Trump Is Now a World-Class Kleptocrat

Donald Trump last year amassed one big beautiful rap sheet of scandal and criminality, with multiple instances of corruption that made Teapot Dome look quaint. But the president’s bogus new “settlement” with his own administration’s IRS, which he had sued in January for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns in 2020, hits scorching new heights of depravity. The deal’s contours were bad enough when it looked like Trump was simply going to take a small fortune of taxpayer money and line his own pockets. But that was last week: The new plan is for $1.776 billion in taxpayer money to be set aside as a slush fund, which Trump will effectively control, to pay out to January 6 insurrectionists and political cronies that he believes were wronged back when the Department of Justice wasn’t his mobbed-up plaything. Some of the worst people in America are already lining up for payouts.

There are plenty of ways to describe this arrangement. Call it cartoon villainy. Call it criminal. For certain, call this an utterly impeachable offense. Also call this very worrisome: There is a non-zero chance that Trump will simply get away with it, now that corrupt elites dominate American life with absolute impunity. For those with any vested interest in restoring democracy and clearing out the Augean stables of Trumpism, how we respond to this is very important.

The Trump White House is a kleptocratic organ, pure and simple—one that increasingly resembles authoritarian regimes around the world. “This new slush fund is no different than what we see in other kleptocracies,” Casey Michel, frequent TNR contributor and author of the forthcoming book United States of Oligarchy, told me. “It’s a ruling figure creating a new pot of wealth that they can use for whatever they want—in this case, paying off a bunch of insurrectionists who Trump can now transform into his own personal paramilitary, without any oversight or checks whatsoever. It’s something we’ve never seen in U.S. history—but is perfectly familiar to those who study autocracy around the world.”

There is, however, a key distinction between Trump and the scores of foreign kleptocrats that Michel has spent years studying: “The only difference here is that most foreign kleptocrats at least try to hide their tracks—instead of broadcasting them to the world, like we’re seeing with Trump.” While most criminals endeavor to keep the newspapers from finding out about their intention to commit crimes, Trump does it in plain sight—either because he’s incredibly stupid or because the Supreme Court has told him he’s wholly immune from prosecution. (It’s probably both.)

But the newspapers’ early coverage of the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund is troubling. If sanewashing was last year’s problem in the political press, sinwashing might be the au courant media malady. The initial coverage from The New York Times suggested that the scheme merely “could funnel money to Trump allies,” even though this was its expressed purpose. The news department also couldn’t bring itself to call it a slush fund, instead drafting “critics” to say what is plainly and objectively true (the paper’s editorial board at least named it appropriately). Elsewhere, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal found a useful euphemism, referring to the settlement’s arrangement as merely “unusual” instead of nakedly criminal. (TNR’s headline, if you’re keeping score, nailed it: “Trump Just Launched a Taxpayer-Funded $1.8 Billion MAGA Slush Fund.”) 

So I’m concerned that when Democrats return to power, the media will either be an impediment or an enemy to any effort to put things right. But at least that effort is kicking off right away. Representative Jamie Raskin told TNR’s Greg Sargent he is planning to “introduce a bill that would block the fund and other future efforts like it.” He’ll be doing so with the full support of party leadership, who will seek to bring the vote to the House floor over the Republican majority’s objections via a discharge petition. While such a maneuver will require some GOP support, Republicans in the House have in recent weeks broken ranks on the disclosure of the Epstein files—and a few have defected from the party line on funding Trump’s grifty ballroom, as well, likely killing the $1 billion that Republicans had planned to allocate to it in their ICE-funding reconciliation bill. 

Meanwhile, HuffPost’s Jen Bendery reports that Senator Chris Van Hollen will be launching a similar effort in the Senate, amending the reconciliation bill to prevent January 6ers—some of whom assaulted the Capitol Police officers who protect these politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike—from obtaining money through this slush fund. 

Taken as a whole, these efforts tick a lot of boxes for those, like me, who bemoan Democrats’ institutional timidity. If successful, this will force Republicans to take a hard vote and sign their name to this calumny. And regardless of success, it provides fodder for a massive media campaign to wreck the GOP in a midterm election year, creating a savage contrast between the president’s inattention to ordinary Americans’ financial struggles and his desire to enrich criminals with those Americans’ tax dollars.  

As Sargent noted, “Independents famously react badly to corruption.” According to a 2025 battleground survey conducted by End Citizens United, “Democrats’ journey to the majority begins with showing voters the consequences of Republican Corruption” because the topic was extremely animating for both independent voters and turnout voters. “Democrats should focus on telling the story of how honest Americans are losing their shot at the American Dream because of the corruption wealthy insiders have unleashed,” the study affirms, reaching the same conclusion that most of the political media had after the defeat of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán.

What can I say? It turns out that accountability really matters. Trump and his inner circle have been like the raptors testing the bars at Jurassic Park: They’ve found weaknesses in the system, exploited them for criminal ends, and when they skate, they only redouble their efforts to find more flamboyant crimes to commit. That we’re now living with the prospect of a corrupt president cutting checks to his favorite thugs and miscreants is a humbling low for this nation.

Anyone out there treating this as normal or permissible business—or who believes that once this president is ousted from power we should overlook his sins in the name of “looking forward”—is just as guilty as anyone else interconnected with this web of sleaze.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.

Last week, I wrote about how the far right’s capture of governing institutions like the Supreme Court has put Democrats in the jackpot, forcing them to make some hard choices. Indeed, the decision laid before Democrats is one of the most famous choices ever laid out in the English language: whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take up arms against a sea of troubles—and by opposing, end them. In a troubling sign for Democrats, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger has chosen the former.

At issue is the Virginia state Supreme Court’s decision to throw out the amended congressional district maps that voters just approved—in a referendum that cost the Democrats some $70 million, as they painstakingly played by all the rules to get it over the line. In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, Spanberger offered a limp proclamation, saying that she was “disappointed” by it but that her “focus as Governor will be on ensuring that all voters have the information necessary to make their voices heard this November.”

But it turns out that Spanberger was missing some vital information of her own: a lawful solution that could save the day and uphold the will of Virginia voters. As Quinn Yeargain at The Downballot reported, the state constitution includes a provision that allows lawmakers to change the mandatory retirement age of state Supreme Court justices. The idea Yeargain poses would be to lower the official retirement age to 54 by placing a modification in the annual budget bill that’s due by June 30, pass the legislation, and replace the hack justices—all of whom are older than 54—with seven new ones picked by Spanberger.

“Democrats might prefer other solutions,” Yeargain concluded, “but if they want to see the will of the voters respected in time for the November elections, there are virtually no other options—and none with as good a chance of success as this one.”

Spanberger isn’t going for it. In fairness, as Greg Sargent reported this week, Virginia Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell have cited some logistical impediments to the plan, namely a May 12 deadline to finalize the maps in time for early voting.

Yet, wherever the GOP holds the whip hand in the redistricting wars, they are sallying forth without either seeking the assent of voters or showing much concern for procedural deadlines—in some cases, like Louisiana, Republicans are changing the maps right in the middle of ongoing elections. Which makes Surovell’s diffident attitude especially risible: “Wiping out the entire Supreme Court is an incredibly extreme step to take over a decision you don’t like.” This is a hard thing to hear when Republicans are engineering—at warp speed—the wholesale extermination of Black political power in the South.

It’s unsustainable for our democracy to have one party that’s terrified of hypothetical blowback they might receive for violating a norm and one party vandalizing the Constitution with freedom and glee, knowing their political opponents will never force them to incur a similar cost. Democrats spend so much effort on mitigating the hypothetical radical step the right might take in the future that they’re failing to respond to the radical things they’re doing at this moment—to say nothing of the things they’re already speeding to do next. One of those things, by the way, is using the Callais decision to potentially eliminate majority-minority districts in blue states like California—or to potentially create a postelection coup in Congress.

Regardless of whether retiring the current Virginia Supreme Court would result in the electoral maps that voters approved, there are a number of good reasons why state Democrats should do it anyway. Do it because replacing the Supreme Court with one more aligned with Virginia voters will be a gift that keeps on giving. Do it because it will raise the salience of the GOP’s rush to undo civil rights gains. Do it because if the shoe were on the GOP’s foot, they would not hesitate to forcibly retire a Democratic-majority court. Do it because, as Brian Beutler writes, you cannot simply not “respond to an element of a Republican coup d’etat.”

But the biggest reason is that Democrats need to develop an appetite for the kind of hardball politics that the GOP plays. The enormity of the tasks in front of them—reversing a slew of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, rebuilding the federal government, putting Trump and his inner circle in jail—requires leaders who understand the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.

For all the grim news about the redistricting wars, the grimmer failures of Trumpism keep the prospects of winning elections in reach. We should remember that the GOP’s race to create new districts is a product of their failures and unpopularity. And who knows? For all their cracking and packing, Republicans may pay a price for making their own red districts more vulnerable should Trump’s daily misdeeds and the worsening economy touch off a wave election. But those voters—who include suburban moms at No Kings rallies calling for Nuremberg 2.0 and neighborhoods full of ordinary people who’ve put their lives on the line protecting each other from Trump’s ICE goons—will expect their elected officials to take up arms (figuratively!) against this sea of troubles the GOP has unleashed, and bring it to a swift end.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.

Recall, if you can stomach it, the late summer months of the 2024 presidential campaign. The political press was churning out (accurate) stories about how Vice President Kamala Harris was distancing herself from some of the bolder policy proposals she’d previously backed, and many of the left were in a froth over it. But I paid it little mind. Timidly pivoting to the center was nothing new for Democratic presidential candidates, and what was the point of big policy proposals anyway? For that matter, what was the point of small policy proposals? As I noted at the time, Harris and her fellow Democrats had a bigger problem: They weren’t going to get to enact anything without the approval of Chief Justice John Roberts and at least four of his colleagues.

Disappointingly, Harris largely ducked what was—and is—the fight of the Democrats’ lives: the court’s wholesale elimination of the party’s ability to govern. The conservative bloc, through what I would charitably describe as chicanery, has locked down American life for the foreseeable future. They essentially possess veto power over any legislation or executive order not to their liking, and they are now moving in the direction of stripping Democratic voters of their electoral power. This is an existential crisis that affects every Democrat running for federal office, and as we barrel toward the midterm elections and then into a presidential campaign, it’s incumbent on Democrats to explain how they will confront this challenge. Or to put it another way: How will they change the Supreme Court? Because it cannot persist in its current form.

Naturally, if you ask Roberts, he will tell you this is all overblown. This week, he whinged about the public’s low opinion of the court, saying, “I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.” As The New Republic’s Matt Ford noted, it’s hard to see what a hypothetical high court filled with avowedly naked partisans would have done differently than these allegedly non-political actors, whose every move is laser-focused on delegitimizing and eliminating the GOP’s political competition.

The Roberts court has dismantled the Democratic Party in a number of ways. One was its 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which did away with a judicial doctrine known as Chevron deference that allows the executive branch to respond nimbly and autonomously to laws passed by Congress. Its elimination essentially allows the high court to undercut the actions taken by the administrative state to carry out laws. This is specifically bad for a party that actually uses the federal government to facilitate policy, rather than using the federal government to destroy the federal government.

But the Supreme Court has put its finger on the scale for Republicans in even less ambiguous ways in recent years. The conservative majority’s embrace of what’s known as the “major questions doctrine” has added a new layer of imperviousness to its reign of Calvinball terror. That doctrine, which is a very recent invention of the conservative legal movement, allows the justices to overturn a federal regulation if they believe Congress didn’t “speak clearly” enough when authorizing it. If you’re wondering what that means, well, it means whatever a majority of justices think it means: Over time, the major questions doctrine has allowed the justices a wide range in applying subjective and malleable criteria to rule against regulations.

The Supreme Court, by the way, has never applied the major questions doctrine to a Republican president’s actions—though Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch did contend in a concurring opinion that it should have been applied to Trump in the recent case that struck down the president’s tariff regime. In every other instance, the major questions doctrine has provided a facially neutral jurisprudential scheme to derail Democratic presidents. Democrats have also, in recent years, been sabotaged whenever the court issues a shadow docket ruling, whereas lately those unsigned rulings keep siding with Trump. As Ford recently noted, leaked Supreme Court memos have shone a new light on how the conservative justices’ shadow docket dabblings have gone from being “a simple administrative mechanism [to] a major roadblock for progressive governance.”

As if kneecapping the Democratic Party’s ability to govern isn’t enough, the court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais has effectively eliminated the safeguards in the Voting Rights Act that ensured the rights of Black Americans to participate in electoral politics. Ford wrote that the ruling all but ensures that “Black representation in Congress will … plummet, further tilting the House map in favor of the GOP.” True enough, within days, Republican-controlled legislatures began the process of dismantling majority-minority districts.

To Ford’s mind, Democrats find themselves facing some pretty stark choices to confront a Supreme Court that has gone to such lengths to annihilate their party: “Since the Supreme Court as currently constructed cannot be trusted to protect the egalitarian republic that, as Kagan noted, Union soldiers and civil rights activists fought and died to build, sufficient justices must be appointed to it to remedy the problem.”

To pack the court, or not pack the court? This is a question that Democrats have been at pains to avoid. And to be fair, they may have other options besides the nuclear one. They could engage in jurisdiction stripping to limit the court’s ability to interfere with liberal governance. They could reform the court in other ways beyond simply nominating four new justices to turn the tide: Pete Buttigieg has floated the idea of a 15-member court split among conservatives, liberals, and ostensible neutrals. Other lawmakers have proposed we simply abolish lifetime appointments.

I could spend several more paragraphs sketching out solutions to end the misrule of an illiberal court, but the time has come for Democrats to step forward and announce what they plan to do about it. The party is no longer on a collision course with the Roberts court—the collision has happened; the wreckage is in the road. To do anything, now or in the future, Democrats will have to undo the grievous harms that imperil their party’s ability to function. In these upcoming election cycles, if Democratic candidates don’t have serious ideas of how to solve this problem, then they are not serious Democratic candidates.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.

Cole Allen, the 31-year-old California man who, by his own admission, armed himself and attempted to breach the security at this past weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner, was officially charged this week with attempting to assassinate the president. The case—at least what’s been publicly disclosed—is still quite murky; questions remain about whether Allen even fired his gun in the bowels of the Washington Hilton Hotel. Still, the takeaway, to me at least, is clear: You should not try to assassinate the president.

I know, this is probably not something that you need to be told. Murder is, after all, inherently immoral and a criminal act to boot. Murdering the president of the United States also comes with a high degree of difficulty given his 24/7 protection by a posse of well-trained armed guards. In just about every conceivable scenario, you will likely fail and you will definitely not be able to go back to living your previous life. Still, there are some additional things to consider that are specific to the Trump era itself: whether killing the president won’t make matters much worse, and whether there is a better way to channel your discontent.

Allen is an unusual would-be assassin. There’s nothing about him that reminds me of any number of mass shooters of recent vintage. There’s no air of glory-seeking; no meme-sludge in his rhetoric. In his manifesto, he spends quite a bit of time apologizing to various people in his life for betraying their trust and takes no evident pleasure in the task he’s put himself to doing. (He also seems prematurely disdainful of the security measures that ultimately foiled his plot.) What’s most unique, and perhaps most troubling, is that his decision to try to take the president’s life is, as TNR contributor Elizabeth Spiers noted on Bluesky, rooted in a sense of moral injury.

The Huffington Post’s David Wood, who has written extensively about how soldiers often suffer from moral injury after their tours of duty have concluded, describes the condition as the “sense that [one’s] fundamental understanding of right and wrong has been violated, and the grief, numbness or guilt that often ensues.” In his manifesto, Allen wrote, “I am a citizen of the United States of America. What my representatives do reflects on me. And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” For all intents and purposes, he is saying that he is implicated in Trump’s evident corruption and misrule. “Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior,” he wrote, “it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.”

This is perhaps the most worrying part of this story—that there might be others out there who feel this way, and who might be compelled to take the same action. These are the natural consequences of our current age of elite impunity, in which a corrupt president transforms the government into an instrument of self-dealing and revenge, and justice is perceived as slow in arriving, if it arrives at all. Allen spends a considerable amount of time in his manifesto building the moral scaffolding necessary to accommodate his decision to travel to Washington, D.C., to dole out a quick dose of accountability. Based on his writing, I think he works harder than most would-be mass shooters to illuminate a humane logic for his actions. I still think he draws all the wrong conclusions.

One thing that Allen gets badly wrong is the idea that killing Trump might have provided a short cut to putting things right. I think many people believe this about the efficacy of political violence, even if they would never engage in it themselves. But I’m unconvinced, at least as it pertains to Trump, because MAGA is something of a cult movement, steeped in its own byzantine mythology and awash in conspiratorial thinking. The one thing you probably don’t want to do if you want to bring the country back from the brink of this madness is to give this movement a martyr.

At the moment, MAGA is cracking up under the weight of the Trump administration’s many failings. As Greg Sargent noted about a recent Fox News poll, Trump’s coalition is contracting: “On both his general approval ratings and many major issues, his numbers among voter groups that have reliably supported him in the past are awful. They’re also terrible among the non-Trumpy groups that he pulled into the coalition in 2024.” It seems the worst possible thing anyone can do is interrupt this free fall. Don’t shoot a man who’s busy shooting himself in the foot.

Had Allen been successful in his attempt to kill Trump, he might have altered the thermostatic chemistry of the electorate, goosed Trump’s support, and brought back morally affronted fence sitters who were ready to leave Trump behind. It also might well have touched off a wave of political violence in the other direction—which was a thing he really should have considered before he acted. As it is, I worry that TNR contributor Ana Marie Cox is correct that Cole’s attempt will bond Trump and the White House press corps together in a shared trauma, further eroding the latter group’s already withered sense of duty in holding the administration accountable, thus exacerbating the original problem.

So, at the risk of stating the obvious, don’t attempt to—or even daydream about—assassinating the president. The best path to thwarting Trumpism lies in the deliberations of lawful democracy. This is not a path that favors quick fixes and instant gratification. We must organize in numbers to boot Trump and the GOP from power and install leaders who can command a majority to put things right, up to and including possible impeachment and putting people in jail.

On a more personal note, I was saddened to read that Allen felt alone in his grave misgivings. While he enumerated a community of people surrounding him—family, friends, work colleagues, his church—he separated himself from what sounds like a vibrant network of people rather than seeking them out. Had he done so, he might have found a better path to take that might have relieved his moral injury and contributed much more to the anti-Trump cause.

Around the same time Washingtonians were preparing for this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner, I was catching up with an acquaintance from Minneapolis, who was giving me an intimate view of what it’s like to participate in anti-ICE resistance in the Twin Cities. Her phone was a warren of group chats and text chains in which concentric orbits of organized citizens went about the daily business of protecting their neighbors and keeping watch over their neighborhoods. In Minneapolis and St. Paul, democracy is a well-oiled machine with regular training sessions from skilled political organizers.

One thing she mentioned about those trainings has stuck with me after the events of Saturday night. The trainers told the people they were organizing that sometimes they’d end up on the front lines of ICE violence—that they’d bear witness to some terrible sights, see things that would make them angry. The trainers, she said, made it clear that anyone who did not think they could handle these circumstances without succumbing to violent, retributive impulses needed to find some other role—that there were plenty of other ways they could help where their despair or anger wouldn’t get the better of them.

Given the success of this faction of Trump resistance, we’d do well to heed this advice. There are plenty of things we can do, right now, to fortify our communities and protect our neighbors—to materially impact the lives of others for good, find fellowship along the way, and absolve any sense of moral injury that may be creeping into our psyche. It’s more lethal to Trumpism long-term if we organize in opposition than it is to grab a gun and take a run at the president. I’m sorry that Allen couldn’t find his way to this realization. He might have done some good.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.

Make ready the orchestra of tiny violins, everyone! This weekend, Washington, D.C.’s greatest collection of reprobates and dweebs will gather at the Washington Hilton for the annual tribute to meretriciousness that is the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Alas, there is bad news to report: President Donald Trump will be ruining the affair by attending it, after several years of ruining it by not attending it. As a result, people are so upset that they’re calling for this weekend’s big party to be called off entirely.

It almost goes without saying that Trump’s personal opinions on free speech put him at odds with the theme that the White House Correspondents’ Association concocted for its annual bacchanal: a celebration of the First Amendment. A few weeks ago, Trump threatened to jail journalists over coverage of an Iranian airstrike on a U.S. fighter jet. Meanwhile, Paramount has decided to invite to its table Federal Communications Commission head Brendan Carr, who has spent the last year launching spurious probes into various news organizations for unfavorable coverage of the Trump administration.

As if that were not enough open hostility, The Daily Beast reported on Wednesday that Trump plans some sort of “revenge attack” speech against the press corps Saturday night, after which he intends to turn tail and run home. The WHCA’s response to these aggressions seems maximally ineffectual by design: Its members will wear “pocket squares or pins touting the importance of the First Amendment.”

But should we regard the journalists into whose punchbowl the president is pissing as worthy and capable guardians of those freedoms? Or, honestly, guardians of anything? It was at last year’s party that Axios reporter Alex Thompson, upon winning the Aldo Beckman Award for Overall Excellence, rode in on his high horse to perform a ritual admonishment of those in attendance for not properly covering the story of President Joe Biden’s advanced age. “Being truth tellers,” he chastised, “also means telling the truth about ourselves. We, myself included, missed a lot of this story and some people trust us less because of it. We bear some responsibility for faith in the media being at such lows.”

Well, since we once again have an infirm and mentally dysfunctional man running the country that few in the media seem worried about, it’s worth asking if anyone in the D.C. press corps actually learned anything. It’s also worth answering: not really. While The New York Times, notably, has gone long several times on Trump’s decline in recent months, good luck finding similar reporting from the likes of Axios.

I’m not the only one with knives out for the WHCD, though Washington Monthly’s Bill Scher has a decidedly different reason for calling for the dinner’s cancellation. “An event celebrating the free press should not spotlight Donald Trump, the biggest threat to the free press,” he writes. Scher is certainly right to criticize the WHCA for the way it has “reconfigured the event to make it more to Trump’s liking, chucking the comedian slot and, instead, naming as headliner Oz Pearlman, described by The New York Times as the ‘manosphere’s favorite magician.’” But the lion’s share of the piece—which begins with Scher’s “confession” that he’s a “fan” of the event—is devoted to making the chummy party seem aboveboard, for the purpose of suggesting that it’s Trump’s presence that, finally and at last, has created something truly odious.

Cue the self-serving justifications. “I always view such events as opportunities for source-building, vetting of coverage ideas and networking,” argues NPR’s Eric Deggans. “I may be having fun with my colleagues from NPR, but I’m also low-key working my beat.” I have heard variations on this idea from all sorts of reporters over the years. Maybe things are different when you’re on the media/celebrity beat, but I don’t find this argument compelling for political reporters. If you broke a story because you attended the dinner, tell your readers—they deserve to know that you’re not just there collecting selfies and canapés. Here’s a fun fact: President Barack Obama executed the hit on Osama bin Laden on White House Correspondents’ Dinner weekend, almost as if he knew the best time to run a secret special op was when every reporter would be nearby, basking in their own self-regard. (A better-sourced Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson famously scooped everyone on the bin Laden raid.)

At least The Atlantic’s Paul Farhi is willing to state up front that the fête was extremely tacky long before Trump became president. “Even in the best of times, the [dinner] is an awkward and ethically fraught affair,” he writes: “The evening is promoted as a celebration of journalism and the First Amendment, but it has always been a bit of an embarrassment.” It’s actually a little under-sung just how bad the dinner was during its supposed halcyon days of the Obama administration. As Meredith Shiner wrote in Rolling Stone back in 2022, it was during this period that the WHCA really rammed its head up its own ass by making “celebrity the end goal of public service” and setting the stage for the parade of horribles to come. As Shiner observes:

Of course, it also should be noted that [Trump’s] attendance at the dinner in 2011—and Obama’s joke about him during his set—helped fuel the hate fire for his own White House run. Nothing about the grossness of this one weekend of cocktail parties or Democrats wanting to be cool by association invalidates the much more significant grossness of how media and celebrity normalized Trump, helped him attain power, and profited off keeping him there.

In this way, having Trump in attendance at this year’s dinner isn’t some troubling aberration. It’s really the logical end point of the whole affair; the apotheosis of Official Washington and its trashy pretentions. Far from canceling the dinner, let’s make it mandatory that Trump, his Cabinet, and all media elites attend, so we can bar the doors and force them to answer for their sins against our civic fabric.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.

Good news has been something of a precious commodity of late, what with the Trump administration still engaged in its slop-conflict with Iran and the president himself taking to depicting himself as a messianic figure online. But in last weekend’s elections in Hungary, Péter Magyar and his Tisza party resoundingly defeated international fascist darling Viktor Orbán and his far-right Fidesz minions. Tisza did so well in these elections, in fact, that they will have the numbers to enact crucial constitutional reforms and undo at least some of the damage of 16 years of authoritarian rule. As a side note, Orbán’s defeat is a black eye for his stateside backers, including Vice President JD Vance, who had personally stumped for the defeated strongman in the waning days of the campaign.

This was, in other words, a good outcome for freedom-loving people everywhere and a result that will hopefully yield further fruit. But there is one by-product that’s truly been a puzzlement. Across the media landscape, the chattering class has assayed the election and made what is—to it, anyway—a fresh discovery: What if political corruption is bad? And what if campaigning against corruption is a winning issue?

The Washington Post’s edit board said that “the main reason for Orbán’s fall was endemic corruption” and the fact that he had constructed “a mafia state.” The Wall Street Journal’s William Galston similarly enthused that Magyar’s focus on “a handful of issues—cronyism and corruption, economic stagnation and inflation, and decaying public services” was a “lesson for Democrats.” And The New York Times edit board, in a piece titled “Here’s How to Defeat Trumpism,” highlighted the fact that Magyar “made corruption a core campaign issue,” and then confidently intoned, “It is easy enough to imagine an American version of this strategy.”

It’s something of a marvel to have so many people so confident in their public declarations that they’ve finally cracked this code, several years after it might have been a useful insight. Trump, who will never be on a ballot again, is corrupt—and maybe that’s his Achilles’ heel! As someone who was trying to explain the depths of Trump’s corruption and the importance of safeguarding the constitutional bulwarks against a president using his position to enrich himself before Trump’s first inauguration, I can only say that these folks are a little late to the party.

It’s extremely cute that so many media elites have decided that this is a lesson Democrats need to learn when, in fact, many Democrats have actually already figured it out. Here, for example, is Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff, speaking in September 2025 to Pod Save America: “Vast sums of corporate and billionaire money in our political system—with or without Trump—are why ordinary people are so ill served by elected officials and by Congress.… If we don’t solve this problem, even once we put Trump back in the box in the midterms and once he’s gone, the country will still be in deep trouble.”

Ossoff is one of 120 Democratic candidates who long ago signed onto End Citizens United’s “Unrig Washington” pledge, which asks candidates to support three agenda items: a total ban on congressional stock trading, a refusal of corporate PAC money, and a promise to undo the damage of the Citizens United ruling and to crack down on dark money in our politics. Maybe everyone at the big newspapers missed this. Notably, NOTUS—the upstart publication that’s lately been eating The Washington Post’s lunch—took stock of the scene two months ago and found that “Democratic candidates are leaning into anti-corruption messaging this cycle, seeing it as an opportunity to emphasize what they see as excessive corporate influence, unethical stock trading and shady behavior from their opponents.”

Democrats coming out against corruption in the Trump era isn’t even this recent a phenomenon. The Washington Post’s editors would do well to occasionally read their own newspaper’s reporting: As their own Mike DeBonis reported in the run-up to the 2018 midterms, anti-corruption was a major plank in the Democratic Party’s (successful) campaign.

So what, if anything, has been holding Democrats’ efforts back despite this being such a robust line of attack on Trumpism? Well, as the aforementioned NOTUS report noted, “Democrats were seen as more corrupt than Republicans by a five-percentage point margin in a 2025 battleground poll by End Citizens United.” There’s no doubt that some of this was a self-inflicted wound: There’s been significant intraparty resistance to a ban on stock trading, for instance. And the party has been slow to deal with its own corrupt members—like letting noted sleaze-pump Bob Menendez hang around the Senate until his crimes finally became too comical to tolerate.

Still, for the public to have the opinion, in 2025, that the Democrats were more corrupt than a party whose leader enmeshed himself in several Teapot Dome–level scandals in that same calendar year—including the creation of an unaccountable crypto slush fund to facilitate all manner of quid pro quo exchanges—suggests that the same media that’s recently tripped over the idea that corruption is a bad thing has impeded the public’s ability to see this for themselves.

It’s absolutely the case that we would know very little about Trump’s crimes were it not for the reporters who’ve ferreted out all these important stories. But where the mainstream media falls down on the job is its lack of civic impulse to properly paint Trump and his enablers as agents in a de facto criminal enterprise. And just as the media has indulged in sanewashing the president’s demented ravings, so too has it sanded off the edges of Trump’s corrupt practices. The way Trump’s story gets told, serial violations of the Constitution become mere “departures” from previous norms; his mafioso-like demands of the international community aren’t described as extortion—Trump is simply being “transactional.”

Just this week, days after the Associated Press joined their peers in the post-Orbán Great Corruption Awakening, they reported at length about how the Trump White House is basically a racket of double-dealing, favor-trading, and self-enrichment. Somehow, the word corrupt doesn’t appear in the article. There are no plain-English explanations of the historic criminality, either—merely allusions alongside laughable denials from various Trump spokespersons. In fact, the AP’s main concern, per their headline, is that the “Trump family deal spree could open [the] door for future presidents to profit from office.” This is the View From Nowhere at work: What if the criminal president we have now corrupts a future president?

Look, I think it’s great that so many media elites have woken up to the fact that political corruption is a great civic evil, and that Trump is politically corrupt. But by the transitive theory of equality, that means Trump is a great civic evildoer, and a media that can’t tell that truth—and which instead seeks to obscure it—is this corrupt president’s brilliant ally. I’m hoping this will change, but I rather think that the people who possess the means to shape the discourse back into something that reflects reality, and actually help restore our once flourishing democracy, all lack the guts to join this fight. Hopefully, as in Hungary, we will end up not needing them.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.

Most of us were duly alarmed on Tuesday morning when the president of the United States threatened to end a civilization by 8 p.m. Eastern time. It seemed entirely possible that if Iran did not “Open the fuckin’ Strait,” as Donald Trump put it, he would drop a tactical nuke on Tehran or do something slightly less apocalyptic but nonetheless genocidal. When a feebleminded lunatic runs the world’s most well-funded war machine, it’s best to worry and risk being accused of overreaction. The problem is that a significant swath of Americans aren’t alarmed enough.

I am speaking of the “Trump Always Chickens Out” maxim that has taken root since the beginning of Trump’s second term. This refers to the persistent belief that Trump is perpetually climbing down from his most dire threats—a paper tiger forever on the verge of folding. TACO theory always gives you the out when it comes to worrying about Trumpian misrule. It also gives Trump’s opponents an easy shorthand for insulting him and making themselves feel better. But it’s worth questioning whether TACO actually has much merit. Off the top of my head, I’m guessing that an untold number of obliterated Iranians may take issue with this contention.

It’s fitting that the TACO meme was largely birthed by Wall Streeters, operating under the shield of plutocratic wealth and chronic naïveté that is intrinsic to the financial services sector. As the Huffington Post reported back in May 2025, the term was cooked up by the Financial Times’ Robert Armstrong to refer to how the markets reacted to “the president’s tendency to announce massive tariffs, causing the markets to plunge, only to back off days later, causing them to rise again.” A certain swath of investors were using TACO theory to do some heavy-duty buckraking. As Ted Jenkin, the president of Exit Stage Left Advisors, told the New York Post, the strategy worked like this: “Once he delivers bad news, investors are buying those stocks when they are beaten down waiting for him to chicken out and watching those stocks rebound in value.”

Over time, TACO morphed from a form of tariff-whispering to a sort of catch-all delusion for markets to pretend that the damage Trump is doing to the economy never really has to be priced in. But it also expanded beyond the concerns of Wall Streeters to become a comforting security blanket anytime Trump either seems to be on the brink of doing something catastrophic or has backed down from escalations.

The Trump administration has actually grown pretty adept at managing and manipulating the TACO theory to its own advantages. Earlier this year, the ouster of Customs and Border Protection commander Greg Bovino, the real-life version of Sean Penn’s character in One Battle After Another, was widely depicted in the press as a sort of chickening out: Trump was forced to retrench in the face of widespread public horror over the administration’s deadly operations in Minneapolis. But under the new management of border czar Tom Homan, the terror machine kept running in the city for several more weeks. Similarly, at the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem’s dismissal in favor of Markwayne Mullin was seen as a setback for the administration, but really it just traded new excesses for old ones. If you were sitting there thinking that the temperature had been lowered or the administration had been chastened, you got played.

It may be comforting to think that in Iran, Trump once again chickened out. After all, a civilization threatened on Tuesday has made it to the end of the week, and there’s a two-week hold on all the proposed war crimes in Trump’s latest atrocity pitch deck. If you’re of the mind that any of this is true, check yourself. Trump has not chickened out; he’s already gone all in: This war of choice has bequeathed a mountain of casualties, tons of destruction, and economic ramifications that will linger for years. What you think looks like a cowardly retreat is actually Trump flailing. He is not in control of the situation, and the danger is far from over.

Also not over: the aforementioned buckraking. Trump’s TACO cycle continues to be fodder for insider trading and market manipulation. Trump’s late-March threat to “obliterate [Iran’s] various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” was followed by a belligerent response from Iran and a hasty Sunday-show appearance from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to head off any market volatility on Monday morning. Trump retreated from his threats in an early morning missive on Monday, citing the phantasmal success of nonexistent diplomatic discussions. But as FT reported, people were getting rich behind the scenes: “Traders made bets worth half a billion dollars in the oil market about 15 minutes before Donald Trump’s post touting ‘productive’ talks with Iran sent the price of crude tumbling and ignited volatility in other assets.”

Once you crack open the shell of this TACO, what you’ll find isn’t a source of reassurance or a fun gibe to toss in Trump’s direction. It’s all the same misrule, criminality, and corruption. Paul Krugman, who credibly argues that these insider trades are tantamount to treason, bottom-lines it in this way: “You can’t trust a corrupt government to protect national security. And our government is now utterly corrupt: It’s hard to find a single senior official, from the president on down, who treats public office as a grave responsibility rather than an opportunity for personal self-aggrandizement and profit.”

As the events of this week prove, life under these arrangements is scary and frustrating. We bear the cost of Trump’s belligerence and suffer psychically as he swings from one unimaginable threat to the next. Meanwhile, insiders get to manipulate the mass media and the markets to further their authoritarian political goals and self-enrichment. This TACO party is proving to be extremely profitable for an elite few, but I’d bet you won’t be invited to it anytime soon.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.

In recent months, we’ve reached the stage of President Donald Trump’s second term where some of his greatest problems are the result of misguided solutions to his previous screwups. We are spending millions on farm bailouts to cover Trump’s devastating tariffs. We’re in a war with Iran to reopen a shipping lane that was open before we started the war. And we are lifting sanctions on the oil that’s floating around at sea on tankers from the country we’re at war with because we need that oil in the market to reduce the cost of gas that spiked because, again, of the war we chose to start.

Essentially, the backlash to the problems Trump first caused forced a response that is destined to lead to more backlash. It’s a comically vicious cycle, but hey, this is kind of what you get when you elect a president who ran on the platform of “If I become president they can’t prosecute me for my many crimes.” But now, everyone who is flying out of a major U.S. airport can have themselves an up-close look at the clattering irony of Trumpian misrule as they stand in epically long security queues to watch recently redeployed ICE agents lumber around, stewing in their own pointlessness.

This decision by Trump, like so many others, really requires one of those “Let me get this straight” paragraphs to truly appreciate the ouroboros of ineptitude on display. So let me bang one out. ICE agents previously deployed to terrorize American cities have engendered such a heavy amount of blowback from the American public that Democrats were able to find the courage to stand firm against further funding of the agency until significant reforms are agreed to in a deal. Trump, who can’t tolerate negotiating with Democrats, has killed off compromises that would permit the funding of the Department of Homeland Security’s other agencies. Because of this department-wide shutdown, the TSA is unfunded, so unpaid workers are dropping like flies and people are having to spend hours in the airport security lines.

The solution to all of this: Send hundreds of ICE agents to these airports to … well, beyond a few reports of agents making cursory and redundant ID checks, it’s not clear what they were meant to do in this situation, and by all accounts they aren’t improving things at all. (Though Lauren Boebert did claim that ICE was making things great again at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport before it was pointed out to her that ICE had not been deployed to that airport.) Because this is ICE we’re talking about, there was mayhem to be had: San Francisco travelers were witness to a particularly horrific arrest this week. But as Defector’s Barry Petchesky reported, the agents are mostly just standing around, diddling on their phones, and begging for a coffee shop manager to hit them with a classic, “If there’s time to lean, there’s time to clean.”

The origin story of the plan to send Immigration and Customs Enforcement thugs to the airport truly is nutty. As CNN reported, this all began when “Linda from Arizona” called in to The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show last week to make her pitch: “I think I have a solution to the TSA problem.” She said, “We need to bring in ICE agents.” Travis took the idea to Fox News to make a direct appeal to the president. Per the report, “CNN searched TV transcript databases and found no other mentions of the idea on major networks until Travis brought it up.” Naturally, Trump ended up insisting that the idea was his. Look, I know this has been a bad week for the AI industry (or as I call it, the “use-up-all-the-energy-to-build-soulless-data-centers-to-steal-the-whole-of-human-endeavor-and-creativity-in-order-to-make-shittier-facsimiles-of-things-people-already-do” industry), but for all the talk of AI slop, here we have some human slop that, against all odds, is substantially worse.

ICE deployments have caused no small amount of harm to the American people. Besides the terror they cause, they are one of the big drivers of the affordability crisis in the United States. Just this week, the Financial Times reported how ICE crackdowns have essentially broken the home-building industry in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley. So the decision to make ICE agents—who are a sort of sprawling reminder of how Trumpism isn’t working—more visible to the public is an odd one.

While no one wants to encounter Trump’s brownshirts on the streets of their town, their presence has proven to be oddly galvanizing to the growing dissident movement against Trump. It takes the stupidity and ineptness of authoritarianism and shifts it from a theoretical concern to something local and tangible. It gives people the opportunity to perceive misrule for themselves, and provides a target for their ire. And it keeps people well brined in the salty swirl of everything being politicized.

I personally don’t know if the wreckage of Trump’s own policy stupidity is evident to him. He is, after all, fighting a daily battle with his flagging cognitive abilities. He may perceive the economy as great solely because his many avenues to personal self-enrichment are all paying off. We learned this week that his daily Iran war briefing consists of two-minute montages of stuff blowing up. The barriers between Trump and information awareness, in other words, remain strong. But with his approval ratings tanking, the economy cratering, and the undistilled chaos of his presidency spreading, Republicans might rue the day Trump decided to send a potent reminder to your local airport about how he’s making everything suck.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.

What can be said about Trump’s war with Iran that isn’t already abundantly obvious? The answer: not much. It is not going well, and it probably won’t end well. But having spent time in the salt mines of Trump punditry, I can tell you that we’re going to endure a difficult round of think pieces purporting to explain How This Happened. So maybe this is the best time to assert the obvious, using my favored rubric of Trump analysis: Imagine if the dumbest person in the world and humanity’s biggest asshole were the same person, and that guy was president. Then imagine he started a war with Iran. Now check the news. One look, and here’s what you should be thinking: “Yep, that tracks.”

As with all of Trump’s presidential exploits, success is always constrained by two factors: The aforementioned sharp limitations of his intellectual capabilities and the fact that he is perpetually surrounded by an inner circle made up of clowns somewhere on the spectrum between “rampantly evil” and “thoroughgoing dipshit.”

“Why did President Trump decide to attack Iran?” The Atlantic’s Yair Rosenberg recently mused. “It depends on what day of the week you ask.” On some days, Trump was acting on (roundly discredited) intel that Iran was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. On others, there is a scent of regime change in the air. Sometimes we are told that we were doing a classic “leading from behind” maneuver, trailing Israel into a conflict it’s long sought. Frankly, I give a lot of credit to the “wag the dog” scenario: With the economy in shambles and Jeffrey Epstein riding high in the headlines, Trump needed a distraction. Also, we mustn’t forget that he’s a warmonger who just thinks it’s fun to blow things up. (For Iran War Stupidity completists, Popular Information’s Judd Legum has rounded up 17 separate and frequently contradictory reasons that the administration has submitted for our approval.)

I’ve been reading the comment sections (of the Financial Times, anyway), and Trump is getting his ass roasted: “Let me get all of this straight in my head. They want their allies to join in an ill-thought-out war of choice with unclear aims and an uncertain chance of success for any of the myriad aims stated so far. They want everyone else to just absorb any of the externalities, like influxes of refugees, disruptions to shipping, higher oil and commodity prices, and maybe even some incoming missiles. And then they also want to tariff everyone at 15 percent.” Brother, you seem confused, but you got it absolutely correct.

Trump is really going through it with the nations that were once, putatively, our allies before Trump launched a trade war with all of them and threatened to seize Greenland in an act of colonial conquest. In the space of days, Trump has gone from begging for European naval support to free the Strait of Hormuz to having those requests punted back in his face to spiraling out on Truth Social about how he didn’t actually need anyone’s help in the first place. Since then, he’s petulantly suggested that he might wreck the whole shop and leave the nations that rebuffed him to clean up the mess. Meanwhile, countries like France and Italy are simply working on side deals with Iran to be allowed to use the strait.

My colleague Heather Souvaine Horn recently expressed to me how maddening it is to see the Trump administration treat Iran’s clampdown of the Strait of Hormuz as if it’s some unfair trick the Iranians pulled and not one of the most singularly obvious strategic choices the regime could make under the circumstances—the other being Iran’s decision to attack other Gulf states, knowing that it would be a pain point for the U.S. both economically and diplomatically. But by Trump’s own admission, the very fact that Iran retaliated in any way has caught him completely flat-footed. “They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East,” he told reporters on Monday. “They hit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. Nobody expected that. We were shocked!” Right now, there are 13-year-old kids about to invade Kamchatka in their first-ever game of Risk that look like Carl von Clausewitz compared to Trump.

This week, The New Republic’s Alex Shephard wrote that it will be Iran, not Trump, that dictates when and how this conflict ends. At least one anonymous administration official concurs, telling Politico that Iran’s leaders “hold the cards now.” “They decide how long we’re involved—and they decide if we put boots on the ground. And it doesn’t seem to me that there’s a way around that, if we want to save face.” Sounds great. Until then, if you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a rake—forever.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.

During his recent State of the Union address, President Donald Trump took a few minutes to talk about the affordability crisis that’s been gripping the nation—which is to say, he threw some balderdash in the direction of Democrats. Blaming the high prices he once referred to as a “hoax” on the “dirty, rotten lies” of the opposition party, he then neatly pirouetted into his next point: declaring the crisis over. “Their policies created the high prices. Our policies are rapidly ending them,” he said. “We are doing really well. Those prices are plummeting downward.”

It’s not hard to understand why Trump wishes this to be true. He is, after all, a one-man driver of the affordability crisis. As we’ve noted before, the mayhem he has unleashed on the streets of cities like Minneapolis is making it harder for ordinary Americans to make ends meet. The American people are bearing most of the cost of his chaotic tariffs scheme. And gas prices are set to spike anew now that he’s launched a war in Iran. Still, as with any problem playing out in the pocketbooks of voters, the president has plenty of company on the wrong side of the fight—like the corporate privateers who are driving the crisis deeper while profiting off of our pain.

A new report from the Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, takes a deep dive into the battery of corporations they call the “Low Wage 20”: 20 firms that currently employ 6.7 million people across the United States. The names are familiar—Amazon, Starbucks, FedEx, Walmart, and Tyson Foods are habitual malefactors—but their sins are growing more mortifying by the day.

The most mortal of these, per the IPS, is the way these 20 firms’ “low-wage business models have left many of their workers with no choice but to rely on public assistance.” Fifteen of the companies’ median pay last year was “below the $35,631 income limit for a family of three to be eligible for Medicaid in most states”; at 13 of them, the pay fell short of the “$33,576 threshold for a family of three to be eligible for SNAP.” It’s bad enough when your business model essentially plans for government programs to provide the money you’re not willing to pay. But as TNR’s Grace Segers has relentlessly reported over the past year, the funding cuts and regulatory hurdles embedded in Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” have pushed these programs, and their beneficiaries, into crisis.

The IPS says corporate power is driving the affordability crisis in other ways, as well, including a very basic one: They’re just paying people less. “Half of Low-Wage 20 firms reported a decline in their median pay between 2019 and 2024, after adjusting for inflation,” the report says. “Average median pay for the group dropped 4.6 percent, from $30,474 (in 2024 dollars) to $29,087.” These workers are increasingly getting priced out of the American dream too. All 20 of these corporate miscreants’ reported median pay last year was below the $59,600 needed to afford the rent on a two-bedroom apartment; seven of the firms’ median salaries are lower than the $25,533 average price of a used car.

Meanwhile CEO pay is doing what it always does—driving income inequality. The average CEO pay at these 20 firms was $18.6 million last year, while average CEO-to-median worker pay ratio “stood at a staggering 899 to 1, compared to the S&P 500 average of 285 to 1.” Brian Niccol of Starbucks took home the award for the most nonsensical disparity between CEO and employee income: He earns $95,801,676, while the median salary for a Starbucks employee was a mere $14,674.

There are a slew of policy decisions that can be made to alter this trajectory, from raising the minimum wage to bolstering labor rights to imposing a tax on stock buybacks. The IPS even suggests we adopt the practice of “bad business fees” designed to penalize companies for paying such paltry wages that their employees have no choice but to rely on public assistance to make ends meet. And of course, corporate democracy would go a long way to taming these excesses. As TNR contributor Osita Nwanevu has argued, more worker ownership can help limit income inequality while also providing firms with ballast to survive economic downturns.

It goes without saying that the ideological orientation of the White House and Congress guarantees little progress will be made on any of these fronts—especially with Trump looking backward to blame Democrats for the wreckage he’s meted out. But November’s elections loom—and as TNR contributor Dylan Gyauch-Lewis reported, poll after poll reveals a public hungry for lawmakers to confront corporate power directly, and that “large majorities of Americans blame corporations for their affordability issues.” There’s never been a better time to make some corporate enemies. These 20 will do for a start.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.