Since the allegations that essentially ended Platner’s campaign came out, on Monday, the Maine Democratic Party has been constructing a plan to select another candidate. The party has landed on hosting a nominating convention, which will include 500 delegates elected proportionally by county committees and a preexisting 100-person state committee. Together, those 600 delegates will decide which of the many potential Platner replacements will face Republican Senator Susan Collins in November. They have until July 27 to officially nominate Platner’s opponent. (The convention has not yet been scheduled.) Meanwhile, Platner still has business to attend to—he has until Monday at 5 p.m. to officially withdraw his name from the ballot.

The delegates will have a wide field of candidates to choose from—so far, seven have declared their candidacy. To be eligible for nomination, candidates must garner 500 signatures, a potential barrier to entry for some of the lesser-known candidates.

Broadly speaking, the candidates who have announced their desire to run have been emphasizing their progressive and working-class credentials in an effort to hew as close as possible to the policy platform that lifted Platner to his primary victory, while distancing themselves from his scandals.

Still, there are distinctions to be made among the would-be players in this burgeoning field. Here is an early guide to who the seven candidates currently vying to take on Collins are—and where they stand on some critical policy questions.

Troy Jackson: Jackson’s name was one of the first floated after the allegations against Platner came to light. An anonymous memo circulated among some progressive strategists emphasized “his authentic working class bonafides” and said that his “anti-establishment message [contrasts] effectively against Collins as a swamp creature.” Jackson is a fifth-generation logger from Allagash and the former president of the Maine Senate.

Recently, Jackson came in third place in the state’s Democratic gubernatorial primary. In that race, he was endorsed by Senator Bernie Sanders. Before running for governor, he served in the Maine state Senate from 2008 to 2014 and again from 2016 to 2024.

Jackson supports Medicare for All, has called Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide, and says he’ll never vote in favor of taxpayer-funded aid to Israel. In recent days, he has been endorsed by Representative Ro Khanna and the Maine AFL-CIO.

Nirav Shah: Shah is another 2026 gubernatorial candidate. He garnered the highest number of votes but ultimately lost the primary to Hannah Pingree due to ranked-choice voting.

Shah is a public health official who served as director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention from 2019 to 2023 and the principal deputy director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2023 until 2025.

“The other thing that voters in Maine are clearly looking for is someone who is an outsider. I come to this race not having been part of the political establishment in Maine or indeed even in the United States,” Shah said in a CNN interview.

Before serving in Maine and at the CDC, Shah was director of the Illinois Department of Public Health. During his tenure, an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease killed 13 people. This has recently come back to haunt him: When Shah announced his bid to replace Platner, Senator Tammy Duckworth wrote in a post on X that she “strongly [opposes]” his run for Senate due to his handling of the outbreak.

Shah supports Medicare for All, says that ICE “in its current form” cannot continue, and has described Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide.

In a poll released Thursday, Shah showed the best chance of beating Collins in November, though the poll had him winning by just one point.

Shenna Bellows: Bellows came fourth in this year’s gubernatorial primary. She is currently Maine’s secretary of state. She has run for Senate before—in 2014, she went head-to-head with Susan Collins and lost in a landslide, notching only 32 percent of the vote against Collins’s 68 percent share. This was a wipeout: Collins carried every county in the state. Before entering politics, Bellows served as the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine from 2005 to 2013.

Bellows has scrubbed the policy pages of her gubernatorial campaign website, but has explained some of her policy positions in interviews during her run for governor. She proposed creating a Maine Housing Corps to increase the supply of housing in the state, and suggested that Maine “work toward universal, single payer healthcare.” In an X post announcing her run for Senate, Bellows said she supports Medicare for All.

Jordan Wood: Wood ran for the House seat in Maine’s second congressional district this year, garnering just shy of 29 percent of the vote. Wood was former Representative Katie Porter’s chief of staff and vice president of End Citizens United, a group that seeks to end the influence of money in politics.

Like most of the other candidates, Wood supports Medicare for All and believes that Israel is committing a genocide, and that any U.S. aid to the country must come with conditions. In an interview with The New Republic, Wood also emphasized his support for universal childcare, said that the Senate needs new leadership, and said that the Senate should get rid of the filibuster.

He expressed concern that the other candidates for the Senate seat haven’t yet explained their views on national policy: “I don’t have any idea what they think of future leadership. I don’t know what they think about the filibuster. You wouldn’t ask those questions at a debate for the governor’s race,” he said.

Dan Kleban: Kleban is the co-founder of Maine Beer Company in Freeport. He ran for Senate in late 2025, but dropped out of the race to support Governor Janet Mills just one month later.

In a Substack post announcing his candidacy on Wednesday, Kleban emphasized his status as a political outsider but didn’t share any policy proposals. “I’ve spent years talking to Mainers over a beer in our taproom and throughout the community. We’re all sick and tired of a system that’s been rigged by corporate interests, and we’ve had enough meddling from Washington establishment insiders and New York City consultants trying to dictate who represents us,” he wrote.

Paige Loud: Loud is a social worker who, like Wood, ran for the House seat in the second district. She received 10 percent of the vote. Loud has a progressive platform that emphasizes health care and food security. She supports Medicare for All, raising and tying the minimum wage to inflation, and eliminating the Social Security income cap. She has called for an end to the genocide in Gaza and for a block on all U.S. weapons transfers to Israel.

David Costello: Costello ran in the Democratic primary for Senate and received 8 percent of the vote (Platner received 72 percent).

Costello shared a list of his policy priorities with The New Republic. They include Medicare for All, universal childcare, an elimination of the payroll tax cap, judicial and legislative term limits, and a ban on gerrymandering (among other proposals).

He’s also called for an “end to presidential wars of choice and holding allies and foes accountable for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and other human rights violations.”

In an email, Costello emphasized his experience in government, having served as an aide to Maine’s secretary of state, the mayor of Baltimore, and the governor of Maryland.

The Department of Homeland Security is currently looking for a private company to operate a fleet of at least nine large jets both at home and abroad, providing the DHS with pilots, nurses, and security, Bloomberg reports. In addition to last-minute deportations, the planes will also carry the upper echelon of the administration’s staff on diplomatic trips.

Although the government has yet to disclose how much its 24-7 fleet would cost, it spent about $140 million on six Boeing deportation jets last year. And the Federal Aviation Administration has recently noted that multiple jets from Avelo—an aircraft company that has already worked closely with DHS—are now owned by DHS.

The MAGA-verse generally celebrated the news. Owning its own fleet would make it easier for the government to carry out deportations, perhaps the key tenet of the administration’s agenda. Yet the administration is still no closer to reaching its unrealistic goal of one million deportations per year.

DHS estimates that a contract would begin in summer of 2027 and continue through 2032.

TMZ reports that a man carrying carpet samples was spotted leaving McConnell’s residence in Washington, D.C., Friday.

Mitch McConnell's D.C. home getting new flooring as he remains hospitalized. pic.twitter.com/FREeemYLC1

— TMZ (@TMZ) July 10, 2026

Charlie Cotton, a Washington, D.C. producer for the tabloid website, was at the house to see if he could find any new information about McConnell’s health, which his office has been virtually silent about. He spotted the man with carpet samples and spoke to him off camera. The man said that in addition to new carpet, new tiles were being considered for the home.

Speculation and rumors about McConnell’s condition have spread since his hospitalization June 14, with unconfirmed reports stating that he is brain-dead, while his fellow Republicans claim to have had long conversations with him. Meanwhile, McConnell’s Senate office hasn’t offered any updates on his health, only saying that he is receiving “excellent care.”

Video footage from McConnell’s home taken by a neighbor on the day of McConnell’s hospitalization showed a stretcher being led away by first responders, while police had blocked off the street. The person’s feet didn’t seem to be moving, and according to the neighbor, the first responders weren’t showing any urgency.

McConnell lives at his Washington home with his wife, former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. Why are they replacing its flooring now, when McConnell is in the hospital? Does this indicate some kind of change in the senator’s condition? Is the family preparing to sell the home? As long as McConnell’s family and staff remain silent, news like this will only increase conspiracy theories and rumors.

The front doors of the White House, which face toward Lafayette Park and pedestrian traffic, are currently undergoing security improvements, as repairs are made to the iconic columns on the North Portico, CBS News reported Friday.

On Friday, tarps were spotted on the front of the White House’s North Portico, printed with images of what the structure should look like while renovations carry on underneath.

This is just the most recent renovation project the White House has undertaken without approval from Congress, which is required to approve any construction on federal land. For months, Trump has treated the White House—which belongs to all Americans, not just the president—like one of his gaudy resort properties.

Last month, Trump began construction on a helipad in the South Lawn without any official notice. At the same time, the Trump administration moved to renovate the White House’s South Portico and re-top the driveway.

The White House later demanded the contractor speed up the project’s timeline, adding $875,000 to the already $13 million price tag. The contractor’s documents showed that the company received a last-minute demand to complete construction by mid-September in anticipation of an “upcoming state visit.” The request was made just days after Trump invited Chinese President Xi Jinping to visit the White House on September 24. The North Portico project is also estimated to be completed around mid-September.

Trump claimed that Sikorsky, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin that builds Marine One helicopters, would cover the cost of a $5 million or $6 million helipad—but it seems likely that American taxpayers will pick up the tab for the rest of his construction.

That wasn’t the first time that the budget for one of the president’s renovations has exploded. Trump originally claimed that his White House ballroom project would only cost $200 million and wouldn’t touch the original building. But Trump then demolished the White House’s East Wing, and the cost of construction ballooned to $300 million, and then $400 million after he decided to tack on extra building. Last month, a bombshell report revealed that taxpayers would actually be responsible for half of a $600 million price tag.

But there’s reason to be concerned about the former slumlord’s various construction projects: Just look at the president’s toxic Reflecting Pool or his crumbling venue for the Fourth of July!

U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a preliminary injunction to freeze Trump’s effort to place anti-DEI conditions on federal grants in multiple cities in Oregon and California, ruling that the move overstepped Congress’s power of the purse.

Grants at risk due to Trump’s move include those that deal with assistance for victims of domestic violence and human trafficking, disaster relief efforts, terrorism preparedness, and “a range of initiatives designed to expand and strengthen services for crime victims, including funding specialized assistance for children, elders, and victims of technology-facilitated abuse.”

“Plaintiffs maintain that ‘[n]othing in the Constitution or federal statutes authorizes Defendants to impose the Challenged Conditions, or anything of the kind, on funds administered through congressional grant programs,’” Orrick wrote. “I agree.”

This is at least the third time in recent weeks that Trump has had an anti-DEI measure temporarily struck down by the courts.

Crowds gathered to celebrate the Fourth of July on the coast of South Carolina were treated to a “Salute to the Shore” demonstration, featuring low-flying Apache helicopters manned by members of the South Carolina Army National Guard. But the moment that the officers landed, they all received notice that they had been suspended, ABC15 reported.

In a statement, Maj. Lisa Allen confirmed that the officers were suspended pending an investigation into possible safety violations that occurred during their demonstration. She said she could not provide further details or speculate on any specific allegations, but she stressed that the suspension was “not punitive.”

“A temporary suspension from flight duties is a routine administrative measure whenever a flight profile is under review,” she said.

MAGA was abuzz over the fact that no reason had been given—and it caught the eye of Hegseth.

“We’ll fix this. Carry on, Patriots,” Hegseth wrote in a post on X Thursday.

The next day, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell announced that “effective immediately, the suspension of all involved South Carolina pilots has been lifted.”

This isn’t the first time Hegseth has personally intervened to get officers out of trouble. He previously reinstated two suspended pilots who’d decided to fly their helicopters around Kid Rock’s house during a No Kings protest in March.

Semafor reports that Rasner is pursuing a case against former Wyoming State Senator Austin “Kit” Jennings, who allegedly pushed rumors that Rasner committed sexual misconduct. The rumors began after Rasner garnered national attention in 2025 for making a personal $47 billion bid to buy the social media site TikTok, and got worse from there.

Rasner, who came out when he was 20, is also settling a case against an Iowa man who repeatedly called him a “pedophile” under his campaign’s Facebook posts. The man claims that his accusation was based on “multiple social media posts and news articles accusing Reid Rasner of serious sexual misconduct,” but didn’t specify any specific posts.

Meanwhile, Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, who is running against Rasner in the Republican primary, piled on and issued a poll telling respondents that Rasner “married his gay husband in New York.” That poll showed Rasner initially behind Gray by single digits, but losing support after voters were told about his sexuality.

“I’ve never experienced anything like this in my entire life,” said Rasner, 42, to Semafor. “This just isn’t the Wyoming I knew or thought I knew. The state needs to come to terms with the hate and ignorance that’s fueled death threats and violence against me, all because of my sexuality.”

“Everyone told me: Don’t file lawsuits,” Rasner said. “I should have filed them on Day One.”

According to Rasner, certain candidate forums have chosen not to invite him after the rumors started, including one held by the Wyoming Family Alliance, which opposes same-sex marriage.

Even with gay people in President Trump’s administration, such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the Republican Party still has a lot of homophobia. The “pedophile” and “groomer” slurs actually began as buzzwords for conservatives to attack the LGBTQ community. In a deep-red state like Wyoming, this reaction to Rasner’s campaign is sadly not that surprising.

JD Vance joined Dirty Jobs star Mike Rowe’s podcast Thursday to chat about faith, family, and the future of America. But amid the pair’s sprawling conversation, the vice president offered a bit of insight into how his new role has offered him a completely new lifestyle.

“My life is—dude, totally transformed,” Vance said, eliciting laughter from Rowe.

Vance earns a base official salary of $235,100 per year as America’s second-in-command, but of course the accoutrements of his high-powered office provide a litany of other perks.

“I don’t go to the grocery store anymore. People go to the grocery store for me. Most of my meals—like, when I cook a meal—I love to cook, actually. Big baker. I like to cook for my kids as a special occasion, but I don’t have to cook anymore because I have an army of people willing to cook my food,” he continued.

“My life is so weird. I fly around on a 757, no more TSA lines for me and the kids. It’s so weird, but it can become the sort of thing that if you internalize it, you start to become an entitled asshole,” Vance said.

Vance: My life is-- dude, totally transformed. People go to the grocery store for me. I don't have to cook anymore because I have an army of people willing to cook my food. No more TSA lines for me. pic.twitter.com/4ystwLEKcG

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) July 10, 2026

Maybe that executive branch dissonance could explain why Donald Trump claimed that Americans need to provide identification in order to go to the grocery store, or why the president has repeatedly insisted that groceries is “an old-fashioned word.”

“We have a term ‘groceries,’” Trump told the leaders of the United Arab Emirates last year. “It’s an old term, but it means basically what you’re buying, food, it’s a pretty accurate term but it’s an old-fashioned sound.”

Affordability is the chief concern for Americans heading into the midterm elections, according to an April Gallup poll. In January, a New York Times/Siena poll found that 65 percent of American voters felt that a middle-class lifestyle was out of reach, while 77 percent said that a middle-class life was more difficult to attain than it was a generation before. All in all, a majority of Americans feel that they’ve been priced out of a broad range of necessities, including education, health care, and having a family.

Those sentiments have surely only been exacerbated in the months since. The cost of oil and gas has skyrocketed since the onset of the Iran war; utility bills have continued to climb; health insurance premiums have drastically outpaced the growth of employee paychecks; and homeownership seems like an increasingly unattainable dream due to low market availability and astronomical prices.

Meanwhile, the White House has repeatedly detached itself from efforts that would aid America’s middle and lower classes. Case in point: Trump’s decision Friday morning to divorce his office from the bipartisan housing bill. Trump did so in another futile attempt to force through his unpopular voter ID bill, the SAVE America Act.

The state has four wind energy projects that could bring 1,200 construction jobs, 4,400 other jobs connected to the projects, and over $168 million in economic impacts to the state, the Minnesota Reformer reports, citing the progressive think tank North Star Policy Action. 

The Trump administration has stopped the Department of Defense from completing legally mandated national security reviews of proposed wind farms, basically halting their construction across the country. In total, over 250 such projects have been stalled, four of them in the Gopher State, with $1.6 billion in investments behind them. 

“Minnesota has spent decades building one of the strongest wind energy economies in the country, and the federal government is now actively dismantling that through a permitting process turned into an indefinite roadblock,” said Aaron Rosenthal, North Star Policy Action’s research director, to the Reformer.

The St. Paul-based think tank’s report points out that the four wind projects would have a combined output of 1,119 megawatts, more than that of Xcel Energy’s Prairie Island nuclear power plant in the state. Minnesota has a mandate to have 100 percent carbon-free electricity in the state by 2040, and these wind projects would be a big step forward. 

Under President Biden, wind power got a big boost across the U.S., with the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act bringing billions of dollars of federal loans, tax credits, and grants. But Trump has a long-standing hatred of wind power going back to a bitter fight years ago against wind turbines built near his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland. 

On the first day of his second term as president, Trump signed an executive order freezing wind power permits both on- and off-shore. That lasted until June this year, when the administration abandoned its effort to defend the order in court. But Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said last year that he would have to personally approve any federal solar and wind permits, stalling national projects.  

“We have not approved one windmill since I’ve been in office. And we’re going to keep it that way. My goal is to not let any windmill be built,” Trump said in March. To satisfy the president’s vendetta, the federal government has been buying out developers and companies seeking to build wind projects. 

Wind power is abundant in the U.S., especially in the Midwest, and doesn’t produce carbon emissions or pollution. The costs to set up wind farms are rapidly dropping, and it only takes 6 to 9 miles per hour—a gentle breeze—to get turbines to spin and generate electricity. But to the anti-green Trump administration, anything that isn’t oil and gas should be shut down, even if it means higher electricity bills. 

“While there will always be room for improvement, this report is not a fair characterization of the work and totality of the National Museum of American History,” Bunch said in an internal letter obtained by ABC News. “At the Smithsonian, our work is driven by scholarship, accuracy, and an uncompromising commitment to tell the fullness of America’s story.… As public servants and the keepers of this institution, we are charged with helping a nation find understanding, hope, and clarity and as part of that duty, we are dedicated to excellence, reflection, and growth.”

The White House’s Domestic Policy Council essentially called the Smithsonian an extremist, anti-white, anti-American organization, writing that the museum “has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”

“As it stands today, it would benefit most Americans, especially parents bringing their children for a tour, if the Smithsonian’s flagship history museum had a label at every entrance that reads: ‘Warning: the exhibits in this museum were prepared by people who don’t want you to love your country,’” the report concluded.

Bunch, who is the Smithsonian’s first Black chief and whose time leading the institution may very well be limited, encouraged his staff to continue to use their work to “find understanding, hope, and clarity.”

How much can you really love America if you’re not willing to see all sides of its history, from its most triumphant moments to its most abhorrent ones? Everything contained in the Smithsonian museums—from the National African American History and Culture Museum to the American Art Museum—is there because it had an outsize impact on American culture. It seems that the right just can’t handle hearing anything negative about this country at all, regardless of how truthful it is.

White House senior deputy press secretary Kush Desai crashed out Thursday when faced with a report that Trump didn’t deserve any credit for Walmart’s recent price reduction on beef, which has seen an average national price increase of 13 percent in the last year.

“The President and Walmart’s announcement was that the sale is extending all summer long,” he wrote on X. “This is a big win for Americans. The media’s obsessive need to try to undermine any good news when it affects President Trump is pathological.”

Trump announced Monday that he’d directed the country’s largest grocer to initiate massive price cuts—but the company’s standard seasonal sale was already underway.

“I have just been informed that one of the biggest, best, and smartest Retailers in America, Walmart, will be lowering prices, by a lot, at my Administration’s request to celebrate our great Country’s 250th birthday,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Walmart will, in particular, be dropping the price for a pound of ground beef by almost 15%, among many other products.”

But a spokesperson for Walmart told The Bulwark Thursday that the retailer had begun one of its price “rollback” events last week—before Trump declared he’d won a discount for millions of Americans.

In a press release Monday, Walmart announced that it would lower prices for barbecue essentials like ground beef, potato chips, and soda. Nowhere in the press release did the company mention the Trump administration, or the country’s 250th anniversary.

Trump’s Department of Agriculture has begun a pressure campaign on grocers to lower beef prices, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. But when the USDA called up Walmart, the retailer said it already had plans to reduce prices for the summer, including for beef, two people familiar with the matter told the Journal.

Walmart ran a Walmart Deals campaign between June 22 and June 28. It appears that the company already had plans to extend the sale after that date without any urging from Trump at all.

Hegseth has recently complained in private about seeing service members with facial hair, going so far as to suggest that the military’s senior leadership has not fully embraced his new appearance and hygiene requirements, according to U.S. officials that spoke with CBS News Friday.

One unidentified official told the network that Hegseth was frustrated that his speech last year did not produce immediate results.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell attributed Hegseth’s anger to his high expectations.

“Secretary Hegseth maintains the highest expectations for our service members to uphold the professional standards of appearance, fitness, and discipline that define our warfighting force, and he continues to emphasize consistent enforcement of hair, weight, and grooming standards across all ranks,” Parnell said in a statement to CBS News.

“Commanders at every level are expected to lead by example by meeting these standards, implementing these requirements, and they will be held accountable for delivering results as the Department works to restore a culture of excellence and readiness,” Parnell continued. “Our Armed Forces are stronger when every service member meets and exceeds these expectations.”

Last September, Hegseth ordered hundreds of America’s top military commanders to leave their international posts to attend a mandatory in-person assembly in Quantico, Virginia, during which the hairphobic ex–Fox News host unveiled his agenda to de-woke the country’s armed forces.

The plan involved snipping away shaving waivers, despite the disproportionate impact that the requirement would have on Black service members, who are more frequently diagnosed with pseudofolliculitis barbae—or chronic razor bumps—due to the curl pattern of the hair and the subsequent injurious effects of frequently shaving their faces. The painful inflammatory condition has been estimated to affect somewhere between 45 percent to 83 percent of the Black male population in the U.S.

“No more beardos,” Hegseth said during his address. “Calling someone to shave, or work hard, is exactly the kind of workforce we want.”

“The era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done,” Hegseth noted at the time, adding that anyone unwilling to comply should look for a “new position or a new profession.”

Branches of the military have distributed their own internal guidance per the new grooming mandate, revealing that even those with medical exemptions will not be allowed to receive accommodations past 12 consecutive months.

The Washington Post reports that the administration and Secret Service plan to put fences where Pennsylvania Avenue crosses 15th and 17th Streets NW, allowing them to close pedestrian access if they decide there are security risks.

Multiple presidential administrations have used temporary barriers on Pennsylvania Avenue, but the Secret Service’s suggestion to erect permanent fences there has faced pushback as a clear attempt to restrict public access to the White House. The Trump administration is also planning to put up permanent fencing around Lafayette Square, a public park across from the White House and another historic protest space.

The fences on Pennsylvania Avenue would affect multiple organizations that are located on the street, including the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s Renwick Gallery and the Milken Center for Advancing the American Dream. And new fencing could cut off the public’s view of the White House and deter, if not outright bar, pedestrians from getting through.

“This would mean that residents and tourists alike would be unable to see the White House from any reasonable distance, especially if Trump plants more trees in the Park,” said Michael McGill, a former General Services Administration official who also served on the Capitol Planning Commission, in an email to the Post, referring to Trump’s other plan to plant 47 trees in Lafayette Park.

In May, parts of Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and Lafayette Square were painted with yellow lines to allow cars to park during special events over the summer, including President Trump’s “UFC Freedom 250” birthday fight and fan festival at the Ellipse. Trump has gone out of his way to remake the White House (like his ballroom) and the parts of Washington near it without any regard for public opinion.

The agents stated that Salgado Araujo, a Mexican immigrant and father of three who was on his way to work, had ignored their verbal commands, “weaponized his vehicle,” and tried to run over one of them. The agent shot him and claimed self-defense.

“That is a lie,” Jose Trinidad Rojas, 51, said in a handwritten statement offered to The Washington Post by his lawyer, Hugo Balderas-Ibarra. “It is impossible for them to say that they were going to get run over.... There were no officers in front of or behind the vehicle. They were on the sides.... Lorenzo thought we had lost them but suddenly they surrounded us.”

Balderas-Ibarra said he spoke to Rojas and the two other passengers—Daniel Tirado Pantoja and Victor Salgado, Salgado Araujo’s brother—separately, and each stated that ICE lied about Salgado Araujo’s violent intent. Victor also said that agents began firing from their vehicle’s passenger side, striking his brother in the abdomen and then mocking him while he bled out, saying, “You wanted to escape, right?”

All four men in the car had been in the United States for at least two decades. They were arrested and taken into custody shortly after the shooting.

Not only do these witnesses say ICE is lying, the footage of the incident suggests they were too. Video obtained by local outlet KHOU 11 shows the agents tried to box Salgado Araujo’s car in with their unmarked black SUV, initiating the conflict. When Salgado Araujo made a U-turn and fled in the other direction, the agents (who could have been anyone to him, as they were in an unmarked vehicle) followed him. Even worse, The New York Times reported that Salgado Araujo wasn’t even the intended target—they were hunting two immigrants from Guatemala. Now Salgado Araujo is dead for no reason. He is the tenth person to be fatally shot by federal immigration agents since President Trump returned to office.

But November is a long way away. If—and it’s a big but by no means insurmountable if—the Democrats make it through these next two weeks without too many bruises and unite behind a nominee, Collins is still going to be fighting for her life in a Democratic state where Donald Trump’s approval rating is 36 percent, where 85 percent say the state’s economy is fair or poor, and where the generic Democratic congressional edge in one recent poll is a hefty 11 percent. Those are all terrifying numbers for Collins, and she knows it.

Before we get into all that, a few closing thoughts on Platner. I wrote about him a month ago, after The New York Times published some unsavory revelations about his treatment of some former girlfriends (while others said he was fine toward them), and right before the primary. I wrote that since he was almost certain to be the nominee, national Democrats needed to back him.

I did, however, add three caveats, as experience has taught me to do in such situations: “Short of revelations involving murder, rape, or a taste for child pornography, Platner needs to be backed by Democrats to the hilt.” Well, he managed one out of three, but one is enough. It’s utterly and obviously disqualifying.

Some Platner defenders have tried to say, What about innocent until proven guilty? That’s ridiculous in the context of running for office. Yes, it means everything in a court of law, where a defendant is on trial for his very freedom; there, he is absolutely entitled to a presumption of innocence, and he must be given his day in court so that we all hear his side. But a political campaign isn’t a criminal trial. In a political campaign, political judgments must be made, and the clear political judgment here is that no party can back someone facing a credible allegation of rape, for God’s sake.

As for the intentionally weak vetting of Platner by the young leftist strategists who “discovered” him: I hope people have learned some obvious lessons. Daniel Moraff, the person who’s apparently largely responsible for this debacle, told The Wall Street Journal last month that he sensed a public thirsting for non-cookie-cutter candidates who challenge the status quo. That’s surely true, in a lot of places, but it hardly means you don’t need to put your candidates through the usual paces. It’s grotesquely arrogant and irresponsible, and if Collins ends up winning, Moraff will bear a huge share of the blame.

However: I still say, Moraff and Platner aside, Collins could well be in far more trouble with a new Democratic nominee. Kamala Harris beat Trump by seven points in the state. And as I noted above, in a recent poll, respondents said that for Congress, they’d choose a Democrat over a Republican by 53 percent to 42 percent. On top of that, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Hannah Pingree, who will be at the top of the ticket, looks like she’s going to beat her Republican foe by around 15 points. That means Collins is going to have to convince a lot of independents to switch from the D column to the R one as they move down the ballot from governor to senator.

Collins has won such voters before, but I would remind people, as they look over past elections for parallels, to take note not only of what’s similar but of what’s different.

The main (as it were) case in point here is 2014. Shenna Bellows, the current secretary of state and a leading contender to replace Platner, was the Democratic nominee against Collins that year. Collins blew her out by 30 points, which some say should raise a lot of red flags.

Well, there are a host of differences between 2014 and today. One, Bellows was a 39-year-old novice then, who had never held office and whose claim to fame was that she had been the head of the state’s ACLU. Two, it was the sixth year of a Democratic incumbent presidency, a notoriously hard year for candidates of said party. Three, the Maine of 2014 was in such a cantankerous state that it reelected embarrassing extremist loudmouth Paul LePage as its governor. Four, it was pre-Trump, which changes everything. Five, it was before Collins’s vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice because she took him at his word that Roe v. Wade was “settled law.”

I’m not saying Bellows should be the choice. I don’t know enough about the available candidates or the ins and outs of Maine politics. That’s up to those 600 Democratic delegates to sort out and decide. I’m just saying that what’s past isn’t always prologue. The point is what’s going on now. And what’s going on now, nationally and in Maine, is a strong anti-Trump sentiment—and a GOP incumbent senator who voted to confirm 22 of Trump’s 23 Cabinet nominees.

What the Maine Democratic Party, and to some extent the national Democratic Party, has to do here is run a process that is widely accepted as having two qualities: It must be transparent, and it has to feel fair. The party needs to give voters and citizens regular updates on the process—this is happening today; this is happening next Tuesday—so that everyone feels they’re in the loop and no one feels sandbagged. And it needs to feel fair so that in the end, everyone at least feels that they need to accept the outcome.

As for the national party, I hope Chuck Schumer has the sense to stay completely out of this. His fear of Platner turns out to have been justified, but the way he pushed Governor Janet Mills—who ran as if she didn’t really want to be there—into the race only helped Platner score the nomination. If Schumer and national Democrats are perceived as putting their finger on the scale for a candidate—for instance, in order to stop former state Senate Majority Leader Troy Jackson, who is widely seen as most Platner-like in his populist politics—they’ll only sow rancor and help Collins in the long run.

In the short term, this was a good week for Susan Collins. But to paraphrase Harry Hopkins, people don’t vote in the short term. They vote in November. By then, she could very well be regretting this week’s events.

If passed, the new rules would also allow President Trump’s political appointees to supersede federal agencies’ merit-based decisions in order to ensure the grants “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” There is also a portion of the proposal that bans the use of “theories of disparate-impact liability”—a legal concept that helps determine when a policy is disproportionately discriminatory.

Experts argue that the change would give Trump’s political appointees, most of whom are not experts, undue control over what kind of research gets funded. 

“This touches all parts of American life,” Veterans Administration psychiatrist Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan told the Los Angeles Times in an article published Friday. “Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars.… If there’s a specific age range that is at higher risk for suicide, and we want to figure out, well, what’s going on with people that are aged 14 to 19 … we can’t do that under the wording in this rule.”

A massive group of various experts in fields ranging from cancer research to public housing have come out against the proposal, and there are over 100,000 comments on it. OMB published the proposed rule in the federal register in May, and the comment period ends July 13.

“A significant number of the provisions in this proposal would in fact increase administrative complexity, create uncertainty for grant recipients, reduce transparency in funding decisions, and undermine the merit-based processes that have effectively guided federal research investments,” the American Association for Cancer Research said in a statement. “This OMB proposal is reckless and does not meet the high U.S. standards required for a meritorious, impactful research grant program.”

The Planetary Society wrote in its own statement, “Science is the backbone of the American economy, generating a 3-to-1 return on the taxpayer’s investment. Our nation has always relied on merit-based, independent scientific review to select the best ideas and new technologies for development. The proposed rule changes would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.”

Even Republican Senator Susan Collins expressed her concern, writing that it would “inject uncertainty into the Federal award process, especially for awards that span multiple years and phases and make these awards more costly.” She also noted that the “termination of clinical trials would leave patients without treatment and could well result in significant scientific and financial losses to both the recipient and the Federal government.” 

The OMB, led by Project 2025 architect Russell Vought, has been one of the president’s most favored tools of administrative destruction, as it’s helped him do everything from slashing crucial programs like U.S. Agency for International Development to shifting money toward his White House ballroom.  

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97 percent with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats,” Trump posted on Truth Social Friday morning.

But Trump’s protest is pointless: the Constitution states that bills automatically become law after 10 days if the president neither signs nor vetoes them. The housing affordability measure passed both chambers of Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and Trump has not indicated that he will issue a last-minute veto of the measure. It is currently scheduled to become law at midnight.

The SAVE America Act, on the other hand, sparked nationwide controversy earlier this year, particularly over a detail in the first version of the bill that would have made it more difficult for married women to vote. Backlash over the bill has been so severe that, in the months since Trump insisted it should be Congress’s top priority, dispute over the voter ID bill has gummed up efforts to fund the Department of Homeland Security, stalled attempts to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, and upended Trump’s own cabinet nominations.

The original SAVE America Act suggested numerous amendments to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, including line items that would abolish mail-in voting, require voters to bring proof of citizenship and proof of residency to register to vote, require voter ID, and mandate voter roll purges every 30 days.

But the bill has been radically pared down since then, in large part due to the improbability of passing it in whole. House Speaker Mike Johnson has claimed that the current iteration of the act proposed by the lower chamber preserves the “backbone” of what Trump is pushing to pass in the Senate.

That includes requirements to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote—such as a birth certificate or a U.S. passport (which only half of the population currently possesses)—and a mandate to present photo identification when casting a ballot. Trump has also insisted that the bill ban mail-in voting, describing the procedure as “crooked” and “corrupt” despite the fact that he himself has cast several mail-in ballots.

“THE SAVE AMERICA ACT’S non-passage is CRAZY, and a serious threat to any politician who votes against it!” Trump continued in his Friday post. “If the Dumocrats, or any RINO (or worse!) working with them, do not allow a positive Vote on SAVE AMERICA, TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, and pass this, and every other Bill that true Republicans have ever dreamt of (In addition to the upcoming Budget BOMB and the 1929 catastrophic style DEBT CEILING BILL!)”

But Republicans simply do not have the votes to end the filibuster or pass Trump’s unpopular voter ID bill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune told The Hill last month.

Meanwhile, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is an immediate necessity to free up America’s housing market. It was drafted to address the American housing crisis, which has suffered from bottlenecked supply, stalled family growth, and surged home and rental prices across the country. The bill will funnel resources towards increasing housing supply, streamlined environmental reviews, and force the Department of Housing and Urban Development to address red-tape issues related to zoning and land-use that have historically posed barriers to housing development.

In June, Trump described the bill as “a yawn.”

Trump’s intention to detach himself from the effort comes on the heels of a bombshell report by the National Association of Realtors that indicated national home prices in June rose to the highest level on record.

“Republicans would rather make it harder to vote than easier to afford a home,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrote on X, responding to Trump. “When people show you who they are, believe them.”

This story has been updated.

CNN spoke to a neighbor of the Kentucky senator and former Senate majority leader, who said that they saw two ambulances, a fire truck, and Capitol Police officers blocking their street at 8:30 a.m. on June 14. That neighbor took a video of emergency responders pushing a person, whose face is not visible, on a stretcher to an ambulance.

Breaking new video obtained by @cnn shows Mitch McConnell being carried out on a stretcher.

America deserves answers now! This Republican coverup needs to stop! pic.twitter.com/q8yTAGBn52

— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) July 10, 2026

When the neighbor asked what was going on, police officers said that there was a medical emergency. The neighbor then asked if the person having the emergency was McConnell, to which the officers replied they would close the street for any person, according to CNN. The neighbor said that another witness told them that McConnell was the person on the stretcher and wasn’t wearing an oxygen mask.

“He’s in a stretcher, and he’s in some sort like orange foam looking blanket type thing,” the neighbor told the news outlet, adding that they could see McConnell’s uncovered feet, which did not appear to be moving. The first responders did not seem to be moving urgently, the neighbor noted.

“In a situation where perhaps time is of the essence, there seems to be a little bit more urgency, but there was no urgency here,” the neighbor said to CNN.

Very little information is known about McConnell’s condition, as his office hasn’t divulged much information in the nearly one month he’s been at George Washington University Hospital, only to say that he’s been receiving “excellent care.” Some on the right speculate that McConnell is brain-dead or worse, as no pictures or audio of the senator have been made public.

McConnell’s congressional colleagues claim to have spoken to him on the phone, but the public has not seen anything about McConnell’s physical or mental state. Kentucky’s Democratic Governor Andy Beshear is demanding answers from McConnell’s office on what’s going on.

The last three remaining members of the four-member bipartisan commission were forced out of the independent agency Thursday. The two Democratic appointees—Thomas Hicks and Benjamin W. Hovland—were fired via an email notice from the White House Presidential Personnel ​Office, according to inside sources that spoke with Reuters. The agency’s Republican commissioner—Christy McCormick—recieved a call and was asked to resign, reported NBC News.

“On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as Commissioner of the Election Assistance ​Commission is terminated, effective immediately. Thank you for your service,” read the termination email delivered to the two Democratic appointees.

The Election Assistance Commission, or EAC, was created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to help states administer elections. It has also provided consultation on voting procedures. Its fourth commissioner left the agency in April.

The mass overhaul comes in the immediate wake of a Supreme Court decision—Trump v. Slaughter—that granted the president more power over independent agencies late last month. The 6–3 decision overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 91-year-old precedent that had historically shielded staffers at such agencies from political interference by protecting them from being fired by the president at will.

The White House confirmed the terminations later on Thursday, suggesting that the EAC commissioners had not passed the Trump administration’s loyalty test.

“The President, and head of the Executive Branch, reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections and ensuring ​every legal vote is counted,” a White House official said in a statement that cited the Supreme Court’s decision.

The White House told NBC News that all of the EAC’s members “will be replaced,” though doing so will require presidential appointments and subsequent Senate confirmations. Considering Capitol Hill’s current appointment turnaround times (as influenced by Trump’s demands around the SAVE America Act), that process could take an extraordinarily long amount of time at a point when America only has a few short months until a contentious midterm season.

When ICE agents conducted a deadly traffic stop in Houston on Tuesday, they were looking for two people from Guatemala, two people familiar with the matter told The New York Times. Agents believed one of the people they were looking for drove a white van—instead, they found Salgado Araujo and three men he was driving to work.

Before conducting the traffic stop, federal agents knew they had the wrong man. They reportedly looked up the owner of the van and learned it was Salgado Araujo, who was undocumented. The supposedly “targeted operation” ended in ICE’s tenth fatal shooting this year.

In the hours after the shooting, the Department of Homeland Security claimed the officer had fired in self-defense after Salgado Araujo refused to comply with orders and “weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run over an ICE law enforcement officer.”

But the other three men in the car who were arrested by ICE told their lawyer that was a lie—there were no officers in front of or behind the vehicle. Surveillance footage from the traffic stop also doesn’t support DHS’s claim. One video showed that agents boxed in Salgado Araujo’s car, before he attempted to U-turn and drive the other way. Another video showed that there was no damage to the ICE agents’ vehicle.

In another potentially dark turn in the saga, the three men who were with Salgado Araujo are under pressure from immigration officials to agree to self-deport, Juan Proaño, a representative for the families and CEO of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said in an interview with The New Republic.

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

A 52-year-old man named Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was shot dead by an ICE officer this week. ICE claimed it was in self-defense, but this account deserves serious skepticism. And indeed, this story has now gotten even darker. A representative for the victim’s family now says the three other men in the van with Araujo are not just in detention, they’re also under pressure to self-deport.

All this comes as even some MAGA judges are starting to reject Trump’s deportation policies in surprising numbers. So it’s time to take stock. Trump and Stephen Miller are escalating deportations in a big way, but trying to do so very quietly. We’re at a real crossroads moment here that will determine how far they can get with their lawless ethnic cleansing campaign. We’re talking about all this with New Republic staff writer Melissa Gira Grant, who has a great piece laying out why people need to care a lot about this shooting. Melissa, good to have you on.

Melissa Gira Grant: Hey, thank you, Greg. Yeah, the piece is called “ICE Is Hoping You Won’t Notice the Man Agents Killed in Texas.”

Sargent: And ICE really is hoping that. Let’s start with this shooting. It was around six in the morning. Lorenzo was driving to a construction job with three other guys. He stopped as part of a targeted operation. ICE now claims that he attempted to evade arrest, refused to follow verbal commands, and then weaponized his vehicle against an officer, who then fired in self-defense. It hit Araujo in the stomach, and he died at the hospital. Melissa, can you explain why this account is worthy of skepticism?

Grant: So we’ve been hearing a lot from ICE and from DHS that people are using their cars as deadly weapons, or to potentially injure an officer. And that was certainly the case they made, for example, with Renée Good. They lied and said she was driving into them. We know that’s not the case.

So at the time, Araujo, his brother, and two other men—the three of them were part of a construction crew. You know, Araujo has been working in construction for like 35 years in Houston and then the suburbs around there. He was on the way to work.

When ICE approached him, as I understand it, they were in their vehicle. And we know from other ICE stops in other cities, they tend to drive vehicles that are unmarked. They tend to use their car to box someone in. And at times they approach people very threateningly without clearly identifying themselves as law enforcement. And I think we have every reason to believe that that is part of what happened in this case. It would be their pattern. If they didn’t do that, it would be a break with their pattern.

Sargent: Let’s talk about who Araujo is. He’s 52 years old. He’s been in this country for 35 years. He started his own business. He put several children through college. They’re all now grown up. And Araujo’s son, Ronaldo Salgado, says that the family had actually been preparing for the possibility that he might be picked up.

And they had a whole plan in place where he would just cooperate, and then the family would try to get him freed. So it’s a little hard to see this guy as someone who would try to commit vehicular manslaughter against law enforcement, isn’t it?

Grant: Yeah, it doesn’t make any sense that he would do anything to endanger himself when he had family support in a plan that ran counter to that. It is very clear from listening to the press conferences and reading some of what his son Ronaldo has posted on social media that this is somebody who had a lot of support and I don’t think would make a rash decision in the moment.

Sargent: It really doesn’t seem like it. Now let’s talk about these three other guys who are in the van. As you mentioned, one was Araujo’s brother. The other two were workers at Araujo’s business. As we reported at NewRepublic.com on Thursday, a representative for all these families, Juan Proaño, who’s the CEO of the League of United Latin American Citizens, now says those three guys are in detention, and that they’re under pressure to sign self-deportation orders. As Proaño says, these could be the only witnesses that could contest the government’s account of the shooting.

There doesn’t appear to be any video of the shooting itself. There’s been video of the aftermath, but not the shooting itself. And yet these guys who saw this happen—presumably, we don’t know that they did, but it seems highly plausible that they might have—they might be removed from the country. Melissa, what do you make of that?

Grant: It is possible that they are the only witnesses, and it’s possible that that is factoring into how DHS is looking at this. And again, you said we don’t know what they witnessed, but I have to believe that they have more context, and that context is probably not favorable to the ICE and DHS story.

Sargent: Absolutely. It does seem like that. By the way, I want to quickly note that in response to my questions about this, ICE put out a statement that entirely dodged the matter. It was just boilerplate repeating what it had said before, and then adding that this is a developing situation. They won’t say any more.

They just referred all further questions to the FBI. So as of this recording, ICE is not denying that they are pressuring several witnesses to this thing that just happened to self-deport, remove themselves from the country.

And by the way, one other thing—we should note that Juan Proaño, who represents the families, did say on a conference call today that he does think the three men are illegal. So they may actually be deported, or at least subject to deportation. And it’s possible ICE is trying to deport them to prevent them from sharing their account of what happened, which is just amazing.

Grant: It’s something that stuck out as I was working on the background to ICE killings for my story. That, you know, we have 16 examples in the second Trump administration of the administration’s story coming to the conclusion that the shooting was justified before an investigation had even concluded. And so that’s the context in which I understand the statement that ICE made in response to your reporting. They’re going to allude to there being an investigation.

The other thing about any kind of investigation—local law enforcement, including the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, they have tried to join the investigation, offer assistance. They have been denied that. And that includes being denied access to key pieces of evidence.

So we’re being asked to, again, very similarly with Renée Good and Alex Pretti, we’re being asked to fall for what I don’t think you could ever call an independent investigation at this point, and they’re rejecting any outside law enforcement participation. I would not be surprised if the White House comes out and just says this is justified, moving on, and tries to let that be the end of the story. And as I understand it, this community will not let that be the end of the story.

Sargent: Well, it sure looks like there’s a major groundswell for Araujo right now. You had this very good piece about this shooting as well. I want to highlight one thing you wrote—how the government’s cavalier response to this killing really shows that Trump and Stephen Miller and MAGA just don’t regard people like Araujo as fundamentally human: You wrote, “[For them] the lives of people who aren’t worthy of citizenship have no value.”

And they really tried to create a second-class caste out of undocumented immigrants by pushing the end to birthright citizenship. They failed there, but they are going to do everything they possibly can to try and treat undocumented immigrants—and plenty of legal immigrants as well—as an inferior caste. That’s what’s happening now. Melissa, can you expand on that?

Grant: Sure. That comment, I was trying to capture the Trump administration’s ethos. That is certainly not my belief, that the lives of people who aren’t worthy of citizenship have no value. That is what this administration’s been telling us, I mean, since 2015, right? Since Trump came down the escalator.

This is where they’ve started. And, this idea of dehumanizing any immigrant in the course of this campaign—I feel like they’ve shown us multiple ways that they’re doing that, whether that’s in the legal arena, whether that is the news that they make, whether that is the panic that they’ve been kicking up over this. They’re fighting this in multiple arenas.

And there are two representatives from Congress who’ve also called for a full investigation. There may be others by now, but as of now, one of them is Christian Menefee, who I think has just very recently come to Congress—I think he only showed up in February. And he said something just completely perfect, honestly, at a press conference the family held earlier this week.

He said, “What other profession has the power to take somebody’s life in the … street? And meanwhile, our administration is in court fighting to make sure people like Ronaldo and Lorenzo Jr.”—which is another one of his sons—“can’t be citizens in this country.” Right? Like, Ronaldo, Lorenzo Jr., and the third—they are here because their father came here and they were born here.

Sargent: There’s a big tool that the administration has been using to try to maximize the deportations and maximize the ethnic cleansing. ICE is trying to detain people without bond—even if they’ve been in the country for many years, when they’d ordinarily be afforded bond.

Politico’s Kyle Cheney, who’s done great reporting on this, has just done a big count. He put out a piece saying that this has now been rejected by judges 15,000 times. Melissa, can you walk us through what this thing is about, what this policy is about, what they’re trying to do, and why it’s not working?

Grant: Sure. So, we’ve had decades of immigration laws that were and weren’t enforced in various ways. Like, I think that’s a good place to start. Every administration kind of comes in and is like, what are going to be our priorities? And even though this law has been sitting on the books for 30 years, it has never been used in this way.

The law that the Trump administration is weaponizing here concerns when someone can be detained, and for how long they can be detained, when they’ve come into the country. And standard practice had been, for decades in this country, even before this law, that people weren’t detained for crossing the border. That is a very insignificant crime. There’s a whole process for that person to get status in the country. It is optional for the government to detain someone for crossing the border. That is on them.

And now we’ve swung all the way to actually every single person—and actually not every single person who crosses the border, but every single person who doesn’t have legal status, or people who we have profiled as not having legal status, is fair game to be detained.

And an even older legal principle, of habeas corpus—literally “show us the body,” produce the body—using this tool, attorneys and families have been able to get people who are now being swept up by the thousands into immigration detention. I mean, we’re detaining more people in immigration detention than we ever have. I think it was 63,000 was the most recent number that I saw. That might already be out of date.

It’s really fascinating. It’s a kind of super simple, super basic principle that, like, you can’t actually just hold somebody for as long as you want without giving them due process. And immigration court is not the same thing as our criminal or civil courts—it’s its own process. People don’t have the same rights to counsel, for example. So what we have seen is this upswell of lawyers and community organizations using the habeas process to get people out, and seeing that in numbers that we’ve never seen before.

So the fact that, you know, more than 15,000 times judges have rejected this mass detention policy—the flip side of that is that that is 15,000 habeas petitions that succeeded. That’s 15,000 people, potentially, who were released.

And so it’s this cat and mouse of, like, the more people you detain, the more habeas petitions we’re going to throw at you, and the busier the courts are going to get, and the more incentivized judges are going to be to let people go. They can’t simply keep up with these numbers. And that’s the story I see behind that number too.

Sargent: There’s one other nugget of reporting from Kyle Cheney that I want to highlight here. He did this big count, and he found that even a majority of Trump-appointed judges who have considered this detention policy have ultimately rejected it. That seems to me to be pretty remarkable.

We’re talking about MAGA judges, judges who were picked by Donald Trump, who agree with more liberal judges that this major tool that they’re using—again, this is absolutely central to their entire mass deportation campaign—this major tool that they’re using is too much for a majority of Trump-appointed judges who have considered it.

Grant: This novel legal argument, this real stretch of a legal argument that has not been made before—I mean, it could just be like a true small-c conservatism on the part of these judges, is like, no, you can’t do this. You can’t just make up a new interpretation. This is too far.

I do suspect, though, that part of it is the sheer number of cases. None of these judges have been called upon to deal with this kind of volume, this many habeas cases, this many immigrants who have been detained.

Like, in a way, Trump and Stephen Miller, who I’m assuming is a significant architect of this policy interpretation—they have created the situation for their own failure. It just simply cannot circulate this many people through the system. And when you increase the number of people who are being harmed by this, there’s more people who are going to fight.

And then there’s other people—attorneys are looking at the success that attorneys are having in other circuits, and they’re going for it. It’s sort of a snowball effect at this point. And it only stops if they actually stop detaining people.

Sargent: So that brings me to the concluding question here. We’re sort of in this split-screen moment. On one screen, Trump and Stephen Miller have amassed really tremendous power to carry out this ethnic cleansing. They’ve gotten billions and billions, tens of billions of dollars, that’s basically not subject to any serious oversight, which they’re using to build massive detention centers and hire God knows how many ICE agents. They’ve got this real army at this point, which is armed with paramilitary weaponry in a very serious way. So they’ve got that, they’ve got all this power.

Yet on the other flip side of this whole thing, we’re seeing tremendous resistance to what Trump and Stephen Miller are wanting to do. You saw this backlash in Minneapolis. Public polls have shown that solid majorities are rejecting this. They reject the mass deportations as a policy, not just the tactics that we’re seeing in the streets.

You’ve got the courts really drawing a very hard line in many cases against this. There’s serious institutional resistance. You had the Supreme Court—not by enough, but still, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship. And you have Trump-appointed judges in enormous numbers saying, no, you can’t do this.

So where are we? How far are they going to get? I tend to think that they’re not actually going to get that far towards what they want. What’s your reading of it?

Grant: I mean, there’s optics, and then there’s what’s happening in the courts, and then there’s what’s actually happening in people’s neighborhoods. So one of the things I found pulling my piece together—there was that big moment after the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti of an alleged drawdown in Minneapolis.

There were some personnel changes—Gregory Bovino, the guy in the greatcoat with the kind of Nazi-appealing haircut—he’s out, we’re bringing in Tom Homan. He’s an old hand. He looks more legitimate, even though arguably he’s in the same exact lane ideologically as the rest of them.

A few months later, we get rid of Kristi Noem, we bring in Markwayne Mullin. I think there’s something going on where they at least want to change the optics. They at least want to make it look like grown-ups are in charge. And that to me says, like, what was sort of building up to Minneapolis—they took that very seriously. They don’t want to be in that position again.

However, we are seeing this huge increase in arrests and detentions. You know, we have double the amount of detentions daily happening in some cases. There were five days in June this year where 10,000 people were arrested by immigration agents. That’s double what would be the normal rate even under this administration.

So it’s important right now for people to maintain their focus, maintain the work that they’ve been doing to challenge these policies, and press for more. This is, I think, exactly what the administration would like—is for us to turn away and believe that things have changed. And they certainly have not.

Sargent: A hundred percent. Couldn’t have said it better. I really agree with that. I really hope people take that to heart. Folks, you saw what happened in Texas. That’s a very good sign that Melissa’s really onto something here. So stay in this, people. Please stay on top of it. Melissa Gira Grant, awesome to talk to you. Thanks so much for all this.

Grant: So good to talk with you. Thanks.

Sargent: Folks, a quick announcement. The Daily Blast is taking a short break to recharge. The pod will return in a week, early in the morning on Monday, July 20. See you all then.

Back in D.C., I pitched my editor and later returned to the Denver area to live in the hotel for about five weeks. I got to know the people living there—how they lost their home and what life living in a hotel was like. My article, “The Weeklies,” ran in March 2013. I remain incredibly proud of it, because it highlighted the struggle ordinary Americans were facing as the economy slowly recovered from the housing crash.

I thought of all of this recently when I came across a link to a website called In the Weights. Designed to look like a 1980s computer game, it’s a database where you can “find out whether you live on” in large language models such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini, and assigns a score based on your prominence. That’s how In the Weights frames it, anyway—a naked appeal to vanity. In reality, the site shows you how much of your work has been used to train AI chatbots. I found that a lot of mine was: I was given a “strength” score of 735, which put me in the top 5 percent.

So I turned to the chatbots themselves for details. Some would not divulge which works of mine were used in their training, but Gemini cited my work at The American Prospect and TNR:

Your Reporting on Class and Poverty: I have access to the core concepts and reporting from your career, such as your pieces for The American Prospect covering the shredded social safety net, food insecurity among military families, and health disparities, as well as your recent coverage of working-class politics and economic anxiety for The New Republic.

There have been more than a few times lately when I wanted to throw my laptop across the room, drop everything, and go live in the woods. This was one of them.

“The Weeklies” wasn’t just a 7,000-word article; it was months of work. In fact, you could say I’d begun work on it even before I’d formed the idea. I had spent most of my twenties in low-paid, low-level journalism jobs, building up the reporting and writing expertise to even contemplate tackling such a story. Journalism jobs famously do not pay well: Into my mid-thirties, by the time I was writing long narratives, my salary remained $50,000. I struggled to pay rent in D.C. while also repaying my student loans from journalism graduate school. (I am still making $611.31 monthly payments and likely will continue to do so until I retire.)

I don’t want to throw too much of a pity party, but as someone who went to college thanks to financial aid and then borrowed to go to graduate school because I didn’t know how else to move into my desired career, I never had family money or connections to rely on. During these years, I struggled to keep up with my bills and to stay one step ahead of the layoffs devastating the entire industry. At various times, I put my student loans in forbearance, had a Honda Civic repossessed, and defaulted on credit cards. It took me years to dig out of that financial hole.

These are fairly common ups and downs for someone who grows up working-class in the U.S. These are also the kinds of trade-offs many people make early in their careers, as they hope to cash in on the experience later. Working hard at a low-paying job is supposed to allow you to step up a ladder to a more stable career. At least, that’s what we’re promised when we borrow money to get an education and then live on ramen, with multiple roommates, as we embark on a career.

AI is not the first technology to upend that promise, but it is the latest—and the one that has touched me most personally. It makes sense that I would be In the Weights. I wrote a lot of words during the early years of internet publishing, creating a body of work that is easy to find and offers free material for the LLMs to suck into their gaping maw. But it is a mistake to think of everything I published under my name as just internet writing. Each word came from years and years of labor.

A number of organizations are trying to tackle how AI is used in the workplace, and how workers might have say in its use and be protected from job loss. The AFL-CIO, in a platform released after its national convention last month, demanded that “working people have a say in how and whether AI and other advanced technologies are developed and deployed.” Former Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo is working with states, policymakers, industries, and Big Tech to design policy, training, and payment programs that help transition workers who may be displaced by AI. New America released a report late last month about “centering workers in the AI economy,” using lessons learned from major labor disruptions of the past. Even the pope has weighed in.

We definitely need to talk about where we’re headed, but what about where we’ve been? Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is the rare voice on Capitol Hill to acknowledge that AI “is based on the collective knowledge of humanity and the creative work of tens of millions of people.” Last month, he introduced a bill that would levy a one-time 50 percent tax on the stock of the largest AI firms to create a $7 trillion sovereign wealth fund, which every year would pay out more than $1,000 to everyone in the U.S. It would also give the federal government voting shares and positions on company boards to allow the public to have a say in its future use.

This legislation recognizes the real problem. I lived paycheck-to-paycheck to create the work that helps fuel LLMs today, yet I get zero compensation for it while global investment in AI is in the billions and it’s making Silicon Valley even richer. Elon Musk’s SpaceX absorbed his AI model, Grok, to increase the aerospace company’s value ahead of an IPO that briefly made Musk the world’s first trillionaire. AI may be a bubble, and I agree with the sociologist Zeynep Tufekci that AI can’t possibly steal all of our jobs, but it will make many people extremely rich no matter what. And they will have gotten rich because AI relied on the labor of working people without paying a cent for it.

Of course, this is part of a broader trend in which executives and investors mint millions while workers get an increasingly thin sliver of the pie. If you want one chart to explain why people are mad about the economy right now, look at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis’s chart showing how labor’s share of gross domestic product has declined since the 1950s.

These trends are global, but in the U.S. the divide is more extreme than in other countries. Our productivity keeps going up, but the gains are rewarding capital and pumping up CEO salaries. If the past is any guide, the people who will be the most hurt by AI disruptions are the workers who are later on in their careers who have built up a specific expertise and don’t easily transition into new jobs at the same salary as their previous jobs—and this chart shows that these are the workers who’ve been underpaid this whole time.

While anger at Big Tech is growing, I don’t know if people are angry enough, and I wonder if that’s partly because a lot of the work that has fueled social media platforms and now AI is in creative fields like art and writing, which are misunderstood or esoteric to many Americans. The writing that many people do in their own working lives might be annoying paperwork, like a self-evaluation, or a cover letter in a job application—typing, basically. But writing, whether a quick take on the day’s news or months of reporting, is really the product of months or even years of labor. Writing also demands thinking, which is work in itself. Generative AI can write, albeit very poorly, but it can’t really think—not as humans do. The best it can do is scan all of its inputs—the result of human beings’ thoughts—in order to approximate the output a human would provide.

Big Tech wants us to believe they’re concerned about the effects their models might have on real people, like creating mass unemployment. Anthropic positions itself as an ethical AI company, and its CEO, Dario Amodei, has aligned with the Vatican on its concerns about the human costs of AI. Other tech CEOs make noises about policies like guaranteed income that would allow people to earn salaries even without jobs. But that kind of generosity is at odds with the way they built their models in the first place—by stealing others’ intellectual property.

Only politics can address the problems with AI, but for the past 50 years our leaders in Washington have largely abandoned labor in favor of companies’ capital growth. Wages, taxes, and regulations have undervalued the work and safety of real people, driving the K-shaped economic growth we see now. Political and economic systems won’t change course unless we force them to. To use an example from the past, the Luddite rebellion was not a wholesale rejection of modern advances. The Luddites were textile workers angry about how mechanization was being used to exploit working people, and they protested by destroying automated power looms. My desire to smash my laptop comes from an old tradition.

“The attacks were four to five times more extensive than other strikes launched since the agreement to end the war was signed last month,” a senior Trump official told The Wall Street Journal. That official also told the Journal that “the U.S. still considers the ceasefire in effect.”

Another official was much blunter to Axios’s Barak Ravid, saying, “We’re going to slap them a bit so they understand we’re not fucking around.”

It’s been roughly a month since the U.S. and Iran reached a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the war, and three months since the two sides first agreed to a ceasefire. And this is hardly the first flare-up in hostilities over that time. So what do you call a ceasefire that is punctured by expansive, destructive strikes every few weeks, if not days? Is it still a ceasefire? Is the goal still to reach a deal to end the war? Or are we entering a new phase, in which both sides insist they are working to reach a permanent solution while maintaining the tit-for-tat status quo for ... how long, exactly?

Every day, this conflict looks more and more like Trump’s forever war. It may not ever involve boots on the ground or “regime change” on par with Iraq or Afghanistan. But it shows every sign of persisting as those wars did—and every sign of being left for his successors to truly resolve.

The ceasefire is still in effect even as the U.S. fires missiles into five Iranian provinces and Iran fires back at U.S. military bases across the Persian Gulf. A legal agreement, it can withstand—as several have, most recently in Gaza—widespread violence without being formally “broken.” But how different is the current situation from the one that preceded last month’s agreement? Even if both parties cling to the “ceasefire,” it’s hard to argue that there has been much improvement since April, when negotiations to end the Iran war began in earnest.

It is, I suppose, good news in and of itself that both sides agree the ceasefire is still in effect, even amid periodic bombing; it suggests that neither intends to fully resume hostilities. But the larger picture is bleak: a war that continues indefinitely, via extensive strikes that occur for a few days at a time, when it suits the regional interests of the Iranian regime or the economic ones of the U.S. It’s clear that the Trump administration is frightened that a long-lasting closure of the Strait of Hormuz would cripple the global economy and trigger a recession in the U.S. But it also seems clear that periodic closures of the strait do not worry it. Iran, meanwhile, has proven able to withstand the U.S. strikes, though is careful not to retaliate in a way that would trigger a more devastating (and potentially nuclear) reaction from Trump. So it flexes its muscle largely by showing it’s capable of controlling the strait enough to deter commercial maritime traffic.

Thus, the current quagmire.

The biggest problem with the Trump administration’s handling of the Iran war has always been its lack of clear objectives at the beginning. It was clear that the president, misled by key advisers, began the conflict under the mistaken belief that it would end so quickly that Iran wouldn’t even have the time or capability to close the Strait of Hormuz. Iran proved otherwise, of course, and ever since it has had the upper hand. The U.S. now has few ways to end the war without granting clear concessions to a regime it had set out to topple in late February.

Regime change, at least, now seems off the table. But the U.S. also seems intent on “slapping” around the Iranians whenever it feels like it—even though it’s still not clear what the administration hopes to get out of a longer and more robust peace agreement than the ceasefire deal that was reached last month, beyond, perhaps, an end to nuclear enrichment similar to the one included in the Obama administration’s “Iran Deal” that Trump canceled. At least, it’s not clear what they want from Iran in order to permanently end the war. What they do seem content with is a new kind of forever war, one that muddles on endlessly until, like Iraq and Afghanistan, it becomes someone else’s problem.

I don’t dispute that some things in life end, or that the United States right now has a very serious governance problem, or that the humanities are going through a pretty gruesome patch. Many aspects of life that I cherish are under siege. Independent coffee shops are disappearing, newsstands are repurposed to sell candy and snacks, and movie theaters are shuttering. On the other hand, an Oxford mathematician named Andrew Wiles finally cracked Fermat’s Last Theorem; deaths from heart disease are down 66 percent since 1970; the Democrats will likely win back the House in November; and Ann Patchett’s latest bestselling novel is a delight.

I mention this last because the latest Atlantic cover story announces “The Age of Reading Is Over,” and the story itself is headlined “The End of Reading Is Here.” Everything is always ending in The Atlantic. Did you know, for instance, that “The Golden Age of American Jews is Ending”? Neither did I. An otherwise strong March 2024 piece by Franklin Foer, about the troubling recent rise in antisemitism, went haywire in its final paragraph.

“The forces arrayed against Jews, on the right and the left, are far more powerful than they were 50 years ago,” Foer wrote. OK, but that’s an unexceptional observation because antisemitism was negligible in 1974. The better point of comparison would be 70 years ago, which was right around the time my Jewish father spent a whole interview with a Madison Avenue personnel chief dodging the question, “What kind of a name is ‘Noah’?” Or maybe even 60 years ago, when it was still common to change your surname to sound less Jewish. Antisemitism is on the rise, and that’s worrying. But it’s nowhere near the level that pervaded the U.S. as late as 1964.

Foer went on to argue that antisemitic societies “are prone to decline” in other ways. “England entered a long dark age after expelling its Jews in 1290.” But excepting an epidemic of bubonic plague that crashed ashore 58 years later, I can’t fathom what Foer’s talking about. “Czarist Russia limped toward revolution after the pogroms of the 1880s.” That’s more plausible, because many of the revolutionaries were Jewish, including Leon Trotsky. “If America persists on its current course, it would be the end of the Golden Age not just for the Jews, but for the country that nurtured them.” Yes, it would be bad for the Jews. But we’re only 2.4 percent of the U.S. population, and America, sad to say, prospered through a much more fierce surge of antisemitism stretching from the Gilded Age through the roaring twenties. Can’t a recent increase in antisemitism be evaluated as its own specific problem?

Other things that The Atlantic has declared to be ending: “The End of Men” (July/August 2010), “The End of Diplomacy” (February 2026), The End of High-School English” (December 2022), “The End of Minimalism” (July/August 2020), “The End of Trust” (November 2021), “The End of Human Rights” (March 2026), “The End of Democracy Has Already Begun” (September 2024), “This is the Way a World Order Ends” (April 2025), “The End of Rule of Law in America” (May 2025), “How America Ends” (December 2019), “The End of the West” (November 2002), and, most hyperbolically of all, Francis Fukuyama flagging “More Proof That This Is Really the End of History” (October 2022). Only very occasionally does the thing that’s ending merit a “good riddance,” but in September 2025 The Atlantic did post a Hanna Rosin podcast under the heading, “Is This the End of Kids on Social Media?” Alas, it wasn’t, except on Facebook.

Sexual activity declines as people age (including, presumably, Atlantic readers), so it shouldn’t surprise us that The Atlantic repeatedly announces the end of sexual congress. “Why Are Young People Having So Little Sex?” was a reasonable question to ask in December 2018, as the word incel was starting to acquire currency. But did we also need “The Bored Sex” (i.e., women, sexually) in February 2019 and “The Death of the Sex Scene” in February 2023 and “The Slow, Quiet Demise of American Romance” in December 2024 and “Sex Without Women” (about hetero male preference for porn) in March 2025? After all, Atlantic readers had already been fed “Dear Therapist: My Husband Doesn’t Want to Have Sex Anymore” in 2018 and “The Real Problem With Hookup Culture: Bad Sex” in 2013. What’s it going to take to get a little fucking going in The Atlantic?

I asked Google AI: “How often has The Atlantic announced the end of something?” The bot turned out to be even more fed up than I am:

The Atlantic has proclaimed “the end of” various cultural, political, and societal concepts hundreds of times over its long history. It is one of the magazine’s most famous and frequently deployed headline tropes, framing everything from macro-political shifts to tiny cultural trends as a grand finale.

The publication has a well-documented fondness for “apocalypse stories,” routinely declaring that an era, a habit, or an institution has officially reached its expiration date.

In fairness, neither of the sources Google AI cited supported this interpretation, and the one used to undergird the claim that The Atlantic fancies “apocalypse stories” was neither an apocalypse story nor an assertion that The Atlantic runs a lot of them. Rather, it was a characteristically excellent analytical essay by Adam Kirsch about the appeal of apocalypse stories, under a headline (“Apocalypse, Constantly”) that would serve just as well for the piece you’re reading now. So Google AI’s assessment framed the guilty. On the other hand, Google AI had no trouble finding “end of” Atlantic stories. It furnished many of the examples I’ve cited already. (For the record, in anticipation of glass-house accusations, I acknowledge that The New Republic also has used “The End of ...” in a handful of headlines over the years, but nowhere near as frequently as The Atlantic.)

I then asked Google AI: “Has The Atlantic ever announced the beginning of anything?” Yes, it replied. But then I looked at its examples. The first was “The Beginning of a New DOJ” from last October, about the wrecking ball the Trump administration is taking to rule of law at the Justice Department, so really that was about the end of responsible prosecutions. Strike one. The second was “The Beginning of the End of NATO” from last September. Strike two. The third was “Caitlin Clark Is Just the Beginning.” That was a genuine “beginning of” piece about the (hopeful) future for female college athletics. But Google AI had to admit that beginnings in The Atlantic tend to be endings in disguise:

The publication frequently uses the beginning-of-a-new-era narrative to document profound changes in society. For instance, their writers have pondered whether we are witnessing the beginning of a postliterate or post-reading age, or the beginning of entirely new, reality-altering conspiracy networks.

In other words, The Atlantic published pieces about the end of reading and the end of accurate perception of reality.

Please don’t mistake my criticism for an argument on behalf of chirpy good-news stories. Rather, it’s an argument against doom porn (for which I’ve criticized The Atlantic before) and overgeneralization. Part of the difficulty is that The Atlantic cut back on-scene reporting decades ago, I presume to save money, though money doesn’t appear to be in short supply lately. It’s harder to issue grand pronunciamenti, either optimistic or pessimistic, after you’ve interviewed a lot of people face to face. Even if you don’t circle the globe, though—I certainly don’t—you can report and write about bad stuff in a spirit not of defeat but defiance. While I was reporting early last year a comprehensive guide to resisting President Donald Trump, I felt in a near panic that some other news organization—maybe even The Atlantic—would scoop me. I needn’t have worried. Neither did The New Republic have to fret about being scooped by The Atlantic (or many others) when it initiated a series of short profiles about people who were resisting Trump in promising ways.

This is not a piece about The Atlantic’s new “End of Reading” piece. I haven’t read it, and for all I know it’s superb. Certainly it’s a legitimate social problem that high school and even college teachers struggle to get young people to read books (especially those published before 1900). The protagonist of Patchett’s novel Whistler is a middle-aged woman named Daphne Fuller who teaches English at an exclusive all-girls private school in New York modeled on Spence or Chapin. Her students, Fuller tells her stepfather, who’s a longtime editor at Random House, still read books. “When they read David Copperfield,” she says, “they read the whole thing. They read The Return of the Native. The AP girls read Anna Karenina and Moby-Dick last semester. Moby-Dick!” This is the only part of Patchett’s narrative that required, from me, a willing suspension of disbelief.

I’ve valued some of The Atlantic’s End-ist pieces in the past (Foer’s antisemitism piece minus its End-ism; Hanna Rosin’s “End of Men” piece, which was really about economic displacement; Kate Julian’s Young-People Sex piece, which persuasively identified the problem as a “sex recession”; recessions don’t last forever). But The Atlantic is addicted to framing these and other stories as the End of Something. You’d think that a magazine that’s been around for 169 years would possess a better sense of life’s continuities. What I’d like to see end is “end of” pieces in The Atlantic as it sails into its next 169 years.

In fact, the dissenting opinions, in particular those of Thomas (joined by Gorsuch) and Kavanaugh, are far loonier and more unorthodox than just their offensive bottom line. The dissenters didn’t simply reach a result aligned with the administration’s wishes; they got there by abandoning the method of interpreting the Constitution that mainstream judges and scholars, conservative and liberal alike, have firmly adopted.

The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment prescribes a clean two-part test: Anyone (1) “born … in the United States” and (2) “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a citizen. Period, full stop.

It’s not difficult to apply the first part: Trump’s flights of fancy aside, it’s clear what it means to be born here. So any play in the joints has to be in the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The five-person majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts applied the conventional and commonsensical meaning of that phrase. The opinion holds that the clause “uses jurisdiction in its ordinary sense—referring to the power of the United States to govern those within its territory.” You are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if you are bound by the web of obligations and privileges that apply to us all. That’s the same way the court’s 1898 opinion in Wong Kim Ark, which figured heavily in the oral argument and the opinion in Barbara, construed the phrase.

The dissenters’ principal theme is that the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause incorporates, for elaborate historical reasons, a notion of domicile: that the child’s parents were not merely in the country but had set down roots and developed a sense of loyalty to the nation.

The obvious challenge, which I think they don’t come close to surmounting, is how to wrest that reading from the simple words of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Thomas, in the principal dissent joined by Gorsuch, begins not with the words of the text but with a history of Dred Scott, Frederick Douglass, and John Bingham, the Ohio Republican congressman who was the principal drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment. He builds methodically toward the claim that the amendment was, in his words, “designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks.” This theme continues throughout the 90-some pages of the dissenting opinion, which argues that the amendment’s Framers had a narrow purpose in mind: undo the Dred Scott abomination and secure citizenship for the children of the freed slaves.

Interpreting constitutional text based on the intent of the drafters, what was subjectively in their heads, has a name: intent originalism. It also has a provenance: It was once a mainstream method of constitutional interpretation, but it has since been firmly rejected, especially by conservatives. No less an avatar of conservative thought than Justice Antonin Scalia disavowed it, insisting that the inquiry was never the search for “the intent of the Framers” but for the original meaning of the text. He put it bluntly: “It is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver.”

The classic demonstration of why original-intent originalism collapses is the canonical case of Brown v. Board of Education. The plaintiffs in Brown built their argument around the notion that racial segregation in public schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states simply that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Yet, the Reconstruction Congress plainly didn’t intend the Fourteenth Amendment to outlaw segregated schools: After all, many of its own drafters ran segregated schools in Washington, D.C. Therefore, if the Framers’ intent governs, and not the words they inscribed into law, Brown looks to have been wrongly decided.

In fairness, that consensus may have been overstated. Judge Michael McConnell and others have shown the Framers’ views on school segregation weren’t as monolithic as assumed. But that revision only reinforces the deeper point: Relying on what was privately in legislators’ minds, rather than the words they put to paper and voted to approve, is an unstable method that can flip an outcome depending on which stray comment you excavate. That’s why original-intent originalism is not merely flawed but effectively moribund; it barely appears anymore in serious Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The reading of the Barbara majority of the “subject to the jurisdiction” language was no different from how the court’s 1898 opinion in Wong Kim Ark read the phrase: An alien present in the country, Justice Horace Gray wrote, “is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides”—owing obedience to its laws and answerable to them, just as a native-born citizen would be. The court identified a narrow set of exceptions described above in which persons born here, the children of foreign diplomats, would not be subject to our laws in the normal sense.

Domicile appears in the 1898 opinion only as a description of the parties actually before the court; nowhere does Gray treat it as a legal requirement of jurisdiction itself.

There’s much more detail to Thomas’s argument, but it’s in service of the same private-meaning project, notwithstanding his own claim, at one point, that he’s simply applying original meaning. He spends many pages arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction” secretly encoded the nineteenth-century legal concept of domicile—a person’s fixed, permanent home—and that domicile implied something more freighted: exclusive, undivided allegiance to the United States.

That’s shaky on its own terms; domicile has never required renouncing competing loyalties, only living somewhere with intent to stay. But the bigger problem is simpler, and insuperable: The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t say “domicile.” It says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; and, as the majority holds, those words refer, in 1868 or 1898 or 2026, to the “power of the United States to govern those within its territory.”

Whatever you think of the result the dissenters wanted, they didn’t reach it through any interpretive method that survives contact with the last 40 years of debate about how to read the Constitution. They got there by asking what the Framers intended to accomplish, instead of the meaning of what they actually wrote. That’s a method nearly every serious originalist, including the conservative justices who built modern originalism, has definitively rejected.

Finally, a quick word on Justice Kavanaugh’s separate opinion, which in a way is even worse. Kavanaugh concluded that a 1940s statute repeating the Fourteenth Amendment’s exact words already forbids Trump’s order. He then gratuitously went on to say that Wong Kim Ark was wrong to treat its exceptions as a closed, exclusive list, and that Congress could just add a new one for children of unlawful or temporary immigrants. But he never explains—and it’s hard to see how he could—why those children would actually fall outside U.S. jurisdiction.

Kavanaugh’s concurrence permitted Trump to seize a partial victory from what would and should have been a decisive loss. Trump immediately seized on Kavanaugh’s suggestion, insisting Congress could still legislate his own, xenophobic definition of citizenship, notwithstanding that it plainly would contradict the holding in Barbara. Explaining Kavanaugh’s odd separate opinion may call for a discipline other than law.

Surveillance video footage obtained by local outlet KHOU 11 shows the agents using their unmarked black SUV in an attempt to box in Salgado Araujo—initiating the conflict. Salgado Araujo makes a U-turn and heads in the other direction, and the agents then turn around to follow him.

While the video did not capture the final moments of the shooting, separate footage showed no damage to the ICE vehicle, again weakening federal agents’ claim that Salgado Araujo tried to ram them.

Video shows the moments before ICE shot a worker who lived for 35 years in the United States. It appears to show it was ICE attempting to initiate contact with his vehicle, not the worker attempting to "ram" ICE agents pic.twitter.com/Rv8KsHPf8J

— David J. Bier (@David_J_Bier) July 9, 2026

This discrepancy between the agents’ statements and the video footage has led to widespread calls for an independent investigation into Salgado Araujo’s death. Complicating that is the fact that the Department of Homeland Security detained the three other immigrant men in the car with Salgado Araujo—one of whom is Salgado Araujo’s brother—and is pressuring them to self-deport, preventing them from serving as witnesses.

“What we have heard … is that they’re being told to sign voluntary departures. They’re being told to cooperate with the version [of events] that ICE has released,” Immigrant Families and Students in the Fight head Cesar Espinosa told Democracy Now! on Thursday. “Threatening them that they’re going to file charges if they don’t, or that they’re going to be deported expeditiously. And what we fear is that this is another effort from ICE to cover up something that they did very, very wrong.”

ICE also arrested and detained witnesses after the killing of Alex Pretti in January. And this isn’t the first time it’s offered this version of events, either. When Marimar Martinez was shot five times in her car last year, ICE initially claimed that when the officers exited their vehicle, Martinez tried to run them over, “forcing the officers to fire defensively.” Bodycam footage showed no such thing, and her charges were dismissed.

“They are being approached by unmarked vehicles. These vehicles, many times, often, start ramming vehicles, trying to get them to stop. And when people jump out, they’re not wearing insignia saying ‘federal agents’ or ‘ICE’ or a badge. They’re wearing, a lot of the times, plain clothing with vests that just say ‘police,’” Espinosa continued. “So, I cannot imagine the fear that a lot of people feel when they are being persecuted by somebody that’s unknown. And I ask people, you know, put yourself in these folks’ shoes and ask yourself: How would you react?”

Salgado Araujo, a father of three U.S. citizens, had been in the United States for almost 35 years.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced Thursday that her government planned to file criminal complaints in the United States over all Mexican citizens who have been killed while being targeted by ICE. Fourteen Mexican nationals have died in ICE custody, while three have been killed in immigration enforcement operations, including Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, on Tuesday.

“We cannot turn a blind eye to ​the Mexicans who have died,” Sheinbaum said during a press conference. She said the purpose of the complaints was to bring accountability to anyone accused of a homicide or of committing human rights violations.

The Mexican government provides help to all of its citizens who ask for it, but “especially to Mexicans whose only crime is working honestly ​in the United States,” Sheinbaum added.

The Department of Homeland Security claims Salgado Araujo, an undocumented Mexican immigrant who had lived in the U.S. for more than 30 years, was killed after he didn’t comply with orders from ICE agents, and then “weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run over an ICE law enforcement officer.” It’s a similar excuse to the ones DHS used for the shooting of Marimar Martinez in Chicago last year and the fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis in January.

In both of those cases, video footage showed that neither Martinez nor Good tried to use their cars against ICE agents. The DHS has not provided any evidence to back up its claim in Salgado Araujo’s case, and has even pressured witnesses to “self-deport,” The New Republic found.

Salgado Araujo’s U.S. citizen son Ronaldo discovered his father’s death through social media, and not from the government or medical professionals.

“I saw a video posted on Facebook that he had been shot. I recognized him immediately,” Ronaldo said, his voice breaking. “Not from his appearance, but from his voice, crying for help as he lay on the street, bleeding out.”

Hopefully, the Salgado Araujo family will get justice, and hopefully so will the families of Martinez, Good, and Alex Pretti.

McConnell was hospitalized after he was found unconscious in his Washington residence on June 14. But as the weeks have dragged on without a clear explanation from his team as to his mysterious absence, speculation about McConnell’s health has become increasingly grave. Earlier this week, far-right influencer Laura Loomer claimed on X that an unnamed “high level source close to the White House” told her that McConnell was suffering from severe organ failure and “is officially brain dead.”

By Thursday, hosts of the far-right news network Newsmax had joined the expanding choir.

“Republicans are doing the same bullshit with McConnell that Dems did with [Joe] Biden. No one has actually spoke to him, they are just trying to carry this on to keep @RepThomasMassie from running for his seat,” Carl Higbie posted to X on Thursday morning, referring to the highly dependent dynamic the previous president was rumored to rely on in the waning days of his term.

Newsmax anchor Rob Finnerty took his concerns to his show, questioning on air: “Where is Mitch McConnell? What is going on?

“When you factor this in under Kentucky state law, if McConnell resigned or died, a special election would have to happen within 90 days, meaning before the November elections, meaning someone like Congressman Thomas Massie could run in that race and potentially win, which is not something Republicans want,” Finnerty said.

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear got involved in the matter Wednesday, penning a letter to McConnell’s office demanding a formal update on the senator’s health.

The 84-year-old Republican has represented Kentucky in the U.S. Senate since 1985, and remained on Capitol Hill through several recent health scares, particularly since 2023. In March of that year, McConnell fell at a dinner event at Washington’s Waldorf Astoria hotel, fracturing his rib and suffering a concussion in the process.

He fell again that July. He also publicly froze mid-sentence twice that year, dissociating for 20 to 30 seconds each time, sparking concerns that the aging lawmaker had suffered a stroke.

In December 2024, McConnell fell for a third time in a public setting, and again in October 2025 while on his way to vote in the Capitol. He has since been transported via wheelchair by his aides as a health precaution.

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

For ICE’s mission of mass deportations, controlling the narrative is as critical as filling detention centers at record rates. The hospital where Salgado Araujo was taken would not tell his son Ronaldo Salgado what happened to his father, nor would law enforcement, he said at a press conference Wednesday. Instead, he learned that his father had died from a video he saw on social media, he said. He recognized his father by his voice. Predictably, the Department of Homeland Security told reporters that the killing was an act of “self-defense” by ICE agents who had feared for their safety. This is a story they have told many times before. Since Trump returned to office, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo is the tenth person federal immigration agents have shot and killed.

After Trump ordered mass deportations and officers with ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and other federal agencies descended on and occupied neighborhoods in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis, among other cities, their showy, high-profile operations and violent arrests drew fierce public opposition. Residents put themselves in the way of ICE, defended their immigrant neighbors, and organized to shut down detention camps. In January, when immigration officers killed two Minneapolis residents in the street, surrounded by witnesses, officials claimed they were dangerous terrorists. Their lies did not succeed; the public grief and anger did not abate. Apparently to signal that things had changed, the man who had been mass deportation’s most brutal face, Border Patrol’s Gregory Bovino, disappeared from the front lines. In March, Trump replaced DHS head Kristi Noem with Markwayne Mullen. With these personnel shifts, the administration was perhaps trying to indicate a new approach. But it was doing so without any acknowledgment that it had done anything wrong.

If the withdrawal marked a shift in public relations, it did not, importantly, mark a shift in enforcement. Indeed, the violence resulting from those operations may be escalating: ICE shootings and killings in 2026 are already outpacing those in 2025. And mass deportation operations have expanded: In five days this June, federal immigration agents reportedly arrested 10,000 people—doubling their usual daily rate of arrests. They are still terrorizing neighborhoods: A recent raid in Virginia Beach involved agents chasing people through backyards, “searching everywhere,” from boats to trash bins, one resident said. They just aren’t marketing it as they once were.

Mass arrests lead to more killings, not only in the streets but also in detention camps. During this Trump administration, more than 50 people have died while in ICE custody, research by Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights has found. “The mortality rate of deaths in ICE custody is at its highest level in over a decade and has more than doubled since Trump’s second term began,” their report stated. At the same time, these may be undercounts: DHS has lagged behind on reporting detention data and no longer reports deaths of those recently released. The lack of transparency is systemic, leaving the work of investigating anti-immigration operations, from detention centers to deportation flights, to nongovernmental organizations and neighbors.

So far, since the killing of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston this week, federal law enforcement has shut out the Harris County District Attorney’s Office from the federal investigation, with “access to key evidence” under “federal control,” according to the district attorney’s spokesperson. Past investigations, meanwhile, have proved somewhat meaningless; before getting the results of 16 federal investigations into fatal and nonfatal shooting by DHS officers, the Trump administration declared the shootings were justified. These include incidents where video evidence is ample and public, such as in the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis earlier this year. When it comes to Salgado Araujo, whose killing was already on social media before members of his family had been officially informed of his death, the narrative set by DHS in the immediate aftermath will likely be what the administration hews to, even when thoroughly challenged by the evidence.

As of Thursday, the three surviving witnesses to the shooting, Salgado Araujo’s co-workers, were still in immigration detention, under pressure from officials, as my colleague Greg Sargent reported. “These men hold the key to what actually happened,” said Juan Proaño, a representative for the families and CEO of the League of United Latin American Citizens. Now, Proaño said, they’ve learned from the men’s families that officials are trying to get them to leave the country, through what the administration euphemizes as “self-deportation,” apparently before they could say anything that might challenge the DHS narrative.

Lorenzo Salgado Araujo’s story, however, is available to us. “That’s how I want the world to know my father, not as someone who got shot and killed,” his son Ronaldo told reporters. “He worked for thirty years building homes in the Houston suburbs.” After working on hundreds of homes for others, he dreamed of building one for his own family—“one he could call our home, and he did.” In the evenings, after work, “that’s where you could find him,” Ronaldo said, “resting on his porch, listening to music, petting his dog.” Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, he said, “did not deserve to be reduced to a headline of Mexican man shot and killed by ICE.”

Joining the local calls for a full investigation were Representatives Sylvia Garcia and Christian Menefee. “What other profession has the power to take somebody’s life in the middle of a street,” Menefee said, “and meanwhile, our administration is in court fighting to make sure people like Ronaldo and Lorenzo Jr. can’t be citizens in this country?” This is the Trump administration’s ethos in a nutshell: The lives of people who aren’t worthy of citizenship have no value. When ICE kills someone, when the administration rewrites the truth to exonerate the killers, that drive to dehumanize cannot be covered up.

The state’s Attorney General, Raúl Torrez, sent a letter to the DOJ last week accusing the department of withholding redacted records related to Epstein’s Zorro Ranch property, south of Santa Fe, The New York Times reports.  

“The U.S. D.O.J.’s continued withholding of unredacted records is causing real and escalating harm,” Torrez wrote to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in the letter, made public Thursday. “Every day that the U.S. D.O.J. withholds these records, the foundation upon which a New Mexico prosecution could be built erodes.”

In February, Torrez requested documents from the DOJ related to the ranch, but despite receiving assurances from department officials that they would send over the documents, nothing ever came. Torrez wrote that he even followed up five times over the next few months through different channels to no avail, impeding important leads in the probe. 

“Every avenue of investigation that begins with a redacted name, a blacked-out face or an obscured date is an avenue that ends before it begins,” Torrez wrote. He told the Times that he hasn’t received a response to his latest letter. 

Epstein’s ranch was never fully investigated by the federal government, and New Mexico authorities have said that federal prosecutors in New York asked them in 2019 to hold off, claiming that the DOJ was conducting its own probe. Nothing came of it, and the federal government never fully searched the property, which has new ownership.

Now that the state of New Mexico has decided to begin a new investigation, it’s not surprising that the Trump administration appears to be stonewalling once again. The ranch holds many secrets, including why a mansion on the property was built by military contractor Bradbury Stamm Construction, better known for building classified government facilities such as Los Alamos National Laboratory and Kirtland Air Force Base. For now, those questions will remain unanswered as the Trump administration continues to try and wish Epstein away. 

The taxpayer-funded Civics, Culture, and Statesmanship program has seen an abysmal level of interest ahead of the upcoming fall semester.

“I do think that it’s important for the legislature and for the governor to reflect on this.... There is a question about whether or not this is the best use of public funds,” WVU political science professor Erik Herron told West Virginia Watch. “I think the Washington Center, ironically, seems to be exactly what it complains that higher education has become. It was created in Charleston, and it was imposed on the university, so it’s a big government mandate.”

“I’m not happy about it,” said Democratic State Delegate John Williams, who voted against the center’s creation last year. “Now we’re in a position where we’ve allocated so much money towards this program, and only one person is taking advantage of it.”

Republicans have defended low enrollment by noting that the program does not count toward university credits for students yet—a fact that does not instill confidence.

The program, mandated in 2025 via a Republican bill, is intended to center the “great debates of western civilization,” “western history and culture,” and “the development of ideas across the political and ideological spectrum.” West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey put it more plainly, stating that the program existed to “push back on the woke ideology that has infected our schools and help return higher education to its true purpose.”

The fall curriculum includes classes titled “Woke,” “The New Right,” and “Nation and Migration.”

This is one of the more desperate cases of the right’s ongoing culture war in academia, the workplace, and beyond. Responding to what you perceive as ideological extremism in the classroom with your own ideological course—worth zero credits—is a decision steeped in delusion. We’ll see how many people are enrolled in the fall.

MS NOW’s Carol Leonnig reported Wednesday evening that the president abruptly swapped the new jet for his old Air Force One on his trip from the NATO summit in Turkey to the U.K. due to concerns about the aircraft’s defense systems. She noted the new Air Force One didn’t have the necessary communications and defensive capabilities for “safe travel amid Iran hostilities.”

Leonnig’s post was angrily singled out by White House communications director Steven Cheung, even though multiple other outlets reported the same information.

“Carol Leonnig is a liar and this article is complete Fake News. She has no idea what she is talking about. She says the White House declined to comment. Not true. We gave comment to The New York Times and many other outlets,” he wrote Thursday on X. “Carol is not a real journalist. A complete fraud.”

Cheung never actually disputed any of Leonnig’s reporting in the post—he just called it fake news without offering up any response. And if his issue is with Leonning not attributing his comment, all he said to The New York Times on a similar story was “the new Air Force One is a state-of-the-art aircraft that has been fitted with high-level security protocols that ensure the safety of the president and his staff.”

He also mentioned that “there are many enemies of America who have their sights on [Trump], and we use every tool at our disposal—including distraction and misdirection—to address those threats.” But none of that language addressed the reason Trump switched planes.

Trump himself claimed rather unconvincingly that the Qatari jet was going to a U.S. military base in Europe “so the soldiers can see it.” In reality, the new jet simply doesn’t have the same command-and-control functions of the original Air Force One. And while experts have said that it would take years and billions of dollars to upgrade the Qatari jet’s defenses to the presidential level, the Trump administration did it in weeks—all before ditching it partway through its first official trip.

In January, the Pentagon reportedly threatened an ambassador from the Holy See, days after the pope made antiwar remarks during his State of the World address.

The U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Brian Burch, told The New York Times Thursday that the meeting had been “grossly mischaracterized.” The 51-year-old co-founder of CatholicVote presumed the story came from the Vatican’s side, and personally called Cardinal Pierre for an apology for what Burch described to the Times as “an attack on the United States.”

Burch told the national daily that he had also asked for the cardinal’s help in identifying “who was lying about the meeting.” The Times noted that Burch later posted a statement in which he claimed that Cardinal Pierre had “emphatically denied” reports of the confrontational exchange, and that the Vatican had confirmed the details of the meeting were exaggerated. The cardinal, however, did not respond to a request for comment from the Times. The Pentagon denied ever making such a threat.

Pope Leo XIV has continually upset the president and a number of Donald Trump’s underlings through his relentless advocacy for world peace, particularly as it relates to the president’s warmongering. The Chicago-born pontiff has thus far railed against the White House’s lethal and unproductive attacks on small watercraft in the Caribbean, the sudden infiltration of Venezuela, and the escalating conflict in Iran, the last of which he said in June was not a “just” war.

Trump, meanwhile, has not shied away from throwing his own fire at the religious leader. In May, Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that he believed the pope was “endangering a lot of Catholics and a lot of people” by advocating for global peace and prosperity. “But I guess if it’s up to the pope, he thinks it’s just fine for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Trump, however, has not done a very good job himself of stripping nuclear capabilities from Iran’s theocratic regime.

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

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

On Wednesday, Trump indicated that he would no longer be willing to negotiate with Tehran’s leadership, suggesting that—despite having been president from 2017 to 2021—he had only just now started to understand Iran’s theocracy.

“I don’t want to deal with them anymore. They’re scum,” Trump told reporters at a NATO summit presser in Ankara, Turkey. When asked what had changed since the memorandum of understanding was preemptively signed last month, Trump said: “I got to know ’em.”

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro attempted to bar former U.S. Olympic canoeist David Hearn from the pool after he pleaded not guilty to damaging it, only to be rebuffed by D.C. Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean.

“The government’s evidence is weak,” one of Hearn’s attorneys, Mary Dohrmann, argued in court.

Another of Hearn’s attorneys, Norm Eisen, said, “Every American should be alarmed about this prosecution. It is not a crime to touch the Reflecting Pool.”

The government is accusing Hearn of destruction of property, which could send him to prison for 10 years if he’s found guilty. Pirro claims that Hearn “forcefully and violently” ripped two square feet of the pool’s newly added blue paint, while Hearn maintains that he only touched a piece of paint that was already peeling.

“The condition of the Reflecting Pool was the same after I stepped away from the water as it was before I got there,” Hearn said.

President Trump has spent more than $14 million on the Reflecting Pool, adding a blue coat of paint to the bottom and later dumping hydrogen peroxide into the pool to kill algae, which had the side effect of causing the new paint to peel. Unwilling to accept the consequences of his actions, Trump has blamed vandalism for the poor state of the pool, and Pirro has charged at least four people over it, including Hearn.

Many of Hearn’s supporters came to the courthouse on Thursday to cheer for him, including the former chair of the U.S. Olympic national governing body for canoe and kayak sports, Adam Van Grack, who said that Hearn has spent years voluntarily helping maintain National Park Service property near the Potomac River that canoeists use to train.

“This is a person who has devoted his life to representing the United States on an international stage, caring for the community, and protecting and caring for National Park Service property,” Van Grack told the Associated Press. “So the idea that he is a malicious destroyer of federal property shocks the conscience and makes no sense to anybody who’s ever known Davey Hearn.”

Trump now insists that the pool is fine, even as he is draining it once again.

But it appears three other people were in the van with the now-deceased man, and they presumably could recount their version of what happened: the victim’s brother and two employees of the dead man’s construction business. They were detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the encounter, and we haven’t heard from them publicly about what happened.

Now, in another potentially dark turn in the saga, those three men are under pressure from immigration officials to agree to self-deport, Juan Proaño, a representative for the families and CEO of the League of United Latin American Citizens, claimed in an interview with The New Republic.

Proaño—who regularly confers with the family members of the victim and the three detainees and organized a press conference on their behalf earlier this week—said the family members were able to reach the three detainees, who then related this situation.

“They’re being pressured to sign self-deportation orders,” Proaño told me. “They’re currently in detention. These men hold the key to what actually happened.” Under self-deportation, detained migrants agree to leave the country voluntarily within a prescribed time period.

According to DHS, officers tried to stop Salgado Araujo’s vehicle as part of a targeted operation, after which the undocumented Salgado Araujo “attempted to evade arrest.” DHS claimed Salgado Araujo “refused to follow multiple verbal commands” before trying to “run over” an ICE officer, who then fired “in self-defense.” Salgado Araujo, struck in the abdomen, was transported to the hospital, where he died.

Yet Salgado Araujo, 52, had been in the United States for 35 years, raised a family, and didn’t immediately seem prone to attempting vehicular manslaughter of federal law enforcement. A business owner himself, he and his passengers were driving to a job: The encounter occurred at the early hour of 6:50 a.m. ICE reportedly hasn’t presented evidence of its version of events and didn’t provide any video camera footage.

But other video of the encounter, reported on by NBC News—which doesn’t include the shooting itself—shows several other men lying face down on the ground along with Salgado Araujo, who is lying wounded with two officers crouched over him and one radioing for help.

The three men are Salgado Araujo’s brother, Victor Hugo Salgado Araujo, and two workers, Daniel Tirado Pantoja and Jose Trinidad Rojas Pliego, Proaño told TNR. Family members who are in touch with them confirmed the pressure to sign self-deportation orders, Proaño says, adding that some of the men may be inclined to do so to avoid longer-term detention.

“We want full public disclosure of the eyewitness accounts of what actually happened on the day that Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was killed,” Proaño said. The pressure to self-deport, Proaño added, looks like “an effort by DHS to get rid of the only eyewitnesses to what happened.” Asked for comment, ICE emailed a statement that didn’t address the three men’s status and referred questions to the FBI.

There are other reasons to doubt that Salgado Araujo would attempt to kill an officer. NBC reports that DHS hasn’t said that the man has a previous criminal record. And Salgado Araujo’s son, Ronaldo Salgado, says that the family had actually been preparing for the possibility that he might be picked up by law enforcement, given increased ICE activity in Texas. The family had a plan, according to The Washington Post: He would comply if arrested, refrain from signing anything, and wait for the family to try to get him released.

A family man, Salgado Araujo also helped send his three U.S. citizen sons to college, as The Bulwark’s Adrian Carrasquillo reports. He was far along in the process of applying for legal protections, having even submitted fingerprints. And while Salgado, the victim’s son, is calling for a full investigation, the FBI’s local office is said to be focused mainly on establishing that an assault on a federal officer took place (the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general is also probing the event).

A big question now, says Radley Balko, a criminal justice reform expert who writes about ICE abuses on his Substack, is whether these men are advised by lawyers to speak out about what they saw. (Proaño told TNR he doesn’t believe they have legal representation yet.)

“You don’t pressure witnesses to a shooting to self-deport if your goal is to get to the bottom of what happened,” Balko said. “You pressure them to self-deport when you want to make sure that nobody learns what actually happened.”

Balko pointed out that with previous ICE shootings, the government has taken unabashedly heavy-handed steps either to suppress the truth of what happened or to rewrite it to cast the victims as instigators of violent confrontation.

For instance, a number of federal prosecutors in Minnesota resigned in protest over a Justice Department push to criminally investigate the actions of shooting victim Renee Good, and over DOJ’s refusal to include state officials in probing the shooting itself. And Balko notes that in a different ICE shooting in Minneapolis, a migrant eyewitness was flown to a detention center hundreds of miles away, potentially to prevent him fom testifying.

“There is precedent for this,” Balko said of ICE’s apparent response to the Texas shooting.

All this comes as ICE is embarked on a massive new escalation of deportations nationwide. Yet in this case, ICE is very eager to keep the removal operations out of the news. The last thing Republicans want with the midterms approaching is another big backlash akin to what met ICE’s invasion of Minneapolis.

Yet as we’ve seen again and again, ramping up this level of paramilitary force—and unleashing it to violently extract longtime residents and business owners from deep within local communities—of necessity creates the tinderbox conditions that make deadly shootings a matter of when, not if. The authors of these conditions are Donald Trump and Stephen Miller.

In Texas, this has now resulted in an unspeakable tragedy. What remains to be seen is whether we’ll ever learn the full, horrifying story.

The current escalation could last a day or a month, depending on whether Iran attacks more commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, according to unnamed U.S. officials who spoke with Axios Thursday. But the brutality and bloodshed aren’t expected to simmer down in the meantime.

“We’re going to slap them a bit so they understand we’re not fucking around,” one American official told Axios’s Barak Ravid.

The dissolution of the ceasefire reportedly stems from frustration inside Iran’s theocratic regime, with more radical components of Tehran’s leadership unconvinced that the previously arranged peace deal would benefit their nation.

U.S. officials told Axios that Iran saw its grip over the strait slipping as ships began to travel through the waterway’s southern route, closer to the Omani coast. The economic incentives of the memorandum had also lost their allure for Tehran as the country found it remarkably difficult to sell oil even after the U.S. lifted economic sanctions. Financial institutions and countries were reluctant to participate in trade that was based on temporary waivers.

Iranian officials were also reportedly vexed that the billions of dollars’ worth of Iranian assets held in international accounts had not yet been unfrozen, despite stipulations requiring that Iran first meet nuclear thresholds as required by the memorandum of understanding.

“Part of the Iranian leadership was not happy about all of those things,” a U.S. official told Axios. “They started shooting and we decided it’s time to slap them back hard. It’s a process. We have patience. If we don’t feel we’re getting the deal we want, we are not going to do it.”

It is not clear exactly how long the current flare-up will last, but Donald Trump signaled Wednesday that he would no longer be willing to negotiate with Tehran’s leadership, suggesting that—despite having been president from 2017 to 2021 and, during that period, dismantling the previous Iran nuclear deal—he had only just now started to understand Iran’s theocracy.

“I don’t want to deal with them anymore. They’re scum,” Trump told reporters at a NATO summit presser in Ankara, Turkey. When asked what had changed since the MOU was preemptively signed last month, Trump said: “I got to know ’em.”

Also at the NATO summit, Trump openly pitched the idea of committing war crimes against Iran, claiming that the U.S. could “knock down every single bridge in Iran” in a single day.

“There’s not a thing they can do about it,” Trump said, seated feet away from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. “If we have to, we’ll take them out. I don’t want to do that. They have desalinization plants, we’ll take them out if we have to.… Maybe we’ll take over Kharg island. We may take over Kharg Island, there’s not a thing they can do about it.”

Several Epstein survivors, including four who spoke publicly and two others who did so anonymously, told CNN that Lesley Groff’s assertions last month were outright false. Groff testified before the House Oversight Committee on June 9 and claimed that she never met any of the girls and young women who gave Epstein massages and did not know anything about their backgrounds.

The victims said that was not the case, describing meeting Groff in person, telling her their ages, and being paid by Groff directly. Epstein survivor Marina Lacerda said she saw Groff regularly after first meeting Epstein in 2002, when she was not yet 14 years old.

“She’s lying,” Lacerda said. “Just me and my friends, she’s met at least three or four of us.”

Sharlene Rochard, who told CNN she was a young New York City model when she met the billionaire, said that she met Groff “multiple times in different locations.” Lara Blume McGee, who said she was abused from 2001 to 2003, described meeting Groff at Epstein’s New York townhouse at least twice.

Several of these women told CNN that Groff was well aware of their ages. Lacerda said that Groff asked detailed questions about new girls and ordered her to tell her friends to bring school IDs to sessions with Epstein because of his preference for younger girls.

“She would ask, ‘What does the girl look like? Where is she from? How old is she?’ over the phone,” Lacerda said. Rochard said that she and other girls would give Groff their passport information and identification to book flights, which plainly showed their ages. One anonymous victim said Groff helped her fill out her passport application at Epstein’s New York City office.

“I sat with her and she took all my information in person. She obviously knew my age,” the woman said. But when Democratic Representative Suhas Subramanyam directly asked Groff in June if she handled or viewed any of the girls’ or women’s passports, Groff said no.

“I may have seen a passport—a picture of a passport, but I never had anything to do with their passports,” Groff said.

Multiple women, including Lacerda, said that Groff was also directly involved in cash payments, putting $100 bills in long white envelopes and handing them to them. Groff denied paying anyone on Epstein’s behalf, telling the committee that she sometimes arranged for money to be picked up or delivered.

All of this suggests more lies out of Epstein’s inner circle, joining those from Epstein’s longtime fixer Ghislaine Maxwell. Despite new revelations from Congress and the Justice Department, though, no new charges have been filed in the U.S. against anyone involved in Epstein’s massive abuse operation.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the president’s emergency motion to temporarily suspend the court-ordered payment late Wednesday.

The decision came shortly after Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered the release of $5 million in court-held funds to the beleaguered columnist, more than three years after Trump was found civilly liable for sexually assaulting Carroll in a department store in late 1995.

The last-minute stay was a Hail Mary thrown by Trump’s legal team, who had tried to appeal the case to the Supreme Court earlier this week. But the nation’s highest judiciary ultimately rejected the request on Tuesday.

Despite the high court’s decision, Trump’s legal team wrote to Kaplan asking him not to release the funds, claiming that the president’s Supreme Court petition for a new hearing was still pending.

By Wednesday morning, the SCOTUS docket had been updated to reflect that it was anticipating a corrected petition from the president’s team. But hours later, it appeared that Kaplan had gone ahead and ordered the release of the funds to Carroll despite Trump’s pending filing, anyway.

In a six-page memorandum penned Wednesday, Kaplan noted that Trump “has been stalling this case for years.”

“It is time for him to ‘do equity’ and pay the judgment,” Kaplan ordered.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals clearly agreed.

Carroll has a long and grim history with the president. After the 2023 civil case, Trump tried and failed to sue Carroll for defamation. Kaplan later ruled that Trump had continued to defame the advice columnist by denying the rape on the basis that she wasn’t his “type,” and by accusing her of making up the sexual assault allegations against him for the benefit of her book. A jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in that case, though Carroll has not yet seen any proceeds from that decision, either.

Late last month, Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the New York–based judge) asked a judge to implement an expedited payment schedule for the sum that Trump owes Carroll, noting that by this point, the president owes Carroll interest on the original amount.

“It is time for this case to come to an end,” Carroll’s attorney wrote in a Tuesday legal filing.

The family of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Mexican man who was shot and killed Tuesday by immigration enforcement agents in Texas, is calling for a full investigation into his death.

Speaking at a press conference Wednesday, Ronaldo Salgado, the deceased’s son, gave an emotional account of how he learned of his father’s death.

“I saw a video posted on Facebook that he had been shot. I recognized him immediately,” Ronaldo said, his voice breaking. “Not from his appearance, but from his voice, crying for help as he lay on the street, bleeding out.”

Salgado set off for the area where his father was working construction in North Houston, and remained on the site for hours looking for answers. League of United Latin American Citizens Representative Conchita Reyes connected him to Texas Representative Sylvia Garcia to locate his father at Ben Taub Hospital.

“With all the hope in the world I drove to Ben Taub Hospital, the hospital that I was born in, my brother Lorenzo Jr. was born in, and my youngest was born in. I went to Ben Taub Hospital, demanded answers, but no one could give them to me,” Salgado said.

“I learned of my father’s passing from a news report on social media, not the hospital, not law enforcement,” he continued.

Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was undocumented, but his three children are U.S. citizens. His son said his father had completed the paperwork for a legal work permit, submitted good character affidavits and fingerprints 18 months ago, and was awaiting a response.

In the hours after the shooting, the Department of Homeland Security claimed the officer had fired in self-defense after Lorenzo Salgado Araujo refused to comply with orders and “weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run over an ICE law enforcement officer.”

But that’s a familiar refrain used by ICE agents to skirt legal issues, as the agency’s use-of-force policy bars agents from firing at a vehicle unless there is an imminent threat to their safety.

DHS made similar claims about the shooting of Marimar Martinez and the fatal shooting of Renee Good. The claims about Martinez quickly fell apart when her lawyer showed footage of immigration agents steering their vehicle into Martinez’s truck. While the investigation into Good’s death has gone nowhere, DHS’s claims are highly disputed.

His family believes that Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, who had no criminal record, would have complied with orders if he’d known that the officers pursuing him in unmarked vehicles were federal immigration authorities. The family even had a plan in place in the event that Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was picked up by ICE.

“He did not deserve to die. He did not deserve to be reduced to a headline of ‘Mexican Man Shot and Killed by ICE.’ He deserved to live a quiet life as Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a husband, a father, and a job creator for dozens of men who also wanted the American dream,” his son said.

Lorenzo Salgado Araujo’s death marks the tenth fatal shooting by federal immigration enforcement during President Donald Trump’s second term.

“Accusations are supposed to be the beginning of things, not the end,” Platner said in his 11-minute video, posted Wednesday evening on X. “This was the last week to try to get me off of the ballot. That’s why this is occurring.... [The allegations] are being used by the political establishment to put structural pressure on us.... It is a system that is built structurally to make sure that movements like ours cannot flourish. That if they begin to succeed, they can be crushed.” 

“They are going to take everything away from us. Those in power who have the ability to do so are using these allegations as an excuse to take away all of the things we need to run a campaign,” Platner continued in his vertically shot video. “They would rather see Susan Collins win than have me be the next senator from Maine.”  

My name might be on the ballot right now, but that ballot line belongs to the people of Maine. pic.twitter.com/RKVyLU76tm

— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 9, 2026

His indignant rhetoric was also mirrored in his claims that national Democrats were trying to choose his successor behind “closed doors” and his insistence that they choose a fellow progressive. In reality, Maine’s Democratic Party is planning to hold a nominating convention with about 600 delegates later this month.

According to Politico, several of Graham’s closest advisers begged him not to take this approach with his resignation video, urging him to center “gratitude” and to to strike a “conciliatory” tone instead. But he refused to take their advice.

Platner was accused of sexual assault by Jenny Racicot, a 41-year-old Maine resident who dated him on and off for two years, in a Politico article published on Monday. She alleged that the former Marine drunkenly entered her home uninvited five years ago and forced himself on her even as she asked him to stop. Platner continued to profusely deny these allegations in his resignation video. 

Blaming the larger political establishment for your rape allegation with an 11-minute long video does not seem particularly gracious. Now Maine’s Democratic Party has until July 27 to pick a candidate—and to try and clean up Platner’s long mess of a campaign.

Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to Patel asking for information about his use of FBI jets and the bureau’s purchase of BMW cars, MS NOW reports.

“For each trip where you used an FBI aircraft for personal travel, have you reimbursed the FBI as required by law? If yes, please provide the records,” Grassley wrote in his letter.

Grassley wrote that while Patel is required to use FBI planes even for personal use, Congress needs the information to make an “independent and objective review.” The senator also asked Patel to explain “why you decided to purchase BMW vehicles instead of Chevy Suburbans.”

Grassley has defended Patel in the past against accusations that he misused government resources, telling the press in April that “I’ve never had an FBI director cooperate with me as much as Kash Patel has cooperated with me on my request for information, my request for documents. In fact, most FBI directors have been an impediment to my investigations.”

Now, though, Grassley is joining Democrats, such as Representative Jamie Raskin and Senator Dick Durbin, who wrote their own letter to Patel Wednesday saying that they “appreciate Chairman Grassley raising these concerns, which mirror those raised repeatedly by House and Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats.”

Raskin and Durbin’s letter raises concerns about Patel’s travel as FBI director, referring to an incident last year where the military allowed Patel to snorkel at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii around the wreckage of the USS Arizona, which sank during Japan’s attack on the base in 1941.

“Your VIP snorkeling experience in Hawaii was not an isolated incident,” wrote Raskin and Durbin. “You frequently demand special perks on ‘official’ trips around the globe, such as a taxpayer-funded helicopter tour during your multi-country jaunt across East Asia and other recreational activities like jet skiing.”

The letter added, “Your jet-setting and the lack of justification for these trips are ‘out of control,’ and the new attaché office you established in Wellington, New Zealand, may have been opened in part to justify a sightseeing trip you took there.”

Grassley’s words may mean that Patel will now face bipartisan scrutiny for his actions on the job. In the past, he’s had support from Republicans in Congress, not to mention President Trump. But with the midterm elections approaching, Grassley and others in the GOP could be gearing up for a stronger Democratic presence in Congress that demands more oversight of Trump’s appointments, especially those that like to party on the job.

The Maine Democratic Senate candidate suspended his campaign Wednesday, days after more sexual abuse allegations emerged against him. The situation has pushed Maine into an unprecedented scenario, with questions swirling as to who the state’s Democratic Party intends to pick to replace Platner, in the hopes of unseating Republican Senator Susan Collins with just a few short months until the election. State Democrats have until July 27 to pick a new candidate.

Donald Trump was asked about the conundrum while traveling aboard Air Force One late Wednesday. At first, the president claimed that Platner’s future boils down to “whether or not you believe the woman,” not only misunderstanding that Platner had already left the race but also missing the painful irony of his suddenly supporting the “Believe Women” movement while he has used every tool available to him to shut down the voices of more than two dozen women who have accused him of sexual misconduct.

But soon he was back to casting doubt on the allegations: “A lot of people say big falsehoods. He’s in a bind, he’s in a bind. But should they be able to do it?” he continued, referring to whether state Democrats should be able to pick a new candidate. “Well, I guess he’s going to lose. I imagine he’s gonna lose.”

“It’s very interesting, when a Republican woman came out with the same charge, nobody believed her,” Trump noted, referring to the first woman who explicitly charged Platner with sexual abuse: his conservative ex-girlfriend, Lyndsey Fifield. In an interview with The New York Times last month, Fifield charged Platner with being aggressive with her body, using misogynistic language, and fantasizing about rape. In another interview with The Washington Post, published Tuesday, Fifield further accused Platner of removing condoms during sex without her knowledge or consent.

Major progressive figures tentatively stayed by Platner’s side despite Fifield’s allegations, in part due to suspicions about her political motivations as she had previously aided Republican campaigns. But the mood around Platner’s campaign changed suddenly when a second woman—Jenny Racicot—offered Politico explicit details about Platner’s violent propensities, including an incident in which he allegedly entered her house without permission and raped her during their on-and-off relationship.

“When this woman came out, everyone believed her,” Trump shrugged.

But even Trump couldn’t resist making an off-color remark about the situation.

“Did you get any pictures of her?” Trump asked a reporter, seemingly referring to Racicot. “You don’t wanna. They wouldn’t sell good.”

While speaking to reporters on Not Air Force One, Trump was asked whether he planned to pull more U.S. troops out of Europe.

“I haven’t made that final determination. A lot is gonna depend on Greenland. A lot. I mean, we’re gonna make a very good deal on Greenland. And if we don’t, maybe I will,” Trump said.

Trump also suggested his next move depends on what happens with Iran, where the president has scrapped his own ceasefire deal to resume deadly military strikes.

“They want to help now, it’s a little late to the thing, because essentially there’s not that much fighting to be done,” Trump said of European allies.

“When they had a chance, an opportunity to help, they chose not to, so. But we’re sort of forgetting about that. And now they want to help, they all want to go in so badly.”

After months of silence on the subject, Trump kicked off the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, Tuesday by making yet another wild threat to acquire Greenland. Public opinion in Greenland and Denmark toward the U.S. has plummeted amid Trump’s desperate bids to take over the territory, including bribing its residents.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw U.S. troops from Europe if they do not agree to spend more on NATO defense. “We could remove all of our soldiers out of Europe,” Trump said as he sat beside Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Tuesday.

“It continues to be that [Greenland] should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark,” he added.

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

Donald Trump stumbled haplessly through a series of events at NATO on Wednesday. It was profoundly humiliating in countless ways, not just to him, but also to the United States. But there was one remarkable exchange in which a Danish reporter pressed the NATO secretary general about NATO’s relationship with Trump that captured something really essential about this moment. The reporter asked, How can you have any self-respect praising Trump after all he’s done to NATO and to our allies?

The deeper question here is: What’s going to happen to NATO and America’s international alliances after all that Donald Trump has done to them? We’re talking about it all with Elizabeth Saunders, a foreign policy writer and thinker who’s really good on this sort of thing. Elizabeth, thanks for coming on.

Elizabeth Saunders: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Sargent: OK, so the headline news out of Trump’s visit to NATO was that he lashed out at everyone in sight. He said the ceasefire with Iran is over. He threatened more strikes. He erupted at Spain for failing to help with Iran, said our trade is finished with them. And he again threatened to steal Greenland outright. Elizabeth, what was your one simple big takeaway from everything that happened there?

Saunders: Well, I think it was a classic Trump display of volatility. NATO is in survival mode. Its mission at these meetings is to not have anything major come out of them in terms of an American withdrawal, right? So I think if you think back to the Davos meetings in January, when Trump had already been engaged in a couple days of saber-rattling over Greenland, and even floated the idea of taking it through military force—and then Mark Carney came and delivered the “this is a rupture” speech, and then Trump did back down.

That episode, reporting in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere has shown, it was really a—I wouldn’t say a wake-up call, I’d say it was a straw that broke the camel’s back, but it really made clear to the Europeans that this was a serious crisis, that America might be turning on its allies. And so from that point on, I think the strategy of flattery that many European countries had—I mean, it’s understandable why they thought they had to try—has really fallen by the wayside.

All that said, it is still especially NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s job to try to hold the alliance together, move forward. And I think he in particular has stuck with the flattery strategy a lot longer than some of his other counterparts.

Sargent: Yeah, it’s almost comical at this point. So speaking of that, here’s an exchange in which a reporter from Denmark, Rasmus Svaneborg, questioned NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. The reporter starts out by saying, Mark, you sit next to Trump while he says and does all these things to NATO and our allies. Listen.

Rasmus Svaneborg (voiceover): Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments where he talks about conquering Greenland, talks about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars—things that it doesn’t seem like the old Mark Rutte would approve of. Does this have any effect on your self-respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing?

Mark Rutte (voiceover): You know, what I always do is acknowledge when praise is due. And I think we should praise Donald Trump for the fact that NATO is so much stronger. Of course it has to do with the Russian threat, it has to do with the war in Ukraine. But it very much also has to do with President Trump delivering now what, since Eisenhower, the United States tried to achieve—equalizing spending between the U.S. and Europe.

Sargent: So as you heard there, the reporter asked Mark Rutte, how can you sit there next to this guy while he talks about seizing territory by force, lashes out pathologically at allies, and unleashes wildly destructive and crazy trade wars? How can you do that while maintaining your self-respect? Elizabeth, there’s something about this moment that perfectly captures the essence of the situation. What did you think of it?

Saunders: Well, your first instinct is to cheer the reporter and hope that Rutte says something like, you know, You’re right, I feel cheap and horrible when I do that, and I really think that Trump is an idiot or whatever. Very much like people were cheering for Keir Starmer, the prime minister of the U.K., to have a Love Actually moment where he told off the American president in a big televised speech, as Hugh Grant does in the movie Love Actually.

I mean, again, I think the era of flattery is over. I think Rutte probably knows that. But in his defense, he is the one in charge of just NATO, not a country anymore. And so he may feel that there’s a reason why he wants to at least keep Trump from lashing out, right? That’s how you get the no-drama—is you flatter him enough that he doesn’t do anything rash. I do think it does seem increasingly ridiculous to see anybody acting that way, though.

This is the president of the United States. His words really matter. And he again threatened Iranian civilian targets when he said he was going to bomb Iran tonight. I mean, he throws this language around so indiscriminately. And I don’t think we can forget that it’s not normal. It’s very abnormal.

Sargent: On the exchange with the reporter, I just want to point out how, in an understated way, it was an extraordinary takedown of Donald Trump, because it treated him as this buffoonish, irrelevant, sidelined figure, and essentially said, at this point, the only thing that matters now is how the rest of us react to this lunatic. It’s all on us. It essentially says, no more enabling of this madman. The whole world sees how crazy and destructive he is. It’s time to stop.

Saunders: The difficulty is, it isn’t just on the Europeans. Because the U.S. still has all the military power—or most of it, enough military power that it matters more than any other country. The Europeans and the Canadians are still dependent on it. And so you have this situation where Donald Trump is the single point of failure for the West. And it has some pretty serious threats facing it from Russia—I mean, I could go on, but the big one they were there to talk about was Russia, right?

And instead of that, he’s not just, as in his first term, doing things to kind of undermine the foundations. He has actually lashed out at Iran in a way that weakens the entire region, and over which they have very little control over events, if any.

So I don’t envy—there are many jobs I would not want to have in today’s world. University president, European head of state, right? That’s a tough one right now.

Sargent: Let’s listen to what Trump said about Spain. Check this out.

Donald Trump (voiceover): Spain is a wasted cause. We don’t want to do any trade business with Spain anymore, by the way. I’d like to cut her out. Spain is a terrible partner in NATO. They don’t participate, they don’t pay. I don’t want anything to do with Spain. Cut off all trade with Spain, please. Including visits. OK, we don’t want anything to do—watch them, watch them come running back. They’re open about it, they’re hostile about it. And let’s see how hostile they remain when they call up and they please, please, we want to trade with you, sir, we want to trade with you, sir. They make so much money with us, and we’re going to see that they make a lot less.

Sargent: He appears to be angry because Spain wasn’t willing to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. But let’s just recap what happened there. Trump went to war without consulting allies, after spending the last year and a half shitting all over them. And then when his war went south—exactly as his own advisers and everyone else, including the allies, warned that it would—he suddenly runs back to our allies for help in cleaning up his mess. Elizabeth, can you talk about that big dynamic? How ridiculous it is?

Saunders: Yeah. I think the other piece of it is that Spain refused to sign on to the defense spending pledge that Trump wanted and that Mark Rutte tried to kind of get everyone to pledge. And Spain is pretty far from Russia. It has some mountains in between it and the rest of continental Europe. It certainly has maritime—it’s of great maritime importance.

But Spain is not going to be the backbone of NATO under any circumstances, right? And it doesn’t make sense for Spain to spend as much, or to spend the same way, right? Not every European country can build tanks.

So he’s been angry about Spain not providing help that makes no sense, and then insulting Spain and Italy and—you know, Keir Starmer, who flattered him, as not very Churchillian and so forth—but then he really does need help from the NATO allies. So it’s a situation where, again, he’s not a very good negotiator. He doesn’t know how to take care of his friends and keep them happy so that they’re there when you need them.

Sargent: Rutte has kind of praised Trump by saying he was right about getting European powers to chip in more for defense and all that. And just putting that aside, there’s no denying that Trump has essentially screwed over the alliance in all kinds of ways, is there?

Saunders: And also screwed over America, right? It’s very helpful to have these allies. This is the part that Trump has never appreciated—that having allies who will not just share the burden, but allow you to use their bases, provide all kinds of logistical support without having to occupy them, that’s a huge advantage.

It’s an advantage the Soviets didn’t have in the Cold War. It’s an advantage China doesn’t have today. It’s much better and strategically more valuable and easier for the U.S. to just be really close friends with Denmark and get what they need out of Greenland, rather than take over Greenland itself.

So the U.S. role in the alliance is special. It has the most capabilities, especially the nuclear umbrella. But fundamentally, NATO boils down to trust. Trust that each country will in fact come to each other’s aid if attacked. And fundamentally, the most important country there has always been the U.S., and the credibility of the U.S. guarantee is the most important thing.

Presidents have always sought to make that promise credible. And the way you make things credible is you say what you mean, and then you follow through, and you don’t change your mind overnight and start making demands and so forth. And so I think they have recognized that Trump is the single point of failure in this alliance, and they cannot allow—they need to build in some redundancies.

It’s also just kind of another example of how this is screwing over America too. The dynamic of NATO has always been, we ask the allies to spend more and do more on their own. But the minute they start to do that, we get annoyed, because we also want to tell them what to do. And whatever one thinks of that, clearly we’re giving up whatever leverage we had over the NATO countries militarily. And that’s a loss for the U.S. You can’t deny it.

Sargent: Yeah. Let’s just try to sum up the big picture here. So Donald Trump comes in. He’s supposed to be the hardheaded realist who does big things in the world. He knows how to manhandle Putin because he’s a tough guy like Putin. He recognizes that China’s a threat, and he’ll confront China because, unlike Biden, that softy—he’s a tough guy and all that.

But then what you’ve basically actually got is Trump empowering Russia in all kinds of ways, Trump failing vis-à-vis China, doing things that actually empower China, and simultaneously throwing away all our allies who would essentially act as our allies in being a bulwark against those rising powers. Is that a fair summary of what’s going on?

Saunders: Yeah, I think that sums it up. And for me, one of the most—it was both ridiculous and very poignant moments—was when a reporter asked Trump a question about his recent talk of, you know, the fear of communists, because he’s been calling some Democrats communists of late. And leaving aside the whole domestic angle of that, he then went on a long discussion about communism and the dangers of communism, and you can’t go back once you’ve gone communist, and you suffer and you suffer.

And I’m thinking, as I’m listening to this, does he realize that he is in a room full of people dedicated to an organization that was founded to stop the spread of communism and Russian and Soviet aggression? And many of the countries that are now NATO members were behind the Iron Curtain for decades. And they sure do know what it’s like to live under communism.

So I think what you say is right. And I think NATO is sort of hoping that it can limp along, maybe not to a point where—I think nobody really thinks it can go back to the way it was. But I think they hope that they can improve their own defenses to a point where they can make a deal with a much more rational president who will stick to what he says.

Sargent: Yeah, and I think that that’s possible. I think a Democratic president could actually repair all this. Which brings me to this Wall Street Journal report—you referenced this earlier. The Journal reported on what our NATO allies are doing right now as they contemplate a world with a much less reliable America.

As the Journal put it, these countries are engaged in “an unprecedented experiment in de-Americanization.” Paul Krugman had a good line about this, where he said this reflects Europe’s realization that a country that elects Trump twice can’t ever be trusted again.

What I take from this is, the world is moving on from us. Can you talk about this de-Americanization process? What does it entail, and what does it all really mean? Where does it go?

Saunders: Well, there are various points on a spectrum of, quote-unquote, “de-Americanization,” right? And one would just be hedging, where you might not want to have American technology underpinning literally every facet of your defense and economy and so forth—not just because of Trump, but because of American tech companies, and being overly reliant on a single set of systems. Everybody knows that redundancy is good in this sort of situation.

So there’s sort of hedging, insurance, reducing dependency. And then there’s rupture. And Carney’s speech in Davos talked about rupture. But I think even he would probably say it would still be better if NATO existed, right? And existed in a form that people didn’t question whether it was still going to exist in a year or two.

So I think fundamentally we’re going to see more hedging from Europe. I don’t think that they will break away entirely, because their interests—if you step back, if you take a sort of 30,000-foot view of this, fundamentally Europe wants Ukraine to stay sovereign. The U.S. should want Ukraine to stay sovereign.

There’s lots of common interests that still exist. And so I think you’ll see some hedging, but it’s not going to be as far as maybe a full de-Americanization. And part of that also is just the constraints of what Europe can do and how fast it can do it. It can’t make a tech industry overnight.

Sargent: Yeah, it does seem like a Democratic president probably can repair things so that some form of an alliance that really matters in the world can continue. Do you think that’s possible?

Saunders: I don’t think we’re ever going back to the way it was, because I think we had Biden and then we got Trump again. And I think Krugman’s point about this—you know, they voted for him twice. That is the thing that stops people in their tracks when they think about it that way. So I think there will be—even if you got a president from the sort of more, you know, suppose like, just throwing out a name, Nikki Haley, right?

Someone who even worked for Trump, but who has clearly got a more internationalist outlook, would not ever want to go trashing NATO for the sake of trashing it. I think that’s someone the leaders at this meeting could work with, would want to work with. But they’re under no illusions anymore. And I think they will want to have redundancy. It’s just prudent, right? Diversification of portfolios—it’s what we’re all supposed to do with our money, right?

So I don’t think they’re going to allow themselves to be in this position, to the extent their economies and capacity allow them to diversify. They have learned an important lesson. And I think America’s going to have to learn what it’s like to have a Europe with some autonomous capacity. As I said before, that traditionally has not been what we actually want when push comes to shove. We’d much rather tell them what to do.

Sargent: Yeah. Well, I think that that reporter and that exchange really kind of nailed it. He basically said, in his own way, it’s time to move on. Elizabeth Saunders, really great to talk to you. Thanks for all that. It’s really great stuff.

Saunders: Thank you so much.

What were the top issues that would move swing voters to vote for a Democrat? Raising taxes on the wealthy, instituting Medicare for All, and banning artificial intelligence from using personal data to set wages or prices. Economic issues like these have been embraced by progressive candidates, such as Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Randy Villegas in California, and Sam Forstag in Montana. Villegas and Forstag both won their House primaries against opponents who ran to the center, and El-Sayed’s Senate primary against an establishment centrist will be held on August 4.

“I think the big takeaway from this report is that swing voters who could decide the midterms are not asking Democrats to sound more like Republicans,” said Ryan O’Donnell, DFP’s executive director.

DFP ran a similar survey in 2024. At that time, swing voters tended to be younger and more racially diverse. Today, DFP found that there aren’t significant demographic differences between swing voters and other likely voters. Despite the change in demographics, economic issues have consistently remained a top priority for swing voters. “Even though the electorate’s changed, the fact that their focus on economic populism has stayed so consistent is something to consider,” O’Donnell said.

Other findings in the report support that notion. DFP asked respondents what issues they consider most when deciding which candidates to vote for. The top three issues were “economy, jobs, and the cost of living,” which 38 percent of respondents selected; “programs like Social Security and Medicare,” which 17 percent selected; and “health care,” which came in at 6 percent. So-called culture-war issues ranked far lower: Only around 3 percent of respondents selected “LGBTQ+ issues” as their top priority, and around 1 percent selected “race relations and racism.” Notably, “immigration” was the third-highest issue in 2024 but has fallen to twelfth in this year’s survey.

Swing voters also shared what they find most concerning about the Democratic Party, and the results echo what many progressive members of the party have been saying for years: 32 percent of respondents said that “leadership is too old and out of touch,” and another 32 percent said that the party is “not doing enough to lower costs.”

Some economic populists have rejected the Democratic Party brand and are running instead as independents, like Senate candidate Dan Osborn in Nebraska. “He’s doing a great job at pushing that message in Nebraska,” O’Donnell said. “Swing voters in general largely reject partisan and ideological labels, so it reflects that, as well.”

Overall, the poll helps dispel the popular wisdom that running a conservative, centrist campaign is the best way to get the support of those in the middle. “If I were a Democratic leader reading this, I would say that these results indicate that taking a more conservative stance is not the way to win over the voters you need to win,” he said.

Then, he steps in it. “I have a nagging fear,” he writes, “that children’s literature suffers from a slightly higher crud percentage than literature as a whole.” For Barnett, this means that the preponderance of kidlit is clunkily didactic at best, thinly exploitative at worst. On its own, it’s probably hard to argue with this sentiment—the sheer number of children’s books based on Paw Patrol episodes alone seems to prove the point. But Barnett goes on to facetiously offer a guesstimate that 94.7 percent are duds. Only 5.3 percent of children’s books, then, would be worthy of the children reading them.

The backlash was immediate, especially among authors of color who felt that the books Barnett dismissively described as “didactic” might likely include many titles meant to reach out to children historically underrepresented in children’s literature. Barnett immediately apologized, but the damage was done. A petition circulated, and a movement began to have his position as the Library of Congress national ambassador for young people’s literature revoked. Barnett’s “crud” remarks, many felt, stood to cause real harm in an industry that is still struggling to diversify and that is threatened constantly by state-sponsored book bans. As the writer and publisher Meg Reid pointed out, though, Barnett’s (hyperbolic) assertion reads differently if you think about the sheer volume of children’s literature published every year. If we take Barnett’s unserious analytic seriously, then his claim means that many thousands of children’s books of the vast number published annually are not crud. Pretty good!

Children’s television, I’d argue, is in a similar state. In this streaming environment, there is more space for children’s TV series than ever before. Lots of it is CGI sludge, of course, and nursery school nonsense and cynically concocted consumer training, but, amid all that “crud,” there’s a lot to be grateful for. If I were to make a long list of the best TV series of the past decade or so, a decent number of those series would certainly be children’s TV shows: Netflix’s City of Ghosts, Hilda, and The Baby-Sitters Club; Cartoon Network’s Steven Universe; Disney+’s Gravity Falls and The Owl House; and, of course, Bluey, the formally perfect Australian animated series that would be pretty hard to keep out of the top 10. Kids don’t automatically reject series that challenge them. They can feel when they’re being taken seriously, and they like it.

It’s into this environment of crud and classics that Netflix has now released two series adaptations of beloved novels: Little House on the Prairie and Lord of the Flies. One is a show for kids, the other a show about kids. But both tell the truth—or at least part of it—about what it means to be a person in an often inhospitable world.

You may have heard that the new Little House on the Prairie series is “woke.” When the new adaptation of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s novel series was announced early last year, former Fox News pundit Megyn Kelly immediately tweeted at Netflix, “if you wokeify Little House on the Prairie I will make it my singular mission to absolutely ruin your project.” Melissa Gilbert, star of the original 1974 series, responded by saying, “Ummm…watch the original again. TV doesn’t get too much more ‘woke’ than we did. We tackled: racism, addiction, nativism, antisemitism, misogyny, rape, spousal abuse and every other ‘woke’ topic you can think of. Thank you very much.” And this was all before the new show even had a cast list.

The actual series, which has already been green-lit for a follow-up season, is neither the nostalgic tradlife fantasy Kelly hoped for nor the Resistance Lib fever dream she feared. Still, it’s easy to imagine that she might take umbrage with the new show’s primary departure from the beloved series of her childhood. That show, also called Little House on the Prairie, was not strictly an adaptation of the novel of the same name. Indeed, the ’70s series, set in Minnesota in the 1870s, takes place after the events of Wilder’s Little House on the Prairie novel. In other words, the Little House on the Prairie that Kelly romanticizes isn’t really Little House on the Prairie at all.

This new show is. That slightly nudged timeline makes Netflix’s Little House not only different, but dirtier, too. It begins, as the novel does, with the Ingalls family departing the big woods of Wisconsin and traversing the mighty West in a covered wagon, heading for a new home, and free land, on the Kansas prairie. There’s handsome, hopeful Pa (Luke Bracey), worried and wary Ma (Crosby Fitzgerald), angsty older sister Mary (Skywalker Hughes), and, of course, rascally, openhearted Laura (Alice Halsey). A tight-knit unit, they brave the elements and the isolation of frontier life together.

Upon arriving in the town of Independence, Kansas, however, Pa realizes that he’s brought his family there on a false promise. The “free” land advertised by the crumpled poster he carries in his pocket actually belongs to the Osage. Building a home, as he does, on that prairie, makes him a squatter and a speculator. The Ingalls family’s future, then, rests entirely on the completion of an unlikely treaty between the Osage and the federal government that would sell the land to the United States and legitimize all of the settlers’ claims. Pa’s sense of disappointment and guilt—and the sense that he’s betrayed his family by not telling them—hangs over everything.

If the new show is “woke” at all, it’s in the way it holds on to the dark moral compromise at the foundation of the Ingalls family’s adorable log home. Indeed, its primary innovation is in the degree to which it tests Laura’s relentless cheer. There’s nothing uncomplicated about even the show’s happiest moments. The script teases a troubled backstory, suggesting that the Ingallses are less pioneers than exiles from Wisconsin after some unacknowledged family squabble; Pa has several encounters with the ghost of his dead younger brother; the odd fact that the family has come alone, without siblings, parents, or cousins to help settle the land, is pointed out ominously by several different experienced settlers. Even the construction of the “little house” itself seems cursed: Ma graphically injures her foot hauling logs, only then to have a falling-out with neighbor Mr. Edwards over his alcoholism. Laura is the same bright-eyed optimist Megyn Kelly remembers, but her optimism here can read as almost delusional in its insistence.

This is, in some ways, a change that actually makes the show more faithful rather than less to the tone of Wilder’s stories. The biggest structural departure from the book is in the addition of an Osage family, whose trials we follow in parallel with the Ingallses: There’s Mitchell (Meegwun Fairbrother), a mixed-race Osage man; White Sun (Alyssa Wapanatâhk), who is as distrustful of the white settlers as they are of her; and their daughter, Good Eagle (Wren Zhawenim Gotts), who is basically an Osage Laura Ingalls. They don’t get the same screen time as their white counterparts, but the struggle of a mixed-race Osage family caught between a desire to make peace with newly arriving white settlers and make amends to their furious, soon-to-be-displaced people is a crucial element of the new show.

Wilder’s books feature famously vicious depictions of Indigenous people, so there is certainly some corrective impulse in the show’s fleshed-out portrayal of a Native American family, especially as Laura and Good Eagle become besties. The show never has the full courage to make the ­Ingallses true antiheroes—Ma, for instance, is only frightened by rather than prejudiced against their Osage neighbors—but it gestures toward self-consciousness about the kind of erasure that allowed Wilder’s cottagecore mythology to grow in the first place. In the pilot, Laura finds a torn Indian doll on a riverbank. She takes it for her own and has Ma sew it back up with ribbon but gladly surrenders it when she realizes it belongs to Good Eagle. The Osage girl gets back what belongs to her, mended by her new white neighbor.

Netflix’s Lord of the Flies is a nasty little hallucination of a show—I mean that as a compliment. The four-part miniseries, developed and written by Jack Thorne for the BBC, should be read as a spiritual sequel to Thorne’s acrobatic dirge Adolescence—his 2025 miniseries about a young boy’s seemingly inexplicable murder of a teenage girl and all the apps that drove him to it. This time, there’s no social media to turn these little chaps into monsters, but they still manage the old-fashioned way.

As in William Golding’s novel, the new Lord of the Flies starts when a planeload of young British boys crashes on a tropical island. Left to their own devices, the boys fight between the impulse to reestablish some form of civilized society and the temptation to go absolutely wild, indulging in every taboo impulse their parents and schoolteachers forbade. On the side of order and democracy are Ralph (Winston Sawyers), a charming young man who has a way with the littler children, and Piggy (David McKenna), the smartest and least socially adept of the castaways; on the side of bacchanalia is Jack (Lox Pratt), a real little shit of a sociopath, who commands fierce devotion from the other boys who sang with him in the school choir.

All the stuff that happens in Lord of the Flies, the novel, happens here, too, though often from a slightly different perspective or turned out in a slightly different way. This is a story about logistics and survival, and, ultimately, about what the way we choose to survive says about us. Ralph and Piggy struggle to get a beach full of kids to reproduce the civic ideals of modern Britain; they can’t even get them to pee in the right place. Meanwhile, Jack’s and the choir boys’ efforts to assert their heroic masculinity—by hunting for boar and maintaining a dangerously large signal fire—produce only disappointment and strife. And yet, the stunning complexity of these child actors’ performances convinces us of the inevitability of their roles. McKenna imbues Piggy with an almost immediate frank command of this situation and its requirements, while Pratt seethes with the kind of theatrically compensatory overconfidence that both makes men legends and gets men killed.

While not shot with the long-take extravagance of Adolescence, Lord of the Flies is similarly visually striking. Lots of fish-eye lenses help us to share in the topsy-turvy swirl of the boys’ new situation, and some pretty hardcore color-grading gives the gorgeous flora of the island the texture of Gothic horror. Outside of these cinematographic flourishes, Thorne’s major addition to the text is some degree of backstory for our main characters. Specifically, he goes out of his way to show that Jack—the show’s main antagonist—and the spiritual Simon (Ike Talbut) both have difficult fathers back home. These boys aren’t just allegorical baddies or toxic men-in-training; they’re damaged little kids who act out in ways that ultimately make sense. Hurt people hurt people.

As Rebecca Onion has pointed out, this change means that Thorne’s series makes it harder to read the boys as archetypes or as metaphors for this or that geopolitical crisis. They are individuals; their failure to be peaceable doesn’t tell us anything about boys in general or society in general. All they need, perhaps, is love.

I showed the pilot episode of the new Little House to my daughters, who are 10 and six years old. The show was too scary for the six-year-old, and too serious, I think, too. But it was catnip for the tween. Lots of shows she watches occupy this same realm of socially conscious melodrama. This Laura will immediately be the kind of heroine, navigating the thorny contradictions of her world, that appeals to girls in her age bracket. I will not, however, be showing my daughters Lord of the Flies. The extreme violence of these boys in crisis is not exactly pitched at my elder daughter’s age range—and, honestly, might too closely resemble some of the social dynamics she sees on the playground every day. Much like Adolescence, Lord of the Flies is mostly a horror series aimed at parents. All the same, both of these shows take seriously Barnett’s admonition that children are real people—people who can understand concepts like justice, complicity, and repair, and who can, left to their own devices, destroy a new world as easily as they can imagine one.  

The initial enthusiasm about Platner came from three parts of the Democratic Party coalition. Most importantly, Maine liberals crowded his events, excited by both his personal story and populist politics, and eventually overwhelmingly backed him in last month’s Senate primary. Outside of Maine, leftists such as journalist Ryan Grim and Senator Bernie Sanders got behind Platner as the man who could defeat the party establishment’s more centrist choice, Governor Janet Mills. There was a third group of people on the left and center-left, perhaps best exemplified by the hosts of Pod Save America, who perhaps thought that Platner could appeal to voters who don’t traditionally back Democrats and not only finally defeat Susan Collins but offer clues about how the party could win such voters across the country. I had a foot in both the second and third camps.

The electoral aspect was an important part of the fanfare around Platner. The backlash to President Trump alone may be enough for the Democrats to win control of the House, Senate, and presidency over the next two elections. But even under that optimistic scenario, today’s radical, antidemocracy Republican Party would control about half the states, including almost the entire South, and have a strong chance of regaining power in Washington in 2030 and 2032. And the Republicans will be in a strong position as long as they keep winning the white (57 percent for Trump in 2024), male (57 percent), white noncollege (63 percent), and rural (69) votes nationally, particularly since many independent voters and younger people either keep backing the GOP or don’t vote at all. So a white male veteran gun owner running in a very rural swing state was destined to get outsize attention from Democrats.

This electoral aspect of Platner’s candidacy is tricky—and a bit icky—to discuss. A party like the Democrats that does better with urban voters than rural voters, women compared to men, Black people compared to white people, and college graduates compared to non–college graduates isn’t doing anything morally wrong. In fact, considering the history of America, the party that is more popular with women and Black people is no doubt on the right side of most moral questions.

But to win elections, it would help Democrats to woo more men, rural voters, white people without degrees, and white people overall, particularly since the Electoral College and the Senate give disproportionate power to the latter three groups. So while no one who backed Platner admitted this openly, it’s unlikely they would have as enthusiastically supported a Black or female candidate in Maine with no political experience, an incendiary tattoo, and crazy social media posts.

Platner was benefiting from affirmative action for gruff-looking white men, with political elites supporting Platner in part on the theory that he could reach other men like himself. It was irritating to see Platner portrayed as a candidate for the working class, since his background was fairly privileged and the voters that he would ideally reach were much better described by their gender (male) and geography (rural) than their income or working conditions. But I was more annoyed by the coded conversation than the reality it masked: There are probably some voters in Maine and other states who will back a white man like Platner but not Democratic candidates of other demographics.

I don’t love elevating gruff white guys as an electoral strategy. But it’s in some ways preferable to the Democratic establishment’s favorite tactic: constantly moving to the right to appeal to a mythical constituency of anti-Trump Republicans. Following the center-left playbook, Kamala Harris spent the latter part of her 2024 campaign abandoning populist economic policies, promising to ensure that America’s military remained the world’s “most lethal,” and touting her support for more Border Patrol officers. That approach not only moves the party in a worse direction on policy, but rarely wins over many non-Democratic voters. Many of the Democrats running in 2026 backed anti-immigrant measures last year, although they have shifted left as Trump has become more unpopular.

There are two alternative approaches that hold promise. First, some Democrats rely on parts of their biography to woo voters who aren’t traditional liberals. Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock leans into his Christianity and pastoral role. For Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, it’s faith and a nerdy dad vibe. Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, and New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill all won swing House districts and then statewide office by emphasizing their service in national security jobs. Second, a growing number of Democrats, such as Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff and Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, are running as anti-system, anti-corruption figures. They emphasize their opposition not to Republicans but to big corporations.

The virtue of these two approaches is that they don’t require Democratic candidates to be Republican-lite on policy as Harris was on some issues in 2024. And the anti-corruption message allows candidates to tap into the anti-Washington, anti-institution sentiment that pervades the country. In 2024, Harris was constantly highlighting how much support she had from Republican politicians like Liz Cheney.

But being well liked by fellow politicians, even from the other party, isn’t that useful in appealing to voters who hate everyone in Washington. Two of the most surprising victors in the post-Obama political era, Trump and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, both won over swing voters and inspired people to vote who often sit out elections by running against the establishments in both parties.

Platner was using both of these approaches. He was bashing elites in Washington and calling for limits on corporate and billionaire spending in politics, like other populist candidates across the country. At the same time, his candidacy was very much about his own unique biography: small-town veteran and oysterman who had never previously run for office.

Would this have worked in November? As my colleague Greg Sargent wrote before the sexual assault report, Platner was far behind Collins among voters without college degrees. Perhaps his message and bio weren’t selling. Alternatively, all of the swirl around his past made voters wary, no matter what he said on the campaign trail. We’ll never know how a general election between Collins and an untainted Platner would have gone. And we don’t know how El-Sayed, Ossoff, or others running on the anti-corruption, anti-system agenda will do this November.

But we do know how the 2016 and 2024 elections went. The Democrats, for the presidency and key congressional races, ran traditional candidates with centrist policy platforms—and they lost. That doesn’t mean Democrats will automatically win if they run pastors, oyster farmers, or anti-corruption warriors. What those elections tell us is that there isn’t yet a clear formula for beating the MAGA right.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer shouldn’t be so confident he knows which candidates are best. Nor should Morris Katz, the strategist who helped steer Mamdani to victory but also helped create the debacle that was Platner’s campaign. Platner wasn’t the right candidate. But neither were Hillary Clinton or Harris. The Democratic Party shouldn’t only look for white men with unusual jobs to run for office. But it should look for candidates who get voters to give Democrats a second look—even if those candidates are white men with unusual jobs.

Surprisingly little of the report, which was released July 4, finds fault with what a visitor will encounter when visiting NMAH today. A huge chunk of it is devoted to the character assassination of Anthea Hartig, the museum’s director since 2019. The word “Hartig” appears 229 times, compared to 81 mentions for “visitor,” 73 mentions for “United States,“ 61 mentions for “National Museum of American History,” 49 mentions for “founder,” 49 mentions for “president,” 38 mentions for “race,” 31 mentions for “Congress,” 18 mentions for “ideology,” seven mentions for “bias,” five mentions for “ethnic,” and six mentions for “patriotism.” Firing Hartig is clearly Job One for this report. The Domestic Policy Council condemns Hartig for everything from identifying her pronouns as “she/her/hers” to saying she would like to “problematize” the semiquincentennial. As Philip Kennicott notes in an excellent essay about all this for The Washington Post, “Problematizing is the essence of historical thinking.”

I can’t defend Hartig’s public comments against 229 petty complaints because that won’t leave time for anything else, and anyway it’s a distraction from the topic at hand, which is her museum. So let’s stick to the report’s criticisms of how NMAH presents the materials on display in what the museum world, annoyingly, calls “didactics,” meaning those posters and cards that explain what you’re looking at. My method here is to search the document for the word “didactic.” There are 160 of these, so obviously I can’t field all these, either. But to give you some flavor, here are the first four.

• “A didactic in NMAH’s American Democracy exhibit entitled ‘Abraham Lincoln in the Classroom’ … provides no information about the accomplishments of the two great American heroes it cites—Lincoln and Washington—noting only that both were presidents and that Americans have used images of them in an attempt to ‘instill patriotic values and reinforce the idea of a shared national heritage.’”
  

I did not see this particular didactic when I visited the museum earlier this week. But it would appear its subject is not the life of America’s beloved Railsplitter but rather how Lincoln is, you know, taught in the classroom. If the Domestic Policy Council is trying to suggest that biographical information about Lincoln is hard to find at the NMAH, let me assure you it is not. For example, a permanent exhibit titled “The Price of Freedom: Americans at War” contains a large section about the Civil War and, inevitably, much discussion of Abraham Lincoln. If anything, the didactics here tilt rightward. Here’s one:

Lincoln hoped that the nation could be reunited without rancor, but he found himself at odds with Republicans in Congress. They wanted to punish the South for seceding and wanted Southern states to guarantee the freedom and rights of African Americans.

Lincoln’s assassination, and the ineffectual leadership of his successor, Andrew Johnson, enabled the Congress to control Reconstruction. They divided the South into military districts, withholding statehood from some former Confederate states until 1870s.

This approximates the pro-South narrative still taught when I attended high school in the 1970s, all about Northern carpetbaggers, Northern scalawags, wild-eyed Radical Republicans, and ex-slaves unready for citizenship rights in dear old Dixie. I know that the Domestic Policy Council is aware of the Reconstruction revisionist Eric Foner, who called bullshit on all this in 1988, because he’s quoted favorably elsewhere in the report. (It’s probably heard, too, of W.E.B. Du Bois, who made a similar case in his 1935 text Black Reconstruction.) But peddling a Gone With the Wind story about Reconstruction’s tragic overreach is never going to raise any hackles in the Trump White House.

• “One didactic about the Broadway musical Hamilton in ‘Entertainment Nation’ simply called Alexander Hamilton an ‘influential and flawed founding father’ likely, in part, because he may have owned slaves.”
  

Any child who’s seen Hamilton knows that the man’s most conspicuous character flaw was not that he “may have owned slaves” (he also may not have; the historical record on this point is inconclusive, and I don’t think the matter comes up in Hamilton at all). Rather, it is that Hamilton had an extramarital affair with Maria Reynolds that, when made public, destroyed his chance of becoming president. In the age of Trump, is it now “woke” to look askance at a politician who cheats on his wife?

• In the “Many Voices, One Nation” exhibit, according to the report, a didactic presents ours as “a fundamentally oppressive nation” in saying European settlement was “a profound unsettling of the American continent” because its “population actually declined … as Old World diseases swept through Native populations that lacked immunity.”
  

For starters, during the period described here our nation couldn’t have been “oppressive” because it didn’t yet exist. To say that European settlement spread disease “through Native populations that lacked immunity,” and that the North American population therefore declined, is merely true. To describe all this as “a profound unsettling” is offensive only to those who question the value of human life.

• In the same exhibit, the following sentence appears in a didactic: “In creating the new nation, early leaders envisioned a country that promised opportunity and freedom—but only for some.” This, the report states, is a “slander of America.”
  

A slander by definition is untrue. Where’s the untrue part in that sentence? Early leaders granted the vote only to white male property owners. Women were excluded. Blacks were excluded, and anyway most of them were slaves, and slavery is the precise opposite of freedom.

As I stated Wednesday, even when judged by the standards of the form, the White House’s anti-woke polemic is a shoddy piece of workmanship not unlike the peeling blue sealant in the $15 million renovation of the Reflecting Pool. No honest conservative could argue otherwise. I wonder whether that matters. I hope it does.

“We believe for the movement to continue, it can’t be me and for that reason, we are suspending campaign operations,” Platner said in a video posted to social media.

My name might be on the ballot right now, but that ballot line belongs to the people of Maine. pic.twitter.com/RKVyLU76tm

— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 9, 2026

Jenny Racicot, a 41-year-old Maine resident who dated Platner on and off for two years, told Politico on Monday that the former Marine drunkenly entered her home uninvited five years ago and forced himself on her even as she asked him to stop.

Platner initially denied Racicot’s allegations, and he maintained his innocence in his announcement. He called the accusations “all false” and blamed a “corporate media system and the political establishment [that] got to act as judge, jury, and executioner.”

Maine’s Democratic Party now has until July 27 to pick a candidate to appear on the ballot in November’s general election.

Calls for Platner’s exit had been brewing since Racicot’s announcement.

Platner’s insurgent progressive populist campaign had come close to derailing on multiple occasions. Last October, Platner had to apologize for commenting on Reddit that people concerned about sexual assault had to “take some responsibility for themselves and not get so fucked up they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to.” Around the same time, there was the controversy around his Nazi Totenkopf tattoo, which Platner said he and other Marines had done on leave in Croatia in 2007.

And less than two months ago, there was the warning his current wife gave to his Senate campaign about how he had sent sexually explicit texts to several women while they were married. Now, finally, Platner is recusing himself from this political moment. Hopefully, we’re all better off for it.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman only gave Hannah Dugan a $5,000 fine, saying, “I think this is a situation where an otherwise good person, upset by immigration policies in this country, made a bad decision in the moment.” Dugan faced up to five years in prison.

“This is a few minutes of conduct for someone who has dedicated her life to public service,” Adelman said. “It’s a marked deviation from an otherwise law-abiding life.”

Dugan was found guilty last December on two counts of federal obstruction, though jurors did not charge her with concealing an individual from arrest. The case followed an incident in which federal immigration agents entered the court in April 2025 to arrest Mexican immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. Dugan confronted the agents outside her courtroom and redirected them to the chief judge’s office on grounds that their warrant was insufficient. Flores-Ruiz was later arrested outside the court.

In his ruling, Adelman noted that Dugan had decades of public service, no pattern of criminal behavior, and an otherwise clean record. He added that the consequences of Dugan having a criminal record and losing her judicial position were enough, and that Flores-Ruiz was ultimately detained and deported anyway.

Before her sentencing, Dugan told the court that she meant to preserve “decorum and safety of the courtroom” by helping Flores-Ruiz.

“I have been cast as both a scofflaw and a hero. I am neither. I am a public servant who’s just trying to do my job,” Dugan said.

Six ICE agents showed up at Dugan’s Milwaukee courthouse in April last year, preparing to arrest and deport Flores-Ruiz, who was set to appear before Dugan in court over three misdemeanor counts of battery. According to prosecutors, Dugan led Flores-Ruiz out of a private door instead of the courtroom’s public exit, telling her court reporter she’d “get the heat” for her actions.

The FBI subsequently arrested Dugan, sparking a backlash from Democrats and even some conservatives. She later resigned from the Milwaukee County Circuit bench after Wisconsin Republican legislators threatened to impeach her.

So, what exactly is a “DEI bike lane?”

The Daily Wire pointed to former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s claim that a series of 2021 grants funding bike lanes would serve to “improve infrastructure, strengthen supply chains, make us safer, advance equity, and combat climate change.”

Upon hearing “equity,” President Donald Trump’s goons can’t help but get triggered into attacking any federal spending that won’t benefit them directly. In reality, those Biden-era grants directed funds to build a new transit center in North Carolina, replace bridges in New Mexico, extend streets in New Hampshire, install traffic lights and crosswalks in Missouri, and install bike lanes in Seattle, among other projects. Now the financial status of these projects is unclear.

The Daily Wire also complained that when the Biden administration announced the availability of $1.5 billion in grants in 2023, applicants were encouraged “to consider how their projects can address climate change, ensure racial equity, and remove barriers to opportunity.” Those funds were already awarded to dozens of projects across the country—not just bike lanes—in both rural and urban areas.

The Trump administration has made extensive efforts to root out federal programs addressing racial discrimination. Now it seems that to even have considered racial inequality is grounds for losing millions of dollars.

“America is fortunate to have a Builder in the White House who knows America is only as great as our infrastructure,” Duffy told The Daily Wire. “That’s why this Department is investing in repairing critical roads and bridges that connect Americans to job opportunities, port infrastructure that bolsters our national security, and aviation and transit projects that move American families.”

But American families benefit from the presence of bike lanes, even if they don’t use them. Even the federal government acknowledges that bicycle lanes make roads a lot safer.

“To make bicycling safer and more comfortable for most types of bicyclists, State and local agencies should consider installing bicycle lanes,” said a statement from the Federal Highway Administration. “Providing bicycle facilities can mitigate or prevent interactions, conflicts, and crashes between bicyclists and motor vehicles, and create a network of safer roadways for bicycling.”

Rather, it seems likely that the Trump administration has chosen to zero in on bike lanes because they may be associated with urban areas that are led by Democrats and home to minority groups.

The move is simultaneously a blow to the diverse communities in American cities and a cheap culture-war win over the liberal urbanites. At the same time, the policy is in line with Trump’s efforts to boost gas-powered vehicles.

But American families will suffer from a lack of bike lanes too, especially with gas prices remaining high—and likely to stay that way.

The missing soldier was identified Tuesday as Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 5 commanding officer Gabriel Edwards. He and three other soldiers were forced to emergency-land their helicopter in the Arabian Sea on July 1. While the others were rescued, Edwards was declared officially dead after 102 hours—over four days—of searching.

“Commander Gabe Edwards was the epitome of selfless leadership, who dedicated himself to service and sacrifice for the last 20 years,” Captain Matthew Lewis said in a statement on Tuesday. “Our deepest gratitude and sympathy go out to his family, who should know that Gabe led his squadron, the HSC-5 ‘Nightdippers,’ with integrity and fortitude.”

The cause of the incident remains under investigation, but the Navy insists that Edwards’s death was not caused by a hostile act.

Nevertheless, Edwards’s disappearance and death coincides with a once again active war between the U.S. and Iran. President Trump on Wednesday declared any deal with Iran null and void, following the worst exchange of fire between the two countries since the memorandum of understanding, or MOU, was signed. Iran targeted tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and U.S. bases, and the U.S. bombed several coastal cities in Iran.

“To me? I think it’s over,” Trump said of the MOU at the NATO summit in Turkey. “They’re scum. You know what scum is? They’re scum. They’re sick people. They’re led by sick people, and they’re vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”

Thirteen U.S soldiers have been confirmed to be killed in Iran, although that number has been alleged to be an underestimate.

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island were all denied after requesting a total of $227 million in aid following the brutal blizzard in February. All four states were well past the damage threshold required to trigger aid consideration.

“After months of waiting, President Trump today denied our request for a Major Disaster Declaration following the blizzard that pummeled New York City, Long Island, and the Mid-Hudson in February of this year,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said in a statement last week. “New York’s communities … deserve to have access to every resource available to recover and rebuild. Instead they have a President who is turning his back on his home state.… We will appeal to ensure New Yorkers receive the federal assistance they deserve.”

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and the rest of the state’s congressional Democratic delegation similarly condemned Trump.

“After months of inaction, on July 2, President Trump denied Rhode Island’s request for a Major Disaster Declaration related to the record snowfall and cold temperatures,” the delegation wrote on Monday.

The letter also noted that Trump bragged about granting over $846 million in disaster relief funds to Republican states on Truth Social the same day he denied their request—further proof of Trump purposefully withholding funds from blue states.

“Rhode Island’s Congressional delegation believes the Trump Administration improperly rejected the Ocean State’s request, pointing out that President Trump has politicized disaster assistance for states over the last year and made it exponentially harder for so-called ‘blue states’ to get disaster funding under the highly partisan Trump Administration than it is for so-called ‘red states.’” They demanded he reverse the decision.

The president also denied disaster relief requests from Vermont, Illinois, and Maryland last year, and from Colorado and California around that same time—all while continuing to deliver aid to states where more people voted for him.

A new analysis of U.S. expenses through the four-month war thus far, conducted by Popular Information’s Stephen Semler, found that Trump officials have dramatically lowballed Congress on the real cost of the conflict (Semler also co-founded the U.S. foreign policy think tank Security Policy Reform Institute).

Last week, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought told the House Appropriations Committee that the U.S. had spent $30 billion on the Iran war. According to Semler’s estimates, the true cost is closer to $103 billion.

Semler argued that Vought himself must have been aware of the figure’s inaccuracy. Days before his House testimony, Vought wrote and signed a formal request “on behalf of the president” for $88 billion in supplemental funding from Congress, including a $72 billion increase for the war effort.

But even that $72 billion figure doesn’t offer a complete image of the war’s total price tag. Semler noted that Popular Information had previously calculated the war cost nearly that much—about $71.8 billion—during the first 60 days. The Trump administration is expected to ask for even more money to fund the conflict through upcoming reconciliation bills.

In order to build an independent analysis of the Pentagon’s expenditures, Semler analyzed procurement information, operating and support data, open-source intelligence, statements from U.S. officials, and media reports.

Over the first 120 days of the conflict, Semler tallied $28.5 billion in mobilization, administrative, and immediate combat costs; $46.7 billion spent on missiles, interceptors, and bombs; $20.3 billion on damaged or destroyed military assets; $2.9 billion spent on Israel’s bombs and interceptors; and an additional $4.8 billion on war costs to nonmilitary U.S. agencies.

Yet no one in charge of the government—from the White House to top congressional Republicans—has posited exactly how the U.S. will pay for the war. Whereas taxes were raised in previous wars (such as World War I, World War II, and the Korean War) in order to fund conflict, the current administration has so far offered no such solution.

After the Supreme Court declined last week to hear Trump’s appeal of Carroll’s successful defamation case against him, the president has made excuses and tried to get out of paying her. Trump has already provided the money through a fund set up during the appeals process. However, the interest has grown since then, raising the total sum past the initial $5 million verdict.

Shortly after Judge Lewis Kaplan issued his ruling, Trump appealed the decision.

In 2023, a jury found that Trump sexually abused Carroll in 1996 in a Manhattan department store, and defamed her after she went public with her story. The jury ordered $5 million in damages, and Trump put the sum, plus interest, in a court-controlled account shortly after losing the case.

Still, Trump insisted that he didn’t know Carroll and accused her of political and financial motives, and continued to defame her by claiming she fabricated her story. That repeated defamation resulted in another lawsuit that Trump lost, with a jury awarding Carroll $88.3 million.

Carroll is still awaiting payment from a man notorious for many years for not paying his bills. He’s pulling out all of the stops to avoid paying funds that he already deposited, and that are a tiny fraction of his net worth thanks to his successful efforts to use the presidency to enrich himself. Trump can’t admit when he’s lost, whether in court or at the ballot box, and he likes to hoard his ill-gotten gains.

This story has been updated.

Olivia Rodrigo is mobilizing her fans to vote against the Trump administration after Homeland Security officials used one of her songs as the soundtrack for their deportation propaganda.

The singer of “the cure” launched a contest Wednesday that will offer fans a chance to win VIP tickets to her Daisy Chain Fields festival. The only entry requirement: prepping for the 2026 midterm elections.

Headcount Organization, the entity running the sweepstakes, partners with musicians and music events to help Americans understand their civil rights and register to vote. The winner will have all festival expenses paid for, including travel and hotel accommodations, according to Headcount’s website.

The nonprofit offers participants three buttons to enter the competition, labeled “Check your registration status,” “I’m not registered to vote,” or “Election info.” The page notes in fine print that actually following through on the vote is not necessary to win.

“You may enter the sweepstakes by clicking any button above without taking a civic action,” the page reads. “Voting, registering to vote, or being a registered voter is not required.”

Rodrigo’s massive, all-women, late-August lineup will include Chappell Roan, Doechii, Santigold, Sarah McLachlan, Mitski, The Breeders, Bikini Kill, and Stevie Nicks. The event will also feature nonprofits sharing educational resources on a range of issues including reproductive rights, maternal health, economic empowerment, domestic violence prevention, and gender equity.

Partnering organizations include the Black Mamas Matter Alliance, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Indigenous Health, among others.

The sweepstakes come several months after DHS used Rodrigo’s song “all-american bitch” without her permission in a video calling for immigrants to “LEAVE NOW and self-deport.”

“I was just scrolling on my phone,” the three-time Grammy winner told Dazed last month, recalling the incident. “It was so deeply disturbing to see that propaganda, and the fact it was my song in there made me feel even more enraged. What they’re doing is so awful and barbaric and cruel. I am really sad to be in a country that thinks that’s OK.”

While taking questions from the press at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, on Wednesday, Trump was asked to respond to speculation that security concerns had forced him to ditch the newly renovated, Qatar-gifted plane after the president scrapped his own ceasefire deal with Iran.

“You’ve spoken today, twice, about them possibly assassinating you, and possibly being successful. Did that concern have something to do with—” asked the New York Post’s Stephen Nelson, before the president interrupted him.

“Well, I speak about it a lot because, you know, the life of a president is very dangerous,” Trump replied, before comparing himself to a racecar driver and a bull rider.

“I like being number one on TikTok better, but I’m number one on the list for killing,” Trump added.

“But why aren’t you flying the new plane home?” asked The New York Times’ Shawn McCreesh.

“It’s flying to Europe to one of the big bases, two or three of the big bases, where we can show it to the people,” Trump said, explaining that the plane would be taken around “so the soldiers can see it, because it’s truly magnificent.”

But not everyone was convinced by Trump’s explanation.

“The most likely reason for this is that the ‘new’ ex-Qatari jet doesn’t have the self-defense capabilities needed when flying from Turkey while in a shooting war with Iran,” The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg wrote on X. “The actual VC-25 aircraft does have those capabilities.”

George Conway, an anti-Trump activist, suggested that perhaps the plane hadn’t received all the necessary security capabilities “because Trump wants to keep it if he leaves office.”

The Air Force said it spent around $400 million renovating the plane, changing the cabin layout, communications system, and security upgrades. That doesn’t account for the taxpayer-funded continued maintenance of the plane, either. The jet—one of the largest presidential gifts ever—is valued at $400 million, and will be moved to Trump’s presidential library foundation in 2029, where it may be available for him to use as a private citizen.

Monitors will be placed in Arizona, Michigan, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Virginia. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division chief Harmeet Dhillon made the announcement in a video posted on social media Tuesday.

“The Department of Justice, like it has in Republican and Democrat administrations in the past, is sending election monitors to places where there have been problems with the integrity of elections,” Dhillon later said on the Joe Pags Show, a conservative radio show, before reading the list of states and the specific areas that would be watched.

“Boston, Maricopa, Fairfax County, Detroit, Ramsey, Prince William, Lansing, East Lansing,” Dhillon said. “Some of these jurisdictions are jurisdictions where I’ve got personal knowledge of there being problems in the past ... the more eyes on elections, in my opinion, the better.”

President Trump also proposed sending monitors to California last year and even took open requests and complaints at a tip line. California Governor Gavin Newsom moved against that decision this week by declaring ballot seizure to be a felony.

While Dhillon sold the move as business as usual, this move comes as the administration ramps up its baseless claims of widespread election fraud. Trump has been claiming election fraud for years (in cases where he loses), more recently pushing for a vote-by-mail ban and a voter ID requirement that even his own party can’t get behind.

Beshear, a Democrat, wrote a letter to McConnell’s office Wednesday asking for an update on the former Senate majority leader’s health and well-being. McConnell has been in George Washington Hospital in Washington, D.C., for nearly a month amid unconfirmed reports that he is brain-dead.

“Over the last several weeks, Kentuckians have grown increasingly concerned about the health and well-being of Sen. McConnell. As Governor—and a fellow public official who understands the commitment we’ve made to the people we serve—I am requesting the Senator provide an update on his current health status,” Beshear said in a statement. “Allowing speculation to continue in the media is not fair to the Senator or to Kentuckians, and my hope is that this provides him the opportunity to share the information in a transparent manner, direct from the source. I wish him a safe and speedy recovery.”

McConnell’s office is dodging questions about his condition, and McConnell himself has not said anything publicly. Several Republicans claim to have spoken with the senator, without proof. An ambulance was called to McConnell’s Washington, D.C., home after he fell unconscious on June 14, and he has been in the hospital since then.

McConnell’s wife, former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, was visiting China at the time he was hospitalized but didn’t cut her trip short and remains in the country, saying in a statement that “the Senator’s health did not warrant an immediate return to the US.” While on her trip, she met with various Chinese leaders, including Vice President Han Zheng.

This has only increased confusion about McConnell’s condition, with conspiracy theorists even alleging some sort of nefarious involvement from China. Beshear’s statement and letter echo public concerns as to why McConnell’s condition is being kept secret and allowing rumors to fester.

Secretaries of state were warned that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division was authorized to prosecute criminal violations if election officials failed to properly maintain their Statewide Voter Registration Lists, or SVRLs, according to letters obtained by ProPublica.

“Any election officer, including the chief election officer of the state, who knowingly retains noncitizens on the state’s SVRL or facilitates noncitizens in receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability,” the letters stated.

The letters also warned that any “intentional act that is aimed at diluting the votes of citizens” could be considered conspiracy.

David Becker, a former prosecutor, told ProPublica that the administration’s threat was unprecedented. “It’s a rather transparent attempt at bullying and it’s kind of reflective of the panic that is being felt at the DOJ right now,” he said.

These letters follow the Trump administration’s monthslong campaign to sue states for their voter registration data, in order to target undocumented immigrants. Federal judges across the country have roundly rejected the administration’s efforts. Last month, a federal judge blocked the Department of Homeland Security from continuing to “haphazardly” create a database of millions of Americans it knew was “inaccurate” in order to purge noncitizens off voter rolls. Another federal judge blocked Trump’s executive order attempting to change election rules.

The issue of noncitizen voting remains small to nonexistent. In 2016, noncitizen votes accounted for just 0.0001 percent of the votes cast, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. If Republicans are really looking for election fraud, they might want to check on their own party members—or maybe their party’s leader.

“Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments where he talks about conquering Greenland, talked about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars—things that [don’t] seem like the old Mark Rutte would approve of,” a Danish reporter asked Rutte shortly after his meeting with Trump Wednesday. “Does this have any effect on your self-respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing?”

“You know, what I always do is acknowledge when praise is due, and I think we should praise Donald Trump for the fact that NATO is so much stronger,” Rutte replied, dodging the question. “Of course, it has to do with the Russian threat, it has to do with the war in Ukraine, but it very much also has to do with President Trump … trying to equalize spending between the U.S. and Europe. And it makes Europe stronger. It makes Europe more relevant for the United States as a partner.”

WOW -- Danish reporter *goes there* with Mark Rutte

"You sit next to Donald Trump at moments when he talks about conquering Greenland, talks about lashing out at allies like Spain -- things it doesn't seem like the old Mark Rutte would approve of. Does this have any affect on… pic.twitter.com/9XYisCYtF3

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 8, 2026

Apparently, the short answer is no—showing such deference to Trump while he makes threats against Greenland, lobbies against Spain, and again declares war on Iran has no impact on Rutte’s self respect. But it certainly has an impact on the world’s perception of him, as he uses flattery and submission to appease Trump rather than boldly defending what was once the Western world’s most important post–Cold War institution.

In a legal filing submitted Tuesday, Trump’s attorneys asked Judge Lewis Kaplan not to release some of the funds he owes to the beleaguered columnist on the basis that the president’s petition for a new hearing was still pending before the Supreme Court. The only hiccup: The Supreme Court had rejected Trump’s petition filing.

By Wednesday morning, the SCOTUS docket had been updated to reflect that the nation’s highest court was anticipating a corrected petition from the president’s team. Hours later, it appeared that Kaplan had gone ahead and ordered the release of the funds to Carroll despite Trump’s pending filing.

Carroll has a long and grim history with the president. Trump was found liable by a jury in May 2023 for having sexually abused her in the mid-1990s, for which she was awarded $5 million in damages.

Trump lost his defamation case against her the following January, when Kaplan ruled that Trump had continued to defame the advice columnist by denying the rape on the basis that she wasn’t his “type,” and by accusing her of making up the sexual assault allegations against him for the benefit of her book. A jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in that case.

But Carroll hasn’t yet seen a dime from either of her legal victories. In May, a federal appeals court allowed Trump to continue staving off his payments until the Supreme Court decided whether to pick up the case. The high court did so last week, rejecting Trump’s challenge and allowing the verdict to stand.

Late last month, Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan asked a judge to implement an expedited payment schedule for the sum that Trump owes Carroll (Kaplan is not related to the New York–based judge of the same name). She referred to a June 2023 filing in which both parties agreed that Carroll could collect if the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Kaplan added that, by this point, the $5 million sum had accrued an additional $779,783 in interest, raising Trump’s debt in the initial case to nearly $5.8 million.

“This is the end of the line,” Kaplan wrote in a June 30 filing. “It is time for him to pay Carroll.”

This story has been updated.

“We had 111 missiles shot by the Islamic Republic of Japan. They were shot at the aircraft carrier,” Trump said, inventing a new government and confusing Japan with Iran.

Trump: "We had 11 missiles shot by the Islamic Republic of Japan" pic.twitter.com/FUOFLVZiKh

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 8, 2026

A few minutes later, sitting alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and pointing to him directly, Trump asked reporters, “You have a question for President Putin, please?” The assembled press chuckled, and some tried to correct Trump, who then tried to spin his mistake by claiming that’s what he meant.

“Do you have a question for President Putin, not Zelenskiy, Putin?” Trump said, again pointing to the Ukrainian leader on his right. “What would you like to ask him, because I’m going to ask him that question.”

Trump repeatedly refers to Zelenskyy as "President Putin" pic.twitter.com/zbTzfMc5EI

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 8, 2026

These kinds of mistakes are becoming all too common with Trump. By now, it’s obvious to anyone who regularly watches the president that he’s experiencing some kind of cognitive decline. Zelenskiy brushed it off because he’s seen it before and can’t afford to even mildly antagonize Trump, as he needs the president’s support for U.S. military aid. For the rest of us, though, it raises the question of whether Trump has the mental acuity to be president, and how long the octogenarian can keep going on like this.

So far, McMorrow has not endorsed either candidate for the seat. One Michigan political organizer shared a text conversation with The New Republic in which McMorrow confirmed she had no plans to endorse. Kelly Neumann, the former financial co-chair of McMorrow’s campaign, has the same impression. “I think she wants the people to make their own decision,” she said about McMorrow’s plans. “I think everybody knows in their heart where, where she would vote,” Neumann added. McMorrow didn’t respond to an inquiry.

“Whoever wins this primary on August 4th will have my full support,” McMorrow wrote in a statement on X announcing her withdrawal from the race.

El-Sayed, a former state public health official and TNR contributor in 2021–22, is running on a platform that includes Medicare for All and getting corporate PAC money out of politics. He’s picked up a number of progressive endorsements, including the likes of Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the United Auto Workers.

Stevens is backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, and the EMILY’s List PAC, which endorses pro-choice women running for office. She’s focused on her legislative experience, having been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 2018.

In a debate between the two on Tuesday night, they pushed each other on the role of money in politics. El-Sayed asked Stevens about the money her campaign has received from AIPAC, while Stevens pushed El-Sayed to release his tax returns. The two also sparred over energy costs. Both bemoaned that Michiganders have experienced power outages and high utility bills, but El-Sayed pointed out that Stevens has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Detroit Edison, the major utility company in southeastern Michigan; its PAC contributed $35,000 to Stevens’s campaigns for House, as well as $10,000 to a PAC associated with her.

In their closing statements, they made their priorities clear. El-Sayed hammered on his economic populist message. “We need to take on oligopolies and billionaires,” he said. “We need to guarantee health care through Medicare for All.” He invited people to join his campaign, saying, “It’s the many versus the money.” Stevens made the pitch that she’s the right candidate to take down Republican Senator Mike Rogers in the general election: “I am fed up and fired up. Let’s go beat Mike Rogers, send him back to Florida a second time, and make sure that Michigan shines at the lawmaking table.”

El-Sayed is hoping for a windfall of McMorrow supporters, writing on Sunday: “I welcome her supporters to our movement to stand up against money in politics, to put money back in pockets, and pass Medicare for All.”

In a statement, Stevens praised McMorrow but didn’t explicitly ask McMorrow’s supporters to join her campaign. “Anyone who raises their hand to serve the people of Michigan and puts forward thoughtful ideas for how they would lead earns my respect,” she wrote. Caitlin Legacki, a spokesperson for her campaign, told me, “Now that it’s a two-person race, we have a chance to really go out and consolidate Haley’s voters, which includes Mallory’s remaining supporters who we’re all working really hard to try and woo.”

Some Michiganders say that, anecdotally, McMorrow’s decision to drop out of the race has been a boon for El-Sayed. “We’re getting a lot of new Mallory people coming to the group,” said Wanda Hammoud, the board chair for One Fair Wage Action, about a pro-El-Sayed Facebook group she started. The group has over 21,000 members, and Hammoud said it jumped by 2,000 in just one day this week.

“I’ve been pretty much an establishment Democrat, quite honestly,” said Neumann. Despite that, she said, “right off the bat, I knew immediately when I received the news that [McMorrow] was going to suspend her campaign that I was going to go to Abdul El-Sayed. I just knew that’s where I had to go. I’m looking for change.” (Neumann and the Stevens campaign sparred earlier this year when an old, controversial social-media post of Neumann’s resurfaced. Neumann blamed the Stevens campaign for publicizing the post to hurt McMorrow’s campaign.)

El-Sayed has led in most polls since April. Most recently, a late-June Quantus Insights poll surveyed 433 likely voters and found 41 percent supporting El-Sayed, 36 percent supporting Stevens, 8 percent supporting McMorrow, and 16 percent undecided.

“If endorsements from this point pretty much break equally, the tie goes to Abdul, because he was already leading in the polls,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “He just needs to keep the dynamics the way they were.”

Since McMorrow dropped out, El-Sayed has received endorsements from Representative Analilia Mejia, Michigan state Senator Stephanie Chang, and Representative Maxwell Frost. On the day McMorrow left the race, Stevens received an endorsement from Attorney General Dana Nessel. Green expects more endorsements to come this week. He specifically has his eyes on Senator Elizabeth Warren, who endorsed McMorrow, and Jewish politicians like Andy Levin, who Green says could help draw Jewish voters to El-Sayed. Stevens, backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has called herself a “proud pro-Israel Democrat.” Meanwhile, El-Sayed is critical of Israel’s government and outspoken about the genocide in Gaza.

If Warren endorses El-Sayed, Green said, “that would be a very high-profile, newsworthy signifier that McMorrow world is going Abdul’s direction.”

In Massachusetts, the State Ballot Law Commission ruled last week to disqualify Republican candidates for lieutenant governor and attorney general from the state’s primary election after they submitted allegedly forged signatures to get their names on the ballot.

Adam Roof, executive director of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, had filed objections to the veracity of the signatures collected by the campaigns of Anne Manning Martin, who is running for lieutenant governor, and Michael Walsh, who is running for attorney general.

Candidates needed to gather 10,000 signatures to appear on the primary ballot. The commission invalidated 1,279 of Martin’s 10,692 signatures and 1,021 of Walsh’s 10,677 signatures.

In Martin’s case, signature gatherer Joe Bronske allegedly used a list of registered Republican voters to forge hundreds of signatures. The allegedly forged signatures were first noticed by another Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, who had also hired Bronske and found he’d collected signatures from deceased voters. When deposed by an attorney for Shawn Oliver, one of Martin’s opponents, Bronske repeatedly pleaded the Fifth Amendment, suggesting he had “something to hide,” according to the ruling.

In Walsh’s case, a handwriting expert determined that many of the signatures from certain towns were “more likely than not written by the same person,” according to the commission’s ruling.

Thousands of miles away in Florida, five people, including three elected officials, have been charged in connection with a scheme to allegedly create and distribute a fake voter guide.

Ahead of the 2024 general election, residents in St. Johns County received flyers that listed the Republican Party’s “official 2024 membership-approved endorsements”—but included a very different list of candidates from the one the party actually supported.

St. Johns County Commissioners Sarah Arnold and Christian Whitehurst, St. Augustine Beach city commissioner and former Mayor Dylan Rumrell, and Jamie Lynn Johnson each face two misdemeanor counts for conspiracy and producing a false voter guide.

Brianna Jordan, Whitehurst’s campaign manager, was also charged with tampering with physical evidence. She allegedly tried to destroy the voter guides after the scheme was discovered.

It shouldn’t be all that surprising that the recent instances of alleged voter fraud are coming from the Republican Party, the same party that idolizes a county clerk found guilty of tampering with voting machines, celebrates a rule-skirting billionaire, and bows at the altar of an election denier and alleged fraudster.

Meghan McCain, the daughter of late Arizona Senator John McCain, hosted the “Race2Win” quiz show at the sprawling semiquincentennial celebration Tuesday. But a picture of the game stage, as shared by McCain herself, illustrated that nobody had shown up to her event. Instead, McCain’s voice rang out to an empty field, speckled by just a few lonely chairs.

“So cool to host @2waytvapp new game show ‘Race 2 Win’ at The Great American State Fair today!” she wrote on X.

But even McCain couldn’t be bothered to show up to the event. The pundit’s image was broadcast onto large screens on the enormous stage while she remained in a presumably climate-controlled room, speaking with participants over Zoom.

The event technicians overseeing the show couldn’t be bothered by its technicalities, either. Instead, they streamed McCain’s show as is on the two vertical monitors that bordered the stage, mangling the image while cutting off the text of a trivia question about the building materials used to construct the Capitol dome, due to the altered aspect ratio.

Practically every component of Donald Trump’s wildly expensive plan to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary has turned out to be a dud. The $15 million renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool failed to rid the iconic monument of algae; a multiweek lineup of musical acts had to be canceled after practically every artist pulled themselves from the program; and a fleet of buses carrying a contemporary retelling of American history have failed to make a splash in their journey across the country.

The Great American State Fair was supposed to be the centerpiece of the Trump administration’s America 250 celebration, yet even it is more of a Potemkin village than a sincere homage.

The booths, which offered space for each state to represent its heritage and culture (visitors could pet a replica of a bison at the North Dakota pavilion, or walk away with a bag of chips from Maine), were ideologically pitted against the seismic presence of the federal government and Trump’s authoritarian expansion (banners featuring his grim face flanked the event, while a small-scale replica of his proposed “Triumphal Arc” sat center stage).

The fair also suffered from power outages and dangerous technical failures that included large stage equipment falling behind dancers during rehearsal. But the extreme heat that consumed Washington over the weekend seemed to be the final blow to the expansive celebration: Even the thin crowds that did appear to watch the world record–shattering fireworks display were forced to leave the area for several hours due to an unprecedented weather advisory.

Here were the worst moments:

While you were sleeping, Trump had a complete meltdown at the NATO summit in Turkey, ranting and raving that "Spain is a wasted cause" led by "bad people," claiming "Greenland is a big problem for us" and the US should've kept it after World War 2, and adding that Iran is led by… pic.twitter.com/65RNL7Hphf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 8, 2026

On Iran

“We attacked, very powerfully last night, the very dangerous people from Iran. They’re sick. There’s something wrong with them. We said, ‘Go and do your funeral stuff,’ and instead of that, they start shooting rockets at ships,” Trump said. “So we hit them very hard last night, very hard. I would say 20 to one … I told them every time you hit, we hit.… They’re a bunch of scum. You want to know that? They’re scum. So we don’t like them, I don’t like them, and they’re evil people.”

Trump also called Iranian officer Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. strike in Trump’s first term, the “father of the roadside bomb.”

“He was an evil genius, but a bad guy, and he was the father of the roadside bomb. The roadside bomb is a bomb that goes on when you’re driving your little vehicle around, and it goes on, and you have no legs, no arms, and no face,” Trump said.

He was later asked about the status of the ceasefire, given both Iran and the U.S. had resumed aggression.

“It’s a very interesting question. To me? I think it’s over,” he replied. “They’re scum. You know what scum is? They’re scum. They’re sick people. They’re led by sick people, and they’re vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”

On Spain

The president attacked Spain for being “a terrible partner in NATO,” going as far as to demand the U.S. cease all future trade with the nation.

“Spain is a wasted cause. We don’t want to do any trade business with Spain anymore. By the way,” he said. “Spain is a terrible partner in NATO. They don’t participate, they don’t pay. I don’t want anything to do with Spain. Cut off all trade with Spain, including visits.… Watch them, watch them come running back. Oh, they’ll come running back.

“We’ll see how hostile they remain when they call [me] up, and they, ‘Please, please, we want to trade with you, sir,’” Trump continued, using a high-pitched begging voice to mock Spain. “‘We want to trade with you, sir.’ They make so much money with us, and we’re going to see that they make a lot less. I want no business with them.”

On Greenland

Trump again took time to attack Greenland, one of his most constant targets for potential takeover in his second term.

“I’m not happy with NATO because of what they did with Greenland, and I’m not happy with NATO because of the fact that they didn’t want to help us with the number one state sponsor of terror; that’s Iran. They were unwilling to help us,” he said. “Greenland is very important for the United States, but it’s not important for Denmark. In fact, when Denmark was overrun by the Nazis in less than one day—Hitler beat them out in one day, took over—they asked us to take care of Greenland.

“In fact, we took Greenland, and then stupidly we gave it back. We shouldn’t have given it back to them, because we’re the ones that need it. We need it for protection of the world, not just the United States. And it’s very important. It doesn’t help Denmark, but it helps us, and it’s very important for us.”

This was a textbook crashout from a president who has done more damage to U.S. alliances than perhaps any other president this century. Focusing on his petty gripe with NATO payments, restarting the war with Iran, and rekindling rumors of annexing Greenland, all while sitting next to the NATO secretary general, is just a routine Wednesday for Trump.

For what it’s worth, Rutte did absolutely nothing to push back on any of Trump’s drivel, only chiming in to applaud him for keeping Israel, Europe, and “the region” (the Middle East) “safe” by downgrading Iran’s ballistic missile capabilites—even as that success is highly questionable.

Axios reports that in two instances, Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau gave wrong information about U.S. policy to foreign countries over exiled Venezuelan politician María Corina Machado and her plans to return to the country.

Immediately following Venezuela’s June 24 earthquakes that killed over 3,500 people, Machado sought to return to the country to help with relief efforts, despite the fact that she doesn’t have a valid Venezuelan passport. Administration officials thought this was a bad idea, calling it “gross political opportunism” that could in fact hurt relief and recovery efforts.

Machado tried again by reaching out to Landau, suggesting that she could go back to Venezuela via Curaçao, a Caribbean island controlled by the Netherlands. Landau advocated Machado’s plan with the Netherlands’ ambassador to the U.S., Birgitta Tazelaar, without approval from Rubio. The Dutch signed off on the plan, giving Machado the necessary permission since she had no passport.

“This is U.S. policy, and it’s supported by Secretary Rubio,” Landau reportedly told Tazelaar. Machado planned to stay in U.S. Consul General Ramón Negrón’s residence in Curaçao.

On June 25, the next day, Tazelaar was confused because it seemed that the U.S. didn’t want Machado to go to Curaçao. She called the U.S. assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere, Mike Kozak, who told her that the administration wasn’t helping Machado return to Venezuela. The Dutch then removed their permission while Machado was in the air, and her plane had to return to the U.S.

A shocked Machado quickly called Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who explained actual U.S. policy to her. Landau told Rubio that he had been misunderstood and didn’t explicitly say he supported Machado’s plans. But that wasn’t Landau’s only slipup, according to Axios. He then reportedly told Panamanian Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha in a text message exchange that the U.S. was making arrangements for Machado to return to Venezuela.

“I understand that your country will make arrangements so that this person can enter Venezuela,” Martínez-Acha texted at 9:21 p.m. June 26 to Landau, who replied, “Perfect description of our position.”

On June 28, Machado was in Panama and tried to fly to Venezuela on Copa Airlines from there, only to be rejected when U.S. and Venezuelan officials communicated their disapproval.

A source inside the State Department told Axios, “There’s a widespread belief that Landau went rogue, and the evidence supports that belief.” Another source said “Marco isn’t happy” with Landau.

Machado has gone out of her way to curry favor with President Trump, gifting him her Nobel Peace Prize after Trump arrested Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. But Trump hasn’t included her in his plans for the country, and even when she thought she was getting help, it was from a rogue official. Now Landau is in trouble and Machado has nothing.

Speaking at a town hall Tuesday, Nebraska Representative Mike Flood flailed when asked what he would do to provide insurance benefits for people with disabilities.

“Well, under the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill,’ we protected—” Flood started to answer, only to be drowned out by boos from the audience.

“We protected a system that if it had gone unchecked it would not have been long-term available for the people that are the most vulnerable,” Flood continued.

“We protected Medicaid in a bipartisan, commonsense way,” he added, as the audience’s jeers continued.

WATCH: Mike Flood gets drowned with boos for his Big Beautiful Bill vote and falsely claims "we protected Medicaid." #NE01 pic.twitter.com/NnhVCOhUyb

— American Bridge 21st Century (@American_Bridge) July 7, 2026

In reality, Trump’s behemoth budget bill will cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid funding over the next 10 years, causing hospitals to shutter and benefits to disappear, hurting all Americans—especially people with disabilities and the elderly.

This isn’t the first time Flood has downplayed his decision to support Trump’s move to gut Medicaid. Last year, he admitted that many rural hospitals would need to prepare to adopt “an emergency room model”—meaning they would be stripped of essential services and benefits.

Cuts to Medicaid will force rural hospitals, which already operate on razor-thin margins, to absorb skyrocketing rates of uncompensated care. The continued strain will force them to cut services and personnel, and eventually possibly close. More than 45 percent of rural hospitals in the United States operate with negative margins, and as a result of Flood’s vote, more than 300 rural hospitals are at risk of closing.

Donald Trump bitterly referred to Iran’s leadership as “scum” during a NATO summit presser in Ankara, Turkey, on Wednesday, telling reporters that he believes peace negotiations—and the regional ceasefire—are “over.”

“I don’t want to deal with them anymore. They’re scum. Do you know what scum is?” Trump said. “They’re scum. They’re sick people. They’re led by sick people, and they’re vicious, violent people, and if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it.

“As far as I’m concerned, it’s over. I’ll speak to our negotiators, they’ll want to negotiate, they’re good people. Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, but they’ll have to come back to me. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a waste of time dealing with them.

“They’re liars. We make a deal—if I make a deal with him, we have a deal, and it goes out and he talks,” Trump said, briefly gesturing to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. “We make a deal, everyone’s agreed, no nuclear weapons. We make a deal. They go outside, talk to the press, they say we never even talked about it.

“There’s something wrong with them, they’re cuckoo,” he added.

Q: Is the ceasefire over? Is the MOU dead?

TRUMP: I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them anymore. They're scum. Do you know what scum is? They're led by sick people. They're vicious, violent people. They're liars. They're cuckoo pic.twitter.com/fGlomtlSrz

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 8, 2026

The White House and Tehran preemptively signed a drafted memorandum of understanding, or MOU, in June, initiating a 60-day negotiation process. The mutual willingness to draw up a peace plan spurred hopes that the violence and economic barricades could soon come to an end, but the two nations began exchanging strikes again this week.

U.S. Central Command confirmed on Tuesday that the military had “completed” a new round of strikes on Iran, hitting “over 80 targets with precision munitions” over a four-hour period. The strikes were “in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” CENTCOM said in a statement. Washington has also reimposed sanctions on Iranian oil sales.

In retaliation, Tehran said it had launched strikes on 85 U.S. military targets in Bahrain and Kuwait, reported Al Jazeera. Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs strongly condemned the “aggressive attacks and gross violation” of the MOU.

The office added that Iran’s armed forces “will not hesitate in defending Iran’s territorial integrity, national sovereignty, and national security against U.S. military aggression in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, and will target the source and origin of the aggression.”

Oil prices surged as a result, with the price of Brent crude—the international oil benchmark—rising more than 3 percent on Wednesday.

Trump, meanwhile, is planning to extend the violence.

“We’ll probably hit them hard again tonight,” he told reporters.

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

Donald Trump thinks he has a new way to force Republicans to pass voter suppression legislation in time for the midterms. In a late-night tirade, Trump demanded that Republicans pass the so-called SAVE Act by attaching it to a must-pass defense spending bill. This comes as Republicans are getting more nervous about losing the Senate this fall, and some reportedly fear that Trump is setting them up. If they don’t pass the SAVE Act, they fear he’ll blame them for any midterm fiasco that takes place.

We think it’s premature to rule out the possibility of Republicans actually passing this thing. It’s a high-stakes moment that’s passing largely under the radar. So we’re talking to congressional scholar Norm Ornstein, one of our go-to people for decoding the congressional GOP. Norm, nice to see you.

Norm Ornstein: Good to see you too, Greg.

Sargent: So Donald Trump and MAGA are pressuring Republicans to pass the SAVE Act, which is this disgusting piece of voter suppression legislation. It can’t pass the Senate, so Trump is demanding that Republicans end the filibuster to pass it, which they don’t want to do or can’t do.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson is looking for a way to pass something that he can call the SAVE Act to placate all the hardliners allied with Trump. Norm, what exactly is Mike Johnson trying to pass, and what’s he trying to pull off here?

Ornstein: So first let me note, Greg, that John Thune has been as loyal a leader to a president, and certainly to Donald Trump, as anyone could have wished. And now he’s taking all of this abuse. But for Mike Johnson—many of his members, and they’re of course in very real danger of losing the House—they’re talking, and he’s talking to Trump, about using every voter suppression measure possible.

But they really, really, really want this SAVE Act, because so many of the districts that are vulnerable to them are in blue states. Red states are going to do a lot, including a lot that’s already in the SAVE Act. Florida’s talking about passing their own version, Texas and others.

But he needs something, and the SAVE Act, which includes a whole series of measures that would limit votes, suppress votes, make it difficult for people to vote at a time when Republicans are worried about a surge in voting, requires that everybody provide proof of citizenship.

And even if you’re registered, you have to go back to the office to re-register with that proof of citizenship, which has to be either a passport or passport card, or a birth certificate—but not just any birth certificate. It has to be one that’s embossed, not a copy. And of course, as we know, if you are a woman who got married and changed your name, you have to jump through additional hoops.

Sargent: The SAVE Act, as Trump wants it to pass, would include both the proof of citizenship requirement and also basically an end to mail voting, among a bunch of other stuff as well.

What Mike Johnson seems to be trying to do is put aside the piece that would end mail voting, because Republicans who aren’t crazy actually know that they need mail voting for themselves as well. So Mike Johnson wants to put that aside and pass the proof of citizenship piece, correct?

Ornstein: Exactly so, Greg. And let’s note here that Mike Johnson has a couple of reasons for wanting to do this. He is desperate to get something done. The fact is, many of his own members—and it’s particularly true of Mike Lee in the Senate and a couple of the others—are agitating publicly for this over and over again. There is a fear on the part of Johnson and other House Republicans that if they don’t pass something that has the name “the SAVE Act” attached to it, it will demoralize a portion of their base, who will say, you’re not doing what you need to do. That’s one reason.

The other, as we’ve discussed, is suppressing what they believe will be votes for Democrats. And the proof of citizenship, which is a poll tax, which ought to be unconstitutional and illegal, is the core part of it. But he wants to take out the mail-in voting, not just because it can hurt Republicans a lot—they use mail-in voting plenty—but also because he needs to get something through and then blame the Senate. Because frankly, if Mike Johnson had to choose one house to go over to the Democrats, he of course would rather have it be the Senate.

Sargent: Right. And so Mike Johnson thinks that he can essentially have slightly more of a chance of passing a SAVE Act that doesn’t have the mail voting piece. So in this context, at 12:58 a.m., Trump unleashes a tirade on Truth Social, calling our military “the strongest and the hottest in the world” and so forth, never mind the Iran fiasco, which is ongoing.

Then Trump says this: “When Congress returns, we must pass Reconciliation 3.0. The SAVE America Act, paired with the full funding of our great Department of War, can be passed very quickly, ensuring that the United States of America stays FREE for generations to come.”

Norm, let’s break this up into two pieces. What exactly does Trump want here? It seems that he wants Republicans to attach as much of the SAVE Act as they can to defense funding and pass the entire thing via reconciliation, which would then be able to pass the Senate on a simple majority due to that process, correct?

Ornstein: That’s exactly what he’s trying to do. And he wants to make the defense bill, which normally would be handled separately, as part of a separate appropriations along with a separate authorization, folded into a third reconciliation bill.

They’ve already done two. It’s unprecedented, or close to it, to have a third one. But it’s basically blowing up norms and rules to try and jam this through, even though the rules make it clear that it’s not allowable.

Sargent: Why can’t Republicans end the filibuster? Is it just that they don’t have enough Republican votes to do that?

Ornstein: Look, one part of it is a belief that if they do this first, then Democrats are going to take advantage of it, if and when they end up with majorities in the House and Senate and a president, and they will dismantle everything that Republicans have done—not just during the Trump era, but going back to previous Republican presidents.

Sargent: Right. But Norm, if Republicans wanted to end the filibuster, could they do it?

Ornstein: They could with a majority. But there’s another deeper reason why some Republicans don’t want to do this. They know that there are lots of things that would be deadly for them and the country, devastating, that they don’t want to do—crazy radical stuff, stuff that moves us even more towards a police state, stuff that could blow up their own economies and their own workforces.

And they’re able to avoid doing that by saying we would have voted for it, but we don’t have 60 votes. So the filibuster actually gives a number of them who are not the crazy radical rightists—there are few who are even if they all vote the same way—who understand that the filibuster gives them protection.

Sargent: Norm, let me underscore that just so people really get it. Republicans know that if the filibuster were done away with, all of a sudden they’d be able to pass whatever Trump and MAGA want with a simple majority in the Senate. And they don’t want that state of affairs, because that would fuck the country and fuck the Republican Party, in essence. So keeping the filibuster for them is kind of like a way to crazy-proof themselves against Trump and MAGA, more or less, right?

Ornstein: That’s exactly right.

Sargent: If Mike Johnson were to send some version of the SAVE Act over to the Senate, can they pass it with reconciliation, or would the Senate parliamentarian kick that out?

Ornstein: There is no doubt that every part of the SAVE Act is inadmissible under budget reconciliation rules in the Senate. They have something called the Byrd Rule, which is named for Robert Byrd when he was the Senate leader, and it is basically that the fundamentals of everything in the budget reconciliation bill have to be fiscal. It has to involve spending and/or taxes. And it has to not add to the deficit or debt after a 10-year period. But they’ve always relied on what the parliamentarians said.

However, the way they’ve relaxed their rules in the past is through this kind of maneuver. The parliamentarian rules that this is out of order. Somebody appeals the ruling of the chair. A simple majority can overrule the chair.

And so what would happen here is, the parliamentarian would say, no SAVE Act, no portion of the SAVE Act, not allowable under the rules. Somebody—Tom Cotton, Mike Lee, any of the others—would appeal the ruling of the chair. Fifty Republicans would vote to overrule the chair, and then it would pass.

It would be wrong. It would be illegal under the Senate rules. What would stop it from being signed by the president? Nothing. What would stop it in the courts? There’s no way the courts would intervene.

So they can do this through the back door. But they also know that doing it that way is going to open up the floodgates for all kinds of actions that they would not like. And if they do it this way, then every radical, crazy Freedom Caucus right-wing proposal under the sun, they’re going to jam into reconciliation and use this as a precedent.

Sargent: And then overrule the chair. Well, I just want to move on to another thing. NBC had this really striking report on what’s going on inside the Republican Senate caucus. The report says, “Some Republican strategists worry the party’s chances of holding the Senate are dwindling.”

And the report also suggests Republicans are shocked and baffled that Trump keeps prioritizing the SAVE Act over showing that the party cares about costs, which is voters’ top issue. Republicans think, in short, that this is screwing them—Trump is screwing them, essentially.

One GOP operative says, “Poll after poll shows affordability is the top issue, but his mind is elsewhere.” Norm, you’ve been around a long time. Have you ever seen a GOP Senate caucus quite this angry with a Republican president?

Ornstein: No, I have not seen a Republican caucus in the Senate this angry with one of their own presidents. But let’s also keep in mind, Greg, that that anger, which is expressed for almost all of them privately—occasional exceptions, Thom Tillis talks a good game—and then they vote for what he wants.

Now, they may not do it in this case, because it cuts too close to home. But two things are involved here. They’re pissed because he’s putting pressure on them to do something they don’t want to do and it’s a distraction, and it undermines their standing at home, because some of their own base voters are going to say these guys are disloyal because they’re cultist voters. At the same time, they’re right that what people care about is first and foremost their own lives and affordability.

And it’s not just, let me note, that Trump is just talking about the SAVE Act. Look at some of the things he’s said recently. “They make up this word ‘affordability,’ those Democrats. There’s no such thing”—which does not resonate with their own voters, with working-class voters. And he said, “We’ve got a war to fight, we can’t fund Medicare or Medicaid or education or housing or any of these other things.”

And when they were able to pass a bipartisan housing bill to deal with a key component of affordability, he said, “I’m not going to sign it.” After promising that he would. The bait and switch. So he’s undermining them at every front. But it’s still a cult, Greg, and we cannot rule out that when he pushes hard, they’ll go along because they’re afraid.

Sargent: Well, there’s another striking thing in the NBC report. Republicans say they fear Trump is setting them up to take the blame for midterm losses. One GOP senator says Trump “will blame it on us and the fact that we didn’t pass the SAVE Act.”

The senator adds: “He likes to dominate people, and he’s a bully, and he’s fucked things up as fast as he can, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.”

Norm, that’s amazing stuff. Republicans created this guy every step of the way. He’s fucked them in every which way. His unpopularity is the reason that they’re cratering potentially this fall. And now they’re saying—now all of a sudden they’re angry at him? What do you make of that?

Ornstein: I think there’s frustration. And part of the frustration is that they’ve come to realize that the rash acts that he’s taken—this insane war with Iran and the way it’s playing out, the tariffs in and out and up and down, the inability to deal with major problems facing the country. The fact that—because he’s not just blown up green energy, he’s paying billions of taxpayer money to stop wind projects that are almost completed.

And as a result, we’re likely to have more energy shortages and stoppages during the worst summer weather, that will hurt them as well. There is a growing awareness that this monster that they’ve created is creating problems for them and not just for others.

You know, at the same time, they are unwilling to push back on the horrible things that ICE and the Border Patrol are doing. And what they’re realizing in states, including like Texas, is that the Hispanic votes that went to Republicans in 2024 are leaving them in substantial numbers, because of the policies that Trump is pursuing and their unwillingness to try and put a brake on any of them.

Sargent: One hundred percent. Well, to wrap this up: We’ve got Donald Trump demanding that they pass the SAVE Act, Republicans fearing that his obsession with the SAVE Act and refusal to focus on costs and everything else are putting them at risk. What’s going to happen?

There are several stages here where this could kind of fall apart, on liberals really. Number one, they could just end the filibuster—Republicans could end the filibuster and pass the SAVE Act. Number two, they could try to pass it via reconciliation, and if the parliamentarian throws it out, they could take the steps you outlined to overrule the parliamentarian. So is one of those things going to happen? Are they going to pass the SAVE Act, Norm?

Ornstein: I think there is a 40 percent chance that they will. And the reason, in the end, is—well, two reasons. One is the relentless pressure from Trump and the fear that by failing to do so, their own voters will turn against them. The second is the fear that they could lose the Senate, and they’ll do anything, including long-shot stuff, to make it happen.

Now, there’s one caveat I would offer out there. The Constitution has banned poll taxes. This goes back to the Jim Crow era, where Southern segregationists blocked African American votes—blocked poor people’s votes—by putting a poll tax. You had to pay to vote. And the Constitution says you can’t do that in federal elections. Law says you can’t do it in state and local elections.

Requiring a passport or an embossed birth certificate is a poll tax. It costs $170 to get a passport if you don’t have one. And you have to provide proof of citizenship. Every state has some kind of a fee for an official birth certificate. Many of them are not available. So it’s at least possible that that part of the SAVE Act could be blocked in the courts as unconstitutional—although this Supreme Court, God knows what they would do.

Sargent: Right. And that’s critical, because it looks like the mail piece won’t pass—the banning of vote by mail won’t pass, because Republicans want to keep that. Just to really clarify this: You think there’s a 40 percent chance that Republicans either end the filibuster or overrule the parliamentarian to pass the SAVE Act?

Ornstein: Yeah. And I think it’s far more likely that they would do it by overruling the parliamentarian, so that they could then claim, we didn’t take away the filibuster.

Sargent: Well, if that happens, Norm, all bets are off—but I really just don’t know whether that actually helps them. It could potentially help Democrats more. Norm Ornstein, thanks so much for coming on. That was a really, really great roadmap for us. We really appreciate it.

Ornstein: Always happy to do it with you, Greg.

Thomas has long carved out a reputation for frequent and idiosyncratic opinion writing. He pens more concurring and dissenting opinions than any of his colleagues on the high court. (Chief Justice John Roberts, by comparison, has not written separately in the last two terms.) This year alone, in a wide range of cases, Thomas sketched out a stunningly broad view of executive power—and, simultaneously, a sharply narrowed view of congressional power—that verges on the monarchical.

This can manifest in both historic cases and less closely watched ones. In Monsanto v. Durnell, for example, the court was asked to decide whether a federal law on insecticides could preempt state-level lawsuits against the makers of Roundup. The court’s answer was “yes,” with which Thomas agreed. But he then went further, in a concurring opinion, to “call attention to some of the underlying constitutional infirmities in the [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide] Act.”

In his view, the law exceeded Congress’s powers under the commerce clause. “This power allows Congress to regulate ‘selling, buying, and bartering’ across state lines,” he wrote, quoting from a concurring opinion that he wrote in 1995. “It does not allow Congress to regulate ‘agriculture’ or ‘manufacturing,’ activities entirely ‘separate’ from ‘commerce.’”

Huh? It is somewhat absurd to treat “agriculture” or “manufacturing” as distinct from “commerce,” as if farmers grow crops and factories make goods for recreation instead of economic reasons. Thomas’s own phrasing of the commerce clause is much narrower than its actual text, which gives the legislature the power to regulate “commerce … among the several states.” Thomas’s interpretation, if adopted by the high court, would demolish most federal statutes that regulate the economy.

In Learning Resources v. Trump, the Supreme Court struck down the “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed by Trump last April. The court concluded that the Cold War–era law invoked by Trump did not allow him to impose tariffs via its permission to “regulate importations.” Some of the court’s conservative members disagreed with this interpretation, including Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh.

Thomas also disagreed with the majority’s holding but, as usual, opted to take it one step further. He argued that Congress could delegate, and had broadly delegated, its power to levy tariffs to the presidency. Thomas claimed that the nondelegation doctrine, which generally forbids one branch of government from ceding its power to another, did not apply here.

“Because the Constitution assigns Congress many powers that do not implicate the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may delegate the exercise of many powers to the President,” Thomas wrote. “Congress has done so repeatedly since the founding, with this Court’s blessing. The power to impose duties on imports can be delegated.”

This seemed to baffle some of Thomas’s usual allies, such as Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has frequently called for a stricter interpretation of the nondelegation doctrine. “It’s a sweeping theory,” he wrote, while disputing Thomas’s argument at length. “One that would require us to reimagine much of our case law addressing Article I’s Vesting Clause. And one that presents difficulties of its own.”

Thomas drew on medieval and early modern English sources to argue that the presidency could, in fact, wield broad powers like those of the British king. “In Great Britain, the King had no unilateral legislative power, but he had much unilateral power over foreign commerce,” the justice argued, quoting from the English jurist Lord Blackstone. “His power over foreign commerce included the power to ‘govern foreign trade,’ and to ‘prohibit any of his subjects from leaving the realm.’”

Gorsuch could barely hide his astonishment at this line of argument. He noted that, to the extent it was relevant, the arc of English history was one of Parliament wrestling away revenue raising from the Crown. More relevantly, he noted, the Boston Tea Party ran counter to Thomas’s thesis. “Are we really to believe that the patriots that night in Boston Harbor considered the whole of the tariff power some kingly prerogative?” Gorsuch asked.

Thomas’s view of executive power went even further in the court’s presidential-removal cases this term. In two separate cases, Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter, the justices weighed when and how the president could fire Senate-confirmed executive branch officials despite Congress’s protections for for-cause removal.

In Slaughter, the court’s conservative majority held that the president could fire commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission at will, overturning a nearly century-old precedent to the contrary. But in Cook, the court held that Trump could not remove a member of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, even with a pretextual for-cause rationale. Thomas enthusiastically supported the former ruling but dissented at length from the latter.

“Today’s decision is an unprecedented incursion on the executive branch,” Thomas wrote. “Neither the parties nor the court can point to a single time in American history that this court has upheld an injunction against the president’s removal of an executive officer. In the 237-year history of our Constitution, this court has, by all accounts, never done so.”

Roberts, writing for the court in Cook, concluded that the Federal Reserve could maintain its independence because it fit within the historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States, which operated at arms’ length from the federal government of that era. Thomas found the comparison to be ahistorical and argued for absolute presidential control over the nation’s central bank.

“Regardless of whether unaccountable executive officers like Cook would better govern the economy, the Framers rejected such a ‘promised land of technocratic governance,’” Thomas wrote. “They instead chose government by the people. As a court, our duty is not to second-guess that decision, but to uphold it.”

Thomas’s invocation of “the people” here is revealing. The executive and legislative branches are often described as the “elected branches,” in comparison to the life-tenured appointees to the federal bench. But only one of those two branches was elected from the start. The Framers always intended for Americans to choose their own representatives in the House, even if they circumscribed in practice who actually got to cast a vote.

The presidency, on the other hand, is not and has never been directly elected by the American people. The Framers inserted the Electoral College as a buffer between the popular will expressed by American voters and state legislatures and the nation’s executive power. While some states allowed voters to cast ballots for slates of presidential electors, this did not become the norm until after the founding generation had passed out of public life in the 1820s and 1830s.

Congress, on the other hand, was always meant to be the branch that channeled the popular will into law and policy. Part of that “government by the people” is Congress’s decision to create a central bank with a healthy degree of independence from the president’s day-to-day influence. If the American people wished to change course, they could elect representatives to Congress who would change it for them. They have not done so because, broadly speaking, it is good financial policy to not let the president personally set interest rates.

Thomas’s monarchical tendencies are strongest when it comes to immigration and foreign policy. Mullen v. Al Otro Lado involved a challenge by immigrants rights groups to a federal immigration policy that prevented asylum-seekers from applying for asylum at U.S. ports of entry by physically preventing them from stepping foot on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the policy, interpreting the statute’s defining of “arriv[ing] in the United States” to mean literally setting foot on U.S. soil.

Thomas joined the majority opinion but also wrote a concurring opinion where he went even further to criticize the lower court that had initially ruled in favor of the immigrants. “The relief that the district court provided may well have unconstitutionally infringed on the president’s inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country,” Thomas wrote.

Under the high court’s precedents, Congress and the executive branch have absolute discretion to determine which foreign nationals—whether they be immigrants, asylum-seekers, temporary visa holders, or whatnot—can or can’t enter the country. Thomas took this reasoning an additional step to argue that this power actually rests with the executive branch, not with Congress.

Thomas previously argued, in the Muslim travel-ban case during Trump’s first term, that the president “has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country,” a remarkable theory given that Congress has the explicit Article 1 power to regulate immigration and naturalization. But Thomas disagreed with that approach on two levels.

First, he claimed, the president inherited such a power from the English monarchy. “For example, William Blackstone explained that the King could send alien friends ‘home whenever the king sees occasion,’” he wrote. “And, at the time of ratification, [the] Framers of the Constitution argued that the President would have the same power.”

Second, he argued that Congress’s power over immigration was much narrower than the legal consensus assumed over the past 150 years. “Congress, for its part, has no enumerated power to require the President to bring certain aliens into the country,” he wrote. “The Constitution grants Congress the power to ‘establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.’ But, the class members in this case are not naturalized or even on the path to naturalization.”

To the extent that this is true, it is because the executive branch literally denied them the ability to request asylum at a U.S. port of entry. But to Thomas, this does not matter. “Any statute that forced the president to allow aliens to cross the border against his will would appear to exceed Congress’s enumerated powers, and a court could not enforce it against the President,” he claimed.

If the court were to adopt this position, it would gut much of federal immigration law. Holding a green card would be pointless if the president, on a whim, could deport you back to the country from which you originally came. Statutory protections for refugees, asylum-seekers, and temporary visa holders would be meaningless. A broad swath of people lawfully present in the United States would suddenly find themselves at the president’s personal mercy, even if Congress wished to protect them.

Thomas’s concurring and dissenting opinions, by nature, are not law. They can nevertheless prove to be highly influential in conservative legal circles. Lower court judges routinely cite them when challenging or disputing Supreme Court precedents. Some of those judges can be former Thomas clerks themselves: The Trump administration has drawn heavily from his acolytes to staff the federal bench. While Thomas’s opinions are rarely the law today, they can be a telling indicator of the world in which the conservative legal movement hopes to one day make us live.

Happily for the report’s authors, it was nearly impossible in the immediate aftermath of the report’s release to check its findings against the reality of the museum itself. It took me nearly an hour after I got off the subway on July 6 to get inside the building because Trump’s Great American State Fair, it turns out, runs through July 10. Not that many people were making their way into it, but the Mall itself was surrounded by fencing and Army trucks—this state fair looks more like an internment camp—and National Guard personnel patrolling the perimeter gave contradictory information about how to get around it. 

When finally I staggered into the National Museum of American History, I remembered my mixed feelings about the place. These objections have nothing to do with any evangelical leftism that the White House claims to have found there. Rather, I can’t square the museum’s mishmash of genuinely stirring artifacts (the Star-Spangled Banner, Abraham Lincoln’s stovepipe hat, the short-handled hoe that wrecked the backs of generations of California farmworkers until Cesar Chavez got it banned) with its pop-culture kitsch (Judy Garland’s ruby slippers, R2-D2 from Star Wars). The latter items really belong in the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in Los Angeles or the Paley Center for Media in New York (though let’s keep Dizzy Gillespie’s trumpet). Plus, there’s all those terminally boring first lady gowns. For as long as I can remember, NMAH has been overanxious to please the masses. The masses are not pleased by lefty virtue signaling, so you won’t find much there.

Reading the White House report, one realizes as early as page 2 that the authors’ evidence gathering will fall short. The sentence announcing this is: “One of the most significant findings in this report concerns what is missing.” No self-respecting polemicist ever begins this way; you save the null-set argument for last, after you’ve flattened your opposition with devastating particulars. In this philippic, though, “what’s missing” is the very first item listed under the heading “Key Findings.” You can practically hear Domestic Policy Council director Vince Haley—a former speechwriter to Newt Gingrich—shout from his rostrum, “I got nothing.”

What exactly “is missing” from the National Museum of American History? The Founding Fathers! The report explains:

[A] visitor to the Museum today will find no major exhibit dedicated to America’s Founding era, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, other Founding Fathers, the Continental Congress, the Pilgrims, the Puritans, or major moments of the American Revolution, such as Washington’s crossing of the Delaware.

I’m going to spend the rest of this essay demonstrating how very untrue that is. 

As we enter NMAH, the very first thing to catch our eye is a monumental Horatio Greenough statue of a bare-chested and toga-clad George Washington. The work’s homoeroticism embarrassed many people at its unveiling at the U.S. Capitol in 1841 (Charles Bullfinch: “I fear this statue will only give the idea of entering or leaving a bath”), prompting its eventual removal to the Smithsonian. But Haley and his co-authors know that a bathhouse-dwelling George Washington can’t be blamed on today’s LGBTQ lobby, so they leave Greenough alone.  

Instead, the White House gripes about a “didactic” (i.e., a text panel accompanying an artwork; I thought Haley was being snide, but that’s what museums actually call these) describing a frieze on Washington’s chair that shows Hercules battling a snake. This symbolizes, the didactic says, “the perceived courage of the American people.” If you can’t see what’s wrong with that phrasing, congratulate yourself for being sane. The offending word is “perceived.” Such distancing, the report complains, “refuses to affirm the exceptional courage of the American people.”

Are the American people courageous? Some are, certainly. But to me, the great revelation over the past 18 months has been how many of our leaders are not.

When the first thing you see on entering the National Museum of American History is a gigantic half-naked George Washington, in what sense does that give short shrift to the Founders? Well, Haley might reply, a statue is not a “major exhibit.” So let’s step around our first president and enter “American Democracy: A Great Leap of Faith,” an exhibit on permanent display since 2017. “More than just waging a war of independence, American revolutionaries took a great leap of faith,” reads a wall text, “and established a new government based on the sovereignty of the people. It was truly a radical idea that entrusted the power of the nation not in a monarchy but in its citizens. Each generation since continues to question how to form ‘a more perfect union’ around this radical idea.”

Inside the exhibit, what I first notice is an original copy of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. OK, Paine’s not the right’s favorite Founder (too left), but they like Thomas Jefferson, right? Here’s a handsome reproduction of Jefferson’s portable desk (the real one is on loan to the Smithsonian Castle, across the once-traversable National Mall), which (of course) Jefferson designed himself. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence on that desk. And here’s a print of the Declaration of Independence made from a copper-plate facsimile commissioned in 1823 by John Quincy Adams, when he was secretary of state. And here’s the document box that George Washington used at the Constitutional Convention, which may be the single most exciting object in NMAH’s collection. Incidentally, I see here no didactics that tattle on Washington for being an enslaver (though probably there’s one someplace around here because—sorry, Parson Weems—he was). What I see instead is the following, which I quote in its entirety:

“Father of His Country”

Admired in his time for courage, integrity, and leadership, George Washington became an icon after his death—a man to be emulated and venerated in monuments, celebrations, and epic stories, both real and myth. While Washington can seem a distant figure to 21st-century Americans, and modern scholarship focuses on the fallible man rather than the marble hero, his image is still used for inspiration, patriotism, and commercial gain. Now joined by modern heroic figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington continues to hold a place for many as a symbolic “father” of the country.

Note that we see here no hedging on Washington’s courage (unlike that of the American people, it’s indisputable). I’m not crazy about the word “icon” (more here), and I suppose Haley might work up a head of steam over putting the word “father” inside quotation marks, but that’s too weak a complaint even for the White House report. Another didactic similarly omits Washington’s slaveholding and says he “spent his life in service to the nation.” Not perceived service to the nation. Service to the nation.

Continental Congress? Check. Pilgrims? Check. Puritans? Check. Revolutionary War? Check. I didn’t see anything about Washington crossing the Delaware, but it’s possible I missed it (and anyway, who gives a shit; if you want to see the Emanuel Leutze painting, visit the American wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art). 

I did glimpse the gunboat Philadelphia, “part of a small fleet that against all odds stalled a British invasion intent on ending the American Revolution,” per the didactic. “Today conservators are preserving this iconic vessel, stabilizing its timbers and iron fittings. And historians are making new discoveries about the people who built it and fought aboard it.” 

Hooray. Let’s hope White House budget chief Russell Vought doesn’t cut their funding.

So I understood the hype, but I never thought he was a great candidate. The political class who backed him—overwhelmingly white, male progressives—should have been more discerning, especially as one scandal after another emerged. The fact that his sketchy past, like his troubling Reddit posts and Nazi tattoo and “unsettling” behavior toward women didn’t imperil his campaign until a woman came forward with rape allegations on Monday shows how toxic some reaches of the left can be, as willing as the right to dismiss misogyny and other disqualifying offenses when it’s politically inconvenient. In fact, Platner’s checkered history may have been part of his appeal, as some on the left romanticize the working class and think we should cling to an outdated masculine ideal to win them back.

For starters, Platner’s working-class bona fides were questionable. His grandfather was an architect, and his father was an attorney in Ellsworth, Maine. He attended private schools as a teenager. His father lent him $200,000 to buy his house, which he pays about $950 a month toward, and his mother owns a restaurant that buys his oysters. In an interview with NPR’s Leila Fadel, in June, Platner rebutted charges that he was “cosplaying” by effectively broadening his definition of working class. “If the bulk of the money that you get to live comes from wages, comes from working, and you are not just sitting on an immense amount of hoarded wealth, which generates income for you, then you work for a living,” he said.

While I’m sympathetic to that broader definition, the bulk of working-class folks who don’t have some amount of family privilege to fall back on might quibble with it. Much of Platner’s adolescence and early adulthood—being expelled from school, working odd jobs, eschewing college, serving in the Marines in Iraq before his mother helped get him into oyster farming—speaks to the kind of privilege someone with a solid middle-class upbringing knows they can rely on, not the kind of panicked effort to find solid ground I witnessed in my working-class upbringing in Arkansas.

Platner has attributed his alcohol abuse and other troubles in adulthood to PTSD related to his military deployments (he also served in Afghanistan with the National Guard). That is useful context for some of his problems but not all of them—and it’s certainly not cause enough for wholesale forgiveness. Yet, despite these setbacks, Platner continued to get extra chances to make it in society. It’s hard to imagine someone who grew up with less money and fewer connections (or anyone but a white man, for that matter) bouncing back from his checkered history and lack of professional experience to run, not just for any political office, but for a U.S. Senate seat held by a five-term incumbent—and then somehow successfully convincing voters to back him in the primary over the sitting (woman) governor.

As a candidate seeking the je ne sais quoi of authenticity, Platner conveniently eschewed his family history and instead implored voters to consider his experiences as a working-class adult. But at the same time, we were asked to discount some of his other experiences and actions in adulthood. When it was revealed that he had a Totenkopf tattoo, he said he was drunk when he got it and didn’t know its history. I can maybe buy that. But are we also meant to believe that in the intervening 20 years he never learned—from, say, a World War II documentary, a book, or a friend—the truth about his tattoo? That is harder to believe.

When Platner’s questionable treatment of women first surfaced, he hardly needed to defend himself because other people were happy to do it for him. It wasn’t just that his fans dismissed these accusations, but that they had nothing but contempt for the people who did worry about them. In fact, when he clinched the Democratic nomination in the June 9 primary, his fans doubled down. Journalist Ken Klippenstein called it the end of “smoothgroin” politics, comparing certain politicians to real-life Ken dolls. “People are done with the clean-cut types who’ve harbored ambitions for political office since they were on high school student council and have lived every waking moment accordingly,” he wrote, and went on to describe politicians he thought fit that mold. “In the real world, it seems everyone and anyone can have dark present and past,” he wrote.

Matt Stoller, the anti-monopoly journalist, declared it the end of “Dem HR lady politics.” After some backlash, he tried to claim he was making the case against “authoritarian corporate officers.” But it was hard not to envision what he meant in his first post. You can make any case against corporations you want, but the fact is that in most workplaces sexual harassment claims are handled by H.R. offices—often populated by middle-class women, by the way—and to the extent they still exist, most of us encounter H.R. officers as the person who makes sure you get your vacation time and sign up for your health insurance and 401(k). Stoller wants us to believe that lurking behind H.R. is a corporate machine that protects itself from liability by being unfair to men. (The #MeToo movement showed how wrong that is because it took outrageously horrendous examples of sexual assault to bring down powerful men—and even then many of them got a second or even third chance.)

For some of Platner’s male supporters, or perhaps many of them, his violent edge was always part of his appeal. He seemed like he could punch someone, and people are angry and want a fighter. But that is not what it means to be working-class—and working-class voters in Maine apparently sensed that Platner was a phony. While it’s still early in this midterm election year, with most voters still tuned out, a recent New York Times poll showed that Collins led him by 30 points among white men without college degrees. She’s a known quantity in the state with a lot of name recognition, and a newcomer like Platner had some campaign work to do. But most of his support was coming from those with bachelor’s degrees, 66 percent of whom backed him over Collins.

That may seem surprising given how Platner portrayed himself on the campaign trail. But it’s less surprising when you consider that his loudest supporters online were that same demographic. They, at least, were fooled: To lefty college graduates who pay close attention to politics no matter the month or year, Platner did indeed appear authentically middle-class—or at least close enough not to question it, given that he adopted all of the progressive positions that this online cohort supports. Perhaps Platner’s press photo was modeled on a romance novel, after all, because these people swooned over him.

As Platner appears poised to drop out of the race, many progressives are pushing for the Maine Democratic Party to tap Troy Jackson, a former president of the state Senate, to take on Collins. It’s easy to see why. He’s a staunch union supporter with a history of fighting for strong labor protections, but he’s also a middle-aged white guy with working-class bona fides: He’s a fifth-generation logger. Let’s hope he’s been a better man than Platner has been.

Amanda McGonigle, who has nearly two million followers for her massive “CatsonaCouch” Instagram account, was stopped in line at a Maine event for the vice president in May.

“They got me. So, while I was in line to go into the event, Secret Service … came up to me and said, ‘Hey Amanda, you can’t come in.’ And I was basically like ‘but I have my registration,’ and they were like ‘well since it’s a private event , you can’t come in,’” McGonigle said on her Instagram account back in May. “I was like … ‘You realize that’s silly, right? I’m a cat account.’”

While she was waiting in line, McGonigle was also told by the Secret Service, “We know where you stand.” She insists that the event was advertised as public.

“Either it was a public event as advertised and I was denied entry because I think JD Vance is a sentient jar of mayonnaise, or it was a private event and taxpayer dollars were being used to fund JD Vance’s little ‘safe space,’” McGonigle said again after the event. “Either way, it’s giving lawsuit vibes.”

McGonigle is suing the U.S. Secret Service and the Executive Office of the President for infringement on her constitutional rights.

“The First Amendment protects every person’s right to express their opinions and political views, free from fear of government retaliation or retribution,” ACLU of Maine attorney Anahita Sotoohi said in a statement. “Ms. McGonigle uses her platform to criticize and satirize elected officials, using humor to garner support for causes important to her and inform her followers about political developments. The freedom to mock has been a central tenet of American political discourse since the founding. The First Amendment cannot be revoked just because one of the country’s most powerful people can’t take a joke.”

McGonigle created the account in 2024 in the wake of Vance’s comment deriding “childless cat ladies.” It exists with the aim to “have more followers than JD Vance by the time he leaves office and to troll him mercilessly every single day,” according to McGonigle.

The White House has yet to comment on McGonigle, although they seem to very aware of—and bothered by—her account’s existence.

HuffPost’s Jennifer Bendery reached out to McConnell’s staff Tuesday about the speculation. A day earlier, far-right influencer Laura Loomer and independent journalist Desirée Townsend, who first flagged the EMS call to McConnell’s home that revealed he was unconscious, declared that the Kentucky senator is “officially brain dead.” Bendery said the senator’s staff did not confirm or deny the report, instead directing her to a week-old statement that doesn’t clarify McConnell’s condition.

“Senator McConnell appreciates the outpouring of support he’s receiving while he continues his recovery in the hospital,” a spokesperson told Bendery. “The Senator continues to improve, and is working closely with his staff on Kentucky and Senate matters while the Senate is out of session.”

Earlier in the day Tuesday, several Republicans publicly insisted that McConnell was still alive and that they had just spoken to him. CNN commentator Scott Jennings said, “He’s still recovering in the hospital. We talked for just shy of 20 minutes … about IRAN, UKRAINE, the unfolding situation in MAINE, my visit to the [Teddy Roosevelt] Presidential Library, and even a little bit of Senate history.”

Senator Scott Barrasso and Senate Majority Leader John Thune also said they had spoken to McConnell about Senate business. However, other Republicans, such as Senator Mike Lee, said they still don’t know what’s going on with McConnell.

“Many of us aren’t speaking about Mitch McConnell’s condition because we know nothing about his condition,” Lee said on X.

Trump’s MAGA base has demanded proof that McConnell is still alive, and his office’s response Tuesday will only fuel their conspiracy theories. There’s speculation over whether Republicans are trying to avoid a quick special election, as is required under Kentucky law, that could open the door for Representative Thomas Massie, a Trump critic, to run for the seat. For now, McConnell remains in the hospital without any explanation.

A damning new rape allegation emerged against Platner Monday evening, marring the Maine oyster farmer’s candidacy and prompting a slew of progressive lawmakers to revoke their endorsements of the firebrand.

It was, apparently, the final straw for Platner’s team, who had largely stayed by his side through previous controversies, including the uproar over his Nazi-themed chest tattoo, prior accusations related to Platner’s heavy drinking, revelations about his extramarital sexting, and allegations from his former romantic partners about his violent propensities.

Within hours of the Politico report, some 1,400 volunteers on Platner’s statewide organizing Discord server had called for him to withdraw from the race, reported Drop Site News Tuesday, noting that the cohort included door knockers, canvassers, digital organizers, and tablers.

“I don’t necessarily want Graham to win. I want our political ideas to win. He is not coming back from this and we should find someone to carry on the ideals now,” Dante Cusolito, a volunteer and recent college graduate, told Drop Site. “People can be flawed and become better, but hanging your movement on the coattails of somebody credibly accused of sexual assault is the exact thing we are trying to be better than.”

Instead, local political organizers are turning to former State Senator Troy Jackson, a Bernie Sanders–backed logger from northern Maine, as Platner’s possible replacement.

A spokeswoman for Jackson, Christine Kirby, told Drop Site that their campaign had been flooded with calls, texts, and emails encouraging Jackson’s candidacy since the rape allegations emerged.

“He is clearly the strongest option to replace Graham Platner and take on Susan Collins in the general election,” Kirby told Drop Site. “This movement is greater than any one person, it’s about a coalition of Maine people fighting for a future that doesn’t have to belong only to the wealthy and powerful. And Troy is up for the fight.”

Jackson, who served as president of the Maine Senate from 2018 to 2024, came in third place in the Maine Democratic gubernatorial primary last month. By Tuesday, he had already repositioned himself, filing exploratory committee paperwork with the Federal Election Commission for a potential Senate run.

But he’s not the only Mainer trying to throw his hat in the ring to supplant Platner. Bangor-born David Costello, who lost the state primary race to Platner last month, wrote on X that he’s “back in” to replace Collins if Platner formally withdraws.

Nirav Shah, a visiting professor at Colby College who similarly failed to gain ground in Maine’s gubernatorial primary, also released a statement indicating his interest in the Senate race.

The Texas attorney general has been registered to vote at his Collin County home—where he has not lived since his divorce two years ago, according to filings by his ex-wife, State Senator Angela Paxton.

It’s not entirely clear where Mr. Paxton has resided since, but prior reporting linked him to another home in Denton County—making him ineligible to participate in elections in Collin County. Doing so is a second-degree felony punishable by a fine up to $10,000 and up to 20 years in prison. Election lawyers have cautioned that this kind of voter fraud is incredibly hard to prove.

Voter rolls showed that Paxton voted in Collin County in the March Republican primary, and again in May when he became his party’s nominee for the U.S. Senate.

David Becker, a former voting rights lawyer, told ProPublica that Paxton would be allowed to remain registered there if he had a reasonable expectation of returning, but his contentious and highly publicized split from his ex-wife suggests that is not the case.

“I think there would be questions raised about a residence where someone does not live, does not spend the night, and can in no way have the intent to continue to reside,” Becker said. “Those would probably raise red flags in any state.”

“Certainly, the chief law enforcement officer of the state of Texas, someone who has made claims about election integrity and made it a priority of his office, should be charged with knowing the laws of residencies of the state of Texas with regard to voting,” Becker said.

Forget “knowing”—Paxton’s office published the very guidelines he broke. When Paxton announced the creation of a tip line for suspected voter fraud in February, he shared guidelines for voter registration, including the requirement to “provide the address where you reside when registering to vote.”

Attorney Clark Birdsall told ProPublica that it was “especially egregious that someone such as Ken Paxton appears he’s not conforming to the law.”

Paxton, a fierce ally of President Trump, has previously advocated for cracking down on voter fraud, while also threatening to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

The attorney general’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. Madison Cercy, Paxton’s campaign spokesperson, called the report a “baseless, lie-filled tabloid story.”

The CDC initially only reported 145 confirmed cases of cyclosporiasis last month in the U.S. But on July 1, Michigan health officials confirmed 100 more cases in only nine days, a troubling spike.

The cyclosporiasis infection—caused by “a one-celled parasite too small to be seen with the naked eye”—has impacted nearly 700 people in Michigan and Illinois. It can be found in contaminated water and unwashed leafy produce, and is most active in the spring and summer.

Symptoms begin with diarrhea, then can include appetite loss, bloating, nausea, cramping, and fatigue. Confirmed cases include those aged five to 86, with over 60 percent of them being women. There have been no deaths, although 20 people have been hospitalized. While this parasite appears every year, this many cases is certainly abnormal. Last year there were only 50 confirmed cases in Michigan, according to NBC Chicago.

“Outbreaks of cyclosporiasis have been occurring across the United States and now here in Michigan,” the state’s chief medical executive, Dr. Natasha Bagdasarian, said in a statement. “Based on the unusual number of cases we have identified in a little over a week, we anticipate additional cases of illness being reported. We recommend Michiganders contact their health care provider if they experience sudden, ongoing diarrhea and reach out to their local health department if additional members of their family are suffering from the same symptoms.”

The temperature is extremely high in many parts of the United States, and public trust in the CDC is extremely low. The next few weeks will be a significant test on their ability to manage outbreaks like this.

Conservative commentator Scott Jennings wrote on X that he spoke to his “old friend” Tuesday morning.

“He’s still recovering in the hospital. We talked for just shy of 20 minutes … about IRAN, UKRAINE, the unfolding situation in MAINE, my visit to the [Teddy Roosevelt] Presidential Library, and even a little bit of Senate history,” Jennings said. “I told him we want to see him back at work as soon as possible.”

McConnell also reportedly spoke with Senator John Barrasso earlier in the day, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Monday, according to NOTUS’s Al Weaver.

“Leader Thune spoke with Senator McConnell yesterday by phone,” a Thune spokesperson told Weaver. “They had a lengthy and substantive conversation that covered a variety of topics, including national security.”

But lawmakers on the other side of the conservative caucus weren’t so confident. At least one MAGA-aligned legislator, Utah Senator Mike Lee, shared online that most of Congress had stayed mum on the subject because they were completely and utterly in the dark as to the state of McConnell’s health.

“Many of us aren’t speaking about Mitch McConnell’s condition because we know nothing about his condition,” Lee wrote on X Tuesday.

Rumors about McConnell’s health spiked late Monday, when far-right influencer Laura Loomer claimed on X that an unnamed “high level source close to the White House” told her that McConnell is “officially brain dead.” In a separate post, Loomer claimed that McConnell is in organ failure, and that the White House had been told he “isn’t ever coming back.”

Shortly afterward, the reporter that first broke the story that McConnell had gone into cardiac arrest in mid-June—Desirée Townsend—said that her sources had shared the same information.

Within hours, far-right influencers were demanding proof that McConnell was still alive, questioning why his office had not shared a video of the 84-year-old lawmaker if he was able to talk. McConnell’s office has not yet done so. In the weeks since McConnell was hospitalized, his team has released only vague and repetitive statements that have failed to acknowledge the senator’s condition or why he was receiving care.

Mohammad Nazeer Paktiawal suffered “an adverse drug reaction” to an unidentified substance, which triggered anaphylaxis and exacerbated his asthma, according to his death certificate. The document was certified on June 25 and released Monday, three months after his death.

AfghanEvac, an advocacy group, reported that the death certificate falsely states that Paktiawal died on March 12—a day before he was even taken into custody. It also lists the effects of methamphetamine, which Paktiawal’s friends and family say he did not use.

“If my brother never used that drug in his life, how did it get into his body while he was inside an ICE building?” said Naseer Paktiawal, the deceased’s brother.

The family has still not received an autopsy report explaining Paktiawal’s death certificate. In a June 24 letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Dallas County Criminal District Attorney’s Office said it would continue to withhold his full autopsy report because of a pending federal criminal investigation.

Paktiawal was detained by federal immigration agents in Richardson, Texas, on March 13 while dropping off two of his children at preschool. After 24 hours with ICE, he was dead.

The evening of his arrest, Paktiawal complained of shortness of breath and chest pain while being held in the ICE’s Dallas field office. He was then transferred to Parkland Hospital, where he received treatment and remained for observation. The next morning, medical staff observed that his tongue had become swollen. Later, after cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other lifesaving measures, Paktiawal was declared dead.

Before emigrating to the United States in 2021, Paktiawal was a member of the Afghan special forces who were hired by the U.S. government. He worked with them for more than a decade.

According to ICE, Paktiawal was “paroled into the U.S. by an immigration officer,” or granted temporary permission to enter the country under Operation Allies Refuge, an evacuation effort for allied Afghan nationals that took place under the Biden administration.

ICE claimed they had no record of his military service, and said his parole expired in August 2025. The agency also claimed that Paktiawal had previously been arrested for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program fraud and theft.

More than 50 people have died in ICE custody since President Donald Trump returned to office—a marked increase from past administrations—but Paktiawal’s death is the first to be ruled an accident.

Bloomberg reports that the deal, finalized last month, likely benefited Lutnick’s two sons, who took over Cantor Fitzgerald after their father left to join the Trump administration. The financial services company served as a placeholder agent for the deal between the Department of Commerce and USA Rare Earth, or USAR, and Democrats expressed their concerns in a letter to Brandon Lutnick, Howard’s younger son and the firm’s chairman, dated Monday. 

“It is imperative your company provide complete transparency about the substantive conflict of interest concerns raised by the circumstances of this investment,” said the letter, written by Senators Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen, and Ron Wyden in addition to Representative Zoe Lofgren. “Secretary Lutnick appears to have played a part in facilitating the USAR deal with Commerce.”

Wyden and Warren serve on the Senate Finance Committee, while Van Hollen serves on the the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies.* Lofgren is the ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. They also sent a letter to USAR detailing their concerns.  

In January, the Trump administration agreed to take a 10 percent stake in USAR, and the Commerce Department offered the company funding and loans. These terms “raise serious questions about Secretary Lutnick’s exposure to federal conflicts of interest and bribery laws,” the legislators wrote in the letter. 

One year ago, USAR was a much smaller company. After meeting with Secretary Lutnick and other administration officials, it secured government help in January and has since purchased a rare earth mine in Brazil and acquired, either in partial stakes or in totality, processing businesses in France and the United Kingdom. 

These Democrats are hoping to get details about the meetings between Cantor Fitzgerald and the Commerce Department. But, even with congressional hearings, they may not get much in the way of answers, considering how much the president and his administration traffic in corrupt, self-serving business deals. 

* This article has been updated to clarify Van Hollen’s committee membership.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross was caught on tape—from multiple angles—sidestepping the front of Good’s red Honda Pilot before advancing toward the driver side door, aiming his gun at Good, and firing his weapon.

The 37-year-old was a mother and an award-winning poet. In the immediate moments after her death on January 7, the federal government’s response seemed to be normal. The FBI mobilized to investigate the crime scene, and local authorities received assurances from the government that the probe would proceed as a joint investigation.

But by that evening, Washington had completely shut out Minnesota police and law enforcement in Hennepin County. The FBI shuttled Good’s SUV to a storage facility before Minnesota authorities got a chance to look at the evidence.

“I was on the phone with the U.S. attorney, and everybody agreed this would once again be a joint investigation. And then suddenly the [Bureau of Criminal Apprehension] was kicked off the case,” Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty told the Pod Save the People podcast in June, referring to the state local law enforcement agency.

“And so we realized then and there it was going to be a different situation,” Moriarty continued. “They took away Renee Good’s car. It’s shrink wrapped. It’s still sitting in a warehouse somewhere. They won’t share any evidence that they collected or got from any statements.”

The restricted access to critical evidence meant that the Justice Department was the only agency left capable of conducting a full investigation into the incident. But Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the DOJ Civil Rights Division, had no interest in doing so, The New York Times reported in January.

Three current and former department officials told the Times that Dhillon would not consider opening an investigation into whether Ross had violated the law. Instead, the department considered investigating Good and her widow, Becca Good, regarding their supposed ties to activist groups. The unusual request prompted the mass exodus of several federal prosecutors.

But the push to shield Ross went all the way to the top. Then–Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement that there was “no basis for a criminal civil rights investigation” into Ross.

Shortly afterward, Donald Trump and his allies began to slander Good as a “domestic terrorist,” preemptively attempting to sentence her in the court of public opinion. Meanwhile, the day after Good was killed, Vice President JD Vance practically promised Ross’s freedom: “That guy is protected by absolute immunity,” Vance told reporters at the time. “He was doing his job.”

As of now, very little has been materially done to investigate Good’s death or hold her killer accountable. In a statement to The Atlantic, the Department of Homeland Security both confirmed that it was still looking into the circumstances of the shooting and echoed Vance’s comments that Ross had “acted in self-defense” after Good had “weaponized her vehicle against him.”

The magazine noted in a story Monday that the word choice was “not particularly indicative of an agency keeping an open mind as to what happened.”

In lieu of legitimate action from the federal government, state and local law enforcement have started to try to gain access to the evidence in their own ways, including legal action to demand federal agents hand over the protected material.

Good’s widow has also filed her own lawsuit, asking for the return of the car so that Minnesota investigators can take a look at it.

The family’s legal team “continues to take all aggressive offensive measures and is fiercely committed to pursuing truth and accountability,” Antonio Romanucci, the family’s attorney, said in an emailed statement to The Atlantic.

That’s what New York Times journalists Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman wrote in their new book, Regime Change, which looked at the internal workings of President Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign and the first year of his second term in office. The pair mentioned how Vance describes himself as a “doomer” who is “always latching onto the most negative possibilities,” and after Kirk, who Vance considered one of his friends, was killed, the vice president went off the deep end.

Vance’s “instincts told him that there was a larger plot behind the murder,” Swan and Haberman wrote. “He went down countless online rabbit holes, becoming so consumed by the videos and the theories that his wife, Usha, told him she was worried about him.”

This new revelation is worrying. Vance is the immediate successor to the presidency if anything happens to President Trump, who has visible health problems. Besides that, Trump has reportedly chosen Vance as his successor to run for president in 2028.

Future presidents should not be diving into internet conspiracy theories and YouTube rabbit holes, and vice presidents should not have that much time on their hands. How is Vance able to get into the weeds with his position? While he didn’t create a specific policy portfolio, he has taken on some important duties, helping with peace negotiations with Iran and representing the U.S. in different international trips. Evidently, that hasn’t kept him away from crazy internet theories.

The lawsuit, filed in June by the government watchdog American Oversight, requested “All email communications sent or received by Todd Blanche and containing both a key term from Column A and a key term from Column B,” and “All text messages and messages on messaging platforms ... sent or received by Todd Blanche and containing the term ‘Epstein.’”

Column A contains “Epstein” and “Maxwell,” while column B contains “Trump,” “DJT,” “POTUS,” “DOE174,” “Tallahassee,” and nine other terms.

The lawsuit also argued that Blanche’s upcoming Senate confirmation hearings creates “an urgency to inform the public about Mr. Blanche’s work in his official capacity surrounding the government’s treatment of the Smith Report,” and that “Mr. Blanche’s work history regarding the Epstein Files raises significant questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence.” American Oversight requested the records by July 14. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled Blanche’s confirmation hearing for July 15 and 16.

The Justice Department argued against these requests in a 38-page memo, filed Monday, that alleges that American Oversight’s FOIA request would disrupt “the processing of other requests awaiting agency attention” and that granting this one would “wreak havoc on agencies and the court.”

“The FOIA was intended to be available to all members of the public, not just those who are professional FOIA requesters or who have the resources to file a complaint in district court and move for preliminary injunctive relief. It is unfair … for AO to jump ahead of other requesters who filed their FOIA requests earlier, and who are waiting patiently in line for their requests to be processed,” the DOJ argued. “Granting relief would create perverse incentives and send the message that requesters whose preferred deadlines align with high-profile governmental proceedings can circumvent statutory procedures to leapfrog other requesters.”

This response comes as over 1,200 former DOJ employees signed a letter on Tuesday urging Congress to reject Blanche’s nomination.

The Department of Justice has yet to release or unredact all of the entire Epstein files, and has been dogged by Blanche’s own controversies over his handling of the files, given his meeting with Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and his past work as President Trump’s personal lawyer. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi has said Blanche is wholly responsible for any missteps with the files, even under her tenure. The new strange, albeit flimsy, argument from the DOJ will only rightly increase scrutiny as his hearing approaches.

In March 2025, the State Department started to hold meetings with Iranian officials to discuss detained Iranian immigrants, according to the complaint from the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund and the Public Citizen Litigation Group.

In those meetings, U.S. officials allegedly shared sensitive information about Iranian immigrants, including details from their asylum applications, in which immigrants reported whether they’d been persecuted for their religious affiliation, sexual orientation, or involvement in women’s rights activism.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement then forced Iranian immigrants to meet with Iranian officials, who seemed to have comprehensive knowledge of their asylum applications, the complaint said. Those meetings have continued amid the ongoing conflict between the U.S. and Iran.

Federal regulation passed in the 1990s bars the U.S. government from revealing confidential information about asylum applications, credible fear determinations, and reasonable fear determinations. If confirmed by a court, the Trump administration has blatantly violated this rule in order to execute the president’s mass deportation agenda.

Roughly 600 Iranian immigrants were detained by immigration enforcement last year. In September, Iranian officials agreed to take as many as 400 deported Iranian immigrants. That month, a flight returned dozens of immigrants to Iran. In nearly every case, either the immigrants’ asylum requests had been denied or they had not been provided a hearing. Two more flights took place in December and January. The last was a week before the war started.

In addition to cracking down on undocumented immigrants, the Trump administration has made sweeping efforts to undermine legal immigration pathways. There have been mounting reports that asylum cases are being routinely dismissed by immigration judges and that asylum-seekers are then taken into ICE custody for expedited removal. The government has stacked the deck by appointing immigration judges bent on denying asylum claims, curbing America’s refugee program, and imposing steep price increases on H-1B visas.

“That’s what hurt my relationship with NATO. Because Greenland doesn’t help Denmark, Denmark doesn’t spend money to really help Greenland, but it’s an important part for the United States. And it’s surrounded by China ships and Russian ships,” Trump said. “That should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark. And when NATO wouldn’t go along with it, and with all of the money we spend to help them with Russia, and we don’t have to spend any money. We could remove all of our soldiers out of Europe.”

Trump on Greenland: "That's what hurt my relationship with NATO. Because Greenland doesn't help Denmark. Denmark doesn't spend money to really help Greenland, but it's an important part for the United States. And it's surrounded by China ships and Russian ships. Greenland should… pic.twitter.com/MdvZPdGrEn

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 7, 2026

Trump seemed to have forgotten about Greenland for the past few months after nearly setting off an international incident in January, with his rhetoric alarming NATO leaders so much that they deployed troops to the island in case Trump quickly decided to seize it by force.

The situation seemed to calm down after Trump met with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, later that month. Public opinion in Greenland and Denmark toward the U.S. has plummeted amid Trump’s desperate attempts to take over the territory, including bribing its residents. Trump’s latest bluster is not likely to help.

During a joint press conference Tuesday with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara, Trump appeared dumbfounded when pressed about his terms for potentially selling F-35 fighter jets to Turkey despite a congressional ban.

A reporter asked Trump whether the sale of F-35 jets would require the country’s Russian-made S-400 missile defense system to be sold to a “third party.”

“Third party? What is the third—with respect to what?” Trump asked.

“There are concerns about the Russian missile defense system. Do you have those concerns about this system?” the reporter asked.

“I have no concerns at all about anything,” Trump replied.

“I mean,” he continued, “he’s a leader of a country that he’s made a much better country, a much more powerful country. You see it, I mean, it’s beautiful. You get off the roads are beautiful, it’s an amazing thing. No, I have no concerns with anything having to do with Turkey. The relationship, I would say the relationship with Turkey right now is better probably than it’s ever been. It was good in my first four years, but I think now it’s probably even better than that, if that’s possible.”

a confused Trump has difficulty understanding a question from a reporter:

Q: There are concerns about the Russian missile defense system. Do you have those concerns about this system?

TRUMP: I have no concerns about anything pic.twitter.com/HtuaeLp7WH

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 7, 2026

One can only imagine the right-wing reaction if former President Joe Biden had delivered such an unintelligible response.

Turkey was barred from America’s F-35 program in 2020 after it purchased an advanced missile defense system from Russia. The sale sparked concerns in Washington that Turkey would train the system on newly provided F-35 jets, allowing Russia to learn how to respond to U.S. military capabilities.

In order to move forward with the sale, Turkey could potentially hand off its missile defense system to a third party, one Trump administration official told The New York Times. But on Tuesday, Trump was evidently unbothered by Turkey’s Russian-made missile defense system, and even suggested he would lift sanctions preventing the sale of the F-35.

“We’re going to be taking the sanctions off,” Trump told reporters. “We don’t want to sanction friends.”

One little problem: The sanctions were put into law by Congress, so in order to approve the sale, Trump would have to convince lawmakers to back him up. The president is going to have to come up with a better argument than I don’t care about the Russian military threat because the roads in Turkey are so beautiful.

A damning new rape allegation emerged against Platner Monday evening, marring the Maine oyster farmer’s candidacy and prompting a slew of progressive lawmakers to revoke their endorsements of the Democratic firebrand.

It was a swing and a miss on Fox News shortly after the news broke, when McCarthy attempted to use the dark moment to back-pat the Republican Party by claiming that conservatives always turn away from a “very bad candidate.” But the attempted roast only highlighted just how ignorant the GOP is, considering the orange-toned sexual abuser currently sitting in the White House.

“The one thing I know about Republicans: When we had a very bad candidate and found out, we didn’t vote for that person. We walked away,” McCarthy told the network.

Kevin McCarthy on Platner Allegations: That one thing I know about Republicans is when we had a very bad candidate, we didn't vote for that person. We walked away. pic.twitter.com/wkm65CCGHb

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 7, 2026

But that’s not what Republicans did in 2016 (or 2020, or 2024). By the time the presidential election rolled around that year, more than a dozen women had accused Trump of sexual misconduct, and a viral Access Hollywood tape had publicized Trump’s gross beliefs about consent in his own words. Nonetheless, conservatives across the country voted for him for president.

Years later, in 2023, Trump was found liable by a jury for sexually abusing columnist E. Jean Carroll. At the time, the judge in the case went out of his way to explain that Trump could be considered a rapist based on the common definition of the word.

Online commenters were quick to point out McCarthy’s blatant hypocrisy, flaming the former politico for his thoughtless comparison.

“You can grab ’em by the pussy,” wrote one X user, quoting Trump’s Access Hollywood hot mic moment.

“What the f***, man?” commented a self-identified Republican turned Democrat. “You literally voted for a pedo grapist and Jeffrey Epstein’s best friend!”

But even disregarding Trump, the Republican Party has a long history of fervently backing highly controversial candidates. In recent years, the party has put its weight behind Herschel Walker, the 2022 Georgia Senate candidate who faced alarming domestic violence allegations; and George Santos, the New York lawmaker who fabricated practically everything he shared about himself and was later ousted from Congress and sentenced to 87 months in prison for fraud. Trump prematurely commuted his sentence via an unprecedented presidential pardon.

The GOP also remained behind Montana Governor Greg Gianforte, who pleaded guilty to physically assaulting a journalist; Rick Scott, who was tied to a massive Medicaid and Medicare fraud scandal in the late 1990s; and former Florida Representative Matt Gaetz, despite a House Ethics investigation that found “substantial evidence” that Gaetz had violated House rules prohibiting “prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress.”

“We’re going to be taking the sanctions off, OK? I don’t want him to waste his time answering that question,” Trump said to reporters while gesturing to Erdoğan at a NATO summit in the country’s capital, Ankara.

BREAKING: Trump says he’ll remove CAATSA sanctions on Türkiye. pic.twitter.com/uPH3hjTBeP

— Clash Report (@clashreport) July 7, 2026

The move would end a ban that was imposed on Turkey in Trump’s first term after the country accepted a Russian S-400 air and missile defense system against U.S. warnings. Congress passed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act in 2017 to punish any country that does business with Russia’s defense and intelligence agencies, and reinforced that restriction in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act.  

That bill contains a prohibition on transferring the fighter jets to Turkey unless it “no longer possesses” the Russian missile system, its materials, or anything associated with it. Trump didn’t make clear whether the sanctions would be lifted only on Turkey, or on all countries that possess Russian military articles.

Regardless, Trump’s plan faces opposition from Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Last week, six Republican and four Democratic members of Congress wrote a letter to Trump opposing the sale of F-35s to Turkey. 

“With President Erdoğan’s continued aggression toward our greatest partners along with his troubling defense partnerships with our adversaries, it is not in the best interest of our country to sell them F-35s,” wrote Republican Representatives Mike Lawler, Nicole Malliotakis, Gus Bilirakis, Jeff Hurd, Max Miller, and Young Kim, in addition to Democratic Representatives Stephen Lynch, Gabe Amo, Jared Moskowitz, and Brad Sherman.

Israel also opposes the sale of F-35s to Turkey amid worsening ties with the country and Turkish criticism of Israel following its massacre of Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News on Monday that he didn’t think Turkey should get the jets or F110 jet engines “because that’ll upset the power balance in the Middle East, which is ultimately guaranteed by Israeli air superiority, and also by, I think … America’s posture in the Middle East.”

Under Trump, the U.S. has already said it would allow the sale of F110 fighter jet engines to Turkey for use in developing its own fighter jet. The administration also wrapped up a lawsuit against Turkish bank Halkbank for failing to comply with U.S. sanctions against Iran, weakening punishments against the financial institution. Now it seems that Trump wants to appease the country and Erdoğan at the expense of U.S. national security. 

“The United States Military has never been stronger, or more powerful. No other Nation can do what we do (It’s not even close!). This year we set even more Historic Recruiting Records, months ahead of schedule. Morale has never been higher. Our Military’s unmatched POWER was on full display during our Celebration of 250 Years of American Independence and, like our Country, the WAR DEPARTMENT has never been ‘HOTTER,’” Trump wrote. “We need to keep it that way, which is why, when Congress returns, we must pass Reconciliation 3.0, with 350 Billion Dollars for Defense, plus THE SAVE AMERICA ACT!

“I am calling on House and Senate Leadership to make this their Number One Priority, and ensure that 350 Billion Dollars in Recon 3.0 moves out of the Budget Committee as soon as Congress is back in session. The SAVE AMERICA ACT, which everyone is asking for, paired with the full funding of our Great Department of War, can be passed very quickly, ensuring that the United States of America stays FREE for Generations to come.”

The only person, Democrat or Republican, “asking for” the SAVE America Act may be Speaker Mike Johnson. The blatant voter suppression bill still lacks the votes in the Senate, putting Trump’s third massive spending package of his second term in jeopardy. Trump had originally requested $67 billion for the Pentagon be added to the supplemental appropriations bill.

To add hundreds of billions more to that and force through voter ID requirements and mail-in ballot bans is a gargantuan task, regardless of how much the president posts.

The United States spent over $900 billion on defense last year alone.

Trump is once again an international laughingstock after the U.S. Men’s National Team crashed out of the World Cup despite the president’s meddling.

Trump had urged FIFA president Gianni Infantino over the weekend to overturn a red card that would’ve kept the U.S. team’s top scorer from playing against Belgium Monday night. For the first time in half a century, FIFA overturned the decision, but even that couldn’t save the U.S. Men’s Soccer team from being handily defeated 4-1. (And the player in question, Folarin Balogun, didn’t even score America’s lone goal of the night.)

“Overturn this,” the Belgian Red Devils, Belgium’s national team, wrote in a post on X after the game.

As if losing wasn’t humiliating enough, a handful of players on the Belgian team were spotted doing Trump’s iconic dance to celebrate one of their goals.

Belgium’s team celebrated their victory over the US by mocking Trump’s signature double jerk off dance move. pic.twitter.com/emvy5tK6Xr

— Anonymous (@YourAnonCentral) July 7, 2026

Online, people speculated that Trump might even be a sports curse.

Last month, Trump made an appearance at Madison Square Garden for the NBA Finals. The president was loudly booed, fell asleep—and the Knicks broke their winning steak.

In 2025, Trump attended the Super Bowl, fled the stadium during a very political halftime performance by Kendrick Lamar, and backed the Kansas City Chiefs—who lost. Trump skipped this year’s Super Bowl after being warned that he’d be drowned in a sea of 69,000 boos, and the New England Patriots, his friend Robert Kraft’s team, still lost.

Trump also attended the 2025 Ryder Cup, where team Europe beat the United States.

McConnell was admitted to the hospital last month, sparking grave concerns about the Kentucky Republican’s health. The worries were only stoked by vague and repetitive statements from McConnell’s aides that failed to elaborate on the senator’s condition or why he was receiving care.

But rumors about McConnell’s health spiked late Monday, when far-right influencer Laura Loomer claimed on X that an unnamed “high level source close to the White House” told her that “Mitch McConnell is officially brain dead.” In a separate post, Loomer elaborated that “McConnell is in organ failure,” and that the White House had been told “McConnell isn’t ever coming back.”

Shortly afterward, the reporter that first broke the story about McConnell’s cardiac arrest—Desirée Townsend—said that her sources had shared the same information.

By Tuesday morning, a slew of MAGA-aligned figures were demanding answers from McConnell’s office.

“McConnell’s staff should produce proof of the senator’s condition one way or another right now,” posted Matthew Boyle, the Washington bureau chief for the far-right commentary website Breitbart.

MAGA influencer Catturd posed the obvious question to his 4 million followers on X: “It’s really easy for Mitch McConnell’s team to prove he’s still alive and well. Just do a video from the hospital. Why won’t they do it?”

Steve Bannon has also speculated about McConnell’s condition, promoting claims online that the senator’s office is trying to “avoid triggering a special election that could allow Thomas Massie to run as an independent.”

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

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

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

In December 2024, McConnell fell for a third time in a public setting, and again in October 2025 while on his way to vote in the Capitol. He has since been transported via wheelchair by his aides as a health precaution.

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

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

In the run-up to Donald Trump’s gala celebrating the nation’s 250th anniversary, we’ve been arguing here that it was important for it to fail. Trump delivered his speech, and there were some pretty bad highlights, but perhaps most notably it was beset with chaos after Trump overruled officials who recommended calling it off amid storms causing an exodus from the Mall. But we’re going to dig deeper into the bigger failures here.

This was the moment when we were supposed to celebrate the American experiment enduring for a quarter of a millennium, and Trump still couldn’t help but make it all about the crowd sizes that were supposedly there for him and all about his pet obsessions. We’re talking about all of it with New Republic senior editor Alex Shephard, because Alex predicted very early on that Donald Trump would lose the culture, including on this, on the celebration of the 250th. Alex, good to have you back.

Alex Shephard: It’s great to be back.

Sargent: So what we now know is that Trump finally delivered his speech after 11 p.m. on July 4, after what The Washington Post called a “chaotic scramble.” This was the result of officials essentially saying this thing should be canceled and then him overruling them. Trump claims 150,000 people were there in the end, while saying that at least twice or three times as many had been there before the evacuation. Alex, you saw the imagery of the empty seats. What’s your take on the claim of 150,000 for the speech?

Shephard: I mean, there have been a lot of ridiculous Trump crowd-size claims, but I think this is one of the more brazen ones. The VIP section of this speech wasn’t even full. It was half full by the middle of the speech. People that love Trump and that need things from Trump weren’t willing to stay the entire time.

The weather was awful, but I think mostly people did not want to sit through what Trump had promised to be a very long speech. It wasn’t actually that long—I think it was like 30, 35 minutes. But it was exactly what you would expect. It was this kind of endless recitation of the familiar grievances, with a few kind of new half-baked insults thrown in.

So it just felt exactly like a perfect encapsulation of where we are with this president right now. Somebody who’s just almost bored, I think, with it, but who has no real argument to make to the American people and is still just kind of falling back on these very, very tired arguments.

Sargent: And of course, crowd sizes were really essential for Trump. Leading up to it, there was reporting saying that he had been in absolute rage about pictures of the crowd sizes during the events leading up to this. They had really set him off quite miserably in many ways.

Shephard: Well, I think going back to that too, there’s this larger failure of the Great American State Fair project, this kind of idea that they were supposed to put on almost like a world’s fair on the National Mall. It increasingly got taken over by Trump people. And between the weather and, I think, the lack of real draws, you were just seeing nobody coming through here.

And I think that again, like, the president can be furious about this as much as he wants, but it’s just another example of him living in this total fantasy world. It’s like when he posts about polls where 70 percent of the people love him. It’s just absurd.

Sargent: It is. Well, let’s check out what Trump said during the speech about the size of his crowd. Listen.

Donald Trump (voiceover): And they estimated they had 375,000 people before everybody had to leave. And they now have 150,000 people. It’s the craziest thing anyone’s ever seen. At least.

Sargent: But then on Truth Social afterwards, he suddenly inflated the number. He said, “The crowd at 7:05 in the evening was 422,000 people.”

Shephard: I mean, I think it also gives it a sort of historic register, right? He wants this to be like the March on Washington. He wants this to be like—I don’t know, when they tried to levitate the Pentagon or something. But I think what you’re seeing is the president trying, like, really, really hard to use his theoretical superpower, which is to just manufacture reality, right?

He’s a disciple of the power of positive thinking. He believes he can just kind of manipulate reality by saying things, and that by the time people correct him, it’ll be too late. But I think what we’ve seen again and again, especially since the start of this year, is that he’s just totally lost that ability, right? He can just say this stuff and people just ignore it. It doesn’t matter anymore.

Sargent: I mean, it’s almost like one final humiliation for him to not only only get 150,000 by his own invented estimation, but that’s actually this huge bump down from this bigger number that he estimated—and then he turns around and undermines even that bigger number by inventing another one.

Shephard: I think Trump at his best, in a kind of non-value-judgment way, is sort of like the Grateful Dead or something, where people are going because there might be these parts that are not very good, but there’s going to be 20 or 30 minutes that are genuinely surprising and new and interesting.

And I think that’s like what brought people into Trump in ’15 and ’16. And I think now you’re seeing Trump as the Grateful Dead when Jerry Garcia was on loads of heroin or something—it’s just very familiar and it doesn’t work at all. And I think people are just bored by it right now.

Part of it is that he’s the president, right? So he’s just repeating the same kind of points over and over again. But I think that what we’re seeing is just a president that’s not actually engaged with people or with the culture in a larger way. And the speech itself, to me, failed on numerous grounds. But I think one of the reasons why people were not coming is just, it was this really familiar recitation of grievances, and kind of really pro forma points that Trump himself doesn’t even really care about.

Sargent: So let’s talk about a few highlights here. Trump claimed that we built the “Empire of Liberty.” He slurred his speech numerous times, a lot of screwups. He actually talked about the need to end mail balloting, which is really, truly bizarre. Talk about grievances—that’s something that a lot of Republicans don’t want to hear him talk about anymore.

And then there’s one quote that really leapt out, I think. It was this: “As our Declaration of Independence tells you, we’re all made in the image of one Almighty God, and a communist will never say that.”

Alex, to you, what substantively about the speech really kind of jumped out?

Shephard: I think part of it to me—or the big part, you just got at it—was this really new move from Trump, which is to try to kind of reenergize the Cold War, or to sort of make the larger fight for the country one of capitalism against communism. Essentially the idea here seems to be to use Mamdani as the kind of symbol of the Democratic Party heading into the midterms. But part of the issue here is—and maybe I’ll just sound like Barack Obama in the debate against Mitt Romney, but I’m like, the Cold War was a long time ago, right?

And one of the reasons why—and you see this—I think Steve Bannon is not somebody whose word should be taken literally most of the time, but I thought he had a very interesting point about the rise of kind of democratic socialism after the Colorado results last week, where he was essentially saying, Yeah, you know what, these people are speaking to people who are dissatisfied with our current politics, right? And they’re organizing really effectively around that.

And I think that with Trump, what’s notable here is that Trump first rose speaking to a similar kind of person, right? Somebody who’s disaffected, somebody who is, I think, fairly concerned about the corruption of our politics and looking for people who don’t fit the mold of regular politicians. And that was Trump for a while, right?

But now Trump is himself trying to say, No, I am the kind of symbol of capitalism—all while running the most corrupt and crony-filled administration that you’ve ever seen. And I think that to me points to somebody who’s just lost his touch to some extent. This is the laziest argument that you can make in politics, essentially: My opponents are all communists, right? Well, people like Mamdani—he’s made himself a kind of very approachable, kind force in American politics and I think has actually organized really effectively, in a way that Trump has as well.

But I think what we’re seeing here is just this effort to kind of narrativize his way out of this mess. And the narrative that he’s offering is one that Republicans have been pushing since Barry Goldwater, right? And sometimes it works, but most of the time it doesn’t.

Sargent: That’s absolutely right. I want to home in a little bit on his characterization of the Declaration of Independence, though. When he says, “We are all made in the image of one Almighty God,” he’s referring to the fact that the Declaration says we hold these truths to be self-evident, that our creator made all people equal and so forth. But Trump very much invisibly dispenses with the equal part. And also, “our creator” is not the same as “one Almighty God.” “Our creator” is a much more generic way of putting it, which is deliberate. He’s turning this into almost like a Christian nationalist celebration in a sense.

Shephard: Yeah, I mean, I think that Thomas Jefferson certainly would be appalled by that, right? Like, as a deist, he was not somebody who was thinking about our creator endowing us with anything. I think that the idea here for Trump is that the white men who founded this country did so with very clear designs in that order, that align with the sort of Pete Hegseth vision. And again, I think that speaks to a weakness within this administration, to me—that Trump is parroting stuff that he doesn’t care about, right? He’s not a Christian nationalist. He’s just doing this to try to pander to people within his base, right? And whenever Trump sounds like Pete Hegseth, I feel like he’s really losing here overall.

And I think again, we’re just seeing this kind of laziness, right? It’s this really warmed-over version of Republican politics, really like kind of mainstream Republican politics. As bad as the Christian nationalism stuff has gotten, a lot of the content of this speech would be familiar in a bad speech given by any Republican politician for the last sixty years. And ordinarily you would say, OK, well, that’s fine.

But the problem is that Trump’s whole thing is he’s not like those other people. So this speech, I think, to me captures the two halves of what we’re seeing with Trump right now, which are, on the one hand, these really finely ground grievances like the SAVE Act, right, that most people do not care about, things that Trump cares about quite a bit. And then on the other half, it’s just this really familiar drivel that has sort of characterized the conservative movement and the Republican Party for decades. And I think when you combine these two, you get, one, just a really boring speech, but you also get a picture of a presidency that’s in total free fall.

Sargent: And let’s point out that Barack Obama spoke at the dedication of his presidential center just around a month ago. I want to read a sentence from his speech, because I think it’s really applicable here. It’s sort of fortuitous that Obama’s speech came around a month before Trump’s display, because they really neatly bookend this moment in a really kind of telling way. Obama said that the “story of America at its best” rests on “shared values that make democracy possible.”

They include this: “a belief in the intrinsic dignity and worth of all people and that no one is above the law or beneath its protection, a belief in checks and balances in our government … a belief that our military and law enforcement owe allegiance not to any president or political party, but to the people and our Constitution.”

You know, Alex, there was a time when a Republican president, whether he would mean it or not, would say something quite like that. But of course, let’s be clear—it’s a defining fact of this moment that Trump and MAGA don’t accept any of those things to be true, what Obama said, right?

Shephard: Yeah, I mean, I think it’s part of the long run of Republican and Democratic presidents giving speeches that subtextually rebuke Trump in this exact way, right? Like, George H.W. Bush could have given a large part of what you just read as well. But that’s I think one of the other things that really jumps out about this moment, and in some ways the tragedy of Trump being president at this moment—there are many worse things that are happening.

But one of them, I think, is that this is an opportunity to reflect on the actual meaning of this nation. And I think it’s one of the things that Obama does very well. It’s something that actually Mayor Mamdani here in New York City, I think, also did very well in a speech that he gave on July 3 that was largely about immigration as part of the American story. But there’s just been this refusal to engage with that kind of narrativizing, right? Which I think is an important part of building a culture.

And I think what you see with Trump is that he’s only capable of essentially either, when things are going well for him, building a political movement, or, I think, attempting to sustain or salvage it, which is what we’re seeing now. And it’s just the political movement, right? It’s only things that are innate to Trump. And as you’ve mentioned, the Declaration of Independence is hostile to that project, right?

Like the Reconstruction Amendments are hostile to that project. When you think about the larger American story—which Obama has narrativized, I think, brilliantly many times, of a country struggling to live up to the ideals in its founding documents—that’s, I think, a powerful story. But that’s not the story that Trump tells, right? The story that Trump tells is, these people won’t pass the SAVE Act, and so my elections are going to keep getting stolen.

Sargent: You’ve got the World Cup really sort of acting as the perfect foil to Donald Trump’s Christian nationalist display of our 250th. Can you talk about the contrast there?

Shephard: For the most part, what you’ve seen in this World Cup is it being a celebration of the kinds of things that Obama talked about in that speech, that I think you look at when you think about the good parts of America, right? People are really friendly here. People like to visit America, and they like to visit it because of Americans and because of American culture. And I think we’ve seen quite a bit of that. And this tournament has largely been a huge refutation of Trumpism.

The best player for the United States Men’s National Team during this tournament is somebody who is only a U.S. citizen because of birthright citizenship. It’s a huge refutation of the president. But what we’ve seen since Sunday, when that player, Folarin Balogun, who had been suspended, that he gets unsuspended, possibly because of lobbying from the White House, and the president certainly takes credit for it. And I think what you see is, it’s not that dissimilar to when Trump came to New York for game three of the NBA Finals. What you see is a sort of party, right? This sort of joyous thing that’s then poisoned by the president.

But I think it’s more notable here too, in that it’s another example of his weakness culturally, right? Like, the U.S. team is doing really well, but Trump doesn’t own that at all—partly because, again, the striker on this team, Folarin Balogun, is on the team because of birthright citizenship. His backup, Ricardo Pepi, his family is Mexican, right? The left back is English, the right back is Dutch. It’s a complicated story of America, but it’s one that refutes what the president’s trying to say. And I think with this sort of eleventh-hour intervention, what you’re seeing from this president is someone who can’t own the narrative. So he has to force his way in. And I think that’s what we’ve seen here.

And the U.S. will play Belgium after we talk, before this episode goes out. But I think that the team may or may not respond to that. Hopefully they are able to kind of compartmentalize it. But for a lot of people—and I wrote about this for the New Republic site today—this has kind of poisoned the World Cup. And that, I think, is what Donald Trump has been doing culturally for the last year and a half, essentially. He’s just kind of butted into things and ruined them.

Sargent: And just to conclude this, Donald Trump is clearly trying to associate himself with the success of the World Cup, but failing. And I think the dynamic that you’re getting at is really that everyone just wants to be done with this guy and done with this movement already, right? Everybody just at this point sees how toxic Trump and Trumpism have really become as toxic forces in American life.

I mean, the ethnonationalism, the cruelties and the barbarities, the corruption, the self-dealing, the oligarchy, right? The big upward transfer of oligarchic wealth, which was a major component of Trump’s second-term agenda, the displays of dictatorial self-glorification, and him just kind of desecrating these symbols of republicanism, small-r republicanism, in the nation’s capital. Everybody just wants to be done with this—all these enmities, all these hatreds, all these degradations, all this nonsense already.

Shephard: Well, yeah, I think that the U.S. team is a great example of this, right? Like, so I mentioned Balogun being a sort of birthright citizen, but you don’t have to know that to enjoy this team, right? They’re a fun team. And I think that they encapsulate a lot of what you would like to love about this country. If you’re a MAGA person, you could easily get into a kind of “USA, USA” version of this team. If you’re a liberal like myself, you can find a million ways to be excited about them, right?

And I think that what you see about Trumpism culturally here is the inability to let those kind of monocultural things stand, right? You have to choose one or the other. Taylor Swift can’t be Taylor Swift, right? She has to be an enemy of the MAGA movement. Bruce Springsteen, same thing—which is, again, how you got the horrific music lineup at the Great American State Fair.

But I think that you’re seeing a kind of resistance to that now as well, right? And I think that this is a sort of political movement dying out, in that it’s resisting Trump’s efforts to co-opt it. But it sucks to be in the end stage of that too, because he is, I think, really raging against the dying of the light right now, for lack of a better term.

Sargent: Yes, I’ve been using the term “late-stage Trumpism.”

Shephard: Yeah.

Sargent: It really is—it’s got an end-stage feeling to it, an end-stage cult feeling. We’re in the middle of late-stage Trumpism, and everybody’s just waiting for it to collapse in on itself, basically. And I think maybe the ultimate tell here is for Donald Trump to inflate the crowd sizes at the 250th event, right, which is supposed to be all about the country. And one last time, he makes it about himself. He makes it about his own crowd sizes. It’s almost the final humiliation.

Shephard: Well, yeah, and it’s how it all began, right? That was literally day one of the Trump administration, when people were saying, maybe this guy will be different. And you’re just like, nope. It’s just going to be an even dumber and worse version of what we thought. And now we’re just—it’s crowd sizes all the way down now. And we’ve got two and a half more years of this, and it’s going to be brutal. But, you know, again, it is the late stage.

Sargent: Late-stage Trumpism, folks. That’s what America’s become. Alex Shephard, always a great pleasure talking to you, man. Thanks so much for all this. And you were really ahead of the curve on this stuff, I’m telling you.

Shephard: Thank you. I appreciate it.

That same day, Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission delivered a full draft of its 224-page report, the centerpiece of which is “12 Recommendations to Strengthen Religious Liberty for All Americans.” Those recommendations include the creation of a Justice Department “religious liberty task force,” production of “Know Your Rights” posters, repealing the Johnson Amendment, and creating “religious liberty violation reporting hotlines/online portals.”

The commission, housed in the DOJ, was established via executive order last year to advise the White House Faith Office and Domestic Policy Council by offering suggestions for how to “preserve and enhance religious liberty” in U.S. law and public life. Chaired by Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and vice-chaired by Ben Carson, it is primarily composed of right-wing activists. A few have legal experience; others are prominent religious leaders, politicians, authors—and Dr. Phil.

The report itself is, as legal scholar Micah Schwartzman has put it, “an embarrassing document” (although “shameless” might be more fitting). Still, as we have learned and relearned over the past decade, government officials do not have to be thoughtful, competent, or serious to do real damage. Slapdash and unserious as the report might be, it does its job: laying out how to use the cause of religious liberty to advance right-wing goals.

For over two decades, the Christian conservative legal movement, led by well-funded groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom and with help from the Roberts court, has transformed the idea of religious freedom. The era of “high separation” between church and state is over, and free exercise is a tool reserved primarily for conservative Christians. If the commission’s recommendations are implemented with the DOJ’s backing, they will be the next steps in this broader project. Religious liberty is a banner under which the administration and its allies will continue to undermine other civil rights, dismantle public goods, and insulate certain favored citizens from public accountability.

The commission’s report offers many legal and policy suggestions, but it also seeks a broader cultural shift. “Safeguarding religious liberty,” it claims, “requires more than defending legal rights after they have been violated. It requires cultivating a culture that understands why those rights exist in the first place.” This mission demands that Americans respect religious liberty and the rights it affords, but first they must celebrate and value religion itself.

The premise of the commission’s work is “a simple but profound truth: religious liberty is essential because religion itself is indispensable to a flourishing society.” In recent decades, high-profile cases have dramatized the conflict between individual religious freedom and the public good. The religious belief and speech of cake bakers, website designers, and licensed counselors—to refer to three Supreme Court cases in which ADF successfully sought exemption from or contested Colorado’s civil rights laws—come into conflict with the civil rights of others, particularly LGBTQ people. But, the commission argues, the “Founding Fathers recognized that religious liberty is not merely a private benefit for believers, but a public good for the nation.”

Here, they sidestep the fact that private benefits do in fact conflict with public goods—when business owners discriminate against their potential clients, when tax dollars are funneled to discriminatory private institutions and away from public schools, or when religious groups flout public health mandates during a pandemic—and instead assert that, because religion is ultimately good, religious liberty benefits everyone. If religion is “an essential aspect of what it means to be human,” as the report claims, then it follows that it would be privileged at least as much as, if not more than, other aspects of one’s humanity. Thus, those institutions that foster religion are not at odds with, or even really separate from, state institutions: Church and state should not be completely separate but, “in reality,” should “strengthen and support one another.” There is no wall between the two, the commission concludes, but a “bridge.”

The report is divided into 14 chapters, most of which are devoted to a particular issue or arena of public life. Chapter titles include “Students Don’t Check their Rights at the Schoolhouse Gate,” “The Rights and Roles of Parents and Teachers,” and “Anti-Semitism.” The content of each is drawn largely from the commission’s seven hearings held over the past year. These hearings primarily served as platforms for supposedly persecuted believers—each one a potential “religious freedom celebrity”—to offer testimonials, with occasional subject-area experts adding their analysis. Some were claimants in well-publicized disputes, including cases brought by conservative Christian legal organizations, such as ADF and First Liberty Institute, whose Kelly Shackelford and Allyson Ho are on the commission.

These anecdotes make up much of the report, the final recommendation of which is: “Honor the courage of religious liberty heroes through creating a Presidential Medal of Religious Liberty and First Freedom Hero Awards to recognize Americans who stand up for religious freedom and play an indispensable role in protecting citizens’ Constitutional rights.” Chapters conclude with pictures from the hearings of these heroes. It reads like a book of martyrs with policy recommendations.

The testimonies reveal their uses. Twelve-year-old Shea Encinas testified that in fifth grade, his “school forced [him] to teach [his] kindergarten buddy about changing his gender using a book called My Shadow Is Pink.” Shea did not refuse. However, his family “spoke up” afterward, and, according to Shea, “the school treated us badly and kids started bullying me and my brother because of our faith and the school did nothing to stop it.” The school did not offer an opt-out of certain readings. Later, the school hosted a “Pink Out the Hate” day, on which students would wear pink to show solidarity with LGBTQ students. According to Shea, he “felt like the entire school …[was] standing against me and ridiculing my beliefs.” When he arrived, he was dismayed to see that “over half the school wore pink. I felt completely alone.” Shea and his brother were ostracized, and the family “felt they had no choice” but to enroll in a private school.

Without discounting (or taking too seriously) Shea’s feelings, there is something poignant in stating so starkly that when he was not in the majority he “felt completely alone.” In the nation the commission hopes to create, Shea’s rights would not simply be protected; so too would his feelings. The commission wants Americans to be proud of religion, and of religious liberty. Perhaps even more than wanting to feel pride, they want some people not to feel shame. They want anti-sociality without consequent social stigma. As religious studies scholar Donovan Schaefer has written, for some conservatives, “it becomes easier to repudiate shame altogether than respond to the moral demands placed on them.”

Following this line of argument, religious studies scholar Finbarr Curtis explains, “Trumpism is the response to the fear that someone somewhere is threatening to take something that is rightfully yours. As a vigorous response to threats, Trump’s illiberalism makes his supporters feel safe.” The message of the commission’s report is that these threats abound, from vaccine mandates and “transgenderism” and “bad actors in the government and within institutions,” but the Department of Justice will protect you. There will be posters reminding everyone to “Know Your Rights.” Your teachers will undergo religious liberty training. If anyone does violate your rights or make you feel unsafe, there will be an online portal where you can report the threat. They will be investigated.

Even in this boom time for religious liberty, with religion’s stock going up, some claimants still lose their cases. In fact, the named claimant in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, the most recent religious freedom case at the Supreme Court, lost. And a landmark law—2000’s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA—was significantly restricted. Naturally, it was a case that spelled out exactly who could expect to enjoy religious freedom and who should not.

Damon Landor, by all accounts a devout Rastafarian, did not cut his hair in keeping with his faith. When incarcerated, he explained and documented this practice. For a while, his religious rights were honored. When he was transferred to a new facility, he handed them his paperwork stating his religious exemption. Prison guards threw it in the trash and then held Landor down and shaved his head. He sued the prison officials in their individual capacity, which the court found was beyond the scope of RLUIPA. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, held that prison employees could not be sued here because they had not “voluntarily and knowingly consent[ed] to answer lawsuits” under RLUIPA. As lawyer and legal scholar Elizabeth Reiner Platt noted, this is a standard that “employees are unlikely to agree to.” Why would they?

The Religious Liberty Commission’s report—in a draft issued three days after the Landor decision—says DOJ “should issue updated guidance on how [RLUIPA] provides incarcerated individual with the right to receive reasonable religious accommodations while incarcerated.” To what end? With what effect? Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her Landor dissent that “state-empowered prison officials will have little incentive to abide by federal law.” It is hard to imagine that DOJ will effectively cultivate a culture of respect for religion and religious liberty in a case like this. Will prisons hang “Know Your Rights” posters in common spaces? Will wardens undergo religious liberty trainings that would prevent such an incident? Will incarcerated persons call the hotline? The recommendations seem to be for Shea Encinas and his parents more than Damon Landor.

Some critics, such as Sarah Posner, a journalist and expert on the Christian right, have called the commission’s report “an homage to Christian nationalism.” As Posner notes, a multi-religious coalition legally challenged the commission, based on its nearly entirely Christian composition and clearly biased framing. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said that the commission is “not about religious liberty, it is about pursuing a culture of Christian Nationalism that seeks to divide and isolate people across our nation.”

The Public Religion Research Institute has found that 11 percent of Americans are “adherents” to Christian nationalist ideas and 21 percent are “sympathizers.” Christian nationalism is correlated with support for religion in general and “Judeo-Christian values.” In a 2021 poll on religious liberty, PRRI found that 10 percent of Americans completely agree and 21 percent somewhat agree with the statement, “In the U.S., when there is a conflict, the rights and religious freedom of Christians have priority over the rights and religious freedom of non-Christians and non-religious Americans.” Perhaps this is the “culture of Christian Nationalism” of which Perryman warns. About a third of Americans, then, support some kinds of favorable treatment for Christians. It is reasonable to think that the hotlines are for them—or, at least, that they’ll be frequent users.

While Christian nationalist ideology might be a factor, the Religious Liberty Commission is better understood as a right-wing project. If its goal is to install Christian supremacy, it is only as a route to empower private actors to subvert the public good. It seeks to exempt certain people—Christians, yes, but more importantly conservatives—from public accountability, and from feeling bad about abridging the civil rights of disfavored groups. It advocates siphoning funds from public schools and rerouting them toward private institutions, or “creating a robust system of universal school choice” and “securing parental rights.” It encourages citizens to surveil and report, rather than tolerate, their neighbors. It recommends that DOJ “develop a dedicated Religious Liberty Task Force,” whose tasks would include issuing cease-and-desist letters to public school districts with trans-inclusive policies. It seeks to create a culture of fear and suspicion and, in so doing, alleviate the fears of anti-pluralists, their feelings of loneliness, exclusion, and shame. Throughout, the message is clear: Get religion. If you don’t, the commission suggests, it just doesn’t seem to work out, does it?

Make no mistake, originalism has always been a sham—and always applied selectively in the pursuit of reactionary ends—but this term’s opinions put on display a methodology that’s in crisis, unworkable even for the justices who claim to be its most ardent proponents.

Let’s start with Trump v. Slaughter, which dismantled the century-long practice of Congress restricting the president’s power to fire the heads of certain agencies. The ruling had been a longtime goal of the right-wing legal movement, but standing in its way was not only decades of precedent but also some inconveniently conclusive evidence from the Founders themselves.

Take a line from Federalist, Number 77, where Alexander Hamilton noted the Senate’s consent would be required “to displace as well as to appoint an officer,” so as to prevent the president from becoming “the sole disposer of offices.” When it comes to founding-era evidence, it’s hard to get better than that—the most forceful and influential advocate for a strong executive among the founding generation answering your question directly on point.

The conservative majority’s response? To call this a “passing comment,” bizarrely suggesting the word “displace” doesn’t necessarily mean “remove,” and instead demanding that we consult the “logic of The Federalist as a whole.” It’s one thing to completely ignore inconvenient evidence in pursuit of a sought-after goal; surely we’ve seen that move employed before. It’s another for this group of jurists, who so dogmatically scold those who diverge even slightly from the historical record, to so brazenly toss aside the plain meaning of words spoken directly by one of the Founders themselves in the name of “logic as a whole.”

Still, that alone would be a fine, if familiar, example of conservatives editing the record to achieve their predetermined outcome. But it’s in Barbara v. Trump, the ruling that blocked President Trump’s abominable effort to eviscerate birthright citizenship, where things take another turn.

The majority in Barbara is an unlikely pairing of the liberal justices with two conservatives, so the result provides a unique window into the unstable nature of the right’s methodology. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment, but wrote separately to state that the constitutional definition of birthright citizenship is not set in stone, and opened the door for Congress to create “exceptions” to birthright citizenship “recognized based on new developments after 1868.”

“Exceptions”? “New developments”? You might be wondering where this guy was when gun rights activists questioned the logic of blocking assault rifle restrictions based on words written centuries before those weapons existed, or when reproductive rights activists asked whether eighteenth-century history should govern modern medical procedures. You’re right to be confused. It’s people like Kavanaugh who laugh progressives out of the room for suggesting that two people separated by two centuries might read the same words differently.

Archconservative Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent, takes things even further, developing a citizenship test so strict that virtually all children born to foreign parents would fail. But recognizing how absurd this result will be, Alito just stops his historical inquiry right there, developing an exception out of thin air for parents who have “done everything within their power … to become American.”

In response, a fellow originalist, Chief Justice John Roberts, scolds Alito for creating this “ad hoc exception,” simply because he cannot “stomach” the result of his supposedly historical exercise. Alito, he writes, “does not explain how that exception can be squared with his view of the text.” As for Kavanaugh, Roberts writes that his willy-nilly reasoning is “at war with his supposedly unifying principle of the Clause.”

If this seems like a mess, it is. And that’s the tell. Originalism was never marketed to the public as just one interpretive tool among many. It was marketed as a discipline, the thing that would keep judges from substituting their own values for the Constitution’s plain original meaning. But here we are, answering some of the most momentous constitutional questions ever posed to this nation’s high court, and the method that promised to provide clarity and stability is instead producing some of the more incoherent, nonsensical gobbledygook ever published.

Indeed, a method that can’t generate internal agreement among its own adherents—let alone a coherent logic behind its conclusions—is not a method at all. It’s just a vocabulary. What was once sold as a mission to develop clear, consistent, stable jurisprudence has instead rendered constitutional law in this country a foolish and exhausting exercise, completely divorced from logic, philosophy, or common sense; a petty game of jurisprudential grab bag to determine who has the best quote from an eighteenth-century slave owner.

None of this is an argument that the justices are reasoning badly, exactly. Every judge, on every court, has always had to decide which evidence matters and which doesn’t. That is simply what judging is. Even Antonin Scalia, the godfather of originalism, reserved the right to set aside historical evidence when the results struck him as too absurd to accept, famously noting that “I’m an originalist and a textualist, not a nut.”

It was a tell even then—an admission that the method bends whenever it has to. But the scandal was never the bending. It was the pretense that a stable, principled method existed at all, one capable of producing consistent results regardless of who was applying it. Slaughter and Barbara show that even the people who invented that pretense can no longer keep it up among themselves. It might be time for the rest of us to stop pretending as well.

That’s nonsense—five justices affirmed that just about all children born on U.S. soil, including those with undocumented parents, are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. But House Speaker Mike Johnson knows he must appear prepared to obey Trump’s command, so on Fox News Sunday, he declared that House Republicans are examining ways to undo what the Constitution says.

“If there’s some legislative fix, we’ll advance that immediately,” Johnson insisted. Note the word “immediately,” which seems to mean “between now and Election Day.” Is this something vulnerable House Republicans will really want to vote on?

Doubtful. Indeed, look carefully and you’ll see the beginnings of a pattern: Republicans like Johnson—who know this would be extremely unpopular—are conjuring up a new tone and new language designed to recast it as a modest step, and not as the radical upheaval it would truly represent. Just watch Johnson’s full quote on this matter:

🚨 IT'S OFFICIAL: Speaker Johnson announces he's coming up with legislation to STRIKE DOWN rampant birthright citizenship and tourism scams for illegal aliens

GOOD! Act fast!

"I really enjoyed Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent, everybody should read that. And he explained that… pic.twitter.com/GT2z3kgeV6

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 5, 2026

Birthright citizenship might require a mere “legislative fix,” Johnson says, because under it, citizenship has been “devalued” by “birth tourism.” That last phrase has long been a noxious rallying cry on the anti-immigrant right. But in Johnson’s hands, it’s meant to portray the birthright citizenship “problem” as no biggie, as a trivial matter that just needs a little patching up. And note the oh-so-casual tone he strikes throughout, as if he’s discussing an adjustment to marginal tax rates.

Or take Vice President JD Vance, who recently described ending birthright citizenship in similarly bland terms. “It’s fundamentally a loophole that exists in our immigration system that rewards illegal aliens,” Vance said on Fox News Sunday. “There are a number of things that we’re already looking at to close that loophole.”

Note Vance’s repetition of the word “loophole,” which seems suspiciously deliberate. Why, this would be a mere tweak—akin to a new coat of paint on the garage door or oiling a squeaky hinge, you see.

Theoretically, Johnson and Republicans could write legislation that, say, prohibits the grant of citizenship to any babies born to one or two parents who entered illegally and/or were undocumented at the time of the birth. Right now, such a bill would presumably be upheld as constitutional by “only” four Supreme Court justices: Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch voted to overturn birthright citizenship on constitutional grounds, and Brett Kavanaugh sided with the majority but only on a statutory basis, not a constitutional one.

That’s alarming. It means only five justices now believe birthright citizenship is a “foundational guarantee,” explains Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, so opponents need only to “nab one more vote” on the court to create a majority to uphold a congressional statute ending it. So Republicans might try to pass something that might be invalidated now but could test the court again—and lay the groundwork for more efforts later, similar to how Roe v. Wade foes chipped away at it for years before succeeding.

The irony to Johnson’s effort to make all this sound trivial is that the problem he identifies—people coming into our country solely to have a baby and scam the system into letting them stay—actually is very insignificant. A brief in the case by over 100 specialists in social science, demography, and other fields notes that the government’s own numbers put such births at far less than 1 percent of overall U.S. births. And even that low figure is almost certainly wrong: The real total, they detail, is far more “infinitesimal.”

But the change that Republicans are contemplating would be a moral, substantive, humanitarian, and constitutional earthquake. As Amanda Frost explains, ending birthright citizenship could lead to hundreds of thousands of newborn babies per year going forward remaining undocumented. That would mean they have less earning power as adults, harming the economy. Alternatively, if they are removed (or not born here at all), that means a future of national demographic decline.

Here it’s critical to stress that the overwhelming majority of those people would not be the children of “birth tourists.” They wouldn’t be the children of people who came here solely to have babies and are getting “rewarded” for this, as it doesn’t earn the parents legal status in any case. Instead, the parents constitute families already in the process of immigrating here for the same reasons immigrants long have done—to participate productively in our economy and communities and, ultimately, in our democracy.

So while Johnson and Vance are aiming their rhetoric at “birth tourists”—an easy-to-demonize group—their actual concern is with the much larger class of people who want to settle here for reasons that are recognizably American. That’s who they want to keep out.

Further underscoring the point, don’t overlook Johnson’s assertion that our citizenship is being “devalued” by birthright citizenship. Two of the justices—Thomas and Alito—used similar terms, insisting the children of undocumented immigrants “devalue” and “degrade” American citizenship more broadly. That’s extremely loaded language: As Adam Serwer notes, it echoes Civil War–era language about freedom for enslaved people “degrading” the white race, thus casting all those undocumented children as fundamentally “inferior” to other American-born children.

Which is ultimately why all this strikes so hard at our constitutional order. Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurrence forcefully points out that birthright citizenship enshrines the promise of equality in part precisely by overturning “bloodline” as the “marker” of belonging. The key is that the child’s status should not be hereditary. Vance and Johnson want to undo that, reversing what Jackson calls the Fourteenth Amendment’s destruction of “racial caste.”

So let’s step back and really appreciate Johnson’s vile two-step. He claims in passing that birthright citizenship “devalues” American citizenship, casually endorsing a disgusting attack on the hallowed principle that a child’s status should depend on birthplace, not heritage or inheritance. Undoing this would be seismic, yet he frames it as a mere “fix” to “birth tourism,” making it sound benign to those who might not immediately appreciate the grand principles at stake here.

“The new quote-unquote ‘fixes’ try to shift the public’s focus to the legal status of the parents, away from the geographical birthplace of the child,” Anna O. Law, a historian of immigration law, tells me. “For people who don’t know the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, it might sound plausible. But it would blow a huge hole in the U.S. Constitution. It’s deeply cynical.”

It would also be deeply, deeply unpopular. A recent Fox News poll found that 69 percent of Americans think a kid born to an “illegal immigrant” (Fox’s language) should “automatically become a U.S. citizen.” That includes 65 percent of noncollege white voters, 61 percent of rural whites, and even 57 percent of white evangelicals. As Fox quietly reported in March (how often do you hear this finding on the network?), relative to previous years, support for it is up.

To be sure, now that Trump and MAGA have taken up this cause, it might shift some Republican voters their way. Focus-grouping by The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell shows some Trump voters are now echoing his own language about it.

But still: It’s very, very doubtful that Johnson really wants vulnerable House Republicans to vote on such legislation before the midterms. Yet he’s now been pushed into the position of keeping expectations for a legislative “fix” alive with MAGA—all because he’s required to pretend Trump’s command for legislation is rooted in something real. And Vance will have to champion this when his presidential run starts next year, no matter how unpopular it remains. When he does, he’ll use euphemisms like “loophole” to mask how wildly radical and destructive it is. And it’ll be squarely on us to prevent him, at all costs, from getting away with it.