch this attack on Iran and raise gas prices, and with his choice to put these asinine tariffs in place. So I think this is what he wants to be focused on, but it couldn't be more tone deaf.”

Former Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) elaborated on Matthews’ point, comparing Trump’s behavior to the “clown show” satirized on the famous animated sitcom The Boondocks.

“The Iran war is still going on,” Bowman said. “Lebanon is being bombed consistently. These ceasefires are not lasting. There's ethnic cleansing happening there. People can't afford to live. You're protecting child sex trafficking rapists, according to the majority of the American people. This whole presidency has been a disaster, and we have to live with it every day.”

Bowman continued, “My prayer and hope is that in November, we pivot. But I worry, because it's not about serving the working class of the American people — it's about power. And that's not just Trump. His administration has been a problem, as have both parties, for a very long time.”

Matthews then pivoted back to the subject of Trump’s fixation on building monuments to himself.

“I think it's very striking that if you thought people wouldn't build monuments to you after you leave office, you wouldn't feel the need to do this,” Matthews said. “But Sen. Jon Ossoff [D-GA] brought up this point recently and made the case that Trump is doing this right now because he knows that when he's gone, people won't honor him — people won't want to. So I think Trump knows that, and feels it looking at his polling numbers, and he wants to build this legacy. That's also part of the reason why he's so focused on these little pet projects of his.”

Last month Windsor Mann, journalist from The Daily Beast, analyzed Trump’s mentality to explain his obsession with creating monuments to himself. In addition to worrying about his legacy, he argued that it is a way for Trump to assert ownership over the American people.

“Donald Trump’s two favorite things are himself and money,” Mann wrote. “Now he has decided to combine the two. Indeed, for the first time in history, the sitting president is adding his signature to our paper currency. Trump’s name will be on your money, which is his way of saying that he owns you.”

He summed his point up by saying, “After all, what if we built a statue of someone who turned out to be in the Epstein files or who, after losing an election, tried to overthrow our democracy? It would be costly and tedious to dismantle a statue of such a person after these revelations surfaced. Perhaps Trump realizes this, which is why he’s building not one monument to himself but scores of them.”

- YouTube youtu.be

Trump bails out his loyal supporters as economy tumbles: report

President Donald Trump has slashed social programs for inner city minorities, low-income children, starving Americans and many other vulnerable groups. Yet one of the groups that has consistently supported him just got a major bailout.

“The lower chamber voted 213-210 to pass the agriculture, rural development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and related agencies appropriations bill,” reported The Hill's Sudiksha Kochi on Thursday. “Five Republicans voted against the bill, while four Democrats voted in favor.”

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) argued that the legislation is necessary to protect American farmers, who are struggling immensely due to Trump policies including his tariffs, his mass deportations and his war against Iran. Each of these policies have raised prices or depleted their workforce, and farmers have openly expressed distress over their declining quality of life even as they remain largely loyal to the president.

According to Cole, the $7.1 billion bill “delivers targeted investments to support farmers and ranchers, prioritize food and drug safety, and reinforces important research and innovation.” It also allocates money to the FDA to “keep foods, drugs and devices safe,” as well as $1.16 billion to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and to enhance the “tracking system of foreign-owned land.”

In April, an Economist/YouGov poll revealed that overwhelming majorities of American farmers remain staunchly pro-Trump, even though substantial numbers also realize his policies are hurting them.

“Twenty-seven percent of rural respondents said it would be ‘impossible’ to cover an unexpected $1,000 bill. It would be easy to blame Mr Trump for the downturn,” The Economist wrote. “After all, he campaigned on promises to bring down prices and revive the heartland. But rural America does not.”

The Economist reported how the owner of Illinois used-equipment house Kerr Auction “says in tough years more tractors come in from families of farmers who have taken their own lives. He now expects to see more.”

Democratic strategist Max Burns independently observed that “the suicide rate in rural communities is now 3.5 times the national average and climbing ... [as] farmers buckle under the financial strain of crippling agricultural tariffs, rising input costs and a president who didn’t bother to mention them once in his most recent State of the Union address."

Yet The Economist added that, in addition to standing behind Trump, the farmers hoped that he would soon eventually provide them with economic relief so that his tariffs, deportations and war will not continue to negatively impact their collective bottom line. Even still, it is unclear whether this new relief measure will do that.

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