Friends,

On Saturday, Trump took revenge on Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy for Cassidy’s vote five years ago to convict Trump, in his second impeachment, for instigating an attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Cassidy thereby became the first GOP senator defeated by a Trump-endorsed candidate in a Republican primary. (Other Republican senators who have stood up to Trump — such as North Carolina’s Thom Tillis and Utah’s Mitt Romney — saw the writing on the wall and didn’t seek reelection.)

Trump’s purge of Cassidy comes in the wake of Trump’s purges of House Republicans who stood up to him, such as Wyoming’s Liz Cheney.

Trump’s next Republican target in the House is Kentucky representative Thomas Massie, who had the guts to oppose U.S. military involvement in Iran, demand release of the Epstein files, and criticize Trump’s spending bills for adding to the national debt. Massie appears likely to be defeated by a Trump-backed opponent in Tuesday’s Kentucky primary.

Trump has also purged state legislators who have refused to do his bidding, such as the seven Indiana Republicans who refused to redistrict the state as Trump demanded they do, and who Trump insured were defeated in their recent primaries.

The message is clear to every current or aspiring Republican politician: Be a toady to Trump, or you’re out.

In his concession speech Friday night, Cassidy stated the obvious reference to Trump:

“Our country is not about one individual. It is about the welfare of all Americans, and it is about our Constitution. And if someone doesn’t understand that and attempts to control others through using the levers of power, they’re about serving themselves. They’re not about serving us. And that person is not qualified to be a leader.”

Nicely put but sadly irrelevant because Trump — who’s clearly serving himself rather than the American public — now possesses all levers of power in the official Republican Party.

As Republican senator Lindsey Graham said yesterday on Meet the Press, “There’s no room in this party to destroy [Trump’s] agenda.”

Former generations of Republican politicians had principles, beliefs, ideals. They thought the federal government too large. Or believed it spent too much money. Or was too lenient on criminals. Or was too eager to support the civil rights of Black people. Or any number of issues with which Democrats disagreed.

Today’s Republican Party no longer has any purpose other than achieving whatever Trump wants, which is making Trump richer and more powerful. The GOP is now Trump’s; it is no longer America’s.

Today’s Republican voters, by contrast, are showing increasing frustration with Trump. Those who think of themselves as traditional Republicans don’t like Trump’s expansive use of federal power. Those who are fiscally conservative, like Thomas Massie, are upset by Trump’s wanton spending, tax cuts, and soaring debt. “America-first” Republican voters are concerned about Trump’s intrusions into Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and elsewhere. And they want the rest of the Epstein files released.

Yet for elected Republicans, survival now depends on personal loyalty to Trump.

All of which raises a fundamental question: Has the official Republican Party — now nearly purged of anyone willing to reflect the concerns of Republican voters rather than Trump’s will — become complicit in Trump’s criminality? Is it aiding and abetting Trump’s lawlessness?

A case can be made that the official Republican Party is indeed complicit.

For Trump, the first and most basic sign of loyalty to him — and therefore survival as a politician in Trump’s Republican Party — is a willingness to publicly proclaim as truth what we know to be two big lies: that Trump won the 2020 election, and that he did not seek to overturn its results by illegal means. As a result, almost all congressional Republicans are now election deniers.

Trump has also made it clear that loyalty to him bars any criticism of his unlawful immigration dragnet, which has so far resulted in the murders of three U.S. citizens by ICE agents and the detention and deportation, without a hearing, of people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally.

To Trump, loyalty requires full support of his foreign policy — including the abduction of a foreign leader, an undeclared war with Iran, and the killing on the high seas of people only suspected of smuggling drugs, in violation of international law.

Loyalty also demands unquestioned support for other of his lawless acts — using the Justice Department to prosecute his political opponents, building a mammoth White House ballroom, issuing no-bid contracts to his friends, promoting his family’s businesses and implementing policies favorable to them, accepting gifts from foreign powers, and defying court orders.

Is it fair to conclude from all of this that today’s official Republican Party — the people who are in office because Trump has put them there, or who maintain their office because they back whatever Trump wants — has in effect become a criminal organization, analogous to the mafia or a drug cartel, whose members are blindly loyal to their criminal bosses?

Share

Please submit your caption in the Comments section and, as before, please use the Comments section only for captions.

Winners will be announced next Sunday. For consideration, please post your caption by Monday at 9 pm PT, 12 midnight ET.

Leave a comment

Last week’s winner:

“Oh, we still believe in diversity. We stick minorities in diverse congressional districts.”

(Congratulations, Steven Horowitz.)

Runners-up:

“If we add 3 here, subtract 7, carry the 5, divide by party loyalty, that should equal 1950’s America.”

(Congratulations, Adam Laurie.)

“Ladies and gentleman, I give you the real swamp creature, the gerrymander.”

(Congratulations, Jeff Schwartz.)

“The Court has ruled: The right to vote is sacred; the right for that vote to matter is optional.”

(Congratulations, John F. M. O’Sullivan O’Shea.)

“Remember kids, racism is over. Over here and over there.”

(Congratulations, David A Pitock.)

“Welcome to Rigging an Election 101.”

(Congratulations, Carol Nylen.)

“Ensuring the white to vote.”

(Congratulations, Andrea Wolper.)

“The only minority we allow to vote is the Wealthy Epstein class.”

(Congratulations, Laurie Blair.)

Share

Friends,

My first quote of the week comes from Trump on Air Force One, on his way back from Beijing on Friday — telling David Sanger of The New York Times:

“I had a total military victory. But the fake news, guys like you, write incorrectly. You’re a fake guy. We had a total military victory. I actually think it’s sort of treasonous what you write. You should be ashamed of yourself. I actually think it’s treason.”

Note Trump’s use of the pronoun “I.” He didn’t say “we” had a military victory. Trump’s malignant narcissism is worsening.

Also take note of his blatant lie. His war in Iran has been anything but a victory. His delusions and deceptions about the war are escalating.

Americans are far worse off today than we were before Trump started his war. We’re now paying $1.50 a gallon more for gas, on average. Paying even more, indirectly, for the diesel fuel powering trucks that transport much of what we buy. Food costs are also rising because the fertilizer used to grow much of the food we eat can’t move through the Strait of Hormuz. The soaring cost of jet fuel is also being passed on to those of us who fly.

And none of these costs will come down soon, even if the war ends tomorrow, because the price for oil is largely set in a global market, and much of the oil infrastructure of the Middle East is in ruins.

Trump has made it harder for us to switch from oil and gas to renewable sources of energy, in which China is excelling. Trump loves fossil fuels — he’s subsidizing oil and gas and has ended subsidies for renewables (remember his election deal with Big Oil?) — but the future lies with wind, solar, and biomass, and the batteries that store them.

And note the not-so-subtle threat Trump directed at Sanger — that Sanger could be accused of treason if he continued to report that Trump’s war is failing. Trump’s dangerous accusations are intensifying.

Which brings me to my other quote of the week — Trump’s comment just before leaving for China that:

“I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all. That’s the only thing that motivates me.”

I believe the first part, that Trump doesn’t think about Americans’ financial situation; he never has and never will. But it can’t possibly be that the only thing motivating him is preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

I say this because we were much closer to achieving this goal when Iran was still observing the nuclear deal it struck with Barack Obama — in which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear activities, including reducing its enriched uranium stockpile and modifying reactors to prevent the production of weapons-grade plutonium. (In exchange, the United States, United Nations, and European Union agreed to lift international economic and financial sanctions on Iran.)

But Trump pulled out of that deal. And Iran’s new leadership is hellbent on creating a nuclear weapon. Trump’s and Israel’s aggression apparently have proven to Iran’s new (and more extremist) leaders how much they need it. And the Trump regime has no idea where Iran is storing its near-weapons-grade plutonium.

Friends, a madman is in charge of American foreign policy — but almost no Republican member of Congress, no major CEO or university president or head of a major foundation, and certainly no member of Trump’s regime is willing to sound the alarm. They are all cowards.

I mentioned to you earlier this week that I had dinner with a group of political operatives who gave 30 percent odds that JD Vance and Marco Rubio would lead a coup within the next three to four months, invoking the 25th Amendment to get rid of the madman. Those odds may be higher now.

But you and I are not powerless. We can achieve the next best outcome — limiting Trump’s power to do more damage — by getting out the vote on or before November 3 and throwing the cowardly Republican senators and representatives out on their assets.

We have less than six months to get the largest midterm turnout in American history — a blue tsunami that will start the process of repair, reform, and return to sanity.

I know how frightening and discouraging all of this has been. I know how daunting the forces of cruelty and corruption can sometimes feel. I also know how hard you’ve been fighting, while at the same time working to keep yourself, your family, and your community on an even keel. And I thank you for it.

Despite Trump, please do not feel shame in America. Feel pride in the ideals we share. Feel honored that you are an activist warrior on the right side of history. Feel strength in our conviction. Feel power in our cause.

Have no doubt: We will prevail against the madman-in-chief and his lawless regime.

Share

To say Trump’s trip to China was underwhelming is to give it even more credit than it deserves. In fact, Trump’s main purpose for making the trip probably wasn’t to accomplish anything important but to deflect attention, even for a few days, from his failing war in Iran (the strait is still closed, and Iran is more determined than ever to build a nuclear bomb) and his failing economy (the closure of the strait continues to push up gas prices in the U.S. to near record levels).

Today, Heather and I take a hard look at these three items — Trump’s China visit, his war in Iran, and the U.S. economy — and put them in the context of the 2026 midterm elections. We also discuss Kevin Warsh’s Fed and the unlikelihood it will cut interest rates any time soon. And we examine the rampant, unprecedented corruption of the Trump regime.

Please pull up a chair, grab a cuppa, and join the conversation.

Share

Dear Friends,

Many of you keep asking how you can see the film that captures my final semester of teaching, The Last Class.

The talented team that created the film has announced that starting right now, for the first time ever, you can rent the film directly from the film’s website and watch in the comfort of your own home. Anywhere in the world, whether you live in Paris, Texas, or Paris, France.

Watch the film

When I decided to retire from teaching a few years back, my longtime friend, collaborator, and co-host of our Coffee Klatch podcast, Heather Lofthouse, thought it would be a shame not to document my final semester on camera. She worked with journalist and filmmaker Elliot Kirschner on how best to tell the story.

At first, their ambitions were modest: a short video on YouTube. Then the project morphed into a feature-length documentary. And thanks to many of you, it became a hit. When I compare how the project was pitched to me to what it’s become, I sometimes complain that I was the victim of a “bait and switch” — but I couldn’t be prouder about what emerged.

The film is really a love letter to teaching. It’s about the critical role of education in a democracy and the power of critical thinking. It focuses on my wonderful students at UC Berkeley and our shared hopes for the future.

The link below is your ticket to the film. I hope you’ll see it — and, especially if you like it, tell others about the film and how they can see it.

My thanks and kudos to the more than 40,000 students I’ve taught over my lifetime. And to Heather Lofthouse, Elliot Kirschner, and all the other hugely talented people who have brought this film to life — and to you.

Watch the film

All money received for the film goes to the nonprofit Inequality Media Civic Action to make more films and videos. The film team wants to assure you that if you can’t afford the price, they’ll waive the fee. Just email them at: thelastclassfilm@imcivicaction.org.

Happy viewing!

Share

Friends,

Words matter. When describing a government, they inevitably carry moral weight.

Over the last 16 months, Trump and his appointees have so profoundly undermined the United States government that we should use different words to describe these people than we’ve used to describe all previous administrations.

To begin with, they shouldn’t be called an “administration” at all. They should be referred to as a regime.

The Trump regime has flagrantly defied court orders. In February 2026, a federal judge (appointed by President George W. Bush) identified approximately 200 orders from the District of Minnesota alone that ICE had ignored since the start of the year, concluding that ICE had “likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.” The regime has also vilified judges who rule against it and demanded their impeachment.

The regime has usurped Congress’s powers to declare war, issue tariffs, and appropriate public funds. It is using tariffs as cudgels for Trump’s political aims. The regime is seeking to stifle speech and silence criticism — in universities, law firms, and the media.

Secondly, this regime is not headed by a “president,” as the Constitution of the United States and our laws and history have designated the head of the executive branch of the U.S. government. To put the term “President” before Trump’s name defiles the Constitution. He is an authoritarian.

Trump has illegally fired more than 300,000 career civil servants. He has fired inspectors general who are charged with holding political appointees accountable. He punishes whistleblowers who protest abuses. He attacks marginalized groups and foments bigotry. He is openly persecuting political opponents. He has given out pardons to convicted felons who are political supporters or financial contributors — including nursing home fraudsters, a Honduran president who smuggled 400 tons of cocaine into the United States, and January 6 seditionists. He has sent federal troops into states and cities headed by Democratic officials.

Thirdly, Trump has no interest in governing. He wants only to impose his will and make money from his office. His regime’s disregard for law is so monumental that it negates what we have come to understand as a “government of laws.” A better word for it is lawless.

During the first 16 months of Trump’s lawless regime, immigration agents have shot or killed 16 people, including three U.S. citizens. More people died last year in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement — a total of 32 — than in the preceding 20 years. People only suspected of being in the U.S. illegally have been detained or deported by masked and armed immigration agents, without a hearing. People only suspected of smuggling drugs have been murdered by the U.S. military in international waters, in violation of international law.

Meanwhile, Trump is accepting gifts from foreign powers. He blatantly promotes his family’s crypto business and implements policies favorable to it. He has sued the Internal Revenue Service for $10 billion and is now in settlement negotiations with his own Justice Department, which reportedly has offered to drop any future IRS audits of Trump, his family, or his businesses.

Finally, the true test of a successful president of the United States and his (eventually her) administration is not how much power he accumulates or how much he gets done. The real test is how much better off are the American people and how much stronger is our democracy. By these measures, Trump and his regime are not just lawless. They are a catastrophe.

Share

Friends,

Trump calls the entourage of 12 CEOs accompanying him to China an “incredible gathering” of America’s “Greatest Businessmen/women.”

Well, it may be an incredible gathering. But to characterize them as America’s greatest business leaders — who are assumed to be leading America’s competitive charge against China — is misleading.

The American CEOs traveling with Trump to China don’t think of themselves as being in competition with China. In fact, they’d like nothing better than to make more money for themselves and their shareholders by setting up more lower-cost, highly productive factories and research facilities in China and hiring more Chinese talent.

It’s an important distinction. The CEOs of Chinese companies are in business not only to make money but also to strengthen China’s geopolitical power in the world. The CEOs of American companies want to make gobs of money, of course, but they couldn’t give a rat’s ass about strengthening America’s geopolitical power in the world.

This basic difference is airbrushed away in breathless media stories about the competitive race between the American and Chinese economies — the so-called “race for supremacy” in AI, advanced semiconductors, supercomputers, solar wafers, biotechnology, and other industries of the future.

The distinction never appears in the breezy press coverage of Trump’s trip to China, along with his “U.S. corporate” delegation.

Take Elon Musk, obviously a conspicuous presence in Trump’s CEO delegation. Musk’s Tesla Gigafactory Shanghai produces over a third of Tesla’s global car sales. It’s also Tesla’s most productive factory. In February 2025, Musk opened a second factory in Shanghai, a $200-million plant focused on producing Megapack batteries. Nearly 40 percent of Tesla’s entire battery supply chain relies on Chinese companies.

All good for Musk and for Tesla shareholders, but what about American workers, who aren’t getting this work? What about America’s national security, which could be compromised if China gains further global dominance over batteries (as well as other renewables)? Do you think Musk cares?

Or consider Apple’s Tim Cook, also in Trump’s CEO delegation. China has become the gravitational core of Apple’s supply chain. Indeed, much of Apple’s success is due to Cook’s move to consolidate virtually all of his company’s manufacturing in China. About 90 percent of iPhones are assembled there, backed by massive investments in local supplier expertise and infrastructure. Cook explains that he’s taking advantage of China’s “unmatched” expertise in advanced tooling and manufacturing.

Since 2008, Apple has worked with Chinese suppliers to train 30 million workers there and has transferred practical engineering knowledge of how to make complex things from American engineers to thousands of Chinese engineers in hundreds of Chinese factories and research centers. Apple’s Cupertino, California, headquarters has sent so many American engineers to China to teach Chinese engineers that it even persuaded United Airlines to schedule three weekly flights from San Francisco to Chengdu and Hangzhou.

A third CEO in Trump’s delegation is Jane Fraser, CEO of Citigroup. Her goal has been to expand the bank’s (and its clients’) investments in China by growing Citigroup’s team in China and capturing market share for the corporation in high technology and advanced manufacturing.

Fraser’s moves may be good for Citigroup’s bottom line, but they may not be good for America. As she connects international investors with opportunities within China, she may be siphoning off potential investments in high technology and advanced manufacturing in the United States.

Another American CEO in Trump’s delegation is Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia. Huang’s goal is to get China to buy Nvidia’s AI and its advanced H200 processors, even at the risk that Chinese computer scientists and engineers might reverse-engineer them, as they have so many other technologies America once dominated.

Huang argues that with roughly half of all the world’s AI researchers, China is strategically vital for American tech companies. Huang may be right, but what’s strategically vital for American AI companies may not be in the strategic interest of the United States. The capacities that increase these corporations’ profits and returns to their American investors (including the pay packages of their CEOs) do not necessarily increase the productivity, knowledge, or strategic strength of America’s AI.

Doesn’t Trump know this? Does he assume that the rest of us don’t know? Is he really ignorant of the fact that Chinese corporations are tethered to China, but the CEOs of Tesla, Apple, Nvidia, and other so-called “American” corporations are not strategically bound to America? American CEOs aren’t paid to worry about the competitiveness of the United States, nor the number of good jobs in America, nor even about American national security.

Maybe Trump knows all this but doesn’t care. When it comes to making big money doing global deals, Trump’s merry band of CEOs has about as much loyalty to the United States as does Trump himself.

Share

Sorry to invade your inbox for a third time today, but I thought you’d find this interesting and useful.

Southern white Republican legislatures are now breaking up Black districts — both because Donald Trump asked them to, and because the Supreme Court now allows them to.

The vast majority of Americans understand this is morally wrong. It’s not where the nation should be now, more than 161 years after General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House.

Justin Jones, a rising star among southern Black political leaders, joins me to explain what’s happening, why it’s happening, and what we must do in response.

***

As you’ll hear, Jones says that in light of the Supreme Court’s shameful decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the Tennessee legislature has already turned all its congressional districts into white-majority districts. Now, Black voters in Tennessee — who comprise nearly 30 percent of the state’s population — have no voice.

Jones describes the lengths to which the Tennessee legislature has gone to create white-majority districts. “There’s a Krispy Kreme in Nashville,” he explained. “There’s another just 30 minutes away by car. In traveling from one to another, you now pass through five of Tennessee’s nine congressional districts.” That’s how absurdly gerrymandered Tennessee has become.

What to do?

First, Jones notes that the state used census maps to redistrict. Those maps identify people by race but not by political party. Jones believes this could be sufficient evidence of intent to racially gerrymander — the Supreme Court’s new test under the Voting Rights Act. Intent is incredibly difficult to prove, however.

Jones also thinks it would be appropriate for the young people of America to undertake another Freedom Summer, as they did in 1964.

“It’s the moment for courage,” Jones says. “We’re fighting the same forces of the confederacy as in the Civil War. Sometimes a democracy requires disruption …. We have to sound the alarm. The story of civil rights is being written at this moment. The question is whether you stand up now. We need a new multiracial generation of civil rights activists.”

Hope you get a chance to watch the whole interview, which runs 12 minutes, 40 seconds.

Share

Friends,

The Senate just confirmed Kevin Warsh to become the next chair of the Federal Reserve on a 54-45 vote.

This marks a new chapter in the history of an institution that depends for its credibility on political independence. That independence is important to you and everyone else who wants prices to remain stable and avoid inflation.

Trump has repeatedly attacked the Fed and its former chairman, Jerome Powell (not incidentally, a Trump appointee) for not lowering interest rates as quickly as Trump wants. Presumably, Trump wants lower interest rates because he figures that a “hot” economy is good for Republicans going into the 2026 midterms and perhaps even the 2028 general election, even if it means faster inflation.

Trump launched a trumped-up (pardon me) criminal investigation of Powell based on alleged cost overruns for refurbishing the Fed building and another against Fed member Lisa Cook based on alleged mortgage fraud. Neither of these individuals has left the Fed. (Powell’s term as chair ends May 15, but he has announced he’ll fill the remainder of his term, which runs until January 31, 2028, as a Fed governor. He says Trump’s pressure campaign against the central bank left him no choice but to stay on. The case against Cook has been taken up by the Supreme Court, which is expected to issue an opinion before its current term ends in July.)

Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina and a member of the Senate Banking Committee, blocked Warsh’s nomination until Trump dropped his legal threats against Powell. (Tillis thereby earns one of my Joseph N. Welch Awards for courage in the face of Trump’s tyranny.)

The big question now is whether Warsh will do Trump’s bidding and advocate lower interest rates even in the face of rising inflation — a move that would worsen the inflation even if it gives the economy (along with Trump and the Republicans) a temporary boost. (All but one Democrat in the Senate voted against confirming Warsh, reflecting concerns about his willingness to maintain the Fed’s political independence. During his confirmation hearing, Senate Democrats derided Warsh as Trump’s “sock puppet.”)

Why Fed independence is so important

The reason why the Fed, like most nations’ central banks, is supposed to be independent of politics is so people who are buying and selling financial assets don’t base their transactions on Trump’s or any other political leader’s desire for a booming economy in the short run (that is, until the next election) even at the risk of inflation.

Otherwise, inflation could easily get out of control. As William McChesney Martin Jr., the longest-serving chairman of the Federal Reserve, famously put it, the role of the Fed is “to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going.”

Martin’s “party” is an expanding economy with growing inflationary pressures, and the “punch bowl” is low interest rates and easy credit that fuel these growing pressures. As the designated chaperone, the Fed has to raise interest rates to prevent the economy from overheating, even if doing so harms a president’s political prospects.

I was in the Carter administration when Fed Chair Paul Volcker decided to “break the back” of inflation by raising interest rates so high that he put the economy into a recession and, arguably, caused voters to boot Carter out of office in 1980.

I was in the Clinton administration when Fed Chair Alan Greenspan threatened to raise interest rates (which might also have led to a recession and caused voters to boot Clinton out of office in 1996) unless Clinton reduced the federal budget deficit — which Clinton did (over my strenuous but failed objections).

Can Warsh succeed?

Warsh’s success on the job depends on the perceptions of millions of financial traders, who presumably will be looking for any hint that he’s soft on inflation.

Ironically, Trump’s loud insistence on lower interest rates, coupled with rising inflation due to Trump’s war in Iran and his tariffs, all make Warsh’s job far more difficult.

I don’t expect the Fed to lower interest rates before the end of the year, regardless. Warsh’s first meeting as chair will be June 16-17.

Share

Friends,

Trump’s war with Iran — which he originally promised would be over in “four to five weeks” — has now entered its third month. Iran and Trump are engaged in a massive game of chicken — and time seems to be running out for both sides.

The consequences of the war for Iran’s economy are far worse than for America’s, but Iran’s dictatorship presumably can withstand public pressure more easily than Trump can, especially with midterm elections in the U.S. in less than six months. Sixty percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the war.

The International Monetary Fund projects that Iran’s economy will contract 6.1 percent this year and inflation will reach nearly 70 percent. Iran’s currency, the rial, has hit record lows (around 1.32–1.8 million to the dollar), resulting in massive layoffs, high unemployment, and acute shortages of essential goods and medicine.

In the United States, the average price of gasoline has climbed to more than $4.55 per gallon, up over $1.50 since the war began in late February. Driven by a surge in energy costs from the war, inflation rose in April to an annual rate of 3.8 percent, up from 3.3 percent in March — marking the highest rate of inflation since May 2023 and making it unlikely that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates this year.

So what will Trump do now? The man who claims he knows better than anyone how to make a deal has so far been outmaneuvered by the regime he says he toppled.

I’ve summarized below the four main options now open to him, according to specialists in foreign policy and the Middle East.

Read more

Friends,

I had dinner recently with a group of political operatives — sophisticated people who for years have been advising politicians and candidates. During dinner they shared with me their fantasy, which they gave 30 percent odds of becoming a reality within the next four months.

In my dinner companions’ fantasy, Trump’s failed war will elevate gas and food prices so high and long that much of the Republican base will begin turning against Trump. And Trump’s mental problems will become even more obvious.

Faced with all this, JD Vance promises Marco Rubio that he’ll appoint him vice president if Rubio joins Vance in seeking to oust Trump under the 25th Amendment.* Rubio agrees.

Vance and Rubio then approach House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune for confidential discussions in which they broach the possibility. Johnson and Thune give Vance and Rubio their tacit support.

Vance and Rubio then get Pete Hegseth to sign on, promising Hegseth that he’ll keep his job. They get Todd Blanche to sign on by promising him he’ll be appointed permanent attorney general.

Vance, Rubio, Hegseth, and Blanche are what Thune and Johnson need to make the 25th stick.

This arrangement serves everyone’s interests. For Vance and Rubio, it avoids what could be a messy 2028 primary election in which the two are pitted against each other. As president, Vance gets a head start on being elected president in 2028. As vice president, Rubio is heir apparent in 2032 (when Rubio will be only 60 years old) or in 2036.

As president and vice president, Vance and Rubio end Trump’s tariffs and his war, which have caused prices to soar, upset the Republican base, and turned much of the world against America.

Hegseth gets the job security he’s desperate for. Blanche gets the promotion he covets.

Republicans in the House and Senate get rid of Trump, who’s become an albatross around their necks and who they fear, if he remains in office, will cause them to lose control over the House and Senate in the midterms — and could lead to a congressional rout in 2028.

The plan is finalized when Trump is away at Mar-a-Lago. It’s executed in a conference call to Trump — during which Vance, Rubio, Hegseth, Blanche, Johnson, and Thune notify Trump he’s no longer president.

Trump screams, hollers, pounds his Mar-a-Lago desk, and threatens legal action, but there’s nothing he can do. He’s out of office.

I listened intently as my dinner companions spelled all this out. “So you really think there’s a 30 percent chance of this happening?” I asked them.

“Could be higher if the war continues,” one of them said, and the others agreed. Another of them thought the odds already higher.

“I can’t decide whether to be elated or worried,” I responded.

They laughed, but I was serious.

_____

** To remind you: Section 4 of the 25th Amendment states that “whenever the Vice President and a majority of … the principal officers of the executive departments … transmit to the president pro-tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.” Section 2 of the 25th Amendment states that “whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Share

Friends,

Yesterday I spoke with Tennessee state representative Justin Jones, one of the nation’s young Black leaders who’s been a rising star in Tennessee politics, about the Supreme Court’s shameful April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Jones told me that, at Trump’s urging, Tennessee Republicans had prepared a redistricting map even before the court announced its decision. Then, despite pleas from Black voters and voting rights advocates, the white Republican legislators moved their meeting to another room without allowing the public in to watch, passed the new map out of committee, and enacted it within 24 hours.

The new map has eliminated Tennessee’s one remaining Democratic district around Memphis, a city of about 610,000 people, about two-thirds of whom are Black — by cracking it into three majority-white districts, one stretching hundreds of miles. The map has also divided Nashville, another city with a Black majority, into five white-majority districts.

Jones described Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton as the “grand wizard in chief,” explaining that “that’s what they want to do. They want to create a process that is unfair and unequal.”

Other southern states have joined Tennessee’s rush to redistrict.

Louisiana’s governor has ordered that the state’s ongoing congressional election be set aside while state lawmakers redraw maps to eliminate a Democratic-majority — that is, a Black-majority — seat covering Baton Rouge.

At Trump’s request, Alabama Republicans have approved legislation directing the governor to schedule new primary elections this year under a GOP-friendly map that would end districts represented by Black lawmakers, if courts lift an injunction on its redistricting.

The Mississippi legislature will soon convene in a Confederate-era Capitol building that it hasn’t used in 100 years, presumably to eliminate the Democratic majority in the one Mississippi district held by a Black representative.

South Carolina’s Republican majority in the statehouse voted Wednesday to extend its legislative calendar, allowing time to consider whether they should eliminate the state’s sole Democratic-majority, Black-majority district, held by long-serving representative James Clyburn.

Florida was already in a special redistricting session when the Supreme Court announced its decision, enacting a congressional map for its 28 districts that packs Black and brown voters into four districts on the south Florida coast and Orlando, eliminating every other Democratic majority.

“We’re going backwards at warp speed,” Jones told me. “In just over a week, we’ve gone from the 1965 Voting Rights Act back to the era of Jim Crow.”

I asked him what he and other Black political leaders in the South were planning to do.

“There’ll be a lot of litigation,” he said, “but we can’t be optimistic with this Supreme Court.”

“So, what’s the strategy?”

“We need the biggest voter turnout in history this fall. Every Black person, every Brown person, every Democrat, everyone who cares about the moral soul of this nation has to vote for equal voting rights. Take over Congress. Increase our power in state legislatures. This is the only way to respond.”

“I’m with you,” I said, “but I really wonder whether that’s possible.”

“How about a new Freedom Summer?” Jones responded, with a smile. “A multiracial force of young people fanning out across the South, registering voters, getting them to the polls, just like they did in 1964.”

“I remember. I lost a dear friend in Mississippi Freedom Summer.”

“I have no direct memory, of course,” Jones said. “I was born in 1995, 31 years after Freedom Summer. But the South is almost back to where it was then. So, yes, it’s possible. It’s got to be possible.”

I told him I’d share his idea with you and ask you for your responses.

Share

Friends,

The U.S. national debt just crossed a once-unthinkable threshold on the way toward breaking the record set in the wake of World War II: It now exceeds 100 percent of America’s gross domestic product.

As of March 31, our publicly held debt was $31.27 trillion, while America’s GDP in 2025 was $31.22 trillion. This puts the ratio at 100.2 percent, compared with 99.5 percent when the last fiscal year ended September 30.

That 100.2 percent figure will likely climb, because the federal government is running historically large annual deficits of nearly 6 percent of GDP, which add to the debt. The final tally will depend on Iran war spending, tariff refunds, and the strength of the economy.

Should you worry? Well, it’s not as if we’re heading into a depression. Passing the 100 percent threshold won’t suddenly cause the world to lose confidence in the dollar.

The real problem is that an increasing portion of our nation’s budget — and your tax dollars — is dedicated to paying interest on this growing debt. That’s money we don’t spend on education, healthcare, roads and bridges, social safety nets, or (if we actually needed more spending on it) national defense.

As the debt continues to grow, interest payments continue to soar. We’ll soon be paying more in interest on the federal debt each year than we spend each year on Medicare.

So, who exactly receives these interest payments? This is an issue you hear very little discussion about, because the wealthy and powerful of this country would rather you didn’t know.

You probably do hear that a chunk of our debt is held by foreign governments and foreign investors. That’s true, but they hold only about 30 percent of our debt. The rest — roughly 70 percent — is held domestically. That is, we pay the interest to ourselves.

And who, exactly, is the “ourselves” who receive these interest payments? The Federal Reserve holds part of this debt, state and local governments hold part.

But the biggest chunk — nearly half — is held by mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, and banks. And who owns them? The Americans who invest in these funds — and who thereby, directly or indirectly, hold Treasury bills.

And who, exactly are these Americans — the Americans who are directly or indirectly collecting a large amount of the interest we’re paying on the national debt? It’s the people at the top.

The richest 1 percent of U.S. households hold about 35.6 percent of all financial assets — shares of stock, corporate bonds, and Treasury bills — so it’s safe to assume they hold at least a third of all Treasury bills.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Here’s where things get really interesting.

Decades ago, wealthy Americans financed the federal government mainly by paying taxes. Their tax rate was far, far higher than it is today. In the 1950s, under President Dwight Eisenhower, the richest Americans paid a marginal tax rate of 91 percent. (Tax deductions and tax credits meant that the top effective marginal rate was lower than this.)

Fast forward. Now, wealthy Americans finance the federal government mainly by lending it money and collecting interest payments on those loans.

Interest payments on the national debt this year are expected to reach $1 trillion.

There are roughly 128 million households in the United States. Dividing $1 trillion in annual interest among U.S. households would amount to $650 per household per month. (This is a simplified average, of course; actual burdens vary based on tax status, income, and spending.)

The point is that a big chunk of the growing interest payments American taxpayers make on the federal debt is going to wealthy Americans.

Keep following the money. One of the biggest reasons the federal debt has exploded is that tax cuts — starting with the George W. Bush administration in 2001 and extending through Trump’s 2018 and 2024 tax cuts — have reduced government revenues by $10.6 trillion.

Most of the benefits from those tax cuts are going to the wealthy. Since 2000, 65 percent of the benefits from tax cuts have gone to the richest fifth of Americans — 22 percent to the top 1 percent.

So, you see what’s happened?

The wealthiest Americans used to pay higher taxes to finance the government. Now, the government pays wealthy Americans interest on a swelling debt, caused largely by lower taxes on wealthy Americans.

Which means a growing portion of everyone else’s taxes are now paying wealthy Americans interest on those loans, instead of paying for government services everyone needs.

So, from now on, whenever you hear someone say how huge, horrible, and out-of-control the national debt is, explain to them that it’s because of tax cuts to the wealthy — who are also the major recipients of interest on that debt.

America’s wealthy have never been wealthier. If they paid their fair share of taxes, we wouldn’t have such a huge federal debt. And we wouldn’t be paying them so much interest on that debt.

Know what’s happened, and pass it on.

Share

Please submit your caption in the Comments section and, as before, please use the Comments section only for captions.

Winners will be announced next Sunday. For consideration, please post your caption by Monday at 9 pm PT, 12 midnight ET.

Leave a comment

Last week’s winner:

“White lies matter.”

(Congratulations, Mike Hammer.)

Runners-up:

“They must be on the frequent liars plan…”

(Congratulations, Poetic Polemics.)

“Trump is trying out more lies to put in his future Presidential LIE-brary.”

(Congratulations, Nancy Tompkins.)

“I preferred it when the ice cream truck came through the neighborhood....”

(Congratulations, Mimi Wuest.)

“Good thing for Trump his big beautiful machine runs on BS, not gas!”

(Congratulations, Eloise Ham.)

“There is no voter fraud ... we voted FOR a fraud!”

(Congratulations, Lisa Calomeni.)

“Here’s comes the TACO truck.”

(Congratulations, Whereabouts Unknown.)

“The Lyin’ King.”

(Congratulations, Laurence Hoffmann.)

Share

Friends,

When I was very young and frustrated about one thing or another, my mother reassured me that “everything works out in the end.”

Her optimism used to drive me nuts. “When is the end?” I’d ask her. “Next week? Next year? After we die? In a century? What are we supposed to do in the meantime? Just wait?”

My mother’s words come back to me, partly because it’s Mother’s Day.

They also come back to me because of the horrible setbacks of the last two weeks — the Supreme Court’s gutting of what remained of the Voting Rights Act; the headlong rush of Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee. Alabama, and Mississippi to resurrect Jim Crow redistricting laws; and the Virginia Supreme Court’s invalidation of Virginia’s redistricting plan. All of this combined with Trump’s war in Iran, his ongoing ICE police state inside America, and his innumerable attacks on the Constitution — have reminded me of my mother’s optimism.

I thought I had seen this country at its worst. I lived through Joe McCarthy, George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Richard Nixon. The Ku Klux Klan murdered a dear man who had protected me from bullies when I was a child. The Vietnam War took the life of a good friend from college. Watergate undermined much of my generation’s faith in government.

But what we’re now experiencing is in many ways worse, because the Supreme Court, the Republican Party, and Trump are destroying laws and institutions that had been painstakingly enacted and implemented to protect our democracy, defend against bigotry, and strengthen the rule of law. We had not achieved these goals, of course, but at least we’d used these laws and institutions to seek them. That effort was the foundation of my mother’s optimism, which became my own.

Yet the people now in power are no longer fighting for a good society. They are pursuing a cruel, regressive society. So where does this leave the rest of us?

Like many of you, I’m furious about the wanton destruction of so much I’ve believed in and worked for. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to give up the fight.

Over the years I’ve come to understand my mother’s optimism. Many important social goals requires working hard for them but not expecting them to be achieved anytime soon — in fact, accepting that there will be times when we seem to be going backwards, and that the goals may not even be achieved in our lifetimes. Yet seeking them is essential for our lives to matter. As Martin Luther King Jr., assured us, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

I admit to occasional bouts of pessimism. But pessimism is different from cynicism. Pessimism is a sense that things will worsen, at least in the foreseeable future. Pessimism is understandable at a time like this. Even my optimistic mother, were she still with us and witnessing what’s happening, might succumb to it on bad days.

Cynicism is a belief that the worsening is inevitable and that nothing we can do will make any difference. Cynicism is a black hole from which there’s no escape. It’s the end of the line.

Powerful reactionary forces want us to embrace cynicism because then they win everything; they can take it all without a fight.

If you occasionally feel pessimistic, you’re not alone. But please do not fall into cynicism.

Happy Mother’s Day to all of you who are mothers, and to the mothers of all of you. And believe me: If we continue to seek social justice, everything will work out in the end.

Share

This morning, Michael and I (Heather is out today) delve into the redistricting wars — including the decision by the Virginia Supreme Court to cancel that state’s redistricting — and examine strategies still open to Democrats before the midterms. We also try to decipher what’s really happening in the Persian Gulf. And we take a close look at Trump’s sycophants Kash Patel at the FBI, Todd Blanche at Justice, Brendan Carr at the FCC, and Bill Pulte at the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the wrecking balls they’re wielding.

Given all this, we compare Michael’s Gen Z’s outlook on America with my postwar boomer’s outlook.

So please pull up a chair, grab a cuppa, and join in today’s conversation.

RR

Share

Friends,

Last Thursday, populist Democratic candidate Graham Platner shook up the Democratic establishment when his primary competitor, Maine Governor Janet Mills, suspended her Senate campaign amid polls showing her badly trailing Platner, an oyster farmer who had come out of nowhere to win a national following.

Platner is the latest example of the rise of anti-establishment outsiders in the Democratic Party — a trend that also includes self-proclaimed democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, who last year defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo for New York City mayor.

Yet the Democratic establishment — corporate Democrats, wealthy Democratic donors, entrenched Washington “centrists,” the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer — still don’t get it.

Hell, the Democratic establishment didn’t get it a decade ago when Hillary Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee (and, not incidentally, Jeb Bush was considered a shoe-in for the Republican nomination).

I remember interviewing voters about their political preferences in the late spring of 2015, in the Rust Belt, Midwest, and South, for a book I was then writing. When I asked them whom they wanted for president, they kept telling me Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. Often the same individuals offered both names. They explained they wanted an “outsider,” someone who would “shake up” the system, ideally a person who wasn’t even a Democrat or a Republican.

The people I met were furious with their employers, with the federal government, and with Wall Street. They were irate that they hadn’t been able to save for their retirements, indignant that their children weren’t doing any better than they had at their children’s age, and enraged at those at the top. Several had lost jobs, savings, or homes in the financial crisis or the Great Recession that followed it.

They kept reiterating that the system was “rigged” in favor of the powerful and against themselves. They didn’t oppose government per se; most favored additional spending on Social Security, Medicare, education, and roads and bridges. But they hated “crony capitalism” — large corporations using their political clout to gain special favors and changes in laws that often hurt average people.

The following year, Sanders — then a 74-year-old Jew from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and wasn’t even a Democrat until the 2016 presidential primaries — came within a whisker of beating Clinton in the Iowa caucus and ended up with 46 percent of the pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention from primaries and caucuses. Had the DNC not tipped the scales against him by deriding his campaign and rigging its financing in favor of Clinton, Sanders would probably have been the Democratic nominee in 2016.

Trump, then a 69-year-old egomaniacal billionaire reality TV star who had never held elected office or had anything to do with the Republican Party and who lied compulsively about almost everything, of course won the Republican primaries and went on to beat Clinton, one of the most experienced and well-connected politicians in modern America. Granted, he didn’t win the popular vote, and he had some help from Vladimir Putin, but he won.

Something very big was happening in America: a full-scale rebellion against the political establishment.

That rebellion continues to this day. Yet much of Washington’s Democratic elite is still in denial. They prefer to attribute the rise of Trump and, more broadly, Trumpism — its political paranoia, xenophobia, white Christian nationalism, misogyny, homophobia, and cultural populism — solely to racism. Well, racism is certainly a part of it. But hardly all.

In 2024, Democrats didn’t even get to choose their nominee from the primary process, since Biden dropped out after a dreadful debate performance and was replaced by Kamala Harris — leaving some Democrats feeling like higher powers were picking their nominee.

The anti-establishment groundswell has by now spread to independent voters — who are now a whopping 45 percent of the electorate and have moved sharply against Trump. It’s one of the most dramatic shifts in recent political history.

Trump’s approval rating among independents now stands at 25 percent, while 68 percent of independents disapprove of him. In 2024, independents were evenly divided, with 48 percent voting for Harris and 48 percent for Trump. In 2020, independents favored Biden by 9 percentage points.

The Democratic establishment still doesn’t see the groundswell — or is actively fighting it.

In Iowa, whose primary is June 2, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is quietly backing state Rep. Josh Turek against state Sen. Zach Wahls. That’s probably a mistake. Turek is a good candidate, but Wahls is a young, dynamic progressive — similar to Platner in his ability to inspire and rally. (In Iowa, independents who want to vote in the Democratic primary need only declare themselves Democrats by June 2.)

In California, whose primary is also June 2, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee just rejected Randy Villegas as its preferred nominee for the 22nd Congressional District and instead endorsed doctor and assemblywoman Jasmeet Bains. Villegas, known as a strong progressive, has been endorsed by the congressional progressive caucus and the congressional Hispanic caucus’s campaign arm. “This is about party leadership and D.C. elites putting their thumb on the scale for who they know will bend the knee to party leadership and corporate interests,” Villegas says.

In Arizona, whose primary is July 21, the DCCC has endorsed Marlene Galán-Woods in a Democratic primary to replace Representative David Schweikert, the Republican who is leaving Congress to run for governor. The DCCC rejected Amish Shah, a doctor and former state legislator who won the primary in 2024 and came within a few points of defeating Schweikert. (That year, Ms. Galán-Woods finished third in the primary.) Shah has been leading Galán-Woods by a 3-to-1 margin in the only public poll of the race. Shah says Democrats should stop backing the party apparatus if they want to win the House majority.

In Michigan, whose primary is August 4, the DSCC is backing Rep. Haley Stevens, who’s in a tight race against rival Abdul El-Sayed. Also probably a mistake. El-Sayed is another young progressive who’s showing a remarkable ability to galvanize Democrats and independents. (Michigan has open primaries in which any voter can participate.)

I could go on, but you get the point.

If Democrats fail to connect with the frustrations of average hardworking Americans and decide instead to side with big corporations and Wall Street, they’ll have given up the most crucial opportunity in a generation both to take back control of Congress and to lead the way on a new progressive agenda.

What does this anti-establishment surge — including the remarkable growth of independents and their sharp rejection of Trump — mean for the presidential race in 2028?

For one thing, it suggests that the current presumed Democratic frontrunners — Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom — are frontrunners only because of their name recognition. As voters find out more about the alternatives, it’s unlikely that either of them will make the cut.

For another, it suggests that anti-establishment candidates are the ones to watch.

Obama chief of staff and former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel told a packed crowd at the Milken Institute Global Conference this week that the biggest challenge both parties have faced over the last quarter-century has been the battle between establishment forces and anti-establishment forces.

Emanuel was correct. But he then went on to suggest, absurdly, that he’s anti-establishment. Emanuel’s cozy ties to corporate America, his closeness to Citadel founder Ken Griffin (who praised Emanuel from Milken’s main stage), and even Emanuel’s presence at the Milken conference, belie his claim.

But the mere fact that Emanuel thinks it important to claim anti-establishment creds underscores that the biggest force in American politics today — and in the Democratic Party — is anti-establishment rage at political insiders.

Despite the Democratic establishment, a younger and more charismatic generation of populist and progressive Democrats is on the way to winning primaries and general election races across America. If Graham Platner beats Republican Senator Susan Collins in Maine, which seems likely, he’s the kind of candidate who (in my humble opinion) will be the future of the Democratic Party.

Share

Our media is controlled by just a handful of billionaires and their corporations. And Trump is making it worse.

Trump’s FCC just approved a massive merger that would let one huge media company control what over 80 percent of American households see. One of these merging companies, called Nexstar, tried to silence late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.

Trump’s FCC also cleared the way for billionaire Larry Ellison and his son, David, to buy Paramount — which includes CBS News. The Ellisons are huge Trump boosters.

Under their ownership, CBS News has already seen a massive shift toward a Trump-friendly agenda. Which is probably why Trump gave his blessing for the Ellisons’ company, Skydance Media, to also acquire Warner Brothers Discovery. If that deal goes through, Trump allies would also control CNN. Larry Ellison has reportedly had discussions with Trump about firing CNN hosts Trump doesn’t like.

And thanks to Trump, the Ellisons can also count TikTok as part of their growing media empire. Did you know that one out of five Americans gets their news from TikTok?

So, what can we do about this?

1. Pressure our State Attorneys General to sue and block these mergers. You can find your state AG here.

2. When Democrats take back power at the federal level, bust up these massive media conglomerates.

3. Support local independent media, as well as outlets like NPR and PBS — news funded by the public, not owned by billionaires.

4. Please share this post and video, so as many people as possible are aware of the Trump media takeover.

As a once-respected newspaper says, “Democracy dies in darkness.” We can’t let Trump’s billionaire helpers turn out the lights.

Share

Friends,

We are witnessing what happens to a person who is consumed with the need to dominate but cannot.

Iran is unlikely to give in. It can withstand the economic pressure of a blockade better than Trump can withstand the political pressure that comes with rising gas prices (now nearly $4.50 a gallon, on average), soon followed by rising food prices.

His looming failure in Iran is not just a serious geopolitical defeat for the United States; it’s a personal crisis for Trump.

Those rising prices coupled with an increasingly unpopular war have increased the likelihood that Democrats will take back control of the House and even possibly the Senate in the upcoming midterms.

Here again, not just a political defeat for the Republican Party but a personal crisis for Trump.

His ego cannot accept a humiliating loss, as we saw after the 2020 election. His need to bully, dominate, and gain submission is so hardwired inside his insecure head that the defeats he’s now facing — to Iran and to Democrats — are already setting off explosions.

He’s posting more wildly than ever — attacking, insulting, ridiculing, threatening.

On Sunday, Trump posted that Democrats had “RIGGED the 2020 Presidential Election. GET TOUGH REPUBLICANS—THEY’RE COMING, AND THEY’RE COMING FAST! They’re no good for our Country, they almost destroyed it, and we don’t want to let that happen again!” He demanded that Republicans “approve all of the necessary Safeguards we need for Elections to protect the American Public during the upcoming Midterms.”

More of his posts are bizarre AI-generated paeans to himself, his godlike powers, his wished-for physique, and his self-image of omnipotence. On Friday night, he posted an AI-image of himself, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and Doug Burgum, all shirtless and with young physiques, standing in the reflecting pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial, along with an unidentifiable woman in a bikini. Minutes later he posted an image of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries holding a baseball bat, with a caption calling Jeffries “low IQ,” “a THUG,” and “a danger to our Country.” On Tuesday, he posted AI-images of Joe Biden on one knee with the caption “COWARDS KNEEL,” Barack Obama with the caption “TRAITORS BOW,” and himself with his fist raised and the caption “LEADERS LEAD.”

His mouth — never in control — is now in diarrheic mode. He’s even back to attacking the pope, accusing him of “endangering a lot of Catholics and a lot of people,” adding, “but I guess if it’s up to the pope, he thinks it’s just fine for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

His thin-skinned vindictiveness is beyond anything we’ve seen before, which is saying a lot. Last week, after German chancellor Friedrich Merz said the U.S. was “being humiliated by the Iranian leadership,” Trump repeatedly attacked and ridiculed Merz. The Defense Department then said it was pulling 5,000 troops out of Germany, and Trump said he was increasing tariffs on European cars and trucks to 25 percent (from 15 percent).

He’s becoming ever more obsessed with monuments to himself — his ballroom, his arch, his so-called “garden of heroes,” his Trump-embossed passports, his image on 24-karat gold commemorative coins, and his name plastered or etched all over Washington. His plans for self-monuments are becoming larger by the day, more grotesque, more grandiose, and more expensive. Senate Republicans just proposed $1 billion more for Trump’s ballroom, which, recall, was supposed to “cost taxpayers nothing.”

He has even directed the Treasury to announce that his own signature — yes, the same one that appears in a book of birthday greetings for Jeffrey Epstein — will replace the Treasurer’s on all new U.S. paper currency. This will be the first time in American history that a sitting president’s name will appear on circulating cash money.

His thirst for vengeance is exploding, too. Last week the Department of Justice launched another criminal case against former director of the FBI James Comey (whose earlier indictment was quashed by the courts) for posting a picture of seashells spelling out “86 47” on Instagram a year ago. Trump is also insisting that the Justice Department restart its criminal investigation of Jerome Powell and double-down against former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Mark Milley and others he considers “enemies.”

Facing the two monumental failures of Iran and control over Congress, Trump is fanatically seeking other ways to assert dominance. On Tuesday, his Education Department announced a civil rights investigation into Smith College over enrolling transgender students. Expect more of this.

Regardless of what happens in Iran, he’ll claim victory. That will be difficult to do convincingly when gas prices remain over $4 a gallon, but he’ll undoubtedly try.

What if Democrats win control of one or both chambers of Congress in the midterms and he claims they lost or cheated? The nation barely survived the last time Trump’s fragile ego faced a major loss.

We’ll also have to cope with Trump as a lame-duck president who can no longer dominate and gain submission as he did before. Will he try to remain president beyond his second term to avoid this?

The man is unwell. Seriously unwell. Lame-duck presidents fade away, but injured dictators can be dangerous.

Share

Friends,

Two weeks ago, I listed the top four potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates by current name recognition: Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Out of the 7,174 of you who voted on these four, only 6 percent chose Kamala Harris; 12 percent were for Gavin Newsom; 26 percent of you chose Pete Buttigieg; and 6 percent were for AOC.

The rest of you — 49 percent — wanted someone else.

Last week, I listed the top four “someone else” candidates: Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear. Out of the 6,422 of you who voted on these four, 24 percent chose Pritzker, 37 percent were for Kelly, 7 percent were for Shapiro, and 18 percent were for Beshear. The remaining 14 percent wanted someone else.

That left a “third tier” — in terms of name recognition — comprising California Congressman Ro Khanna, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and former congressman and Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel.

So this week we’re going to assess these four. Here’s a summary of the current third tier’s strengths and weaknesses. Please vote among these four.

Read more