The Trump Dividend Checks Have Already Gone Out. Just Not to You.

Last week, President Donald Trump announced that if Republicans prevail in this year’s midterm elections, he would provide everybody with a $5,000 dividend check. People reacted as if he’d said something crazy, like “Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is ineligible to be president of the United States”—by which I mean they dismissed his ravings as one more Trumpian oddity and not what it really was: the disqualifying lunacy of a corrupt jackass. A few brave souls gently raised concerns that this was tantamount to a bribe. Those who wanted to add something substantive to the conversation pointed out just how much this idea would cause inflation to spike. I don’t recall anyone saying the obvious thing: A $5,000 payoff would be an implicit admission that he and his party’s reckless policies wrecked the economy and spawned a nationwide affordability crisis.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, whose flock of lawmakers would ostensibly be the people who would find this money—more than $1 trillion—and appropriate it, told Kristen Welker in an interview that the so-called “Trump dividend” would be something lawmakers would “process through Congress and talk through and debate and discuss.” That said, nothing is happening anytime soon, because Johnson is sending lawmakers home until the midterm elections so as to avoid having to vote on GOP Representative Thomas Massie’s proposed impeachment of Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth, who, between psychosexual panic attacks about the masculinity of the soldiers in his presence, is currently getting the belt-to-ass treatment from Iran.

So you might have to wait a while for your $5,000 check. But that doesn’t mean that the Trump dividend hasn’t already been paid out. To the contrary, the president and his congressional enablers have been handing out money left and right. They’ve made people very rich, in fact. It’s something that they’re quite good at doing—at least for a few.

Once upon a time, Trump claimed that shared prosperity would come in the form of tariffs, which he believed would rake in such a large amount of revenue that the income tax could be abolished. This was insane in theory; in practice, Trump’s tariffs only followed the logic of the president’s ire—whatever nation was pissing him off that week would get tariffed. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that most of this nonsense was illegal, not that it diminished Trump’s yen for trade war.

But it’s not all bad news. As ABC News reported last month, the administration has paid out $100 billion in tariff refunds. That ought to excite everyone. After all, the Tax Foundation estimates that the tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled to be illegal cost every household $700, so a reimbursement might be helpful in filling up your gas tank three or four times. But as ABC News notes, “most consumers—who paid higher prices from the tariffs—aren’t seeing that money go back into their pockets.” In some instances, firms have plans to repay some of that money to consumers. But in other cases, that money is being pocketed, with some corporations earmarking the money for “reinvestment” and others putting it toward offsetting the other high costs they face because of Trump’s handling of the economy and the Iran war.

And for small businesses, these mini windfalls have arrived too late. Per ABC, one fortunate recipient of a $50,000 refund says “she was forced to cut staff and use her retirement savings to keep the business afloat” while waiting for her refund pittance. That’s wreckage the check won’t cover. All in all, Trump’s “Liberation Day” mainly liberated money from your pocket. Whether it makes its way back to you or remains in the coffers of corporations is anyone’s guess.

Meanwhile, people seem to be forgetting that Republicans in Congress have already passed a measure that put $5,000 in Americans’ pockets—or to be more precise, $5,190 to Americans earning between $153,600 and $361,400. That law is called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which has been one big beautiful means of cementing income inequality across the country. As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reports, the OBBBA “favors the richest taxpayers and provides working-class Americans with relatively small tax cuts that will in many cases be more than offset by the import taxes, or tariffs, imposed by President Trump.” The richest 1 percent got way more than five grand in this deal—their tax savings were in excess of $66,000. At the other end of the spectrum, the poorest 20 percent got a paltry 40 bucks. Don’t spend it all in one place! (Actually, many folks cannot because the same bill ended the Affordable Care Act subsidies they were using to purchase health insurance.)

Republicans’ monomaniacal focus on re-enriching the already rich is doing much more than thieving money from your pocket. Wealth concentration is increasingly locking most of us out of the American dream. As a 2024 study from the Institute for Policy Studies and Popular Democracy found, wealth concentration is “supercharging existing problems of gentrification, homelessness, unaffordable rental housing, and out-of-reach homeownership.” Across the country, predatory billionaires are buying up single-family homes, keeping many of these properties vacant so as to “profit from real estate speculation,” and invading the short-term rental market to play the same tricks, thus keeping units at arm’s length from would-be renters. Trump and GOP lawmakers have enabled all of this through policies that have—as of Tax Day 2026—grown billionaire wealth 30.6 percent.

If you’re like most people, you could use $5,000 right about now. As a recent memo from Americans for Tax Fairness noted, “Working Americans have had to pay more for health care, gas, and food while their paychecks have remained stagnant or fallen while [Trump has] been in office.” Meanwhile, as Republicans wiggle and dodge on the Trump dividend checks, they’re out in public touting the very bill that led to all of this widespread immiseration—and hiding the fact that when the Medicaid work requirements slated to be imposed after the midterms go into effect, an estimated seven million people won’t have health insurance anymore.

Lots of people have gotten the Trump dividend: Trump himself, his family, billionaires, many corporations, even that weird Dick Tracy villain guy who broke the Reflecting Pool. But Trump’s long history of stiffing people should be more than enough to dissuade you from the belief that a check is coming your way if the GOP retains its majorities in Congress. If history is any guide, the Republicans would keep fleecing you. But the Trump dividends will continue to flow, and many people will keep getting richer. As they say, it’s a big club, and you’re not in it.

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

In the theater, there’s an old saying about “Chekhov’s gun” that basically goes like this: If the playwright shows the audience a gun in the first act, you are locked into a certain plot inevitability—that gun will go off in the final act. It usually ends badly. This week, a couple of folks at Anthropic—one who was sounding the alarm on his way out the door, the other still merrily employed there as a safety researcher—effectively showed us the AI gun. Who might die in the final act? According to reports, “All humans.” How soon? “The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

Cool, cool, cool. If I could offer my hot take, maybe someone should do something to, you know, stop this? Unfortunately, there is a series of related problems that impede the easy fix. For starters, our political system is awash in tens of millions of dollars spent by the AI industry. AI is not popular with the general public, but it is very popular among the few who expect to get, or already are getting, insanely wealthy from it—and they have all burned through small fortunes of sunk cost in this arms race, where everyone is trying to build the best (read: most destructive) AI model they can before someone else does. And the industry actually makes a habit of regularly informing people that this tech could kill us all, because when they do, it excites investors.

It is actually genuinely difficult to trust the motivations of anyone in this industry (and it seems bad that genuinely deceptive people are the human core of this technology). But if only for a few paragraphs, let’s extend the benefit of the doubt to Jacob Coxon, who resigned from Anthropic this week because (according to him) he came to believe that he was beckoning doomsday in humanity’s general direction. In a series of posts on X, Coxon declared that neither OpenAI nor Anthropic was acting responsibly. Rather, they were barreling forward with plans to develop “self-improving superintelligence” and “gambling with our lives.”

“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” Coxon wrote. “This is not a marketing stunt.” Evan Hubinger, an Anthropic colleague whose actual title is “alignment science lead,” echoed in confirmation: “Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” None of this is exactly coming out of the blue. Anthropic’s brand—disingenuously or not—is based on warning the public about AI, and there have been numerous high-profile examples of AI models escaping their environments to engage in hacking. In May 2025, the BBC reported that Anthropic’s own tests revealed that its model was “sometimes willing to pursue ‘extremely harmful actions,’ such as attempting to blackmail engineers who say they will remove it.”

Still, it’s a curious time for people to be resigning from Anthropic and talking up the destructive capabilities of the technology they are building. The firm is planning an IPO this fall that The Wall Street Journal is calling “Wall Street’s marquee event,” with projected earnings assessed at $100 billion for the company and a projected valuation of $2 trillion. Coxon’s insistence that this isn’t a marketing stunt stands out, because the kind of doomsaying he is indulging in, though it might be a genuine outcry for help, quite often is just that—fodder to goose investors to help the overall goal of “number go up.” As TNR contributor J.P. Meyboom explained, it’s extremely common for AI mavens to issue ominous warnings about the terrors their tech can unleash, only to raise gargantuan sums of money in the wake of those portents. As much as you and I might recoil from the periodic reminder that this industry is hurtling toward a future of unknown dangers, the money is flowing heavily in the direction of that future.

It’s also flowing into Washington, D.C. As Politico reported last week, super PACs aligned with the AI and crypto industry “spent a whopping $127 million across more than 100 primaries this year in an effort to shape the future of Congress—and won roughly 90 percent of them.” (They did much better in Republican primaries than in Democratic ones.) Now, the goal of all of that spending can be murky. There are groups sending cash to Washington who are authentically invested in regulation and guardrails; not everyone is looking for laissez-faire treatment from Congress. (Though, again, it’s impossible to gauge the motivations of any of the players in this field, some of whom might only be performatively asking for regulation.) But if we take Coxon at his word, the calculus has changed. Something that could wipe out humanity within a decade’s time probably needs something stronger than a mere guardrail—and something more forceful than those raining greenbacks on Washington may be willing to accept.

The Kill Switch Act, a bipartisan bill developed after OpenAI’s hack of the Hugging Face research hub, proposes to give the Department of Homeland Security authority over the industry, at least as far as ordering shutdowns in instances of dangerous AI breaches goes. But the specter of humanity’s destruction has the bill looking a little bit inadequate: Under the Kill Switch Act, we’d still be heavily reliant on the industry’s willingness to both police itself and comply with shutdown orders. The Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, a Senate bill co-sponsored by Bernie Sanders and Texas Representative Greg Casar, would “permanently ban the development and deployment of superintelligent AI and temporarily pause advanced AI development until a federal regulator has established safety rules,” as well as “direct the U.S. to pursue international agreements to prevent superintelligence from being developed anywhere in the world.”

That’s probably going to be the bridge too far for the AI industry. But the bad news is that it also may be critically insufficient to halting the apocalypse that’s allegedly at the door. It’s hard to see how a ban would work; AI firms blocked from developing technology in the United States would simply pick up their things and go elsewhere, and it’s not as though China would regard a U.S. ban as anything other than a competitive opportunity for them. And we cannot un-invent a technology. We aren’t going to pass a law that ends AI.

But this is the last war. Lawmakers who want to take this moment to think ahead and cancel the AI Armageddon should be thinking less about the technology itself and instead work harder at making comprehensive rules governing the control of these systems and regulating their safety, the same way we did with nuclear weapons. That’s what you do when you find yourself staring down technology that could wipe out civilization. It’s never been more important for Democratic and Republican voters to find lawmakers willing to lock up Chekhov’s gun, and kick those that won’t to the curb.

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

I confess that the vast majority of what I know about political influencer Hasan Piker came from this April interview he did with TNR contributor Aaron Regunberg. I’m constitutionally unsuited for that Twitch life, which isn’t a knock on livestreaming. And I opted out of the great postelection debate over whether Democrats needed a “Joe Rogan of the left” because I found it to be a tedious misdiagnosis of the party’s struggles in 2024. But Piker has found himself in a spot of bother of late, which naturally has become the entire Democratic Party’s problem because of the political media’s tendency to chase conflict, collapse distinctions, and reject nuance. These attendant controversies nevertheless provide a new way to learn some important lessons about how Democrats need to manage the tricks and traps of the infotainment industry.

Piker, by his own admission, earns a living at the intersection of high risk and high reward. He’s a compelling enough thinker and speaker to have built a massive audience—more than three million followers on Twitch and about a million more on YouTube. But there is a downside to speaking extemporaneously for hours and hours every day. “If you were talking for 10 hours a day,” he told Regunberg, “you’re going to say stuff that could very easily be misconstrued.” Case in point: Piker has been getting barracked for lamenting recently that equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, at a time when Israel’s popularity is at an all-time low, does little more than put Jewish Americans in danger. That sentiment is not materially different from what Ezra Klein had to say in his own recent essay about Piker—but when you’re a sainted member of the white intelligentsia, you are apparently allowed to say this. If you’re not, it’s head on a pike time (no pun intended).

But it’s not Piker who’s being forced to weather this storm, it’s Democrats—newly minted Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed in particular. Having previously invited Piker on the campaign trail, El-Sayed now has to deal with the fact that the political media has made Piker its idée fixe. These preoccupations mostly run hand in hand with the most recent hype cycle over the alleged, and overblown, DSA takeover of the Democratic Party. The assumption that any leftist candidate must be palling around with Piker is so deeply entrenched that CBS News’s Gayle King (now working under Bari Weiss’s much dumber and race-baiting management) had a whole segment ready to spring on Florida Senate candidate Angie Nixon for campaigning with Piker, only for Nixon to tell King that not only had she never campaigned with Piker, she—like most Democrats—wasn’t particularly familiar with him, either.

In a recent MS NOW encounter with anchor Katy Tur, El-Sayed reminded us that he is something of a novice at navigating the ins and outs of the cable news business. Pressed by Tur to account for his association with Piker, El-Sayed attempted a canned pivot: “This campaign is not about a streamer in California. This campaign is about affordability in Michigan. This campaign is about the ability to have health care,” he said. “This campaign is about the challenges Michiganders face. And I get that, in the media, it’s a lot easier to pick up one person and be like, ‘This is what this is about.’ But this is why a lot of people get so frustrated about politics and political media, because it doesn’t actually speak to the challenges they face.”

I think El-Sayed is largely correct on the merits here, but forget it, Jake, this is cable news, a forum in which merits don’t really matter and the attempt to reengage a news anchor with a more substantive conversation is always a waste of time. Tur actually did better than most during the longer segment: She led a discussion about money in politics and gave El-Sayed a chance to lay out his ideas on how to end the billionaire capture of our politics and implement Medicare for All.

But El-Sayed walked onto that set hoping that the headline was going to be his economic policy plans, and ended up with the brief conversation about Piker being the most widely talked about aspect of the interview. It’s worth learning about how that happened and what someone like El-Sayed could do differently.

Right about now, some of you are probably grousing about the differing standards the news industry applies to the two parties. Yes, Republicans learned long ago that if their response to some associate’s controversial statement is simply, “I didn’t see the tweet/post/video,” their interlocutor will move on, even when the person you’re claiming ignorance of is the actual president of the United States, whose every utterance is push-alerted right to our phones. The fact that the GOP has become so licentious in its corruption and so casual about lying works to its advantage. If the Democrats are the only ones who believe there should be high standards for public servants, they’ll be the only ones held to any.

But valid complaints about the cable news industry have been around for ages. What hasn’t arrived in their wake is any serious effort among the industry’s leaders to reform things. I cannot recall a time in my life when I thought cable news was getting better. (I no longer tune in, so in the extremely unlikely event that it does, it will go without my notice.) Democratic candidates hoping that a better media might be wrought from the current state of affairs will draw their last breath waiting for it to happen. There is no saving cable news from itself, there is only using what it offers to your advantage.

The Hasan Piker flap has been excellently instructive about one of my major points about the television news industry: Substance is not what they’re after; they want conflict, controversy, and cheap shots. Saddle a politician with an invented demon, and everyone eats that night. The way to win, in this situation, is not to make an appeal to Katy Tur’s sense of civic virtue but, rather, play her game with equal abandon by giving the hungry cable news maw another street fight to broadcast.

Oddly enough, El-Sayed had one pretty well locked and loaded, if his campaign’s press page is any guide. Instead of trying to force Tur to pivot back to the needs of Michiganders, he should have offered up his opponent Mike Rogers’s faith adviser, Pastor Lorenzo Sewell, who attended a hate rally put together by fascist gadfly and January 6 rioter Jake Lang, whose whole schtick is to show up places and try to provoke violence. Lang is a nasty piece of work and, unlike Piker, a vocally committed antisemite. El-Sayed’s campaign has done its homework, and has made an effort to tie Rogers to Lang, but he would have done well during his MS NOW interview to offer up Lang as a punching bag rather than try to steer the conversation back to the economy. On cable news, never opt for the high road when the low road is beckoning.

Democrats in general need to get themselves into the character-assassination business (though I suppose a few have imperiled their own party’s chances to take back the Senate by making Piker one of the few bogeymen they’re willing to publicly decry). As I noted a few weeks ago, one of the biggest bankrollers of Republican politics this cycle is Elon Musk, a guy whose cuts to USAID and other programs have led to hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world and who is currently in court fighting the state of Minnesota for the right to create nonconsensual deepfake nudes of children. If Democrats raise the salience of this connection, and demonize Musk in aggressively grandiose terms, they will at least be giving the cable news industry what it wants: crass, cynical conflict.

Democrats need to better understand the cable news environment and its propensity for bad-faith attacks and controversy mongering. Does that mean that they should assume that every time they step on set, they’re going to get ratfucked? Honestly, that might be the best possible footing for future television news encounters. No one goes broke underestimating the civic virtues of the cable news commentariat. Rather than complaining about these practices, it’s better to understand the stupid games this industry likes to play, and master them yourself.

As I said a few weeks ago, I don’t really believe a lot of the hype about the Democratic primaries this year. I don’t think that the United States is in the throes of a socialist revolution that will decimate the moderates. What I do see is a lot of voter enthusiasm for Democratic candidates (even as the party as an institution continues to have a public image problem) and some eye-popping turnout numbers. A wide variety of voters seem ready to give a wide variety of candidates a chance in November.

If this time of choosing brings Democrats back to power in Washington, the time of proving will be at hand—and Democrats will have to show their mettle. As TNR editor Michael Tomasky recently wrote, they will have to follow the pugilistic lead of conflict-ready lawmakers like Jon Ossoff, shedding themselves of the tendency to seek bipartisanship (looking at you, Hakeem!), and dedicate themselves to sanding the gears of Trump’s authoritarian machine. They’ll also have to collectively set a bold tone for the 2028 presidential election.

Democrats are typically averse to any sort of politicking that seems divisive. They’d prefer to work in comity with their Republican colleagues—even the feral ones we have today. History teaches us that Democrats don’t really have the yen for accountability; “Look forward, not backward” has been the watchword that has allowed CIA torturers, rogue financiers, and a coup-inciting president who lost an election to get off scot-free. And the media has, over the years, shaped the public conception of the two parties like a bodybuilder wielding a meat tenderizer: Republicans are allowed to govern maximally, while Democrats serve as helpmates to trim their excesses. To be honest, I think many Democrats have allowed themselves to be inculcated by this false binary.

That has to end. As Lincoln once said, “The quiet dogmas of the past are inadequate to the stormy present.” It’s time for Democrats to disenthrall. That means that the road ahead is going to take Democrats well outside of their comfort zone. Here, I have to caution those who are fretting about the new radicals in their midst: You’re all going to have to get a little bit more radical on a number of important fronts too.

As I’ve noted before, the biggest mindset change that Democrats will have to adopt is their view of the Supreme Court. Whether or not the high court ever had a period where it earned public esteem, this court as currently constructed has become naked in its partisanship, and it’s using its considerable power to enforce a line-item veto over Democratic lawmakers while simultaneously stripping Democratic voters of their electoral power.

President Joe Biden met this crisis with a milquetoast study. Whatever that was meant to accomplish, it didn’t work. Like it or not, Democrats have to expand the number of justices on the court if their party wants to survive (Republicans have fought just as hard to manipulate the high court’s membership, after all). It also means that Democrats should be making a sizable effort to drive down public opinion of the court. (Here’s the good news: The public has a considerable head start, so it’s best to meet them where they’re at.)

A few weeks ago, it was reported that U.S. debt had hit $40 trillion thanks to Trump’s tax giveaways, the Iran war, and his tariffs—which have become a tidy windfall for certain corporations as taxpayer money gets transferred to their coffers via tariff refunds. At first blush, this reads as damaging to Trump. But being well versed in the aforementioned asymmetry in the way the media treats the two parties, I know that if a Democrat were in power right now, their every plan or policy idea would have been dogged by chucklehead journalists asking them, “How will you pay for it?” Trump faced no such challenge. Republicans never do.

It’s a grim cycle: The GOP wrecks the shop, Democrats exhaust their political capital putting it back together. But the damage Trump leaves behind will be substantial, and it can’t be fixed for free. Just restoring the federal civil service to the sort of functional capacity that prevents lettuce from giving the populace explosive diarrhea will require a massive hiring binge, and I will promise you that the political press is going to be back, needling them with the same old question. Democrats can’t allow themselves to fear doing what needs to be done to eradicate Trumpism. When they’re asked how they will pay for it, they need to respond: “We will all pay dearly if we don’t undo Trump’s damage.”

And it goes without saying that Democrats will have to discover a new love of holding people accountable. That begins with offering the public a measure of justice for the harms meted out to them by the Trump administration. As I’ve written before, “Trump isn’t a president. He’s the head of a criminal syndicate, and he should be treated accordingly—now and, even more importantly, when he and his accomplices are finally out of power.” Democrats need to be less like Merrick Garland and more like newly minted Minnesota Senate nominee Peggy Flanagan, who has vowed to “avenge” her state. The jokes about the grannies at the No Kings rallies baying for blood may be an exaggeration, but it’s not far off the current mood.

But accountability is due to a host of other non-Trump miscreants, as well. As Tomasky recently wrote, naming enemies and picking fights is now essential work for Democrats. There are many targets to choose from, including “Republicans and oligarchs and monopolists”—or, as Ossoff has collectively described the enemy, the “Epstein class”: that coven of elites that has been permitted to rule with impunity.

There are encouraging signs that Democrats are moving in the right direction. I took cheer at the news that the Democratic National Committee has added the abolition of ICE to the party’s platform. We have come a long way from the beginning of the year, when the notion that the agency could somehow be reformed or retrained was still annoyingly in vogue.

But this is just one of many matters that cannot simply be folded into a party document. As Brian Beutler recently wrote, Democrats must use this time to “normaliz[e] the kinds of things that will be necessary for American renewal in the post-Trump era.” That means taking these messages to the public, getting them used to hearing talk about abolishing ICE, packing the Supreme Court, hiring the next generation of public servants, and tearing down Trump’s vanity projects. It also affords you the opportunity to parry the political media’s brain-dead inquiries sooner rather than later.

I understand that Democrats would prefer a gentler and more thoughtful brand of politics and that they see uncommon virtue in finding common ground. That all sounds really nice; maybe one day that’s the way things can be again. But America’s Trumpian trajectory will not be gently turned aside. It will require a movement forceful enough to arrest MAGA’s momentum and bring the country—and the world—out of this era’s rack and ruin.

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

If you want to get the unfiltered skinny on how the never-ending war with Iran is going, it’s written in the dust. Responsible Statecraft’s Trita Parsi reported this week that U.S. service members marooned in the Persian Gulf have been expressing themselves in messages fingered onto a dusty aircraft flap. The anonymous graffiti, which calls to mind the helmet scrawls of disgruntled soldiers in Vietnam, include “Operation Epstein Fury,” “Peace deal #64 incoming … ALL THIS FOR THE HOLY LAND,” and “Bibi’s cucks.” Sounds like things aren’t going so well! “I have no frame of reference, I can’t compare it to the sentiments of U.S. soldiers in previous conflicts,” Parsi wrote. “But I suspect these are new sentiments, or at least a new willingness to express them this openly and directly.”

Whether these sentiments are new is indeed unclear, but it’s not without a frame of reference. Trump has always been fairly explicit in his disrespect for the grunts who do most of the work—and all of the dying—in this racket that we call “war.” But only now is a seemingly unwinnable war bringing this all to a head. It’s no longer possible to pretend that the president doesn’t have boundless contempt for U.S. service members. They’re trapped in a war that was essentially kicked off to distract from all the other terrible news the Trump administration generates—or at least to turn attention away from the Epstein files. (Though if these dust etchings are any guide, Trump failed in this attempt to wag the dog.)

In recent weeks, this dynamic has been playing out on board the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier that has been on a nine-month deployment to support Trump’s war with Iran. Conditions on board the carrier have deteriorated to the point where some seamen have jumped overboard in an attempt to escape the misery. The crew has, for several weeks, been dealing with food shortages and grotesque sanitation issues. As TNR’s Hafiz Rashid reported, “In recent town hall meetings with military leaders, including acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao, things have gotten heated, with family members expressing fear and worry over mental health and the risk of self-harm for the ship’s personnel.”

As it happens, this trouble is not confined to the USS Lincoln: Crews on the USS Benfold, Carl Vinson, and Tripoli have also reported miserable conditions in recent weeks. Pete Hegseth, our self-styled “secretary of war,” has gone to great lengths to downplay and even deny these accounts, characterizing them as misrepresentations while covering up the reason the Lincoln, which is now finally coming home, wasn’t resupplied. The dust scribbles surfaced by Parsi tell a different story.

If anything, the story is an old one. There has always been good reason to question Trump’s respect for U.S. service members. As The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg reported in September of 2020, Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in Paris, questioning his senior aides as to why he should go to a cemetery full of “losers.” Per Goldberg, “In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 Marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as ‘suckers’ for getting killed.” All of this came about because he didn’t want to get his hair mussed in the rainy conditions. (Trump’s former chief of staff, John Kelly, would later confirm Goldberg’s reporting.)

Trump’s disparagement of the military is pretty consistent. He’s slagged off the armed forces’ top officers as “dopes and babies” and compared them unfavorably to the military leaders he, for whatever reason, holds in high esteem: Adolf Hitler’s generals. He’s complained about having to see disabled veterans at military events, and has advocated for the exclusion of wounded soldiers at official functions because, “Nobody wants to see that.” These kinds of insults were a staple of his first run for office, during which time he mocked Gold Star families and, famously, Vietnam POW survivor John McCain.

But Trump’s disregard is hardly limited to mere aesthetics. As The Huffington Post’s David Wood reported in 2017, Trump’s gigantic military buildup shoveled billions of dollars to the Pentagon, but not much of that kitty ended up benefiting the working grunts who risk their lives on our nation’s behalf.

Only the outlines of Trump’s proposal to lavish money on the military have been drawn up. There’s a request for Congress to add $30 billion to this year’s defense budget and a vague plan to add $54 billion to next year’s spending. Not included in those plans: money for the best infantry weapons, the safest troop-lift helicopters, the most protective lightweight body armor. Instead, grunts will have to settle for budget leftovers with antiquated rifles, helicopters built for their grandfathers during the Vietnam War, and communications gear that is overweight and unreliable.

The least surprising observation you can make about Trump is that he is an asshole and a cheapskate. Still, the president’s Iranian misadventure has fully exposed both his ineptitude as commander in chief and the consequences of this lack of care for military members and their families. As conditions on U.S. ships erode, the administration is finding itself in a media war with the concerned families of troops deployed to the region. Stockpiles of vital munitions are being burned through at an alarming rate. And for some reason, Trump has picked this moment to order a bizarre retrofitting of U.S. aircraft carriers, demanding that they be kitted out with obsolete steam catapults. (TNR contributor Brynn Tannehill has the lore drop you need if you’ve been confused by this story.)

Public opinion about the war in Iran has been consistently awful for Trump, whose overall approval hit a low of 33 percent this week. As Parsi reports, those who are stuck on the front lines of this folly are not likely to disabuse their fellow Americans of this being anything but FUBAR. As one service member told him: “What people in the media don’t understand when they compare past conflicts to this one, is this operation has no morale behind it. That makes a world of difference to service members deployed to undesirable locations indefinitely.” Parsi thinks that the only thing left to do now is to “simply end” the war. But Trump is knee-deep in this big muddy, and there truly is no end in sight.