i24NEWS correspondent Guy Azriel reported Tuesday that Israel was denied access to the informal agreement, which he called a “remarkable and highly unusual development between close allies on an issue of such critical national security importance.”

The White House and Tehran signed a peace deal on Sunday, though the exact specifications of the agreement are not yet public and are still being hashed out.

The final draft reportedly proposes the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz under Iran’s direction, a commitment from the U.S. not to interfere in Iranian affairs, and a reiteration of Iran’s commitment not to produce nuclear weapons, echoing language included in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, according to a senior Iranian official that spoke with Reuters.

One component of the plan has become the subject of much debate: a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, which was originally understood to be provided at cost to U.S. taxpayers.

Vice President JD Vance has wavered several times on that particular issue. He first claimed on Saturday that Iran would receive no money at all. He seemingly reversed course on Monday, when he all but confirmed the reconstruction fund to CBS’s Ed O’Keefe. Within hours—and after some monumental backlash from his party—Vance seemed to change his tune again, telling Fox News’s Sean Hannity that Iran would not receive a “single dime of American money.”

Instead, Vance claimed that the U.S. would allow Iran to receive foreign aid from its Gulf State neighbors so long as the “Iranians behave.” Vance has not yet elaborated on how the administration plans to manage or gatekeep foreign aid packages intended for Iran.

The murky arrangement does not seem to include details on whether or not Iran will stop enriching their uranium—a highly anticipated component and one of the White House’s most pressing demands.

Vance told Hannity that the particulars of the enriched uranium depletion would be figured out over the next two months, “but the basic structure is they can get a lot if they comply with the United States’s demands.”

Donald Trump has pledged since the beginning of the war that any peace deal he signs would end Iran’s uranium enrichment program. But now that the deal is actually being negotiated, Trump seems to have lost his bluster, even disengaging from the idea of collecting Iran’s nuclear dust.

“You could make the case, ‘Why even bother?’ Because it’s not really valuable, it’s probably half a million dollars’ worth,” Trump said Tuesday while at the G7 summit in France. “It’s not very valuable stuff. But I think, psychologically, we want to get it.”

Failing to obtain commitments regarding Iran’s nuclear program would make the deal far weaker than the Obama administration’s JCPOA.

Iran lacked a single bomb’s worth of uranium in 2018, three years after former President Barack Obama brokered his deal to limit the country’s enormous uranium stockpile. But that changed when Trump withdrew the U.S. from the pact and imposed a series of tough economic sanctions against the Middle Eastern country.

By 2025, Iran had curated an 11-ton stockpile of enriched uranium, the whereabouts of which remain largely unknown. The total stockpile could create as many as 10 bombs if fully enriched, according to a 2025 assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Justin Smith, 41, was confirmed by the Senate Tuesday in a 48–43 vote, with every Democrat voting against his nomination, while all but one Republican, Lisa Murkowski, voted for him. Nine senators missed the vote: Michael Bennet, Kevin Cramer, John Curtis, Angus King, Ben Ray Luján, Cynthia Lummis, Bernie Sanders, Raphael Warnock, and Mitch McConnell.

Bennet, King, Luján, Sanders, and Warnock all caucus with the Democratic Party, and if they had been present to cast a “no” vote, Smith’s vote would have been blocked in a 48–48 tie. Smith will now sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, overseeing federal district court appeals in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.

Smith represented Trump in his presidential immunity case before the Supreme Court and worked on his case to have the Supreme Court overturn the sexual assault and defamation case against the president brought by E. Jean Carroll. Despite being nominated to the federal bench in March, Smith continued representing Trump in Carroll’s case.

In his confirmation hearings in April, Smith refused to say who won the 2020 presidential election, and refused to answer questions about whether he would recuse himself from any cases involving Trump, sparring with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal.

Smith is now the third of Trump’s personal lawyers to be appointed as a federal judge, and the second to be confirmed. He’ll join Emil Bove, who, while working for the Justice Department in Trump’s first term, told his fellow federal prosecutors to disobey court orders and say “fuck you” to judges who ruled against them.

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on the Senate floor Tuesday that Smith’s conflicts of interest raised “serious questions.”

“These are lifetime appointments to federal judgeships—lifetime appointments which have to be given to people who have been carefully scrutinized. We have not done that when it comes to Mr. Smith,” Durbin said.

The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services will be moved to the Department of Health and Human Services, while the Department of Justice will take over civil rights issues, the Trump administration announced Tuesday.

The moves are worrying, especially considering Trump’s campaign to dismantle the Department of Education as well as who he has appointed to HHS and the DOJ. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made worrying comments about autism, making outlandish claims and changing policies on vaccines to fit his medically inaccurate views.

Kennedy’s views have also been criticized as incorporating eugenics, which should not be anywhere near special education in America. It raises fears that students with special needs could be marginalized or worse.

When it comes to civil rights, the DOJ has been ground zero for the Trump administration’s attacks on “wokeness,” undermining its own Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and targeting one of America’s leading civil rights organizations, the Southern Poverty Law Center. The person in charge of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Harmeet Dhillon, is a loyal foot soldier to Trump.

Now, the Department of Education will be weakened further, and students will lose valuable resources as these offices are moved into departments without education experts. Combating discrimination and increasing special education resources used to be a priority in America, but no longer.

All 15 people are involved with Direct Action Minnesota, which the administration accuses of employing “aggressive use of shields against law enforcement, surveillance, operational planning, and rapid mobilization against law enforcement actions.” The U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Daniel Rosen, alleged that the group “advocates, promotes, and utilizes militant tactics and violence.”

These are people who are using non-electoral tactics—many of which are legal, like observing—after watching federal agents kidnap immigrants and shoot their neighbors dead in the street. The administration even pointed to a Facebook post in which defendant Cameron Kennedy stated that they needed to become “ungovernable” as a flimsy example of antifa activity. And even with all that, it’s worth mentioning for the umpteenth time that antifa is not a cohesive, established group that exists. There is no leader, no headquarters, no yearly conference. 

The Trump administration is cracking down on people who took action against what they saw as a violent occupation of their city by following and impeding ICE officers and making mean posts on Facebook. This crusade against antifa is a cover for a wide net of First Amendment suppression against any kind of left-leaning individual or group–from Rümeysa Öztürk and Mahmoud Khalil to these 15 Minnesotans.  

World Liberty Financial, the decentralized finance platform co-founded by Eric and Donald Jr., will almost certainly be approved for a national bank trust charter, according to two former staffers at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency who spoke with NOTUS Tuesday.

It was “inconceivable” that World Liberty Financial wouldn’t be approved, one of the staffers told NOTUS. Jonathan Gould, the current Trump-nominated Comptroller of the Currency, is due to deliver his decision on World Liberty Financial’s application soon. He has previously eased restrictions and allowed for more crypto companies to receive bank charters.

Receiving a national bank trust charter would allow World Liberty Financial to independently issue its USD1 stablecoin directly to American consumers, sidestep liquidity requirements, and settle financial transactions akin to other platforms such as Venmo or Paypal—for which the Trump family could potentially receive a cut.

David Wachsman, a spokesperson for World Liberty Financial, insisted to NOTUS that “none of its leadership or employees work for the U.S. government, and there are no conflicts of interest.”

Eric and Donald Jr. are the company’s co-founders, while Barron serves as a “Web3 Ambassador,” and Donald Trump reigns as “chief crypto advocate.” The company has previously claimed that the president has not been involved in its business since he was reelected to the White House. But his family took even greater control over the company after his inauguration, asserting a claim to more than 75 percent of net revenue from token sales, and 60 percent from the firm’s operations.

Trump owns 70 percent of an LLC that owns 38 percent of the shares in a holding company behind World Liberty Financial, according to the president’s most recent financial disclosures. The rest is managed by family members. In June 2025, Trump reported having earned $57 million from World Liberty Financial in 2024.

The FBI director frustrated Secret Service officials by prematurely announcing the details of an investigation into a violent attack planned for the White House UFC event, according to multiple sources that spoke with MS NOW Tuesday.

Patel revealed components of the investigation via a social media post earlier in the day, sharing that “multiple individuals” were in custody.

“On June 10, FBI and our law enforcement partners became aware of a potential threat to the UFC America 250 event in Washington, D.C. involving individuals outside of the National Capital Region,” Patel wrote.

Nearly two dozen people participated in Signal group chats discussing an alleged plot to strike the UFC’s America 250 event with explosive-laden drones so as to rush the evacuating crowd into the crosshairs of a pre-staged sniper team, reported Fox News. Five people are reportedly in custody in connection with the scheme.

“While the result represented the best of investigative work, it was also nothing out of the ordinary for this law enforcement team—we are built to detect, respond to, and bring to justice those who threaten the lives of American citizens—particularly during large gatherings like the historic UFC 250 fight,” Patel continued in his X post. “That’s exactly what we did here. I want to thank our great agents and partners, this work remains ongoing and we will continue to update the public as permitted.”

A White House spokesman claimed that the incident was exactly why the White House needed the proposed $400 million ballroom—though the 90,000-square-foot space still would not have been capable of housing the UFC event, nor was the fight ever planned to be indoors.

It’s not the first time that Patel has flubbed a federal investigation. In September, Patel’s reliance on the bureau’s planes waylaid the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s assassination by at least a day, preventing a critical analysis team from accessing a flight to the crime scene.

His personal flights interfered with another FBI investigation on December 13, when the FBI’s shooting reconstruction team was unable to immediately respond to a shooting at Brown University due to a lack of available bureau planes at an airport in Richmond, Virginia, according to Senator Dick Durbin.

“What did Black people do to this administration that has allowed it to really stigmatize folks of color?” asked host Whoopi Goldberg, referring to the Trump administration’s efforts to remove Black history from American monuments and museums.

“What exactly are you talking about, Whoopi?” Vance pressed, prompting loud groans from the audience.

“It seems that it has been very easy for this administration to remove that, and to denigrate Black folks who have worked their behinds off to get this American dream,” Goldberg said.

“So, that was actually a very helpful intervention because, I think the story you’re talking about is where you know, allegedly the administration is holding back the appointments of people based on skin color,” Vance said.

“Well no. I’m talking about a host of things,” Sunny Hostin interjected. “I’m talking about Black history getting erased from public spaces, Black voter districts are being dismantled, Black leaders are being sidelined from our ranks. Where do Americans of color fit in this vision? Because it doesn’t seem like we fit.”

Host Ana Navarro added that the Trump administration had allowed only 6,668 refugees into the country since October, and all but three were white South Africans. Vance denied Navarro’s number, claiming “everybody is welcome in our political coalition.”

“So, you say we’re anti-minority or anti-Black—” Vance said.

“No I didn’t say that. I asked, see?” Goldberg said. “Don’t start any stuff with me, man. Don’t get me in trouble!” The audience burst into cheers as Vance conceded.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: What did Black people do to this administration that has allowed it to really stigmatize folks of color?

JD VANCE: What exactly are you talking about?

AUDIENCE: *groans* pic.twitter.com/xFozfFCohk

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026

The hosts of The View also pressed Vance over the economy.

Host Joy Behar criticized the president for calling affordability a “hoax,” while spending millions of taxpayer dollars on his ballroom, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, an arch for himself, and a UFC-themed birthday party.

Vance denied that Trump had called affordability a “hoax,” though he has many times, and argued that Trump had made “good progress” bringing prices down.

“He just said he loves the inflation,” Navarro said, referring to Trump’s recent remark responding to surging inflation rates.

“What he said, Ana, what he said is he loves the fact that the inflation is gonna come down when this war is over,” Vance said. “That’s what he said.”

“That’s not what he said,” Goldberg interjected.

“Are you his interpreter, or are you his vice president? Come on,” Joy Behar chided. The hosts laughed at the flailing vice president, who chuckled uncomfortably along with them.

NAVARRO: Trump said he loves the inflation

JD VANCE: What he said, Ana, is he loves the fact the inflation is going to come down

WHOOPI: That's not what he said

BEHAR: Are you his interpreter, or his vice president? Come on pic.twitter.com/VNXTzb9NOv

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026

At one point, Vance was brutally fact-checked after he brought up the claim that Trump had called all Mexicans rapists, saying that was a misconception. Instead, Vance argued that South American countries were off-loading criminals into our borders.

“There have been many, many journalists, including CNN, where you used to work and be my colleague, that have tried to find evidence of that,” Navarro replied. “There is no evidence that [Nicolás] Maduro was releasing people from insane asylums or jails, like Fidel Castro did do. This was made up. And we just can’t, you know, accept it without pushing back.”

Vance’s attempt to peddle his book on The View was a disaster—but honestly, it was entertaining.

The strange moment was caught on C-SPAN: Trump slouched in his chair with a vacant expression as French President Emmanuel Macron encouraged everyone at the table to turn and face a photographer. But while every other leader smiled and complied, Trump didn’t budge.

Trump, 80, seems unaware that everyone else is posing for a photo pic.twitter.com/XGEK4p8kpS

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 16, 2026

There could be several reasons why Trump would be so obstinate in front of the summit. The G7 consists of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States—but Trump has railed against the alliance for years, departing from prior administrations by taking issue with the G7’s trade negotiations, climate change efforts, foreign policy, and international cooperation.

So far through his second term in office, Trump has threatened G7 allies (namely Canada), resisted the alliance’s joint statements on issues such as Ukraine, and advocated for Russia’s inclusion in the informal forum.

Another reason for Trump’s detachment could very well be his health. He is the second-oldest man to ever serve as America’s commander in chief, and his increasingly erratic behavior has sparked global concern in recent weeks about his stability and judgment.

The 80-year-old has spent hours at Walter Reed Medical Center on multiple occasions over the last nine months, fallen asleep during more than a dozen critical meetings, seemed lost and disoriented around foreign heads of state, frequently slurred his speech, and appeared with discolored and bruised skin on several occasions.

He has also derailed press conferences to throw cheap and petty insults at members of the press, taken jabs at the pope, and become so obsessed with his Washington renovation projects that he has a difficult time focusing on anything else. That last detail has been flagged by leading clinical psychologists as a tell-tale symptom of dementia.

Trump made his geographical error Tuesday while speaking to reporters alongside the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, at the G7 summit in France.

“They are the closest to Iran physically, so, with other countries, I noticed that they had to travel about 45 minutes to get there. With you, you could walk right across the border, so you are in a more dangerous position,” Trump said.

Trump: "Qatar is the closest to Iran, physically. With other countries, I noticed they had to travel about 45 minutes to get there. With you, you could walk right across the border."

There's no land border between Iran and Qatar. They're separated by the Persian Gulf. pic.twitter.com/Li2RBmeFK9

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) June 16, 2026

Qatar and Iran are actually separated by the Persian Gulf, a body of water, at a distance of about 119 miles. Trump had the audacity to claim otherwise even next to the country’s ruler, and it’s not even the first time. In October, Trump told reporters on Air Force One, “They’re literally, you walk over from Iran to Qatar. You can walk it in one second. You go ‘boom boom,’ and now you’re in Qatar, that’s tough territory”—to much ridicule online.

Has no one bothered to correct the president? It’s possible that advisers have tried, only for Trump to ignore them. Iranian state media decided to offer their help in a post on X Tuesday, including a map with video of Trump’s comments.

Donald Trump says Iran and Qatar share a land border and you can cross on foot.

Here's the map to check that claim. pic.twitter.com/zVgWc8wSax

— IRNA News Agency ☫ (@IrnaEnglish) June 16, 2026

“We have been receiving troubling reports that you may be using part of the budget of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as a personal slush fund to make tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlawful ‘bonus’ payments to loyalist MAGA henchmen who have engaged in misconduct,” Raskin wrote in a letter to Patel. He went on to allege that Patel made “nearly $8,000 payments” to multiple different people who had already eclipsed their maximum salary.

“We can confirm that numerous loyalist employees have received at least five such payments in consecutive pay periods, amounting to nearly $40,000 per agent. We can also confirm you have depleted this reserve at such a frenzied rate that some of the payments have bounced back from exhausted accounts,” Raskin continued. “It is not clear whether these bonus payments have simply been a corrupt attempt to slide cash to friends or whether they are also meant to ensure the silence of the agents who witness your inebriation and accompanying professional negligence and misconduct.”

The FBI has yet to respond to Raskin’s letter. This is the latest in a string of troubling allegations against the FBI director regarding his use of federal resources for personal gain or convenience.

Park workers outfitted in hi-vis vests were spotted dumping gallons of hydrogen peroxide into the Reflecting Pool Tuesday morning. A close-up of their equipment revealed that they were using a 12 percent concentrate, a level that can cause problems if inhaled and burns if the chemical touches the skin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Hydrogen peroxide is generally considered less environmentally destructive as its compounds readily break down in water, but the high concentration could nonetheless pose a risk to some of the pool’s frequent visitors, such as ducks or other birds.

Records indicate that the Trump administration spent at least $14.8 million renovating the Reflecting Pool—a project that was, apparently, all for naught. (As well as a far cry from the president’s original promise of a $1.8 million price tag.)

The project wrapped earlier this month to praise from Donald Trump, who celebrated its “beautiful, clean water” following the overhaul. The job involved painting the bottom of the memorial a color that Trump has described as “American-flag blue” ahead of the country’s semiquincentennial anniversary.

But within days, the relentless algal bloom was back—almost in full force—thanks to Washington’s hot and humid weather. By the weekend, the green, plant-like form had coated the bottom of the pool in several areas and floated to the surface.

Photojournalists also snapped shots of buckets of Induclor around the memorial, a chlorine compound used to control bacteria, algae, slime, and fungi in water, reported The Washington Post.

Fixing the Reflecting Pool is a headache that’s plagued pretty much every administration since its construction in 1923.

What makes the Reflecting Pool beautiful is exactly what makes it so difficult to maintain. The pool’s expansive length is possible due to the use of multiple large concrete slabs as its bottom. But those slabs are also prone to serious structural leaks, which requires the White House to replace roughly 16 million gallons of water each year. And the pool’s shallow depth—which creates its mirror-like appearance—also detracts from the pool’s health by creating a breeding ground for algae blooms that turn the water green.

During an interview Monday night on Fox News’s Hannity, Vance was asked whether Iran had agreed to end its uranium enrichment program.

“They’re agreeing right now to eliminate the enriched stockpile,” Vance said. “And, if they don’t get to a point where they agree to stop enriching, then they don’t get any other benefits of the bargain.

“A lot of the technical details we’re gonna figure out over the next month, over the next two months, but the basic structure is they can get a lot if they comply with the United States’s demands.”

Hannity: They’re agreeing never to enrich?

Vance: They are agreeing right now to eliminate the enriched stockpile…a lot of the technical details we will figure out over the next month, over the next two months pic.twitter.com/NEKtI7rVCA

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 16, 2026

Since the beginning of the war, Trump has repeatedly promised that his deal with Iran would end the country’s uranium enrichment program. However, it seems that’s a commitment Iran has yet to make. Rather, Trump’s deal seems primarily interested in collecting Iran’s nuclear “dust.” But now the president doesn’t seem committed to doing that, either.

“You could make the case, ‘Why even bother?’ Because it’s not really valuable, it’s probably half a million dollars’ worth,” Trump said Tuesday while at the G7 summit in France. “It’s not very valuable stuff. But I think, psychologically, we want to get it.”

Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026

So rather than stop Iran from enriching uranium, Trump made a deal to collect Iran’s nuclear dust—which he says probably isn’t worth it, except that it will make the United States feel better.

Crucially, it’s not clear that Iran was actually enriching uranium in the first place. At the beginning of the war, Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted that Iran was not currently enriching uranium. Later, multiple U.S. intelligence officials suggested that Iran did not present an imminent threat.

Still, upending Iran’s uranium enrichment program was a central demand for the Trump administration, though now it appears that it’s been punted to further negotiations.

The team was forced to leave the U.S. immediately after its World Cup match with New Zealand Monday night in Los Angeles, which ended in a hard-fought 2–2 draw, and head back to their Tijuana, Mexico, base camp.

“After the game today they said to us, ‘You have to leave immediately,’” coach Amir Ghalenoi told the press after the match. “Whereas today it’s very important for us to have recovery.

“We’ve been asked to get on a plane and return to our camp in Tijuana, and we are really troubled by that. They are forcing us to go back early. They are making the situation more and more difficult, more hurdles, but we’re not going to let that stop us from doing our best.”

Iran wasn’t even supposed to have its tournament base camp in Mexico. They were forced to abandon their original plans for a base camp in Tucson, Arizona, thanks to the Trump administration, which isn’t letting them stay overnight in the U.S. despite their group stage games taking place in Los Angeles and Seattle. Their fan base is also being punished: Iran’s entire ticket allocation was taken away last week, although it’s not clear if that was a U.S. or FIFA decision.

Before their match, the team had to go through five hours of travel and security checks on Sunday, despite the distance between Tijuana and Los Angeles only being 140 miles.

“We don’t know why they’re returning us, to be honest. I think it’s very strange. It seems like others are doing the planning for us.… We were supposed to arrive two nights before the game, but they didn’t permit [it],” Ghalenoi said. “We were supposed to stay here tonight to recover and return tomorrow lunchtime.

“I think our team is the most oppressed one in the whole World Cup. Our federation isn’t here, our media isn’t here, our management isn’t here.”

The U.S. government initially denied visas to 15 of the Iranian team’s support staff, later reducing that number to 11 after some visas were approved. Those excluded from the U.S. include both of the team’s media officers, analysts, and Iranian Football Federation President Mehdi Taj.

Inexplicably, winger Mehdi Torabi’s visa has also expired, as he was only granted a single entry visa to the U.S., Iranian state media reported. The Iranian federation is scrambling to get Torabi a new one that lets him take part in the remaining matches.

“I think it’s not good for the football,” team captain Mehdi Taremi said of the team’s situation. “In [the] World Cup, you have to prepare good for the next game, which is a lot of stress for the players and the staff and everyone. But we don’t have that support, and I think FIFA have to help us more than this. Let’s see what’s going to happen in the future.”

🚨🇮🇷 BREAKING — World Cup “Disaster”

Mohammad Mohebi and Mehri Taremi Say:

“Not to Make Excuses but This Is Not a Fair Competition.”

Iranian Players argued they should arrive 2 days before matches instead of traveling, training, and playing while exhausted by 5 hours in… pic.twitter.com/Z0ViTFEoRO

— Pamphlets (@PamphletsY) June 16, 2026

The Trump administration has yet to release the text of the memorandum of understanding officials signed with Iran, leaving senior GOP members frustrated at everything they don’t know, Politico reported Monday.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a defense and Iran hawk, voiced concern about discrepancies between different parties’ descriptions of the deal. “The MOU being described by us sounds really very good; the MOU being described by Iran sounds awful,” he told Politico.

The South Carolina Republican fretted that the deal would resemble former President Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which defense hawks despised.

“If they can enrich [uranium] anywhere at all, then it’s the same as JCPOA. If they can’t enrich, then that makes it a good deal,” he continued, and added in a separate conversation that he was “skeptical that Iran will ever go there.”

It seems that the similarities between Trump’s deal and the JCPOA are already coming into sharp relief: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth crumbled on live television when trying to explain the difference.

Some Republican senators are wary of the deal, believing they will have to review and vote on it.

“If you want a deal to last, it can’t be an executive agreement,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford. “We’ve got to have a vote of Congress to be able to solidify [it] long term.”

But others suspect that, like the JCPOA, the deal will be a political agreement.

“They’ll try to write it around the treaty requirements, so I don’t expect we’ll vote on it,” said Texas Senator John Cornyn.

GOP lawmakers aren’t the only ones wary of Trump’s deal with Iran: Even his own Cabinet members seem to hate it. Trump has claimed he will release the text of the deal on Friday, after the formal signing ceremony.

The ballroom has already eclipsed the $400 million Trump originally said it would cost. And while Trump has defended the necessity of the ballroom profusely, it’s become abundantly clear that this is simply another vanity project for him to feel like he’s actually done something successful, even as there’s no real need or demand for the ballroom—especially not if Americans are paying for $300 million of its price. And the wealthy individuals who are actually paying for it are getting government contract kickbacks for doing so.

“I guess ‘privately funded’ meant Trump was keeping it private that he’s stealing hundreds of millions of the public’s money for his ballroom. All this while gutting health care and raising costs,” Democratic Representative Gabe Amo wrote on X. “Shame. We have to stop this grift.”

Vice President JD Vance all but confirmed to CBS’s Ed O’Keefe Monday morning that the $300 billion was a real proposal in the Iran peace deal. Yet within hours—and after some monumental backlash from his party—Vance seemed to change his tune, telling Fox News’s Sean Hannity that Iran would not receive a “single dime” of U.S. money.

“The agreement says they are not getting a single dime of American money, that’s just not what this is,” Vance said Monday night. “What the agreement does say, Sean, is again, if the Iranians behave, and if there are sanctions relief, and if the Iranians are integrated into the world economy, we would invite other countries—not us—but other countries to invest in their country.

“That’s fine, but only if they comply with the terms of the agreement,” Vance added.

Hannity: There’s a report that the Qataris are giving them $300 billion with the approval of the US. Did the U.S. Ever sign off on the Qatari paying them that money?

Vance: No, the agreement says they are not getting a single dime of American money, that is just not what this… pic.twitter.com/qk024IvfLS

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 16, 2026

Vance did not elaborate on how the administration planned to manage or gatekeep foreign aid packages intended for Iran.

The White House and Tehran have already signed a peace deal, though the exact specifications of the agreement have not yet been revealed (and are still being hashed out). The final draft reportedly proposes the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz under Iran’s direction, a commitment from the U.S. not to interfere in Iranian affairs, and a reiteration of Iran’s commitment not to produce nuclear weapons, echoing language included in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, according to a senior Iranian official who spoke with Reuters.

The most contentious point of the plan, however, is a reported $300 billion reconstruction fund, as well as billions more in unfrozen Iranian assets and forfeited sanctions—which were originally understood to be provided at cost to U.S. taxpayers.

Donald Trump similarly tried to cast doubt on the proposal Monday evening, claiming on Truth Social that “the story that the U.S. is paying Iran 300 million Dollars is Fake News, put out by the Dumocrats!!!”

But not everyone in the administration is on the same page. Earlier that day, a U.S. official told reporters that the White House had “discussed the possibility of releasing frozen funds, sanctions relief, you know, a big $300 billion fund to rebuild their country, and all of these things are going to be tied to performance.”

Trump told reporters at the G7 summit in France Tuesday morning that unlike with 2015 JCPOA agreement with Iran, the U.S. was not transferring cash to Iran, ignoring the fact that reports of the still-unpublished deal include Iranian access to $300 billion in reconstruction funds and releasing $25 billion in Iranian assets.

“We’re not investing any money. We have the right to if we want, but we’re not investing any money. We didn’t pay for it like Obama did. He paid billions of dollars, he paid $1.7 billion from an airplane, all green cash. I watched that, I couldn’t believe it,” Trump said. “But the one that’s happening that’s of note, frankly the only thing that matters to me is that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump: "I want to mention Iran. We appreciate the relationship we've had over a short period of time with Iran. We're not investing any money. I have the right to if we want, but we're not investing any money. We didn't pay for it like Obama did. He paid billions of dollars." pic.twitter.com/zBqNl2cGe9

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026

The JCPOA also included a commitment from Iran that it would not pursue a nuclear weapon. Plus, it included the U.S. lifting sanctions and sending Iran $1.7 billion to settle decades-old failed contracts between the two countries. In Trump’s new deal, the funding sources for the $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran are unclear, although Vice President JD Vance said Monday that they would come from the “Gulf coast coalition.”

Is that some combination of Persian Gulf countries and the U.S., or did Vance actually mean to refer to the Gulf Cooperation Council? If some of that money does come from American taxpayers, that’s not going to go over well with most of Congress, except a few of Trump’s most sycophantic supporters.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and Ratcliffe each voiced their doubts regarding Iran’s commitment to the memorandum of understanding announced on Sunday, as each detailed “intel” that led them to doubt Iran’s side of the MOU agreement.

“The intelligence reflects that the Iranian intentions are not in line with their commitments under the deal,” one source told Axios.

While the full text of the deal has yet to be released, it is understood that the MOU requires that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days and refuse to develop nuclear weapons, while the U.S. must end its blockade of Iranian ships in the strait and Israel must withdraw from Lebanon. It’s important to note that the strait was already open before the war, and this commitment to no nukes from Iran was already in the original deal from 2015—a deal that Trump canceled in 2018.

It’s also not clear just how seriously Trump will take this “intel” from Rubio, Ratcliffe, and Hegseth, as his son-in-law Jared Kushner and envoy Steve Witkoff are supportive of the MOU.

The widespread opposition to the construction of data centers is a huge opportunity for liberals and Democrats, says author and organizer Astra Taylor. In the latest episode of Right Now, Taylor argues that Americans are frustrated about data centers in part because they are being built in communities without residents’ knowledge and consent. Rural residents and Republicans also oppose data centers, making them fertile ground for politicians. Taylor also discussed her upcoming book on “end times fascism” and the importance of Democrats defending higher education and debt-cancellation programs.

Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.

Donald Trump has signed a deal with Iran to cease hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. We still haven’t seen the document, but all of the reporting suggests a very simple story: Trump lost. He got nothing of any significance. Trump himself plainly has no idea what happened, as he revealed in a strange ramble to reporters. But JD Vance does know what happened, even though he’s trying very hard to sugarcoat it in a pretty revealing way.

We’re really lucky to be talking about all of this with Tom Nichols, a staff writer for The Atlantic, who has a good piece arguing that Trump capitulated to Iran. Tom, great to have you on, man.

Tom Nichols: Good to see you, Greg.

Sargent: So let’s just sum up where we are. We haven’t seen the document, but all the reporting suggests that while the Strait of Hormuz will reopen, all that does is return us to where we were before Trump’s war.

Meanwhile, they’ve punted the discussion over Iran’s nuclear program until later. And the Iranian regime has survived. So basically, Trump’s tens of billions of dollars in bombing didn’t compel Iran to do what he said he’d make them do. Tom, is that basically the size of things?

Nichols: I think it’s worse than that. The bigger problem is that he counted on regime change. This was what the war was really about. So when that wasn’t going to happen, when it became clear a week or so in that this regime wasn’t going to collapse, this outcome, I think, was more or less inevitable.

And the people that are now waiting and saying, Well, we need to see the details of this MOU. That’s fine. But even without knowing the details of the MOU, the Americans have been defeated here. And that pains me to say as an American. Because the regime is still intact, their nuclear material is still in their country. They’re actually politically more powerful now that they’ve flexed muscle and done some serious harm to the other Gulf states as a warning not to cooperate with the United States. There’s going to be some money going back into Iran, whether it comes through third parties or not.

If you had said any of this to Donald Trump on the first night of the war, he would have said, That’s impossible, we’re going to get unconditional surrender. Well, we didn’t. And all of these things are going to happen. Without even knowing what’s in the MOU, you can know at least this much.

Sargent: Right. Trump absolutely did expect unconditional surrender, even though he was told by lots and lots of different people within his administration, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that that wouldn’t happen. He was told that the strait would be closed by Iran and that that would exercise leverage over the global economy and over us.

Trump couldn’t fathom that possibility because he’s strong. It’s just that simple, right? He’s strong, he wins, he’s a winner, so there’s no way that things won’t go exactly the way he says they will.

Nichols: It’s bitten him before and caused him problems before, but there’s this weird quirk in Trump’s personality where he really believes that saying things makes them real. That, like a child, he can sort of wish-cast things into existence.

And you can play that game with domestic politics and tariffs and taxes and do some fancy dancing around where the money is in terms of things like revenue. You can bully other Republicans to agree with you. What you can’t do is do that with a war where the enemy gets a vote.

Every day that Trump said they’re eager to make a deal, there’s going to be a deal, a deal is imminent—the Iranians are not Republican House members. They are a foreign country and an enemy of the United States. And there’s nothing to stop them from saying, No, there is no deal. And now that we have one, it’s not great. It’s basically an acknowledgment that the United States failed to gain any of its strategic objectives.

Sargent: That seems beyond clear. So Trump talked to the media about his deal today. He blasted Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal, which unfroze tens of billions of dollars that Iran could then access in foreign accounts. Listen to Trump.

Donald Trump (voiceover): It was a horrible deal for the United States. It was a deal where billions of dollars was given to Iran. It was a deal where $1.7 billion in cash was put on a Boeing 7—well, not a 757, I guess, right? But on a big, beautiful Boeing 757. They needed a Boeing 747, to be honest with you, because it was a lot of cash. $1.7 billion was taken out of the banks and given to Iran. And on top of that, tens of billions of dollars was spent. So they tried to bribe them to make a deal and that didn’t work. It never works.

Tom, as far as we know now, Iran will also be able to access a huge tranche of funds under Trump’s deal too. Can you explain that? How do you respond to what Trump said there?

Nichols: Well, I was a critic of the JCPOA because I didn’t like how much of it was front-loaded. But I also have to be honest and say that in the years that followed, the deal seemed more or less to work.

Now Trump has wandered into a crappier version of the JCPOA, starting all over again, with the argument that they’ll get access to this money if they clear certain gates and engage in certain things. And the Iranians are just better at this than he is. I think that money is going to start coming to them again through third parties.

That’s why you keep hearing Trump and Vance both being careful to say, Well, we’re not just going to give them cash. No, you’re going to open up the ability to have cash get to them with your OK. And I suspect that once people are tired of this whole process, which will be very soon, and once Trump is no longer paying any attention to it, the Iranians are going to get what they want. How soon, how much—that’s just a matter of working out the details.

Remember, in the end, this was supposed to be giving the Iranian government back to its people, who would then dismantle the nuclear program, end support for terrorism, restrain their proxies, blah, blah, blah. None of that’s going to happen. They’re going to get the money one way or another.

Sargent: What’s the basic difference between what Obama did with the money and what Trump is doing with the money? Do we know?

Nichols: Well, without seeing the MOU, hard to say. But I would say that Obama did it without completely disrupting the international economy, blowing billions of dollars’ worth of expensive American weapons, getting some Americans killed, getting many hundreds more wounded, and then weakening the United States by forcing us to basically admit that, yes, the Iranians own the Strait of Hormuz.

Sargent: Right. The bottom line here is that Trump is in some sense using the mechanism Obama used, which is a financial incentive to get Iran to cooperate with oversight of its nuclear program. Obama did this through negotiation.

Trump did it through spending tens of billions of dollars committing massive war crimes, bombing an Iranian school filled with children, et cetera, to practically melting down the global economy. That’s the difference. They’re using more or less the same mechanism.

Nichols: Trump blew up a lot of things, expended a lot of weapons, messed up the global economy, and now is doing it exactly the way Obama did it. And we’ll probably not get as good a deal, because now the Iranians have made sure to do things like booby-trap the uranium. Even if international inspectors get in there—and whatever Pete Hegseth says, you’re not going to have Marines in there digging this stuff out—getting inspectors in there is going to be a lot trickier than it was 10 years ago. It was just stupid and pointless.

Sargent: I think there’s actually another reason for that that I want to get to in a second. But first, let’s listen to JD Vance for a second. There’s a bit of confusion about how Iran will get access to this money. It’s being described as $300 billion. JD Vance was asked about this. Listen to this.

Reporter (voiceover): The Iranians are saying that they’re going to have access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund. True or false?

JD Vance (voiceover): Well, that’s the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the Gulf Coast coalition, so long as they honor their end of the obligation. I think that one of the things you’re going to see, Ed, and people have to be skeptical of this, is that the hardliners in the Iranian system will overemphasize the benefits that Iran gets while underemphasizing all the things that they have to concede and all the things they have to provide in order to get these benefits. So we absolutely are open to the Gulf Coast countries investing in the reconstruction of Iran, but only if Iran ends their nuclear program, ends their enriched stockpile of material, and is really open to an inspections and enforcement regime that gives the American people confidence they’re never going to have a nuclear weapon.

Sargent: So if I understand this correctly, the U.S. will allow Iran to get access to this money if and only if Iran agrees to some kind of binding long-term constraint on its nuclear program. What you’re saying is that once the nuts and bolts really hit, when they really start to talk about this, probably Iran will be able to get access to that money fairly quickly, or at least before any final commitment is made.

And when JD Vance says this money will come from other Gulf Coast countries investing, what’s he referring to there? And what’s your overall reaction to what you heard from JD?

Nichols: Well, I don’t know how quickly they’ll get it. This is where I will be cautious and say that until we see this MOU—which for some reason the administration really doesn’t want to release to the public, which should tell you something right there—I don’t know how quickly it’ll get here. But basically, we’re committing to supporting the reconstruction of the country we just blew to smithereens after getting nothing.

It really is staggering to have the administration claiming, We finally got a commitment not to build nuclear weapons. Look, I was never in favor of attacking Iran, but I was a real hawk on the issue of, if they ever get close to a nuclear weapon, that could actually be the trigger for war. But there was no evidence of this, and there’s been no evidence of it for 10 years, since the JCPOA.

So again, we’re back to this problem that they’re going to get a lot of money, they’re going to get reconstruction support from the Gulf states that they have pounded and inflicted punishment on for cooperating with us. How does this not leave Iran—even though Iran is temporarily militarily weakened—in a strategically more powerful stance?

That’s why, when you listen to that part we just listened to, Greg—where you ask JD Vance these questions and he does the Jackie Gleason thing, where he’s trying to explain his way out of it—the reality is Trump wants out. And he’s willing to buy his way out if he couldn’t bomb his way out.

Sargent: Right. Obama actually ended up getting more because he had an actual deal that laid out what oversight of the Iranian nuclear program would look like. Trump doesn’t have that. He’s just now doing what Obama did, which is using money to try to get it.

Nichols: And doing it without the support of the international community.

Sargent: And after spending tens and tens of billions of dollars committing war crimes, destroying the global economy—

Nichols: I’m not there yet on war crimes. I think that waits for an investigation. But he started a preventive war. He started a war of choice, which itself is horrific, because this didn’t even have the rationale of the Iraq War behind it. I said at the beginning of this, the Iraq War looks like it was competently lawyered up compared to this.

Bush went to the United Nations, he had allies on board with at least some of it. He made a case, he put a clock on it about the inspectors. This was Trump just getting up one morning and saying, you know what, it’s time to take out Iran.

Which itself is a problem when you’re talking about war crimes and crimes against humanity. But in the end, I will also say that had he toppled this regime, Greg, I would have been one of the people shrugging and saying, Well, you have to congratulate him if he managed to get rid of one of the worst, most dangerous regimes on this planet. I may not have liked the way he went into it, but I would have had to certainly congratulate him on coming out of it.

Now he’s gotten the worst of all worlds. He’s taken America on a discretionary war, didn’t get what he wants. He’s going to have to pay off the bad guys so that he can get out of this. And basically he’s going to paper over his own mistake here with dollars. That’s what he’s going to do.

Sargent: I think that’s basically the size of it. I just want to say one more thing about JD Vance’s strange ramble there. He’s basically admitting that Trump is using the same mechanism that Obama used—a financial incentive to get Iran to cooperate with oversight of its nuclear program. Doesn’t JD just end up making Trump look like a complete moron, given that it comes right after Trump compared his deal favorably to Obama’s unfreezing of funds to Iran?

Nichols: No part of this administration communicates within itself. And what we’re seeing here—given the concerns about Trump’s health, his state of mind—JD Vance’s answer was sort of stumbling and bumbling, but within the normal range of political dissembling, if that makes any sense.

Trump, I think, just doesn’t have any idea what’s going on. That’s the bigger worry—that Rubio and Witkoff and Kushner are saying, OK, we’ve got it, but I don’t get the sense that Trump himself really understands anything that’s going on here. The idea that Trump and Vance aren’t on the same page isn’t surprising at all. I really wonder how much Trump understands any of this at this point.

Sargent: So Tom, I just want to close on a point you make in your piece, which is really interesting. Trump is threatening to restart hostilities against Iran if it doesn’t agree to surrender its nuclear program. You point out that Iran just won’t believe that, because Trump has shown that he wanted an exit from all this. I want to add to your point and get you to talk about this. As we get closer to the midterms, it becomes next to impossible for Trump to restart military action of any kind, let alone using any kind of ground invasion. Republicans will just not allow that to happen because it’ll utterly crush them in the midterms.

So I think, Tom, what Trump has really done here is lock in a time frame that actually weakens his leverage over Iran over time. It weakens his leverage over Iran’s nuclear program over time. And Iran knows that. Am I right?

Nichols: I think so. And he’s also alluded to using a nuclear weapon at one point. He said, We still have the ultimate, you know. But I just find it hard to believe—although with this administration and this president you never know—that right after Labor Day, as everybody’s going into the midterms and he’s still trying to wait for good news on the economy … remember, what he really cares about is international markets. He’s going to say we’re starting up the war again? On what pretext? And by that time, he really will have to go to Congress or do something.

He surprised the country and the American people and the world by doing this when he did it. I don’t think you can go to that well twice. And I could be wrong—I just don’t believe him when he says, Well, if this doesn’t work out and they don’t behave, I’ll just start up the war again.

That means he’s willing to tie down huge numbers of U.S. forces halfway around the world on a maybe while negotiators negotiate. At some point, ships have to come home. Soldiers and sailors need to be cycled through so they can do the things they need to do. They can’t just sit on ships for three or four months. I just don’t buy it.

Sargent: So just to boil this down, we’re now entering the really hard part, which is the part where we negotiate over the future of the Iranian nuclear program and the nuts and bolts of that have to be worked out. And Trump has weakened his leverage going into that. And Trump has also strengthened Iranian leverage because Iran knows it can hold the global economy hostage now. Is that the size of it?

Nichols: Right. And the Iranians get to appear like the aggrieved party now that they’re the ones that have lost thousands of people and been attacked. And even with a competent team that understood the issues and knows what it’s doing, trying to negotiate a nuclear program after you’ve bombed it and put it under a lot of rubble takes a long time. It’s going to take even longer here.

So the idea that somehow in 60 days, sometime again around Labor Day or something, Trump’s going to say, That’s it, everything’s fixed, we’ve got it—none of that’s going to happen. This is going to be a long cold war with the Iranians, just like the one we’ve been in with them for 47 years. And Trump made it worse. So I don’t see any way out of this in a way that enhances American security anytime soon.

Sargent: Utter catastrophe all around. Tom Nichols, awesome to talk to you. Thanks so much for coming on.

Nichols: Thanks for having me, Greg.

The Sixth Amendment requires, among many other things, that criminal trials be conducted before an “impartial jury.” In nearly every state, this jury consists of 12 members of the community where the alleged crime was committed. But in a handful of jurisdictions, states use fewer jurors to more easily secure convictions.

Hamed Kian, the defendant in this case, is a chiropractor in Jupiter, Florida. State officials suspended Kian’s license in 2021 while they investigated allegations of sexual misconduct against him. Kian allegedly continued to treat patients in the years that followed, leading state prosecutors to bring five counts of practicing chiropractic medicine with a suspended license.

Under Florida law, trials for capital offenses are held before a 12-person jury. Defendants who face noncapital felony charges, however, are instead prosecuted before a six-person jury. One of those smaller juries convicted Kian on all five charges. He was sentenced to one year in prison and five years of probation.

On appeal, Kian sought to overturn his conviction by arguing that the Sixth Amendment required him to be tried before a 12-member jury. Forty-four states in the Union currently impose that requirement for all felony trials. Florida and five other states—Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, and Utah—allow at least some trials to be held before juries with fewer than 12 members. No state allows juries with five or fewer members.

In 2022, an Arizona man asked the Supreme Court to review his conviction of felony offenses by an eight-member jury on Sixth Amendment grounds. While the court declined to do so, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh publicly indicated that they had voted to review his case. Gorsuch also wrote a solo dissent where he forcefully argued that the court should have taken up the case.

Twelve, Gorsuch argued, was not some arbitrary number. By the time the Framers adopted the Sixth Amendment in 1791, their English ancestors had upheld the right to a 12-member jury for nearly four centuries. (Other accounts date the 12-member jury even further back, to around the enactment of Magna Carta in 1215.) As a result, founding-era Americans understood “the right to a trial by jury for serious criminal offenses meant a trial before 12 members of the community—nothing less.”

Florida’s deviation from this legal norm came as federal troops withdrew from the South, heralding the end of Reconstruction. Kian noted that the Florida legislature first enacted a six-member jury law in February 1877, one month after President Rutherford B. Hayes ordered the military’s withdrawal. “The jury-of-six thus first saw light at the birth of the Jim Crow era as former Confederates regained power in southern states and state prosecutors made a concerted effort to prevent blacks from serving as jurors,” Kian told the justices in his petition for review.

Historians have long noted that Southern Redeemers used a variety of subjective legal tests to eliminate Black civic and political participation, both at the ballot box and in the jury box. Along with this historical evidence, Kian pointed out that Black jury participation in Florida became so rare in the Jim Crow years that state newspapers treated it as remarkable and newsworthy on the rare occasions when a Black juror was actually empaneled.

The Supreme Court is well aware of this general history. In 2020, the justices struck down another Jim Crow–era jury restriction in Ramos v. Louisiana. Two states, Louisiana and Oregon, allowed nonunanimous jury convictions for felony offenses. This allowed states to convict defendants even if one or two members of the jury voted to find them not guilty. (Though Oregon was not technically a Jim Crow state, it is well established by historians that the Ku Klux Klan played a key role in the restriction’s adoption in the 1930s.)

Oregon’s nonunanimous jury law had been previously upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1972 case Apodaca v. Oregon. But Gorsuch, writing for the Ramos majority, rejected what he described as the “functionalist” reasoning of the Apodaca justices, where they looked to the rule’s “function” in “contemporary society.” Gorsuch instead adopted an originalist approach to require jury unanimity in all felony trials.

“When the American people chose to enshrine that right in the Constitution, they weren’t suggesting fruitful topics for future cost-benefit analyses,” he wrote in his Ramos decision. “They were seeking to ensure that their children’s children would enjoy the same hard-won liberty they enjoyed. As judges, it is not our role to reassess whether the right to a unanimous jury is ‘important enough’ to retain.”

When the court declined to hear the 2022 case involving juries with fewer than 12 members, Gorsuch took the same approach. “For almost all of this Nation’s history and centuries before that, the right to trial by jury for serious criminal offenses meant the right to a trial before 12 members of the community,” he wrote. “In 1970, this court abandoned that ancient promise and enshrined in its place bad social science parading as law.”

That 1970 case was Williams v. Florida, where the court upheld Florida’s six-man jury law as a constitutionally permissible change to the long-standing tradition of 12-member juries. “That mistake,” Gorsuch explained, “continues to undermine the integrity of the Nation’s judicial proceedings and deny the American people a liberty their predecessors long and justly considered inviolable.”

Kian’s appeal received a favorable hearing from a Florida appeals court that reviewed his conviction. At the same time, that court concluded that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s earlier holding in Williams, even though the precedent’s reasoning had been severely undermined by the court’s 2020 ruling in Ramos. The appeals court effectively signaled to the justices that they hoped to be overturned by praising Ramos, when “the light of originalism began to [peek] out from the darkness of functionalism.”

Florida, for its part, had urged the justices to maintain the status quo. The state claimed in its brief that Kian had made “no serious attempt to show that overruling Williams is warranted under traditional principles of stare decisis.” Florida also warned that overruling Williams “would imperil thousands of criminal convictions in Florida and five other states that for more than 50 years have relied on its rule.” Though the state could not provide exact numbers on how many Floridians had been convicted by six-member juries since the 1970s, it noted that “roughly 5,000 criminal convictions are currently pending on direct appeal.”

Those numbers would likely pose little impediment for the Supreme Court to overturn Williams when it hears Kian’s case next term, however. When the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Ramos six years ago, the ruling took effect for future trials and those that had not yet exhausted their appeals. In a follow-up case, however, the court declined to apply it retroactively, meaning that finalized criminal convictions remained intact.

It is always a fool’s errand to predict exactly how the Supreme Court will decide a case. One subtle sign of Kian’s confidence is that he and his lawyers declined to file a reply brief to Florida’s brief that urged the court not to take up the case, as if they had already said everything they needed to say. The stage is now set for the Supreme Court to further strengthen one of the great bulwarks of American liberty—in the few states, at least, that have gotten away with diminishing it for so long.

Candidates often do better in their second bids for office. But El-Sayed’s strong performance is emblematic of broader trends. Progressives, after struggling in 2022 and 2024 in primaries against more centrist Democrats, are in the midst of an electoral revival. And they are breaking through not just in very blue areas but in purple ones, such as Maine, Michigan, and California’s Central Valley.

Why? Because the Democratic establishment has made some huge blunders, and the party’s left wing has made some smart tactical adjustments. Put all of that together, and the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is alive again, with progressives winning key primaries around the country and positioning themselves to potentially capture the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.

We’re now a decade into intense primary battles between the Democratic left and center-left, with both sides having strong and weak periods during that time. Sanders’s surprisingly strong campaign against Hillary Clinton back in 2016 reinvigorated the Democratic left and inspired a spate of other progressive challengers to more centrist Democrats. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the most prominent of the numerous Sanders-aligned progressives who defeated more centrist Democrats in 2018 and 2020.

But centrist Eric Adams’s win in the 2021 New York mayoral primary was the first of a string of major defeats for progressives. Two years ago, Representatives Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, who had been elected in 2020 as part of the initial progressive wave, were defeated in primaries by opponents who got heavy support from centrist organizations. Centrist Democrats successfully painted progressives as ignoring practical issues like crime and damaging the Democrats’ national brand by pushing overly liberal ideas. They also were shrewd in fighting the intraparty war, targeting progressives like Bush who had controversies around them unrelated to their policy stands.

So how have progressives come back? In large part because of own goals by the Democratic establishment. Zohran Mamdani was greatly helped by city’s center-left backing a candidate (Andrew Cuomo) who was lethargic on the campaign trail and had to resign the governorship in shame after being accused by numerous women of sexual harassment. Graham Platner is the Democratic Senate nominee in Maine because the party establishment backed a candidate (Janet Mills) who was lethargic on the campaign trail and almost 80 years old, annoying Democratic voters who are leery of older candidates after Joe Biden’s failed 2024 run.

Peggy Flanagan, the progressive candidate in Minnesota’s Democratic Senate primary, is leading in part because her centrist opponent, Representative Angie Craig, stupidly voted for a Trump-backed anti-immigration bill, angering the state’s liberals. In nearly all of these races, the progressive candidates can straightforwardly condemn Israel’s atrocities in Gaza, while centrist donors insist that the candidates they support take pro-Israel stances that are out of touch with Democratic voters.

Broadly, the Democratic establishment has discredited itself with the party base, with massive electoral (2024) and policy (the Gaza war) mistakes. So endorsements from centrist leaders such as Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer no longer carry much weight and arguably hurt centrist candidates more than they help them. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, is so toxic in liberal circles that it tries to hide its role in backing centrist candidates, thereby limiting AIPAC’s effectiveness. A candidate such as El-Sayed can brush aside the establishment’s claims that he is unelectable in a general election because the center-left’s political acumen is no longer trusted by voters after it lost the White House, Senate, and House in 2024.

“When you have 70, 75 percent of the Democratic base saying, ‘We don’t agree with what Netanyahu’s doing in Gaza,’ but you have members of your party who are still voting to send arms to that government and who are telling you that the issue is complicated, when you’re seeing children being blown up … you start to question them not only on that issue but on other issues, as well,” Mamdani adviser and longtime Democratic Party operative Patrick Gaspard told me on a Right Now episode last year.

At the same time, the progressives have sown the seeds of their recent successes. They have smartly changed their rhetoric. Mamdani and numerous other progressive candidates deleted their tweets calling for defunding the police and have broadly stopped calling for police reforms.

In terms of policy, that’s disappointing. The police in America deserve much scrutiny and accountability. But this shift is shrewd politics. Progressives are no longer fighting on an issue where public sentiment is against them. Leftist candidates still support Medicare for All, free college, and other big expansions of government programs, but they fixate on those ideas a bit less than a decade ago, perhaps aware that even voters who agree with those proposals doubt they will ever happen.

Instead, the left these days leads with an anti-billionaire, anti-Washington populism, along with more incremental affordability proposals. Candidates such as Flanagan and California House hopeful Randy Villegas decry the growing power of billionaires and call for banning members of Congress from selling stocks. Both of those positions are extremely popular with the public.

Progressives have also gotten savvier and more ruthless in their campaign strategies. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and New York Governor Kathy Hochul are as centrist as Representative Dan Goldman and even more powerful. So why did New York progressives opt against aggressive primary challenges to Jeffries and Hochul while focusing attention on taking down Goldman? Because Goldman is in a very progressive district and therefore easier to beat.

Progressives, while still decrying the outsize role of money and big donors, are creating their own super-PACs, aware that they can’t win races if they are vastly outspent. Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, and Mamdani often endorse the same candidates, creating a kind of progressive crescendo behind their choices. In Nebraska, populist candidates are running as independents, realizing they can’t win under the mantle of the Democratic Party in places where the party is super unpopular.

None of this guarantees progressive success this November or in the future. Mamdani could fail as mayor. Platner could be hit by another scandal, and he and other progressive candidates could lose in November. It will still be extremely hard for Ocasio-Cortez, Representative Ro Khanna, or another person closely associated with the party’s progressive wing to win the Democratic presidential nomination. All that said, in the days after the 2024 election, when party strategists were blaming progressive causes and groups for the losses, I was deeply concerned that the Democratic Party would move decisively to the right. It hasn’t. Instead, progressives have led the fight against Trump, forced the party’s establishment to admit its failings in the Biden years, and reinvented their own strategies in winning ways. A Muslim man named Abdul, backed by Bernie Sanders and calling for a new kind of politics in America, could be the party’s candidate in Michigan. Progressives are making progress.

The perils of social media notoriety—and the dangers of dishonesty—also figure in Early’s feature directorial debut, Maddie’s Secret, an homage-slash-send-up of 1980s TV movies set in the present. The film takes its cues (and its title) from Kate’s Secret, a corny 1986 NBC production starring Meredith Baxter as an aerobics instructor struggling with an eating disorder (the film was considered a landmark for portraying bulimia on prime time; “I didn’t know if I wanted to be the one throwing up on television” the actress told the Los Angeles Times on the eve of her premiere). Early’s eponymous heroine, Maddie, is a wannabe barefoot contessa whose Instagrammed kitchen vignettes unexpectedly go viral, transforming her pretty much overnight into a big-time (though reluctant) foodie-chic influencer.

The stress of keeping up appearances—and the specter of imposter syndrome—triggers Maddie’s long-submerged and potentially lethal bulimia: the secret she’s keeping unsafely at the risk of esophageal rupture or cardiac arrest. On the eve of a particularly important meeting with network executives on a restaurant-based reality show called The Boar (one vowel away from you know what), Maddie falls ill and gets checked into a hospital in-patient program. There, amid fraught group therapy sessions and dark nights of the soul, she’s forced to come to terms with her appetite for self-destruction.

On its surface, Maddie’s Secret doesn’t scan as a comedy. But its surfaces, all stilted line readings and redolently cheesy dramaturgy, are what’s funny about it. They belie but don’t blot out the essential empathy on display here; these ostensible alienation effects are really gestures of solidarity, offered by a filmmaker working outside the studio system (and getting away with an uncompromised vision as a result). Far from mocking his heroine’s plight, Early uses the camp strategy of placing everything on-screen in playful, flamboyant scare quotes—the characters, the situation, the dialogue—in order to speak a kind of humane truth about how certain physical and psychological frailties get packaged within pop culture. The sheer artificiality of Maddie’s Secret is the realest thing about it.  

The first time we see Maddie—played by Early wearing a blonde wig and prosthetic breasts—she’s bouncing her way through sunny Los Feliz to what sounds like a synth-thetic cover of Hot Fudge’s “You Keep Me Hanging On.” The risks here are real, and they’re spectacular; like much else in Maddie’s Secret, Early’s performance—all fluttering eyelids, wan smiles, deep-chested breaths and a mild vocal fry seemingly derived from the Aaron Spelling Televisual Universe—is suspended between deadpan rigor and earnest expressivity. To paraphrase Sontag on camp, Maddie is very much “a woman” in quotes, but she’s also an intrepid, endearing, and desirable heroine whose talent is emphasized alongside her decency, and whose pain is never played for laughs. Early’s decision to cast himself—inspired by the legendary drag queen Harris Glenn Milstead—feels like an unveiling of aspirations and influences from the bad-taste extravaganzas of John Waters to Paul Verhoeven’s Showgirls to the postmodern brinkmanship of Todd Haynes, whose shadow falls over Maddie’s Secret and then some. 

Todd Haynes’s controversial 16 mm short Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (1987) used a series of strategically carved Barbie dolls to dramatize the singer’s battles with anorexia. The film’s miniaturized melodrama style invited pearl clutching while winning critical plaudits. Haynes was inveighing against the kind of prime-time docudrama dreck that sought to reduce artists and celebrities to their afflictions. Maddie’s Secret isn’t as stark or as confrontational as Superstar, but it’s obviously a spiritual descendant of sorts, adopting a hyper-specific form for the express purpose of demolishing it. Early’s mash-up of allusions and straight-up see-what-sticks goofiness is novel, like a bold combination of Haynes (whose critically acclaimed movies are often very funny) and the deadpan alt-comedy pastiche master David Wain, venerated by creators of Early’s generation for superbly skewering glossy, popular genres like summer-camp sex farces or big-city rom-coms. (A corny portmanteau for those in the know: Wet Hot May December.) But Early isn’t simply cracking in-jokes; instead, he’s inviting fellow campers and normies alike to revel on his particular, slippery wavelength.   

“I swear to God, Maddie, it’s like you’re out of some modern-day fairy tale,” says Deena (Kate Berlant) to her work bestie as they clock in for dishwashing shifts at the premium cooking brand GourMaybe. The avidity of the line reading is amusing in and of itself while establishing the very real—and inherently perilous—happily-ever-after stakes of the narrative to come. Like most princesses, Maddie is a bit oblivious: She can’t tell, for instance, that Deena regards her as her own personal thirst trap, an infatuation that manifests in increasingly aggro-platonic postures. The more that butch lesbian Deena brags about her other sexual conquests, the clearer it is she wants to stick her tongue down her hetero pal’s throat—a shameless genre cliché that Early and Berlant take giddy pleasure in pushing to the breaking point. The pair have been working together for more than a decade now in shorts and sketches, and their chemistry is positively pharmaceutical; Berlant, who’s got a touch of wild genius, weaponizes her lanky limbs and angular jawline every time she walks into frame, as if Deena were trying to puncture the invisible bubble of the friend zone with her body.

Deena is transparently jealous of Maddie’s sweetly and sweatily ursine husband, Jake (Eric Rahill), the main beneficiary of his love’s off-the-clock cooking talents. “Did you throw away the mango pickle from the Indian we ordered?” Maggie asks after sashaying home, one of many delectable lines that turn the low-hanging fruit of TV-movie dialogue into gourmet fare. Another one, after Jake gently suggests uploading footage of Maddie’s culinary skills to the cloud: “I just wanted to make my husband some dinner, and now I’m in postproduction.”

Maddie won’t cook or eat meat, because of a childhood trauma around food and body image. “The camera adds ten pounds,” chides Maddie’s mother, Beverlee (Kristen Johnson), when her daughter calls her to talk about the possibility of her becoming a brand ambassador for her company—a “Gourmaybe Girl.” Early’s stricken reaction shot on the other end of the phone—blue-hued in the moonlight, and held for an extra beat beneath a tinkling piano score—perches firmly at the precipice of winking excess without tipping over. Every aspect of the film exhibits this level of discipline, from the writing and directing and acting to the mise-en-scène; the wonderfully stylized cinematography is by Max Lakner, who keeps floridly color-coding the characters’ psychological states. We get blood reds and deeper purples; enveloping shadows and ring-light halos; ghostly window reflections and heart-to-hearts. The food that Maddie prepares looks variously appetizing and ersatz depending on whether we’re in her home kitchen or at the fluorescent Gourmaybe offices. There are plenty of less stridently artificial movies that could benefit from a small fraction of such expressivity.

As the plot develops, Early includes all kinds of superfluous shtick, like interludes in a queer-dance group that are basically an excuse for cast frolicking on the clock. Still, he keeps an admirably tight handle on the various character dynamics, including Jake’s yearning to become a father, a plan held in check by Maddie’s mommy issues. Crucially, Early refuses to trivialize Maddie’s recovery in the hospital scenes, even as he populates the ward with killer supporting performers like Vanessa Bayer and Leah Hennessey. Sad moments are played straight, despite the absurdist flourishes around them, as when another patient, Connie (Hennessey), eulogizes a fellow patient who didn’t make it: “Your existence was inconvenient to me because you were the living embodiment of the parts of myself I’ve tried to obliterate.” Simple tear-jerking is easy, but the articulation of genuine angst—especially in this context—takes real sensitivity and nerve. For anyone who might still be disoriented by the way Maddie’s Secret plays with tone, the eulogy sequence wipes the smirk off the movie’s face—or their own—once and for all. 

Early’s softheartedness is winning, but he’s hardly edgeless. Besides working through his nostalgic ambivalence for the shock tactics of Kate’s Secret and its ilk, he’s taking aim at the lifestyle-brand fakery of GourMaybe and its craven head honcho, Zach (Connor O’Malley), who addresses his staff megalomaniacally, like a true believer. “Play nice, we’ve got content to make,” he bellows, with O’Malley torquing his delivery as if he knows the line is destined for future screencap-meme status. It’s telling that a comedian like Early, who developed his skills and following in an extremely online setting, would cast the internet in such ambivalent terms; crucially, Maddie’s catharsis bypasses the zone of public performance altogether. 

The question of whether Maddie will get another chance to be famous for her cooking is one of several loose ends that Early leaves conspicuously dangling; others include the fate of her marriage to Jake (Rahill is given plenty of directorial leeway in a part with more bruised dignity than expected) and Deena’s mental health (Berlant is intrepid enough to survive being the only member of the cast treated in the end like a cartoon character; the movie loses a bit of spark when she’s sidelined in the home stretch).

The abruptness of Maddie’s Secret’s ending is in sync with its TV-movie inspirations, but it also underlines Early’s desire to create something stranger and more bracing than expected; to swap out a benign, crowd-pleasing sort of cognitive dissonance for a sometimes disorienting ambiguity. Maddie doesn’t hold onto all of her secrets—she can’t—but she’s still finally a woman of mystery. The highest compliment that Early can be paid is that even when the movie ends, Maddie seems to exist beyond the final (freeze) frame.

The most noteworthy part of Parsons is probably the industrial park next to it. At 14,000 acres, Great Plains Industrial Park dwarfs its home city in both size and economic impact. The area was an Army ammunition plant until 2005, when, in an atypical move, it was shut down and donated to the local government. “It was like turning the keys of a Ferrari over to somebody that has a learner’s permit,” park director Brad Reams joked.

Today, Great Plains is a manufacturing hub leased by powerful companies in the energy, engineering, and transportation sectors. While the park’s board of directors is appointed by county commissioners, it doesn’t use any taxpayer funds, and generates its own private revenue, at which it is apparently quite good.

“We have about $12 million in assets,” Reams said. “We lease about 4,000 acres for agricultural purposes. We lease buildings, over two million square feet … for warehousing for various goods and services. We have 26 miles of rail that we lease out to a rail company.”

Ammunition manufacturers Day & Zimmermann also lease land there; the explosive thuds from weapons-testing projects can irritate nearby homeowners. Still, Parsonites are proud of the park. “It was a place that helped in the Korean War,” Joe Beachner, who has spent his whole life in the city, said. “Something that helped our economy.”

But last December, something changed. The Parsons Sun had it first: a deal struck between industrial park board members and the nuclear company Deep Fission. A first-of-its-kind nuclear reactor was coming to the park. “I saw it on Facebook, and I thought it was a joke,” Marjorie Reynolds, a home nurse who lives in the area, said. The public was not informed before the deal was completed: Even county commissioners were only told “a week or two” prior, according to Commissioner Terry Weidert. “They just announced it in the newspaper December 4, like it was a done deal,” anti-nuclear activist Ann Suellentrop said. “So arrogant and so dismissive of the public.”

Park officials said they could not inform the public because they were under nondisclosure agreements with Deep Fission and the Department of Energy. “You’ve got intellectual property that … they like to keep under wraps,” Reams said. “If you’re the DOE, it’s a national security risk. It’s an energy project that has national implications.” Zaleski concurred, arguing that the agreement with Deep Fission was a standard one. “That’s just how the cookie crumbles in this industry,” he said.

Holger Meyer, a particle physics professor at Wichita State University with a background in nuclear energy, said the public should have been informed regardless. “There sometimes are good reasons for the desire for nondisclosure agreements,” he said. “But this isn’t something that just impacts the land it is on. It impacts the entire county—the entire region.… There is obvious public interest.”

It didn’t matter. Five days later, park officials, executives of Deep Fission, a smattering of locals, and roughly 40 TV stations gathered in the park for a groundbreaking. Parsons may not have liked it, but it was going nuclear.

Founded three years ago, the California-based start-up Deep Fission was thrust into prominence last August, when its reactor project became one of 11 selected as part of Donald Trump’s “Nuclear Reactor Pilot Program.” The pilot program, created by executive order, fast-tracks the companies’ ability to receive commercial operating licenses. The stated goal at the time was for three reactors to achieve criticality by July 4, 2026; one already has, and the DOE claims two more are on track. Deep Fission is not among them.

This rapid schedule is possible in part because Trump has overhauled the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since the start of his second term, relaxing regulations and inspections to meet demand from data centers. In May 2025, the president ordered the theoretically independent NRC to submit to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, and cut the annual hours spent on nuclear inspections by an estimated 38 percent. Hundreds of staff members have since departed the agency, and the two remaining Democrats on its board have expressed fear they could be fired after Democratic Chair Christopher Hanson was canned last year. Suellentrop warned that the NRC will be “gutted” if Trump continues to get his way. “The DOE will rubber-stamp whatever he wants, and to hell with people’s safety, their health, the environment,” she said.

Hanson declined to comment on his firing and whether he was worried about the NRC under Trump, but posited that a reduction in NRC inspection time was fair. “The industry does have a really strong track record of sustained operational and safety performance,” he said. “I’m not going to second-guess what the commission’s done.”

For advocates of Deep Fission, the government’s promotion of the project is evidence of its safety. “The federal government isn’t desperate enough for nuclear reactor projects that they’re going to take a flyer on somebody,” Reams said. “It’s just not worth it.”

But others warned against such implicit trust. Meyer said “industry interest” was behind the Trump administration’s embrace of nuclear power. “Environmental regulations are being dismantled in all areas,” he said. “It’s clear that nuclear safety isn’t prioritized by the Trump administration.” Kent Rowe, a retired professor of aeronautics and anti-nuclear activist from near Parsons, stated that the Deep Fission project was “a scheme to bury [reactors] haphazardly and worry about consequences later.”

A March letter signed by 11 state attorneys general condemned the DOE for creating an exemption allowing certain nuclear projects to skip previously mandated environmental reviews. Paul Gunter, director of the group Beyond Nuclear, said he was concerned the exemption would allow Deep Fission to bypass proper safety measures.

“There should be no question about whether or not a novel nuclear technology without a designed reactor containment system can avoid an environmental review for potential severe accidents and the long-term consequences,” he said. When asked whether Deep Fission would indeed be exempt from the review, a DOE spokesperson said, “No determination has been reached.”

While the other nuclear companies in Trump’s pilot program are working on more or less traditional reactors, Deep Fission is getting weird with it, forecasting a reactor it has described as both “discreet” and “bespoke.” A laudatory Forbes profile on company founders Richard and Liz Muller outlines the plan: “Drill a 30-inch-diameter borehole a mile into the earth, fill it with water, then insert a teeny-tiny nuclear reactor that will boil the water at the bottom and send it up a separate pipe to run a steam turbine. Each hole will generate 15 megawatts, enough to power 12,000 homes.” (The profile fails to note some less savory details from Richard’s past: He was a vocal global warming skeptic until 2012, and has been criticized for taking research funding from the oil and gas tycoon Charles Koch.)

A small, scalable reactor is Deep Fission’s Theranos-esque goal, perfect for supporting Silicon Valley’s new obsession: AI data centers. Seventy in-house reactors can power one data center, according to Forbes. Deep Fission has been open about a desire to “meet the explosive demand for power from artificial intelligence” with a system “designed to scale modularly.” They have already seduced the likes of Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, who owns an 8 percent stake in the company.

Speed is one of the company’s core tenets, which is concerning to some critics. Deep Fission’s website proudly states its reactors take an “estimated six months” to build, and the company told Parsons in December it aimed to have a test reactor running by July. “We have to build fast enough to meet data center demand before they decide to go with something else,” Liz Muller told Forbes.

It turns out, though, that building a nuclear reactor is quite difficult. The company now will not say when its test reactor will be ready, and is unsure on whether it will be able to open a commercial reactor at all. Deep Fission recently completed a test well in Parsons 6,000 feet deep and eight inches in diameter. That may sound impressive, but it’s far smaller than the mile-deep, 30 to 50 inch–wide borehole that will be needed for the real thing.

While a white paper sent to the NRC gives insight into the proposed reactor blueprint, Deep Fission’s design is not final yet. The company has not submitted a preliminary safety analysis to the DOE, nor applied for the NRC license it will need to sell energy, according to federal officials. Deep Fission declined to speak with The New Republic for this piece, with vice president of communications Chloe Frader citing the “active registration process.”

Reams said Deep Fission was never going to hit the deadline it set for itself. “I think even if it had gone perfectly, they probably wouldn’t have hit July 4,” he said. As to why the company may not be selling its energy anymore? “They weren’t sure [of] all the P’s and Q’s that they had to make sure were covered,” Reams said. “It’s been a learning process for them.”

Parsons, according to Reams, is a tough ol’ place, the sort where residents don’t freak out about advanced new tech. “There’s a certain panache,” he said. “There’s not a lot of sky-is-falling mentality.”

But some have been vocal in their opposition to Deep Fission, particularly Reynolds, who founded a local group called Prairie Dog Alliance for the express purpose of fighting the development. In a matter of months, Reynolds has assembled a hodgepodge of community members, among them farmers, business owners, activists, and professors. (Suellentrop, Meyer, Rowe, and Gunter have all been in contact with the group.) Prairie Dog Alliance now boasts over 500 Facebook followers and about 15 members who attend regular meetings.

Some locals say Prairie Dog represents the majority opinion. Librarian Heather Fouts estimated that “at most 25 percent” of residents support the nuclear project. “I would say most of Parsons is against the reactor,” echoed Beachner, who recently joined the group. “But I also feel … nobody believes they can do anything.” In contrast, Zaleski and Parsons Sun editor Hannah Emberton cast Prairie Dog as a vocal minority.

The group forced a public meeting with Deep Fission in March after rejecting private talks. There have been a handful of meetings since, but Prairie Dog still wants more transparency. Member Jill Blankinship said the first meeting was “turned into a meet-and-greet”; during the only in-person meeting where company officials took questions, participants were made to write them down ahead of time. Deep Fission also promotes a “community advisory group” in Parsons, which doesn’t seem to exist yet.

“It’s very difficult for us to get any information,” Reynolds said. “I might as well beat my head against the wall.”

Prairie Dog has a list of concerns: Could the high temperatures of the underground nuclear reactor disrupt the rock? (“There’s going to be a lot of water around it to keep it at a pretty good temperature,” Reams said. “And the rock that’s down there that level is granite. It’s not going to do a whole lot to granite.”)

What about the ammunition testing going on nearby? A division of Day & Zimmermann, in fact, is leading the construction of the Parsons reactor. (Reams said such testing is “several miles away” from the site of the reactor, and there is “constant communication” about risks.)

What about the natural gas in the area? “There is a lot of danger, especially with the larger boreholes, of hitting natural gas reserves,” Reynolds said. “The closest house to the borehole they’re drilling right now—you can stand on his porch or his yard and see the drill rig—he has natural gas wells on his property.” Reams disputed this, saying there are no natural gas reserves near the project. There are no active wells on park property, though the site is in a part of Kansas listed in federal geologic assessments as potentially containing undiscovered gas.

The biggest concern among residents is simply how the reactors, and the waste they leave behind, will affect Parsons over time.

To cool one Deep Fission reactor, water from industrial park treatment plants will flow within the mile-deep borehole at a rate of about a gallon per minute, Reams said. More reactors—not to mention the data centers they aim to attract—will require far more water taken from the nearby Neosho River. “Water is the issue nobody’s talking about enough,” Meyer said.

Deep Fission is also drilling its boreholes at the edge of the Roubidoux aquifer, an underground water source that’s part of the larger Ozark system. While Parsonites get their drinking water from nearby Lake Parsons, the Ozark system is used for commerce, farming, and rural water districts all over the shop. “If something did happen, there’s potential that it could contaminate groundwater, which then contaminates the Neosho River, which goes … all the way down to Oklahoma,” Blankinship said. “Thirty-six towns, all kinds of people.”

Reams said that the reactor cores will be placed below the groundwater, and that the pneumatic drilling pushes the groundwater away before it is sleeved by cement and metal. “You’re encasing it in complete concrete and a mile of water,” Zaleski added. “Why hasn’t natural gas or oil that is drilled all over Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas ruined any aquifers?”

There’s also the issue of nuclear waste. Deep Fission’s founders said in April they wanted to just abandon their spent fuel rods underground after each reactor’s six-year lifespan. “Instead of pulling them out of the hole, they’ll pour in a mix of cement and rock to seal it all in place,” the Forbes profile states happily. Activists called the idea dangerous. “The abandoned oil wells are enough trouble here in Kansas,” Meyer said. “We don’t need abandoned nuclear reactor wells on top of that.” Rowe scoffed at the idea that the nuclear waste wouldn’t affect the rock over time: “How could it not, if you’re going to leave that radioactive material down there that’s enriched to 5 or 6 percent?” (Deep Fission has told the NRC it is using uranium enriched at “less than” 5 percent.)

A month after the Forbes piece, Deep Fission seemingly changed its tune. Chief Operating Officer Mike Brasel said in a May public meeting that the company will only leave spent fuel underground temporarily and that “we do not plan on disposing fuel down in that hole.” While the federal government is “contractually required to take the fuel,” Brasel said, Deep Fission aims to have a recycling or disposal facility in place before its boreholes begin to collapse in “40 to 50” years.

By then, things could already be going very wrong. Reynolds’s doomsday scenario is that radiation poisoning of the city’s soil and water will turn Parsons into something akin to Picher, Oklahoma, a small town 35 miles away. Once a bastion of lead and zinc mining, the town underwent dangerous corporate practices that caused irreconcilable environmental damage to the land; Picher was soon declared uninhabitable, and the municipality was officially dissolved in 2013.

In the event of a disaster, Deep Fission is seeking liability insurance under the Price-Anderson Act, which indemnifies the company in the event of a nuclear accident, providing costs fall above a certain threshold. “They’re going to … look for being indemnified from an accident that they’re saying will never happen,” Gunter said. “That’s a clear no-confidence vote.”

City officials, though, are growing fed up with all the perceived fearmongering. “All they want to do is make noise,” Zelenski said of Reynolds’s group.

If Deep Fission receives the federal go-ahead, it wants to build more than one measly reactor. The company is leasing 100 acres from the park, after all, and Reams said the board will accept as many reactors as it can get. In the future, hundreds of boreholes and little reactors could dot the plains. City and company officials suggest that nuclear energy could revitalize Parsons, a town that has seen its population dwindle since the Army jumped ship. Brasel claimed the test reactor would create 30 to 40 jobs, during a public meeting, and that the number could be “in the 700s” as the company expands.

“Good paying jobs are what we need in Parsons,” the mayor at the time, Verlyn Bolinger, said at the December groundbreaking. Zaleski agreed, arguing that Parsons needed more people in high-income positions, rather than mass employment. He welcomed the idea of data centers flocking to town to suck up the nuclear energy, calling them “absolute necessities to run our country.” But residents aren’t sure they’ll be the ones getting those lucrative jobs—if in fact they exist at all. “AI data centers and this nuclear thing is going to bring nothing for jobs other than short-term construction,” Beachner said. “I don’t see this as being a long-term project that actually helps us.”

There is a fatalism to Prairie Dog’s protestations. While Deep Fission is behind schedule and remains tied up with the DOE, both advocates and opponents of the reactor expect the thing to switch on eventually. The company is digging two new test wells in the next few weeks; after that, a test reactor will come online. “It’s probably going to happen no matter what we do,” Blankinship said. “We can’t control it. At least we know we tried.”

Like all battles worth a damn, the battle over the backyard nuclear reactor centers around power. Atomic power, community power, the power of the river and the aquifer and the earth. The process of generating nuclear power begins when a single neutron is flicked into a chunky uranium atom, causing the uranium to split. Steam fills the room, red lights turn on, turbines begin to spin. An almighty energy is created—not by the combination of these entities, but by one of them falling apart.

International coverage of the protests in Albania—a country relatively unfamiliar to many in the United States—has focused largely on the environmental concerns being raised by demonstrators, and the projects’ ties to the Trump family. The fledgling Kushner resorts threaten pristine wilderness and critical ecosystems that sustain a rare colony of the world’s largest freshwater birds, endangered Albanian water frogs, and loggerhead turtles. Among the species that stand to be affected are flamingos, whose last remaining habitat in Albania could be threatened by the developments. But the “Flamingo Revolution,” as the wide-ranging, horizontalist movement has become known, is about much more than flora, fauna, or Donald Trump. As Albania vies to become a top tourist destination and a member of the European Union, the ongoing protests aim to do nothing less than upend its political system. “At the core of this protest is not just environmental issues,” said Gresa Hasa, a doctoral researcher at the Faculty of Law and the Center for Southeast European Studies at the University of Graz. “This is a fight for freedom and democracy, and a future where the resources and the state works for all of us and not just for some of us, and where we are not excluded from our own beaches and public spaces.”

In addition to halting the developments on Zvërnec and on Sazan Island, protests are demanding the resignation of Socialist Party Prime Minister Edi Rama, who’s been in power since 2013. Demonstrators have also targeted opposition leader and former Prime Minister Sali Berisha. A member of the Democratic Party, Berisha was until last November under house arrest as a result of corruption charges. “It’s called the Socialist Party of Albania,” Hasa clarified of Rama’s party, “but has nothing to do with socialism.” Both he and Berisha have been supportive of the developments in question as they look to cozy up to Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, as a means of endearing themselves to the U.S. president. Last week, the Trump administration lifted restrictions against Berisha imposed by the Biden administration.

Rama has played a more active role. He had a chance dinner meeting with Ivanka Trump and Kushner in southern Albania. Months later, the president’s son-in-law approached him in Davos about investing in his country’s coastline. Rama has championed the project ever since. Just before Trump’s inauguration, the Albanian government granted Atlantic Incubation Partners—a firm linked to Kushner’s Affinity Partners—the status of a “strategic investor.” The Narta Lagoon resort is slated to be officially developed by the Netherlands-registered Zvërnec South Adriatic Development, an offshore trust that reports have linked to Kushner, Qatari billionaires, and a string of questionable characters.  The Sazan Island project is being led by Sazan Real Estate Development LLC. A P.R. agency for that development told Al Jazeera that any investors involved in it were acting “in a personal capacity.” 

The strategic investor designation entitles Atlantic Incubation Partners to expedited approvals, and the Zvërnec project was officially approved to begin construction in January 2025. Demonstrations began locally at the end of May. On May 30, footage showed private guards for Albanian oligarch Shefqet Kastrati—who’s reportedly been working closely with Kushner—beating up activists protesting around the fence protecting the site of the slated development. The images only further inflamed Albanians, and protests spread rapidly.

Since then, the protests have become the largest since the fall of Albania’s Communist government in 1991. Protesters’ demands reflect their long-running frustrations. Besides seeking Rama’s resignation, the Flamingo Revolution is demanding the repeal of the legal framework that allows the government to grant “strategic investor” status to developers. It’s further demanding the withdrawal of a recent initiative to offer generous tax breaks and special regulatory treatment for private development on state-owned land in rural areas. Protesters are also trying to reverse recent amendments to the Law on Protected Areas and the Law on Cultural Heritage, which they argue have streamlined investors’ ability to build on and near important environmental and cultural sites. “This project broke the camel’s back,” Hasa said. Albanians are enraged at “an economic model where political parties and businessmen are so entangled that you cannot figure out where one starts and the other ends.”

Understanding why Kushner’s seaside ambitions have kicked off an uprising in Albania requires a look back at the country’s tumultuous last century. Albania was ruled from 1944 to 1985 by Enver Hoxha, who broke with the Soviet Union over what he saw as Nikita Khrushchev’s insufficient commitment to Stalinism. The country’s increasing isolation—from neighboring Yugoslavia, the USSR, and eventually China—led to mounting economic difficulties in the lead-up to Hoxha’s death and the ensuing collapse of the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania. Like many other formerly socialist countries in the 1990s, Albania underwent a period of rapid, chaotic privatization of state-owned industries as part of a transition to capitalism marked by graft, speculation, and—in Albania’s case—disastrous pyramid schemes. 

Among the most enduring legacies of that period is a controversial 1991 land-reform law meant to redistribute property that had been collectivized under Hoxha. The result has been decades of ownership disputes, including in coastal areas that stand to become more valuable as the country continues to court foreign tourists to its sandy beaches and lush pine forests. Residents claiming land—and without the resources to fight for those claims in lengthy court processes—have been forced to give up their parcels and move away. Conversely, enterprising developers with more cash, including foreign investors and organized crime syndicates enriched by transition-era graft, can falsify documents and contest locals’ ownership claims. 

These legal gray areas have made it easier for Rama to court “strategic investors” like Kushner with the promise of both cheap land and cheap workers; as Rama once bragged to prospective Italian investors, “Fortunately, here we have no trade unions.” Last week, the Democratic Party expressed support for the protests as means of confronting government corruption, and introduced legislation aligning with several of the protesters’ demands. Demonstrators, however, have continued to call for Berisha to be thrown in jail, and to express frustration with the two parties that have dominated Albanian politics and economic development since the 1990s. 

In recent years, smaller parties have sprouted up in an attempt to pose alternatives. Redi Muçi was elected to Parliament last year, as a member of the left-wing Lëvizja Bashkë—the Together Movement, in English. The party formed out of student protests that were violently repressed by Berisha’s government in 2011, and another wave of demonstrations against educational reforms in 2018 and 2019. As Muçi points out, popular frustrations with both Rama and Berishi have been fueled by rampant corruption and the rising cost of living in one of Europe’s poorest countries. 

“Practically the whole Albanian economy has been directed toward the construction industry and tourism,” he told me. “The fuel that pushes this through is money laundering from drug traffickers. What has been happening along the Albanian coastline, but also in the capital city and elsewhere, is money coming from investors that hide behind shell companies that pour huge sums of money into the country through the construction, and which has made the city of Tirana an unlivable place” as public spaces are turned into enormous private developments backed by shady investors who drive up property prices through speculation. In rural areas, especially, he added, there are “investors who come from God knows where to build these huge resorts, destroying nature and ecosystems and habitats, as well as taking away property rights for local communities.”

A bipartisan push to turn Albania into a prime destination for real estate investment has seen rents skyrocket as foreign investors snap up properties for short-term rentals and glorified safety-deposit boxes, making housing prices “utterly unaffordable” for ordinary renters, Muçi said. A report from the nongovernmental organization Transform Europe found that the average price per square meter of housing in Tirana reached approximately $1,700. The average salary was less than $800; housing prices that year grew more than twice as much as wages. The combination of rising costs and low purchasing power has made Albania’s capital more expensive than Rome and Barcelona. A significant part of that, the report adds, is likely the result of money laundering: 32 percent of homes sold in 2021 were acquired by nonresidents. As of 2023, 33 percent of Albanian residencies—and more than 17 percent in Tirana—remained unoccupied.

While rising tourism has been a boon to the country’s economy in aggregate, the jobs created in the tourist sector tend to be poorly paid and vulnerable to exploitation. Migrant workers making just 700 euros (around $812) a month for grueling 12-hour days in restaurants and hotels have had their passports confiscated by employers as soon as they land in Albania. Lëvizja Bashkë is pushing for the state to direct investment toward more productive sectors that can create year-round, broader-based economic opportunities and prevent the rapid emigration of young Albanians seeking better-paid job prospects abroad. 

Protests may already be bearing fruit. Politico noted still unconfirmed reports that Kushner’s Affinity Partners had withdrawn from at least one multibillion-dollar resort project. That may not stop the demonstrators. Rama seems worried. The European Commission warned his government to “act without delay” to stop any prospective violations of the bloc’s environmental rules—or endanger Albania’s bid for EU membership. Under mounting pressure, Rama has accused protests of being the product of foreign meddling by “enemies of Israel and Albania,” and complained that marches were causing tourists to cancel their reservations to visit the country. 

The image of nefarious foreign actors sowing chaos bears little resemblance to the images being broadcast from the streets of Tirana and elsewhere, of peaceful parades with areas for kids to sit and draw. “You have grassroots left-wing movements, LGBTQ+ activists, environmental movements, representatives of all four major religious communities, and conservatives,” Hasa said. “You even have individuals who are right-wing, or a little bit far right.” Muçi agreed. “In such big numbers, you have people there from all walks of life, beliefs, and ideologies,” he told me. What unites them, he said, “is this call for a new Albania—for a different kind of politics that is not the one represented by Rama and Berisha.” 

It’s no secret that the Trump family has been eager to make itself richer while the patriarch occupies the White House. Here in the U.S., awareness of these activities hasn’t yet made much of a dent in Trump’s grasp on power. Abroad, however, it may help bring down politicians who thought they could use that grift to their advantage. Let’s hope Americans take note. 

Perry Bacon: We have a great guest today: Astra Taylor, one of the smartest people I know. She’s done documentary filmmaking, she’s written a ton of books, she’s an organizer with the Debt Collective, and she’s a person who’s just studied and is very thoughtful about a lot of different subjects. So Astra, thanks for joining me. Welcome.

Astra Taylor: Thanks for having me. Glad to be here.

Bacon: So we’re going to start with the topic of the year, millennium, decade—I want to talk about AI for a bit, because you wrote a piece I’m interested in. The title’s in The Guardian: “The fight against data centers isn’t just about tech, it’s about democracy.” But let me start with a basic premise here, which is: Are data centers inherently bad, and is AI inherently bad? So talk about those things first.

Taylor: Oh, those are some big questions. Are data centers inherently bad? No. And data centers aren’t new. They’re new in the news. But data centers, 20 years ago, before we were talking about AI—data centers are where we store our data. We were storing our data for old-fashioned social media usage or streaming services.

So data centers have been around for a long time, and there was a big boom, a data center build-out during Covid, actually, when internet usage exploded and there was a lot of access to low-interest capital that facilitated the build-out.

One way of thinking about data centers is they’re the backbone of the internet. It’s where the cloud comes to earth. But they’re obviously much more prominent now, and they’re just being built at a different scale—hyperscale, to use the term.

Bacon: Let me come back to that, though. Data centers themselves have existed a long time. That’s what I wanted to get at.

Taylor: Yeah. They’re not inherently evil.

Bacon: It’s new in the news, but it’s not new. We’ve had data centers. That’s what I was trying to draw out a little bit.

I want to ask—a lot of people, on the left, are very AI-skeptical. And I wonder—we can talk about the economics of it and the growth of it, but is AI inherently bad itself? It’s a very broad question, but I’m curious what you think.

Taylor: I think AI in this economic model, in this political economic paradigm, is veering towards inherently bad. You cannot separate the technology from the economics. This is a point I’ve been making since my first book, which is called The People’s Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age, which came out in 2014. That was essentially a political economy of the old-fashioned, pre-AI internet.

And my argument there was that you cannot separate technology from the underlying business model of these firms. That just seems to me like one of those basic eternal insights we should not lose sight of. In a sense, this is the same movie but on steroids. The AI boom is happening in a period of much more intense wealth concentration.

So the “inherent” question—people like to say technology is neutral. I think that’s a bit wrong. Yes, you can use machine learning to assist a robust scientific infrastructure, or you can use machine learning to enhance a drone that is engaged in a genocide.

Bacon: That’s what I’m getting at. Could there be a world where AI is used nicely?

Taylor: Technology is flexible. But we would need very different societal conditions and be operating under a different government with a lot more constraints. On the “neutral” point: You can use a knife to kill someone or to make a sandwich, but that doesn’t mean it’s neutral. It’s a tool that cuts things.

The AI that is being designed right now is being designed for specific purposes. OpenAI—the definition they have of AGI, artificial general intelligence, that they’re looking towards is a tool that can do economically valuable labor. In other words, they’re trying to build a human worker replacement engine. So I don’t think this technology is neutral, but I also don’t think it is inherently bad or good. It’s embedded in societal conditions.

Bacon: So we’ve talked about data centers and now AI. Now we’re talking about AI data centers. How did this happen? You’re in North Carolina, but it’s nationwide. I feel like … in the last 18 months, you’ve had AI data center protests, bans, really [in] almost every part of the country—rural, urban, suburban. Not really urban, because data centers are mostly in more spread-out areas, but how did this happen?

Taylor: It’s actually becoming more urban. There are protests in the streets of Vancouver right now over a big data center. Seattle just issued a moratorium, which is interesting because Seattle is a big tech hub.

So absolutely this movement is growing, and there are different reasons for it. One is people don’t like this infrastructure. It has all sorts of negative consequences. These are absolutely massive build-outs. They often have real consequences for people in the vicinity—incredible noise that keeps people up at night, that makes people want to move, but by that point it has destroyed their property values.

They’re often run on what should be temporary power sources—gas turbines, methane turbines that have very immediate consequences for the air people are breathing. Sometimes it smells bad. Even if you can’t sense it, there is extra pollution. Depending on the locality, there can be strains on the water supply. They often raise utility bills.

And then people don’t really like what it’s about. There used to be a compact, which was, OK, we’re going to do industrial development, but you’re going to get some jobs. Maybe you’ll get a few hundred jobs. You may get a few thousand jobs.

These data centers—sometimes they’re billion-dollar build-outs, and there are 30 jobs, 100 jobs. There’s a company now that’s offering robot security dogs to replace the human security workers that were guarding these places.

So the jobs that are permanent tend to be low-wage security jobs or janitorial jobs. The higher-paid work is temporary—it’s in construction or building the actual computers. It’s a bum deal. People are also finding out that they are being built with incredible tax incentives that often don’t benefit the community. So there are all sorts of reasons that people are questioning this.

Then there is the bigger context of: Hold on, what does this portend for our collective future? Do we want to live in an AI world? And then amazingly, something as amorphous as AI or the cloud—you go, Oh, it’s actually in my backyard. They’re trying to build it here.

And people are realizing that they can fight back. I’m on some Signal chats, one with people from 45 states, who are fighting back against these developments and definitely seeing themselves as part of a bigger push. I wrote the piece in The Guardian with Saul Levin, a longtime environmental organizer—he’s from Michigan, and he’s been on the data center beat for a long time. We were actually replying to those folks who were like, Oh, is that really the best way to fight AI? It’s kind of whack-a-mole.

Our point is: We’re on incredibly complicated political terrain. It’s actually amazing that there is a space where people can gather, find each other, and push back. And when people do gather, they’re finding out, Actually, we might not have voted the same way. We might not have a lot in common in terms of culture war issues. But we actually all object to this. It’s creating these new solidarities. The physical space that these data centers offer is actually providing an incredible opportunity for organizers.

Bacon: I want to ask: How did this get politicized? The reason I want to ask this is because it appears the Democrats have decided they oppose them now, but they followed—

Taylor: Not all Democrats.

Bacon: Yeah, some of them are. But what I’m getting at is: It seems to me that AI data center proliferation was fine with most elites in media, business, politics, both parties. Yet a groundswell of people started opposing it. So I’m curious—it’s unusual in our culture today. You often find political movements are top-down. Sometimes they’re bottom-up, but usually … Black Lives Matter, there were at least active civil rights groups that existed for a long time.

So I’m curious: How did these people figure out, Oh, this is something we can oppose? Because a lot of these cities, the city council was trying to hide the tax credits from them. It was not very transparent. A lot of places where the media’s not very strong. So how did people get informed on this?

Taylor: That’s a really interesting question. I do want to just linger on your point about the lack of transparency, because that’s a huge element that is pissing people off.

Bacon: That also causes that. Yes.

Taylor: All of these deals are under the cover of these NDAs, where often much of the city council doesn’t even know what’s going on.

Bacon: The government in the city has decided either to cover it up, or they don’t know themselves. The mayor or whoever has done it without them knowing.

Taylor: I did some reporting in Memphis, where Elon Musk has built his Colossus supercomputer—there’s actually now three of them in Tennessee and Mississippi, all in this area—and just, absolute secrecy. That’s part of what created this incredible outrage. As people dug, they realized they’re secret for a reason, because it’s these temporary polluting turbines and because he’s not keeping his other promises.

That’s a big part of it. There are a lot of reasons. On the progressive side, one is that on Inauguration Day, there was the phalanx of tech executives and the sense that tech had gone MAGA. And so suddenly people were like, Hold on, what side are you on? Now you want to totally merge with the U.S. government and build this AI dystopian future.

That doesn’t really explain what has happened on the right. On the right, big tech has been their enemy. For years, Silicon Valley was this techno-democratic formation, and—in the views of the right—they felt social media companies were censoring the truth, whether it was about Covid or about election conspiracies. There was a lot of animosity to big tech.

Then you have these AI executives going, In the future, we’re going to be eliminating half the jobs, maybe all of them. And by the way, we’re building a transhumanist digital God. And people were like, We don’t want to be replaced. We hate that. They just haven’t built up a lot of public goodwill on either side.

And even though the populism of the right is fake, there’s an anti-billionaire vibe. These guys are like, We don’t even want to be billionaires. We want to be trillionaires. We are talking in a moment when Elon Musk, on paper, is a trillionaire. We have entered a new phase of oligarchy, a new phase of plutocratic power. Today is a tragic day. The vast majority of people who have two brain cells are not for this. It’s just the perfect—

Bacon: Also, in this case, it went local to national as opposed to the opposite. Usually so much of our culture is national to local, and in this case, I think it bubbled up. The New York Times did not invent the data center rollback. In some ways, it was covered in a local paper first.

Taylor: Part of this is, people [say], My utility bill is being raised, and I don’t like the noise from this thing, I can see this ugly thing. But there’s also part of it that’s like, These billionaires from Silicon Valley want to replace us, and we don’t like that.

It’s both at the same time, and that is powerful. But I don’t think the Democrats have polarized against this or taken this opportunity to the degree that they can or should, given how it’s shaping up to be such a huge issue.

Bacon: So “the fight against AI centers isn’t just about tech, it’s about democracy.” We use this word “democracy” all the time, and usually it’s a predictable Democrat saying Trump is bad. But you have written about democracy before the Trump era and thought about it deeply. So what do you mean when you say this is a fight about democracy? Because you mean something more than just “Trump bad.”

Taylor: Yeah. I mean, Trump is bad. Bad, bad man. [laughing]

Bacon: Yeah, I know.

Taylor: For me, it comes back to political economy. You cannot have democracy under conditions of incredibly concentrated wealth or oligarchy. One of my favorite definitions of democracy comes from Aristotle, who said democracy is the rule of the poor, because the poor outnumber the rich. If democracy is the rule of the majority of people, then it should not be the rule of the super rich. And again, this is a pivotal day in terms of the history of oligarchy.

Bacon: Did Musk just today become a [trillionaire]? Is that what you’re—

Taylor: Yesterday, the SpaceX IPO. I was just reading this Guardian piece, and it said that for somebody who’s a trillionaire, $100 million is the equivalent of $19.27 for the median American. And I was like, “Can that be right?” That is so mind-boggling.

But democracy means that people have a say in the conditions that affect their lives, and it also means they’re not ruled by the super wealthy. The AI fight is absolutely connected to both of those things. We weren’t asked whether we want this AI revolution. It is being forced on people. It’s being forced on people at their jobs. It’s being forced on people in their search results.

The government is essentially backstopping—the way that Trump has fully merged with Silicon Valley, he is putting an incredible amount of government force behind this industry and bet his presidency on it in a sense, because it’s been floating the stock market. So that’s absolutely a democratic issue.

And again, what direction is this tech going? Are we building tech that serves humans’ needs? Or are we building tech that aims to replace a lot of human jobs and human relationships, to further concentrate wealth? Are we building AI as a wealth-siphoning straw, or something that could help people?

I’ve been thinking about what it would take to have the best iteration of this technology, and fundamentally, I think it requires a robust welfare state, it requires labor protections, it requires environmental protections. Those are things that are not on the table with this administration. So in a sense, this AI revolution is happening in the worst of all possible worlds.

But this gets to very fundamental issues about who has power in our society. The last thing I’ll say on that is: To me, democracy is not just the political sphere. It is something broader than that. To go back to the labor issue—the fact that AI is being sold as something that can do economically valuable labor, the dream of a one-billion-dollar company with only one employee—

Bacon: The nightmare, in my view, but the dream to them.

Taylor: Yeah. Sam Altman has said that he has a chat with his executive buddies betting on when that will happen—when they’ll finally have this employee-less company. This tool is being developed to degrade labor, but also to further erode what power American workers have.

These are companies that are backing lawsuits against unions and would love to get rid of the NLRB and all of that. So that just seems deeply undemocratic to me. And I’m very happy that people from all walks of life are rising up against this.

Bacon: You said the Democrats are not seizing this issue—Democrats in the parties. So let’s talk about that, because one of my favorite writers, Tressie McMillan Cottom, has a column in the Times today, and the headline is, “This Could Be the Winning Issue for Democrats”—talking about AI data centers and AI more broadly. Is the answer to this question very simply that the rich like data centers and AI and the Democratic Party is captured by the rich? Is there anything more to say than that?

Taylor: There’s a lot of that. I haven’t read Tressie’s piece, but I fully endorse it in advance because I know that she’s right on about this.

That’s a huge part of it. The reason billionaires and trillionaires are a threat is in part because there are no rules, or very minimal rules, on how much they can spend on elections and how much they can spend to buy off politicians.

We know that there’s a lot of dark money flooding into races at every level right now. That’s part of it. A lot of Democrats are looking to either tap into those resources or actually to just not trigger a huge spend, because they’re fighting really dirty.

Bacon: Crypto companies defeated Sherrod Brown’s functioning. It is a real thing.

Taylor: Yeah. Or there’s the New York congressional primary that Alex Bores is in. This is a guy who worked at Palantir and then quit, because he had—I wouldn’t say a moral awakening, because he’d been involved in labor and other causes before—but left in protest due to some of their dealings with Trump 1.0.

These super PACs funded by Silicon Valley are now trying to use that against him: Oh, he’s a Palantir employee. In other words, they’re shameless. They are willing to absolutely punch below the belt, and they’re funding millions of dollars into this, and that’s just one race.

So politicians are afraid. I think, though, a lot of voters are tired of fear. They’re tired of fearful politicians. And the way to cut through the noise is to stake a clear moral position, name the proper enemies, speak to this discontent, and believe what the tech executives have been saying. Believe them when they say their agenda is to replace human workers and to replace our relationships. They want to be our bosses, and they want to be our girlfriends and our boyfriends. And believe them when they say that they’re willing to risk ending the world.

A lot of what they say about their superintelligent machines and stuff is sci-fi. But I believe Dario Amodei, and I believe Elon Musk when they both say they think there’s a 20-to-25 percent chance that AI will annihilate humanity. I don’t think their computers are as good, as great, as conscious as they think they are. But I do believe them when they say that’s an acceptable level of risk. That’s what I believe. And that is demented.

Bacon: I interviewed somebody who’s made the same point of just, Listen to what they say. That person’s name is Bernie Sanders. Sanders has come up with this idea of a sovereign wealth fund where the government controls how these companies—I’m not sure how I feel about it. It’s an idea that’s out there, and I’m glad he’s pushing stuff, but I’m not sure that’s where I want to land. I’m curious what you think.

Taylor: I’m with you. What worries me about it—and you can see this in OpenAI’s openness to some version of this—these companies are not against it. They have very inflated stock valuations at this point. They might like to have—they’ve been seeking to merge with the federal government.

Bacon: Sure.

Taylor: They’re like, Let’s do it. Let’s get married. I don’t love a scenario where the American people have even more exposure or investment in these firms and this technology being, quote-unquote, profitable—the profit is, at this point, based on very socially pernicious consequences. The displacement of labor, the burning of immense amounts of fossil fuel.

The climate dimension of this is just incredibly critical. There was just a very reputable academic study that came out that said due to the build-out of new crypto and AI data centers, the demands of the energy sector could increase by almost 30 percent in the next four years alone. I don’t want the American people to have a piece of a toxic asset. That’s it.

Industrial policy, though—Trump has shown that industrial policy is possible. Under different conditions, in different countries or with different leaders, you can use those tools in really powerful ways. You can say renewable energy only. You can say labor protections. You can say privacy protections. You can say accurate data sets. You can say all sorts of things using the power of the state. But the proposal on the table is not going in that direction.

I also think one of the biggest bulwarks against this technology is investing in social services. In other words, the more excellent our health care is, the less we want an AI doctor. The better funded our schools are and the lower the teacher-to-student ratio, the less we’re tempted by the idea of plugging every kid into a Google-controlled iPad.

In this book with Naomi Klein that we have coming out in September, that’s part of it: We need to make the real human living world irresistible and supportive and secure enough that part of the appeal of these virtual tools is diminished.

Right now, people are turning to AI because sometimes it’s the only option. That’s the vicious cycle that we are in, where the diminishment of public services feeds a demand for tools that further degrade those services and also further enrich the people who own them.

Bacon: You mentioned the book you’re doing with Naomi Klein. The title is End Times Fascism. So tell me what “end times fascism” is.

Taylor: Yeah. The subtitle is And the Fight for the Living World, so it’s not all negative. “End times fascism”—it’s our attempt to understand what kind of fascism we are living through, what has changed. It’s based on a piece that we wrote for The Guardian that came out not this April but the April before. Essentially, it’s looking at the main constituencies of this far-right alliance. Fascism historically is always a weird amalgam. That’s what the word “fascism” comes from—it’s a bundle. It’s always contradictory. We’re looking at what is making up the reactionary right today. The tech sector is a major prong, as well as the religious right and this ethnonationalist front as well.

Bacon: Let’s pursue one piece. What is the “end times” part? I think people know what fascism is.

Taylor: The “end times” part is that this is an alliance that is flirting with the end of the world. They’re so comfortable in the sense that we will make it. On the tech side, this is just part of being alive today: You’re like, Oh, there’s another bunker. There was a recent piece about Peter Thiel going to Argentina, and part of it is he loves Milei and his libertarian policies, and also, if there’s a nuclear war, maybe it’ll be OK there.

Or we have people leading the charge into these wars in the Middle East thinking that they’re going to hasten Armageddon, because they’re in these biblical narratives.

We are operating in a moment of unprecedented global crises. The climate crisis, as much as we’re not talking about it these days, is very real. The threat of artificial intelligence—my idea of what the threat is might not perfectly align with what Musk is saying, or Altman, or Amodei, but there are very real dangers here.

The dangers are real, and we have world-destroying tools that our species has not had before. So we’re trying to think about what that means for our politics and how the hell we get out of this.

Bacon: You and I met in 2022 or 2023. You were working at the Debt Collective, and the thing you all were working on then was getting the Biden administration to forgive—you always said “don’t say forgive”—

Taylor: Don’t say “forgive.”

Bacon: Cancel. It’s an important distinction. Cancel student debt. I want to ask you about—we’re about to start this Democratic primary. Why Biden lost and why Biden wasn’t popular—I think the narrative the Democratic Party has concluded is that he was a little too left on economics and a little too focused on the college grads and not focused on the working class.

And the embodiment of bad ideas was canceling student debt. I think you’re going to hear 15 candidates say a version of that, even the quote-unquote progressive ones. So respond to the [idea that] the student debt policy was emblematic of Biden’s bad instincts.

Taylor: Certainly an idea, and it’s being pushed by the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, mostly.

Zooming out—I helped found a group called the Debt Collective, which is the first union of debtors. We have been organizing people—student borrowers, also medical debtors, people with back rent debt—to fight, inspired by the example of the labor union. Essentially, people who lack wealth need to have power in numbers. We need to have solidarity in order to push for political change.

We never talk about forgiveness because we don’t think that people need to be forgiven for going into medical debt, or going into student debt, or going into credit card debt. If you live in a state where the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, I don’t really think it’s your fault if you end up having to borrow to make ends meet.

Yesterday, there was news that the Trump administration is now thinking about further eroding the Affordable Care Act, but offering people loans to cover their medical emergencies. So debt’s not always a choice.

What we are saying at the Debt Collective is, again, a clear and moral position. Guess what? People should have the right to be educated. We live in an incredibly complicated society. We at some point decided that public education, K-12, should exist, and that people should be able to go to school and get that level of education. We live in a more complicated world. Let’s add four years.

This is how higher education in the United States actually began, if you go back and you look at the GI Bill and the building of these incredible public institutions of learning and research. These were public goods that became privatized over time and became financed by tuition, which means financed by debt. That is a new development. So that’s our proposition: Let’s cancel student loans and let’s make college free as a public good.

That feels to me all the more urgent right now in this moment of AI. It’s actually very connected to the AI discussion. When we’re talking about, Oh my God, what is knowledge? What is truth? How do we discern fact from fiction?—the fight for public education is actually incredibly urgent.

And the right knows this! Why is the right laser-focused on attacking education, attacking academic research, attacking funding for science? Because they know that it is a threat to their oligarchic and racist and misogynist ambitions. In fact, the Heritage Foundation released a report recently that said, Too many women are going to college because they get subsidized student loans and there’s federal investment. And when they do that, they just don’t have enough of the right kind of white babies that we want them to have. This should be a Democratic Party issue. And instead they’re—

Bacon: When you said “this,” you mean free college, higher education, defending colleges.

Taylor: Defending it as a public good, not, Oh, you’ll get job training. Maybe we’ll fix the economy with some education. No. Education is something that matters for a democratic society and that people should be able to access.

Biden should have listened to us, because we laid out a way to cancel student debt quickly and efficiently. If I had been in charge, I would have also canceled all the debt owed to veterans from military hospitals and created an alliance, presented it as solidaristic. Instead there was a lot of misinformation about the demographics—who is a student debtor. There was always this idea as though they all went to Harvard or something.

No—if you go to Harvard, you actually don’t graduate with student debt, because there’s this huge endowment that is owned by this tiny little university. Most people with student debt went to for-profit colleges, to vocational colleges, to public schools. Forty percent of people with student debt don’t have college degrees because they couldn’t manage to get through school because they worked three jobs.

So this is definitely going to be a live issue. Right now, the Debt Collective is continuing to fight. We think there should be another payment pause, because people are in such a financial emergency and the Trump administration has thrown the student loan system into such incredible disarray.

Debt is exploding under Donald Trump because cost of living has not come down, because of the changes to the student loan system. They’re attacking programs like the SAVE plan, which listeners probably know about. They’re attacking subsidized student loans looking forward.

This is going to be, unfortunately—it’s very tragic to say—more of an issue and more of a pain point for the American people. Instead of running away from this issue, the Democrats should own it and say, We’re going to do it, and we’re going to do it right this time, and we’re going to understand why the right has made higher education such a focus of their attacks.

The last thing I’ll say is: If they don’t, the right is going to take this issue. Just like the Democrats risk the right owning the data center issues and the antiwar space, I have spent the last year listening to right-wing podcasters. I have taken in so much Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes and Nick Shirley. You name it, I’ve listened to it.

Bacon: Bless you, because I’m not going to.

Taylor: They talk about debt all the time. Tucker Carlson took the stage at CPAC, the big conservative conference, and said, We need debt strikes against credit card lenders. Nick Shirley—why are people believing this kid when he’s doing these investigations into the welfare state? [Because] he’s like, We’re all mad because we have student debt. This is an issue in American people’s lives. People are in debt. They cannot pay.

And the problem is … when the right takes these issues, guess what? The problem isn’t the economic system at large. It’s not capitalism. No, it’s the Jewish bankers. It’s the immigrants somehow driving up the cost of something, so you have to borrow more. It’s incredibly dangerous for the Center for American Progress—or name other names—to run away from this issue, because they are then ceding very real pain and a very real problem to faux-populists who will only deepen the problem.

That is something I’m worried about. What does it say about a party when you can’t just say, People deserve education. We stand behind education as a public good. We want people to use their real minds. We want people to learn things?

Bacon: So last question. I got an early edition and mostly finished reading this book called Crossing the Red Line: Biden, His Advisers, and Israel’s War in Gaza. The author’s name is Akbar Shahid Ahmed. He was at the Huffington Post for a while and is now at a place called NOTUS. He was one of the leading reporters in the behind-the-scenes accounts of the Biden administration ignoring federal law in terms of arming the Israelis and allowing the genocide to happen.

The question I’m going to ask you in a democracy sense is: What do we do with a political party that I’m going to be voting for that legitimized the genocide? There’s talk now about how the people who worked for Biden, who were involved in the policy, should not get jobs in government in the future. I’m not really sure—if Jake Sullivan can’t be secretary of state, I’m not sure what that really does for me.

But in a certain sense, what should we do? How do we deal with a party that wants to say, We’re going to defend democracy in this country, but leaned into legitimizing a genocide and really won’t apologize for it even now? A lot of the leaders in the party are still much more focused on Israel is good than genocide is bad.

Taylor: That’s a huge question. How do we build the power to transform American electoral politics when we are locked into this two-party, first-past-the-post system that I know you have talked about a lot with your listeners?

There are major impediments in terms of just the way our politics are structured, and it’s getting worse—with the attacks on voting rights and the all-in on gerrymandering. Now you can do it for partisan purposes.

Bacon: And it’s happening everywhere, yeah.

Taylor: People need to get organized. Often when I give talks in public, people raise their hand and go, What can I do about all the problems you’re naming? My response is always, You have to join with other people. You have to find some political home where you are. It doesn’t have to be perfect. There is no perfect solution. There is no button that will save the world. You have to build power with people where you are.

If it’s a data center fight, join a data center fight. If it’s Indivisible or a chapter of DSA, or if you have the ability to form a union or join a union. A tenant union. Join the Debt Collective. We have to join things, because they have money, and we have the many in theory, but we have to be organized to exert collective power. We need that organizational force, and then we need that moral clarity.

We were told right after the 2024 election, Oh, there’s a vibe shift. Cruelty is cool now. We can say now that was bullshit, and it was wishful thinking, not just on the right, but among some in the Democratic Party.

Bacon: Today is the day to abandon trans people was literally said, from November to January after the election, by all these people.

Taylor: It was real wish-casting. I think, no, we’re not throwing people under the bus. We’re going to have moral clarity. Naomi and I end this book by saying: Yeah, we need to say, International law, we should try it. Universality, let’s try it. Let’s really mean it. These are principles that we take for granted. But if you actually try to enact them, they’re really radical. That’s the horizon we need to work for.

At this point, on the issue of Palestine, the American people in general are absolutely opposed to what happened and what transpired. There’s still just enough democracy in our diminishing and racing-towards-fascism society that the party is going to have to respond to that.

We just need the courage of our convictions, and we need to organize. That’s it. That means doing Substack Lives and talking, but it also means getting offline, meeting with people, and building those relationships and doing the annoying work of social change.

Bacon: The thing I’ve been heartened by the last year—until this conversation—was thinking about the New York race where they had this unknown person who brought enthusiasm, energized people, and also had a lot of moral clarity in Zohran. But the data center fight might be a better example of the organized democracy we really need. It’s not about one person—it’s about the many.

Taylor: And it is an opportunity for people to see how much they have in common with each other and to break us out of these cartoonish narratives about each other. That’s also why I stay committed to the Debt Collective, because medical debt—that’s another huge unifying point.

Something like 92 percent of people, according to polls, believe that medical debt should be all canceled. There are so many issues. The issue of money out of politics. There are so many issues that people could organize around.

On the electoral reform front, it’s more parties. You know what we hate? We hate the Democrats and the Republicans at this moment. A more-parties movement could actually be one way of framing a horizon—more proportional representation, money out of politics.

That’s not to downplay what we’re up against. I’ve been in the trenches for a long time at this point, and it’s hard out there. The presence of a fascist trillionaire is going to make it that much harder. But that means we have to meet the moment, and we have to get organized. There’s so much to work with right now. That whole moment where they were like, Progressives are over. We’re on this reactionary train. Get on board—no. That was a total lie.

There’s something bubbling up in this moment. As a result, even after writing a book called End Times Fascism, I’m not completely discouraged.

Bacon: That left me thinking, is it better to be focused on one person or one movement these next couple of years? How important is it that AOC or Ro Khanna fill all our needs and runs the greatest campaign of all time? Is there any alternative to that?

Taylor: To me, the electoral dimension is important. But the American political system is geographically based. Ultimately, I vote in a primary, I vote in an election, I donate to people I like. But that’s not where the work is. These people are not messiahs. AOC’s one person in a large Congress, and she’s in a party that has the minority. So it really should only take a tiny amount of my brain space.

What really matters is how we are organizing in other realms to change conditions or to spread different ideas. That’s why I’ve stayed dedicated to the Debt Collective for all these years—it’s a space where I can help build power with other people and change the political conversation and maybe change the political terrain.

But sometimes we spend too much time on the horse race and expect too much of people who are in these elected positions, when what we need to do is continue to work so that they actually are able to exercise more power in the ways that we want them to.

Bacon: Great place to end. Astra, tell people where they can find your work—I know you’re on social media and so on.

Taylor: On all of the platforms that are bad. But really, what I want people to do is: If you have debt, or if you consider yourself an ally of people who lack wealth, join the Debt Collective. That’s my top request all the time.

Bacon: Astra, thanks for joining me. I appreciate it. Good to see you.

Taylor: Thanks for having me.

Trump gloated that a deal to end the war was complete on his 80th birthday on Sunday. “I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade,” he wrote on Truth Social.

But despite the president’s insinuation that he had just created peace and opened a vital trade route with one social media post, the deal isn’t actually done. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Trump is actually hoping to open the Strait and finish his peace deal on Friday. Trump appropriately backtracked in comments to reporters. “Ships are starting to go out now, and on Friday it will be completely opened,” he said.

And Trump may still be promising a shorter timeline than he can actually achieve. Senior U.S. officials told reporters on Monday that it could take over two weeks for the strait to fully open. The officials also said the text of the deal between the U.S. and Iran would be released by Wednesday—Trump said he expected it to be released Friday.

But the inconsistent statements don’t end there. While the White House has been saying for weeks that Iran won’t get financial relief until it dismantles its nuclear capabilities, Trump said on Sunday that the nation will be allowed to export oil and open its ports immediately after the peace deal is signed. Iran has alleged the deal will give it a whopping $12 billion in relief before negotiations even begin, and that the U.S. has agreed to support reconstruction efforts worth $300 billion down the line. American officials have denied this.

Trump’s contradictory messaging, as well as his perceived reconciliation with Iran, has annoyed Netanyahu—one source told the Journal the Israeli leader is seeking a meeting with the president ASAP—and Republicans back home, who have criticized the president’s refusal to release the details of the peace deal he claims is complete.

“If you want people to stop speculating about the [Memorandum of Understanding], release the MOU,” Fox News host Mark Levin wrote on X. “Don’t brief a few anointed ones to control the narrative and expect everyone else to sit silently. That’s not how our country works.… Controlling the narrative can only last so long.”

The editors of National Review, a conservative magazine frequently critical of Trump, chimed in with an op-ed titled, “Release the Text of the Iran Deal,” lambasting the president for the disparities between his public statements and those from Iran.

“There is the possibility that Trump would return the U.S. to Obama’s failed Iran deal that Trump rightfully tore up in his first term, which would have all the makings of a humiliation after all of the president’s tough talk,” the piece reads.

No less than James Lindsay, an author and mathematician who made a name for himself posting far-right conspiracy theories on social media, called the agreement a “very bad deal built on a very fundamental misconception.”

President Trump said on Monday that “the deal is already signed and the strait is already partially opened,” referring to the Strait of Hormuz. “Ships are starting to go out now, and on Friday it will be completely opened.” But senior U.S. officials told The Wall Street Journal at the same time that it could take over two weeks for normal shipping traffic to resume in the strait. On top of that, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry said that a “maritime service fee” would still be charged for ships traversing the strait.

Those same U.S. officials also said that the full text of the deal would be released within two days, contradicting Trump, who said he expected the full text of the deal to be released by Friday.

A major sticking point for Iran, the end of Israeli strikes on Lebanon, is being disputed by Israeli officials. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said Monday that the Israel Defense Forces wouldn’t withdraw from southern Lebanon, and far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said that “Israel is not subordinate to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign state.”

“We must not withdraw from any territory that our fighters have occupied and cleared of terrorist infrastructure,” Ben-Gvir added. Trump already criticized Israel on Sunday for airstrikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut “on a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran.”

Trump and Vice President JD Vance digitally signed the tentative deal on Sunday, and a formal signing ceremony is scheduled to take place in Switzerland on Friday. But no U.S. allies in Europe, or the G7, have seen the full text, nor has Israel or anyone in Congress. Their objections could still hamstring the agreement, especially if Trump has made unacceptable concessions.

A top Alaskan election official ruled Monday that a man sharing the same name as Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan is ineligible to participate in the Last Frontier State’s Senate primary in August.

In a letter addressed to the challenging Sullivan, Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher wrote that his declaration of candidacy was “not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality.”

Beecher said she had reached that conclusion based on evidence that the 69-year-old retired teacher had “never used” the moniker Dan Sullivan and had similarly “never before professed” a Republican Party affiliation.

“Indeed, I conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is that you chose this new nickname and party affiliation because that name and party affiliation happen to be the name and party affiliation of another candidate in the race,” Beecher wrote.

She added that he had 30 days to appeal the decision but noted that ballots for the August primary would be printed on June 28, a timeline that will likely shut him out of the race altogether.

The new Sullivan filed to run as a Republican in the Senate primary last month, days before the filing deadline. State Republicans have since argued that Sullivan worked with Democrats to cook up the scheme, accusing him of attempting to snatch votes from the two-term senator in a flagrant bid to aid Mary Peltola, a former U.S. representative and the leading Democrat on the ballot.

In a social media post Sunday, Sullivan said he believed he “met the qualification” to run.

“I entered this race because I am unhappy with the 12 year record of the current Senator and I feel we need a change,” he wrote. “It’s that simple.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is looking to schedule an immediate meeting with Trump, likely back in Washington, a person familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal Monday.

There is just no way that Netanyahu is thrilled about Trump’s plan to stop bombing Iran, something the Israeli leader has been dreaming about for decades.

It was Netanyahu who pulled the United States into this “joint” conflict, selling the narrative that Iran was building nuclear weapons—even when U.S. intelligence confirmed there was no imminent threat. In the early days of the war, Secretary Marco Rubio admitted that the U.S. went to war because the administration “knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces.”

If Trump ends the war now, Netanyahu won’t walk away with anything. It’s unclear what the exact terms of the peace deal are—or whether any firm commitments have been made at all—but the U.S. has failed to satisfy Israeli objectives to execute regime change, undermine regional militias, or significantly upend Iranian missile production.

It’s also not clear what this deal will mean for Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon. On a phone call Monday, U.S. senior officials made clear that an Israeli withdrawal was not a condition of the deal, and that if Iran was not able to control Hezbollah, then Israel would have the right to respond.

Israeli officials were quick to condemn Trump’s deal with Iran, The Washington Post reported earlier Monday.

Itamar Ben Gvir, Netanyahu’s national security minister and an influential far-right leader, slammed the deal on social media. “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subject to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign country,” he wrote on X. Of course, Israel’s and U.S. military efforts are thoroughly linked.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, another far-right member of Netanyahu’s coalition, said that Trump’s agreement was “bad for Israel and the entire free world. Period.”

In spite of the GOP’s well-worn insistence on federal frugality, some conservative lawmakers are suddenly in favor of the Trump administration’s reported plan to provide hundreds of billions in reconstructive aid to Iran.

In an interview with Fox News Monday, Florida Representative Brian Mast defended the expense on the basis that “we destroyed so much.”

“OK, maybe they do end up getting $20 billion, let’s say—we’re still $300 to $500 billion ahead considering we destroyed their Navy, destroyed their Air Force, destroyed all those nuclear facilities I already spoke about, their steel manufacturing, their drone manufacturing,” Mast said.

“We destroyed all that, and closed their ports,” he added. “We’re pretty far ahead.”

Rep. Brian Mast: "Ok, maybe they do end up getting $20 billion, let's say. Let's say we're still $300 to $500 billion ahead considering we destroyed their navy, destroyed their air force ... "

(So American taxpayers paid both to bomb Iran and then for Iran's reconstruction ... ) pic.twitter.com/kYNSNs4zhu

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 15, 2026

The White House and Tehran have already signed a peace deal, though the exact specifications of the agreement have not yet been revealed (and are still being hashed out). The final draft reportedly proposes the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz under Iran’s direction, a commitment from the U.S. not to interfere in Iranian affairs, and a reiteration of Iran’s commitment not to produce nuclear weapons, echoing language included in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, according to a senior Iranian official who spoke with Reuters.

The most contentious point of the plan, however, is a reported $300 billion reconstruction fund, as well as billions more in unfrozen Iranian assets and forfeited sanctions—all of which will be bankrolled by U.S. taxpayers.

That’s nearly 160 percent of the financial investment that the U.S. has put into Ukraine since Russia attacked it in 2022. That sum hovers around $188 billion, according to the U.S. special inspector general for Operation Atlantic Resolve.

Speaking with the media with French President Emmanuel Macron Monday, Trump was struggling to keep his eyes open as Macron praised the developments on peace with Iran, even as Macron often turned to Trump to acknowledge his efforts.

get a load of Trump's drowsy body language during this Macron meeting pic.twitter.com/gQkFjUlXDb

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 15, 2026

Later, appearing outdoors with Macron and his wife, Brigitte, Trump looked tired and his right hand appeared swollen and discolored.

check out how swollen and discolored Trump's right hand is pic.twitter.com/jU6QNgIJpa

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 15, 2026

The UFC event lasted until well after 1 a.m. early Monday morning as fireworks went off over Washington, D.C. Trump headed to the G7 just hours later, meaning his only time to sleep (aside from the nap he took during the UFC fight) would have been on Air Force One as it flew to France. As we learned from Secretary of State Marco Rubio earlier this month, Trump is up at all hours of the night and usually doesn’t sleep much on plane flights, either.

This and jetlag likely exacerbated his tendency to fall asleep even during normal workdays. Trump is clearly not well, and holding an excessive birthday party (sorry, a “Freedom 250” event) until the wee hours of the morning didn’t leave him at his best to meet with Macron. If this is what the public is seeing, how much worse is Trump doing in private?

Newsom released a video statement saying he’d been added to Trump’s “hit list,” claiming that federal investigators had launched a probe into him because he was considering a presidential run in 2028.

“In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the doors of family, friends, and former employees. Not because they found a crime. Because they are simply trying to find one,” Newsom said.

“They’re demanding records. They are abusing the grand jury process. Digging through years and years of random documents,” Newsom said. “Donald Trump isn’t just coming after me because of my mean tweets. He’s coming after me because I am considering running for president.”

Newsom claimed that federal investigators were also investigating his wife, actress and activist Jennifer Siebel Newsom, “who has done nothing wrong, other than having the temerity to advocate for what she believes in.”

There are actually several ongoing investigations related to Newsom, a source familiar with the situation told Semafor’s Shelby Talcott. The investigations reportedly involve his wife’s taxes and his chief of staff Nathan Barankin. Those did not originate from the main DOJ but stem from Sacramento, involving whistleblowers, according to the source.

This revelation comes a year after Trump threatened to have Newsom arrested, amid an escalating feud about the president’s illegal deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles.

Trump has bragged about his supposed “right” to weaponize the Department of Justice, and openly directed the DOJ to investigate his political enemies New York Attorney General Letitia James, Senator Adam Schiff, and former FBI Director James Comey. All of those cases crashed and burned.

Trump had also been investigating former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, although he dropped the case in order to get Powell’s replacement approved by the Senate. It’s not clear that the administration won’t resume targeting Powell.

And just a week ago, Vice President JD Vance referred Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to the DOJ for a criminal investigation into allegations of fraud.

This story has been updated.

Financial disclosures submitted to the Office of Government Ethics and dissected by CBS News show that accounts owned by President Donald Trump made 3,642 stock trades from January to March this year.

Trump and Israel began a war in Iran during this period. There was civil unrest too, as two American citizens were killed on the street and others died in custody during Trump’s violent immigration crackdown. Many of Trump’s trades coincided with White House policy directives and Trump making public statements about the companies.

While the monetary value of the trades depend on how each stock is valued now and in the future, CBS puts the minimum valuation of Trump’s trades at $212 million and the maximum at a whopping $695 million. The disclosures show that Trump’s favorite place to buy and sell stocks is the technology sector, followed by exchange-traded funds and the industrial industry. Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Netflix, Advanced Micro Devices, and Oracle were Trump’s most traded stocks.

Politicians trading stocks while in office has been a questionable practice for a long time. Conflicts of interest can easily arise, as politicians can profit by supporting legislation that benefits their investments. The American people, for one, are clear in their opinion: 86 percent think politicians should be banned from trading stocks while in office. Online tools tracking politicians’ trades have also become popular.

The most powerful person in the nation trading at such a massive scale presents even more opportunity for corruption. An investment professional told CBS he had “never seen a strategy out there that would warrant that amount of trading.” Another expert said the trading looked to be an attempt to lower Trump’s tax bill. Senator Elizabeth Warren called for an investigation into “potential insider trading” by the president, in response to the disclosures.

Trump verbally supported a congressional stock trading ban in February and bashed high-profile Democrats who trade stocks, such as former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. But presumably the president thinks he himself should still get to trade as much as he wants.

Such insider trading scandals could plague the president once he departs office. Even before then, Democrats could embrace a stronger anti-corruption stance and open investigations into some of his shady dealings if they can snag congressional majorities in November.

Trump announced Monday that he plans to mark the Fourth of July with a “Trump Rally” designed to celebrate the president’s ego more than the country he’s running into the ground.  

It seems that Trump has had enough of celebrity musical acts canceling on him. Instead, the president is turning to the only acts that can’t bail: military bands and ceremonial units. “This ensemble will be the largest formation of Joint Military Music and Ceremonial performances in History,” he wrote. 

Trump also teased an appearance from his personal playlist that would have “none of those people that put you to sleep and constantly complain!” Meanwhile, the original website announcing several days of concerts as part of Trump’s Great American State Fair has been completely removed. 

And anyone with a flight in or out of Washington, D.C., on July 4 should look into rescheduling. Trump promised even more “incredible Flyovers and Airshows,” even after the similar festivities for his birthday disrupted local air traffic.

“To conclude the program, and commemorate this Historic Occasion, I will be launching, what will be, the LARGEST FIREWORKS SHOW IN HISTORY, right here in our Nation’s Capital,” Trump wrote. 

Trump also promised to deliver a keynote address that is sure to be wildly political. The president has previously used major addresses to push dangerous partisan rhetoric.

Simply put: This bread is dry, and these circuses are lame! 

Vice President JD Vance was asked on CNBC Monday about Trump’s claim that the strait will fully reopen under the tentative deal with Iran, and his words exposed the truth.

“Well, our expectation is that the strait is going to be opened in a toll-free way for the long term, and that’s the sort of thing that we’re going to figure out in these technical negotiations. You know, there are a lot of very important details to figure out that we’re actually going to sit at the table and discuss together, and figure out a path forward on these details,” Vance said, revealing that nothing has actually been decided yet.

🚨 Wow. JD Vance sidesteps confirming a long-term, toll-free reopening of the Strait of Hormuz by stating that those details would be determined in upcoming technical negotiations:

“Well, our expectation is that the strait is going to be opened in a toll-free way for the long… pic.twitter.com/h6qxL4WbQm

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) June 15, 2026

Shortly after Vance’s interview, Trump announced that the U.S. and Iran had both signed the memorandum of understanding. But the text is still not public—with Trump saying it may be released “some time after Friday” or “some time in the very near future.”

When Trump announced the peace deal with Iran on Sunday, he said that he fully authorized “the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!”

On Monday, Trump claimed that ship traffic had returned to the strait, but Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said that fees would still be charged for ships traversing the strait.

“Our goal is to pave the way for a secure passage in this waterway,” Baghaei said. “We need a certain period of time to discuss with the other sides this important matter.”

All of this indicates that a return to how the strait ran before the war is still weeks and months away, with an actual agreement between Iran and the U.S. far from settled.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was caught in his own lie by CBS News’s Margaret Brennan, who reminded him Sunday that America’s depleted missile stockpile was not a media fabrication but actually a material reality that he testified to before Congress.

“​​Ukraine’s President Zelenskiy was on this program a few weeks ago,” Brennan said. “He made a plea, not just for more interceptors, but for the ability to produce them, for friendly governments to be able to produce Patriots. Some Republican lawmakers support this idea. Do you?”

“Nobody makes better and more munitions than the United States of America, and we are open to co-production wherever we can,” Hegseth said.

“And because of this administration, we’re supercharging our arsenal of freedom, building more, building faster, opening up the Pentagon, ripping through the Pentagon bureaucracy to force industry to move faster so—” the secretary added before Brennan interjected.

“But there is a crisis with those stockpiles right now?” pressed Brennan. “There is a crisis with those stockpiles right now in private industry. You have testified to it in front of Congress.”

“No there’s not,” Hegseth replied. “That is a manufactured story that the media wants to peddle. And ultimately, we are, our stockpiles are great, and they’ll only get stronger,” he continued, before Brennan pressed again that Hegseth had testified under oath that it would take years to rebuild U.S. munitions stockpiles.

“You don’t have to read back to me what I testified, I speculated some munitions take more time than others,” Hegseth said. “We’ve got lots of them, we’re building more than ever before. The Biden administration gave away hundreds of billions to Ukraine, and so President Trump had to refill, and he has, and we have in real time.”

“So, the answer to Zelenskiy’s request is a no or a yes?” asked Brennan, regarding Ukraine’s ability to produce Patriot systems.

But Hegseth dodged the question.

“Ultimately, we’ve worked with them, and Ukraine is buying munitions that Europe pays for, and it’s great to see Europe finally step up and pay for those,” he responded.

BRENNAN: But there is a crisis with those weapons stockpiles right now

HEGSETH: No there is not. That is a manufactured story that the media wants to peddle

BRENNAN: You have testified to it in front of Congress

HEGSETH: You don't have to read back to me what I testified pic.twitter.com/sxqM9l4Lca

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 14, 2026

Mere days into the Iran war, Hegseth appeared before U.S. lawmakers alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine in a closed-door meeting that reportedly discussed the rapid decline in America’s long-range precision-guided missile supplies.

At the time, the two Defense officials relayed that the U.S. had used a considerable amount of its wildly expensive interceptor missiles to thwart Iran’s seemingly infinite supply of Shahed attack drones.

By late April, the Pentagon had used at least 45 percent of its Precision Strike Missile stockpile, at least half of its THAAD missiles, and nearly 50 percent of its Patriot air defense interceptor missiles, according to a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The White House has, nonetheless, invariably insisted that U.S. munitions are well stocked.

“I’m probably going to get a lot of flak for bringing this to light, however I refuse to stay silent,” Cormier wrote. “The UFC is a sport that I am deeply passionate about. I will not tolerate this type of insider behavior. Shame on anyone trying to ruin this beautiful event.”

Cormier quickly deleted the post, but it was captured by many online, including a few journalists. The younger Trump claimed the screenshots were “AI generated,” that he has never spoken to Cormier, and that the fighter deleting his post was proof the messages were “clearly fabricated.” But Trump’s denial raises more questions than it answers. (Trump recently deleted this post as well, while leaving up other vague rebuttals.)

First off, Cormier deleting the post has no bearing on whether the messages are real or not. Using that as an excuse is obviously weak. Trump also insinuated that Cormier was unaware the messages were fake—but the messages included those sent by Cormier, and Cormier himself posted them! So that also doesn’t make much sense.

Cormier intentionally posting fake messages also doesn’t add up. He is currently a UFC commentator, as well as a coach. Fabricating something like this would destroy all his professional credibility and probably get him fired. And for what—to create a minor scandal for Eric Trump that he probably wouldn’t face any repercussions for anyway? The younger Trump is already no stranger to grifting through shady crypto deals.

Cormier has now backtracked and said the messages are fake, as well. “I got hacked or something. Who believes stuff like that? That’s crazy,” he told journalist Nicholas Ballasy while leaving the fight. Here is an excerpt of the private messages Cormier tweeted out. You can come to your own conclusions:

TRUMP: You placing any bets?

CORMIER: Nah I’m actually not allowed to bet on any cards or anything.

TRUMP: Are any of the fighters injured that you know of?

CORMIER: I’m not quite sure why you’re asking me this but I think they’re all in good shape..

TRUMP: I’ll just cut to the chase. Are any of the fights tomorrow rigged? I’ve been eyeing the Lopes fight and I think an upset wouldn’t be too unrealistic. $$

CORMIER: No none of our fights rigged and honestly I am appalled that you would even ask me something like that.

“Senator McConnell was admitted to the hospital this morning. He is receiving excellent care,” said McConnell adviser David Popp. The statement did not elaborate on his condition, why he had been transported to the hospital, or where he was receiving care.

The 84-year-old Republican has represented Kentucky in the U.S. Senate for 41 years, since 1985. He also served as the majority leader of the upper chamber from 2015 to 2021.

These are supposed to be McConnell’s final months in office—he is currently set to retire in January, at the end of his seventh term.

But his determination to remain in play on Capitol Hill has also forced him into the limelight through several critical health scares since 2023. In March of that year, McConnell fell at a dinner event at Washington’s Waldorf Astoria hotel, fracturing his rib and suffering a concussion in the process. He fell again in July. He also froze mid-sentence twice that year, dissociating for 20-30 seconds each time, sparking concerns that the aging lawmaker had suffered a stroke.

After assessing McConnell following the freezing bouts, the attending physician at the Capitol declared that he had not suffered from a seizure, stroke, or movement disorder, and the dissociation was more likely tied to the concussion recovery process or possible dehydration.

McConnell fell again in December 2024 at a Senate Republican Conference luncheon, spraining his wrist and cutting his face, and again in October 2025 while on his way to vote in the Capitol. He has since been transported via wheelchair by his aides as a health precaution.

In February, McConnell’s staffers shared that the lawmaker had spent roughly eight days in the hospital for “flu-like symptoms.”

Spoiler alert: There is none. 

Speaking on CBS News’s Face the Nation Sunday, Hegseth struggled to justify what the U.S. had actually won after months and months of mass destruction and global economic turmoil.

“The document says Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, won’t seek one, won’t buy one, won’t have one,” Hegseth explained. 

“JCPOA said that too,” host Margaret Brennan pointed out.

Pretty much verbatim, actually. The preface of Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal states: “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” 

Hegseth scrambled to defend the new deal. 

“But they didn’t have the threat of military force the way that we do that Iran respects in a very—in a way that their regime is more devastated, more devastating, excuse me, more devastated than it’s ever been in its 47 years, and that’s why they’re at the table,” he ranted incoherently. 

HEGSETH: The document says Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, won't seek one, won't buy one, won't have one

BRENNAN: The JCPOA said that too

HEGSETH: But they didn't have the threat of military force the way we do that Iran respects. President Trump led with military might. pic.twitter.com/PQcS6hHhEe

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 14, 2026

“The huge difference is, we did this from a position of strength. President Trump led with military might,” Hegseth added. “That military might will stay as long as necessary.”

But let’s assess that military might, shall we? It will take at least three years and an estimated  $24 billion for the United States to replace the munitions it expended during Trump’s military campaign against Iran. A recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated a multiyear “window of vulnerability” for the United States in potential future conflicts. Hegseth denied that there were any shortages in the U.S. weapons stockpile. 

More to the point, the U.S. has demonstrated our unique powerlessness in the face of a regime that has been reminded it can control the Strait of Hormuz. 

And as for Iran’s regime, it’s far from being “devastated.” Not only was there no regime change, but the regime has arguably gotten even more extreme—and Trump is still ready to hand it billions of dollars.

It’s increasingly apparent that Trump pulled out of the JCPOA only to drag the United States into an expensive war that no one voted for and then walk away with an identical deal. The major difference this time? One $300 billion check for Tehran to rebuild everything Trump destroyed.

Vance was asked by CBS’s Ed O’Keefe Monday morning about whether the rumored detail was true, and he said that it could be possible if Iran adheres to the agreement.

“That’s the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the Gulf coast coalition, so long as they honor their end of the obligation,” Vance said. He noted that Iranian officials and media would be emphasizing the benefits they receive from the deal as opposed to what they concede.

CBS: The Iranians are saying they're gonna have access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund. True or false?

JD VANCE: That's the sort of things they could have access to so long as they honor their end of the obligation pic.twitter.com/30Ip8CGItn

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 15, 2026

Vance’s admission contradicts what he said on Friday, when he claimed in an X post that Iran would not be “receiving any cash, and no funds are being released simply for signing a deal or attending a meeting.” In addition to the U.S. and its allies paying $300 billion in reconstruction funds, Iran reports that the U.S. has agreed to release $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets.

Conservatives, including Trump and Vance, have long criticized the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal, which involved the U.S. lifting sanctions and sending Iran $1.7 billion to settle decades-old failed contracts between the two countries.

That deal was also succeeding, with international observers stating that Iran was adhering to all its nuclear terms. It was Trump who decided to break it in his first term and then start a war with Iran in his second. Now, he’s only pushing a deal because his efforts are failing spectacularly, costing money, innocent lives, and American credibility.

All flights at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport were “paused” Sunday evening due to the president’s birthday celebration, according to Clara-Sophia Daly, an immigration reporter for Mission Local in San Francisco.

“The air traffic controllers were not warned, nor were the airport staff or travelers,” Daly wrote on X Sunday night, after her own flight was severely delayed. The pilot said the delay was “one of the most frustrating things I’ve experienced in 20 years of aviation,” according to Daly.

“The pilot says the reason given for the shutdown is that there is going to be some kind of military jet air show above the White House,” she wrote in another post.

In the skies above Trump’s UFC fight, the U.S. military mounted an extravagant air show for the president, including a formation of the Navy’s Blue Angels and Air Force Thunderbirds, as well as an appearance from a B1-B Lancer, a heavy long-range bomber.

Aaron Parnas had a different theory, however. MeidasTouch previously reported that a commercial airline pilot filed aviation safety reports after being exposed to the powerful lighting used during the construction of the UFC octagon on the White House grounds upon their descent into DCA.

“This confirms my reporting with @MeidasTouch—pilots were being blinded by the UFC octagon, and now, based on this tweet, all flights have been paused because of it,” Parnas wrote on X in response to Daly’s thread.

These reports raise serious concerns about the coordination between the White House and aviation authorities, and underscored just how little Trump cares about the American people as he threw himself a $60 million party at the taxpayer’s expense.

The president declared on Truth Social Monday that any work to renew FISA Section 702, a statute that allows federal agencies such as the NSA and the CIA to surveil foreigners on U.S. soil without warrants, must be passed alongside his voter ID bill, the SAVE America Act.

That legislative measure sparked nationwide controversy earlier this year, particularly over a detail in the bill that would have made it more difficult for married women to vote. The backlash on Capitol Hill was grave, so much so that it gummed up efforts to fund Homeland Security for several months. Republicans eventually had to bail on the package to end the congressional gridlock.

The SAVE America Act suggests numerous amendments to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, including line items that would abolish mail-in voting, require voters to bring proof of citizenship and proof of residency to register to vote, require voter ID, and mandate voter roll purges every 30 days—an enormous bureaucratic task that would place undue burdens on local election officials. The measure would also add a federal law to prevent men from competing in women’s sports, and a ban on “transgender mutilation surgery.”

Last week, Democrats logjammed conservative efforts to renew the FISA section in direct protest against the president’s temporary pick to run national intelligence, real estate developer Bill Pulte, who they argued had run afoul of the law by accepting the position. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence explicitly, legally requires its chiefs to have national security experience.

As a result, the spy bill expired on Friday, and Republicans were able to convince Trump to withdraw Pulte and nominate a new—if equally unqualified—candidate for the job. That man was Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who would also come to Washington with zero national security experience.

Yet as he gears up for his initial committee hearing Wednesday, Democrats have signaled that they might actually be willing to work with Clayton. Senate Intelligence Ranking Member Mark Warner—a Democratic lawmaker from Virginia—told CBS News on Sunday that he’s interested in confirming Clayton as quickly as possible to advance talks to renew the FISA section.

“Israel is not subordinate to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign state,” said Israel’s right-wing National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has called for the flattening of Beirut and the kidnapping of Lebanese women and children. “We must not withdraw from any territory that our fighters have occupied and cleared of terrorist infrastructure,” he added. Defense Minister Israel Katz also declared that the Israel Defense Forces would remain in Lebanon “indefinitely.”

“The area will be cleared of local residents and all terrorist infrastructure, above and below ground—including the houses in the contact villages that served as terrorist outposts—will be destroyed,” he said.

These statements make President Trump’s Sunday announcement of a deal ending the war all the more tenuous, as a final deal isn’t scheduled to be signed until Friday. Trump already rebuked Israel on Sunday for bombing Beirut “on a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran.”

Nearly 3,800 people have been killed in Lebanon since March 2, with nearly 12,000 injured and over a million displaced.

Some officials pushing President Trump’s mass deportation agenda, chiefly White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, wanted to get rid of the key right, which compels the government to explain in court why it has detained a person. Miller’s goal was to prevent immigrants in government custody from receiving hearings or court orders blocking their deportation.

This idea alarmed others in the Trump administration, who saw it as legally weak and likely to be overturned in court. Among them was Will Scharf, a right-wing lawyer serving as White House staff secretary, who was the last person who saw paperwork before it reached the president’s desk.

In April, Scharf wrote a secret memo to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles warning of the dangers of suspending habeas corpus, pointing out its legal pitfalls. He also wrote another memo to Wiles warning against invoking the Insurrection Act, another legally questionable idea pushed by some in the administration, including Miller.

In October, Scharf wrote a memo against invoking the act, saying that it “serves as a break-the-glass exception to the traditional, general prohibition on the use of the military in the domestic setting.” He pointed out that it was last used in 1992 during riots in Los Angeles at the request of the California governor, and its invocation would be unprecedented to use against immigration protesters.

After Alex Pretti was killed by federal agents in Minnesota in January, administration officials, led by Vice President JD Vance and Miller, revived the idea of using the Insurrection Act. Ultimately, it wasn’t invoked, and the government also did not suspend habeas corpus.

But the Trump administration has still continued to use authoritarian means to implement the president’s mass deportations, treating immigrants who have been in the country for decades as if they have just shown up at a U.S. border. The fact that Trump has not resorted to extreme legal arguments is only a minor victory as violent deportations and draconian immigration policies continue, as he considers federal courts inconvenient obstacles rather than a constitutionally mandated check on his power.

“Fuck the speech. Aye, shoutout to Trump for having the balls to put some shit like this on,” Josh Hokit said to Joe Rogan after his second-round knockout of Derrick Lewis at Sunday’s America 250 fight night. “And if I’m gonna say anything, there’s only one person more incredible than the incredible hulk, and that’s my lord and Savior Jesus Christ.… And lastly: Michelle Obama is a man! Am I right, America?” 

“Michelle Obama is a man” shouted on the White House lawn in a ring sponsored by Bud Light only available on Larry Ellison’s Paramount Plus. What a way to celebrate America 250 and the twilight of liberal democracy. pic.twitter.com/MCTjdB3slg

— Tim Miller (@Timodc) June 15, 2026

Hokit was met with a mix of boos and cheers. Another camera showed the president, sitting ringside, reacting to the comment with a light smile. There was no public rebuke or condemnation from anyone present. 

“‘Michelle Obama is a man’ shouted on the White House lawn in a ring sponsored by Bud Light only available on Larry Ellison’s Paramount Plus,” The Bulwark’s Tim Miller posted on X. “What a way to celebrate America 250 and the twilight of liberal democracy.”

The “transvestigation” into Michelle Obama has been a yearslong effort to spite, harass, demoralize, and delegitimize this country’s first Black first lady. Given the other lies Trump has told about her husband, it’s no wonder he found the crass comment humorous.  

“With Joe Rogan smiling along,” said journalist Medhi Hasan. “(Of course I don’t need to bore you all by telling you that if this was an event hosted by a Dem president and someone said this about Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan … well … you know the rest…).” 

Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.

Donald Trump just exploded in fury at Jamie Raskin, calling for him to be expelled from Congress. Trump raged that if Democrats win the House, Raskin will lead the president’s impeachment. In saying this, Trump is accidentally admitting that he cares very much about the prospect of another impeachment. In fact, he’s meanwhile reportedly trying to get Republicans to expunge his two past impeachments, indicating how much they eat away at him.

All this hands Democrats a weapon. They should say, Mr. President, if we win the House, we absolutely will hold you accountable. And that raises a question: What can a Democratic House really do to hold Trump accountable, anyway? What should it look like?

We’re talking about all of it with Andy Craig, a senior editor at The UnPopulist, who often thinks creatively on this topic. Andy, good to have you on.

Andy Craig: Good to be with you, Greg.

Sargent: So let’s start with Trump’s explosion at Congressman Jamie Raskin. It kind of came out of nowhere. He posted this:

“Jamie Raskin, a Loser in Life, who worked endlessly during my First Term to impeach me, will guaranteed be trying to do it again despite one of the most successful Presidencies in history.”

Trump then continues:

“EXPEL THE BUM. Congress can never be great with people like this who suffer massively from Trump Derangement Syndrome, casting their vote of HATE!”

Andy, there’s a lot more of that. What’s your reaction?

Craig: Well, it does show that it’s certainly one of his fixations, that he is thinking already about what will happen in the next Congress. He’s not wrong that it’s very likely he will face another impeachment trial. Even though we’ve seen some reluctance from Hakeem Jeffries and from some Democrats to do another impeachment, the pressure will be too much, because the outrages are just too many and will continue to pile on. And this is one of the tools Congress has, and it does have an effect even if you don’t get to 67 votes in the Senate.

Sargent: Exactly. The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump and his allies are hatching a plan to get GOP lawmakers to vote on a resolution that somehow voids Trump’s impeachments, whatever the hell they think they mean by that. Trump said this to the Journal: “It should be done because I did nothing wrong.” So he’s saying on the record that he thinks his impeachments should be expunged.

But here’s the real kicker. Several GOP lawmakers tell the Journal that such a thing would have a tough time passing. Which means some Republicans in the House don’t want to vote to expunge Trump’s impeachments.

Craig: One of the more normal aspects of this midterm is that they’re always a referendum on the president, and this president is deeply underwater on his approval ratings. So they’re making their political calculus—the last thing they want to do is be dredging up January 6, on which he is still particularly unpopular, or going down that route, or just generally having to be more associated with him.

They want to be on the attack blasting Democrats for whatever they’re going to do. They don’t want to be defending Trump right now, given where the polls are at.

Sargent: So in a way, that’s why Trump’s explosion of fury at Raskin actually reveals weakness and hands Democrats a weapon for the midterms. It’s really a self-own. He’s admitting that he doesn’t want a Democratic House because he will face accountability. So Democrats can say, Trump is plainly afraid of a Democratic House because it will hold him accountable—he’s admitting it himself.

And, Andy, Democrats should say that. Even some Republicans don’t want to vote to protect Trump. And I guarantee you, independents who are already tilting overwhelmingly against Trump right now and hate corruption really want a check on Trump and really want him held accountable. What do you think?

Craig: Right. Well, that’s the campaign strategy decision for Democrats to make in terms of what’s going to maximize their chances in November. But on the merits, the fact is that the shyness away from talk of impeachment isn’t well justified. The polling numbers show it’s not unpopular. It’s not toxic. It’s not something independents and swing voters repel from.

We see a lot of sentiment, understandably, across the board, that people want more elite accountability. The idea that he should get off the hook—whether it’s Trump or whether it’s anybody else, people caught up in the Epstein files—there’s a mood in the air of that kind of thing, where Trump is not immune from this kind of backlash against the sense of elite impunity.

Sargent: I agree 100 percent. So let’s talk about what a Democratic House can actually do. Let’s put aside impeachment for now, although I do think Dems should impeach Trump and many of his top officials.

If you look at oversight and investigations, a quick list would mean much more digging into the Epstein files, serious investigations into how Attorney General Todd Blanche is deciding to prosecute Trump’s critics and how Blanche oversaw the bogus settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS—which granted Trump IRS immunity—[and] serious investigations into the Trump family’s crypto scams and their dealings abroad. That’s just a start. What do you want to see happen on the investigations front?

Craig: Well, the endless litany of outrages in the second term has been so much more extreme in terms of it being a target-rich environment for things to go after. Certainly one thing I’m particularly interested in is the boat strikes campaign. The, frankly, murder that’s going on with that—the commander of Southern Command essentially resigned in protest over this.

I think there’s real digging that needs to be done there with Hegseth and what’s been going on in the military in terms of rationalizing how this is somehow legal, which it obviously isn’t.

Sargent: Andy, let me just jump in and say about that—you could subpoena Pete Hegseth. You could subpoena top defense officials. You could subpoena the ones who are resigning under protest—there’s at least one of them. You could bring them into Congress and question them all under oath. We’re learning every day in dribs and drabs new things about this campaign of murder on the high seas, basically.

And it looks to me like if you were to be able to just dig even a little bit, you’d find an extraordinary lack of any real rationale at the core of this. You might even just find summary executions being carried out just because Trump says, Blow it up. Basically something as really disgusting as that.

Craig: That really gets to the important nuts-and-bolts problem of subpoenas and enforcing them and making them work. This is something Josh Chafetz has written about that I highly recommend people look into. For years now—and we saw this in the first term—congressional subpoenas have tried to be enforced through civil litigation, going to the courts and asking a federal district judge, Will you please make this person show up because Congress subpoenaed them?

That’s not how it should work. Congress is not dependent on the other branches, nor on the other mechanism, which is referral to the Department of Justice for prosecution, which is obviously a dead end also.

Congress really needs to lean into using other tools they have, including its inherent contempt power, where ultimately Congress can arrest somebody on its own say-so, and it’s been done before. Congress can impose financial penalties. Congress can also attach funding fights to this—we won’t fund Pete Hegseth’s own office staff, potentially, or the Executive Office of the President, the White House staff.

There are all kinds of tools that they need to use. But the problem with the litigation is it just drags on for years and years. Even if Congress ultimately wins, it never gets done before there’s been a new presidential election and a new administration comes in.

Sargent: I just want to break up what you said there into two parts and explore each one, because they’re important. The first one is, how do you get a rogue administration to obey subpoenas? You’re essentially saying Congress has got to maximize its own tools to do that. That’s especially true given that this would be up to this administration, up to Todd Blanche—essentially his Department of Justice—to decide whether to enforce subpoenas.

So you have to have Congress exercise something like an imperial power itself and really maximize what it can do to force these subpoenas to be honored, right?

Craig: Absolutely. Congress needs to remember that they are their own branch of government. They have coequal—as it’s often put—powers. When Congress issues a subpoena to somebody, that doesn’t depend on the president agreeing. It doesn’t depend on a court agreeing. That is a binding order that has legal force.

And ultimately, they need to go after people’s bank accounts or even send the sergeant at arms out to haul in, potentially. Along with the other procedural tools they have, like potentially defunding people who aren’t complying with subpoenas.

Sargent: That was the second thing you brought up, which is the act of defunding. I want to try to get at that a little bit more. You’re talking about Congress essentially really using as a hammer the ability to just essentially zap an office. In other words, Congress could essentially say—either to enforce a subpoena or for some other purpose—We’re not funding the White House personnel, we’re not funding this agency, we’re not funding that agency until you do A, B, and C. Correct?

Craig: Absolutely. This goes back to the deep fundamentals of our constitutional system in the English parliaments of the Middle Ages. The power of the purse is the ultimate power. That’s why it’s vested in the legislature. So there are different ways you can structure it and procedurally how you tackle it.

But if nothing else, these appropriations come up every year. They elapse. And Congress can attach conditions saying, if the secretary of defense—and that’s the title to use for him—is refusing to comply with a subpoena, or the White House chief of staff or whatever, then we’re just not going to pay their salary. We’re going to defund their staff. Or there are other tools—you can defund various programs. You have to be willing to kind of take hostages. This ain’t beanbag.

Sargent: A hundred percent. And so let me ask you this. Let’s say the corrupt prosecutions of Trump’s critics really went even further. They’re already absolutely lawless and terrible. But let’s say it kept going. You could theoretically see a Democratic Congress essentially saying, We’re not funding that U.S. attorney’s office anymore. Isn’t that a valid tool?

Craig: Absolutely. That’s what it’s there for. We’re not going to have King Charles I ruling without Parliament and funding his own prosecution of critics and that kind of thing. There are some appropriations where there are fights you’ll have to have about trying to claw it back because they’re standing appropriations, they automatically renew, that kind of thing.

But most things, including exactly that—the U.S. attorney’s office that’s going after somebody, or anything like that, the whole DOJ—those are on the annual appropriations. They will expire if Congress doesn’t get its act together and pass something.

Sargent: I want to hone in on your big point enmeshed in all that, which is basically that this sort of act would, if in a sustained way carried out, be a way of restoring integrity to our constitutional system. It’s worth pointing out that Trump’s abuses are heavily, heavily dependent on Congress utterly checking out of the business of oversight and lawmaking and everything, really.

Republicans have neutered themselves, neutered the Congress. That is part of the reason we’ve got this unchecked lawless presidency running rampage everywhere.

If we did what you’re talking about, you’d really be restoring balance to the system in a fundamental way. It wouldn’t be that Congress is overreaching. It would be Congress is bringing balance back to the system. Can you talk about that?

Craig: Yes. This is the core Madisonian checks and balances. These are the powers Congress is supposed to have. Like so many things, this problem predates Trump. The imperial presidency has been gaining power and Congress has been becoming more dysfunctional and more passive and not being as assertive as it should be going back decades. But as with so many other things we see, this is Trump coming in and turning it up to 11.

We’ve created a presidency that is this kind of turnkey tyranny, where it can outrun what even the courts can keep up with. But on a fundamental level, the big-picture political accountability for a lawless executive branch can only come from Congress.

Sargent: OK, so let’s just imagine that Democrats win one or both chambers of Congress. It’s most likely that they’ll win the House and not the Senate, but it is possible that they’ll win both—or it’s possible that they’ll win neither, but they probably will win one or both.

So what happens if they do something approaching your vision of this? Do we really just see this fundamental shift in how the government is essentially functioning? What would it look like in a day-to-day, week-to-week way? What would the American people be seeing?

Craig: Well, there are historical precedents, and the biggest one would be what happened when Andrew Johnson was president after Lincoln during Reconstruction. And Congress was able to act more aggressively because they had Republican supermajorities—the South was unrepresented.

What you can do with simple majorities can sometimes be more modest. But even then, what they essentially did is Congress took over reining in the government. It passed laws instructing the Cabinet secretaries what to do. It passed laws against Johnson firing them, which is what got him impeached and within one vote of getting removed from office.

We’re not going to have a parliamentary system—it’s not going to look like the United Kingdom where the executive merges into the legislature. We do have an independently elected president. There are certain constitutional powers that the president has.

But Congress is the preeminent branch. Congress is the voice of the people. The president is not the sovereign tribune of the American people. Our elected representatives are the ones who have those powers. They can pass laws and use their various tools to pretty directly reduce, in some ways at least, the presidency to a much more constrained role, where there are legal guardrails on what the executive branch agencies, the Cabinet departments, the secretaries, the heads of these agencies are obligated to do. And to craft that in ways that it’s enforceable, both through the courts and by Congress following up with oversight.

Sargent: It would really be something else if Democrats would actually go through with that. Of course, for a whole bunch of reasons, they might not, or they might adopt something in between. That’s a topic for another pod.

But just to close out here, when Donald Trump explodes in fury because he might be held accountable by a Democratic Congress, it makes me wonder—why don’t Democrats right now go out there and talk the way you’re talking? Maybe not exactly saying that this will be an imperial Congress, but saying something along the lines of, This is an absolutely out-of-control chief executive and that is having an enormously damaging effect in this country and the whole world. And if you put us in charge of Congress, we will rebalance. We will hold this guy accountable. We’ll put guardrails on him. We’ll restore balance and sanity to this system. They should get their heads to this place and talk that way, right?

Craig: Yes.… You can have the political strategy arguments about how many votes will this get and what the polls say. There’s pretty solid evidence that this is a winning message. But also what it does is it amounts to a kind of precommitment. It shows that if and when they win, that this is the public mandate they have.

When you’re talking about impeachment in particular, even if you cannot get to a major supermajority in the Senate to convict, it’s a kind of censure with teeth. Do you want to be out there hammering these issues, exposing the wrongdoing, creating the historical record, and showing that you’re doing what you can?

Or are you going to just kind of roll over with a defeatist, Well, he’s not going to get removed from office anyway, so what’s the point? I think that’s entirely the wrong attitude, and it’s learning the wrong lessons from what happened in the last two impeachments.

Sargent: I could not agree more. Andy Craig, I really hope Democrats are listening to you on this. Anyway, folks, if you enjoyed this, check out Andy’s work over at The UnPopulist. He thinks about this stuff very creatively, very frequently. Andy, thanks so much for coming on.

Craig: Thanks.

What’s novel about this coming-out is not that Biden, who has been through the wringer, now abstains from alcohol and drugs. Teetotaling in public life is extremely common. Instead, the surprise is that he’s expressing a moral ideal we haven’t seen in U.S. politics in a long, long time: a form of sobriety that is much more appealing than mere abstinence from drugs and alcohol.

Alcoholics Anonymous, which Biden has participated in, sees sobriety as a kind of sacred condition, one contingent on much more than a person’s blood alcohol content. Sobriety requires a daily commitment to a set of moral and spiritual precepts, including honesty, humility, accountability, solidarity, and service.

By contrast, a “dry drunk,” in A.A.’s terms, is an alcoholic who doesn’t drink but hasn’t undergone the wholesale psychic change that is both the price and the dividend of A.A.

The logic adds up. Dry drunks must manfully resist the temptation to drink, and thus often feel deprived, like a person on a highly restrictive diet. You can think of a dry drunk as always hangry, always stuck in traffic without A.C., always quietly fuming about what the world has denied him—from career success to a hit of the crack pipe to the adulation of the whole world. Out of this sense of deprivation, dry drunks variously retreat into self-loathing, approach others with fear, or lash out in anger.

We’ve had 18 years of dry drunks in the White House, with a reprieve only with Obama, who drank in moderation. With George W. Bush, Joe Biden, and now Donald Trump, none of whom touched a drop as president, it might be that dry drunkery, in which suppressed demons come out sideways, has become the ranking paradigm of moral character. For most of this century, then, Americans have not seen a president with a temperament worth aspiring to.

George W. Bush drank heavily for decades and gave it up when he was born again at 40. Fine. But as president, he was given to saber-rattling and warmongering that many in A.A. consider to be at steep odds with Twelve Step sobriety. Likewise, Joe Biden, who abstained, citing family history, could often be what my sober friend Beau Friedlander calls a “crispy critter”—prone to defensiveness and snippiness. Unwisely deciding to stay in the 2024 race suggests that Biden lacks the humility and self-awareness that is key to real sobriety.

And then there’s Trump. He has always maintained that he doesn’t smoke or drink, for fear of ending up like his older brother, an alcoholic who died young. And while he has periodically taken Ambien, a sedative-hypnotic tightly controlled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, and while allegations of further drug use are rampant, Trump doesn’t come off like an active addict.

Instead, he’s a quintessential dry drunk. Feeling deprived, Trump has made a career of copping resentments, indulging in self-pity, and striking out in frustration at those who least deserve it. Members of A.A. are taught to be wary of exactly the “willpower” dry drunks like Trump pride themselves on; sobriety requires letting go of alcoholic impulses, not repressing them.

All of this comes to mind just about every time the president speaks. During his interview with Kristen Welker on Meet the Press Sunday, he later recalled, he was driven to rage by the sound of the rain on the roof. The man is nearly 80, and anyone with a modicum of serenity should be soothed and not enraged by the sound of rain.

But he also seemed to be scanning his mind for someone to blame for his discomfort, someone to hate. “They’re crooked,” he said of one of his imagined foes, “just like you’re crooked.” Welker calmly replied, “I’m not crooked.” Trump then shot back, “You’re either crooked or you’re stupid!” Before he stormed out, stepping on his mic, he added maniacally, “Thank you darling! Have a good time!” Whether he drinks or not, this is not a sober man.

Sobriety proceeds a day at a time, and it’s hard to know what Hunter Biden’s interior life is like these days.

On the one hand, Biden has exhibited real candor and willingness to help others in his recent tweets and interviews. On the other hand, it’s not clear how close he stays to the moral demands of true sobriety. “I know what I’ve done, I know the amends I have to make,” he now says. But Lunden Roberts, the mother of one of Hunter’s children, has written movingly and without rancor about raising their daughter in Arkansas while Biden first refused to acknowledge his child, then paid less than expected in support, then seemed to ghost his daughter. Making a complete amends to one’s children and partners is usually considered a first step toward lasting sobriety.

As Hunter Biden would surely be the first to attest, the path to sobriety is winding and difficult, and, as A.A. says, “We seek progress, not perfection.” Biden’s voice is welcome in the public sphere, and not for the zingers. Rather, he has opened the possibility—just the possibility—that with attention to our moral responsibilities we Americans might one day find a less furious, more honest, and more charitable way to live.

What you may not know is that the Trump administration is also on a tear to unload government buildings that it’s judged to be all cost and no value. The General Services Administration, which is the federal government’s real estate arm, is selling off government real estate at fire-sale prices into a historically depressed commercial market. These prices are lousy even within the context of the post-Covid office-space glut, making the GSA look very foolish as it claims thrifty stewardship of the taxpayer dollar.

I’ve been primarily concerned about the fate of the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building, which the GSA designated last year for “accelerated disposition.” Gray Brechin, founder of the nonprofit Living New Deal, described the Cohen Building to me last September as “a kind of Sistine Chapel of the New Deal” because of its murals by Philip Guston, Seymour Fogel, Ethel and Jenne Magafan—and, most especially, Ben Shahn, whose dry frescoes along both sides of a 70-foot lobby corridor, “The Meaning of Social Security,” Shahn judged “the best work I’ve done.” (To read my earlier pieces on the Cohen building and the Shahns, click here, here, here, and here. These were followed up in, among other publications, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and USA Today.)

I won’t tug your lapel too long about the Cohen, which has yet to be sold, because my subject today is those buildings that the Trump administration has sold already, most especially the Old Post Office Building, which Trump leased during his first administration and refurbished as a hotel. The Trump International Hotel became a kleptocratic vortex before Trump sold it at the end of his first term well above market value. Now Trump is poised to repurchase not just the lease but the entire building at a heavy discount, shredding whatever remains of the Constitution’s emoluments clauses as he uses the presidency to expand his fortune at a rate of $1 billion or more per year.

More on that in a moment. Permit me first to update you about the Cohen building.

Neither Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, nor her staff knew that the Cohen building housed precious New Deal art before she inserted into a January 2025 water resources bill a provision requiring that it be sold off “no later than two years” after being vacated (which has not yet occurred). Such ignorance is astonishing given that the Cohen lies a mere two blocks from the United States Capitol, but I wouldn’t call it atypical of how the Republican congressional majority operates.

After Ernst learned about the art, she said in a written statement: “It speaks volumes that only 2 percent of the folks who were actually paid to work at the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building were showing up to see its murals in person.” Ernst here misconstrues a low occupancy rate attributable to GSA misallocation (the main tenants, Voice of America and its parent agency, used only a small part of the building) to be an entirely made-up absentee rate for supposed civil service malingerers. “Given that fact,” Ernst continued, “let the property’s buyer decide its artwork’s fate.” Which is exactly what the Cohen building’s defenders fear, even though the law requires that New Deal art remain public property even after the building where it resides is sold. These days we can never be sure the executive branch will pay any heed to what the law says.

In recent months, various Democratic members of Congress have walked those two blocks from the Capitol to tour the Cohen building’s artworks, and we’ve seen some murmurings from Representative Lloyd Doggett of Texas and others, prodded by Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, and Mary Okin, assistant director of the nonprofit Living New Deal, about introducing legislation to block the Cohen’s sale. On April 21, Representative Chellie Pingree, Democrat of Maine, offered an amendment to an appropriations bill for financial services, general government, and related agencies requiring public release of a GSA feasibility study, initiated by the Biden administration and buried by the Trump administration, on refurbishing the Cohen building. As I reported previously, the study proposed a $1 billion green renovation of the Cohen building to make it “a flagship in the federal government portfolio,” including restoration of the murals, which “add a sense of cultural identity in the building that remains from tenant to tenant.” Amen.

Pingree’s amendment to make public this taxpayer-funded study failed, as Democratic amendments tend to in the Republican-majority House. But two Republicans, Representatives Ryan Zinke of Montana and Michael Simpson of Idaho, voted with Pingree. “I was glad to see I convinced a couple of my [GOP] colleagues,” Pingree told me afterward. “I got pretty close.” It gave her hope, Pingree said, that Congress would “keep the building off the market.”

I hope soon to have more to report on that. Now let’s move on to those government buildings the GSA has sold already.

Three of them are in Washington, and the first two, like the Cohen, have been designated for “accelerated disposition.” In March, the GSA’s own Regional Office Building was sold (to the residential developer Dalian Development) for $24.26 million. That worked out to $26 per square foot, or less than one-tenth its market value. In May, the GSA sold the Liberty Loan Building (to Satvik “Vinny” Raj, founder and managing director of Digilent Consulting) for $17 million. That works out to $98 per square foot, which is somewhat better, but still about one-fifth the average sale price for a D.C. office building in the current depressed market. Why the government insists on disposing of these buildings at so inopportune a moment is anybody’s guess. (I’m indebted to the Washington Business Journal for details on these sales, which went unreported in The Washington Post.)

The third building, which is not on the accelerated disposition list, is the Old Post Office Building. It sold earlier this month for $80 million, or $172 per square foot. Which sounds like a big improvement on the GSA Annex and the Liberty Loan building until you remember that the Old Post Office is a gorgeous Romanesque revival structure completed in 1899; that a mere 10 years ago Trump spent $200 million, or $430 per square foot, to convert the Old Post Office into a luxury hotel; and that Trump sold the hotel five years ago for a reported $375 million—and that was just for the lease, because until last week the GSA retained ownership of the building and the land. In current dollars, Trump got paid for the renovated Old Post Office $452 million, or $972 million per square foot—again, just for the lease.

That means, among other things, that even if the Old Post Office Building’s new buyer gets its asking price of $400 million, the building and the land will sell for less in 2026 than just the lease sold for in 2021. And who’s the likeliest buyer? According to The Wall Street Journal, Eric Trump has been in talks to repurchase the Old Post Office Building since mid-January 2025. Trump wants his Kleptorium back, at a discount.

When Trump bought the Old Post Office lease back in 2012, Steven Pearlstein observed in The Washington Post that the likely outcome would be, for Trump, yet another appearance in bankruptcy court. Trump had bad luck with hotels, having previously gone bust with the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, the storied Plaza Hotel in Midtown Manhattan, and the Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts. Pearlstein thought the GSA was crazy to lease the Old Post Office to a screw-up like Trump. He didn’t know the half of it.

As he’d done many times before, Trump overpaid for the Old Post Office, agreeing to an inflation-adjusted annual lease payment of $3 million plus the $200 million renovation. Pearlstein was quite right that this would compel Trump to charge room rates well above those of his hotel competitors. What Pearlstein couldn’t know was that Trump would become president of the United States shortly after his Trump International Hotel opened on Pennsylvania Avenue, allowing it to become, as I wrote in May 2022, Washington’s premier shakedown venue. Foreign governments spent $3.8 million at the hotel; the Secret Service spent more than $200,000; the Republican National Committee spent $3,000 per month; Trump’s inaugural committee spent $1 million (prompting a lawsuit from the D.C. attorney general that Trump later settled for $750,000); and so on.

But Trump had paid so extravagantly for the Old Post Office that even with all this baksheesh pouring in, the Trump International still lost about $70 million in operating expenses. Then he lost the 2020 election, which meant he no longer needed a Kleptorium. Trump sold the Trump International Hotel for $375 million, pocketing $100 million in profit. The $375 million price tag was, Jonathan O’Connell reported in The Washington Post, the most anybody had ever paid for a Washington hotel, which was all the more remarkable because

a) this was a money-losing venture

and

b) the building and the land were still owned by the federal government.

(I recount the story up to here, in greater detail, in my May 2022 piece.)

The new owners, who scraped Trump’s name off the hotel and reopened it in 2022 as a Waldorf Astoria hotel, were a Miami-based investment group called CGI Merchant Group. It isn’t clear why CGI Merchant Group got into this, but the trade publication The Real Deal last year called the firm “financially embattled” because of various real estate investments gone sour. To no one’s surprise, CGI Merchant Group in 2024 had to sell the Waldorf Astoria for $100 million at a foreclosure auction.

The purchaser at foreclosure was a private equity firm called MSD Partners (now BDT & MSD Partners). MSD Partners had put up most of the money for CGI Merchant Group to buy Trump’s unprofitable hotel in the first place; of the $375 million purchase price, $285 million came from MSD Partners. After CGI Merchant Group defaulted on that $285 million loan, BDT & MSD Partners decided, what the hell, let’s kick in another $100 million and take it off their hands. And so they became the owners of Trump’s unprofitable former hotel—or rather, the owners of a lot of fancy renovations and a lease on same. Now GSA has come along and sold the building itself to BDT & MSD for an additional $80 million.

I don’t know who’s a more generous soul—BDT & MSD for acquiring this dog of an enterprise, or GSA for handing over title at so low a price.

We know why GSA would be charitable; these folks work for President Donald Trump, who wants to repurchase the Old Post Office, this time at a less burdensome price. But why would BDT & MSD Partners be charitable? Because when Trump was trying to unload the Old Post Office back in 2021, MSD Partners’ chief executive was a Palm Beach neighbor named John Phelan. (Phelan left the firm in June 2022, seven months after the sale.) Phelan is one of Trump’s biggest financial supporters. In April 2024, Phelan threw a Trump fundraiser at his Aspen vacation home, with contribution tiers rising from $25,000 to $500,000. Phelan himself donated $927,000 to Trump’s 2024 campaign.

Shortly after that election, Trump named Phelan to be secretary of the Navy, despite Phelan’s notable lack of armed forces experience in either a military or a civilian capacity. Experts told the Associated Press that Phelan was chosen because he wouldn’t give Trump any pushback. But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly grew jealous of Phelan’s closeness to the president, and in April Hegseth fired Phelan, apparently annoyed that Phelan was currying favor with Trump by proposing to create an expensive new “Trump Class” of battleships. This may be the single instance in which Hegseth fired someone from the Pentagon who was actually unqualified.

BDT & MSD Partners, I’ll wager, would very much like to sell the Waldorf-Astoria at a price that lets them recoup their investment in the property, which (between the unpaid portion of its loan to CGI Merchant Group, its foreclosure purchase, and its purchase from GSA of the building and land) probably isn’t much lower than its $400 million asking price. Indeed, given operating expenses on the less-than-thriving hotel, BDT & MSD may be out even more than $400 million.

If Trump pays $400 million to buy back the Old Post Office, he’ll get it for $52 million less, after inflation, than he sold it for five years ago—and this time he’ll have the building and the land. That’s a pretty good deal! But if I know Trump, he’ll demand a lower price than $400 million, leaning heavily on his knowledge that the GSA sold it to BDT & MSD Partners for a mere $80 million and pretending not to remember MSD Partners’ previous exertions to bail him out. He has no time to delve into such petty details. And anyway, he gave that guy the Navy secretary gig and he blew it. Trump probably doesn’t remember how. He’s a very busy man.

All of these removals were illegal, but Ábrego García’s was most obviously, glaringly so, on account of the fact that an immigration judge had specifically ruled that he could not be returned to El Salvador, where he would face danger. After a separate federal judge ordered his return, the government dragged its feet for months, insisting absurdly it had no custody over him before abruptly flying him back and immediately hitting him with criminal human smuggling charges—which were dismissed under an extremely rare finding of vindictive prosecution.

That doesn’t mean the 30-year-old sheet metal apprentice is out of the woods. The government is still trying to deport him, having rejected his offer to be removed to Costa Rica and instead gunning to send him to Liberia, where he’s never been, after an effort to deport him to Uganda, where he’s also never been. Every time there’s a new twist in this saga, I see people asking the same basic questions: Are they being serious? Is the administration still expending resources, over a year-plus, in a fanatical attempt to screw over this one guy? Why?

I think there’s an answer, and it’s a different one from that of many of the administration’s other targets in its weaponization of its power. While Ábrego García’s case is often lumped in with the attempts to investigate or prosecute people like former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, former Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell, and Senator Mark Kelly, I think there are clear differences in both intent and result, which stem ultimately from an analysis of their relative power.

Naturally, each of these efforts is an outrage in its own right, and not just in a “violating our sacred norms and decorum” kind of way. The spurious attempted railroadings of James, Powell, and Kelly are attempts to wrestle control of parts of the government or civil society that Trump has not been able to fully take by force or subservience—local prosecutors, the central bank, and parts of the Senate, respectively. Every single one is a direct shot at the foundations of our system of government, just in time for the nation’s 250th anniversary.

These people, though, will ultimately all be fine. Each have gone into an incredibly high-profile and powerful role in government, and while they didn’t and shouldn’t have expected to be criminally investigated for their trouble, they knew they were to some extent playing the game, one that has only gotten more dangerous in the Trump era. For good or ill, elected officials and high government functionaries at all levels, particularly those who are pro-democracy and willing to do something about it, should be steeling themselves for an increased level of risk, perhaps more than they thought they signed up for. Politics these days is a perilous field (and those that aren’t prepared for that should step aside).

Ábrego García did not sign up for any such risk. Everything we know about him points to his being a relatively run-of-the-mill Maryland dad that—while having had some acute personal struggles at times in his life—seemed, until his detention, to be focused mainly on learning the sheet metal trade and raising his son. If he’s become a fixation of the federal government, it’s not really because of anything he personally did. Instead, he has become this idée fixe because of something that was done to him. Or, if you prefer, he’s now famous for what his travails have come to represent: The Millerite campaign of savagery is indiscriminate, it is sloppy, and the government is, in fact, making serious mistakes that enormously impact people’s lives. He is a living, high-stakes symbol of Trumpian misrule and this administration’s need to break its opponents on the rack of authoritarianism.

The admission of an “administrative error” that triggered Ábrego García’s removal to the notorious CECOT gulag remains one of the few times I can remember when this innately combative and contemptuous administration has acknowledged in any public forum that it made a significant mistake. This was all the more disorienting in the context of a situation where it was sending, without any acknowledged legal basis whatsoever, people to be held in kind-of-but-also-kind-of-not U.S. custody at a foreign mega-prison with no due process. The admission of Ábrego García’s unlawful deportation was a crack in a carefully constructed facade of righteously deployed power for which the administration has never forgiven him.

In that way, he has become the most acute example of this phenomenon—but certainly not the only one. Mahmoud Khalil certainly involved himself more in political life than Ábrego García did, but it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that he was a campus activist and negotiator at one university campus, admittedly one of the most high-profile sites of pro-Palestinian organizing. Still, he was little known outside that scene until he was actually detained. I do not in any way intend to minimize his dedication and his activism in saying that it seems clear the Trump administration did not engineer his arrest as a way to decapitate Palestinian activism or take a significant public opponent off the board.

As Khalil himself told me when I spoke with him for this magazine last year, he had expected to potentially incur the wrath of the administration (and he certainly did). He never considered that his activism would draw the individualized attention of the federal government, and while he doesn’t at all regret his work, this is a level of consequence neither he nor anyone had really gamed out. Rather, his detention was a signal—you might think you’re not a big enough fish to warrant a heavy-handed response, but that response might come anyway.

To this you can add the so-called Broadview Six, an assortment of individuals that include a congressional candidate, her aide, several local elected officials and candidates, and a musician. The Six were all charged with felonies, including conspiracy, after a September protest outside an ICE holding facility in Broadview, Illinois, in which an ICE vehicle was mildly damaged. The defendant pool was whittled down to four people facing misdemeanors before the case was dismissed altogether amid questions about federal prosecutors’ conduct with the grand jury. Still, the months of uncertainty and legal bills took a toll on all of them, just as the specter of prosecution and deportation have taken a toll on Khalil and Ábrego García, who are not insulated by high public office and connections.

These committed efforts to throw the massive weight of the federal government against not just potent political enemies but individuals who, at least in the case of Ábrego García, don’t seem to have any public political bearing at all are not coming out of nowhere. It is a tried and true method among authoritarians, of making clear to the population that while any given person might be unlikely to find themselves in these terrifying crosshairs, it absolutely can happen to you, and so maybe you should work assiduously to avoid drawing that unwelcome attention.

Most anyone who’s had even a cursory brush with the adversarial power of the state knows how jarring it can be, whether that’s being pulled over or audited or investigated in some way. These interactions might be quickly resolved, but while they’re ongoing, the awesome power of the state and the stark imbalance between you and it put themselves in acute relief. Now imagine that this stretches beyond any one particular interaction and becomes an all-encompassing monthslong ordeal where every legal victory against the state’s vexations leads to the government doubling down again and again, with the goal of depleting resources and willpower even when putatively unsuccessful. It is the legal procedural equivalent of a head on a stake outside the castle doors: a warning to the others, to everyone.

While Trump’s malicious series of attempted prosecutions and investigations so far have been framed as an abject failure—and, from a pure legal perspective, they have been a litany of embarrassing disasters that have damaged the Justice Department indelibly—it’s quite possible that, at chilling speech and political action, they’ve been more successful than we can see on the surface. That is a Trump legacy that will be difficult to repair.

As part of the larger reorganization of the Food and Nutrition Service, which oversees the nation’s 16 federal food and nutrition programs, most agency employees will be required to move to five new “hubs” across the country. The USDA is also expected to shutter most of the seven current regional offices across the country, as well as the current agency headquarters building in Alexandria, Virginia. The agency—which is also being rebranded as the Food and Nutrition Administration—will maintain a small footprint in Washington, D.C., according to the USDA.

Rather than overseeing nutrition programs based on regions, the new hubs will be divided by program area, with the intention of providing support from a centralized location. The Trump administration argues that moving oversight of these programs to new hubs will make it easier for officials to connect participants across the country. USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen A. Vaden told congressional Democrats that “each hub will have programmatic experts able to assist all states in their execution of USDA’s nutrition programs.” Vaden has also said that the move “reduces duplicative management and complexity within the agency.”

Perhaps the most major relocation will be that of the headquarters for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which serves around 40 million people, to Indianapolis. But Kate Howe, executive director of the Indy Hunger Network in Indianapolis, expressed skepticism that the relocations would actually do much to help SNAP participants in her city.

“We’re creating these silos of programs that will operate in a much more isolated fashion, and then the efficiencies of being in one place together will be lost,” said Howe. “I can’t imagine that having the SNAP office here will make a difference in terms of customer service. It simply seems like moving an administrative office from one place to another.”

Last year, Vaden told a House committee that he believed employees based in and around D.C. would be willing to move due to that region’s flagging job market. But given that many current FNS employees are located in cities with regional hubs that will be closing, this reorganization won’t just apply to workers in the national capital area. A recent internal survey by the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 226, which represents FNS workers, found that around 80 percent of respondents—comprising around a third of the agency’s 1,200 employees—were unwilling to relocate to keep their jobs.

“They already have a regional structure in place that’s been working. There’s nothing that indicates why that’s not working,” said Doreen Greenwald, national president of the National Treasury Employees Union. “This has just not been well thought through, and is ill-conceived.”

Greenwald added that it would be far more difficult for FNS employees to “uproot” themselves and their families than the USDA suggests, and warned that the reorganization could cause a “brain drain” wherein the agency could lose staff with extensive institutional knowledge. There’s precedent for this possibility: When the USDA moved the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to Kansas City in 2019, both agencies lost more than half of their staff. Although that number rebounded, the moves resulted in a loss in both employee diversity and productivity.

FNS employees often have a deep understanding of how nutrition programs are managed in their specific regions. For example, SNAP administration and access varies across states, with differences such as income requirements, benefit amounts, and even what food items can and cannot be purchased. It may be difficult to replace these employees, not only because it will take time to train up new workers but because working for the federal government is currently not a stable prospect—from repeated shutdowns to mass layoffs, to insecurity about whether a job can be relocated at any moment. The potential loss in staffing also comes amid a dramatic shrinkage in the federal workforce. More than 15,000 employees left USDA last year, accepting early retirement and deferred resignation offers.

Another key program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC—which assists around 6.7 million people, including around 40 percent of all infants born in the U.S.—will be moved to Kansas City, Missouri. Nell Menefee-Libey, senior public policy manager at the National WIC Association, said that administration of WIC was deeply reliant on the “close working relationships” between state agencies that administer the program and FNS staff on a regional and national level. The potential loss of those federal employees could make it more difficult for state officials to provide WIC benefits, or adjust to any changes.

“State WIC agencies rely on FNS staff for technical guidance to answer questions or troubleshoot issues as they arrive, for implementation of new policy initiatives, and to get federal resources out to the state level in a timely and appropriate manner,” said Menefee-Libey. Even if WIC recipients aren’t aware of the changes that are being made, she continued, they could soon feel their effects.

“I can absolutely understand how it feels sort of nebulous and removed from the day-to-day lives of new parents who rely on WIC to help them raise their kids, but it really is as simple as not having the guarantee that their benefits will get loaded onto their card on time,” said Menefee-Libey. “The state agency might not have the resources that they need to pay for those benefits, because the funds aren’t being dispersed from the regional office, because they don’t have the support that they need from the national office to get those dollars out the door.”

The timing of the relocations is still nebulous as the USDA continues negotiations with employee unions, but many of the regional offices are expected to close on a rolling basis as leases expire. Oversight of child nutrition programs will be moving to Dallas; emergency management to Denver; and research organizations to Raleigh, North Carolina. Retailer operations and compliance employees will move to Atlanta, Los Angeles, Dallas, and New York City. Diane Pratt-Heavner, the spokesperson for the School Nutrition Association, or SNA, raised concerns about the timing, given the “forthcoming introduction of new school nutrition standards.”

“SNA is concerned that so many staff have reported that they will not be relocating,” she said in a statement. “We worry about the loss of institutional knowledge.”

The reorganization also comes after Congress dramatically slashed SNAP last year, pushing more of the cost of administration and benefits onto states over the next several years. The percentage of benefit costs that a state pays will depend on its rate of overpayments or underpayments. As the Food and Nutrition Administration determines SNAP error rates on a national and state level, a dip in staffing could make calculating those rates ever more difficult.

“We’re just worried about the impact on the state agency trying to rapidly scale up to meet the new federal requirements,” said Howe. “The loss of institutional knowledge at a time when everything is changing is only going to have negative impacts on people trying to access benefits, because there will be fewer trained and knowledgeable people to help them.”

Ultimately, Howe sees this change as a move to make nutrition programs more difficult to obtain, particularly since the law added new work requirements to SNAP last year. She has heard from a local food pantry in Bloomington that they’ve seen a 15 percent increase in visits in the past year, which they believe is “directly correlated to the decline in people accessing SNAP benefits.”

“It feels like this is part of a larger plan to reduce the effectiveness of the SNAP program, and we can’t afford that. We can’t afford to have the federal government step back from the obligation to make sure that people are fed,” Howe said.

Obviously, you wouldn’t make such a purchase. You’d demand to know more, and quite rightly so. Well, voters choose candidates on the basis of scant information all the time, especially when it comes to the economic realities that obtain in this country. This is largely the Democrats’ fault. The Republicans don’t want people to know these facts. The Democrats should, but they don’t talk about them nearly enough. Now that America has freshly minted its first actual trillionaire in Elon Musk and Donald Trump has made working people’s lives far harder than they already were with his pointless, gas-price-raising little war, those of us who do know those realities need to demand of Democrats that they talk more about them.

Before I get into it, let me say clearly: I’m not calling voters stupid. It isn’t their fault they don’t know this stuff—it’s, as I said, the Democrats’, and to some extent the media’s, which doesn’t talk about these things enough because they aren’t “news.” People do know in their bones that the U.S. economic system is rigged—although, as we shall see, they generally have no idea how rigged.

OK. So: Let’s start with the fact that the top 1 percent of Americans now own about 32 percent of the wealth. You may know this. This one fact does get reported or mentioned pretty frequently. It’s a shocking number, though. It’s not OK, and it’s not normal. Look at this historical chart from the authoritative St. Louis Fed. In 1990, it was around 22 percent. It’s been above 30 percent since 2014. And it just keeps going up—except, interestingly, for three dips, two during George W. Bush’s presidency and one during Trump’s first term; not because they were warriors on behalf of income equality but because they tanked the economy.

A pretty big chunk of that 32 percent is owned by not just the 1 percent, but the 0.1 percent. That’s about 135,000 households. I couldn’t find precise current numbers for 2025–26 on deadline, but I did find this study, from 2013, by the formidable duo of Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman. In that year, the top 0.1 percent owned about 22 percent of the wealth. Again, this is not normal. It’s not “just the way things are.” The last time the top 0.1 percent owned that much wealth was—of course—back in 1928, on the eve of the Great Depression.

Trump wants to take America back to the 1950s, does he? In this one respect, we should all wish he would. From the end of World War II until the late 1980s, the top 0.1 percent owned around 10 to 12 percent of the wealth. The current madness started after Ronald Reagan’s two big tax cuts. (The famous joke about everything about the United States going bad after the Reagan presidency isn’t quite as hyperbolic as it sounds.)

Now—you may consider the above information old hat. If you read someone like me on a regular basis, you’re more likely to know this sort of stuff. But people—voters—generally do not. In fact, what they don’t know is astonishing.

A week or so ago, I tripped across this video on YouTube. It’s old—it’s from 2013. So the reality described in it has only gotten worse. The narrator starts like this: “There’s a chart I saw recently that I can’t get out of my head. A Harvard business professor and economist asked more than 5,000 Americans how they thought wealth was distributed in the United States.”

They thought the top 20 percent probably owned around 58 percent of the wealth. Then they were asked what they thought the ideal distribution should be. They thought that ideally, the top 20 percent should own around 33 percent of the wealth. The actual distribution, in 2013? The top 20 percent owned 82 percent of the wealth.

This was 2013, but in the intervening years, people’s perceptions haven’t changed much. I did find a study from this year in which researchers asked people how many times wealthier an average member of the top 10 percent is than someone in the remaining 90 percent of the population. People said about 13.5 times wealthier. The actual answer is precisely twice that, 27 times.

You get the idea. So, what does all this mean for Democrats?

I suppose some would say, well, a few things. First, they need to disenthrall themselves from the idea that talking about all this stuff is too “left-wing.” Undoubtedly, such rhetoric will be labeled that by Republicans and elements of the media. But so what? It’s just reality. This country is on an unsustainable economic path. It must be changed. You don’t change things by being afraid of how you’re going to be attacked. Nonconfrontational Democrats are, to be blunt, not fit for purpose.

Others would contend that even if the mass of voters knew these numbers and more, they wouldn’t care; it wouldn’t move them, and they wouldn’t vote on the basis of them. I think that too is cowardly nonsense. The study I cited above, in which people’s ideal income distribution is well to the left of where they think it is and way to the left of where it actually is? (And by the way, I’ve seen other such studies, and they all show the same thing.) That suggests to me that most people would welcome a message of income redistribution.

And by the way—and this too is a crucial point that Democrats need to get through their skulls—if that many people hold that view, it’s not even “left.” It’s mainstream. Democrats need to accept this and act accordingly.

Also, always remember: Be suspicious of people who tell you such and such an issue won’t move voters. One question in a poll or focus group isn’t the same thing as a charismatic candidate making something the centerpiece of his or her campaign in speech after speech. And besides, no candidate has to move “voters,” generally and generically. Candidates have to persuade small, decisive percentages of voters that they will fight for their interests.

So, as these billionaires become trillionaires, as their share of the wealth grows ever greater, as some of them express open contempt for democracy itself, it’s time that we demand that the 2028 Democratic aspirants be willing to say: “My fellow Americans, if you elect me and give me a Democratic House and Senate, we’re going to take some money away from the billionaires and give it to you.” How on earth is that a losing message?

And while they’re at it, they need to tell Americans the economic facts of our society, over and over and over until they start to hit home. Republicans want voters to think only, “My, what a pretty red car.” Democrats have to tell them what’s in the engine.  

For years, anti-choice lawmakers have sought to lay down legal precedents for fetuses and embryos to be considered fully fledged persons in need of legal protections as part of a wider framework to criminalize abortion as murder. But this language and this broader approach to so-called public health have ramifications beyond abortion: If a fetus is a person, then consuming alcohol or narcotics while pregnant and putting the fetus at risk for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, and other substance-related birth defects is a form of child endangerment.

Not only does this result in the criminalizing of pregnant people, it also hinders the prevention, research, and treatment for both the FASD and substance use disorders being weaponized to advance this anti-abortion agenda. What’s more, this ideology has proven to be wholly ineffective in the effort to “protect fetuses.” Laws around “pregnancy-related crimes” have only prevented mothers from seeking support, while simultaneously creating legal frameworks for restricting abortion access, creating a climate where pregnant patients are increasingly policed and where public health policies around prenatal substance exposure, FASD, and reproductive justice movements are increasingly linked.

Dr. Sarah Roberts is a professor and legal epidemiologist at the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health initiative at the University of California at San Francisco, and one of the only researchers in the United States working on the intersections of health care practices and policies around abortion and the criminalization of behaviors while pregnant. “Singling out drinking while pregnant isn’t effective,” she explains, noting that none of the punitive or so-called “supportive” FASD prevention policies that she’s analyzed actually prevented FASD.

The only policies that actually prevented FASD and offered support to mothers and babies with FASD were those that addressed alcohol consumption across the board. “People who are drinking while pregnant were drinking before they got pregnant and are in families and communities where people are drinking as well, so by reducing drinking at a population level, that also relates to improved outcomes during pregnancy,” Dr. Roberts explains.

In her research, Dr. Roberts has found that the states that criminalize pregnant people consuming alcohol largely overlap with states restricting abortion.

“Anti-abortion laws have always opened up the potential for greater surveillance, policing, and punishment of pregnant people. We see that in the way that miscarriage is policed, the way that substance use during pregnancy is increasingly policed, in the way that people have been punished for this, under a range of laws that have nothing to do with abortion,” explains Dr. Gretchen Sisson, sociologist at the University of California at San Francisco, and the author of Relinquished: The Politics of Adoption and the Privilege of American Motherhood.

As Roberts explains, many of the policies that target pregnant people who drink also target those who consume other substances. These policies have deep roots, often dating back to the “war on drugs,” and, more specifically, the racist “crack baby” scare in the 1980s and 1990s. Media outlets of that era often presented sensationalist narratives that babies born to mothers using crack cocaine would be born with brain damage and overwhelm welfare systems, leading to a widespread targeting and policing of Black pregnant people, in particular. These policies were often ignored or brushed aside by mainstream pro-choice, often white-led organizing groups at the time, without the foresight of recognizing that this very same positioning of fetuses as people would be used to dismantle abortion access in the years to come. “There is a racist history to this, an ableist history to this, and a classist history to this, that these issues weren’t considered ‘mainstream’ abortion rights or reproductive rights issues,” explains Dana Sussman, the vice president of Pregnancy Justice.

Today, Roberts’s research has found that Black mothers are still excessively targeted by “total welfare reporting,” or laws that require physicians to report pregnant patients to Child Protective Services if alcohol consumption is suspected. This reporting is linked to an increase in adverse effects for Black women and babies, despite the “pro-family” rhetoric behind them. Similarly, Black women are more likely to face restricted abortion access and be targeted by pregnancy-related (and abortion-related) criminal prosecutions.

Pregnancy Justice is a New York–based organization that represents people charged with pregnancy-related crimes, the vast majority of which involve allegations of substance use. For Sussman, the intersections of pro-choice organizing and organizing around FASD and prenatal exposure to substances are clear: “We are all fighting for people to get health care,” she explains. For her organization, the idea of fetal personhood is the product of a shared ideology of control and coercion, linking restricted abortion access and the criminalization of pregnant people. “If your Supreme Court is interpreting your statutes around children to include embryos and fetuses, then how does that work with abortion?”

Many of the clients of Pregnancy Justice under criminal investigation were reported or “found out” when seeking health care, including support for substance use disorders. Where mothers sought support for alcohol or substance use disorders, they found credible, legal threats against them under the guise of child protection policies. “We know that when you put people at risk of losing their children, either children already born or future children, or at risk of losing their liberty because they have a substance use disorder, whether it be alcohol or drugs, they will not get care, and outcomes will be worse for everyone—both mom and baby,” says Sussman.

Advocacy groups for research and funding toward FASD acknowledge and condemn the criminalization of pregnant people consuming alcohol, with one organization, which requested to remain unnamed so as not to put its research at risk, reiterating that the punitive policies only prevent mothers from seeking help and add to the stigma of both mothers and children with FASD, undermining the principles of disability justice for which the movement is often fighting.

At the same time, organizations dedicated to FASD appear to be in an uncomfortable position: Lawmakers supportive of funding and various supportive policies around FASD are not always advocates for struggling pregnant people or for reproductive justice. The FASD Respect Act, a 2025 bill that brought in waves of funding for FASD-related research and programming, for instance, was passed across party lines, with co-sponsorship from Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, rated an A+ by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America because he’s “voted to consistently protect the lives of the unborn,” and Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, who describes himself as a “staunch advocate for life.”

Many children diagnosed with FASD are adopted. “Children with special needs are more likely to be adopted because if you have a family that is low-resourced who doesn’t feel equipped to care for a child with special needs, they’re more likely to relinquish; and if you have a mother who is engaged in alcohol use at high levels, she’s more likely to be subject to family policing and child removal,” explains Sisson.

Anti-abortion, pro-FASD-funding lawmakers appear to see adoption as a fundable, moral alternative to abortion, creating a contradictory overlap between the two movements—all while refusing to acknowledge the harmful ramifications of their policies. “There is definitely a pro-adoption thread within the disability community, and I think it is particularly pronounced in cases where disability is attributed to maternal actions during pregnancy, because then [it’s] even more about how adoption can be about saviorism,” Sisson remarks. This overlap also creates an apparent nervousness within FASD organizations to engage with pro-choice movements, reproductive rights organizing, or even the word feminism, for fear of having these lawmakers turn their back on them.

The anti-abortion movement, despite many members labeling themselves as supportive of FASD research funding and programs for those with FASD and their families, seeks a framework that treats fetuses with FASD as the victims of crime—and the mothers as perpetrators. At a lawmaking level, this only propagates extreme stigma against both mothers and babies with FASD and prevents families from seeking help for substance use disorders and for disability support.

Laced with saviorism and the desire to police both disability and pregnancy, the anti-abortion underpinning of pregnancy-related laws and prosecution hinders proactive and effective FASD-related support, resulting only in the targeting of pregnant patients, and not in the protection of children or mothers. On the flip side, for organizers working to support disabled people, abortion rights, and mothers targeted by pregnancy-related prosecutions, reproductive rights and policies on prenatal substance exposure are inseparable: The dismantling of fetal personhood ideologies is critical to the underpinning of both abortion rights advocacy and policies that effectively support mothers and babies, as well as reversing the Trojan horse the anti-abortion camp has been building for decades.

But in Lovelace v. Lee, the court declined to step in at Alabama’s request. The case is important for three reasons. First and foremost, it appears to be the first successful constitutional challenge to a specific execution method since the Eighth Amendment’s ratification in 1791. Jeffrey Lee, a death-row prisoner who was convicted of killing two people in 1998, filed a federal lawsuit last year to challenge Alabama’s plan to execute him via nitrogen hypoxia. Alabama adopted the new method in 2018; Lee argues that it would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Nitrogen-hypoxia executions are fairly simple in theory. Earth’s atmosphere is roughly 78 percent nitrogen and 20 percent oxygen, with trace elements rounding out the remaining 2 percent. Humans have evolved to breathe large amounts of nitrogen, and we can do so indefinitely as long as some oxygen is present. Alabama’s plan is to simply subtract the oxygen—or, more accurately, to place a mask over Lee’s face so that he only breathes pure nitrogen until he dies.

The state has already killed seven death-row prisoners by this method; Louisiana also executed a man via nitrogen hypoxia last year. Three other states have authorized the method. Proponents describe it as relatively simple and largely painless, even compared to lethal injection. Justice Sonia Sotomayor described it differently in a dissenting opinion last year:

Take out your phone, go to the clock app, and find the stopwatch. Click start. Now watch the seconds as they climb. Three seconds come and go in a blink. At the thirty-second mark, your mind starts to wander. One minute passes, and you begin to think that this is taking a long time. Two … three.… The clock ticks on. Then, finally, you make it to four minutes. Hit stop.

Now imagine for that entire time, you are suffocating. You want to breathe; you have to breathe. But you are strapped to a gurney with a mask on your face pumping your lungs with nitrogen gas. Your mind knows that the gas will kill you. But your body keeps telling you to breathe.

Sotomayor said that the death-row prisoner in that case would “immediately convulse,” “gasp for air,” and “thrash violently against the restraints holding him in place as he experiences this intense psychological torment until he finally loses consciousness” before finally dying about 15 to 20 minutes later. The justice’s description also assumes that everything goes as planned. Unsurprisingly, Lee asked the court to let him be executed by firing squad instead, which can be virtually instantaneous when done correctly.

A federal district court judge in Alabama rejected those claims, citing the high threshold for execution-method challenges laid out by the Supreme Court in the 2015 case Glossip v. Gross. (More on that later.) The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and instead found that there would be a “substantial risk of serious harm,” then asked the district court to consider whether Lee’s firing squad recommendation would be viable. The district court concluded that it would be and entered judgment in Lee’s favor.

In its appeal to the justices, Alabama claimed that the ruling amounted to “the first-ever permanent ban on a legislatively enacted method” in American history. The Supreme Court itself has never explicitly held a specific method of execution to be unconstitutional. Though the justices have suggested in passing that the Eighth Amendment forbids certain medieval methods of execution, such as breaking someone on a wheel or burning them as the stake, the high court has never before compelled a state to abandon its preferred option.

Instead, execution methods have changed over the years largely due to public pressure and criticism. Hanging was the most common method of execution in the nineteenth century, but it was often administered by unskilled amateurs. A competent hangman would ensure that the prisoner’s neck snapped at the first drop. More common outcomes were grisly scenes of strangulation or, in rare cases, decapitation.

By the early twentieth century, states began to experiment with alternatives. New York carried out the first execution by electric chair in 1890 after the Supreme Court rejected the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment challenge. Electrocution was billed as a more scientific and humane method of execution in the early 1910s, but the reality was far more grim. In the late 1990s, the state of Florida carried out multiple executions with an unreliable electric chair, including at least one where a prisoner’s head burst into flames.

After the Supreme Court agreed to hear an Eighth Amendment challenge to Florida’s use of electrocution, Governor Jeb Bush called a special session of the state legislature to switch to lethal injection. A three-drug cocktail developed by an Oklahoma medical examiner in the 1970s soon became the most widely used method of killing death-row prisoners in the late twentieth century. This form of lethal injection was explicitly sanctioned by the Supreme Court in the 2008 case Baze v. Rees.

Things fell apart a few years later. The European Union imposed an embargo on drugs for executions in the United States in 2011 amid pressure from death penalty abolitionist groups. Many pharmaceutical companies had already largely cut off the flow in previous years. With no U.S.-based manufacturers of certain key drugs, death penalty states began to rely on unfamiliar chemical cocktails. This haphazard improvisation led to a series of botched executions in the mid-2010s, including one in Arizona in 2015 where a prisoner survived for almost two hours while gasping for air after the injections.

The Supreme Court ultimately heard a challenge to Oklahoma’s use of the controversial sedative midazolam in the 2015 case Glossip v. Gross. It was not as receptive to the Eighth Amendment argument as abolitionists had hoped. At oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito asked whether it was “appropriate for the judiciary to countenance what amounts to a guerrilla war against the death penalty,” which had “reduced” states to using less reliable drugs like midazolam. That hostile mindset was reflected in the court’s final opinion, which Alito wrote.

In the U.S. constitutional order, the government has powers and the people have rights. When the former conflicts with the latter, the latter must generally prevail unless the government has an exceedingly good reason for doing something. The government’s mere desire to enact a preferred policy is typically not enough to overcome a person’s constitutional rights.

Alito apparently disagrees. In Glossip, he subordinated a prisoner’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment to the state’s desire to kill prisoners. Because the death penalty is constitutional, he reasoned, “there must be a constitutional means of carrying it out.” Alito borrowed this flawed reasoning from Chief Justice John Roberts, who first expressed it in his three-justice plurality opinion in Baze. Glossip marked the first time that a majority of the court embraced it.

In his own concurrence in Baze, Alito had warned that the court “should not produce a de facto ban on capital punishment by adopting method-of-execution rules that lead to litigation gridlock.” In Glossip, he turned that policy preference into constitutional law. To win the “guerrilla war,” Alito also required death-row prisoners to provide courts with a “substantially” less painful alternative method to be killed when challenging a state’s chosen option on Eighth Amendment grounds in the future.

That requirement also came from Roberts’s plurality opinion in Baze, where the chief justice laid out a hard-to-overcome standard for challenges to execution methods. “To qualify, the alternative procedure must be feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain,” Roberts wrote. Showing marginal improvements in safety weren’t enough. Only then would a state’s refusal to adopt the alternative method be sufficient to suspect a desire to inflict cruel and unusual punishment.

This is a threshold plainly designed to produce a specific outcome: Leave constitutional challenges theoretically intact, but make it effectively impossible for them to succeed. You can see echoes of this approach in later decisions written by Alito. Earlier this month in Louisiana v. Callais, for example, the conservative justices erased the last vestiges of the Voting Rights Act by imposing bespoke hurdles. In effect, they elevated a state’s interest in partisan gerrymandering—a fig leaf in some states for eradicating Black electoral influence—above the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

Alito even required VRA plaintiffs to produce maps to achieve a state’s stated redistricting goals when they accuse that state of racial gerrymandering, echoing his earlier demand in Glossip for death-row prisoners to describe their preferred way to die when challenging an execution method. There is something deeply unseemly about the Supreme Court forcing litigants to argue against their own interests if they wish to defend their constitutional rights. It smacks of deterrence by humiliation.

Moreover, this case was procedurally irregular, to say the least. The Supreme Court’s shadow docket typically works by hearing arguments for interim relief. (Justice Brett Kavanaugh has even argued that it should be called the interim docket.) In other words, the court’s shadow-docket rulings almost always involve preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders. Final judgments by lower courts are generally resolved by the court’s merits docket—which until 10 years ago was just “the docket.”

Alabama’s challenge was different. Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor and expert on the shadow docket, warned the justices in a friend-of-the-court brief that the state was asking for something more significant this time. “Alabama’s application wears the familiar costume of a ‘state-on-top’ death penalty application—where a State asks this Court to vacate a lower court’s temporary stay so that an execution may proceed,” he wrote.

“But the relief it actually seeks is far more extraordinary—the evisceration of a federal court’s final equitable judgment,” Vladeck continued. The Supreme Court has a long history and well-established set of precedents for handling last-minute appeals from death-row prisoners. Indeed, until the mid-2010s, that was the most significant work it performed on what we now describe as the shadow docket. Since Alabama was asking the court to “effectively set aside a final judgment on the merits,” Vladeck explained, it was really asking for summary reversal, which the court handles through its normal petition-for-certiorari process.

The justices did not explain the reasoning for their decision in Thursday’s order. Alabama’s procedural misstep is significant enough, however, that it would not surprise me if the six justices who voted to deny the state’s request did so entirely for the reasons Vladeck described, regardless of their thoughts on the underlying merits of the lower courts’ rulings. Since the justices didn’t explain themselves, however, that would be only speculation on my part.

You might wonder why I spent so much time describing execution methods if this is simply a procedural outcome. I admit that the court may ultimately overturn the district court’s ruling on the merits docket; that too would not surprise me given the court’s post-Kennedy approach to capital punishment. Surely there is another bespoke rule that they could craft to ensure that the state of Alabama can kill people without hindrance that would not repeal the Eighth Amendment altogether.

But that brings me to the third and final thing that’s revealing about this case: Three justices still would have sided with Alabama. Alito, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, indicated in the court’s order that they would have granted Alabama’s motion to stay the lower court ruling. Since we’re talking about an execution here, that is also effectively a judgment on the merits—Jeffrey Lee could hardly retain counsel or continue appeals from beyond the grave.

As I’ve noted before, the Roberts court is almost institutionally hostile to death-row prisoners. It treats the capital-defense bar as almost inherently suspect, as evidenced by Alito’s affront to the “guerrilla war” that death penalty opponents once waged. Again, nobody wrote any opinions in this matter so we can’t say for sure why they voted the way that they did.

That doesn’t stop us from drawing some reasonable inferences. For Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, their skepticism of death-row inmates has limits and Alabama’s plea to suffocate this particular prisoner to death apparently found them. For the court’s other three conservative justices, there appears to be almost nothing that they are willing to prioritize over a state’s desire to kill someone.

The UFC is hosting its America 250 celebration on Sunday, June 14—Donald Trump’s 80th birthday and Flag Day—on the White House’s South Lawn. But in an unexpected turn of events, bugs are likely to be the major opponent during the executive mansion’s first ever cage match.

University of Maryland entomologist Michael Raupp told Axios Friday that the odds of a winged invasion during Sunday’s festivities was 100 percent.

“This event is going to draw a big crowd,” Raupp said. “But guess what? There are going to be even more bugs joining.”

The swarm will include midges, mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, winged beetles, “a whole cadre of night-flying moths,” mosquitos, and possibly biting black flies. The buzz will also serve as a banquet for bats that feed on small, flying insects.

The unfortunate reality of the grounds has not been lost on UFC President Dana White, who told Boardroom that he had encountered a “holy shit” level of gnats during a visit last month to the White House’s recently renovated Rose Garden (an artifact of Jackie Onassis’s gentle touch that Trump has since paved with concrete).

“The amount of gnats that were flying around, I’m like, ‘Holy shit’,” White said.

“As soon as I got on the plane, I called my head of production and said, ‘Let me tell you about the gnat situation.’”

Fighters in the octagon will be lit by an enormous, five-ton lighting rig that includes more than 175 square feet of LED lighting—a setup that White observed would be the perfect magnet for all sorts of flying insects.

Beyond that, the bugs could cause a sticky problem between fighters. “In your nose, in your mouth while you’re trying to fight,” White noted while lamenting the complicated nature of outdoor events. He added that his team was considering installing large fans around the cage to keep the bugs away from the action. Those in attendance, however, are unlikely to find similar reprieve.

Mother Nature has other challenges in store for Trump’s birthday bash, as well. Washington is expected to be hot and muggy this weekend, with possible thunderstorms on Sunday evening that could affect the 8 p.m. main card.

White has told reporters that the show will go on, no matter if there’s rain, snow, or “even lightning.”

“You guys all played sports when you were growing up,” White said Wednesday. “Whenever there was lightning, you’d sit the lightning out. When it was over, you played. That’s what we’ll do.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine was briefed on the plan last month before briefing President Trump himself. But Trump apparently put the plan on hold given the high potential for U.S. casualties and increased Iranian aggression—a massive risk for his political standing in the midst of a widely unpopular war.

“It would be insanely difficult to fish through those tunnels and all the barrels,” an anonymous source told CNN. “We’d have to set up a massive presence. Essentially, we’d have to invade.”

An invasion would most certainly ensure an Iranian response, either economically—through the continued closing of the Strait of Hormuz—or militarily, by continuing to attack U.S. allies in the region, like Israel and the UAE.

Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee first killed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, proposed by Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin, that would have prohibited using Pentagon funds to deploy the military to seize ballots, voting machines, voter rolls, or any other election materials. The NDAA is the fiscal year’s main funding bill for the military.

After that effort failed, Slotkin proposed another amendment that would have required the Pentagon to notify Congress if troops were deployed to polling places for any reason other than repelling “armed enemies of the United States.” But even that was too much for Republicans on the committee.

“I introduced these amendments to protect our free and fair elections from military interference,” Slotkin told MS NOW. “It’s deeply concerning that none of my Republican colleagues on the committee voted to include it.”

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal agreed, calling the committee’s party-line votes a worrying sign for November’s midterm elections.

“Republican opposition to barring use of federal troops at the polls is deeply alarming, signaling this extreme step is part of Trump’s agenda to suppress voting,” Blumenthal said. “I’m fearful about it portending illegal domestic deployment of our military.”

Last year, Slotkin was among several Democratic members of Congress who urged members of the military not to follow illegal orders from the Trump administration, and she said that her amendments included language reaffirming that.

“I introduced these amendments to protect our free and fair elections from military interference and intimidation, and importantly, to protect the military and service members from the exact kind of illegal orders I warned about last year,” Slotkin said to MS NOW.

President Trump always claims fraud whenever Republicans don’t perform well in an election, and his allies in the Senate don’t seem willing to check his worst impulses. Refusing to pass what would seem to be obvious affirmations of existing laws suggests that these Republicans would let Trump use the military to overturn elections if he wants.

Scaffolding has gone up around the storied performance venue to remove the “Trump” part of the “Trump Kennedy Center” name, which President Trump changed without congressional approval late last year. A judge ruled the decision illegal last month and rejected the administration’s bid to reverse the division on Friday.

“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so. Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper wrote.

Trump has been particularly hostile toward the lauded cultural center, from firing all of its board members and replacing them with sycophants to slapping his own name on the building. His takeover led to dozens of artists dropping out of planned performances, which in turn led ticket sales to plummet.

Donald Trump’s name is being removed from the Kennedy Center right now

Via @DCNewsNow pic.twitter.com/2gjJnoj5zW

— WABJ - Washington Association of Black Journalists (@WABJDC) June 12, 2026

The oil tanks in Cushing held an inventory of just 21.6 million barrels Friday, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s a little more than half of the 40 million barrels they usually store. When they hold less than 20 million barrels of oil, Cushing’s tanks are effectively empty, with only largely unusable sludge remaining.

The extended closure of the Strait of Hormuz has pushed the reserves in Cushing toward operational stress levels, where they will be unable to fulfill the demand for oil.

Cushing isn’t the only place in the United States where oil reserves have been affected. Gas inventories have fallen 5 percent below where they were a year ago, and U.S. diesel stockpiles have hit their lowest level since 2003.

The full shock of the present energy crisis has been dampened by the world’s oversupply of oil—but that could be about to change, as stockpiles drain around the world. If the oil markets get dry enough, the volume of oil won’t be great enough to produce the pressure needed for pipelines. Within a month, the world’s oil market could enter the danger zone, CNN reported Friday.

Earlier this week, industry officials warned the White House that gas prices could spike yet again due to rapidly diminishing inventories, which could be wiped out in a matter of weeks.

Maybe Trump could fill some of these tankers with the 100 million barrels of oil he claims to have miraculously moved through the strait without Iran noticing.

Change at the investigative weekly program has been rapid and corrosive. Late last month, Weiss simultaneously fired executive producer Tanya Simon, correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi (who criticized Weiss’s decision to delay her report on the notoriously brutal CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador), correspondent Cecilia Vega, and executive editor Draggan Mihailovich. That same day, she appointed Nick Bilton—a former Vanity Fair columnist with no television broadcast experience—to lead the venerated newsmagazine.

The following week, Scott Pelley—the de facto face of CBS News—was canned after he openly questioned Bilton’s appointment during a contentious staff meeting.

Former staffers of the investigative news program have since sounded off on Weiss’s chaotic takeover and her heavy hand in restructuring the show.

“We have to acknowledge that 60 Minutes needed a bit of a facelift, and there were potentially positive ways to improve the program, but it’s the way they have gone about it,” one former staffer told Variety. “You don’t give a facelift with a fucking machete.”

Rome Hartman, who worked as a producer on the show for 25 years, lamented the figurative arson of his “professional home,” and speculated that the show would only continue to decay under Weiss’s and Bilton’s direction.

“Scott wasn’t shouting at him or physically intimidating the guy—he was doing exactly what he should’ve done in the best tradition of the best 60 Minutes correspondents,” Hartman told Variety. “And if Nick Bilton is such a snowflake that he can’t possibly tolerate a voice of challenge—and if Bari Weiss has to hide behind his skirts—that does not speak well of how he’s going to run the place or how she’s going to run the place.”

But she may not be running the place for much longer at all. CBS’s parent company, Paramount Skydance, is pursuing a merger with Warner Bros. Discovery—a monumental industry shift that could see Weiss’s brief tenure atop the network come to an end, according to 30-year 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft.

“I have a feeling that Bari will not be overseeing 60 Minutes for very much longer. I think once the deal gets done with Warner Bros., people will demand that she be let go or move into another position,” Kroft told Variety. “Everything she’s touched has turned to shit. Everything she’s touched has gone colossally wrong. And I don’t think she’s showed any talent for this position. She’s only fulfilling other people’s agendas.”

That’s what the WNO alleges in a lawsuit against the center, filed Thursday in federal court. According to court documents, the WNO and the Kennedy Center had a contractual relationship for nearly 15 years, in which operas were held at the venue in exchange for the center providing support services for the WNO, including managing donations.

With the Trump administration’s takeover of the center, however, many of those services—including marketing, fundraising, and administrative tasks—ended in late 2025. When the WNO complained to the center, instead of fixing the issues, the center’s governance proposed ending the relationship in January 2026.

The WNO then asked the center to return its $17 million in funds, which the agreement states belong to the WNO. But despite being contractually obligated to return the funds, the center still hasn’t returned them to the opera, and now the WNO is suing to get that money back.

All of this comes as a judge denied a last-minute appeal to keep Trump’s name on the center Friday. Now Trump may follow through on his stated desire last month to hand over control of the center to Congress. Will he follow through or try to defy the ruling?

The intrusive topic has won his mind in all sorts of inappropriate settings: He has deflected from the Iran war and inflation concerns by fixating on the renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, pivoted to renderings of his construction projects during an Oval Office meeting with Mark Rutte that was intended to focus on global alliances and security issues, and interrupted a January meeting with oil executives about Venezuela’s future to mention his $400 million ballroom, an idea so inspiring that he stopped the conversation and walked to a window to muse about its construction.

A prominent clinical psychologist has signaled that the tireless obsession could be a warning sign of cognitive decline.

Dr. John Gartner, a former assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, told The Daily Beast Thursday that the president’s repetitive verbal ramblings are symptomatic of something much graver.

“Tangential speech is one of the diagnostic criteria for dementia,” Gartner told the Beast.

“What he’s obsessed with is a function of malignant narcissism. He’s obsessed with things that reflect glory on him,” Gartner continued. “He’s changing Washington, D.C., to Trump D.C.”

That could include any number of projects: Trump has also (impermanently) plastered his name on the Kennedy Center and proposed a 250-foot “Arc de Trump” in the nation’s capital.

An analysis by The Washington Post in April found that, by that time, Trump had invoked his ballroom in roughly a third of his public remarks, far outpacing any mentions of his supposed policy priorities.

But Gartner mentioned that Trump’s rants would only “go downhill from here.”

The White House, in response, insisted that Trump is in immaculate condition.

“If it quacks like a duck, it may actually just be a Democrat hack doctor,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle told the Beast in response to Gartner’s assessment.

Yet something must be unusual about the president’s condition. Last month, Trump’s examination at Walter Reed Medical Center involved 22 specialists, breaking the previous record held by George W. Bush, who once saw 10 specialists in one go.

The White House has not elaborated on exactly why Trump needed so many doctors. Trump officials told the Post that the unconventionally large medical team allowed for a “complete and preventive evaluation” of the president. White House physician Sean Barbabella commented that the assessment found Trump in “excellent health.”

One of the Trump voters, Annette Dombrowski—is about to lose her job at an Ohio manufacturing plant because its billionaire, Trump-supporting owner, John Paulson, is outsourcing domestic jobs to China, something Trump has promised time and time again to prevent. 

“I actually have panic attacks. I’ve had a couple this past week, and I get very emotional over it. I don’t want to work anymore, but I can’t afford to retire,” Dombrowski said. 

“Obviously, President Trump is immensely wealthy. He has been wealthy since he was born,” MSNOW’s Alex Tabet posited.

“Yep.”

“Do you think he understands?”

“No. He hasn’t lived it to understand it. He sees it, he has not lived it. He needs to live it. Wear the clothes, wear the shoes, wear your Walmart clothes, wear your Walmart shoes, do your thrift thrift store shopping. Don’t eat steaks.  I don’t get to go out to dinner,” Dombrowski continued, growing emotional. “It’s not an overnight thing, but it’s been two years now. You said you’d bring down the grocery prices … I must be the most angry person in my grocery shop, because I buy the same things every week, and I see it jump every week. It is not every couple months, it’s literally every week.” 

Morning Joe interviewed 3-time Trump voters who have become disillusioned: "It's been two years now. You said you'd bring down the grocery prices. I must be the most angry person when I grocery shop."

"He's backtracked on every single pitch point he had during his election ...… pic.twitter.com/Il9HuH4BiN

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 12, 2026

Morning Joe also featured another three-time Trump voter, truck driver Chris Tackett. 

“When President Trump said he wasn’t going to start foreign wars, when he said he was going to bring down prices, did you believe him?” Talbot asked Tackett. 

“Yeah. I mean, his first term … I think he held true to everything that he said he was gonna do. I think he fought for everything he said he was gonna fight for. This time around, I haven’t seen it,” Tackett said. “He’s backtracked on every single pitch point he had during his election.… All we heard was ‘drill drill drill’ during the election, now all we’re getting is drilled into the dirt with these prices. I voted for Trump all three terms, [but] to be honest with you, I’m not a big supporter of him at this point.”

“If you could talk directly to President Trump, what would you tell him right now?”

“Get it together, man. The average American is struggling to make ends meet right now, and nobody wants to hear the war [in Iran] is almost over. Nobody wants to hear it’s going to get better. You’ve had a year to make it better at this point. Make it better.”

The most recent consumer price index has inflation at its highest rate in three years, due to President Trump’s widely unpopular, very expensive war on Iran. Even still, Trump claims that the numbers are great, and that he loves inflation—even as Dombrowski and other people who voted for him struggle to afford things he can have any moment he wants, like steak.

The Texas Republican has become a vocal critic of the president since he lost his primary runoff last month to the Trump-backed favorite in the race, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

In an interview with The New York Times published Friday, Cornyn flamed Trump’s influence in the race, lamenting that Trump apparently “couldn’t resist” the temptation.

“If he would do that to me, he would do that to anybody,” Cornyn told the Times. “There’s never going to be good enough for him, other than 100 percent, you know, slavish adherence to whatever he wants. But obviously that’s not what the senator’s role is supposed to be, especially in terms of checks and balances.

“If that’s the way friends treat you, you wonder about his enemies,” Cornyn continued, referring to a post-race social media note in which Trump wrote that the Lone Star conservative would “remain my friend for a long time.”

Cornyn’s race was a gamble and a loss for the GOP: one of the most prolific fundraisers, Cornyn had done much to support other Republican candidates over the course of his 24-year legislative career, bringing in more than $400 million for auxiliary races.

The lost cash flow, paired with Trump’s waning popularity and dismal economic offerings, could bode poorly for the Republican Party come November, according to Cornyn.

“It’s going to make things harder, certainly more expensive in Texas, and make it harder around the country,” Cornyn said, adding that Trump would regret his actions. “I don’t say that with any sort of desire for vengeance; I just think that’s the way it’s going to be. He’s going to have the most miserable two years of his life in the last two years of his term, I think, because I think November is going to be a disaster.”

The Ohio Organizing Collaborative, which promotes voter registration and voting rights, was targeted by over 100 agents who showed up at the homes of the organization’s leadership and employees, seeking electronic devices and in some cases carrying subpoenas. The bureau also had a search warrant for the organization’s Cleveland office.

“They had agents all across the state going to civil rights leaders’ and community leaders’ doors intimidating them, coming and demanding that they talk about literally anything they would ask,” Prentiss Haney, an OOC board member, told MS NOW. The agents “asked them if they’re committing voter fraud, just on their doors, in front of their houses with their children, and just following them to work and school.”

Haney told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer that the agents who approached the organization’s staff at their homes in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Youngstown didn’t have warrants, calling their approach “just straight-up intimidation tactics.” He said the OOC is not involved in voter fraud in any way.

“It was terrifying,” Haney said. “I’ve never seen this sort of force from a federal agency against regular people, regular Ohioans, who are helping people participate in elections.”

The FBI and the Department of Justice have not commented publicly about the raid or any investigation into the OOC, but Democratic Representative Shontel Brown, who represents Cleveland and much of northeastern Ohio, said in a statement that she was “alarmed and outraged by reports that Trump and Kash Patel’s FBI has raided the Ohio Organizing Collective in Cleveland.”

“This appears to be a blatant effort to suppress and deny the vote of people in Northeast Ohio. These raids must end immediately,” Brown said on X.

The FBI’s raids bring to mind the right-wing smear campaign in 2009 to bring down ACORN, a national organization that also advocated for voting rights, among other efforts aimed at low-income Americans. Even though investigations found that ACORN staff broke no laws, the organization lost almost all of its funding, depriving many communities of a valuable organization and hurting voter registration. Thursday’s raids seem aimed at depressing voter registration and creating panic about nonexistent voter fraud in a state where Democrats stand to make gains in November.

“The terms that Iran leaked out to the Fake News have NOTHING to do with the terms that were agreed to, in writing,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, on the 105th day of a war that was only supposed to last two weeks.

“What they said, including their weak and pathetic statement on having a deal, bears no relation to the truth. Very dishonorable people to deal with. With them, there is no such thing as dealing in good faith. AMAZING!” he wrote. “Also, their totally rebuffed Drone attack last night against Indian Ships leaving the Hormuz Strait is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. They better get their act together, and FAST!”

IRNA, Iran’s state news agency, reported earlier Friday that the memorandum of understanding established a 60-day ceasefire that the country could use to negotiate retaining some of their enrichment capabilities. They also reported that Tehran would receive compensation for the damage incurred by U.S. and Israeli attacks.

Vice President JD Vance also directly contradicted IRNA’s reporting in a post on X, insisting that Iranians “are not receiving any cash, and no funds are being released simply for signing a deal or attending a meeting.”

Trump announced Thursday that a deal had been agreed upon by “all parties involved” and would be passed very quickly, but it’s looking increasingly like peace is still very far away. Israeli officials indicated Thursday they were not aware of any deal, and now Iran has presented conditions that the president says he never agreed to.

But if you can’t have lions, six UFC fights are the next best thing. Granted, UFC fighting is very popular in the United States and across the world. I’ve read various accounts this week contending that UFC fighting has supplanted hockey as the fourth-most-popular sport on television, behind the big three of football, baseball, and basketball. I’ve also read that its popularity may have peaked; here’s a 2025 piece by a sportswriter who has followed “combat sports” for 15 years, showing that the number of matches is in steep decline. “The United States, long the backbone of [mixed martial arts], has seen a sharp decline in activity,” wrote John S. Nash. “In 2009, more than 6,266 professional fights took place across the country. This would be the pinnacle for American MMA contests. By 2024, that number had dropped to just over 3,027—a 52 percent decrease.”

Still—it’s popular. Fine. But guess what’s strikingly, overwhelmingly not popular? The idea of hosting such fights at the White House, on grounds we tend to associate with understated, democratic solemnity. A poll released Thursday found that just … wait for it … 16 percent of Americans considered it appropriate to hold MMA cage matches on the White House grounds. Meanwhile, 46 percent opposed. Even among Republicans, only 31 percent considered it appropriate. Yet a narrow plurality of Republicans in the survey backed the event, by said 31 percent to 22 percent.

Democrats opposed it by huge margins, 75 to 5 percent. Independents were strongly against it too, by 45 to 11 percent. So once again, it’s Republicans—no; specifically, it’s MAGA Republicans, because they’re undoubtedly that 31 percent—who are way out of step with what real Americans think. Yet they—Trump, his lackeys, and all those Soviet-style propagandists on Fox and Newsmax and One America and elsewhere—will of course spend the entire weekend equating men beating each other to a pulpy mass on hallowed civic ground with “real” patriotism.

It’s sickening. Oh—and it’s also, as we’ve come to expect with Trump, deeply corrupt. First of all, the cost of constructing the arena is around $60 million. Supposedly UFC is picking up that check, but with Trump, who really knows? We taxpayers will undoubtedly be on the hook for something. Meanwhile, the chief sponsor—surprise, surprise!—is Crypto.com. There are in addition figurines of some of the featured fighters. There’s apparel—garish T-shirts running $40. Over at TrumpStore.com, somewhat to my surprise, I didn’t see any merch specifically tied to the event, but you have to believe that Trump’s short-fingered hand is dipping into some till or another here. A lawsuit filed by the group the Public Integrity Project to block the event from taking place (it’s pending as I write) states that UFC set up a for-profit entity to manage this event, which is selling seating packages that cost up to $1.5 million—and that Trump previously bought $50,000 worth of stock in TKO, UFC’s owner.

Out in the real world, Trump is being reduced to impotence by a bunch of dictators who are even more reactionary than he is. He’s about to cut a “deal” with Iran that sounds like it will be little more than an extended ceasefire. It will, many experts fear, compare unfavorably to Barack Obama’s 2015 accord, which Trump tore up in 2018. Trump may achieve what Obama achieved, in terms of getting Iran to agree not to enrich uranium at anywhere close to weapons-grade levels. But as I’ve noted several times, the thing to watch is how much money Trump agrees to transfer to Iran. Which in a sense is fine; it’s Iran’s frozen money. But when Obama agreed to give Iran $1.7 billion, right-wingers screamed that it was capitulation and even treasonous. Iran now wants up to $24 billion. We’ll see how Mr. Art of the Deal fares.

But even if he does strike a decent deal, he’s already done enormous damage to the U.S. economy, the global economy, and American prestige and power projection. To sane observers in the United States and across the world, he looks like exactly what he is: a weak and hollow and insecure man who started a needless and counterproductive war out of nowhere because it looked “tough.”

But inside his little MAGA cocoon on Sunday night, he’ll be a manly man, presiding over watching other manly men spill each other’s blood for the leader’s greater glory. It’s the most undemocratic pageant one could imagine, a fact that—given that scant 16 percent support—the people know in their bones. In fact, this is exactly what fascism is: grotesque, violent spectacle that repulses most of the population but drives the fervent worshippers to a frenzied state and tries to bully its way into being synonymous with what it means to be a real American.

It’s all made worse by the fact that Dear Leader will be embarking upon his ninth decade of life that night, and that six in 10 Americans believe he lacks the mental sharpness to serve as president. So that’s the not-so-secret meaning of this event. I just wonder if Vegas will establish odds on whether he’ll fall asleep.

MY NOVEL IS OUT!: Buy my new novel, Killing Baby Hitler, out this week from O/R Books. “Fabulous in every sense,” says Kurt Andersen. “Savagely funny,” says Molly Jong-Fast. They’re right!

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia issued a preliminary injunction against the president’s slush fund, but said she was willing to drop the case altogether if acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signed a document under penalty of perjury saying they would not move forward with the fund.

The judge gave Blanche and Bessent one week to provide their sworn testimony.

Last week, Blanche insisted publicly that “we are not moving forward with the fund,” and claimed it wasn’t necessary to release a document reversing the DOJ’s position. It turns out Blanche’s pinky promise won’t be good enough.

Staffers in the Justice Department and White House have reportedly been telling the president’s MAGA allies they can still expect to receive some form of payment, and Trump has continued to talk up the fund, later telling NBC’s Meet the Press he and Republicans thought it was a “great idea.” (Spoiler alert: They did not.)

Trump’s fund had attracted the attention of some of his most notorious allies, as well as one top DOJ official.

This story has been updated.

Luckily for us, he has a plan to keep the products that are making him rich from wiping everyone out. Amodei suggests the government should “have the power to block or deter deployment” of models it deems too risky. He calls for frontier large language models to be subjected to technical testing and auditing, workplace protections against AI-related job displacement, coordination among “allied democracies” against “adversaries,” and limits on the use of LLMs’ use in warfare and for domestic surveillance. Anthropic has previously suggested that a pause on frontier model development might be worthwhile, but—for now—impossible, as it might allow “the least cautious actors catch up technologically.” Like OpenAI’s progressive-coded “New Deal,” Amodei’s vision contains plenty of nice-enough-sounding ideas that are unlikely to be implemented so long as Donald Trump is in the White House and our political system is being pumped full of donations from Amodei’s fabulously wealthy, openly reactionary colleagues in Silicon Valley. Amodei, of course, laments the lack of global coordination on these issues, and the disconnect between the scale of the problem at hand and the pace of policymaking: “We now, globally and collectively, need to activate a slow and rickety policy apparatus to deal with risks and opportunities that are going to compound surprisingly quickly from here.”

As a climate reporter, I find Amodei’s admonitions eerily familiar. For decades, scientists have warned about the enormous dangers posed by continuing to burn fossil fuels that deposit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and warm the planet. Once policymakers seemed to be taking those concerns seriously, the companies whose products have fueled global warming—and that backed efforts to downplay its importance—started to ape those scientists’ warnings, laying out their own plans for a “transition” to a vaguely defined future known as “net-zero.” Ahead of U.N. climate talks in Paris in 2015, for instance, Saudi Aramco, Shell, and other major fossil fuel producers announced their “collective support for an effective global climate change agreement.” Many backed the implementation of a global carbon tax that there was no practical means of implementing, especially given that a foundational premise of what became the Paris climate agreement was that its goals would be nonbinding. The companies poured millions into academic institutions that lent credibility to the idea that fossil fuel companies would play a leading role in the transition to a fossil fuel–free world.

These moves weren’t all cynical theatrics. In the lead-up to U.N. climate talks in Glasgow, in 2021, a few European producers released somewhat plausible-sounding plans to start actually scaling back their oil and gas operations and invest in renewables. That was seemingly out of a fear that governments might actually start requiring them to do that, but also because there were a few greenish areas—like carbon storage—that aligned well with their expertise and core business model. Governments never did enforce a global energy transition, and most of those lofty industry climate plans have been walked back. Throughout that saga, at every level of government, even the allegedly more climate-conscious oil and gas companies continued to lobby against laws and regulatory proposals that weren’t to their liking.

The regulatory proposals from Anthropic and OpenAI are different from polluters’ net-zero plans in meaningful ways. It may be the case that Amodei, at least, really does believe the scary stories he tells about Anthropic LLMs creating biological weapons and defying their creators. Unlike fossil fuel CEOs, Amodei and Altman have been among the loudest voices broadcasting the existential risks their products pose. However, genuine or not, Amodei and Altman’s philosophizing about the allegedly mystical properties of their products enables them to cast themselves as guided by some deeper, more altruistic purpose because of their access to a special kind of knowledge that endows them with a power nobody else has: If they’re the only ones who truly understand the awe-inspiring powers of Claude and ChatGPT, then who else could possibly know how to regulate them and avert dystopia?

The truth is that there’s a business imperative for the likes of Altman and Amodei to avoid talking about the middle ground between the techno-futurist utopia and/or existential threats promised by artificial intelligence—all squishy concepts in their own right. Increasingly advanced large language models may well turn out to be massively important for the businesses that can afford to automate enormous numbers of the entry-level programming jobs and administrative positions. They could at once help advance some genuinely exciting medical breakthroughs and create a generation of kids who never learn to read or think for themselves. Scammers might figure out new ways to trick your grandparents into signing away their life savings as governments automate warfare and make manual tax preparation a thing of the past. These are all transformative developments in their own right. They pose novel dangers that governments ought to take seriously. They do not add up to a new god.

Recent headlines, moreover, lend some credence to the idea that AI developers are on the verge of acting more like normal corporations. Companies that have rushed to embrace LLMs are running up unsustainable bills on their token usage, i.e., monetized units of usage that users pay for based on how compute-intensive and numerous the tasks are that they’re asking LLMs to do. Results have been mixed, and, for now, automation remains an expensive and (human), labor-intensive task for many firms. In response to such concerns, OpenAI has signaled that it will start lowering its prices to compete with Anthropic.

The most important difference between oil and gas producers’ climate pledges and AI companies’ recent policy proposals is that the world does not run on large language models. Fossil fuels are the foundation of modernity. As the now monthslong closure of the Strait of Hormuz has shown, abruptly cutting off supplies of coal, oil, gas, and the many products derived from them is economically disastrous. And whereas few people on earth can remember life without fossil fuels, just about everyone can recall—perhaps fondly—a world before Claude and ChatGPT. Despite their best attempts to convince the public and policymakers otherwise, these companies are neither too big to fail nor too magical for regular people to understand.

That’s not a case for pulling the plug so much as for seeing through the religious bromides that Amodei and Altman use to describe their companies. Anthropic and OpenAI’s products should indeed be subject to stringent regulations. Their billionaire CEOs are just that: executives with a financial interest in a regulatory regime that preserves their business model and future earnings. Like their counterparts in the fossil fuel industry, it’s their prerogative to try to convince policymakers and the public that they have a good-faith interest in our collective well-being. But no one should mistake them for philosopher kings building a god. Dario Amodei and Sam Altman have some doctrinal differences, but they are both—above all—wealthy men who want to keep getting wealthier by selling their products however and to whoever they want.

“Jamie Raskin, a Loser in Life, who worked endlessly during my First Term to impeach me, and failed miserably, wasting the Country’s money, time, and effort, will guaranteed be trying to do it again, despite one of the most successful Presidencies in History,” Trump posted.

“He spent time on the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs, and was rebuffed on that, just as he has been rebuffed on Impeachment, and many other things. If Biden didn’t give him a pardon, he’d be in jail right now! Something should be done about people like this who do bad things, but always come up on the short end because of their illegal or unscrupulous behavior, and hurt our Country in the process,” Trump added. “I agree with Mark Levin when he says to, EXPEL THE BUM.”

Trump was responding to a post on X from conservative commentator Mark Levin calling for Raskin’s expulsion, claiming the Maryland congressman was “already leading a plot to impeach the President if the Democrats take the House.” Raskin has long been a thorn in Trump side, serving on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and supporting both congressional attempts to impeach Trump during his first term.

Raskin responded to Trump’s post on MS Now’s All In With Chris Hayes Thursday night, saying the president “is obviously having nightmare flashbacks about impeachment.”

“There’s a very easy way to not get impeached. Stop committing impeachable offenses. Stop committing high crimes and misdemeanors. Don’t go to war and usurp the powers of Congress to declare war,” Raskin told Hayes, saying that Trump should stop defying Congress and the Constitution.

Chris Hayes: The president is rage posting about you. He calls you a loser in life, and he's mad that you wanted to impeach him.

Jamie Raskin: There's a very easy way to not get impeached. Stop committing impeachable offenses. Stop committing high crimes and misdemeanors. pic.twitter.com/KkTFDx8xsY

— Blue Georgia (@BlueGeorgia) June 12, 2026

The post comes as Trump and his allies are working on a plan to expunge Trump’s previous impeachments from the record, even though that isn’t constitutionally possible. But that won’t stop Trump, as he can’t accept the idea that he could ever do anything wrong. Not only does he want his record to reflect that, he also wants to punish anyone who tries to hold him accountable.

“Here in Washington, D.C., there’s a Democratic primary for mayor. One of the two leading candidates, Janeese Lewis George, is running a Zohran Mamdani campaign—focused on socialist policies,” Trump was asked at a Thursday afternoon press conference. “How would you feel if she emerged victorious?”

“Well I wouldn’t like it. Maybe we’ll take back Washington and run it on a federal basis,” Trump responded bluntly. “We won’t put up with it. We’re not gonna lose our businesses.”

Q: Here in Washington DC, there's a Democratic primary for mayor. One of the two leading candidates is running a Zohran Mamdani campaign focusing on socialist policies. How would you feel if she wins?

TRUMP: Maybe we take back Washington and run it on a federal basis. We won't… pic.twitter.com/H3E69bXzdW

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 11, 2026

Lewis George responded on X.

“We are not going to get ICE off our streets or protect Home Rule by fearing this President. Threatening DC because you do not like how our residents vote is an attack on democracy itself,” she wrote. “The people of DC elect the Mayor of DC. And they want someone who will stand up to Trump.”

While the extent of Trump’s threat is unclear, he is no stranger to “federal takeovers” of the nation’s capital. He instituted one last summer, which current Mayor Muriel Bowser largely cooperated with. As for home rule, Trump would need 60 Senate votes to end it—something he’ll likely never have in this term.

Donald Trump tapped Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, on Thursday as his pick for Tulsi Gabbard’s permanent replacement. It was a shocking about-face for the typically stubborn commander in chief: Trump had earlier this week doubled down on his temporary pick for the job, real estate developer Bill Pulte, though his nomination quickly became a headache in Congress.

Lawmakers argued that Pulte’s appointment, even just as acting DNI, was effectively illegal, as his resume lacked requirements for the job that had been written into the law.

To prevent Pulte becoming permanent DNI, Democrats blocked efforts to renew FISA Section 702, a statute that allows federal agencies such as the NSA and the CIA to surveil people without warrants, which is set to expire Friday.

Clayton rose to the top of a second round of considerations to, in part, “quell all the bitching,” one administration official told Politico Friday.

Other Hill staffers speculated to the publication that Trump may not have understood—or cared about—the tight timeline that Congress was facing with regard to the FISA section renewal. The whole ordeal may have just been another irritant to a president that has little interest in the office.

Trump has “always hated the ODNI role,” one Capitol Hill aide told Politico.

If he passes muster with the FBI and the Senate, Clayton will enter ODNI with zero relevant experience in national security. He has previously worked as a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, providing counsel on corporate crisis management. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s law school. He was similarly handed his role atop the Southern District of New York without any prosecutorial experience.

Yet Clayton has passed countless litmus tests proving his loyalty to the MAGA movement. He has seeded doubt in America’s election integrity, defended Trump’s $1.8 billion taxpayer-bankrolled slush fund for the president’s aggrieved political allies, and unquestioningly done the president’s bidding in the Southern District of New York.

Former Attorney General Pam Bondi tasked Clayton with probing Jeffrey Epstein’s social connections—so long as they tied back to former Democratic President Bill Clinton, former Obama administration adviser Larry Summers, and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman.

A measure to expunge Trump’s 2019 and 2021 impeachments likely wouldn’t be considered until after the midterm elections, people familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal Thursday night.

“It should be done because I did nothing wrong,” Trump told the Journal. “It was a rigged deal—it was a whole rigged situation.”

Experts said that the resolution would have little legal weight considering that the Constitution has no mechanism for expunging impeachments, and Republican lawmakers noted that it wouldn’t be easy to get enough support to pass the bill.

The president’s plan to erase his impeachments gained new momentum in April, after the Trump administration published new documents related to his first impeachment that MAGA claimed undermined the credibility of the witnesses.

In a show of fealty, California Representative Darrell Issa introduced legislation to have Trump’s impeachments “expunged as if such Articles had never passed the full House of Representatives.” Issa has claimed the president was “wrongfully accused” of the crimes that had him impeached.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has taken up that mantle this time around. “I think it makes a lot of sense the more the evidence comes out, the more we know they really were sham impeachments,” he told the Journal. “They make a very compelling case that it should be expunged from the record, because it was a hyper-partisan attack job.”

Johnson said that wiping Trump’s impeachment record was “not an order of first priority” but it was a priority all the same.

In the case of his 2019 impeachment, there is a literal transcript of Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian government demanding they dig up dirt on Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election. As for his second impeachment, the president most certainly incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021.

Issa’s measure has attracted 23 co-sponsors, but not every Republican seems interested in getting on board. Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is retiring, suggested it was political suicide for his party. “Maybe they’ve given up on holding the majority? It’s silly. What happened is history.”

But his impeachments are clearly still a sore spot for the grievance-addled president. On Thursday, Trump posted a lengthy screed attacking Representative Jamie Raskin, who led the House’s legal effort to impeach the president in 2021.

Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.

CNN reports that Donald Trump is “furious” because his bombings of Iran this week were not portrayed by the media as strong and powerful. He’s apparently “frustrated,” according to CNN sources, who are clearly leaking out of concern for his mental state. On another front entirely, Trump is smashing new records in the polling. He’s reaching new thresholds on inflation. Thanks to Trump, Democrats may now be leading Republicans by a key polling metric for the first time in many decades.

We think these stories should all be connected to each other. The rage and frustration over Iran is basically rage and frustration over his political situation, because the former is causing the latter. He’s in a political bind we don’t think we’ve ever seen before.

So we’re parsing through all this new data and new Trump lunacy with Democratic strategist Christina Reynolds, who has worked on a lot of midterms and can explain how all this is playing on the ground. Christina, thanks for coming on.

Christina Reynolds: Thanks for having me.

Sargent: So let’s start here. CNN polling analyst Harry Enten made a point I haven’t heard before. He said Trump is the only president ever to hit a net approval on inflation of negative 50 points. And he’s done this in many polls. Listen to Enten.

Harry Enten (voiceover): Inflation net approval: minus 50 points or worse. Fifty points underwater or worse. Total polls per president. Trump in 2026—already at least eight polls in which his net approval rating on inflation or the cost of living is negative 50 points or worse. Every other president in every other year, the answer is zero.

Sargent: So just to reiterate, in eight polls, Trump has hit a net approval on inflation of negative 50 points. No other president has ever done that. Christina, I don’t think I’ve seen polling quite this bad on the economy for a president ever! As long as I’ve been following politics! Maybe something under George W. Bush? I don’t know. What do you think?

Reynolds: I don’t think it was this bad. I worked at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in ’06, and we took back the House. Bush was certainly not a popular president at that time. But these are numbers that I would send back to the pollster and say, Can you double-check? I don’t know that I’ve seen numbers this bad.

Republicans have an even bigger problem than those numbers. They have a president who absolutely wants credit for fixing everything. He believes his own spin, certainly, but also he believes he’s taken action and should get credit for that action. That happens with a lot of politicians, but this president is especially guilty of that. He is not going to fade away into the background, which Bush did largely in 2006. He is not going to let the Republicans go out and shift the conversation.

Not that they would be able to shift the conversation. When inflation is growing higher than your wages, voters understand that. They know it. They live it. You can’t convince them things are better when they’re literally not. But Trump is not just going to go out and talk about things and remind voters of that—he’s going to go out and talk about his ballroom. He’s going to go out and talk about the reflecting pool, as he did in Wisconsin when he went to one of the most vulnerable Republicans. So this is a huge problem for Republicans. It’s not just the polling number, it’s what Trump’s going to do because of the polling number.

Sargent: You raise a really interesting point there, which is that Donald Trump isn’t being at all accommodating of the situation that Republicans find themselves in. They’ve urged him to try to talk about the economy in a way that makes it look as if he understands what people are going through and makes it look as if he’s doing stuff. But he won’t do that, because it makes him look like a failure.

Since everything has to always be about his lionization, his glorious greatness, he just says, I don’t care about inflation, or, Affordability’s a hoax. There’s no sensitivity or awareness of the situation the rest of his party is in, in any sense.

Reynolds: Absolutely not. That is counter to George Bush. It’s counter to what Nancy Pelosi did when she was House Speaker and understood that some people were going to speak out against her. As long as she had the votes, she was OK. There’s some level of what gets the party, what gets the values that you support where you need to go. And Trump is about what gets Trump where he needs to go. It’s a huge problem for Republicans.

You heard it in the “I don’t care about the midterms” comment. You hear it in everything that he does. If I was a Republican, I would want him to take a back seat on things outside of maybe fundraising. He’s doing the exact opposite. If you’re a Republican and you’re forced to stand up there and praise him for gold-plating the White House, that’s a pretty tough campaign ask.

Sargent: That’s really interesting. By the way, Harry Enten also notes that, according to his calculations, Democrats are more trusted on inflation than Republicans for the first time since the 1970s. Enten also notes that Trump is the only president to ever hit 80 percent disapproval on gas prices. Eighty percent disapproval on gas prices! Trump is just crushing records all over the place. I swear I have not seen numbers like this, ever.

Reynolds: No, me neither. It’s pretty impressive when you think about it. It also is a sign that you can’t pull the wool over voters’ eyes on things like this. Everyone goes to the gas station. Everyone has to deal with the prices going up because of gas prices.

You can’t fool them. Trump talking the way he does and acknowledging that it’s OK, but it’ll get better, doesn’t help them now. He’s really leaving Republicans in a rough spot.

Sargent: It’s really extraordinary. So all this is key context for what’s coming next. CNN’s Dana Bash reports that sources are saying Trump is, quote-unquote, “furious.” Why? Because after Trump struck Iran this week, the media didn’t view his action as powerful enough.

Dana Bash also reports that Trump is “frustrated” that Iran didn’t seem to be taking the strike seriously. Amazing.

So now Trump is saying that he won’t strike Iran again because they’re now close to a deal. He says—maybe by the time people listen to this, there will be a deal. Maybe not. I don’t think so, because he’s now talking about this weekend. But put that aside. I want to focus on the connection between Trump’s rage and his terrible polls.

The reason Trump is angry isn’t just because Iran won’t do his bidding. It’s that by not doing Trump’s bidding and keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed, Iran has him cornered. It’s driving up prices, destroying his numbers, and destroying GOP midterm hopes. The anger and the polling are connected in that sense, right, Christina?

Reynolds: Absolutely they are. His frustration is coming out in what voters are understanding. It’s one of the reasons he can’t stop talking about things that are incredibly unpopular.

He is just clinically unable to move on because of that rage and that frustration, because it didn’t go the way he assumed it would go. So we are stuck in a war that people didn’t ask for, that we proactively started. But we are domestically stuck with higher gas prices and everything that stems from that.

That’s all because he didn’t get what he wanted, and no one is giving him credit for what he thinks he should get credit for. I am a little baffled as to what he thinks he should get credit for at this point, but no one is giving him any credit. They are giving him, rightly, the blame. He can’t handle that.

Sargent: I think that’s exactly right. He’s in a rage because the media is portraying him as being fundamentally ineffective and unable to resolve the very situation that’s creating the high prices.

By the way, even if he gets a deal—I don’t know, by the time people listen to this, or on the weekend, whenever—even if he gets one, those prices, especially on things like energy and gas, are going to stay up for a long time. As someone who’s worked on midterm elections, how do you anticipate the impact of this playing out on the ground in all these races over the next few months? What’s it going to look like politically?

Reynolds: It’s going to look like a few things. We’re going to see more retirements. We’re seeing that at every level of the ballot, where Republicans are choosing just not to run again in this environment. We’re going to continue to see voters open for a change in surprising places, voters who understand—maybe it’s not forever, maybe we rent some seats for a little while—but they see it’s not working.

Where we have candidates that are out there talking about issues that matter versus a candidate that is forced to talk about a ballroom or to praise a war that they’re not that into, you’re going to continue to see voters give a chance to those candidates.

I think we’re running better candidates, and we have candidates who understand their districts and are willing to take a chance. One big difference in the shift that I’ve seen from 2002 and 2006 to 2018 and now—there’s some power in looking at Donald Trump getting elected for people who are not traditional politicians to say, Maybe I can give it a try. Maybe I can offer something different, or I can connect better with my community. That means we see some interesting candidates out there who offer something different. Different is good in a change electorate.

It’s going to make for some challenging elections for Republicans that they’re not expecting. What also happens in those places, when we expand the field—you have candidates that aren’t used to hard races. You have candidates who got a little lazy.

They have not done their constituent services, they have not gone out and had a tough campaign schedule, versus a candidate that’s new, that’s trying again, that has the fire in their belly. I can tell you which candidate I’d rather work for every time in that scenario.

Sargent: I want to pick up a little bit more on that because we have a piece up at NewRepublic.com right now about American Bridge, which is a Democratic group. They’re investing $50 million in trying to expand the House map. The Senate map as well, but let’s focus on the House for now.

They’re trying to expand the House map by really going into some very difficult districts traditionally for Democrats—ones that lean Republican by four or five, six, seven, eight, that kind of thing. Some of these are in North Carolina, some of them are in central Pennsylvania, some are in Iowa.

But Democrats, not just American Bridge, but as a party generally—it now looks like there’s a new level of commitment to going into harder races, to contesting tougher places and really trying to shake loose whatever can be shaken loose. That’s what happens, right, in an environment like this? If you go contest these races in hard places, things happen. Funny things happen. Surprising things happen.

Reynolds: You expand the field at a time like this because we look at what’s happened since Trump got elected. Since Trump got elected, Democrats have flipped 30 state legislative seats, Republicans have flipped none. Democrats have overperformed in the elections that have happened—a variety of special elections, state legislative elections. Democrats have overperformed in 85 percent of those seats. That number in 2006 was about two-thirds. We’re overperforming all over the place.

You’re going to see it at the House level, you’re going to see it at the state legislative level, where we’re looking for where we can play. Where they have an incumbent that has gotten lazy or is standing with Trump too much against the interests of their people. They have an electorate that’s just a little tired of what’s happening or is particularly impacted by the economy, by gas prices. Ag communities are great examples of this.

You’re going to see this more and more, where organizations, campaigns expand out, and we’re going to pick up some of those seats. The Republicans also have to try and expand their map. And they’re not ready for that. They don’t have the message for that, to actually reach and connect with voters.

Sargent: Fascinating. To bear this all out, we have this new Emerson poll. It has Democrats leading in the generic House ballot matchup by 10 points, 50 percent to 40 percent. That’s 50–40.

Now the polling averages have it a little tighter—50PlusOne, they have it at six points, the average is 49 to 43. But this 10-point poll makes me think that the average could start to widen as well. And if Democrats are up at seven, eight, nine points, you’re looking at a wave.

Where do you think it is right now? Do you think it’s closer to six or do you think it’s closer to 10? And where do you expect the spread to end up this fall?

Reynolds: I am usually a pragmatist, maybe a pessimist. But I think this is going to be a wave election. We spend a lot of time talking about very few candidates, and we miss some of the amazing candidates who are running in races down the ballot.

We have a lot of phenomenal women running around the country who are working-class candidates who’ve been really in their communities. We have a number of people who are doing surprising things on the state level. We have some phenomenal candidates.

Between the environment, between the precedent, and between what Trump’s going to be able to do and how little they are going to be able to control that, and how much they’re going to have to walk with him off that cliff—I feel good about where Democrats are.

One of the reasons that generic ballot is at 10 points right now is we are reminding people—and one of the reasons, most importantly, that Democrats are winning on inflation—is we are reminding people that we understand that costs are important, that there is work that government can do, important work, to help make things a little bit easier for families. Trump is not doing that at all.

That’s part of how he won: communicating with voters and telling them he understood. Now he has moved on to ballrooms, to wars they didn’t ask for, and [saying] these price increases don’t matter.

Sargent: And you’re talking about House candidates when you talk about these working-class women around the country?

Reynolds: House candidates, state legislative candidates, in some cases gubernatorial candidates. They don’t get as much attention as Senate candidates, but there’s some really great candidates out there doing great work. And that’s going to make a difference, too.

Sargent: It’s very similar to 2018, where Trump’s first election just brought in this whole new class of public servant just out of nowhere. We’re seeing a new wave of it right now, and it really is heartening stuff to see.

I want to flag something else from the Emerson poll. In the generic House ballot matchup, Democrats are leading the GOP among independents by 15, 45 to 30. Now, how important are independents in midterm elections? What do you make of that number?

My sense is a lot of what we’re seeing now is making it possible for Democrats to have conversations with certain constituencies and types of voters that they couldn’t really reach before. They’re more attuned to listening to what Democrats have to say now.

Reynolds: That’s exactly it. I think that number is huge and hugely important. More and more, people are finding themselves unaffiliated. They are deciding, Maybe I’m not connected to either party. Some of this is the divisiveness, some of this is the way we paint both sides. Count me as someone who—I don’t love where the Democratic Party brand is right now. But I’m not as worried about it because each candidate is running their own race on Democratic values, and those values are incredibly popular. That’s why we’re appealing to independents right now.

Sargent: Well, it’s sure looking really good right now, Christina. Tell us, what could go wrong?

Reynolds: Haha. Lots of things. We never know what’s going to happen in the world. We never know how things are going to change and what voters exactly are going to care about. Will there be massive world events? Will there be natural disasters and things like that, all of which throw a campaign off its axis a little bit? We never know that.

But I feel very good about the fact that we have a class of candidates across the country and up and down the ballot who know how to talk to voters, who have an agenda that they can sell. This is not just “Trump stinks.” Those messages, those ads write themselves. He keeps giving us content. That’s out there. But we have to provide something positive for voters. And I actually think we’re doing that.

I feel good about that. We keep laying the groundwork, we keep supporting those candidates. And—gosh, I’m not usually an optimistic person, Greg—but we’re doing what we need to do, and voters understand where the world is right now, and they need change.

Sargent: It’s really got the same nose-to-the-grindstone feeling that 2018 had.

Reynolds: It does. It very much does.

Sargent: Christina Reynolds, on that note—we don’t usually end on a positive note around here, so let’s grab this opportunity while it’s there. Christina, awesome to talk to you. Thank you so much. Come back, please.

Reynolds: You too. Thanks so much.

“The problem for Democrats is that most people see great things about California and about New York, but they don’t think of them as places where government is functioning well,” he said. “The taxes are relatively high, and it’s not obvious that people are getting anything extra for it.” He asked how Democrats could make outcomes better for people in these high-tax states.

The reason this statement rang my bells is that I moved to New York almost three years ago, and taxes were a big reason why. My then partner—now husband—and I decided to move here from Arkansas. That’s right: We wanted to pay more taxes. And I’ll tell you why.

It is true that New York and California have some of the highest income tax rates and estimated share of personal income residents pay in all taxes when property, sales, and local taxes are taken into account. I’m not sure what evidence Yglesias was considering when he said it wasn’t clear what people were getting from their high taxes—or what benefit he specifically thought those taxes were failing to deliver. But then, it’s not always easy to evaluate what bang we’re getting for the buck. How do we measure the effectiveness of the government? These are the questions I found myself asking.

On one level, people experience their taxation in a personal way: There is an amount of money withheld from our paychecks or paid to their state finance departments (or refunded to them) every spring. That is also, usually, how they experience government services, or services largely subsidized or regulated by the government: who decides their county or city’s operations, how transparent are they, how reliable are their utilities, what is a trip to the DMV like? For the most part, they’re only paying individual taxes and living in one state at a time.

Indeed, most people spend the vast majority of their lives in one state, and they’ll spend their working lives paying only one state’s income tax. People don’t make interstate moves that often: The Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies calculated in 2020 that about 13 percent of Americans move each year, and only about 14 percent of those moves are across state lines. Most people stay local. Of the people who move, most move for personal reasons having to do with jobs and family—or the chance to buy a new home instead of renting. Which is to say: Most people can’t make a real assessment on what they’re getting for their taxes on an individual level because they lack the information needed to make informed comparisons.

My husband and I lived in my home state of Arkansas together for a little more than five years; like most people, we decided to move for a number of reasons. One was that we could no longer stand the South’s blazing hot summers and were worried about climate change, so we looked for more climate-resilient places to live, which mostly led us up north. We wanted to live somewhere near an Amtrak station with frequent service, near mountains, and we really wanted to buy an older home that we could comfortably afford. We also wanted to leave the South for political and cultural reasons. We landed in central New York.

All that being said, if I had to name the catalyst for the move, it was when I had to write a check for my 2022 Arkansas state income taxes. I was self-employed for most of my time in Arkansas, which meant I frequently owed some amount of taxes at the end of the tax year, and in the spring of 2023 that amount was a little more than $7,000. That was, coincidentally, the amount that the state would soon be giving to individuals who wanted to use tax money to send their children to private school under the newly passed LEARNS Act.

The LEARNS Act gave almost anyone, regardless of income, taxpayer money to use toward private school tuition. I realized the same amount of money I was sending to the state could be used by someone with more money than I had to send their children to a school that promoted teachings I disagreed with, while also robbing the public school system of funds. I simply decided that I didn’t want to live in a state that used its tax dollars—my tax dollars—that way. I wanted to move to a place where my taxes were spent more in line with my values. Even if it meant paying more.

It was a clarifying moment. We had lived for years in a very rural part of the state that looked different even from where we live now, near New York’s dairy country. We often had to take our own trash to the dump, our roads fell into disrepair after the slightest winter storm, and the county often relied on private help to fix them. There were knock-down, drag-out fights over even small amounts of tax increases that funded things like my local library. There was no county-funded animal shelter, and animal control was spotty at best, which meant stray and abandoned animals were everywhere, and my husband and I, dog and cat lovers, spent thousands of our own money to rescue animals, spay and neuter pets for people who couldn’t afford it, and send homeless pets to friends around the country.

Getting even basic information about services, and service interruptions, from the county government or local utilities was difficult. I once FOIA-ed information about county water shutoffs from my local water utility and got a large folder with handwritten records. When the pipes burst at my house—for complicated reasons I won’t go into—I called to ask if the water company could shut my water off so that I could have it fixed, and the person I spoke to told me—and I am deadly serious—to find my water meter and “just stick a screwdriver down there.”

I have spent many years complaining about rural Arkansas only because I loved living there and think my neighbors deserve better. But when we finally left the second time, I realized how stressful the daily indignities of life there had been. We live in a place now where things just work. The roads are plowed in winter, they’re repaired in the spring, the local utilities text and email us when there are service interruptions and they repair them quickly, we have a well-funded library system.

Across the board, the services and benefits I get for my tax money outstrip what I got from my former state. I regularly receive booklets in my mailbox with reports from the county government and the county schools. We live near a city, Utica, with a beautiful train station with services that can get us to most places in the country, and the DMV is in that train station and is one of the quickest, politest places I have ever been. Utica, which has a third of the population of Arkansas’s state capital, Little Rock, is served by a public transit system that provides nearly three times the annual rides that Little Rock’s does. Hourly wages are higher here, and the safety net provides to those in need better.

Moving to New York was the good kind of culture shock. My husband and I are constantly asking each other, “Is it just me, or are the vibes here just … better?” The answer is yes. Together, we have lived in four cities across three states; separately, you can add four more cities and three more states to that list. They vary in their level of taxation and politics, and we have developed a personal metric for assessing the quality of a place, which we call the Potts-Suarez Theory of County Dumps. How easy is it, and how much does it cost, to get rid of your household trash?

In Arkansas, we resorted to piling our own trash into our 2003 Subaru Forester and taking it to the dump on Saturdays, usually spending about $20 a week to do so. Many people in my home county simply burned their own trash in their yards, violating an ordinance to do so because it’s easier and cheaper. In New York State, our trash and recycling services cost half that amount and are reliable, and when we have to make a trip to the county eco-station to dump hazardous waste—we are DIY-ing much of our old house, including removing lead paint—it is open more hours, well organized, clean, and well staffed.

Obviously, this is a very silly and subjective measure. But there are some data points hinting that it’s not just us. The states that rank higher in health outcomes tend to be more progressive states with a higher tax base, while those at the bottom are across the low-tax, low-wage South. Maps look similar for educational attainment, food security, and median income. A recent study ranking states on overall measures of well-being found New York and California in the middle, while the states at the top were a mix of high- and low-tax states, number one being Minnesota, and states at the bottom included much of the mid-South, like Arkansas. Surveys that try to assess happiness find similar results. New York and California are also some of the least affordable states to live in in the U.S., but the supply-side housing folks ought to know that some of that is because the supply is outpaced by demand: People want to live in these states.

Some of my problems are particular to the South, which, as my colleague Perry Bacon Jr. wrote last month, has long been antidemocratic and especially focused on disenfranchising Black citizens. “Whether the United States overall is a liberal democracy or can become one again, the states in the South are at best electoral democracies and are veering toward electoral autocracies,” he wrote, and he details the ways those states restrict freedoms of their residents and liberal voters’ abilities to shape their own cities and communities.

There is, at base, a set of questions each state, or city, or country, has to organize itself around. How can we form a community? How do we create a good life for the people who live here? Most people don’t truly have any way to assess how their own communities are answering that question compared to others. There are very few objective measures on which we can rank states on how nice it is to live there—and they would be imperfect at best because different people value different things. Taxes are one objective measure, but taxes have long been framed as a burden weighing on people, not as an investment we’re all making so that the place we’ve chosen to live is as good as it can be.

Viewed as an investment, the basic level of taxation can fund the services that free up time and energy for its residents to work, care for their families, enjoy their leisure, make art, and build cool things together because they’re less worried about basic things like how hard it is to dispose of the household trash. States that don’t invest in their public infrastructure and well-being are shifting the burdens to individuals.

The great things about California and New York are inextricable from these states’ tax systems. But the vast majority of political writers who question taxes in places like Washington, D.C., New York, or California—or who hold up places like Texas as an example of housing abundance, have never seen what that looks like for the people who live in those places on a daily basis. The lack of taxes, the lack of investment, can take the form of all manner of imposition, from a county dump that is too expensive for people to use to inadequate reproductive health care, to never knowing if your vote will be counted. From 30,000 feet in the air, these can look like separate issues. At ground level, they’re all born from the neglect that comes in the lack of real investment. I know exactly what I’m getting from my taxes in New York. And I suspect other low-tax boosters know what they’re getting too, which is why they haven’t moved en masse to places like Arkansas.

By those standards, college sports is currently the world’s most lucrative workout club. A state judge in Texas ordered the NCAA earlier this month to reinstate Brendan Sorsby, a quarterback at Texas Tech University who has admitted to placing bets at sportsbooks on, among other things, his own team at a previous school.

The NCAA had refused to reinstate Sorsby while it conducts an investigation into the scope of his gambling policy violations. He then sought a temporary injunction that would allow him to continue playing in 2026 and “clarify” his status before he would have to apply for the NFL’s supplemental draft later this summer. The judge sided with Sorsby; the NCAA has vowed to appeal.

Sorsby’s case is far from the only legal battle that the NCAA has found itself in in recent years. But the lawsuit speaks volumes about the constitutional crisis in which collegiate athletics now finds itself—and the shortcomings of the NCAA’s solutions. As long as it resists treating athletes like workers, these problems will only get worse.

The most recent crisis for college sports began in April when Texas Tech announced that Sorsby, who had transferred there from the University of Cincinnati in January, had entered an inpatient treatment facility for gambling addiction. NCAA rules prohibit student-athletes from placing bets on collegiate or professional sports.

Sorsby is far from the first athlete to be embroiled in a gambling scandal since 2018, when the Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on sports betting and paved the way for its widespread legalization by states. But his case may be the most egregious one on record.

According to court documents filed in May, Sorsby wagered more than $90,000 on online sportsbooks over a four-year period. He used accounts registered to friends and family members to evade detection by sportsbooks and school officials. His claims of addiction are also hard to dispute: In an 18-month span while attending Indiana University, for example, he reportedly placed a minimum of 2,900 bets on various sports.

“It became a habit for me to bet,” Sorsby told the NCAA in a statement, according to ESPN. “My betting became a compulsion which made it virtually impossible to resist the constant notifications I received from betting apps. I lost complete control of my addiction. I now realize the apps controlled me and I did not control them.”

The news outlet reported that Sorsby placed at least 40 bets on Indiana University football while playing for the school. The bets were small amounts—ranging from a single dollar to slightly more than $100—but each represents a massive ethical breach. While major sports leagues have adopted a wide range of rules on sports betting over the past few years, none of them allow players to bet on their own sport, let alone their own team.

According to court documents reviewed by The Athletic, Sorsby also claimed that he had “never placed any bets on any Indiana football game that I participated in or that I reasonably expected that I could have participated in.” At the time, he noted, he was on Indiana’s scout team “with several quarterbacks ahead of me on the team’s depth chart” and “no reasonable chance that I would play.” Sorsby reportedly claimed that he had never used nonpublic information when placing the bets—which is both unverifiable and extremely hard to believe.

None of this mattered under the most recent version of the NCAA’s ban on sports betting by student-athletes. Current rules prohibits student-athletes from placing bets on any sport that the NCAA sponsors, even at the amateur or professional level. The NCAA voted last November to restore its ban on betting in professional sports after federal prosecutors charged multiple NBA players and coaches for their alleged roles in illegal gambling operations.

NCAA athletes who violate the organization’s gambling policy can face permanent loss of eligibility. Under NCAA rules, Texas Tech declared Sorsby ineligible after the NCAA opened its investigation into him in April. The school claimed the right to request Sorsby’s reinstatement to restore that eligibility on his behalf.

In a lawsuit filed against the NCAA in May, Sorsby claimed that he faced imminent and irreparable harm if the organization did not reach a decision on his eligibility soon. The deadline to apply for the NFL’s supplemental draft is later this month, which would be his last chance to play in the league for its 2026 season. If the NCAA does not reach a decision until after that deadline, Sorsby argued, he could face the loss of both his final year in college football and an entire year in professional football.

Judge Ken Curry agreed and granted Sorsby’s request for a temporary injunction, concluding that he was likely to prevail at trial. Curry also scheduled the trial date for February 8, 2027—two weeks after the 2026 college football season ends. As a result, even if the NCAA were to ultimately prevail on the merits, Sorsby will already be out of college athletics. (The judge, for the record, did not attend Texas Tech as an undergraduate or as a law student.)

Legal disputes between the NCAA and college athletes aren’t uncommon. Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss successfully challenged the NCAA’s decision to deny him a sixth year of eligibility, for example, in Mississippi state court earlier this year. But the Sorsby ruling struck the college sports landscape like a thunderbolt because it called into question the NCAA’s basic ability to sanction players for egregious policy violations.

“The NCAA strongly disagrees with the court’s ruling in Sorsby’s case and is deeply concerned about the damaging, far-reaching and broadly destabilizing ramifications of this outcome—which undermines and corrupts the integrity of sports,” the organization said in a statement after the ruling was issued.

The university is not a party to Sorsby’s lawsuit, but has expressed a strong interest in having him play in the upcoming season. Sorsby was among the most highly sought players in the transfer portal this spring. Texas Tech struck a NIL deal with him in January that could bring the fifth-year quarterback roughly $5 million for one season of play.

“I’ve heard the word ‘integrity’ used a great deal in the last 48 hours,” Texas Tech athletics director Kirby Hocutt said in a statement on Wednesday. “As someone who has dedicated his career to college sports, I, too, believe integrity is central to our industry’s success. I also think integrity applies on more than one front. The integrity of sport matters. So does the integrity of how we treat a 22-year-old who sought help, entered residential treatment, and is working every day toward recovery. These two things don’t have to be in conflict.”

Hocutt’s voice appears to be a solitary one. There are widespread reports that other schools and conferences may try to collectively punish Texas Tech for the scandal by refusing to schedule games against them at all levels, effectively freezing its athletics program out of competitions. Texas Tech has responded by threatening to pursue litigation if the other schools try to hold the school accountable for enabling Sorsby’s tactics.

College football coaches and officials were openly horrified by the prospect that a court would require a player who admitted to betting on his own team to play in the upcoming season. “As someone who grew up reading about the Black Sox Scandal, and seeing what happened to Pete Rose and just understanding how bright that line seemed to be in all of American sports, I’m stunned that there would be a question at the court level that this is acceptable,” Scott Stricklin, the athletic director for the University of Florida, told ESPN.

It is hard to not draw comparisons to baseball’s own gambling scandals, which had a seismic impact on the sport itself and led to fundamental changes in how it operates. The Black Sox scandal, in which several Chicago White Sox players helped gamblers fix the 1919 World Series, led Major League Baseball to create a commissioner’s office with far-reaching powers to regulate the sport’s integrity.

Baseball had other advantages that the NCAA lacks. Thanks to a controversial 1922 Supreme Court ruling, Major League Baseball enjoys a free-standing exemption to federal antitrust law. Other major sports leagues are also exempt from antitrust law to some degree by the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which allows teams to collectively negotiate television deals without fear of anticompetitive charges.

The NCAA, on the other hand, has faced a decade of legal struggles precisely because it lacks an exemption. The greatest blow came in 2021 when the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a lower court decision that found some of the NCAA’s compensation rules violated federal antitrust law. That ruling opened the door to the NIL era, where players can be compensated semi-indirectly for the use of their name, image, and likeness rights. During oral arguments and in the ruling itself, justices sharply castigated the NCAA for its long-standing opposition to compensating players while reaping millions of dollars in profits from their labor.

“Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion. “And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.”

The NCAA evaded legal scrutiny for so long for a variety of reasons, but at least partly through sheer inertia and its byzantine structure. While the NCAA has a governing board and a president—currently Charlie Baker, the former governor of Massachusetts—it is also a largely decentralized organization. Individual schools wield significant power through the various conferences that also oversee college sports, like the Southeastern Conference and the misleadingly named Big Ten Conference. Many of those schools are also public universities, which means they are governed directly by state governments to varying degrees.

As a result, it is hard to even describe the NCAA as a sports “league” in any meaningful sense. One crucial difference between NCAA sports and professional leagues is the absence of collective bargaining, which sets ground rules between players and owners. Instead, college athletes are free to accept NIL money and transfer almost at will. Sorsby, for example, is currently facing a lawsuit from the University of Cincinnati over a $1 million exit fee in his NIL contract that the quarterback has not yet paid since refusing to play in last year’s bowl game and transferring to Texas Tech.

To “save” college sports from the daunting threats of antitrust enforcement and a robust market for athlete compensation, the NCAA and colleges are doing something unthinkable these days: asking Congress to pass legislation. One bipartisan proposal, the Protect College Sports Act, was drafted by Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Washington Senator Maria Cantwell. It would impose new restrictions on transfers and eligibility that strongly favor schools and constrain student-athletes.

Some of college athletics’ top voices, such as former Alabama football head coach Nick Saban, embraced the bill earlier this month during Senate hearings. But significant obstacles remain. The SEC—the conference, not the financial regulator—and the Big Ten said they opposed the bill, in statements earlier this week. Though their reasoning was vague, the bill would prevent conferences from breaking away from the NCAA to form a more lucrative “super league” of top schools. It would require them to potentially share more broadcast revenue with other schools.

The NCAA also has not yet endorsed the bill. ESPN’s Dan Murphy noted last month that it lacks one of the organization’s main demands: to bar athletes from being classified as employees, which could open the door to collective bargaining. It would be fitting if the NCAA missed out on vital legal protections because it wanted to preserve its original sin of uncompensated labor.

A collective-bargaining agreement would’ve been helpful in the Sorsby case. When major-league players cheat and gamble, they are punished by the procedures laid out in their collective-bargaining agreements, with no role for meddling state judges to override things. Saban lamented during this week’s hearing that “right now in college football we have no rules.” He’s right, but it may be even more accurate to say that the NCAA hasn’t been playing by any rules all along.

I’d begun to wonder when we’d see a third when I learned that the House Armed Services Committee last week adopted an amendment to this year’s defense authorization bill restoring collective-bargaining rights for civilian workers in the Defense Department, and that the same language last year cleared the House as part of that year’s defense authorization bill before the Senate stripped it out in House-Senate conference prior to final passage. Clearly the legislative politics surrounding labor rights are shifting in labor’s favor.

Having said that, I advise you not to get too excited. The first of these labor bills, introduced by Representative Jared Golden, Democrat of Maine, would restore collective-bargaining rights to all federal workers; like the defense authorization amendment, the Protect America’s Workforce Act would reverse a couple of union-busting executive orders (here and here) from President Donald Trump. But after clearing the House in December, 231–195, it’s going nowhere in the Republican Senate. The second labor bill (text; summary) was introduced by Representative Donald Norcross, Democrat of New Jersey (who also sponsored the defense authorization amendment). The Faster Labor Contracts Act would make it easier for newly established union locals to win their first contract. But after passing the House on June 9, 230–193, Norcross’s bill faces similarly dismal odds in the Republican Senate.

Even if the Senate managed to pass one or both bills, it wouldn’t matter, because the dependably anti-labor Trump (who, bafflingly, increased his share of the working-class vote from 51 percent in 2016 to 56 percent in 2024) would veto it. Norcross’s defense authorization amendment, if it clears the House again, will attract less notice, and Trump might not bother to veto an entire Defense bill over a labor provision. But my guess is he won’t have to, because the Senate will likely strip it out again before it gets to his desk.

I can’t tell you how to get a pro-labor bill through the Senate. But to get one through the House, it seems pretty clear that, so long as Republicans are in the majority, you must avoid the Education and the Workforce Committee. None of the three pro-labor bills under discussion cleared that committee, which is so anti-labor that every time the GOP retakes the House, Republican leaders change its name from “Education and Labor” to “Education and the Workforce” because the very word “labor” disturbs their sleep.

The defense authorization amendment bypassed Education and the Workforce because it lacks jurisdiction over the military. December’s bill to restore collective-bargaining rights to all federal workers and this week’s bill removing management obstacles to negotiating union contracts both got to the House floor by discharge petition, a parliamentary procedure by which any House member may collect signatures to force a vote on a bill bottled up in committee. Once that member has acquired 218 signatures (i.e., a majority), they can bring the bill to the floor.

Organizing a workplace can be a pyrrhic victory if management refuses to agree to a contract. Bloomberg’s Robert Combs calculated in 2022 that it took 465 days on average to negotiate a union contract, and that was when we had a pro-labor National Labor Relations Board. It almost certainly takes longer now. According to the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute, Starbucks baristas in Buffalo have been negotiating a contract for 1,645 days, and Amazon warehouse workers in Staten Island have been at it for 1,532 days.

There isn’t much a union can do about such management foot-dragging except file an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB, and if a Republican is in the White House, the NLRB won’t likely be very responsive. Even under Democratic administrations the NLRB lacks statutory authority to level meaningful penalties. The Faster Labor Contracts Act would amend the 1935 National Labor Relations Act to require that employers begin negotiating a labor contract within 10 days of a union election. If 90 days pass without an agreement, the matter will be referred to a mediator, and if the mediator can’t hammer out an agreement within 30 days the matter will be referred to a binding three-person arbitration panel. Getting a bill like that to the House floor was no small accomplishment.

Labor bills aren’t the only measures that are moving through the House by discharge petition these days. As Trump’s popularity plummets, Johnson is losing control over his caucus, resulting in the House turning into a sort of discharge-petition rager. There have been 23 in this Congress, of which nine have been successful. That’s an excellent batting average. One discharge petition was used to compel Trump to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Another was used to pass a Ukraine aid package. What’s unusual about the labor discharge petitions is that they cross an ideological boundary. Republicans don’t intrinsically oppose releasing files about child predators or containing Russian aggression. But they do intrinsically oppose labor unions. Now a breakaway Republican faction is challenging that.

Five Republicans signed the discharge petition to bring the Protect America’s Workforce Act to the House floor. They were: Representatives Nick LaLota and Michael Lawler of New York; Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick and Robert Bresnahan of Pennsylvania; and Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska. All except Bacon represent blue states. That was a year ago. In March and April, all five signed the discharge petition for the Faster Labor Contracts Act, joined this time by two red-staters: Representatives Max Miller of Ohio and Riley Moore of West Virginia. And in the final vote, these seven Republicans were joined by 13 more. In both last December’s bargaining rights bill and this week’s union contract bill, 20 House Republicans voted for a pro-union bill. That tells me the December vote was not a fluke. When more than one-third of the Republican House caucus casts pro-union votes, even though few of these members supported labor rights in the past, that’s news.

Notably, this latest vote is about something the business lobby cares about a lot more than it does about whether federal workers organize; federal workers don’t work for private employers. The Education and the Workforce Committee website (controlled by the Republican majority) posted a list of objections to the Faster Labor Contracts Act from business leaders: “an unconstitutional taking,” “a rushed floor vote,” “undermines the principle of voluntary agreement,” and so on. Meanwhile, the committee’s ranking Democrat, Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, took to the floor to praise the bill for “making the right to organize real, not theoretical.”

In the end, it didn’t matter what the Education and the Workforce majority thought. The bill cleared the House anyway. Those 20 pro-union Republican votes aren’t yet able to make much difference. But they’re a sign that labor solidarity is starting to undermine partisan solidarity. Senate Republicans, take heed.

And then there’s Elon Musk. In the ranks of the billionaire exhibitionists, there’s no one who tries harder or squeaks louder. In 2022, Musk bought Twitter, later renaming it X, and promptly set about turning it into an online mess hall for right-wing lunatics; by 2024, he was posting on X an average of 60 times a day and sometimes up to 40 times every hour. At any given moment on X, Musk can be seen posting with the sweaty eagerness of a teen in the first flush of puberty: On a recent sampling, his feed included a signature mix of self-promotion (plugs for Grok, X’s in-house AI chatbot; the satellite internet service Starlink; and the self-driving Tesla), competition-targeting shitposting (a tweet claiming ChatGPT, OpenAI’s rival to Grok, is “pretending to be ‘unbiased’” scored the Musk retweet), C minus memes (a graphic showing four descending pairs of increasingly bloodshot eyes superposed with the words “Alcohol,” “Weed,” “Cocaine,” and “Monitoring the Situation”), transphobia (“People can pretend or dress up all they want and that’s fine, but they can’t force their mental illness to be my new reality!”), and white nationalist race panic (an approving “100” emoji slapped over the top of a tweet from a verified account claiming that “if White men become a minority, we will be slaughtered”), along with countless variations on the classic theme of middle-aged white guy whining about the state of the world today. A smattering of cruel and lazy jokes about trans people, some indignant quote tweets of garden variety racists like Stephen Miller and British far-right activist Tommy Robinson, a stray “Hmm” or “Troubling” in response to tweets about things like tech regulation, fertility rates, or anti-white racism? In Muskworld, that’s called a Monday.

Musk’s presence on X can often feel like performance art—one of those continuous “bits” that have turned much of social media into a form of digital vaudeville. But where most extremely online victims of internet brain damage emote into the void, Musk is the rare oversharer who’s managed to turn the “based” and “epic” style of memeverse comedy into something more tangible. Dogecoin, the meme coin that has historically soared in value whenever Musk has tweeted about it, eventually became the inspiration for DOGE, the Big Government slash-and-burn operation that Musk led at the start of Donald Trump’s second term. In 2023, Musk committed $100 million in seed money for a new STEM-focused school in Austin that he chose to name the Texas Institute of Technologies and Sciences, or TITS: Every thumbnail on tits.academy, the still-unrealized university’s home page, now takes visitors to an “About Us” screen headed “Take a look at TITS” that includes an embedded YouTube video of Rick Astley’s 1987 pop classic “Never Gonna Give You Up”—an online prank of ancient vintage known as “rickrolling.” In August 2025, Musk announced a plan to launch a fully AI-simulated software company that could supplant all the functions and products offered by Microsoft; he called it “­Macrohard.” LOL! Not content with sitting on the world’s largest personal fortune, Musk seems desperate to be taken seriously as a comedian, too.

Maybe there’s something else at work here. According to the authors of a new book, Musk’s transformation into a hyperactive super-troll expresses a serious purpose. “Musk’s online persona,” write Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff in Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed, is often “misunderstood. Critics see immaturity or malice; fans see relatability or authenticity. Both fail to see that, in Muskism, trolling is infrastructure.” The point of these outbursts is for Musk to gauge whether he can bypass the ordinary institutions of grown-up accountability—the media, elections, quarterly earnings reports—and affect outcomes in the world of money, politics, and popular belief through the sheer force of his own personality. They are a stress test of society’s tolerance for the Muskian worldview.

“Muskism” is the name that Slobodian, a historian, and Tarnoff, a technology writer, give his worldview: a kind of techno-maximalism in which autonomy for individuals and for nations is only achievable through an ever-deeper fusion between human and machine, and can best be guaranteed through the adoption of technologies offered by Musk’s own companies. Just as Fordism was “the operating system of the twentieth century,” Slobodian and Tarnoff contend, Muskism might provide the basis for a new consensus about economic and social life, the Fordism of our time. After all, Fordism, like Muskism, once seemed an intimate reflection of one man’s personality (The Washington Post defined it in a 1922 article as “Ford efforts conceived in disregard or ignorance of Ford limitations”). Only later did it come to mean the belief in mass production and standardization on the factory floor, high wages, and mass consumption as the chief motors of industrial growth. The clarifying and unsettling argument at the heart of Muskism is that, in a deglobalizing and increasingly digitized world, Musk’s vision of the future might win out. But is it possible to separate Muskism from Musk?

Musk may need no greater reason to post than that it flatters his ego. He currently has 240 million followers on X—more than double the following of the second most popular account, that of Barack Obama. This grants him a kind of insurance against failure whenever he tweets, even for his weakest stuff. The “Monitoring the Situation” meme above, for instance, generated more than 900,000 likes, a return out of all proportion to the quality of the material presented—proof, if ever we needed it, that meritocracy in America is dead.

Online ubiquity is also a moneymaking tool. Musk has long been a master of what Slobodian and Tarnoff call “financial fabulism”—the art of extracting ever-higher valuations and capital commitments from investors through confidence, showmanship, and a compelling view of the world to come. When raising money for online business directory Zip2, his first company, in the mid-1990s, Musk covered a normal PC with a big case and wheeled it around to venture capitalists to make them think his software ran on a supercomputer. Zip2 was still losing money when Compaq bought it for $307 million in 1999; Musk walked away with $22 million, and a valuable lesson in the power of his unstinting belief in the future. Musk has channeled this gift for financial fabulism into the digital world, which has compressed and supercharged the feedback loop between words and money. In 2018, he tweeted: “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.” The market missed (or ignored) the weed joke in “420” and took him at his word; the company’s stock price jumped nearly 11 percent by the end of the day. In January 2021, he added #bitcoin to his bio on Twitter (as it was then known), and the cryptocurrency surged 20 percent within an hour. The shocking immediacy of cause and effect online, coupled with his embrace of Twitter, helped make Musk “as close to a free-money perpetual motion machine as you’ll ever see in finance,” Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine has written.

But Slobodian and Tarnoff see in Musk’s online presence a deeper expression of his idiosyncratic vision of the future. From the mid-2010s onward, Musk became convinced that humans and machines were becoming one, and that success—for Musk as an entrepreneur, for humanity as a species—would involve accelerating this fusion rather than resisting it. Musk has often warned of a Terminator-style apocalypse from rogue artificial intelligence, but his solution is “not less technology, but more,” Slobodian and Tarnoff write: The risks inherent in the digital cognitive revolution mean we should “merge with AI,” Musk argued in 2016.

Under Muskism, the path to salvation lies in human-machine symbiosis. All of Musk’s juvenile foolery over the past few years—the insults, the weak memes, the hyperactive posting, the alliance with Trump, the dadly insistence that “I am become meme,” even the bit with the chainsaw at CPAC—stems from this “cyborg turn,” as Slobodian and Tarnoff call it. This turn, they write, “did not mutate out of one man’s cyberpunk delusions, but out of a bipartisan consensus about where America needed to direct its brightest minds and deepest investments.” Modern Musk—the man as empire, the man as meme—is an embodiment of online culture. Or as Slobodian and Tarnoff put it, he is “a hypervisible indicator species for the consequences of fusing the economy ever more tightly with the digital world.”

Whether the future synthesis of human and machine emerges in perfect or imperfect form, few people will benefit from it more than Musk himself. His companies are building much of the infrastructure—the rockets, robots, satellites, collective intelligence networks, and brain-computer interfaces—that will shape the fusions to come. When he left his self-described political “side quest” in Washington last year, he explained that it was to return to his real quest, which is to build the future world of “humanoid robots and digital superintelligence,” to seed our “future machine descendants.”

Slobodian and Tarnoff’s analysis of Musk’s cyborg turn is reassuring and discomfiting at the same time: reassuring because it suggests an intelligible strategy at the heart of Musk’s actions, making him an outlier at a time when most big decisions in politics—kidnapping Maduro, bombing Iran—seem guided by nothing more than the uncut essence of poster brain; discomfiting because, well, it also suggests we’re all about to become replicants welded to a Tesla bot or a SpaceX nozzle.

Mechanization of the human is the logical end of a sequence of fusions that have defined Musk’s career. Social media has allowed him to merge, in some way, his own intelligence with the hive mind, to become one with the scroll. With SpaceX, he engineered a marriage of firm and government, grafting his enterprise onto the state, taking over some of the state’s functions, and exploiting its guarantees for private gain. While many in Silicon Valley profess to dream of liberation from the state, of wholesale exit from its mess of obligations and compromises, Musk’s business interests have pushed in the opposite direction, toward an ever-deeper coupling of public and private: His ultimate goal has always been power over the state rather than freedom from it.

All technology businesses in the digital era arguably free-ride off the state—the internet and its foundational infrastructure, after all, were funded by DARPA, the Pentagon’s R&D arm. Yet few entrepreneurs have been as skilled at piggybacking off public resources as Musk has. Zip2 used GPS data from military satellites, for example, while Musk’s late-1990s online payments company X.com—which would later become PayPal—rested on the federally insured stability of the U.S. financial system. SpaceX—founded in 2002, now valued at $1.55 trillion, and preparing for a public offering that early reports suggest could become the biggest IPO in history—is perhaps the company that has benefited most from government resources.

Speaking at Stanford the year after he launched the company, Musk acknowledged that NASA had already done the hard work “by spending the money to develop some of the fundamental technologies,” and now the door was open for the private sector to swoop in, build on those state-funded foundations, and monetize the gains. Twenty-three years later, SpaceX is firmly enmeshed with U.S. infrastructure. “By 2025, SpaceX accounted for 95 percent of all orbital launches in the United States and more than half of all launches globally—a position that made the Pentagon, NASA, and other government agencies deeply reliant on Musk,” report Slobodian and Tarnoff.

Timing was key to this success. Musk founded SpaceX right as the United States launched the global war on terrorism, which collided with the neoliberal mania for privatization and outsourcing to create a bonanza for corporate defense contractors. But SpaceX’s elevation into an indispensable arm of the modern military, not only in the United States but for countries abroad, also reflected Musk’s real business acumen. Satellites had been around for decades when Musk announced plans for what would become Starlink, a satellite internet service, in 2015. Slow speeds were always a barrier to greater adoption of satellites for global communication. Musk’s solution was to bring the satellites closer to the ground, putting them into low Earth orbit—around 342 miles up, versus 20,000 miles in the air for traditional geostationary satellites. The only catch was that orbiting so close to Earth required a lot more satellites to ensure quality of connection. The result? Starlink now has more than 10,000 functioning satellites in orbit, around two-thirds of all active satellites: The fusion of SpaceX to the state has led the way, quite naturally, to the company’s colonization of the heavens.

Tesla is yet another Musk vehicle that has benefited from state largesse. Musk did not create the company, but he invested in it and took over as CEO in 2008—right at the launch of the first federal tax credit program for buyers of electric vehicles; the company was saved from almost certain death by a $465 million Department of Energy loan awarded a year later. That loan helped Tesla survive the lean years that followed the collapse of the clean tech and renewables sector in the early 2010s—the result of the “shale revolution,” which touched off a surge in U.S. oil and gas production.

But the real reason Tesla prospered through the downturn—eventually becoming the world’s leading EV automaker, a title it relinquished to Chinese firm BYD earlier this year—was that Musk insisted on sourcing and assembling as many of the company’s critical production inputs in-house rather than relying on the global market. At a time when manufacturing consensus was in favor of free trade, offshoring, and global supply chains, Musk seemed to have already begun to anticipate a deglobalizing, post-Covid world by embracing “vertical integration.” The real innovation here was the construction of the first Gigafactory in Sparks, Nevada—what Musk envisioned as a “truly gargantuan factory of mind-boggling size”—that allowed Tesla to make its own lithium-ion batteries. (Since then, fresh Gigafactories have sprouted in Buffalo, Shanghai, Berlin, and Austin.) When the world awoke, a few years ago, to a reality of reshoring, export controls, tariffs, and emerging trade blocs, Tesla was relatively insulated; Musk had built Tesla for a world in which self-reliance, rather than reliance on others, would become the key to survival.

Musk’s fantasy of the future, the authors of Muskism propose, is “a fantasy of the factory,” stripped to its leanest and trimmed of human encumbrances. In 2016, Musk first mentioned his goal of creating an “alien dreadnought”—a factory with no human workers at all. Macrohard is perhaps the first serious attempt at realizing that goal: a company that relies for labor on AI agents. He’s not alone in this ambition: AI’s incursion into labor markets has already begun, and the dream of a fully post-human economy can be felt in every giddy LinkedIn post about the leaps in “productivity” that technologies like Claude Code are now making possible. Under Muskism, humans can either become obsolete or fuse with machines, becoming one with the factory itself.

The sheer number of countries and institutions that rely on Musk’s technologies gives him a bullying leverage that he seems unafraid to flex. For many countries, the exercise of sovereignty brushes up against the whims of a single, unpredictable, and often quite petty man. In March 2025, Musk boasted that Starlink is “the backbone of the Ukrainian army,” and that “their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off”; when the Polish foreign minister, in reply, warned that his own country would be forced to look elsewhere for Ukraine if Starlink was an “unreliable provider,” Musk spat back, “Be quiet, small man.” Exchanges like this highlight the real problem for Muskism as a social project, which is that Earth is a place populated by humans not named Elon Musk, and that many of them disagree, often quite fervently, with his views and methods. Not everyone wishes to be transformed into a widget on the floor of the Muskian factory of the future.

Humans are Musk’s greatest enemy, the source of his keenest humiliations and most obliterating rages: Who could forget the world’s richest man, on the verge of tears, telling Fox News in March 2025 that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was “a creep,” and “a huge jerk,” all because Walz made fun of Tesla’s plummeting stock price at the height of DOGE-driven chaos in Washington? Empathy, Musk famously once said, is the “fundamental weakness of Western civilization.” That seems untrue, and Musk’s own direct involvement in politics has shown that a lack of empathy is no model for government.

Slobodian and Tarnoff trace Musk’s attempts to correct a listing culture, to rewrite society’s operating code and clean it of the real bugs in the system: people. Twitter had helped propel Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and #MeToo; under Musk, its replacement, X, would reinstate a public square built on precontamination hierarchies of class, gender, and race. Large language models promised a future of objective truth and universal information, but were trained on leftist propaganda; Grok would be refined in “post-training” to reflect Musk’s own anti-woke biases and priorities. The state was overrun with illegitimate claims on the public purse; DOGE would empower a set of very young software engineers to swiftly terminate grants and contracts and lay off public servants en masse.

And yet, here we find ourselves today: On X, there are still as many jokes about Nazis as there are Nazis; Grok is not a serious competitor to ChatGPT or Claude; and DOGE accomplished little more than causing chaos and inflicting misery on federal workers. Its outcomes may have satisfied MAGA ideologues such as Russell Vought, whose express wish was to dismantle the federal bureaucracy by making working conditions unpleasant (“When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work”). And in the midst of his DOGE spree, Musk seemed to share this wish, brandishing a chainsaw on stage at CPAC and bragging about cuts. But if, as Slobodian and Tarnoff argue, Musk had imagined DOGE as a program through which “engineers disciplined society like a factory floor,” it was a failure. Because, as they write, “society is not a factory.”

Musk presents an intriguing contrast with Trump, his on-and-off-again political ally. Both are inveterate posters, both often sound deranged, both have a lot of money (Musk has considerably more, but much of it is illiquid, since it’s mostly held in stock in his companies). Trump is sui generis, a freak of nature whose coalition seems unlikely to survive his departure from the White House (assuming he ever leaves it). Vestiges of Trumpism will survive, but actually existing Trumpism? Only Trump can carry the brand. His interests are superficial: What animates him is a desire to enrich himself and elevate the status of his clique, even at the expense of America’s general welfare and standing in the world. That’s not a political realignment; it’s kleptocracy. And yet, despite all his shortcomings, despite his leaden approval ratings, Trump has twice been elected president. Musk spent less than six months in Washington before he was forced to skulk back to the Gigafactory. The argument that Muskism asks us to take seriously is that Musk, though less charismatic and less popular than Trump, is more symbolic of our era.

Amid institutional breakdown and the overpoliticization of everything, Musk’s companies, his words, and his dogmas might represent a durable shift to a new common sense, a new model of political and economic order. Trump has pioneered a style, but Musk is a master of infrastructure, and the future is always shaped by matter rather than manner. The liberal international order is effectively dead, popular faith in institutions across the democratic world has cratered, and in the United States, the Trumpian wrecking ball has done serious—perhaps lasting—damage to the Constitution and the stately old politics of checks and balances. Muskism offers a set of solutions and arguments suited to the fragmented, paranoid, and militarized world in which we now find ourselves: Independence seems more appealing than integration at a time when multilateralism is at a historic ebb; genocide and wars of choice have normalized the exclusionary thinking and antipathy to empathy on which Musk’s businesses thrive; multipolarity and the return of great power competition invite a deepening fusion of technology and the state. Muskism is a tool kit for a world where concentration matters more than cooperation, where control trumps trust.

Still, a future defined by all-out Muskism is not inevitable. It’s not hard to imagine a greater role in years to come for a detoxified version of Muskism, characterized by a turn away from supply chains and globalization, a deepening digitization of daily life, and government by meme. But Muskism-lite is not the Muskian way; the insults, the trolling, and the inhumanity are inseparable from Musk’s way of doing business. There is little utopian promise in the future he portends; the Musk-led tech industry’s vision of collective life is a weird amalgam of sports, speculation, and collective dissolution into the jaws of the machines. Many people, as Musk himself has discovered in recent years, do not want this. Muskism may be one version of the future, but cyborgian oblivion is not our only choice.  

Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a progressive watchdog organization, filed a Freedom of Information request with the DOJ, and in response, they were told that the DOJ “did not locate the case you have cited” within the DOJ’s Civil Division’s case management system.

“We have further inquired with Civil Division staff in the Office of the Assistant Attorney General, and they have advised that they are not aware of any responsive records within the Civil Division pertaining to the case you have cited. Accordingly, we have located no responsive records,” wrote Brian Flannigan, division counsel for records and information in the DOJ, in a response letter.

Trump, his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization sued the IRS in January for $10 billion in damages over the leak of their tax returns by a former IRS contractor during Trump’s first term. A settlement was reached last month that created a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund for anyone who believes they were unfairly prosecuted for their political beliefs, essentially the president’s allies who were prosecuted under the Biden administration. As part of the settlement, the IRS also pledged not to audit the Trump family or businesses now or at any point in the future.

The case of the president essentially suing an agency in his own government was controversial enough, but the settlement was heavily criticized, not only for the creation of a slush fund for Trump to disburse to his allies, but also for protecting the Trumps and their assets from ever facing scrutiny over their taxes.

The fact that the DOJ claims to have no records relating to communication about the settlement suggests that either it is lying or negotiations were conducted outside of the legal bodies that should have handled them. All of this is yet more proof of Trump using the presidency to settle grievances, enrich himself and his family, and disregard the law at the same time at the expense of the American people.

Trump will likely financially benefit from this deal due to his investment in its parent company, TKO Group Holdings. While conservative media has sold this as “cage fights for diplomacy,” the actual agreement mostly sees the UFC partnering with the State Department’s “sports diplomacy” programs at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. That program is responsible for “citizen exchanges” and other cultural events but spent more than $52 million last year—giving the UFC a major leg-up compared to other sports leagues.

The MOU also comes just three days before the UFC fight night on the White House lawn on Trump’s birthday.

“UFC is the world’s leading mixed martial arts organization. As an American-founded organization, the UFC has grown into a major global sports platform, reflecting U.S. leadership in modern combat sports promotion, athletic performance standards, and international event production,” the State Department wrote in a press release. “Its events are broadcast worldwide and contribute to the United States’ broader cultural and sports influence through professional competition and athlete development.”

Nowhere in the press release was Trump’s investment in the UFC mentioned.

While the UFC has certainly gained serious traction over the years, it is not without its blemishes—White has been criticized for years for making millions upon millions of dollars while his union-less, battered fighters often need second jobs to keep the lights on.

The Israeli government is not aware that a finalized deal has been reached, an official told the country’s Channel 12, and it’s unclear where the Iranian government stands. Fars, a semiofficial news agency affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, quoted an “informed source close to Iran’s negotiation team,” who said that “no text for a preliminary memorandum of understanding with the United States has been approved.”

Axios, citing unnamed sources, reported that Iran and Qatari mediators believed they had come up with a written agreement Wednesday that the U.S. would accept. Those sources said that Iran told different countries on Thursday that an agreement was reached in principle but was still waiting for Iranian leader Mojtaba Khamenei’s final approval.

Trump announced on Truth Social Thursday afternoon that the deal had been approved by “the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and others.” He made things even weirder shortly later in the Oval Office, saying that a signing ceremony could take place with Iran this weekend in Europe, which he would not be able to attend due to the planned UFC fight on the White House lawn Sunday.

“The [Strait of Hormuz] will be open as soon as we sign, which could be soon, very soon, maybe over the weekend in Europe. I won’t be able to be there, but, uh, [JD Vance] will be there, vice president, and some of the people, [Steve Witkoff] did a great job, [Jared Kushner],” Trump said, mentioning the people he had tasked with negotiating with Iran.

Trump says the Iran deal signing ceremony will happen this weekend in Europe but "I won't be able to be there"

(the UFC fight at the White House is Sunday) pic.twitter.com/K5tvLgLuqP

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 11, 2026

Does this mean a deal is imminent, or is Trump just blowing hot air again? From what the president is saying, it’s either done or very close, but there’s no clear confirmation from Iran, and U.S. ally Israel doesn’t seem to be aware of anything, either. For the sake of international stability, one would expect everyone to be on the same page. But unfortunately, this is how Trump has chosen to operate.

The president’s nominating process to replace Tulsi Gabbard took a sudden right turn Thursday when he named Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, as his permanent director of national intelligence.

“Few people anywhere in the Legal Community are respected at the level of Jay. I encourage the United States Senate to confirm Jay as soon as possible,” Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Clayton has previously worked as a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, providing counsel on corporate crisis management. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s law school. He was handed his role atop the Southern District of New York without any prosecutorial experience, and seemingly does not have any relevant experience to run America’s national security operation, either.

The president had initially tapped Bill Pulte, a national real estate developer serving as the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to temporarily serve in Gabbard’s stead. But Pulte—who similarly had no relevant experience for the job—became a point of contention with lawmakers, who argued that his appointment, even just as acting DNI, was effectively illegal as his résumé lacked requirements for the job that had been written into the law.

To prevent Pulte becoming permanent DNI, Democrats blocked efforts to renew FISA Section 702, a statute that allows federal agencies such as the NSA and the CIA to surveil people without warrants, but that is set to expire Friday.

It is not yet clear how Clayton will change opinions—or the written requirements. Why the White House singled him out as an exceptional candidate to satisfy the administration’s agenda is far less murky.

Clayton has passed countless litmus tests proving his loyalty to the MAGA movement. He has seeded doubt in America’s election integrity, claiming as recently as Monday that there is a “deep problem with voting in America.” He has also defended Trump’s $1.8 billion taxpayer-bankrolled slush fund for the president’s aggrieved political allies, arguing with CNBC last month that Trump was entitled to “recourse” after a government contractor leaked his tax returns.

“Anybody whose tax returns have been intentionally leaked should have recourse against the government,” Clayton said.

And Clayton unquestioningly did the president’s bidding with regard to his appointment to the SDNY, probing Jeffrey Epstein’s social connections—so long as they tied back to former Democratic President Bill Clinton, former Obama administration adviser Larry Summers, and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman. Later, Clayton was handed an additional Trump administration priority in overseeing the investigation into Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, despite his dubious financial ties to the cases.

It is not clear how quickly the Senate will move to confirm Clayton’s confirmation. Among other steps, Clayton still has to fill out a detailed questionnaire, undergo an FBI background check, and sit for a public hearing before the upper chamber conducts its final vote.

This story has been updated.

It’s still unclear who made the markings, or how. The administration has yet to formally respond.

Reuters photographer Nathan Howard captured a photo of the apparent tracing.

The slogan “8647” has two parts: “86”—originating in restaurants and meaning to nix or cancel—has developed a broader slang usage for cancelling something. In some cases, it has been used to refer to killing or disappearing someone. “47” refers to Trump’s status as the forty-seventh president.

This appears to be an impressively clandestine act of protest right in the middle of preparations for President Trump’s garish “Freedom 250” festival, which begins next week with the already collapsing “Great American State Fair.” The FIFA World Cup Fan Zone also began drawing visitors to the National Mall on Thursday, just in time to see the message.

The president in a post on Truth Social suggested that the two countries had come to an agreement.

“Discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved, including the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and others,” Trump wrote.

“The Naval Blockade will remain in full force and effect until this Transaction is finalized—Time and place of the signing to be announced shortly,” he added.

The markets immediately reacted to Trump’s announcement: Stock indexes soared and oil prices plummeted.

The Trump administration’s negotiating strategy with Tehran has promised peace deals week after week to no avail. The wildly unpopular Middle East conflict is currently in its fourth month.

U.S. forces had already bombed Iran through two consecutive nights this week in the White House’s latest attempt to force Iranian leadership into negotiations to end the war. The attacks occurred despite the obvious risks of escalation.

“If we need to negotiate with bombs, we will negotiate with bombs,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday. “We will strike them hard tonight and hopefully Iran makes a good decision.”

The development comes in the immediate wake of a violent threat Trump made against Iran earlier Thursday, in which he pledged that the U.S. would strike Iran “VERY HARD TONIGHT” and would further take control of Iranian oil assets and infrastructure, including Kharg Island.

Negotiators worked through Wednesday night in Tehran to iron out the specifications of the peace deal, which both Qatari and Iranian leadership believed would satisfy the White House’s expectations, reported Axios. Insiders that spoke with the publication said that the new plan narrowed in on three main issues: focusing on the mechanism for releasing Iran’s frozen assets, arranging to reopen the Strait of Hormuz during a 60-day ceasefire period, and creating a roadmap for negotiating Iran’s nuclear program during the ceasefire.

This story has been updated.

The Atlantic reports that staffers in the Justice Department and White House are still telling Trump allies that they will get some form of payment, looking at ways to activate parts of the slush fund and alternative methods of compensating Trump loyalists at the same time, even though last week, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said publicly that “we are not moving forward with the fund.”

The DOJ has refused to put the fund’s demise in writing, even after being pressed by a federal judge on Wednesday. When asked why they were refusing, DOJ lawyers replied, “I don’t know,” suggesting that work is going on behind the scenes. Judge Richard Leon warned the administration that if they say the fund is dead, they had better not be lying.

Inside the administration, officials are reportedly divided on whether the fund will come to fruition. Anonymous sources told The Atlantic that the administration is continuing to work on the fund quietly, hoping the objections will dissipate and the story will leave the news cycle.

“Trump didn’t want to fight this out in public,” one DOJ official told the publication. Blanche’s nomination as attorney general is already facing opposition from some Senate Republicans, like Thom Tillis and John Curtis, who are threatening to hold it up to ensure the Anti-Weaponization Fund is officially killed. The fund faces legal challenges, as well, with Republican Senator Bill Cassidy joining his Democratic colleague Cory Booker in a court filing supporting a lawsuit against the fund.

A White House official told The Atlantic in an email that “any speculation about potential future actions is just that—speculation. President Trump remains committed to addressing Biden-era weaponization.”

As the midterms approach, the fund will be politically toxic for Republicans, and Democrats will certainly be using it as campaign fodder. The Trump administration has to know this, but will it take the safe option and kill it, or try to keep its efforts hidden until after November?

Industry officials have already warned the White House that the prices could spike yet again due to rapidly diminishing inventories, reported The Washington Post Thursday.

Since the beginning of the Iran war, commercial and government inventories have supplemented gas consumption across the U.S. The reserves have allowed prices to hover around $4.50 per gallon for the last four months—but that could change very quickly, according to oil and gas executives, who are often loath to make such alarming predictions.

“We’re sounding the alarm on these inventories going to record lows,” American Petroleum Institute CEO Mike Sommers told Fox Business. “We have to solve this problem in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Some inventories could be wiped out in a matter of weeks, according to the Post—just in time for summer holidays.

“I have absolutely no doubt the White House—from the president on down—is fully aware of the nearly universal alarm among oil companies and analysts about the direction of travel for oil prices this summer,” Bob McNally, a former Bush administration energy adviser, told the Post.

Yet Trump has been remarkably cavalier about the rising costs. With inflation at a three-year high, Trump stunned reporters, lawmakers, and voters alike on Wednesday with just four words: “I love the inflation,” he said.

“I love it,” he insisted, pledging that oil prices will drop “like a rock” when the war ends.

But the end of the war seems to be nowhere in sight. U.S. forces bombed Iran through two nights this week, part of the White House’s latest strategy to force Tehran to make a deal, despite the obvious risks of escalation.

“If we need to negotiate with bombs, we will negotiate with bombs,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday. “We will strike them hard tonight and hopefully Iran makes a good decision.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s allies aren’t so sure that their political movement will weather the brewing economic storm. The far-right populist rode the 2024 campaign on vehement promises of affordability; through his presidency, he swore that Americans would see lower utility bills, cheaper groceries, and more American-based jobs. But that hasn’t been the case.

Instead, as millions of Americans struggle with the rising cost of living and companies contend with rattled supply chains, the president’s inner circle fear that it might be too late to fix the problem for Trump’s midterm-dependent acolytes.

“Whether it’s peak inflation or not, it doesn’t matter,” one former Trump administration official told Politico. “The die has been cast in terms of how people are looking at the economy.”

“Earlier this morning, Pentagon occupants were notified ‌of ⁠a potential air quality issue, prompting immediate precautionary safety measures and evaluation. Subsequent testing confirmed no hazard exists, and normal operations have ​resumed,” ​chief Pentagon ⁠spokesman Sean Parnell said. “We express our sincere appreciation to the first responders ​for their swift actions to ensure ​the ⁠safety of all personnel.”

Parnell had originally reported there was an “air quality issue necessitating precautionary measures.” Floors two through five in corridors four through seven were closed down, and the Arlington Fire Department’s hazmat team was also present.

This story has been updated.

Trita Parsi is reportedly being targeted by the White House for his frequent criticisms of the Iran war. Parsi, a Swedish citizen born in Iran who holds U.S. permanent residency, co-founded the National Iranian American Council and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a foreign policy think tank.

To some in the Trump administration, Parsi’s criticisms—and his push for diplomacy with the Iranian government—suggest more than a dissenting opinion. The administration has used immigration law against critics of its foreign policy, notably with college students who protest against U.S. support for Israel in its massacre of Palestinians in Gaza.

Parsi has for years been accused by some Iranian Americans of promoting the Iranian government’s interests, with many Republicans echoing those criticisms. Far-right influencer Laura Loomer, who has a lot of influence in the White House, called Parsi “a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime” who pushes “pro-Iranian regime talking points,” in an April X post. In May, Loomer wrote that Parsi’s “days in our country are numbered.”

Loomer may have been involved in getting two Iranian women detained earlier this year after she claimed they were related to deceased Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others may still be taking her advice.

The State Department under Trump has detained other critics, as well, including doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk, who wrote an op-ed column about Gaza, and Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate whom the administration is still trying to deport over his role in protests on campus against the war in Gaza.

The Quincy Institute is preparing to “cover the legal costs to prepare for—and if necessary—fight a deportation attack on Trita,” according to a memo obtained by The Free Press. If the administration pursues deportation against him, it would be a chilling attempt to disregard the First Amendment and send the message that anyone less than a full citizen of the U.S. does not have the right to free speech.

The president is reportedly “pissed” and “increasingly frustrated with everyone” surrounding him—though the drama seems to be a mess of his own creation.

The pressing issue started last week, when Donald Trump suddenly appointed Bill Pulte—a real estate developer serving as the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency—to run U.S. national intelligence in place of the outbound Tulsi Gabbard.

Democrats and some Republicans on the Hill immediately opposed Pulte’s appointment and were quick to point out that the PulteGroup heir would come to the job with zero national security experience, a direct violation of the law, which specifically requires a director of national intelligence to have “extensive” national security experience.

Lawmakers have accused Trump of nominating Pulte for his own personal benefit: “The apparent motivation for his elevation is the demonstrated willingness of Bill Pulte to search government databases for alleged dirt on President Trump’s chosen political enemies,” House Democratic leadership wrote in a statement Thursday.

At risk thanks to Pulte’s nomination is the imminent expiration of FISA Section 702, a statute that allows federal agencies such as the NSA and the CIA to surveil people without warrants. That statute is slated to expire Friday, but Democratic leadership has indicated it won’t vote to renew it “without meaningful reforms,” emphasizing Pulte’s recent promotion in its demands.

Senate Republicans expected Trump to find an off-ramp on the matter—House Speaker Mike Johnson even visited the White House Tuesday to discuss it. But they were wrong.

Trump was irate with “everyone, from his own team to the Senate,” a MAGA-world operative close to the White House told Politico Thursday, highlighting Senate Republicans’ opposition to Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom, his $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, and the general disregard for Trump’s desire to fire Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough after she identified procedural problems in the SAVE Act.

“He’s pissed, and people are not recognizing the level of pissed that he is,” the operative added. “He does not like being put in a box. When you put him in a box, then Trump’s going to blow the box up.”

The message was received loud and clear. One senior GOP staffer described Trump’s recent moves to Politico as “a middle finger to Congress.”

Trump is also furious that his preferred candidate for Iowa governor, Representative Randy Feenstra, lost his primary last week. “He’s really angry about this Iowa endorsement—like really, really angry,” a White House ally told Politico. “He’s really angry that his consultants and people pushed him to do that.”

“Cecilia Vega and her team were indeed working on a report for CBS examining the impact of the U.S. sanctions on my work and personal life, including developments in the U.S. courts,” Albanese wrote on X Thursday morning, confirming reporting from Zeteo. “I am sorry they were punished.”

Vega was fired by CBS head Bari Weiss at the end of May, along with Sharyn Alfonsi—who lambasted Weiss’s decision to push back her report on the notoriously inhumane CECOT megaprison in El Salvador—executive producer Tanya Simon, and executive editor Draggan Mihailovich.

The timing of Vega’s firing is extremely questionable given that Weiss and CBS owner David Ellison are staunch Zionists aligned with the Trump administration. Albanese has been sanctioned by the United States, has had multiple European countries call for her resignation, and has faced a wave of personal attacks online for her Palestinian advocacy.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office Wednesday, Trump brushed off a bleak inflation report finding that America’s annual inflation rate had reached its highest levels in three years.

“The numbers were great. You know what I really love? I love the inflation,” Trump said.

Speaking on the phone with the New York Post later that day, Trump claimed he’d been taken out of context. “I love the inflation numbers because of what I’m talking about,” he said.

“The numbers are going to be phenomenal because what’s showing is that despite the fact that we’re in a war, the numbers are much lower than anticipated, and when we’re out of that war, the numbers will be at lower numbers than they were even before it started,” Trump claimed.

Inflation is not any lower than anticipated. Last month, a group of economists surveyed by Bloomberg estimated the consumer price index would rise to 3.9 percent. The Organization for Economic Cooperation raised its prediction up from 3 to 4.2 percent. Per Wednesday’s Bureau of Labor Statistics report, the current inflation rate is 4.2 percent.

Still, Trump attempted to repackage the fastest-growing inflation in three years as better than it could’ve been and a sign of good things to come. That’s not good enough for Americans who are struggling to pay for gas, rent, and groceries because of a reckless war with no end in sight.

Trump also dismissed Democrats who’d criticized his gushing over high inflation.

“They’re so bad,” Trump said. “I was talking about inflation numbers that will be so good as soon as the war ends. The numbers will come way down, that’s what I’m talking about.

“I’m always taken out of context,” the president continued. “My inflation numbers will be very low as soon as the war—they’re already very low, but they’ll be very low, because you know the energy brings them up a little bit, because we have to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon.”

Of course, that doesn’t even begin to qualify as being taken out of context. It was Trump who elided the actual context of the question: the current inflation rate. Not future numbers, or predictions, but the painful reality that Americans are literally paying the price for Trump’s wildly unpopular war. Was he concerned? No, he was delighted.

If anything, the president’s baffling remarks have handed Democrats a winning message for the midterm elections: Trump loves inflation, and thinks that anyone whose struggle to make ends meet should thank him that things aren’t worse.

The Brown University professor chuckled about that scene in the film, a story of a working-class Bostonian who mocks a Harvard graduate student as likely to take Wood’s interpretations as gospel only to drop them the very next year. After all, as a Harvard Ph.D. from working-class Concord, Massachusetts, Gordon Wood had been both of these types and more, while keeping a professorial distance from all. No one could say whether, when he repeated the story of how former House Speaker Newt Gingrich handed out copies of his Radicalism of the American Revolution to new members of the Republican caucus, he had been bragging, trolling, or just reading the room.

The prolific historian of early America burst onto the scene 60 years ago with an essay in the field’s flagship journal titled “Rhetoric and Reality in the American Revolution.” Two schools of interpretation had been battling for some time: “neo-whigs,” who saw the patriots as motivated by “constitutional principles,” versus “progressives,” who saw them as motivated by profound socioeconomic change, for all their rhetoric about liberties. Wood, who had been reading up on social theory, brilliantly arbitrated that debate, maintaining that declining opportunities inspired men to fear what changing imperial politics could do to them and their status as provincial Britons. The Revolution had been conservative in its impulses, even if it had unanticipated radical results. Historians needed a “behaviorist” approach that saw revolutionary rhetoric as “psychological” reality.

In his own way, Wood opened up the understanding of the Revolution to feelings as well as thoughts, to ideology as well as theory. Meanwhile, he was revising his Harvard doctoral thesis, which became The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787. Published in 1969, this pointillist, essayistic yet comprehensive study tracked how understandings of political structure, including the very idea of constitutions, changed under the pressure of revolutionary war and the formation of state governments. An American revision of classical and seventeenth-century English republicanism informed the fledgling republics. In 1787, experience moderated the democratic spirit of ’76. Wood discovered a remarkable knack for explaining how ideas could be new and old, innovative and conservative, at the same time—and how creative political thinking advanced best under the sometimes self-deceiving cover of restoration.

Out of irrationality could come a higher rationality, though not without ironic results. For example, John Adams’s tough-minded insistence that constitutional structures had to reflect the existence of social classes, including aristocrats and plebes, in order to balance them, made him “irrelevant” when enough Americans agreed to disagree, or at least to stop talking about, whether such classes did or should exist.

Wood exaggerated Adams’s unpopularity, but in doing so drove home the sobering point that American republicanism, tending toward Herrenvolk democracy, would have a lot of trouble dealing with the relationship between economic inequality and political power. The course of the 1780s led toward a Madisonian “science of politics” that saved the nation from revolutionary excess yet sought to bury rather than reflect or address economic conflict in its schemes of federalism and representation, creating an American political tradition that couldn’t deal honestly with class or money.

With this flourish, the 35-year old assistant professor performed an acclaimed scholarly triple axel, fashioning a learned interpretation of American origins that seemed to have something for everyone, which was no easier in 1969 than today. At great length and sophistication, he’d offered something to those inclined to celebrate the Constitution, something to those who criticized it, and much to those looking for some way between. The republic, simply put, was moderate yet innovative, advanced and yet caught up in self-deception. Some of the founders were brilliant, yes, but maybe only slightly more so than Gordon S. Wood, who figured out what they knew, what they did, and what they had barely perceived.

Wood caught and rode a wave of sophistication about the workings of ideology. In his hands, disembodied “thought” became culture and politics and made history. One could see it happening in obscure and popular pamphlets, in the plays and newspapers, and in the letters of politicians of the late eighteenth century. Tracing ideological struggle was heady stuff, and the late 1960s and 1970s came to represent something of a golden age for American historians, especially intellectual historians who could claim to explain the motives and worldviews informing critical events. Wood continued to endear himself to scholars with essays that plumbed how understandings of conspiracy and “interests” and “disinterestedness” shaped the debate over the ratification of the Constitution. These turned out to be brilliant middle chapters of his 1991 Pulitzer-winning triptych, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, a work that expanded his interpretation of the emergent American ethos chronologically while keeping republicanism and its tribulations at the center.

“Monarchy” characterized a late colonial era that believed in hierarchy. Social changes undermined those hierarchies in a radically reformative cultural process—“republicanism”— that informed the break from England. Meanwhile, the rise of capitalism further undermined social structures that had never really take strong hold in colonies with more available land and less inherited wealth. Work came to be valued more than lineage; representation in formal, legislative politics mattered more with kings and their appointed governors thrown out. All this dwarfed putative differences between north and south, east and west. The result: The early republic was a society in which democracy and capitalism arose and reinforced each other, much to the disappointment of more rigorously republican politicians who had seen themselves as disinterested men of virtue.

To many readers, Wood had seemingly accounted, in beautiful, measured prose, for both what was radical about the Revolution and why many revolutionaries proceeded to fight for more—or less—of it. One could read Wood as a critic of emergent democracy or even, on the other hand, of capitalism.

Yet as Alfred F. Young, a careful critic, wrote at the time, Wood had not so much distilled the radicalism of the Revolution as magnified it to encompass all of early American history. That sheer interpretative ambition turned out to be an Achilles’ heel. War and violence dissolved in Wood’s egalitarian upsurge. So did settler colonialism and slavery. In the introduction, Wood insisted that it didn’t matter whether political revolution caused or just reflected the social or cultural revolution, and that because it didn’t matter, we should simply credit the radicalism of the revolution for “the anti-slavery and women’s rights movements of the nineteenth century and in fact all our current egalitarian thinking.” This “in fact” made for strange rhetorical alchemy as he continued to stress how exceedingly different late–eighteenth century people were from later Americans.

By the new century, Wood had already begun to complain publicly about a tendency to judge eighteenth-century Americans by what he deemed “presentist” standards. A tense divide over his sometimes enigmatic work and persona ensued, especially among liberals and leftists. Wood’s tendency to lump all Americans together greatly irked a generation of social historians who made regional, class, and urban-rural differences their bread and butter and who worried much less than he did about how to pull American diversity and conflict, not to mention imperial reach, into a common national story. (In a tone-perfect illustration of Wood’s changing reputation among academics, in the 1997 film, Will Hunting first baits the graduate student with the above précis of Wood on radicalism, only to interrupt his predictable response: the regurgitation of a social historian’s comment on how Wood “drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.”)

Worse, there were very few women, Black people, or Indians in his expansive, transformative, century-long radical revolution. How radical could that be, then? Yet Wood stuck to his guns, even doubling down. It remained “anachronistic” to ask why the patriots didn’t end slavery even as they complained about their political enslavement. Slavery was never questioned until the revolutionaries began to question it, he argued. Those folks simply weren’t part of the American conversation then: The founders didn’t think or talk about them, didn’t consider them as a subject of politics. This explanation held less water when his own definition of revolutionary politics had expanded to include almost everything else besides race and sex.

Wood laid a foundation for a distinctive, genteel kind of “founders” history: one that keeps a quiet distance from uncritical flag-waving by emphasizing at every turn how different the eighteenth century was, still while insisting that everything good about the United States emanated from the founding, even if ironically and unintentionally. Too aware to ignore the threat that alternative histories posed to his mountain of scholarship, he slammed those that bid to take down founder worship, to add other groups to the pantheon of founders, or to dwell on the inegalitarian aspects of what the founders created. He issued a few occasional mild dissents against ahistorical constitutional originalism, but punched left a lot harder and more often than he punched right.

In books like Empire of Liberty, his 2009 entry in the Oxford History of the United States series, and his career-summing Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution (2021), Wood foregrounded the most optimistic and forward-looking revolutionaries, like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, whose understanding of the Revolution as a transformative event in world history seemed to prove his case. His admiration for “the revolutionary generation”—which had once been a minor, more implicit theme in his scholarship, mitigated by the vast distance he discerned between their world and ours—swelled when he confronted those who identified strongly against a past construed as backwards and racist. Republishing the many review essays he wrote for venues like The New Republic and The New York Review of Books, he added afterwords that cast further aspersions on historians who forwarded their “preoccupation” with race, class, and gender, or failed to preserve the requisite balance and appreciation for the Revolution, where Americans go “to refresh and reaffirm our nationhood.”

Yet after the brouhaha over The 1619 Project, in which he participated as an often-quoted critic, Wood good-naturedly admitted just how much that controversy demonstrated what had been missing from the histories his generation had written.

Americans remain stuck with a revolution we rightly perceive as both radical and conservative. For all his insistence on our revolution’s beneficence and singularity, Gordon Wood helped us see that revolutions are as confusing and contradictory as they are compelling in retrospect and prospect. Their true measure is the never-ending debate over how and whether they remade reality—or just rhetoric. Like a number of our best historians—and politicians—he insisted we hang on, for dear national life, to the rhetoric. “To be an American is not to be someone but to believe in something. And of that something most important is the belief that all men are created equal,” he wrote in a 2019 essay. As it was natural for him to suspect the Revolution’s critics, it’s somewhat tragic that his appreciation of revolutionary minds grappling with possibility could be appropriated for causes he did not fully endorse. No doubt, he appreciated the irony.

NOTUS has reported that Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, and North Carolina—the last of which Trump won in 2024—have all declined to send a representative to the president’s 16-day fair on the National Mall. Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington remain undecided even as the fair begins just two weeks from now.

Each state is supposed to have a 600-square-foot themed booth with a representative or official sent by state leadership. With these states declining to send one, the administration has decided to pick their own. Multiple states said they had no knowledge as to who was chosen to represent their homes or why.

Other states noted the hefty price attached to the event. Michele Walker, the comms director of the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, told NOTUS her state would have to spend a minimum of $100,000 on travel, hotels, and their themed booth all together.

“We decided early in the process that we do not have the capacity to participate,” Walker said. “Our limited resources are focused on America250 events across North Carolina.”

This news comes just a week after nearly all of the first wave of musical performers—from Young MC to the Commodores—dropped out as well. This lack of enthusiasm only reaffirms that this “Freedom 250” event, unlike the educational America250 commission, is just a birthday party for Trump.

On Truth Social Thursday morning, Trump posted that the U.S. military “will be hitting Iran (Whose Navy, Air Force, Radar, Anti Aircraft, and all other forms of Defense, together with most of its offensive capability, are GONE!), VERY HARD TONIGHT.

“At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets, much like we have with Venezuela, which is working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP,” the post read.

Trump’s threats are an alarming escalation, especially considering he previously claimed the U.S. and Iran are close to a deal to end the war. Publicly announcing plans for such an attack also carries risks, as it puts U.S. troops in harm’s way and gives Iran time to prepare countermeasures. Trump could also be bluffing, thinking that the specter of a ground invasion of Iranian territory will force concessions.

That seems to be in line with what he told Fox & Friends Thursday morning. Trump was asked about the post, and complained about media coverage of Iran, claiming the country has been decimated but that news outlets such as The New York Times, CNN, and The Wall Street Journal say that it’s doing well.

“They’re dying to make a deal. They want to make a deal so badly,” Trump said. “We dropped $250 million of bombs on them last night, the whole thing is crazy. And they’re really in submission, they just don’t know it yet.”

Trump on Fox & Friends: "They're dying to make a deal. They want to make a deal so badly. We dropped $250 million of bombs on them last night. They're really in submission. They just don't know it yet." pic.twitter.com/XKW5CGc1CU

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 11, 2026

Trump’s daily accounts of the war with Iran are increasingly incoherent, and it’s tough to tell what’s real and what isn’t. Anything could happen Thursday night, and in the meantime, the world will be watching with uncertainty as a man with visible cognitive decline has his finger on the trigger.

Trump announced Wednesday that he’d directed the military to conduct a “secret mission” to support the flow of energy through the essential trade passageway—as he struggled to justify the U.S. economy reaching its highest annual inflation rate in three years.

Speaking on CNN that night, Connecticut Representative Jim Himes, who serves as ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, dismissed the president’s claim.

“A lot of that is just flat-out untrue,” Himes said.

CNN: What do you know about what he's saying that Iran didn't until right now didn’t know that we're taking millions of barrels of oil. And this 100 million barrels that Trump says he's actually helped get through the strait.

Himes: A lot of that is just flat out untrue. Let's… pic.twitter.com/IamnOmqSfB

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 10, 2026

“And remember the record here, right. This war was going to be over in a couple of days. For the last three months the Iranians have been two or three days, or maybe a week or two weeks away from striking a deal,” Himes said. “So, let’s just agree that the president has precisely zero credibility on anything that he says about the Iran war.

“But look, you don’t need to be an intelligence expert to understand that in the Strait of Hormuz, you’re not moving anything in secret. With a good pair of binoculars on either coast you can see what’s happening.”

Himes isn’t the only one calling B.S. on the president’s claims: Energy Secretary Chris Wright appeared not to have a clue what Trump was talking about, either.

When asked about the 100 million barrels of oil during a House committee hearing Wednesday, Wright appeared confused and said he was “unaware” of the operation.

“I do not think the president is lying, I think the president is talking casually about our efforts to stop the flow of Iranian oil,” Wright claimed, though Trump was clearly talking about oil that had made it out of the strait, not oil that had been blocked.

The president’s latest examination at Walter Reed Medical Center on May 26 reportedly involved 22 specialists, reported The Washington Post. That puts Trump at a dozen specialists beyond the previous record held by George W. Bush, who once saw 10 specialists in one go.

The White House has not elaborated on exactly why Trump needed so many doctors. Trump officials told the Post that the unconventionally large medical team allowed for a “complete and preventive evaluation” of the president. White House physician Sean Barbabella commented that the assessment found Trump in “excellent health.”

“The involvement of multiple specialists reflects a comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation consistent with best practices for executive-level medical care,” the White House said in a statement.

Nonetheless, the figure has contributed to yet more intrigue about Trump’s health as he nears his 80th birthday.

“It is an extraordinary number,” Jonathan Reiner, a longtime cardiologist for former Vice President Dick Cheney, told the Post. “What specialties do they represent? Why so many?”

Trump is the second-oldest man to ever serve as America’s commander in chief, and his increasingly erratic behavior has sparked global concern in recent weeks about his stability and judgment. The 79-year-old has spent hours at Walter Reed Medical Center on multiple occasions over the last nine months, fallen asleep during more than a dozen critical meetings, seemed lost and disoriented around foreign heads of state, frequently slurred his speech, and appeared with discolored and bruised skin on several occasions.

His behavior has also grown increasingly erratic, as he has thrown cheap and petty insults at members of the press, challenged long-standing U.S. alliances, and even taken jabs at the pope.

The American public is apparently wising up to Trump’s age: A Washington Post–ABC News–Ipsos poll released last month found that 59 percent of Americans do not believe that Trump has the mental acuity to lead the country.

Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.

Donald Trump’s latest claims about the Iran war are lurching wildly in different directions. He just claimed that he loves the inflation it’s creating for reasons that remain impenetrable. He also insisted that he’s about to attack Iran again as retaliation for them shooting down a U.S. helicopter while simultaneously claiming Iran has been totally defeated. It’s all gotten so absurd that his own advisors are struggling to defend his stances, as one extraordinary exchange in Congress with Energy Secretary Chris Wright reveals.

The situation’s moving rapidly and Trump is dramatically confusing matters with his unchecked derangement. So we’re trying to pin down what’s really happening with Ariane Tabatabai, a former Defense Department official under Joe Biden who’s now at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Ari, nice to have you on.

Ariane Tabatabai: Thanks for having me, Greg.

Sargent: So let’s quickly summarize. Earlier this week, Trump was saying a deal with Iran was imminent within a day or two. Then a U.S. helicopter was shot down. Trump said Iran did it. He launched limited strikes to retaliate. He’s now also said Iran is taking too long and that it will pay the price.

Then on Wednesday, he vowed to escalate hostilities again, saying, “We’re going to hit them hard again today.” By the time you all listen to this, he may well have attacked again—or not. Ari, can you recap where we are here?

Tabatabai: That’s the perfect summary of where we are. We’ve had two parallel tracks that have been ongoing. One is on the diplomatic front, where the United States and Iran have been negotiating on how to sustainably end this conflict and kind of pave the way for further negotiations on other issues of interest, including Iran’s nuclear program, which is one of the main reasons why we’re in this conflict to begin with. We can come back to this.

Then there’s a second track, the military track, where—we’ve had ebbs and flows in this conflict over the past week, as you described. The most recent thing that happened that seems to have led to this latest round of escalation is that the Iranians evidently shot down an Apache helicopter. After that happened, the president had this Truth Social post and said that he was going to be targeting Iran again. He did.

There’s been reporting over the past 24 hours that we even may have struck some Iranian water supplies. I should pause here and let folks know—this is a country that has deeply struggled with water shortages and droughts, and they’re about to enter very, very hot months over there. So if that is actually the case—it seems like U.S. Central Command has neither said yes or no—that would be pretty troubling, in addition to some of the other things we’ve seen over the past few months in this conflict.

But nonetheless, we’re in this new round of escalation that is not only leading to a tit for tat between the U.S. and Iran, but is also again spilling over into other places in the region, including Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain, all of which house U.S. forces on their soil.

Sargent: Just to clarify for people, Trump is very clearly saying that he’s going to escalate now. And by the time people listen to this, that may have happened or it may not have happened.

So it’s in this context that Trump told reporters that he loves inflation. The new inflation numbers just came out. They’re devastating for Trump. It’s over 4 percent now. He was asked about this, and he segued to saying that the U.S. has secretly been removing millions of barrels of oil from Iran. We’ll get to what that means in a second. But first, let’s listen to Trump.

Donald Trump (voiceover): You know what I really love? I love the inflation. You know why? Because as soon as this war is over—you know, I can say it now. Something you didn’t know. Do you know we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil? Nobody knows it. You know who doesn’t know about it? Iran—until right now.

Sargent: Now, why Trump said the part about loving inflation is a little hard to understand, but with the secret removal of millions of barrels of oil, he seems to mean the U.S. is escorting ships carrying oil out of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran is keeping closed. Ari, can you shed any light on this?

Tabatabai: It’s really hard, as you know, to make sense of what the president might be trying to say here. He does have a tendency to use verbs for other verbs. It’s really hard for me to say exactly what he meant. I think there’s a few different ways to read the statement.

Yours seems like the right one to me, which is that what is in essence happening is that the U.S. Navy is conducting freedom-of-navigation operations, allowing for tankers to cross the Strait of Hormuz. Obviously Iran has been holding the Strait of Hormuz at risk for weeks now and preventing the oil flow from happening. I think this is the plausible explanation.

There are a few questions to me here, though. One of the key questions is—we’re talking about this diplomatic track that seems to be slowly but surely maybe progressing. It’s clearly not going as fast as Trump would like. These things tend to take time. And again, we’re just a few months away from the midterms. But the surest way to reopen the strait would really be to get a deal, right?

Otherwise we’re going to be spending a lot of money sending assets to the region that are just going to make sure that these tankers are able to move and to get the oil back on the market. That seems like a really interesting use of these very expensive assets. And that is not even counting the human lives that are at stake here. Thousands of people have died throughout the region since this war started.

We’ve had U.S. service members who’ve been killed or injured in this. Of course, our bases and other infrastructure are being targeted throughout the region. So this is putting a Band-Aid on one of the many issues that is cascading out of this conflict. And it is not a sustainable Band-Aid. It is one that we can maybe continue for a bit, but ultimately there needs to be a more sustainable solution here.

Sargent: Well, Trump on Truth Social just announced, in quotes, this secret operation to escort tankers and ships through the strait. He said this: “Today I am pleased to announce that this effort has resulted in more than a hundred million barrels of oil making its way through the strait and into the open market. This wildly successful effort is because the United States of America controls the Strait of Hormuz, not Iran.”

So obviously Trump is absolutely desperate to make it look as if he’s in total control of the Strait of Hormuz and the situation more broadly. But what I’m having trouble understanding is what he means.

He is saying with total—well, clarity’s obviously the wrong word—he is saying what he thinks he means to be that this is actually happening; that a hundred million barrels of oil has been transported out of Iran through the strait because the U.S. is escorting them and that oil has gone onto the open market. Does the U.S. control the Strait of Hormuz? How real is any of this?

Tabatabai: It doesn’t.

Sargent: Is the oil being transferred? Is it happening? Do we know?

Tabatabai: I don’t know. And if it is happening, is it happening on the scale that he says it is? I don’t know. Again, this is somebody who talks about drug prices going down 600 percent. So if you’ve bought any Advil recently, you should really be getting some money back.

I think some of this is hyperbole. He’s not known for being precise, to say the least. It might be that there is some oil that is making its way into the market. We’ll see that in the days to come, we’ll be able to fact-check that. I don’t have that information. The piece where he talks about the control of the Strait of Hormuz is clearly not real. If it were real, then we would not be in this situation to begin with.

It’s part of this narrative that he has about this conflict where he keeps talking about Iran’s military being completely destroyed. Last year, after the summer operations against Iran’s nuclear program, he said that basically their entire nuclear program had been obliterated. And that was not the case, because we’re here again.

And by the way, Iran still has several hundred kilograms of highly enriched uranium on its soil. That is very troubling. Iran still has military capabilities. It’s not 100 percent of what it had at the beginning of this conflict, but it’s not nothing, which is why they were able to shoot down an Apache just a couple of days ago.

And the piece that is really something folks should understand is that we, the United States, are spending billions and billions of dollars sending very expensive, sophisticated weapon systems—munitions, missiles, platforms—to fight what was, even before this war, not a particularly sophisticated military. Iran’s military is not China’s military. It’s not even Russia’s military. They weren’t known for having large, expensive platforms.

This was an unequal war. And even without those sophisticated capabilities, Iran has been able to really create this dilemma for the United States. And we’re here several months later, when the president had said that this would be a war that would be over pretty quickly. So all of this to say, this is just another one of these statements in this conflict that are probably not going to stand the test of time.

Sargent: Probably not. We should note, by the way, that the headlines on the inflation spike are really tough for Trump. The Washington Post says this: “Inflation heats up to highest point in three years, fueled by Iran war.” New York Times: “Inflation jumps as Iran war intensifies price squeeze.” Politico: “Inflation surges to three-year high as Iran fighting drags on.”

Ari, the reason I’m highlighting these is that they directly tie the worsening inflation to Trump’s war. Everybody understands that this is what’s happening. It’s a real rarity that presidential responsibility for the state of the economy is so clear. Your thoughts on all that?

Tabatabai: Look, I’m not an economist, but I also have to go get gas every day—well, I don’t get it every day, but I have to get gas. I see the prices keep going up. And again, we’re really in the depths of the midterm season at this point. We’ve had primaries throughout the country.

Folks are really feeling the hurt of this conflict in a way that other foreign policy decisions don’t necessarily make the results known as much for everyday people. People, when they go to get gas or purchase groceries, they can directly feel the impact of this war. That is not generally the case with foreign policy issues.

So it’ll be really interesting to see, if this conflict continues, how it shapes people’s attitudes as we go into November. My organization, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, has been doing some polling on the attitudes of Americans about this conflict. It is not a popular conflict, as you can imagine. Republicans, of course, are more supportive than Democrats and independents, but it is by and large a pretty unpopular conflict. This is probably adding to Trump just wanting to get a deal done really quickly.

This is something that many of us in the analytical community had said for years—once you start a conflict, you don’t always end it on your terms. You rarely end it exclusively on your terms, because the adversary gets a vote as well. And he’s discovering that in real time now.

Sargent: You’d think he’s discovering it. He’s certainly acting as if he’s entirely won and then he lurches towards saying that retaliation’s necessary. It’s all very opaque.

I want to get into how hard all this is to defend. Let’s listen to an exchange in Congress where Representative Emilia Sykes questions Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

Emilia Sykes (voiceover): Do you feel like your positions and policy statements are in line with President Trump?

Chris Wright (voiceover): Yes, I hope so.

Sykes: Do you love inflation?

Wright: I love ending Iran’s ability to have a nuclear weapon. I think that’s existential for us.

Sykes: That was not my question. Do you love inflation, yes or no?

Wright: I love ending Iran’s—

Sykes: That is not my question. Do you love inflation, yes or no?

Wright: No, I would prefer lower inflation.

Sykes: You would prefer lower inflation. Do you know that your boss, essentially, President Trump, just stated that he loved inflation?

Wright: He’s an entertaining, hyperbolic guy who’s done tremendous leadership.

Sargent: Note how absolutely terrified Wright is of appearing to differ with Trump in any way at all. Now listen to this exchange about all that oil that Trump says the U.S. is transferring out. Sykes plays audio of Trump making that claim, and then this happens.

Sykes (voiceover): So why would the United States be taking out millions of barrels of oil from Iran?

Wright (voiceover): Well, it’s essential that we prevent oil sales from generating revenue for Iran to spend to develop nuclear weapons—

Sykes: Mr. Secretary, I understand this might be an uncomfortable line of questioning and you don’t want to do it, but you are not answering my question. So I’m going to ask you again and I’m going to hope that you will answer it honestly. Did you know that the United States was taking millions of [barrels] of oil from Iran?

Wright: I’m unaware.

Sykes: So do you think that the president is lying based on the audio that you just heard? And I will send it to you in case you say you didn’t hear it.

Wright: No, I do not think the president is lying. I think the president’s talking casually about our efforts to stop the flow of Iranian oil.

Sargent: That is some mysterious stuff. As far as I can tell, parsing it—it’s really convoluted and crazy—but I think Energy Secretary Chris Wright admitted that Trump basically made the stuff up about the oil being transferred out and said he thinks what Trump really meant was that the blockade, the U.S. blockade, was keeping the oil from getting to the market. Can you make any sense of it?

Tabatabai: I don’t know if I can. It does point to a much larger issue, which is again how we ended up where we are now, which is that this administration is really lacking in people who are both knowledgeable of issues and willing to stand up to the president or give him advice that he may not necessarily like. And that is such a fundamental part of what these Cabinet positions are supposed to be.

They’re not supposed to be yes-men who just stand there and say, Yes, sir, you’re correct about everything you’re doing. They’re supposed to bring their best expertise of their agency or department they represent, and they’re supposed to help the president make a better set of decisions. And that has not happened, which is how—

We’ve talked about the Strait of Hormuz. I can tell you that for years and years, folks who’ve worked on this Iran portfolio in different agencies and departments have known that this would be a possibility—in fact, that it was a very likely outcome of a conflict.

It seems like that viewpoint was not represented, which is how we’ve now had multiple administration officials, including the president himself, say, No one knew that this would happen. No. Everyone who’s worked on this issue knew that this would happen. It is really troubling that he’s not hearing folks tell him things that he wouldn’t necessarily want to hear.

Sargent: Just to pick up on the point you made there, here Chris Wright very visibly does not think of his job as telling the truth to the president or to the American people. He clearly understands his job as being sycophant to the president. It’s very clear.

Tabatabai: It’s really telling that if—I keep thinking about this, having served in a Democratic administration—if this was the way that some of my former bosses had responded to folks on the Hill, Republicans on the Hill, the other party, I don’t think we would have heard the end of it. There would have been impeachment processes.

Yet this is how the administration treats Congress—an atrophied Congress that has frankly not stood up to this administration, even as it’s made bad decision after bad decision on a host of issues, for things that we’re going to be really paying the price for for years to come.

We’ve talked about the implications for people’s paychecks every day and their gas and groceries and so on. But there’s the longer-term cost of these conflicts that we’re not seeing quite yet. There’s the support from allies and partners and our international standing, which sounds like this interesting concept that only academics care about, but it is not.

Our ability to have a good story to tell internationally is how we get a lot of things done that directly impact people every day. We’re going to be paying the price of these facilities that are being targeted, of these defense systems that we’ve spent billions and billions of dollars buying that are now being damaged and destroyed. We’re going to potentially see huge implications for recruitment and retention in the military.

There’s so many things that are going to be happening in years to come that are directly stemming from the actions that the administration is taking. Congress should care more. It should be playing more of a role. And it is just not doing that right now.

Sargent: Just to finish this out, what’s going to happen now? Granted, we don’t know whether by the time people are listening to this, Trump will have bombed Iran again. Maybe he will have completely obliterated it by tomorrow as he’s been threatening to do by the time people listen to this. Maybe not. But understanding that things are in, let’s say, flux, what is the most likely set of scenarios to unfold from here?

Tabatabai: I think what we’re going to see is escalation, kind of a steady-state situation, and then we’ll keep moving forward that way. It’s clear to me that President Trump is ready to move on from this conflict. He has Cuba on his radar. He keeps saying the midterms don’t matter, but they clearly do.

He’s just stuck here, because on the one hand, Iran again gets a vote. On the other hand, any deal with Iran will be problematic for him—will be extremely divisive within his own base. He obviously doesn’t care what Democrats or independents think, but he cares what Republicans think. Many Republicans will be very opposed to any deal with Iran.

Then you have the additional challenge of—we’re degrading Iranian military capabilities, but this is not a country that needs a ton of sophisticated capabilities. They can keep doing this for a while. This is not a democracy that is going to have to respond to its people because gas is expensive. This is an authoritarian regime that is going to be able to continue this for as long as it needs to. Frankly, it probably benefits from it, because it has cover to crack down on dissent, for example, and to continue to have an external enemy to point to.

For Iran, winning is not about winning militarily. It’s about standing up and not losing to the United States. And that is a really bad recipe here for a situation that continues in a way that is problematic for all of the people of that region who have to live with the missile attacks and drone attacks and unpredictability, frankly.

Sargent: It’s going to get a whole lot worse for Americans and even worse for people over there, unfortunately. Ariane Tabatabai, it was really good to talk to you. Thanks so much for coming on.

Tabatabai: Thanks so much for having me.