voting rights

Fox News viewers more likely to embrace debunked conspiracies and violence

People who regularly watch Fox News are more likely to believe in a debunked conspiracy theory that has been widely linked to violence, according to a recent study.

“Recent years have witnessed an increase in white Americans’ support for the Great Replacement Theory (GRT), the xenophobic conspiracy theory that posits that political elites are embracing permissive immigration policies to bring in ‘obedient’ voters who will vote for them and who will eventually replace native white citizens,” scholars Jesse Rhodes, Seth Goldman and others wrote for the journal PS: Political Science & Politics. They added that, because Fox News frequently promotes this theory, the article’s authors decided to study “the American Multiracial Panel Study to investigate whether exposure to Fox News is associated with support for the GRT.” After surveying more than 1,000 people over a period of more than a year, they concluded that “whites who receive their political news from Fox News are significantly more likely to support core tenets of the GRT than those who do not,” a phenomenon consistent with what they dubbed a “Fox News Effect.”

“Our study extends this research by exploring whether exposure to Fox News is associated with stronger support for key tenets of the GRT among whites,” the authors wrote. “Using results from a panel survey of American adults, we found that whereas pluralities of whites support core aspects of the GRT, majorities and sometimes supermajorities of Fox News viewers express support for these beliefs. We then tested the robustness of this bivariate relationship with multivariate OLS regression and discovered that exposure to Fox News was associated with greater support for the GRT, controlling for demographic and political characteristics.”

To explain the link between watching Fox News and supporting the Great Replacement Theory, the authors wrote that “undocumented immigration is best understood as a ‘hard’ issue and, as a result, public opinion is more likely to be susceptible to strike elite influence,” adding later in their paper that “studies of mass opinion have shown that Americans have low levels of information concerning the scope of undocumented immigration to the United States and the factors that account for the recent increase in unauthorized migration to the country. Given this lack of knowledge and the consistently positive coverage of the GRT on Fox News, it is no surprise that Fox News viewers have opinions closely aligned with the core tenets of this troubling belief system.”

In the United States, the Great Replacement Theory was cited as the rationale behind a number of mass shootings including a 2018 synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, a 2019 attack on a Poway Chabad center, a 2019 mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart and a 2022 shooting at a Buffalo supermarket.

“According to the study text, scholars point out that individuals who subscribe to these beliefs also show an increased inclination to endorse violence as a political tool,” PsyPost’s Karina Petrova wrote when describing the study. “The perpetrators of several mass shootings targeting minorities in the United States have cited the theory in their writings. Because the ideology frequently emerges alongside acts of violence, understanding how the beliefs spread has become a major concern for social scientists.”

Despite the serious consequences of the Great Replacement Theory, Trump has appointed a number of high-ranking officials who support it. When one of them, Jeremy Carl, withdrew his nomination for Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizational Affairs because of his pushing of GRT, he defended himself by saying “I mostly just kind of saying this ... to troll the libs.”

Adding he wanted to take “some genuine ironic distance,” Carl claimed that “I don’t actually think that we are in a cultural genocide per se. I’m trying to kind of push people.” Yet he later added that Democrats “hyperdiversify the country.”

Indiana voter participation high as Trump tries to oust errant Republicans

The IndyStar reports Indiana’s high-populated Marion County appears to be topping recent primaries as President Donald Trump made moves to remove Republican incumbents who bucked him on a recent push for a mid-decade gerrymander.

“Even though a few Marion County residents may still be waiting in line to cast their votes, voter turnout is trending toward 15 percent, Dan Goldblatt, communications director for the Marion County Clerk’s Office, said shortly after 6 p.m. Tuesday,” said IndyStar reporter Katie Wiseman.

While that number might seem low, Wiseman reports Indianapolis' primary elections only see 7-8 percent voter turnout, according to Goldblatt.

“[The year] 2026 has already seen a higher voter turnout than the presidential primary election in 2024, which was 13.55 percent and the last primary midterm election in 2022 which saw only 10.78 percent voter turnout according to Marion County voter data,” wrote Wiseman.

The New York Times reports that voters in deep-red Indiana went to the polls today to cast ballots in the state’s primary elections — which rarely receive attention outside the Midwest. But this year, President Trump changed that.

“The president is seeking to oust seven Republican state senators whom he deems insufficiently loyal,” reports the Times. “They had helped defeat a redistricting effort that could have boosted the party’s chances of maintaining control of the U.S. House, so Trump found seven challengers to endorse instead.”

It did not appear to matter that many of the candidates “in the president’s cross hairs are staunch conservatives with long track records,” the Times added.

The night’s results, reports said the Times, “will serve as a test of Trump’s ability to bend the Republican Party’s rank-and-file to his will.”

But once Indiana is done, Trump is not, adds the Times. In the coming weeks, the president also hopes to oust more well-known Republicans in Louisiana and Kentucky.

However voters decide, IndyStar reports Trump has riled them in either one direction or the other.

Conservative says Trump has done irreparable harm to Americans' trust in government

According to a top defense expert, President Donald Trump’s Iran war has made it impossible for millions of Americans to ever trust their government’s foreign policy again.

“For decades, the U.S. government has been willing to start wars but not strategically and transparently manage them, consistently misleading its citizenry to justify adventurism abroad,” Alexander Langlois, a contributing fellow for Defense Priorities, wrote for Reason on Tuesday. “The conduct of the Trump administration in the current war with Iran is no exception.”

Langlois added, “President Donald Trump's claims of ‘victory’ as the war persists through a blockade and multiple troop surges without a clear win-case highlights how optics designed to mislead dictate Washington's approach to war today. This war could mark a crucial lesson and potential turning point, however, forcing the nation to come to grips with the real costs of violent conflict.”

The foreign policy scholar explained that Trump’s loss of credibility over the Iran War did not occur in isolation. In fact, for more than 60 years, American foreign policymakers have made unpopular decisions that eroded the public’s ability to believe their words.

“Unable to achieve already unclear objectives and trapped in a quagmire of its own making, Washington has chosen destruction as the war's defining characteristic,” Langlois observed. “The evolution of the war in this direction reflects the ‘body count’ rhetoric used by the White House during the Vietnam War, in which a narrative of mass killing and destruction was believed to bolster perceptions of American victory. In reality, it only obscured the quagmire, prolonging an already lost war in a conflict with no military resolution in the first place.”

Comparing Vietnam to Iran, Langlois concluded that “a strategic loss cannot be defined as a win. A lie is still a lie. That victory is and will be hollow.”

Langlois is not the only foreign policy scholar to raise the alarm about the president’s Iran war and how its ongoing unpopularity could hurt America’s foreign policy.

“Trump’s Easter Sunday blast at the Iranians thus offered a stark contrast with even his most profane predecessors,” presidential historian Barbara A. Perry recently wrote for The Atlantic. Perry quoted Trump’s Easter Day social media post to Iran in which he wrote “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F—— Strait, you crazy b------, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP”

While presidents like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were notoriously profane in private, Perry pointed out that they were very careful about protecting the office’s image and credibility by not speaking like that in public.

“All previous presidents have wanted to appear serious, dignified, and statesmanlike when speaking to their fellow Americans and the world about war,” Perry wrote. “Not every commander in chief can rival Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg—or even Franklin D. Roosevelt describing Japan’s ‘unprovoked and dastardly attack on Sunday, December 7, 1941’ as a ‘day that will live in infamy’—but the others have all tried.”

Grievance-ridden Trump 'loathes' voters for whining about their problems: report

MS NOW Anchor Nicole Wallace and panelists took turns ruining President Donald Trump’s look of impatience with voters while he obsesses over his various pet projects around the U.S. Capitol.

“This is who he is,” said Wallace, referring to a photo of Trump hoisting a design of his beloved White House ballroom and flaunting it to the media. “He doesn't give a hoot about your economic despair, couldn't care less and has no clue how much eggs cost or anything else. He’s angry at you for caring about the price of gas, is angry at you for caring about losing your health care, is angry at Marjorie Taylor Greene for caring about the promise about ‘no forever wars,’ is angry at Tucker Carlson for calling BS on him, betraying his voters on all those. All of the above.”

“But what does he care about enough to carry it around in his pocket?” demanded Wallace. “We've really never seen him produce a picture of any of his children or wife, for that matter. But he carries [a photo of the ballroom] around everywhere he goes.”

“It's not about the dollars,” said former Democratic Strategist Dan Kanninen. “It's about his focus — and it's not on you. In fact, to your point, he's angry that voters want to pull him away from this pet project, and he has loathing for them. I think that’s coming through [to voters] at this point.”

At this, Wallace played footage of an earlier interview she’d conducted with Bulwark Editor Sarah Longwell, where Longwell shared insight about souring reaction from people who had voted for Trump in 2024.

“The focus groups allow you to hear people say, ‘it makes me want to cry like it is causing me pain. I have to choose between whether I can get groceries or whether I pay for my kids to be able to, to, to participate on the soccer team,’” said Longwell, quoting respondents in Bulwark surveys. “Last year … [people] were like, ‘well, he's not fixing things, but Rome wasn't built in a day. We have patience. Give him some time.’ That is not how they sound now. Now they sound like, ‘What is he doing in Iran? What is he doing with the ballroom? Why is he focused on all this other stuff? Nothing's getting better for me.’”

“I mean, tragically, things aren't going to get better anytime soon,” Wallace estimated.

- YouTube youtu.be

Trump still searching for 'magic formula' that will never come: expert

As the war with Iran moves into its third month, President Donald Trump is increasingly desperate for the “magic formula” that will deliver victory, but according to Iran expert Steven Erlanger, he can’t win because he “doesn’t understand” the situation in the first place. Not only was he misinformed about what the conflict would entail, but he is ignorant of the psychology of the Iranian regime.

Writing for the New York Times, Erlanger details Trump’s efforts so far, from the airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities last June, to the initial attempt at regime change in February, to the blockade of Hormuz he hopes will reopen that very strait.

“But,” says Erlanger, “Mr. Trump’s conviction that these tactics will bring about Iran’s capitulation is deeply flawed, officials and analysts say. They say it is a misreading of the Islamic Republic’s strategy, psychology and capability for adaptation. The Iranian government believes that it has the upper hand for now, and that it can withstand economic pressure, as it has in the past, longer than Mr. Trump can tolerate rising energy prices brought about by the halting of traffic through the strait.”

Said Ali Vaez, Iran project director for the International Crisis Group, “At every point when pressure has not delivered the intended result, he’s sought a new tool of coercion which he believed would magically conjure victory. He always believes he’s one little turn of the screw away. Trump doesn’t understand that no matter the pressure, so long as you don’t give them a face-saving way out and a mutually beneficial agreement — not capitulation or surrender — you won’t get a deal.”

This is because Trump misunderstands Iranian history and what has allowed the regime to remain so durable.

According to Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist and director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, the U.S. “can certainly do more damage to the Iranian economy, but they have withstood more pressure than any other economy in history, and that hasn’t produced the collapse of the regime or more reasonable positions.”

To a large degree, this is because Iran is an authoritarian state where the public lives under severe repression. There is therefore no electoral or otherwise internal political pressure to make a compromise. Trump, on the other hand, presides over a liberalized society where his party faces major losses in the coming midterms.

What’s more, explained Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, the American and Iranian negotiators “have culturally very different approaches to deal-making and they talk past each other. I think President Trump doesn’t really understand what drives the Iranians. They don’t make decisions based on their GDP, because if so, they would have done a deal years ago.”

In fact, in the face of an overtly hostile enemy, the regime’s usual tactic involves doubling down and upping the tension, if only to instill the Iranian people with a sense of its unshakeable strength and authority. This is why previous American administrations have found greater success at negotiating by applying gradual, long-term pressure rather than leaping directly to war.

“In the past,” writes Erlanger, “strong American and international sanctions on Iran’s economy and oil industry did eventually bring it to negotiate. Years of talks did finally lead to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, when Iran agreed to strict limits on its nuclear enrichment program for more than a decade in return for the lifting of most of those harsh economic sanctions. Iran kept to the deal. But Mr. Trump, in his first term, abandoned it in 2018 and reimposed severe economic sanctions in a policy called ‘maximum pressure,’ to force Iran to negotiate a more restrictive agreement. Despite severe economic hardship and Iran’s decision to sharply reduce its oil output, there was no new nuclear deal.”

Now even amidst the war, Erlanger says that “quiet talks with the Americans continue as the regime sees this moment of impasse as a chance to solve its longstanding conflict with the United States. But that is different than caving under coercion.”

According to Vaez, Iran wants to make a deal, but the regime has concluded that to surrender under pressure now means further capitulations in the future. It therefore wants to retain control of the strait as an ongoing bargaining chip, as it sees no reason to believe anything Trump has offered. As Vaez explained, “They don’t want to survive the hot war to freeze in a cold peace.”

Supreme Court 'boiling over' into malfunction as conservatives choose 'sides'

There has been a “deterioration of morale” at the U.S. Supreme Court, Yale Law School professor Justin Driver told Bloomberg News, as he predicted “there will be major fireworks” by the time the high court’s term comes to a close around the end of June.

Other legal scholars share that concern.

“It appears from the outside that there has been an erosion of comity and trust,” William & Mary Law School constitutional and administrative law Professor Jonathan Adler told Bloomberg. “This raises the concern that it could affect how the court operates and inhibit deliberation.”

The court already appears to be operating at an unusual level of enmity.

“Tensions are starting to boil over,” Bloomberg reports. “Back-and-forth sniping between Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Samuel Alito Monday night marked the latest sign of strain at a court that has become a prominent symbol of the polarization besetting the country.”

During last week’s landmark ruling all but gutting what remains of the six-decade-old Voting Rights Act, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the court’s conservative majority of taking political sides. Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, called her claims “insulting” and “utterly irresponsible.”

More high-profile — and possibly highly-contested — decisions are to be handed down over the next eight weeks, and with them, more contentious opinions.

Justices are set to rule on President Donald Trump’s effort to eliminate birthright citizenship, they are to hand down opinions on transgender girls in women’s sports, and on Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

On Monday, as the court cleared the way for Louisiana to eliminate a majority-minority district, Justice Jackson “accused the court of betraying its principles, including its past pronouncements that judges shouldn’t change the voting rules on the eve of an election.”

“Just like that, those principles give way to power,” Jackson warned.

Jackson’s remarks “drew a fiery response” from Justice Alito, who said that her dissent “levels charges that cannot go unanswered.” Bloomberg reports that “Alito took particular umbrage at Jackson’s claim that the court was engaging in an unprincipled power play,” which he called “a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”

At the time, Justice Amy Coney Barrett in an appearance said that “collegiality is a decision you make,” as she shared that she and other justices spend time together at lunches and even dinners at each other’s homes.

“You have to make decisions to spend time with people, and particularly people with whom you might disagree, in order to forge those bonds,” Barrett said.

Pointing to what it calls the “Jackson Factor,” Bloomberg reports that Jackson, the nation’s newest justice, “has been at the center of much of the sparring,” and much of that seems to be with Justice Alito.

White collar suspects skip away as Trump focuses on his personal enemies: report

Anonymous sources tell Bloomberg that the Department of Justice and President Donald Trump’s prosecutor allies in Florida are letting white collar crime suspects go unprosecuted while Trump pursues his political enemies.

“Shortly after ascending to the top of the Justice Department last month, Todd Blanche gathered prosecutors in Miami to press for results from a highly sensitive probe into some of President Donald Trump’s perceived political enemies,” reports Bloomberg. “Blanche and Jason Reding Quiñones, the relatively little-known US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, have ramped up the months-long investigation into politically charged allegations that former senior government officials acted illegally years ago to undermine Trump.”

But “more than a dozen former prosecutors and defense lawyers” — speaking anonymously — say “there is mounting concern that the pursuit of Trump’s agenda has triggered an exodus of experienced prosecutors and hampered Miami’s expertise in building major white collar crime and narcotics trafficking cases.”

According to Bloomberg, many expressed concern that the high-profile drug, corruption, fraud and money laundering prosecutions that the district is known for will “fall by the wayside” while Trump sends his DOJ lieutenants and GOP allies to fucus on the doings of Biden and Obama from years ago.

Several dozen attorneys in the Southern District of Florida have been fired, quit or retired since Trump’s second term began in January 2025, which undermined the talent pool for prosecuting complex cases, say anonymous sources familiar with the office. One unit dedicated to prosecuting economic crimes is down to about a dozen attorneys from the more than 30 it traditionally had.

“A top Blanche aide earlier this year relocated to be a prosecutor in the office. Then, last month, an attorney overseeing the investigation was replaced with former US attorney and Trump loyalist Joseph diGenova following a disagreement over how best to proceed, according to people familiar with the situation,” reports Bloomberg. “Multiple grand jury subpoenas have gone out in recent weeks, and FBI officials have been conducting a flurry of interviews, said people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing a confidential probe.”

But as prosecutors neglect investigations against legitimate suspected wrongdoers, Bloomberg reports Trump’s focus on his political hit list is coming up dry with prosecutors struggling with cases against current and former government officials considered to be enemies of the president.

“Charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey in Virginia were dismissed last year,” said Bloomberg, and an additional case against Comey last month in North Carolina has kindled criticism that US law enforcement is being directed wielded for retribution for Trump.

Trump's debt bomb is ticking — and Americans will pay the price

President Donald Trump has led America into so much debt that it now exceeds the entirety of the nation’s gross domestic product, and one academic is warning that the bill is coming due.

“Unless we change course, the debt will only get worse—fast,” wrote Brookings Institution senior fellow William Galston for The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that we are on track to accumulate more than $24 trillion in debt over the next decade, for a total of $56 trillion—120 percent of estimated GDP in 2036.”

He added, “These numbers are so large that it is hard to grasp what they mean. One key measure is the cost of financing this swelling debt burden. Twenty-five years ago, interest payments on the national debt were 2 percent of GDP. This year they will claim 3.3 percent; a decade from now, 4.6 percent.”

Galston broke down the numbers in terms of how they will impact ordinary Americans. By 2036, the US will increase its spending on debt interest from $1 trillion to $2.1 trillion, amounting to nearly one-fifth of the total federal budget. This means that, by that time, “more than 2 out of every 3 dollars we borrow will go to finance interest on the debt. The longer this continues, the worse it gets.”

Because President Clinton worked with both parties in Congress so that by 2001 the debt had fallen to just 32 percent of GDP, Galston argued that the current crisis is not unsolveable. He expressed support for a recent bipartisan plan by 14 representatives, half from each party, to "commit the country to reduce the budget deficit to 3 percent of GDP and maintain it at or below this level."

While backing this target, however, Galston also urged pragmatism.

“A serious effort to slow and then halt the growth of public debt would involve reductions in popular programs, increased revenue from taxes as well as economic growth, and devolution of some federal programs to the states,” Galston wrote. “Given how hard-pressed working- and middle-class households are these days, wealthy Americans would have to bear a substantial share of the burden.”

He added, “A political version of the Hippocratic oath—first, do no harm—would be a good place to start. If the Trump administration wants to increase defense spending by more than $400 billion in the next fiscal year, it should specify how this can be done without increasing the deficit. The same holds for Democrats who want to increase domestic spending above current levels. If Congress isn’t willing to accept the needed offsets, it shouldn’t increase spending.”

Galston concluded, “None of this will happen without a president who is prepared to persuade the people that getting the debt under control is a top priority.”

Galston is not alone among budget hawks who are alarmed at the rising debt.

“Biden ramped up spending, especially on his way out the door,” Reason's Nick Gillespie wrote last month. “Trump is doing more of the same. Yes, he's pushing to cut certain types of spending, but in the aggregate, it's just more and more red ink as far as the eye can see, a tendency that was true of him during his first term, both before and after the pandemic.”

Gillespie added, “In fact, federal spending under Trump increased $1,441 per person before COVID fully opened the spigot. Of the $7.8 trillion in new debt he signed off on in his first term, less than half was related to COVID relief. And by every indication—including his recent budget proposal, which calls for a record-high defense budget of $1.5 trillion—Trump aims to sign off on ever-increasing amounts of spending until his term expires in 2029.”

Top experts issue new warning about Trump's mental health

Editor's Note: This story has been corrected because Tufts was accidentally listed twice as each physician's former employer. In fact, Dr. Abraham taught at Tufts and Dr. Lee taught at Yale.

A group of 36 top mental and medical health experts issued a public statement on Tuesday warning that President Donald Trump is quite literally losing his mind — and, unless he is removed from power, will put the entire world in danger.

Referring back to a statement they issued last month, the group argued in its statement (obtained by AlterNet) that Trump’s “mental instability, coupled with his sole, unchecked authority to launch nuclear weapons, makes him a clear and present danger to the safety of all Americans.” Because they have not personally treated the president, they did not officially diagnose him, but offered instead a detailed description of his publicly-exhibited symptoms including “bizarre and impulsive behavior, rambling digressions, factual confusions, unexplained sudden changes of course in strategic matters, both national and international, and his deeply impaired judgment.”

Since their initial statement to Congress, the doctors added that Trump “has exhibited more signs of grandiosity, e.g., posting images of himself on social media shaking hands with God, acting like Jesus, and dressing as a Pope. And he has continued nocturnal bingeing on social media posts that are filled with accusations of multiple conspiracies against him, as often as 150 times a night. Most worrisome are his outbursts of extreme, seemingly uncontrollable rage, such as his threat to destroy Iran, saying, ‘A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.’”

Because the president alone can launch a nuclear attack, and do so without his orders being subject to review, the experts expressed alarm that “these policies, combined with an emotionally unstable leader, is a formula for unspeakable tragedy waiting to happen. For this reason above all others, the group of medical experts urged that lawful steps be taken to remove the president from office.”

In response to this statement, as well as specific claims made by the psychiatrists whom AlterNet interviewed for this article, White House spokesman David Ingle accused Trump’s physician critics of behaving unethically by offering an “armchair diagnosis.”

“If it quacks like a duck, it may actually just be a Democrat hack doctor,” Davis Ingle told AlterNet by email. “President Trump is the sharpest, most accessible, and energetic president in American history and any so-called medical professionals engaging in armchair diagnosis or false speculation for political purposes are clearly breaking the Hippocratic Oath they’ve sworn to.”

The letter’s chief signatory, psychiatrist Dr. Henry Abraham (formerly of Tufts University), disputed that the psychiatrists behave unethically by calling out the president’s perceived infirmities. In the 1960s, the American Psychiatric Association attempted to apply the principles of the Hippocratic Oath to modern politics through the so-called “Goldwater Rule,” which denounces psychiatrists who offer clinical assessments of public figures they have neither officially diagnosed or been given permission to analyze. By Abraham’s accounting, however, the Goldwater Rule should not be applied to Trump.

“The ‘Rule’ is more of a guideline which a past president of the American Psychiatric Association raised the possibility of resulting in ‘rigid overscrupulosity’ while another, my colleague former APA president Alan Stone famously objected that it constituted a fruitless effort to ‘legislate against stupidity,’” Abraham told AlterNet. Citing his recent Substack post which described that “this is not an academic exercise” because “the president’s condition appears to be deteriorating,” he added that “there has been a frightening progression of symptoms. These include grandiosity without moral safeguards, paranoia, impulsivity, vindictiveness, easy misperception of being harmed, moments of omnipotence, uncontrolled rage, and sole control over the use of nuclear weapons in a time of war. As a psychiatrist reviewing these, I can only say Yikes!

When asked how Trump could be legally removed from power, Abraham said that “the solutions have to be political. They include invoking the 25th amendment, impeachment, or convincing him to resign as Nixon did. None of these are an easy lift, especially with a loyalist cabinet and Congress. But the irony is that our leaders don’t lead as much as they follow. A recent poll by the Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos group found a majority of [Americans] do not believe the president is physically or mentally able to discharge his duties. The public is waking up to these dangers. As they do, the political landscape may shift towards removal of a defective and dangerous leader.”

Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a psychiatrist formerly from Yale University and one of the 36 psychiatrists behind the letter, argued that the focus on applying the Goldwater Rule is “a fallacy.”

“Overemphasizing ‘the Goldwater rule’ was a fallacy, in my view, that has nothing to do with ethics or actual science, and served only to deprive the public of critical knowledge,” Lee told AlterNet. “As I recently told the BMJ, ‘Diagnosing, through a personal examination with confidential information, is done for the patient, while detecting signs of danger, based on publicly available data, is done for society.’”

Lee added, “The Goldwater rule only concerns the former; the former is a prohibition, while the latter is an obligation, and conflating the two could result in massive harm--as it has. We declare explicitly in our Statement that we are not diagnosing but warning against signs of danger, which are extreme to the point of warranting the president's immediate lawful removal from office, for medical reasons.” In Trump’s case, the symptoms include “marked deterioration in cognitive functioning, evidenced by disorganized and tangential speech, rambling digressions, factual confusions, unexplained sudden changes of course in strategic matters, both national and international, episodes of apparent somnolence during critical public proceedings”; “grandiose and delusional beliefs, including assertions of infallibility, imagery of himself as Pope suggestive of a divine mission, being a mythical warrior hero, depicting himself as combat pilot—dropping feces on civilians, and claims that his decision-making authority is unlimited—with no need to consider domestic and international laws and constrained only by his ‘own morality’”; and “severely impaired judgment and impulse control, reflected in reckless threats of violence, advocacy of lethal force against civilians, encouragement of extrajudicial actions by armed supporters, repeated threats and often actions—judicial, prosecutorial, police, military, and by invoking emergency powers—against political opponents and others who disagree with him.”

The symptoms also include “significant loss of self-control (disinhibition) and getting stuck on the same thoughts or actions, unable to let go or move on (perseveration), including seemingly compulsive, manic-like late-night communications—e.g., 150 social media posts in one night—fixation on perceived enemies, persecutory ideas, and prolonged, disproportionate attacks on specific individuals and institutions” and “escalating violence that threatens national and global stability. As Commander-in-Chief of our military—more than 5000 nuclear warheads in inter-continental missile silos, on submarines, and in bombers around the world, are ready for launch solely upon his order, and no one now has the authority to countermand his order.”

To eliminate the crisis posed by Trump’s deteriorating mental state, Lee urged congressional leaders to “immediately retake their constitutional authority over war, before further escalation renders the question moot, convene urgent consultations with senior military and intelligence officials, to create a circuit breaker capable of preventing the use of nuclear weapons and formally initiate Section 4 of the 25th amendment.”

Lee has a track record of accurately predicting crises that will emerge from Trump’s public mental state. Prior to the 2020 election, she predicted that Trump would attempt a coup if he lost to former President Joe Biden because of his severe narcissistic traits.

“Just as one once settled for adulation in lieu of love, one may settle for fear when adulation no longer seems attainable,” Dr. Lee told this journalist for Salon in October 2020. “Rage attacks are common, for people are bound to fall short of expectation for such a needy personality—and eventually everyone falls into this category. But when there is an all-encompassing loss, such as the loss of an election, it can trigger a rampage of destruction and reign of terror in revenge against an entire nation that has failed him.”

She continued, “It is far easier for the pathological narcissist to consider destroying oneself and the world, especially its ‘laughing eyes,’ than to retreat into becoming a ‘loser’ and a ‘sucker’ — which to someone suffering from this condition will feel like psychic death.”

While there is no precedent for a president being involuntarily removed from power through the 25th amendment, former presidential adviser David Gergen told this journalist for Salon in 2017 that his ex-boss, President Richard Nixon, was secretly subverted by his own associates when his drinking led them to fear he was losing his mind. At the time, Gergen was alarmed at Trump’s seemingly erratic behavior from his first term.

“If you go back to the Nixon era, right toward the end during the Watergate period, when Nixon was drinking heavily and had become erratic, the secretary of defense at that time was Jim Schlesinger, an extraordinarily bright man and very principled,” Gergen told Salon at the time. “And he told the joint chiefs, if you get an order from the president to fire a nuclear missile, you do not do that. Don’t take an order from the commander in chief until you call me and I give you personal approval, or you get the personal approval of the secretary of state.”

Schlesinger, Gergen pointed out, was skirting the law by acting as he did.

“Nixon was the commander in chief,” Gergen recalled, “and Schlesinger in effect was saying, ‘We’re going to override the commander in chief if in fact we think it’s coming from some sort of aggressive personality or he’s just pissed off. Whatever it may be.’ And I’ve asked people in the Defense Department, ‘Do you think there’s a similar arrangement today between [Secretary of Defense Jim] Mattis and the four-star generals?’ And the answer they’ve given me back — I don’t think there’s any reason to believe he’s giving such an order … [is] that if they’re given an order that they think comes from an erratic personality, they will double-check it with the secretary before they carry it out.”

Trump's on-camera putting struggles contradict his constant bragging about golf skills

It’s no secret that President Donald Trump enjoys golf almost as much as he enjoys bragging about his prowess at it. He has repeatedly delivered boasts such as, “There’s very few people that can beat me in golf,” though he himself has admitted to cheating. He’s even been caught doing so on film, and there have been entire books written on his propensity for flouting rules on the links. Then on Tuesday, the world got an unvarnished look at his skills with a club during the White House’s Presidential Fitness Day event, but it didn’t go well.

Putting before an audience of retired pro golfer Bryson DeChambeau and a bevy of onlooking children, the president took and missed three six-foot putts as “Eye of the Tiger” played in the background.

While there is ostensibly nothing surprising about the fact that a 79-year-old would have some trouble on the green, the video is worth mentioning due to the simple fact that Trump brags about his skill so frequently. He’s played more rounds of golf while serving than any president, and famously owns several golf resorts.

The event was held in tandem with Trump’s restoration of the Presidential Fitness Test, a competitive fitness test that was first introduced in 1950, then phased out during the Obama administration in favor of a more comprehensive health and wellness program over concerns that the former approach contributed to bullying. While signing the proclamation that restored the test, Trump joked that he himself only works out “one minute a day, max.”

In the past, Trump has claimed that he considers exercise misguided, as he believes humans are born with a finite amount of energy that can be used up like a battery. It is important to note that there is nothing factual about such a claim.

He’s also offered a more believable explanation for his aversion to exercise, saying, “I just don’t like it. It’s boring. To walk on a treadmill or run on a treadmill for hours and hours like some people do, that’s not for me.”

GOP hit with creeping 'anxiety' as red state becomes surprise battleground

Ohio proved itself more of a red state after Democratic incumbent Sherrod Brown failed to retain his seat in 2024. And along with Brown losing to Republican businessman Bernie Moreno, President Donald Trump won the rust belt state by 11 points.

But that was then, said MS NOW writer Hunter Woodall. Today U.S. Sen. Jon Husted, tapped to replace Vice President J.D. Vance in the Senate, is running to keep the seat through the end of the term in 2028, but Democrats are overperforming with the curmudgeonly Trump at the top of the Republican Party and fuel prices and a weak economy dragging down Republicans and their Congressional and White House trifecta.

“There’s no doubt that having Sherrod Brown at the top of the ticket makes a huge difference for Democrats’ ability to compete this cycle,” state House Democratic Leader Dani Isaacsohn said.

The Ohio Capitol Journal reports Brown outpaces Ohio Republican U.S. Sen. Jon Husted in fundraising.

“Brown brought in more than $7.3 million in direct contributions and transfers from other committees. With a nudge from joint fundraising groups, that total swells to $8.8 million. Meanwhile, Husted raised a little more than $1.5 million between direct donations and transfers from joint committees,” reports the Journal. “Brown has almost $10 million in the bank, while Husted has just shy of $6 million.”

Additionally, the Journal reports the bulk of Brown’s contributions come from individual, small dollar donations through the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue with Brown raising more than $2 million through the organization in the final few months of 2025. Brown’s campaign claims an average donation of about $54 and notes 18,640 donors made contributions for the first time.

And Brown is not the only Ohio hope Democrats are baiting. Republican Gov. Mike DeWine is term-limited, the party sees an opening for Dr. Amy Acton, who served as DeWine’s director of the Ohio Department of Health during the Covid-19 pandemic, to win the governorship, said Woodall.

“In the short term … political gravity and a midterm cycle shaped by Trump’s second term and frustrations about the cost of living may help [Democrats] overcome the kind of messaging woes that last lost them control in Washington,” said Woodall.

Still, Republicans are trying to stay hopeful, said Woodall. “While Brown being on the ballot has created at least a level of anxiety among Republicans, there’s still confidence within GOP circles that the state’s red hue will remain.”

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