Americans Seem to Be Falling Out of Love With Capitalism

A new poll says capitalism’s hold over the U.S. population is slipping.

Only 54 percent of Americans view the economic system of capitalism favorably, down from 60 percent in 2021. It’s the lowest percentage since Gallup began collecting data in 2010.

Both Democrats and independents view capitalism less positively this year, as well. Less than half of Democrats, 42 percent, have a positive image of capitalism. Just over half of independents feel the same, compared to three-quarters of Republicans (whose views on the economic system haven’t changed since 2010).

What about the alternatives? Socialism still polls positively for 39 percent of respondents, holding steady since 2019.

But if you dig a little deeper, there are two diverging perspectives hidden behind that steady number: Democrats’ view of socialism has been increasing, while Republicans’ view has been decreasing.

While around 50 percent of Democrats had a positive view of socialism in 2010, nearly two-thirds do today. They’re the only partisan group who view socialism more positively than capitalism, at 66 to 44 percent, respectively.

It’s not hard to see why people may be fed up with the economic status quo. The cost of buying a home has skyrocketed, especially after the Covid-19 pandemic, and wages haven’t kept up. And since 2001, rents have risen 10 times faster than income.

Democratic socialist politicians like Bernie Sanders and New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani have become more popular recently, as voters look to leaders who acknowledge that the cost of living is unacceptable.

Things have gotten so bad, it seems that even President Donald Trump may have lost his faith in capitalism—just ask Intel or Nippon.

The man accused of trying to kill President Trump on his Florida golf course began his trial on Monday—and he’s already running into some strange jury selection issues. 

On September 15, Ryan Routh, a 59-year-old construction worker, allegedly hid in the bushes of Trump Palm Beach golf course with a rifle for hours. When Trump was a hole away, the Secret Service spotted Routh’s rifle peeking from the foliage and shot at him. He ran, and was later arrested and hit with five criminal charges, including attempting to kill a presidential candidate and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. Routh is facing life in prison and pleads not guilty. 

Routh is representing himself, a controversial move that’s been most bothersome to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in her effort to oversee the three-day, 60-person jury selection process. 

“I will be representing myself moving forward; It was ridiculous from the outset to consider a random stranger that knows nothing of who I am to speak for me,” Routh wrote in a letter to Judge Cannon in July. “I am so sorry, I know this makes your life harder.”

Routh has been holding up the process by asking potential jurors questions like how they would react if they saw a turtle in the middle of the road while they were driving, because their answers would “speak to their character and mindset,” he said, according to ABC News. Routh also attempted to ask jurors what they think about Palestine and about Trump’s attempted takeover of Greenland.

Cannon struck the questions, saying, “They are all really off base and have no relevance to the jury selection process.”

Court filings also quote Routh requesting both a “beatdown session” and a round of golf with Trump instead of going on trial. 

“I think a beatdown session would be more fun and entertaining for everyone; give me shackles and cuffs and let the old fat man give it his worst,” he wrote. “A round of golf with the racist pig, he wins he can execute me, I win I get his job.” He also asked for female strippers.

Routh’s witness list is an odd cast of characters, including his son, an ex-girlfriend, a Palestinian activist group, and President Trump. 

Cannon is already over Routh’s shenanigans, and has accused him of orchestrating “calculated chaos” in her courtroom and called one of his witnesses “a farce” and “obviously ludicrous.”  

Routh has not been diagnosed with any mental illness, according to his family, but he does “fixate” on things. That would explain what prosecutors say was months of planning for a failed assassination attempt, or his willingness to “FIGHT AND DIE” as a civilian volunteer for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

Opening statements in Routh’s trial are on Wednesday. We’ll see what he has to say for himself.

Four in 10 Americans say that they’re buying less thanks to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, according to a new poll from CBS.

Support for the tariffs has fallen steadily since June, when 41 percent of those surveyed supported them. In July, that number fell to 40 percent and in August, 38 percent.* Over half of all Americans oppose the tariffs.

Republicans make up the bulk of those who still favor the tariffs, according to CBS. They also are more likely to say higher prices are OK, actually, when Trump is responsible: 70 percent of Republicans believe Americans should be willing to pay more to support Trump’s trade policies, opposed to a mere 6 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents.

It’s not just the court of public opinion where Trump’s tariffs are facing an uphill battle. After an appeals court ruled that the president’s tariffs were illegal, the president asked the Supreme Court to make an “expedited ruling” to overturn the decision.

If the highest court rules against the president—which, if it follows precedent rather than bow to Trump’s whims, it very well could—then the U.S. Treasury would have to issue enormous refunds, “about half” of the $180 billion the country has collected in tariffs so far, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Trump has said that refunds of this size would lead to a second Great Depression. But if the latest dismal jobs report is any indication, it seems like we might be heading that way regardless.

* This article previously mischaracterized the polling on tariffs.

The Supreme Court on Monday accepted another emergency request from the Trump administration—this time lifting a lower court’s order that prohibited roving immigration agents in Los Angeles from profiling individuals on the basis of race, language, job, or location.

The majority ruled without explanation, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, took her conservative colleagues to task in a blistering dissent.

“Countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed simply because of their looks, their accents, and the fact they make a living by doing manual labor,” wrote the court’s eldest liberal justice. “Today, the Court needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities.”

The Fourth Amendment “prohibits exactly what the Government is attempting to do here,” Sotomayor observed, as the Trump administration has “all but declared” Latinos in low-wage jobs “fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”

Kavanaugh’s concurrence, Sotomayor noted, falsely assumed agents are just conducting “brief stops for questioning” and seizing only undocumented immigrants.

In reality, they “are seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions,” and whisking away American citizens as well. Further, she wrote, Kavanaugh incorrectly places the burden of proof during immigration stops not on law enforcement but on “an entire class of citizens to carry enough documentation to prove that they deserve to walk freely”—essentially creating “a second-class citizenship status” that is incompatible with the Constitution.

In Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court has repeatedly enabled the president’s lawless excesses via its emergency docket—overruling lower courts that halt his actions, oftentimes, as on Monday, providing little or no explanation. Sotomayor’s dissent railed against these tendencies, calling the decision “yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” whose lack of explanation is “troubling.”

“In the last eight months, this Court’s appetite to circumvent the ordinary appellate process and weigh in on important issues has grown exponentially,” she pointed out. “Its interest in explaining itself, unfortunately, has not.”

Whereas there are sometimes good reasons for issuing orders without explanation, other “situations simply cry out for an explanation,” Sotomayor said—“such as when the Government’s conduct flagrantly violates the law, or when lower courts and litigants need guidance about the issues on which they should focus.”

To conclude, Sotomayor wrote that Monday’s ruling means the Fourth Amendment may no longer protect the rights of people “who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent.”

President Donald Trump was so desperate to claim he’s conquered crime in Washington, D.C., Monday, he dismissed claims of domestic violence.

Speaking to the White House Religious Liberty Commission at the Museum of the Bible, Trump tried to tout some impressive crime reduction numbers in Washington, where he has federalized police and unleashed thousands of National Guard troops.

To support his assertion that crime was down “more than 87 percent,” Trump callously claimed that people were attempting to undermine his success by crying wolf about “much lesser things, things that take place in the home.”

“You know, they’ll do anything in the home to claim something. If a man has a little fight with the wife they’ll say this was a crime, see? So now I can’t claim 100 percent,” Trump said.

Trump’s effort to downplay domestic violence is not only desperate but despicable. Every minute, 24 Americans experience rape, stalking, or physical violence by their partner, and domestic violence results in more than 1,500 deaths every year. Eighty-five percent of victims of intimate partner violence are women, meaning a woman is beaten every nine seconds.

Despite all of Trump’s talk about cracking down on crime, it seems his commitment only goes so far.

Over the past few weeks, the president has been eager to claim victory over violent crime in the capital. Since Trump deployed the National Guard in Washington D.C., violent crime has decreased by just 22 percent. Property crime has decreased considerably though, with carjackings down 83 percent, car thefts down 21 percent, and robberies down 46 percent.

The Trump administration has also been sending mixed messages on its use of National Guard troops. While Trump would like to imagine his crackdown is so complete that there are no more criminals to arrest, Attorney General Pam Bondi keeps touting a running tally of arrests.

At the same time, National Guard troops with no actual work have been tasked with raking up leaves and laying out mulch.

Last week, D.C. sued the Trump administration, alleging that the use of federal troops was “illegal federal overreach.” That lawsuit follows a California judge ruling that Trump’s deployment of troops in Los Angeles in June had violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

President Trump lost to E. Jean Carroll again.

A federal appeals court has rejected the president’s appeal of the initial $83.3 million verdict that found him guilty of defaming Carroll in 2019 after she accused him of rape.

A three-judge panel on Monday ruled unanimously in favor of Carroll, rejecting Trump’s presidential immunity arguments in the process.

Since the initial ruling last year, the amount Trump owes Carroll has increased, thanks to a 9 percent annual interest rate in New York, where the case was decided.

Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the Manhattan Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s. She sued him twice for defamation: first in 2019, when he said she made up the rape allegation to promote her book, and again in November 2022 for the countless social media posts he made about her. Those posts haven’t stopped. Trump called Carroll out again on Memorial Day last year, writing on Truth Social:

Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country, & to the Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge in New York that presided over, get this, TWO separate trials, that awarded a woman, who I never met before (a quick handshake at a celebrity event, 25 years ago, doesn’t count!), 91 MILLION DOLLARS for “DEFAMATION.” She didn’t know when the so-called event took place - sometime in the 1990’s - never filed a police report, didn’t have to produce the “dress” that she threatened me with (it showed negative!), & sung my praises in the first half of her CNN Interview with Alison Cooper, but changed her tune in the second half - Gee, I wonder why (UNDER APPEAL!)? The Rape charge was dropped by a jury!

The vast majority of the verdict money—$65 million—was specifically for punitive damages, as the jury found that the president acted with malice toward Carroll.

While Trump’s team seems to be surrendering on the defamation charges, they have indicated that they intend to challenge the $5 million in damages Carroll received in a separate defamation case in which Trump was also found liable of sexually abusing Carroll.

Vice President JD Vance hit a new low while attempting to defend a deadly extrajudicial military strike on an alleged “drug boat,” and even Republicans are noticing.

Vance, who is known for his emotional outbursts—both online and off—has once again demonstrated that he can’t take any amount of criticism.

“Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military,” Vance wrote on X Saturday morning, referring to the president’s strike on a boat in international waters last week. The government has claimed the strike killed 11 members of the Tren de Aragua gang who were bringing drugs to the United States.

Brian Krassenstein, a political podcaster and social media influencer critical of Trump, stepped in to remind Vance that the government hadn’t provided any actual evidence to support the claim that they were TdA members. (If it wasn’t true, it wouldn’t be the first time.)

“Killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime,” he wrote.

“I don’t give a shit what you call it,” Vance replied.

What Vance might have imagined as a defiant mic-drop moment betrayed his disturbing willingness to ignore federal and international law to commit executions.

Republican Senator Rand Paul slammed Vance’s statement.

“JD ‘I don’t give a shit’ Vance says killing people he accuses of a crime is the ‘highest and best use of the military.’ Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?” Paul wrote in a post on X. “Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”

Vance’s comment was particularly disturbing in light of remarks from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who imagines that he has “absolute authority” to commit acts of war against nations Congress has not declared war against.

In reality, the Trump administration received no legal authorization for the use of force, and is still struggling to invent a legal basis for its own strike. It seems they even struggled to decide where to say the boat was headed.

The Supreme Court on Monday accepted an emergency request from President Donald Trump, allowing him to remove Democratic Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter as she challenges her ousting.

The president attempted to fire Slaughter in March, leading the commissioner to challenge the move as presidents may only legally remove FTC commissioners for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

A federal court in July blocked Slaughter’s removal, deeming Trump’s attempt “unlawful and without legal effect.” The ruling cited Supreme Court precedent in the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which limited the president’s ability to remove officials from agencies such as the FTC.

The lower court’s decision was upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which last week stated that Trump “has no likelihood of success on appeal given controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent.”

Nonetheless, the Trump administration has appealed, and as is its wont, sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts faithfully obliged—temporarily blocking Slaughter’s reinstatement as her case progresses.

President Donald Trump’s Truth Social posts are like a box of chocolates: You never know what you’re gonna get.

On Monday, the president came for beloved actor Tom Hanks, celebrating the fact that West Point canceled a ceremony meant to honor the actor.

“We don’t need destructive, WOKE recipients getting our cherished American Awards!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

The military academy’s alumni association was set to bestow upon Hanks the prestigious Sylvanus Thayer Award for his advocacy work and multiple on-screen portrayals of service members. But for reasons that remain unclear, they canceled the festivities meant to honor him at the last minute.

“This decision allows the Academy to continue its focus on its core mission of preparing cadets to lead, fight, and win as officers in the world’s most lethal force, the United States Army,” wrote Mark Bieger, president and chief executive officer of the West Point Association of Graduates, in an email that was obtained by The Washington Post.

Hanks has been a public supporter of former President Joe Biden. The actor narrated a video marking one year of Biden’s presidency in 2022, and recently portrayed a Trump supporter on Saturday Night Live as a racist who refused to shake cast member Keenan Thompson’s hand.

Luckily, Hanks can take comfort in his two Oscars, seven Emmys, five Golden Globes, and four Tonys.

On Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson told the world that President Donald Trump was actually an FBI informant collecting intelligence on Epstein, absolving him of any criminality. On Sunday, he admitted that he lied. 

“[Trump] has never said or suggested or implied—I’ve talked to him about this many times, many times. He is horrified. It’s been misrepresented. He’s not saying that what Epstein did is a hoax. It’s a terrible, unspeakable evil. He believes that himself,” Johnson told reporters Friday. “When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down.”

Johnson’s comment, made very casually, lit up the airwaves. 

“No officer i am an fbi informant tasked with smoking this weed,” one user posted ironically. 

On Sunday, Johnson changed his story. 

“The Speaker is reiterating what the victims’ attorney said, which is that Donald Trump—who kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago—was the only one more than a decade ago willing to help prosecutors expose Epstein for being a disgusting child predator,” Johnson’s office wrote in a statement to The Washington Post. 

There’s a big difference between being “willing to help prosecutors” and being an actual FBI informant, which is exactly what Johnson said while surrounded by cameras and reporters. 

The speaker shouldn’t be let off the hook so easily for such an absurd comment. The sitting president is only implicated in the case of a serial sexual abuser because he was acting as an informant for the FBI? Did Johnson expect us to think Trump was wearing a wire while he was hanging out with Epstein in the 1990s? And for him to introduce and walk back such a massive lie so offhandedly speaks to the ridiculous amount of deceit that is commonplace in this administration.  

The Trump administration has handled the Epstein case with lies from the jump, back when Attorney General Pam Bondi said she had the Epstein files on her desk. Now we have the House speaker defending a president who thinks this is all a hoax, by promoting him to the level of secret agent. 

“It was a fantastical story for about a day,” said GOP Representative Thomas Massie, who is leading the bipartisan discharge petition to force the release of the Epstein files in full. “What compelled (former career attorney) Mike Johnson to claim the President was an FBI informant?”