Rich Liberals: Please, Please Step Up and Save The Washington Post

By far the most widely read piece I’ve written in my time at The New Republic is this one, which I wrote right after the 2024 election and headlined “Why Does No One Understand the Real Reason Trump Won?” My answer to that question was the media—specifically, that an avowedly right-wing media, which existed not to report the news but to elect Republicans and turn liberalism into a grotesque and indefensible caricature of itself, had grown and grown since the 1990s, finally by 2024 reaching the point where it was more powerful and more agenda-setting than the mainstream media.

I wrote: “Today, the right-wing media sets the news agenda in this country. Not The New York Times. Not The Washington Post (which bent over backwards to exert no influence when Jeff Bezos pulled the paper’s Harris endorsement). Not CBS, NBC, and ABC.… Even the mighty New York Times follows in its wake, aping the tone they set disturbingly often.”

Here we sit, 15 months later, and 13 months into Donald Trump’s second presidency, and what’s changed? What’s changed, predictably, is that the landscape is even bleaker. CBS News, now run by Bari Weiss, has become part of that agenda-setting right-wing media—which includes Fox News, Newsmax, One America News Network, the Sinclair network of radio and TV stations and newspapers, and more. And so has The Washington Post, whose rightward turn on its editorial page started becoming apparent late last year.

And this week, Bezos moved to assert his personal control not just over the opinion pages. Now he’s decided to start dismantling the news side, with the 300 layoffs he ordered Wednesday. As you’ve no doubt read by now, the Post has suffered admittedly massive losses lately—$100 million in 2024. But as you’ve also surely read, Bezos could cover those losses if he wanted to with what he makes in a few days. If he wrote a check tomorrow to cover those losses, his net worth would drop, as Truthout’s Sharon Zhang observed, from the current Forbes-estimated $248.7 billion—all the way down to a worrying $248.6 billion.

So why did he decide not to write that check? I don’t know the man, and of course on some level, rich men hate writing such checks. But if he actually believed in the value of journalism’s role in sustaining democracy, as he appeared to for the first few years after he bought the paper in 2013, he’d have written it happily.

So the question arises: What are we to conclude from his refusal to do so? There’s only one conclusion. He doesn’t care about democracy. He sees no vital role for a vigorous free press in sustaining it. And he wants The Washington Post not only to be a right-leaning libertarian newspaper, which, as many have observed, is his right. He wants it to be a lousy newspaper. A weak simulacrum of what it was once and should be. A newspaper that cannot play its time-honored role as a check on abuses of power.

I note here, as others have, that the Post still has 500 journalists, which is a lot, and that the layoffs largely didn’t touch the national reporting teams. That’s all good, I guess. But just wait. The guillotine will start finding those necks eventually. Why? Because these layoffs won’t staunch losses over the long haul. Indeed, they may make them worse. More subscribers who decided to give the paper one more chance after Bezos pulled the Harris endorsement will jump ship (in my anecdotal experience, that’s happening to a considerable degree already). Losses will continue. And one day, the Post’s publisher—this horror-show hack named Will Lewis, this meretricious mountebank who was too cowardly to join the staff call announcing the layoffs but who was spotted at a glam Super Bowl–related event in San Francisco the very next day—will announce that more belt-tightening is required.

And I submit to you that Bezos at best doesn’t care and, at worst, actually wants this on some level. Once upon a dear old time, he seemed to want a real newspaper. But after he threw in his lot with Trump (or Trumps, plural, given his financing of this embarrassing piece of Melania agitprop), that changed. It’s axiomatic: It is impossible to believe simultaneously in a vigorous press and in the success of Donald Trump. The latter, which is based on the smashing of democratic laws and customs, cannot succeed if the former exists. And, on an emotional and psychic and most certainly pecuniary level, Bezos has made his choice.

Rich liberals, I beg of you: Do something. Step in to save The Washington Post. Maybe there’s not a single one of you who has the money to swallow $100 million in annual losses. But maybe five or six of you together do. And by the way: If you do it right, and you hire the right editors and rehire some of the old columnists and do some intelligent modernizing around video and podcasts and are willing to be an unapologetically liberal newspaper, you’ll find an audience again.

You’ll be doing a lot more than saving some jobs. “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost,” Thomas Jefferson wrote a friend in 1786. A news outlet isn’t a shoe store. It’s a guardrail against tyranny. It shouldn’t surprise us that a man worth a quarter-trillion dollars, whose wealth has increased tenfold in the last decade, doesn’t care about this. Democracy, tyranny … makes no difference to him. In fact, to the extent that democracy makes room for his employees to try to join unions and so forth, democracy is an inconvenience. So is a free press.

So take it off his hands. Make Bezos the proverbial offer he can’t refuse. He may actually refuse to sell to a liberal consortium—his preference for tyranny may now be that stark. But it can’t hurt to try. Your accountants might grouse, but there is no question that history will reward you.

It was already a pretty weird week, what with Tulsi Gabbard—the official in charge of gathering foreign intelligence—showing up at a Georgia election office for an FBI raid. But then, on Thursday, the president of the United States filed a lawsuit that is an obvious shakedown of the government he runs. Donald Trump, his two older sons, and their business are suing the IRS and the Treasury Department for $10 billion for allowing a government contractor to gain access to their tax filings (the contractor later leaked the files to the press). It reads like a transparent attempt to steal a few billion dollars from the U.S. Treasury while he can get away with it.

It’s an interesting twist of fate that the Gabbard raid and this lawsuit both dropped in the same week, because they actually go together quite well in the Venn diagram of Trumpian iniquity. Both developments prove a core point about our system that everybody had better learn and be prepared to act on after Trump leaves office (assuming that happy day comes): namely, that Trump has shown that a conscienceless and corrupt person can pollute the system in endless ways because previous generations never anticipated that someone this comprehensively conscienceless and corrupt could win high office. There simply aren’t laws that prohibit much of what he does because it never occurred to anyone that a holder of high public trust would ever even try such stuff.

Let’s look first at this IRS suit, beginning with a little historical background. First of all, as The New York Times reported when it got the leaked documents, Trump paid no federal taxes in 10 of 15 years from 2004 to 2019. We don’t know that that was a crime; maybe it was just fancy accountants. But one way or the other, it sure isn’t right.

But OK, they got leaked. That’s against the law. Of course, one could argue that the only reason they had to be leaked was that Trump refused to release his tax returns publicly, making him the first presidential candidate since Richard Nixon not to do so. Had he complied with that honorable custom—one that requires that people adhere not to a law but to a democratic norm of behavior—there would have been no leak.

But fine. They were leaked. That’s illegal. And guess what? The guy who did it is in prison! He started serving a five-year sentence in May 2024. We can debate whether, in breaking that law, Charles Littlejohn in fact performed a public service (historical fact of note: Nixon’s returns also were leaked, and for that crime, no one was ever indicted). But Littlejohn broke a law, and he was convicted. The system, on paper, worked.

For normal human beings, that would have been enough. Justice was served. But not for the Trumps. The slightest whiff of an opportunity to scam someone or someones—in this case, the taxpayers he was elected to serve—gets them salivating like hyenas over a springbok carcass. So now we have the unprecedented and frankly insane circumstance of the sitting president of the United States suing the government of the United States, over which he himself presides, trying to use his office to line his pockets. They’ll pick that carcass to the bone if they can.

Now you might ask: Shouldn’t there be some kind of law preventing the president of the United States from suing the federal government, at least while he’s in office? I’m not a lawyer, so maybe there is some such law from 1856 or whatever, and someone will discover it. But assuming there’s not, I can tell you why there’s not: It never occurred to people that a president could be so petty and venal as to do something like this!

Now let us turn to Gabbard. She has been sidelined for some time, ever since she made the error, fatal in Trumpworld, of saying something true to the factual record—that U.S. intelligence services saw no evidence that Iran was building a nuclear weapon. “I don’t care what she said,” Trump said at the time, “I think they were very close to having one.” More recently, she was frozen out of the action on Venezuela.

So, needing a way to get back in Dear Leader’s good graces, she boned up on a topic that she knew would demonstrate her value: the “fraudulent” 2020 election. How can she possibly claim jurisdiction over this obviously domestic matter, many have been asking since this week’s raid? Well, she can’t, on real Earth. But on Trump Earth, you might recall that back in 2020, there were some wild conspiracy theories that involved foreign governments and intelligence agencies.

Remember “Italygate”? I thought you might not. It never really gained traction among us flat-earthers. But it was a QAnon favorite for a while there, and it held that an Italian aerospace company and an Italian Army general worked with the American Embassy in Rome to use Italian satellites to remotely switch votes from Trump to Joe Biden. Yes, that is what they believed.

Then there’s the China angle, which Trump was touting on social media just the other day. In case the Italygate story isn’t ominous enough for you, Trump tossed China into the mix. “China reportedly coordinated the whole operation,” he posted. “The CIA oversaw it, the FBI covered it up, all to install Biden as a puppet.” This is the stuff of mad dogs and March hares, to put it mildly. But if you’re Tulsi Gabbard, it’s ample reason to claim that a conspiracy this immense not only allows for the nation’s chief intelligence officer to be involved, it veritably demands it!

So now we are about to launch—at the expense of the same taxpayers whose pockets la famiglia Trumpa is trying to pick in the IRS suit—into an investigation into “crimes” that are more than five years old (and thus likely beyond the statute of limitations) and were never committed anyway. But Trump wants people to go to jail, and Gabbard and Pam Bondi—who meanwhile is 41 days late delivering the Epstein files and thus in clear violation of federal law—will move heaven and earth to make sure someone does. (Note: Bondi released more than 3 million Epstein-related documents today, just a couple hours after I wrote this.)

Again, we might ask: Why is there no law preventing a president from using his government to pursue such obviously baseless revenge lawsuits? Because no one imagined a president would behave so sleazily. Or they thought that, if one did, surely Congress, regardless of party loyalty, would step up and assert its constitutional authority and make an unequivocal statement about what is right and wrong in a democratic society. Yeah. Right.

So this is where we stand, as we begin this second year of the second Trump presidency. Three more years of this. It’s getting harder and harder to see how we survive it, but if we do, Congress is going to have to pass a bunch of laws that were never thought necessary until we elected a gangster as president.

Most of the obvious reactions to Jack Smith’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday have already been delivered, and I agree with them. It’s hard to imagine what on earth Chairman Jim Jordan—and hearing his whiny, tinny, angry, lying voice awoke involuntary physiological reactions I’d spent years trying to vanquish—and the Republicans thought they were accomplishing. To any non-Kool-Aid-drinking American, they looked ridiculous. Smith was calm. The Republicans were jumping out of their skins competing to get their sound bite featured on Fox News. All they managed to do was to remind people that Donald Trump is a criminal and that in a sane world, the Senate would have convicted him on the second impeachment (the January 6 one) and barred him from holding federal office for life.

I want to focus on one matter I’d forgotten all about. I’m thinking maybe you had too. That’s the question of this second volume of Smith’s report on Trump’s crimes, which focuses not on January 6 but on Trump’s theft of those classified documents he took down to Mar-a-Lago. It was written by Smith and his team back when the investigation was active. It is generally presumed to contain details about the matter that are heretofore unknown. Its release to the public was blocked by—speaking of memories I’d successfully repressed—Florida Judge Aileen Cannon.

I trust you remember her track record here. She tossed the classified documents case in July 2024, ruling that Smith had been improperly appointed to his position as special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland. From the moment the case landed on her docket, Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, barely concealed her obvious partisanship in her actions, which brought her some jaw-dropping reprimands from the Eleventh Circuit Court, which employs her. She was a judicial joke.

But she didn’t stop during the campaign. No! Once Trump was safely back in the White House, she ordered, on the second day of Trump’s second presidency, that the Department of Justice could not release the second volume of the Smith report (the first part had been released by Garland’s Justice Department the week before, in the waning days of Joe Biden’s presidency).

A couple of nonprofit legal outfits sued. Cannon dragged her feet. She spent 2025 ignoring petitions from the two nonprofits that were seeking to get the volume released. Finally, last November, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit—which, by the way, included one Trump appointee—chastised Cannon’s delays and gave her 60 days to do something.

The 60 days came and went at the beginning of this month, and—shocker—nothing happened. Then, as fate would have it, just this Monday, three days before Smith’s public testimony, the matter of the second volume vaulted back into the news as a lawyer for Trump filed a motion asking Cannon to permanently block the Justice Department, “as well as its current, former, and future officers, agents, officials, and employees” (note well: future officers!), from making the second volume public.

Two points here. First, we have the rather odd spectacle of Trump, as Politico’s Kyle Cheney put it on Bluesky, “litigating in his personal capacity against the Justice Department he runs.” But of course the key word in the motion, as noted above, is “future.” If Cannon grants this motion and a Democrat wins the White House in 2028, even that future attorney general won’t be allowed to release Volume II.

Second—about Trump’s lawyer. We’ve seen the basket of deplorables Trump has hired to defend either him or his government in court: Alina Habba, illegally installed as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey, who resigned after a court disqualified her; Todd Blanche, still the number two at Justice, famous for his softball interview with Ghislaine Maxwell and for defending moving her to a cushier prison; Emil Bove, who while at Justice ordered the sleazy dropping of all charges against then–New York Mayor Eric Adams, which led to nearly a dozen resignations.

Now we must add to that sorry menagerie a certain Kendra Wharton, who filed this week’s motion to Cannon. Who is Wharton? She was a white-collar criminal defense attorney in 2023 when Blanche announced that she and Bove would be joining Trump’s legal team to defend him against Smith’s charges. Later, when Trump took office the second time, he tapped Wharton to serve as the Justice Department’s senior ethics official. The prior one resigned after he was reassigned to a unit charged with cracking down on sanctuary cities. “Trump ethics official,” one suspects, is all we need to know about her.

So let’s take a step back. Trump took thousands of documents, more than 300 marked classified, with him to Mar-a-Lago in 2021. For months, he rebuffed polite requests by the FBI to cooperate with an inquiry. Finally, they raided the place. Naturally, Trump turned this into a deep-state persecution, and his willing propagandists complied in pushing that lie.

Then the roulette wheel of fate gave the case to the hackiest federal judge imaginable. She tossed the case. And she has spent her time since then making sure that the public never learns any more details about what Trump did. Next up, she’ll surely agree to the motion filed by a lawyer who played a willing role in helping Trump and Pam Bondi wreck the Justice Department.

And even if somehow Cannon denies the motion and Volume II somehow gets released? Well, it’s Bondi who’ll decide how much of it we get to see!

The Epstein files were supposed to be released in full on December 19. Bondi has done nothing. Volume II by rights should have been released some time last year. But Cannon did nothing. This is banana republic democracy, hiding corruption from public view while the president they’re all protecting seeks to destroy NATO and boost Vladimir Putin, and as he sends a quasi-gestapo force of ill-trained goons out into the streets of our cities to shoot people. And doing all they can to play along, as they showed us Thursday, are House Republicans, who’ll never stop debasing themselves in the race to prove to Trump which among them can be most servile.

Next up for the very fine people of Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Maine. President Donald Trump, in his speech in Detroit Wednesday, signaled that the Pine Tree State was in his sights. Why? Well, no doubt partly because he’s never won the state in three tries (although he has carried the rural 2nd district each time, and Maine is one of two states that awards electoral votes by congressional district). But mainly because Maine has something notable in common with Minnesota. Can you guess? Yep: a sizeable Somali population.

“They’re scammers,” Trump said, just putting the plain old racism out there for all to see. “They always will be, and we’re getting them out. In Maine, it’s really crooked as hell, too.” In response, Democratic Governor (and Senate candidate) Janet Mills released a video in which she made her position plain: “To the federal government, I say this: If your plan is to come here to be provocative and to undermine the civil rights of Maine residents, do not be confused. Those tactics are not welcome here.” The key word there, of course, is “residents” (as opposed to “citizens”).

The several thousand Somalis who have settled in Maine since the 1990s are based chiefly in Portland and Lewiston. They’ve been on alert since at least mid-December, when Trump referred to Somalis as “garbage.” Hundreds of Mainers gathered at a December 15 rally in Lewiston to support the Somali population—who were notably absent from the rally because, in the words of one Somali resident, “people were afraid of, ‘OK, what if somebody shoots us, or something happens?’”

As Americans, our minds are trained by involuntary habit to assume, when we see excess and violence, that the government will step in and bring order. Things get a little crazy at a protest, the cops break it up. Yes, there have been times when it’s the cops themselves who incite violence, like in Chicago in 1968. But when that has happened, the state has usually seemed at least a little sorry afterward.

Certainly, there were and always are reactionary forces working to throttle such examinations, and sometimes they succeed. But at least the impulse to investigate has generally been there. Indeed, a government commission appointed after the ’68 confrontations between cops and protesters during that year’s Democratic convention had a staff of 200 conducting thousands of interviews; in its report, it actually used the phrase “police riot.” That’s how things work in the United States—there exists a shared assumption that violence of that sort is undesirable, and that when it happens, some gesture toward accountability is what a democratic society requires.

Well, there existed such assumptions. All that’s out the window now. Now the federal government is the unapologetic bringer of violence. And it’s further important to understand: No amount of criticism, no amount of forensic or video evidence, no poll expressing mass public disapproval will change this. In fact, precisely the opposite. Any and all criticism will just be taken by Trump and MAGA world as further proof that they are right. Evidence will be dismissed and countered with fake “evidence,” like the video Vice President JD Vance trumpeted that purported to show that Renee Nicole Good had it coming. Bad-news polls will be dismissed as fake. The Trumpian state will dig in its heels. The only question Stephen Miller will ask himself will be: How can we turn up the heat?

This is what makes what’s happening in this country today different. The state is the perp. The government is beyond the law. The United States is now closer to Bashar Al Assad’s Syria, or perhaps even today’s Iran, than to anything we recognize as fitting within the understood norms of American history. That’s a pretty big statement, I realize, but it is not an exaggeration.

True—the Trump administration isn’t killing people by the thousands. It isn’t dropping those hideous barrel bombs on its own people. But mentally, psychologically, we as a country are edging in that direction. Until Minneapolis, I would have told you that as bad as Trump is, he’s not capable of ordering ICE agents to shoot people (citizens or not) at random, and that as bad as ICE is, they’d refuse such orders. Now I no longer believe either of those things. This man and his government are clearly capable of mass violence against immigrants and all who support them. It seems only a matter of time now before some of these thuggish ICE agents, under orders from the thug president, shoot some people down.

Remember, ICE is still on a hiring spree. And it’s not simply that ICE is recruiting—it’s how they’re doing it, and what kind of recruits they’re targeting. Earlier this week, The Intercept reported that just two days after Jonathan Ross executed Renee Good, the Department of Homeland Security posted a recruiting effort on Instagram using the phrase “We’ll Have Our Home Again.” The background music in the post was a song of the same name by a group called Pine Tree Riots. The song’s lyrics, the story reported, have been cited by extremists and neo-Nazis in the past. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Pine Tree Riots “is a little-known a cappella group affiliated with the Mannerbund, which the [SPLC] has previously listed as a white nationalist group.”

The Pine Tree Riot was an uprising by some New Hampshire colonists against the British in 1772. The Pine Tree Flag has recently been linked to Christian nationalism, and at least one was carried by January 6 insurrectionists. And more recently—just so you know how deeply MAGA marinates in this stuff—an official at the Department of Education had one set up outside his office. It’s also the same flag that was spotted outside Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s vacation home a few years ago. And now, ICE is using if not the flag itself then the same far-right sentiment it evokes to recruit people to whom it is, after the most minimal training possible, handing masks and Glock 19s.

And Trump himself? Soon, in Minnesota or somewhere, he will invoke the Insurrection Act against the will of local elected officials and send in the military. It’s hard to say where that will lead. But no place good. Again—all evidence that it isn’t working will be rejected as fake, and Americans who disapprove will be dismissed as having “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a phrase that allegedly describes people like you and me.

We’re the sane ones. The only Trump Derangement Syndrome is that of Trump himself, and his supporters, and it is destroying the country we thought we knew. 

On January 3, four days before the horrific killing of Renee Nicole Good, the Department of Homeland Security put out a press release. The headline bragged: “ICE Announces Historic 120% Manpower Increase, Thanks to Recruitment Campaign That Brought in 12,000 Officers and Agents.”

The statement went on to boast (bolded language in the original): “After receiving more than 220,000 applications to join ICE from patriotic Americans, ICE blew past its original hiring target of 10,000 new officers and agents within a year. In fact, we have more than doubled our officers and agents from 10,000 to 22,000. With these new patriots on the team, we will be able to accomplish what many say was impossible and fulfill President Trump’s promise to make America safe again.”

It appears that Good’s executioner—and it’s hard to think of a more apt word for someone who fires three point-blank shots at the head of an obviously unarmed civilian who is trying to drive away—was not one of these “new patriots.” The incident his defenders have taken to invoking, in which he was dragged by a car and ended up with 33 stitches, reportedly happened last June, before the hiring spree. But even that raises the obvious question: If he was injured, if he was “traumatized” by that event, as Vice President JD Vance said Thursday, what in the world was he doing still out in the field?

An investigation may answer that question (or, since it’s going to be led by Kash Patel’s FBI, maybe it won’t). But our common sense, and what we have learned in the last year about these people, tells us that he was still in the field for the same reason that ICE has hired 12,000 people in six months, recruiting specifically for people with an enthusiasm for guns and the military. The Trump administration wants to force showdowns that lead inevitably to what happened in Minneapolis Wednesday.

Take a look at the recruitment social media post that DHS placed on X last August: “Serve your country! Defend your culture! No undergraduate degree required!”

Let’s break that down. “Serve your country.” OK, nothing objectionable about that. But then we take a very Trumpian-Millerian turn: “Defend your culture.” Who is that aimed at? What set of emotional reactions is that command supposed to fire, and in whom? What “culture,” precisely, is it referring to? And finally, the reassurance that the job is open to practically anyone.

Well, anyone of a certain mindset, that is. On New Year’s Eve, ICE announced that it was initiating a new $100 million recruitment campaign that it referred to as a “wartime recruitment” strategy. The campaign, as The Washington Post put it, will target people “who have attended UFC fights, listened to patriotic podcasts, or shown an interest in guns and tactical gear.”

Any organization that goes from 10,000 to 22,000 in six months has hired some very unqualified people. If that organization is, say, the Candy Stripers, that might not be much of an issue. But if the organization is one that gives its employees badges and masks and riot gear and SIG Sauer P320 semiautomatic pistols (or maybe a Glock 19, to which the agency began transitioning last year), you’ve got a problem.

That’s exactly what Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, and Corey Lewandowski (whose exact role at DHS is the focus of many questions) have done. The so-called Big Beautiful Bill passed last July, you might recall, tripled ICE’s budget, from around $10 billion a year to close to $30 billion. All told, as Margy O’Herron of the Brennan Center pointed out last year, the bill “allocates more than $170 billion over four years for border and interior enforcement, with a stated goal of deporting one million immigrants each year. That is more than the yearly budget for all local and state law enforcement agencies combined across the entire United States.” She added that “the largest percentage increase goes to finding, arresting, detaining, and deporting immigrants already living in the U.S., most of whom have not committed a crime and many of whom have had lawful status.”

It’s clear what all this adds up to. There will be more Renee Goods. And they will all be smeared and trashed by Trump and his followers. Vance said Thursday, as have any number of MAGA-ites on social media, that she was driving right at the shooting officer. Proof of this, they say, lies in the fact that first bullet hole went through her windshield.

Yes, it did. But look at where it went through the windshield. It’s all the way over to the right, just a couple of inches from the driver’s-side pillar. If she was driving right at him, wouldn’t that bullet hole be closer to the center of the windshield? The video shows clearly that she was turning the car to the right. But even if there is ambiguity about the first shot, there is no ambiguity whatsoever about the second and third.

Good was executed. And now her reputation and life and values are being killed. Perhaps taking cues from Noem, who accused Good of an act of “domestic terrorism,” Vance referred to the victim as part of a left-wing conspiracy. A reporter asked him to amplify on that, and he couldn’t. He also said Good represented a “lunatic fringe.”

No, Mr. Vice President. Renee Good represents tens of millions of honest, decent, and patriotic Americans. Tens of millions of us who want to live in a humane and compassionate multiracial democracy where citizens, even if they are trying to obstruct a law enforcement action they object to (there is still some question whether Good was doing this), are subjected to the legal process and given their rights and not shot point-blank, where people who aren’t citizens but are otherwise law-abiding don’t have to live in fear, and where the “culture” we “defend” is a culture based not on blood and soil but the rule of law.

The real lunatic fringe in this country is the one that sanctions the execution of a citizen and then spends days smearing her and that imagines itself to be at war with its own people and precipitates these kinds of confrontations in the first place. That fringe is doubling down, and hiring and hiring and hiring. This is going to get much worse.

“Starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down, and we will make America affordable again,” Donald Trump told rallygoers in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in August 2024. “We’re going to make it affordable again.” He said it over and over and over. “Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again. We’ll do that. We’ve got to bring it down,” he told a Wisconsin crowd that October.

Well. Guess what? Prices are up. And they’re not just up, at least in some cases, because of random, impersonal market forces. They’re up because Trump raised them, through his tariffs. But mostly, they’re up because politicians, even presidents, don’t have the power to lower prices quickly and unilaterally.

I thought everyone knew this. I thought everyone was at least sophisticated enough to understand that inflation is kind of complicated and has to do with a number of factors that can’t be easily erased or reversed. I mean, that’s not a particularly advanced political or economic concept. A president can’t just say, “Beef prices, I command thee down!” and beef prices go down. We live in the real world, not some fairy-tale land; there’s no legal limit to the snow here, as there was in Camelot.

And yet—apparently a lot of people did believe him. Well, you know what? I’m not in the habit of calling people idiots. Elected Republicans, yes. A lot of them are idiots, and hypocrites and liars and worse. But regular people—I try to stay away from calling them idiots. They have pressures, they don’t really follow politics, and even in the present case, I understand that a few million voters turned to Trump because Joe Biden seemed to be responsible for inflation (and was, to a certain extent), Kamala Harris didn’t plausibly explain how she’d do things differently, and Trump was the only other entrée on the menu. Those people, I sort of get.

But if you really, truly, deeply believed that Trump would lower prices quickly? I’m sorry. You’re an idiot.

I keep wondering how people could have fallen for this. How could people not know, after living through Trump’s first term, that he’ll say anything—whatever works for him in the moment? Did people really just forget that? Apparently, they did. I have to keep reminding myself: There are a lot of people who pay attention to politics the way I pay attention to gymnastics—for a few weeks every four years. They’ve never understood that Trump is worse—far, far worse—than your average pol in the way he’ll just say whatever sounds good at the time.

Did they think he could fix things because he’s a businessman? You know—a businessman with six bankruptcies? Anyone capable of even a semblance of critical thinking who spent 10 minutes examining Trump’s business career could see that what he mostly did was drive companies into the ground, stiff contractors, fend off lawsuits, and skate through it all because he was a celebrity, which he figured out how to parlay into profit by selling the right to put his name on buildings.

And finally, I suspect a lot of people bought it because a lot of other dishonest people were pushing it. And here, of course, I mean the right-wing propaganda machine—from Fox News to podcasters to the algorithmic narcotics pushers on social media who are rapidly turning half the nation into a bunch of rage-baited nitwits—that helped elect him and that helps keep his poll numbers, anemic as they are, from being even worse.

It’s not as if it was some deeply held secret last year that presidents can’t just lower prices, or that tariffs increase prices. Plenty of people said so and warned that Trump had no answers. But the propagandists drowned the sane voices out.

Imagine that Kamala Harris had said she was going to lower grocery prices immediately, on day one. You know what would have happened? She’d have been laughed off the campaign trail. Mocked relentlessly. And not just by the right wing. By mainstream economic commentators. By liberal pundits. By me.

That’s because we—mainstream commentators, liberal pundits, and the millions of Americans who still do actually read stuff, weigh evidence, connect dots—would have known it was a preposterous and desperate lie. And we’d have said so. She’d have been savaged. She and her people no doubt knew this, which is why she didn’t talk like that.

She did address the issue. She did say she’d bring prices down. But she didn’t say silly things like “from day one,” and she offered some specifics about how she’d try to bring them down. She vowed to go after corporate price-gouging. You’ll recall that she was attacked even for this, on the grounds either that such gouging was allegedly rare or that most states already had laws against it, or it was just more proof she was a not-so-secret Marxist.

Otherwise, her plan to lower prices consisted of the usual dreary, time-consuming, reality-based stuff: expanding the child tax credit to reduce the costs of raising children; expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, to give more money back to lower-income taxpayers; providing housing tax credits to make homeownership more affordable.

Oh, and one more thing: She proposed extending the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies—exactly the hammer that’s about to thwack 20 million Americans over the head because Trump refuses to do this and has ordered the Republicans in Congress to follow suit.

So she put forward some plans. But plans are so ho-hum. Trump, in contrast, promised he’d cut the cost of a new home in half. Half! How? By slashing regulations! What regulations? You know—regulations! The evil, very, very bad ones! Sing along with me, to the tune of “Camelot”: “No regulation ever shall raise prices …”

So he goes back to Pennsylvania, as he did this week, and face-plants at the first MAGA rally of his second presidency by making fun of the whole idea of “affordabili-tee,” even pronouncing the word in such a way as to make light of the idea. Of course he did. He has no idea what to do about all this. So he has to make it sound like a “Democrat” hoax.

Oh—and that “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus” he gave himself on the economy in that Politico interview. That’s five pluses. I’ve noticed on cable news a lot of people reducing it to four. Understandable. Four has a more natural rhythm to it, as we know from the world of music. But Trump, of course, had to gild the faux-gold lily and add a fifth. That fifth “plus,” for those attuned to the psychological trip wires that exist in that swampy brain of his, is his secret admission that he knows things aren’t good. Yet he had the gall to lecture his rallygoers: “You’re doing better than you’ve ever done.” Imagine Joe Biden having said that in 2023.

So, to those who voted for TRUMP in the belief that he would “lower prices” on DAY ONE, I ask you: Do you think this man who lives in a Gilded Mansion gets what you’re going through? Do you think he’s EVER been to a supermarket in his life? Do you think he could guess the Price of a Gallon of Milk? A head of his beloved Iceberg Lettuce? I beg of you. PLEASE. WAKE UP!! He is Playing You. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Pete Hegseth is having one of the worst weeks a Cabinet secretary has had in recent American history. It’s very richly deserved. He’s a bombastic idiot. He’s a liar. And he’s a weasel: Under fire for a second military strike on an alleged drug boat, which killed two survivors of the first strike and was possibly a war crime, he has publicly shifted all responsibility to a uniformed Naval officer who cannot defend himself in public. Finally, I’d add that he has utter contempt for the historic rules of honorable military engagement, but the video that emerged this week of him paying rhetorical homage to those rules back in 2016 when Democrats ran the Pentagon proves that he doesn’t even live according to that benighted “principle” and instead operates on the basis of no principle other than the usual Republican ones—political advantage and power.

He’s a disaster as defense secretary. But here’s a question that must be pondered this week: Didn’t we all know this? Wasn’t there ample reason to suspect that a talk-show host would be in way over his head in running the largest corporation in the U.S. government? Could anyone—anyone—look in the mirror back in January and say to themselves: “Yes, of all the possible nominees in this vast country to run the Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth is the best possible choice”?

Of course we knew this. And yet, he made it through. Why? I see three reasons, all tangled up with one another, because they all describe different aspects of the total moral decay of the Republican Party.

Let’s start with the most obvious reason: Trump wanted him. In other words, no President Trump, no Secretary Hegseth, not in a jillion years. It took an ill-informed demagogue who dodged the draft and thinks soldiers buried in Arlington Cemetery are “suckers” and thinks cable news is the pinnacle of human endeavor to come up with an appointment like this. And this, as we all know, is why Trump chose him: He was a snarling cable host who looked the part and hated DEI. People knew at the time. Exiled Republican Adam Kinzinger posted last November, when Trump nominated Hegseth: “Wow. Trump picking Pete Hegseth is the most hilariously predictably stupid thing.”

But of course, few Republicans were willing to say so, which brings us to reason two: the total abdication of constitutional responsibilities by Trump’s party. Well, not quite total. Three Republicans did vote against Hegseth: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitch McConnell. JD Vance had to hustle up to the Capitol to break the tie.

But what that means is that 47 senators who had to know better (well, Tommy Tuberville excepted) voted for him. Mississippi’s Roger Wicker has been in the news this week because he chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee and is thus deeply involved in the question of how Congress will proceed in probing the second strike on that vessel on September 2. And, as Wicker is not tightly identified with the MAGA movement, I’ve seen him referred to this week as a comparative voice of reason.

Really? Go watch his statement back in January explaining his vote for Hegseth to see what a voice of reason he was then. “Admittedly, this nomination is unconventional,” he allowed. But so was Trump, when he flitted down that escalator. “That may be what makes Mr. Hegseth an excellent choice,” he continued. Hegseth would bring “a new warrior ethos” and “energy” and “fresh ideas.” Those descriptors might in fact be accurate, but not in a good way.

Wicker has been around Washington for three decades. He’s a former Air Force officer. There is zero chance he actually believed those words that he spoke that January day. But he spoke them, and 46 of his colleagues mouthed similarly mendacious platitudes.

Those platitudes received endless repetition on Fox News and the other right-wing propaganda outlets, which brings us to the third reason why it’s possible for such an unqualified hooligan to lead the world’s largest military. The right-wing “media” serves as an enforcer in such situations. GOP senators know very well that if they break with Trump on a big vote, the propaganda mill will target them, and that rich agribusiness magnate back home who’s a MAGA fire-breather will primary them next time, and Trump will endorse him, and goodbye Senate.

These outlets also enforce the acceptance of a certain reality among the rank and file—in which, in the current case, all the talk last winter about Hegseth’s drinking problem and his running that nonprofit into the ground were just deep-state lies. They create for the audience a world that is the direct opposite of reality.

Speaking of which … a poll came out this week—commissioned by the conservative Manhattan Institute, no less—that sought to give America a fuller portrait than we usually get of the beliefs and feelings of today’s GOP. The pollster asked a few questions about conspiracy theories. Find your hat, please, and hold onto it.

One-third, exactly 33 percent, think vaccines cause autism. A little more, 36 percent, think NASA faked the moon landing. Also, 37 percent think the Holocaust was “greatly exaggerated.” Forty-one percent think the September 11 attacks were carried out by actors beyond Al Qaeda and were “likely orchestrated or permitted by the U.S. government.” And 51 percent, as opposed to 40 percent who disagreed, believe the 2020 election was stolen. (Interesting side result, on another question: Fifteen percent of the poll’s respondents admitted to being racist!)

I’m not saying we can trace all this directly to Fox News. As far as I know, even Fox isn’t peddling Faurisson-esque Holocaust denialism. But Fox and the others have certainly promoted a milieu in which their consumers are encouraged to question nearly all statements of fact if liberals seem to believe those facts. From there, the algorithms of social media take over, and we’re off to the parallel-reality races.

It’s no wonder in such a world that a man like Hegseth could rise to his current position, sustained and protected by cowardice and lies. And it’s no wonder that he’s ordering the clearly illegal targeting of vessels and making allegations about them without offering any evidence. This is exactly where the moral rot that has consumed the Republican Party in this century was bound to land us.

I’m sitting here early Friday morning with the home pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post up on my screen. The president of the United States, as you know by now, has accused six Democratic legislators of sedition, or, as Donald Trump inevitably puts such things, “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” adding that it is “punishable by DEATH!” He also re-Truthed a comment reading “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”

Trump says a lot of outrageous things, and we know why he says them. First, he’s an unhinged sociopath who knows nothing about American history (George Washington is literally the last person who’d behave as above, more on which later). Second, when he is attacked, as he was here—or as he believes he was; the sextet was actually just stating a fact of American tradition and law—he strikes back in the most juvenile way possible, since his emotional development was arrested at about age 13 (which is perhaps being generous). And third, he’s trying to distract from an otherwise bad week—arguably the worst of his second presidency, as his own party moved essentially in unanimity against him on the Epstein matter (something that, speaking of American history, I’m not sure has ever happened before).

So we know all that about him, and we’ve come to accept it. But come on. Hang them? Elected representatives of the people? Who have all served their country in the armed forces or in risky intelligence work? Not that that last point should matter one way or the other, but it does count for something. Senator Mark Kelly, for example, flew 39 combat missions during the Persian Gulf War. This was around the same time that Trump was working overtime to suppress a documentary about him that showed him to be the gangster and conman we all know him to be today.

But put these personal details to the side, and stick to the mere objective fact: A sitting president of the United States has called for the execution of six legislators. I don’t know this for certain, but it seems nearly impossible that this has happened before. I don’t think Abraham Lincoln did it, and he was dealing with actual traitors. Maybe, you know, Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan did it on a bad day. Or Andrew Johnson. He was temperamentally capable of something like this. But that hardly makes it defensible. As they were three of the worst presidents in U.S. history, that only makes it worse.

OK. Back to the Times and the Post now. How in the world is this not the top story this morning? Indeed: How is it not the only headline above the fold, the kind of headline they usually reserve for world wars?

But it’s not. It’s not even close. On my Post home page around 7 a.m. Friday, you have to spin the scroll wheel on the mouse about seven times even to see the headline and subhed, which do not, incidentally, mention the “death” part at all. (The story did appear on the upper left of the front page of today’s physical paper.) At the Times, I had to give the scroll wheel four spins before I saw the story; the headline does quote Trump’s words “punishable by death.” But the Times didn’t even put it on the front page of their physical paper—there was only a single-sentence reference to the story in a small box titled “More on the White House,” as if this was just more ho-hum news from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

When I peeked at the Times on Thursday night, I noted that the headline did not even mention the death part. It read: “In Outburst, Trump Accuses Democrats of Sedition Over Video to Military.” Sweet Jesus, Times. It’s a small thing, perhaps. But “outburst”?! It’s a telling little example of how mainstream news headline writers continue to try to use the normal conventions of objective journalism style to describe behavior that is an offense against normalcy.

The headline writers at the two papers would undoubtedly snicker at me. I’m being alarmist. Trump says a lot of things. He doesn’t really mean it. Or, even if he does mean it in the moment, it’s not really to be taken seriously. It can’t happen here.

I’m sorry. Those are all the rationalizations of people who have decided that anti-alarmism is the proper, neutral posture toward Trump. I won’t psychoanalyze them and say why, although I have my theories. I’ll just say that they—and many people like them who package mainstream news for tens of millions of readers and viewers and listeners—have shown us time after time after fatiguing time that they believe that Trump’s outrageous remarks need to be “contextualized” and that we shouldn’t get too worked up over them.

Trump said in 2016 that people at his rallies should beat up protesters. Oh, relax—maybe he was joking. He said there was a Second Amendment solution for Hillary Clinton. Well, that was ambiguous. He clearly and repulsively mocked a journalist with physical disabilities. Well, it wasn’t completely clear what he was referring to. Barack Obama was spying on him. Well, there may be no evidence, but that’s Trump being Trump. And so on, times a thousand.

Question: What will it take? Where is the line that Trump must cross for these people to say to themselves, “OK. That’s enough. We are alarmed, and we believe America should be alarmed, and we are going to cover this like it’s the crisis it is.” If calling for six legislators to be hanged doesn’t clear that bar, what will?

These legislators did nothing wrong. They said, “You can refuse illegal orders … you must refuse illegal orders.” This is correct and true. It is what recruits are taught in every branch of the military. It prevents a president from turning the military into his own personal army, and as such, it’s one of the key principles that keeps a democratic republic from careening into dictatorship.

As to why they felt moved to make this video in the first place—well, we don’t really know the answer to that yet, but you don’t have to be George Patton to know that Trump would like to use the military to do whatever he wants it to do. TNR’s Greg Sargent interviewed one of the six Democrats, Representative Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, for his Daily Blast podcast today. Here’s what she had to say:

Sargent: It sounds to me like all of you who have military or intelligence experience are hearing from inside these institutions that there’s real and actual concern, live concern, that people are being asked to carry out illegal orders. Is that what’s going on?

Houlahan: It’s partially what’s going on. It’s also sort of the buildup of the last nine or ten months, where we have watched this president kind of push on every boundary, try to break every circuit, so to speak, and overload us all with attempts to figure out where the lines are in the law. And so it’s not just in the military realm—though of course that’s what this particular podcast or broadcast is about—but it is abundantly evident with more than 149 instances over the last months of the president putting out orders of one form or another that have then been pushed to the courts in some way, shape, or form.

Houlahan went on to tell Sargent that she had “had a few conversations with people who have indicated discomfort with sort of the current state of affairs” and that “I know my colleagues have had similar kinds of conversations.” I would imagine we’ll be hearing more about this.

The country should be thanking these six for making this public warning, both because it described a very real threat to the Constitution and because, in eliciting a crazed response from Trump, the video showed America a new and even more depraved level of his dangerous ignorance. George Washington, please. Washington is the most anti-Trump leader not only in American history but probably in the history of the modern world.

Washington advocated a certain degree of mercy toward prisoners of war. When he captured more than 900 Hessians at Trenton in 1776, he not only didn’t hang them—he ordered that his troops do them no harm. Instead of being hauled off to prisons, they were sent to farms and allowed to work. And, of course, we all know—or I hope we all know—that Washington directly rebuffed his chance to become America’s dictator in 1783. Trump, as usual, hasn’t the slightest idea what he’s talking about.

But Trump himself is only part of the problem here. The other part is a media that collectively thinks we ought to just shrug these things off as Trump being Trump. Yes; it is Trump being Trump. And that’s precisely the problem. Does someone literally have to die before these “outbursts” merit a banner headline? Or even then, will they counsel us not to be alarmed—to consider the context? These people are going to help contextualize us into dictatorship.

This article first appeared in Fighting Words, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by editor Michael Tomasky. Sign up here.

The key thing about Donald Trump’s presidency, when you examine it alongside the history of every other Oval Office occupant, is that to understand what drives him day-to-day, you have to have a handle on his psychology—all those twisted urges and impulses that twitch through his brain. This is because so much of what he does is by pure instinct—id unchecked by superego; animal urge unmitigated by conscience. That, plus the fact that all he really cares about is how he looks on TV (more specifically, Fox News and Newsmax). Who can doubt that part of what he loves about bombing those boats in the Caribbean is that he loves seeing them go boom on a big screen?

So, when we analyze this administration, we have to look for the psychological “tells” in a way we simply didn’t with any other president, because the other presidents, no matter their politics, weren’t emotional 5-year-olds who lived in an impenetrable image bubble created and maintained by their staffs and their propagandists with press passes. And the psychological tell of the week? Hauling Representative Lauren Boebert into the White House Situation Room to try to break her down and make her change her vote on the Jeffrey Epstein discharge petition.

Think about this purely as a presidential decision. We don’t know whether this was his idea or if an aide hatched this plan and he liked it, but it amounts to the same thing. Yeah, we can picture Trump thinking: the Situation Room; secret, private, all those fancy screens and maps—that’ll intimidate her.

When LBJ had a recalcitrant member of Congress to win over, he invited him up to the Truman Balcony for a bourbon. Trump locked Boebert in the room that’s supposed to be used to monitor military operations. It’s where Barack Obama watched Seal Team Six take out bin Laden. It’s unclear whether Trump was there. One assumes he was. But willing hacks Pam Bondi and Kash Patel showed up. Wait, what? What was their presence meant to imply? Why did the attorney general and the FBI director need to be present on a legislative matter? Was the idea to hint to Boebert that she could face some sort of legal consequences if she didn’t capitulate? On a congressional vote?

Boebert laughed it all off, but she didn’t cave. In fact, the strong-arming apparently left her all the more convinced Trump may be hiding something. Hard to imagine I’d ever be saying this, but: good for her. And for her colleague Nancy Mace, whom Trump simply called, in the old-fashioned way. But both stood their ground, and next week, the House will vote to compel Bondi’s Justice Department to release the files, with possibly up to 100 Republicans voting to do so.

Trump is clearly in a dead panic about this. We saw this week the reason why. Many of the Epstein emails released this week were—at least in the court of public opinion—incriminating to one degree or another; none more so than the one Epstein wrote to an unnamed acquaintance in December 2018, in which he announced: “i am the one able to take him down.” Also: “I know how dirty donald is.” (He was too lazy to hit the shift key, apparently.)

Trump, as always, says it’s all a lie and he did nothing wrong. And a few of the released emails can be read to support this claim. But just stop and think: We are sitting here, in November 2025, in the middle (or the beginning-middle) of a credible investigation into whether the president of the United States engaged in sex acts with underage girls. (And when media allies such as Megyn Kelly publicly try to finesse the differences between having sex with a 5-year-old versus having sex with a 15-year-old, that’s not a good sign.)

There’s still plenty of reason to think we’ll never get a satisfactory answer about Trump’s place in Epstein’s grotesque constellation of decadent elites. Trump still has a number of roadblocks to put in the way of getting to the point of the files being released. First and foremost, there’s the Senate. Because once the House votes to release the files, then the Senate has to. I haven’t seen much handicapping on this yet. But it would have to clear the 60-vote cloture hurdle, meaning that 13 Republicans would have to vote with the Democrats to bring the matter to final passage.

Then, of course, even if it does pass the Senate, Trump can veto it. At that point, two-thirds of each House would be required to override the veto. And even then, if all that happens, there’s still Bondi. She could just say, No, I’m not going to do it. Yes, that would be defying an act of Congress. Do you really have trouble picturing her doing that?

Of course, if this gets to that point, we’ll have a major national scandal on our hands, for one simple reason that will be crystal clear to a comfortable majority of the American people: If Trump and his goons are going to those lengths to keep these files from being made public, then he must obviously have something bad to hide.

That’s what makes this different from every other Trumpian contest of wills. In his battles with Democrats, with woke universities, with liberal law firms, with people he doesn’t like being in America, he’s always had a position that some percentage of Americans found compelling, for whatever reason. That’s why they cheer his bullying and don’t care about his lies.

This, however, is different. He’s not defending anything that could remotely be called a principle, and he’s not slaying any America-hating dragons. He’s just covering up his own potential monstrous crimes. Given the way we’ve already seen this issue divide MAGA land, even some percentage of Trump’s hard-shell base will surely see the difference.

Zohran Mamdani is off to a solid start as mayor-elect. The transition team he named the day after winning has garnered generally positive coverage, from what I’ve seen. It’s anchored by four women, three of whom are City Hall veterans—one comes from the Bill de Blasio administration, while the other two, more intriguingly, served under the very non-Mamdani-like Eric Adams and Mike Bloomberg. The fourth is Lina Khan, who was Joe Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chair. She is a hero to liberals and something—well, let’s say—other than that to a lot of capitalist-class types, so her involvement sends a reassuring signal to the base and presumably a healthy little warning shot across the bow of the Good Ship One Percent.

Mamdani will soon have a massive city to run, more than 300,000 employees to manage, and a budget north of $100 billion to execute and carry out. The New York City government is a sprawling Leviathan that’s larger than many state governments—just scroll through this list and have a look-see.

I of course don’t cover all this closely. But I once did, and for a long time, under the mayoralties of Ed Koch (the sunset years), David Dinkins, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Bloomberg. I never had a desk in City Hall’s Room 9, the cluttered squat where the reporters were based, but I spent a lot of time down there and knew dozens of deputy mayors and commissioners and lower-level appointees, and I think I still know a bit about how it all works. In addition, I still remember a thing or two about how the New York media and its tabloid subculture operate.

And on the basis of that, I can offer this educated conjecture with some confidence: Mamdani’s powerful enemies are lying in wait and surely already setting traps for him. Their biggest weapon won’t be anything having to do with socialism or Israel, the two topics that got the most attention during the campaign. It won’t even be crime, unless somehow crime suddenly spikes up, which seems unlikely.

Rather, it will be corruption and scandal. Why? Is it because Mamdani is on the make? No. It’s just a pitfall of big-city government. And New York is the biggest big-city government in the country, by a mile—a place where corruption and scandal are, or would seem to be and usually have been, inevitable. Mamdani and his people need to know this, and they need to build an administration that is as bulletproof against scandal as possible.

That means appointing people to high positions who are competent and honest. Ideology shouldn’t be a factor here. The head of the Department of Sanitation doesn’t need to know the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. He or she needs to know how to pick up trash and clear snow—especially in the neighborhoods that went for Andrew Cuomo, because if the streets of Bayside or Midwood sit uncleared for a week after a snowstorm, the media, led of course by the New York Post, will rip him to shreds. It’s not fair, but it’s how it is.

Beyond that somewhat obvious example, there are three agencies in particular where I think Mamdani needs to make appointments (assuming he wants his own people) who’ll really mind the henhouse: the Department of Education; the New York City Housing Authority, or NYCHA; and the Health and Hospitals Corporation, or HHC.

These are all massive, well, corporations in their own right. The Department of Education, which was placed under mayoral control back when I was covering City Hall, is by far the largest: It has around 150,000 employees and a budget of nearly $40 billion and educates more than one million children. NYCHA has north of 10,000 employees and a budget of more than $5 billion and manages 335 properties that serve more than half a million people. The HHC has around 43,000 employees and a budget of $12 billion and runs 11 public hospitals and 30 community clinics.

In the time I covered New York, I saw scandals bubble up from these agencies and swallow mayors whole, at least for a little while. Ed Koch’s HHC guy faked his diploma and continued to lie about it, even at the press conference he called to set matters straight. David Dinkins’s NYCHA appointee spent an insane amount of money redecorating her office; I seem to recall something about a $3,000 sofa.

As for the Education Department, I’ll never forget the way one former schools chancellor, the capable and incorruptible Rudy Crew, once described his job to me (this is a very close paraphrase): Imagine you’re on one of those moving walkways. Then people start shooting arrows at you. Then the walkway starts moving faster and faster and faster. Then those arrows start coming at you much more rapidly, until they’re coming nonstop. That’s the job.

And he was just describing the job of schools chancellor, not mayor. Mamdani’s moving walkway is going to chug along at a ferocious rate from his first hour in office. And the people who want to see him fail are going to be scouring the three agencies I mentioned and others for any hint of scandal they can unearth.

Mamdani also needs to understand, as I hope and assume he already does, the extent to which the right-wing Post drives the entire New York news cycle and has for years. They can have all the fun they want with hammers and sickles, as they did the day after Mamdani won. That won’t really matter that much. But if they can sink their canines into a juicy scandal—especially one that reveals the socialist to be a “hypocrite,” which the right loves more than anything—he’ll have big trouble.

So he needs to do two things. First, appoint honest, competent, no-bullshit people to run these vast agencies, people who’ll keep an eye out for any signs of corruption. Second, devote a decent chunk of every day to monitoring these agencies himself—grilling the deputy mayors who oversee them, calling the agency heads, making unexpected visits to their facilities, communicating that he won’t tolerate corruption of any kind.

And what if one of these spot inspections reveals corruption? My advice: Bring it into the light. Rather than covering it up or quietly moving a bad actor out of their post, get in front of reporters and tell them what you found and what you did about it. Be forthright and take responsibility—because that’s the sturdy foundation of the new brand of politics you want to build.

If Mamdani can demonstrate that a government of the left can be ruthlessly honest and reasonably efficient, he’ll have proven something important and accomplished something big, even if he never opens a single grocery store.