The 47th President and the Post-Biden World 2.0

The political world has been consumed over the past few days with a Republican meltdown about Trump’s aide Natalie Harp.

The story began when Democratic Georgia senator Jon Ossoff said at an event for his reelection campaign on Sunday that Trump does not appear to want to do the job of the presidency. Ossoff added: “He golfs and trades stocks. See, he doesn’t want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar.” That was it. That was all he said.

On Monday, CNN reporter Kristen Holmes asked Trump to respond to Ossoff’s comment. Trump first referred to Ossoff as Pee-wee Herman, a child-man film character created by late actor Paul Reubens, then defended the ballroom and attacked the reporter. Later, as Scott Nover of the Washington Post reported, the White House rapid response team took to social media to call Holmes a “disgraceful, humiliating embarrassment to her alleged profession.”

Then, in an unusual escalation, the account targeted Holmes’s children, posting: “Someday, your children will come across your disgusting and inhumane question. They will be sickened and embarrassed to have a parent be so callous and vindictive. It’s quite troubling.”

You could almost feel the palpable relief that the White House might be able to gin up a controversy that could rally the base, one that, for the first time in a long time, didn’t automatically show the president or the administration in a bad light. Undermining Ossoff, whose speeches have been a particularly sharp thorn in the administration’s side lately, appeared to be icing on the cake.

Certainly the call went out to right-wing media figures to pile on to the idea that Ossoff was making a sexist attack on Harp. Megyn Kelly posted that Ossoff “was clearly implying that Trump is having an affair w/his staffer,” and Michael Knowles wrote: “Every time I see a woman at work, I just know she’s sleeping with her boss! Am I right? Anyway, am I the new Obama yet?” White House spokesperson Steven Cheung wrote: “Jon Jackoff has to be the biggest cuck loser in politics,” and Newt Gingrich posted: “Jon Ossoff owes Natalie Harp a personal apology for having smeared her.”

Matt Royer of the Democratic National Committee Youth Council noted: “The word “affair” was never uttered, and yet apparently every single conservative talking head in the world heard it anyway, so what does that tell you?” He added: “Never have I seen a more exquisite example of the Streisand Effect where someone’s supporters fall over themselves to basically accuse them of adultery when it wasn’t even brought up.”

Commandeering the news cycle with manufactured outrage distracted attention from other issues Ossoff did call attention to in the same sentence. Ossoff called out Trump’s apparent stock manipulation, an issue Trump highlighted recently when he sold early access to his Truth Social posts for as much as $100,000 a month. It has been widely reported that investors appear to be making a killing by anticipating Trump’s posts as they make markets go up or down.

An investigation by Casey Tolan and Isabelle Chapman of CNN published on July 16 found that Trump himself “made at least 44 stock purchases of 21 different companies within a week before he posted a complimentary Truth Social message about the firms, their executives or their products.”

“He’s selling faster access to his tweets, and then you can bet on the markets,” comedian Shane Gillis recently told popular podcaster Joe Rogan, “It’s literally insider trading.” Rogan, whose support for Trump in 2024 was important to his victory, responded: “Wait a minute, is that real? How is that legal? Who’s telling him this is a good idea? $100K to get early tweets? That’s literally crazy. He’s just on a grab.”

As Matthew Chapman of RawStory reported, the two went on to discuss Trump’s involvement with cryptocurrency. “This government has done some (expletive) that no government has ever done before and one of them is the crypto stuff,” Rogan said. “The crypto stuff is nuts. Trump has made billions in crypto. Then you got his sons and his sons are involved in these weird business deals, and there’s a lot of money flowing around that you could dig in and start arresting people.”

Attacking Ossoff for allegedly smearing Harp also shifted attention from Trump’s ballroom, which is enormously unpopular and which is in the news as Trump has appealed to the Supreme Court to override lower courts’ rulings that he does not have the authority to build such a structure without the permission of Congress. Even Republican members of Congress seem reluctant to grant such permission, as it highlights Trump’s grabs for luxury while Americans are hurting under high gas and grocery prices caused by Trump’s tariff wars and war on Iran.

Recently, New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman, who with Jonathan Swan wrote about Trump’s second administration in Regime Change, has told podcasters Ezra Klein and Axios’s Mike Allen that Trump spends about “70%” of his time working on his Washington, D.C. projects. “He is spending a huge amount of energy, mental and otherwise, on these renovation projects, beautification projects around Washington, and then monuments to self,” Haberman told Allen.

She described a visit with Trump seventeen days into the Iran war in which “it was very clear what his mind was on while we were there. And what it was not really on was the war.” “You would think that on the 17th day of the war that he would have maps of the Middle East or maps of troop deployments—who knows,” Haberman said. “He picks up these pictures, and [they’re] of maple trees. And he says: ‘I am choosing maple trees for the White House. I am good at picking trees.’ I’m paraphrasing here, but that is pretty much what he said.”

Recent news reports tie the lack of supplies on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln to Iran’s damaging strike on the only U.S. naval base in the Middle East, known as Naval Support Activity Bahrain, in the first weeks of the war. Trump has downplayed the poor conditions aboard the vessel, infuriating the families of the sailors.

He continues to downplay the flailing of his administration in Iran, as well, as Iranian forces continue to control the Strait of Hormuz. When asked today about the strait, he told reporters: “Last night we had a lot of boats come through, we have possession, complete control of the strait, I mean, outside of nuisance value—and there is nuisance value when they shoot a drone every once in a while, but and not everybody’s going to go through. But they come through. And over the last couple of weeks, we had a lot of oil coming in, a lot of oil. It’s not gonna be perfect, but it’s a lot of oil coming in, a lot. In fact, people are amazed.”

Scott Waldman of Politico reported on Monday that while an average of almost 140 ships a day traversed the strait before the war, last Sunday only 3 did.

The Harp story also has taken oxygen from increasing pushback against the Trump administration. Yesterday ABC and its parent corporation, The Walt Disney Company, launched a federal lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), saying the Trump administration violated their free speech rights. The lawsuit claims that administration officials tried to do Trump’s bidding by launching investigations and challenging broadcast licenses because Trump didn’t like their talk show opinions, news coverage, and late-night comedians.

As David Folkenflik of NPR noted, the lawsuit began with the words: “Government censorship is deeply un-American.”

This is a one-eighty for ABC. In 2024 it agreed to donate $16 million to Trump’s presidential library to settle a lawsuit Trump brought over the assertion by George Stephanopoulos that Trump had been found liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll. In fact, Trump had been found liable for sexual abuse, and the judge said that while what he did fell under the common definition of rape, New York state law had a very precise definition that his actions didn’t fit.

The settlement made ABC one of the first to settle with Trump. That money seems to have disappeared, and there is currently a congressional investigation into where it, along with almost $50 million more from similar settlements, has gone.

FCC chair Brendan Carr seemed to back away from previous threats, saying that ABC and Disney were acting too hastily and that the FCC has not yet decided whether to renew the licenses. “Ultimately,” he said, “they’re going to get a fair shake before the agency.”

Jeremy Barr of The Guardian shed light on the issue today when he reported on new documents obtained thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and a lawsuit from Democracy Forward showing that Carr has been working closely with the White House and right-wing media. In addition to talking and meeting with White House officials, Carr has been working with the Fox News Channel and the chair of the right-wing Sinclair Broadcast Group.

There is also the uncomfortable fact that the national debt passed a record $40 trillion yesterday, much sooner than expected. The U.S. is currently spending more than a trillion dollars a year to pay interest on the national debt, more than it spends on defense.

As Steven Rattner noted in the New York Times yesterday, Trump said in his 2024 campaign, “We’re going to grow like nobody’s ever grown before,” but in fact, the economy is slowing. He promised to bring the cost of gasoline below $2 a gallon; it is now above $4 a gallon.

In 2025, Trump said he would balance the federal budget, but in fact, thanks largely to his tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, the deficit is growing. Also in 2025, Trump promised that his new tariffs would enable him both to cut taxes and to pay down the deficit; in fact, the national debt relative to gross domestic product (GDP) is about to break the record set during World War II.

Republican operatives appear to have thought that the Harp story could enable them to pivot to attack Ossoff and change the narrative, but it seems they miscalculated. Their attention to Ossoff’s statement that Trump would rather “travel with Natalie” has brought attention to the relationship between the 80-year-old president and the 35-year-old aide, who was once a host on the right-wing OAN network.

Maggie Haberman told MS NOW that for Trump, Harp “is sort of his binky, for lack of a better way of putting it, a comfort blanket.” She is the main buffer between Trump and the outside world, filtering the information the president sees, setting up meetings and passing along messages, writing social media posts, and printing out articles praising Trump.

In their book, Haberman and Swan wrote that Harp leaves “adoring letters” to Trump in “private spaces,” saying things like: “you are all that matters to me.” CNN’s Holmes reported that Harp is “physically close to Trump at all hours of the day” and that Harp once jumped into the trunk of an SUV to stay close to Trump after being told there was no room for her in the vehicle.

The renewed scrutiny of Harp has turned up the story that for more than a year, she refused to get a routine security clearance to work at the White House. A national security official expressed concern to Jake Traylor and Jacqueline Alemany of MS NOW that Harp has more access to sensitive information than nearly all of the other White House officials.

When Trump left a decoy Air Force One airplane for a smaller plane in early July, he left behind cabinet secretaries but brought Harp with him.

On Saturday, August 15, the New York Times editorial board published an op-ed noting that the Republicans are trying to hide the cuts they have made to health care in the U.S.

The editorial board called the expansion of affordable health care to millions of Americans one of the great achievements of the federal government in this century. Before the Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 without a single Republican vote, about 18% of Americans under 65 had no health insurance. With the passage and later expansion of the ACA, also known as Obamacare, the number of uninsured had fallen below 10%.

But now, the journalists note, Trump and the Republicans are working to uproot that achievement. While they extended Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations in their July 2025 budget reconciliation bill—the one they call the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” passed without a single Democratic vote—they refused to extend subsidies that enabled people to afford healthcare insurance in the ACA marketplaces.

The Democrats shut down the government last fall to try to force Republicans to restore those cuts, foreseeing that higher prices for premiums would drive healthier people out of the markets and out of healthcare insurance, while the loss of those healthier people from risk pools would drive up premiums for those remaining.

They were unsuccessful, and as they warned, without the subsidies, people dropped their health insurance. A report from the Department of Health and Human Services in late June 2026 showed that at least 5 million people lost health insurance in the first six months of the year, a drop of about 13%. For those remaining, premiums have spiked: the editorial board notes that a middle-income, middle-aged couple with two children could pay an additional $3,500 a year, more than doubling their premium from before the cuts. Deductibles also jumped this year by about $1,000 a person as people chose cheaper policies that offered less coverage.

Democrats shut down the government also because they wanted to restore the cuts of about $1 trillion over the next ten years Republicans had made in funding for Medicaid. In their budget reconciliation bill, Republicans placed what they called a “work requirement” on enrollees, requiring them to prove they have a job or a valid exemption.

But, as the editorial board notes, the “work requirement” is really a “paperwork requirement” that will throw people eligible for the program off it because they have not filed the right paperwork. As the board reports, Elizabeth Zhang and Gideon Lukens of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that about two of the three people who will lose Medicaid because of the new requirement are legally entitled to it.

They estimated that up to 15 million people are at risk of losing Medicaid coverage. That, in turn, will force hospitals, especially rural hospitals, to cut back services or close. Although still legally required to provide services to everyone, they will not be reimbursed for the cost of such care and will drop labor and delivery services, for example. Those closures will not just mean poorer health care, they will mean lost jobs.

As the New York Times editorial board noted, Republicans deliberately put off the implementation of most of the Medicaid cuts until after the 2026 midterms.

New York Times reader KAM from Marin County, California, noted in a comment on the story that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defines onerous paperwork differently than Republicans in Congress. Bessent recently announced the Treasury will no longer require shell companies to disclose even the name, address, and identification of people who own an interest of more than 25% or who exercise “significant control” over the company, as Congress required in the 2021 Corporate Transparency Act. Congress designed the law to combat money laundering, but Bessent says the paperwork puts an undue burden on businesses.

In 1883, sociologist William Graham Sumner published What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, concluding that the answer was: nothing. In a time when unregulated industrialization was making fortunes on the one hand and driving down wages on the other, creating extremes of rich and poor, Sumner turned on its head the traditional idea that the economy of the United States would provide a living to any man who worked hard. Instead, Sumner argued that anyone who did not succeed in the United States must be “negligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent.”

Not only was it unfair to make “the industrious and the prudent” responsible for such shiftless men, he wrote, it would ruin the country by destroying individual enterprise. Sumner called for a “laissez-faire” world in which those who failed should be permitted to sink into poverty and die to keep the U.S. from becoming a place where lazy people wanted a handout. In the end, such people needed to be purged from society for the good of the nation.

At the time, those succeeding in the industrializing economy nodded along with Sumner. The Republican New York Times editor wrote that even though Sumner’s “views are singularly hard and uncompromising, it is difficult to quarrel with their deductions, however one may feel one’s finer instinct hurt by their apparent cruelty.”

The Trump administration seems to have embraced Sumner’s belief that the nation depends upon the survival of the fittest.

As microbiologist and senior health reporter Beth Mole reported last year in Ars Technica, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appears to believe that the key to health is not to rely on the vaccines proven to prevent infectious diseases, but rather to have a strong immune system fortified, as he wrote in a 2021 book, “through healthy living, clean water, and good nutrition.” He accused those who support vaccines of misleading the American public for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry and the healthcare industry.

This seems to explain why he has claimed—without evidence—that the Texas children who died of measles were malnourished and that “[w]e don’t know what was killing” the 83 Samoans who died in the country’s 2019 measles epidemic, during which Kennedy associated with members of the anti-vaccine movement there. It would also explain why he promised to turn away from promoting vaccination to exploring new treatments for measles, including vitamins.

And it would help to explain the effort to change the vaccine schedule for children by separating the MMR vaccine into single-disease vaccines. Rather than two shots, requiring two doctor’s visits, the vaccine series would require six. Experts say such a change will mean poorer children will not get the whole vaccine series, putting them and their communities at risk.

If overall health can fight off germs and illness, then measures like the pasteurization of milk and the tracking of foodborne illnesses are unnecessary.

The U.S. is experiencing a particularly bad wave of foodborne illness. It’s driven both by hot weather that nurtures food contamination and by federal funding cuts that scaled back the ability of federal agencies to conduct food inspections and provide grants to state and local health departments that used to be able to trace outbreaks quickly.

Deidre McPhillips of CNN reported that so far this year, the U.S. has reported about 10,500 cases of foodborne illness. Between 2021 and 2025, the annual average was about 1,500 cases. At least 9,481 people in 17 states have fallen ill with cyclosporiasis carried by lettuce from Taylor Farms, and thousands more cases are being investigated. It’s the largest cyclospora outbreak in U.S. history, spurred by cuts of more than 40% to food safety detection systems.

It’s not just lettuce. Frozen organic blueberries sold in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia have been recalled for E. coli; fresh jalapeños from Taylor Farms have been recalled for salmonella; 1.5 million dozen eggs sold in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and New Mexico have also been recalled for salmonella. Anna Skinner of Newsweek notes that while the focus has been on produce, in fact, FDA records show what she calls “a steady stream of recalls” that includes “prepared foods, salad dressings, soups, bakery items and ready-to-eat products,” potentially contaminated with salmonella, Listeria, or foreign materials, including pieces of metal.

As former U.S. surgeon general Dr. Jerome Adams wrote in USA Today, “You cannot effectively focus on chronic diseases while you’re being repeatedly overwhelmed by acute infectious outbreaks.” He called for restoring the mandatory tracking of all eight pathogens that were covered by the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) before the administration cut the surveillance down to just two, and for filling the leadership positions at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration that are currently vacant. He called for inspectors to prioritize high-risk foods and imports and for the Department of Health and Human Services to reaffirm that vaccines are safe and effective.

In the 1890s, the determination of those like William Graham Sumner to keep government out of society in order to promote individualism had undermined public health and safety. Producers adulterated tuberculosis-carrying milk with chalk and formaldehyde, decorated candy with lead paint, and scooped melted ice cream off the bottom of the vat to refreeze for sale the next day, and what was in sausage meat was a terrifying mystery.

In the early twentieth century, middle-class Americans demanded regulation of the food and drug industry, ushering in the reforms that we now call the Progressive Era.

The American right is now obsessed with freeing Derek Chauvin, the man who kneeled on George Floyd's neck leading to his death. This week, the world's richest man, Elon Musk, has been tweeting about Derek Chauvin nonstop. He writes, As anyone who endeavors to understand the facts knows, his murder conviction was morally and legally wrong. Musk also said this, Derek Chauvin was unjustly convicted of murder, therefore he should be freed. The facts show that he was not the cause of death, nor did he at any time intend for a death to occur. The Christian nationalist Baptist leader, William Wolfe, agrees with Musk. He writes in response to Musk's tweet, Derek Chauvin is in jail because of one thing and one thing only, anti-white racism. The only crime, quote unquote, he committed is being born with white skin.

What we see in these tweets is a couple of things, one of which is obvious. There is a homicide denial of George Floyd's murder. And even though all of us watched the video and we have read the coroner's report, nonetheless, William Wolfe, a Christian nationalist, Elon Musk, a civilizational chauvinist, and many others are arguing that Derek Chauvin did absolutely nothing wrong and the only reason he's in jail is because he's white. Here is Ben Shapiro talking about the same issue.

Ben Shapiro wrote:

If we are issuing pardons, however, there is one person that President Trump should pardon from federal charges forthwith. It would be incredibly controversial, but I think that it's absolutely necessary. That person is Derek Chauvin. President Trump should, in fact, pardon Derek Chauvin. He should. He should pardon him his federal charges.
If we are talking about reversing the evils of the last several years in American life, obviously COVID and its handling was a massive evil. Destroyed the economy. Set us on a path to fiscal insanity. Destroyed children. Led to massive health-related cover-ups. Just horrifying all the way around. And President Trump has taken on a lot of those things. But when it came to BLM, the inciting event for the BLM riots that caused $2 billion in property damage in the United States and set America's race relations on their worst footing in my lifetime was, in fact, the railroading of Derek Chauvin in the death of George Floyd.

Now, I want to come back to this, but what's important to notice here is that Shapiro starts with rectifying the wrongs of COVID and what happened in 2020 with Black Lives Matter. He argues that Derek Chauvin did nothing wrong because, in fact, George Floyd was somebody who was high on methamphetamines at the time and died of natural causes. Now, this is not an original argument on the part of Musk, Wolf, or Shapiro. Tucker Carlson made this argument way back in 2023.

Ben Shapiro wrote:

Now that we know that it was not in fact a pandemic of the unvaccinated, now that we know that Ukraine is not actually winning the war against Russia, it could be time to revisit some of the other slogans we've been assured are true and ordered to repeat. Are they in fact true? Did, for example, a racist white cop actually murder a man called George Floyd, a civil rights leader, in Minneapolis on Memorial Day of 2020? Now we've been told that that happened, told it relentlessly for more than three years. So at this point, we've been told it so much that pretty much everybody seems to believe it. Now, we haven't just been told it, we watched it. Almost anyone listening or watching to this report will have seen the video of George Floyd having his life ended by Derek Chauvin kneeling on his neck. What all of these commentators are trying to do is to say, well, this is common knowledge coming from a regime that A woke state, a liberal media that wants you to feel bad about being a white person because there's a war on you, white people, and therefore you should see this event as false history. This was not a murder. This was nothing more than a drug addict dying of natural causes while disrupting the peace. In the video, Carlson says, George Floyd, according to the official autopsy, was not murdered. So this was not a killing. It was yet another narcotics overdose.

Now, this is not true. And I'll just point you to what happened in the autopsy report. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner's autopsy did not record neck injuries. However, the report concluded that Floyd died from, quote, cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating law enforcement subdual restraint and neck compression. He died, in essence, of an abrupt loss of heart function in a person because he could not breathe.

Now, I could spend the next 10 minutes going through all the evidence that this was, in fact, a murder. I'm not going to do that. I just gave you the language from the autopsy report. You've seen the video, you remember what happened, and I'm not going to try to prove this and litigate it all over again. What I want to dig into is what's underneath this united claim from the American right that Derek Chauvin is innocent and in fact should be pardoned. What I argued last week in a piece at Rolling Stone is that there is an alliance among Western civilizational chauvinists and Christian nationalists. People like William Wolfe, who's an out-and-out Christian nationalist, who is a colleague. Thank you. Wolf and Engel and Isker argue that we should get rid of 100 million people from the United States because that's what it would take to restore, quote, heritage America. If you are a person of color, if you are not a Christian, they do not believe you can be a real American. Well, what do they have in common with Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, one who notoriously is not religious, somebody who very rarely, if at all, talks about God or Jesus or Christian faith? What I wrote in Rolling Stone last week is this. While extremist Christians and Silicon Valley technocrats often disagree on issues related to AI, surveillance and family, they are aligned on the idea that saving Western civilization from external threats like Muslims and migrants and internal threats like Antifa, trans people and feminists is the paramount issue of our time.

Even though Musk is not religious, many Christian nationalists see him as an ally in saving Western civilization from the foreign and domestic vandals they believe threatened it. By couching their shared mission in civilizational rather than religious terms, they can forge a loose coalition against the groups they perceive as common enemies and existential threats to our way of life. Now this is the argument that I make at length in my new book, American Caesar. There I show that the alliance among technocrats, Protestant Reconstructionists, and radical traditional Catholics is based on the idea of saving Western civilization. But as I've said many times on this channel, saving Western civilization to them is not about the Enlightenment ideals of free thought or rational thinking. It is not about Athenian democracy or the republic that was built in Rome. It is about Caesar. It's about a strongman who will order the country in a way that will protect it from those they believe are external enemies and those who are domestic threats. In this case, the fascination with George Floyd and Derek Chauvin comes down to this. They believe that Antifa is the antithesis to the kind of social order they want. Queer people. Folks who are from other places, who have recent immigrant stories, perhaps mixed backgrounds, people who are atheist, people who are not Christian. Antifa is a holding pattern. Antifa is a structure that holds all of the categories of people they consider not really American. Well, Antifa is something that's been a kind of obsession of the American right for a few years. But before that, it was Black Lives Matter.

If you remember, Black Lives Matter became in their mind a terrorist organization. It became an organization that was trying to tear down the order of the United States. It was responsible for the, quote, burning of the cities across the country in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. So when Ben Shapiro says it's time for us to rectify a wrong and he points to COVID and then he says all of the things that happens with Black Lives Matter, he gives away the game. He's saying that what has to be rectified is what those people did to our country. What they did to our cities and our police forces, the way that they try to have policies adopted that would change how law enforcement treat people in the United States. And that includes freeing Derek Chauvin. So they're going to couch it in the idea that Chauvin was innocent, that what he did was kneel on the shoulder of George Floyd, not on his neck, that Floyd was high on drugs and therefore probably at risk of dying anyway of an overdose.

I've already read you the coroner's report. I'm not going to go into that again. What I want you to see here is that there is an alliance among those who hold that people who are not white patriarchal men, those who have a different understanding of how society should work. Why does this matter? It matters because they may give lip service to an argument that Derek Chauvin was in fact innocent. But what's really here is a revenge fantasy. That they don't want to see any white person in authority facing consequences. That they don't want someone like Chauvin to have to be jailed because he murdered someone. That cannot be the story. That cannot be what happened. It must be something else. It must be that it was a black man overdosing on drugs and assist him out to get white people. That has to be it because there's no way it could be that this man, a white man, We cannot admit that. We cannot have that in an example. And that needs to be rectified. And if it did, if it was rectified, it would be a powerful symbol of the way the United States works. That's why Ben Shapiro says he should be pardoned. That's why Musk and Wolf and so many others are on this train. Now, one of the points that's been made online is that even if Trump pardoned Derek Chauvin, he would still face state charges. And Tim Walz has said that there's no way he's going to get out of those state charges. He would spend his time in a state prison rather than a federal prison. In response, William Wolfe said this:

William Wolfe wrote:

What we need to start doing with these blue states holding political prisoners under unjust pretense, fraudulent convictions, is to treat them like foreign countries who do the same. Sanction them, deny their officials access to Washington, cut off their funds, etc. Send in hostage release negotiators and twist the screws on them until they free Derek Chauvin, Tina Peters, etc.

Let's key in on one really important part of this post. He says, we should treat them like foreign countries. We should treat them like foreign countries. What he's saying there is blue states, those that are under the political power of Democrats, those that don't align with the Christian nationalist vision for the country, those whose policies don't align with the Western civilizationalist discourse coming from Musk and his allies. Well, they're like foreign countries. We should treat them as such. We should treat them like they are foreign enemies. We should call them communists. We should call them Islamists. We should call them in bed with foreign cartels because that's a way to explain why they would act this way. And it's also a justification for us to treat them this way, to deny officials access to Washington. Unconstitutional. Not part of our democratic process. Totally against policy and law. But we should do it anyway because they are like foreign enemies. We should send in hostage release negotiators as if this is a foreign entity that has taken over an American state, as if this is a situation where an outside force is colonizing the United States in some form. This is a window in how they think about anyone who doesn't align with their vision. And the argument I make in Rolling Stone last week and in my book, American Caesar, is that this is why they see democracy as a problem and not a solution.

One of the things that I think is so key in understanding this is that in 1999, Paul Weirich wrote a letter. Now, Paul Weirich was the architect of the moral majority, the mastermind behind the religious right, the guy that made Jerry Falwell into the national figure that he was as the leader of those movements. Paul Weirich, though, after decades of organizing, said in this letter, "I no longer think there is a moral majority." He was admitting that all those years of electioneering and political maneuvering were not going to reach the conclusions he wanted because the country was, in fact, not majority on his side. That, in fact, the majority of the country was opposed to his patriarchal white Christian retrograde vision of the United States. And what he concluded in that letter is that the only way to win would be through guerrilla warfare tactics and tearing down the institutions of the United States. To me, that was a canary in the coal mine from 25 years ago. Because now, if you examine the rhetoric of people as disparate as Elon Musk and William Wolf, they agree wholeheartedly with what Paul Weyrich says. There's no sense here of wanting to work democratically with fellow citizens who disagree with you. There is a sense that we are foreign enemies, people they have to overcome to run over, even if that means trampling democracy in the process. Democracy is not sacred to them. It's in fact a problem. The solution to restoring American greatness is not power to the people, but power away from the people in the hands of a few or the one who will restore the order that they desire.

When they say to rescue civilization, what they mean is a civilization that works for a few and suppresses the many in the name of God and order.

On Tuesday, August 18, during a debate for a runoff to win the South Carolina Republican senatorial primary, Senator Darline Graham (R-SC) answered a question about Taiwan and the importance of the South China Sea by saying: “I’m not that informed on national security.” She paused, and added: “But I do support the military.”

The audience reacted with boos and gasps. Senators are supposed to manage national security.

Trying to clean up her mistake, Graham went to an interview with the friendly Sean Hannity at the Fox News Channel, where she tried to make a virtue of her error by saying it reflects that she is not a politician. Then she added that people in South Carolina are worried less about foreign affairs than they are about affordability, “boys in girls’ sports,” the Second Amendment, “illegal immigration,” and the SAVE America Act.

Journalist Parker Molloy noted that trans girls have been banned from competing in K–12 girls sports since 2022 and are banned from competing in the NCAA and the Olympics. “This is literally an issue that doesn’t affect SC at all anymore,” Molloy noted. “They got what they wanted. How is this still a priority?”

Graham perfectly represents the modern Republican Party. South Carolina governor Henry McMaster appointed her to fill the vacancy caused by the death of her brother, Senator Lindsey Graham. McMaster said Trump “thought it was a great idea” for her to replace her brother, and she has indicated her loyalty to Trump and her willingness to pass the SAVE America Act he so badly wants in order to rig the 2026 midterm elections. Graham has little political experience, and with little to offer voters other than loyalty to Trump, she is simply echoing Republican culture war talking points that worked for him in 2016.

But it appears voters don’t like living in the world Trump is creating.

As Cleve R. Wootson Jr. noted yesterday in the Washington Post, Trump went to South Carolina last night to help Graham’s campaign. He told those attending the rally that the election was really about him. Although Graham’s opponent in the runoff, Representative Ralph Norman, has made much of Graham’s inexperience, Trump told rally attendees: “They’re only fighting Darline because they want me to lose.”

Wootson notes that Trump is hoping for a Graham win to restore some of the power that is slipping away as his popularity continues to slide to new lows. Primary candidates he backed for governor in Iowa, Georgia, Wyoming, and Minnesota all lost, as did those he backed in congressional primaries in Michigan and Tennessee.

Indeed, as Graham was fumbling the debate last Tuesday, two former teachers endorsed by Democrats flipped the Sarasota, Florida, school board. That board had been dominated by right-wing candidates since 2022, led by Moms for Liberty co-founder Bridget Ziegler, who has said public schools are “indoctrination centers for the radical left” and that she wanted to bring “religious values” to them.

Formed in 2021, Moms for Liberty was behind the book banning of the past several years. Ziegler is married to the former chair of the Florida Republican Party, who was forced out of his position after a woman alleged he had raped her in relation to the three-way sexual relationship she had with the Zieglers. Bridget Ziegler refused to step down from the school board after the scandal broke.

As Kerry Sheridan of WUSF reported, Beth Mayberry and Megan Tennimon ran on issues of school funding, academic achievement, and helping students in underserved areas. Both won their races by more than 10 percentage points.

As political historian Joanne Freeman put it Saturday morning in our chat on What the Heck Just Happened?, when Republican leaders in 2020 decided not to write a political platform at all, but simply to “reassert the Party’s strong support for President Donald Trump and his Administration” and to say it would “continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda,” they gave him every reason to think that “all of the things that he’s doing to promote himself—the races and the gold and everything else—that that’s all campaigning. It’s all about him.”

Then, when party leaders in 2024 essentially turned Trump’s social media posts into a platform, they embraced the idea that the party could stay in power through slogans. They promised to “DEFEAT INFLATION, AND QUICKLY BRING DOWN ALL PRICES,” to “BRING BACK THE AMERICAN DREAM AND MAKE IT AFFORDABLE AGAIN FOR FAMILIES, YOUNG PEOPLE, AND EVERYONE,” to “promote a Foreign Policy centered on the most essential American Interests, starting with protecting the American Homeland, our People, our Borders, our Great American Flag, and our Rights under God,” and so on.

The Republican Party tied itself to Trump and remains tied to him as he devotes his time to celebrating himself with his ballroom, a UFC cage match at the White House, his triumphal arch, renovations to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, and now this weekend’s “Freedom 250 Grand Prix” around the National Mall in Washington, D.C., in which 25 IndyCar drivers are covering 147 laps at speeds up to 150 mph around a 1.7-mile (2.7 km), 7-turn street circuit loop past the U.S. Capitol, the Washington Monument, the National Archives, and the National Gallery of Art.

The race has required workers to weld down more than 200 manhole covers, move traffic lights, and put up barriers that have disrupted traffic, while the National Gallery of Art has had to protect its sculptures from vibrations and airlines have had to reroute flights.

Meanwhile, the country remains embroiled in an apparently purposeless war in Iran; the economy is slowing and prices of food and gas are rising; Americans are horrified by the tactics of ICE and Border Patrol, who have abused and killed immigrants and U.S. citizens alike; Trump, his family, and his allies have put at least $2.2 billion in Trump’s pockets; and Trump has alienated our closest allies.

Just after midnight on August 21, Trump imposed a 50% tariff on a range of goods from Canada. Canada’s prime minister Mark Carney suspended trade negotiations with the U.S. and said Canada will impose retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. beginning September 8. In a statement, Carney said: “We have recognised from the beginning that America has changed, and that we will not return to our old relationship.” Canada, he said, will be “focused on building our strength at home [and] diversifying our partnerships abroad.”

And now the story that the closest advisor to the President of the United States is a 35-year-old woman who seems unhealthily obsessed with him ties Republican Party leadership to the reality that they are permitting the destruction of the United States with barely a whimper.

As Trump led Republicans into a box canyon, they have left an open field for Democrats to redefine the nation’s politics.

On August 17, former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg recorded a video to assure those Americans who oppose the Trump administration that they are in the large majority. He noted that the strategy Republicans are pursuing shows how unpopular they are.

“Think about it,” he said. “They’re not out there showing that the economy is somehow better than it looks…. They’re not defending their cuts to healthcare, they’re not defending the tax cuts for the wealthy. They’re not defending the corruption that’s going on in Washington.”

“It’s too late for that,” he said, because “we’ve all seen that those policies have failed. They made us all pay tariffs and said the reason we got to do this is to bring back manufacturing jobs…. Well, we paid the tariffs, and then America lost manufacturing jobs. They cut taxes for the rich. They said we’ve got to do that in order to speed up economic growth. And what happened? Economic growth slowed down…. They said they were going to cut costs and prices. Inflation is actually higher now than the day Donald Trump took office. They said they were gonna drain the swamp. And then they expect us to be okay with the first family making a billion dollars or more in crypto deals while the president’s in office….

“A lot of people believed this president and Republicans when they said no new wars. Then, what do we get? A war with Iran in the Middle East right now, which means all of us here at home are paying higher gas prices.”

The Republican strategy is not to change their policies, Buttigieg said. “It’s changing the maps. Changing the rules. Because that’s the only way they could win. They know they’re on the wrong side of the American people….

“You’re already in the majority if you think that we need healthcare for all, not Medicaid cuts and cutting Obamacare…. Right now, if you think that the wealthiest people in the country need to be paying their fair share in taxes, which is more than they’re doing today, where they currently pay less than a lot of teachers and nurses and firefighters. You are definitely in the majority if you believe that the wealthiest nation in the world ought to do the best job of funding public education and making sure it works. Not this Republican approach, which is to literally eliminate the Department of Education. You’re not alone if you think that in any decent economy, one job ought to be enough. And you’re certainly not alone if you believe that a woman’s healthcare decisions ought to be up to her and no one else, that in a free country, you should get to be who you are, and love who you love, and live a life of your choosing. When you believe these things, you’re not just not alone. You’re part of a powerful majority. Really a supermajority of the American people.

“So, whether you’re a Democrat, an independent, or someone who has generally voted Republican in the past, most voters want the same things right now: to be led and represented by normal people who are good at getting things done. People want leaders who respect those who disagree or vote differently instead of calling them the enemy. People who know that God does not belong to a political party in the United States of America. Most voters want to elect leaders who are not simply trying to rebuild the past, but trying to create something new and better.”

On Friday night, Prime Minister Mark Carney instructed Canadian negotiators to walk away from talks with officials from the Trump administration over new tariffs of 50% Trump had imposed on $28 billion of Canadian products. Carney explained in a statement that “last-minute changes in the U.S. proposed terms were unfair, uneconomic, and called into question the reliability of any deal.”

He has a point. From July 1, 2020, until Trump’s second term, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico traded under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). Negotiated under the first Trump administration, USMCA replaced the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and was similar to it, creating one of the world’s largest free trade zones.

The trade zone reinforced the close alliance between Canada and the U.S., enabling people in both countries to enjoy the longest demilitarized border in the world stretching more than 5,000 miles (more than 8,000 kilometers) across the entire North American continent. Canada and the U.S. have shared military and defense capabilities, with the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) operating since 1957 to detect aircraft or missiles, especially those coming over the North Pole, that could prove a threat to the United States (NORAD’s Santa Tracker originally was a way to make Americans aware of what NORAD did).

But as soon as he won reelection in 2024, Trump began to emphasize that he intended to use “economic force,” specifically tariffs, to pressure Canada into joining the U.S. as its 51st state. He began to exercise that threat the day he took office for the second time, saying he would put 25% tariffs on Canada. This violation of his own trade agreement reflected the administration’s abandonment of the principles of free trade and defensive alliances put in place after World War II, replacing that system with one favored by autocrats like Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, in which strong countries imposed spheres of influence in their regions of the world.

Since then, Trump has sought to use the extraordinary economic power of the United States to force Canada and other countries into subordinate relationships. The recent threat against Canada came after Trump’s previous tariffs either were struck down or expired. On July 20, Trump said he would use Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, more commonly known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, to impose a 50% tariff on certain Canadian products. No president had ever before invoked Section 338, which allows a president to impose tariffs when a country discriminates against U.S. products relative to its comparative treatment of other countries’ goods.

On Sunday, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Carney would have to back down because tariffs will be “devastating for his country.” Also on Sunday, the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted that Trump “has contrived an array of pretexts—from fentanyl trafficking to trade deficits—to bludgeon Canada with tariffs.” And the editorial board, known for its right-wing slant, called Trump’s tariff war on Canada “the dumbest trade war in history” and said it “makes no economic or political sense.”

Canada is the second largest trading partner of the U.S., and the editors noted that Trump’s “latest round of border taxes will hit an array of consumer goods, construction materials and manufacturing components,” driving prices still higher at a time when consumers are already squeezed.

Trump’s new attack on Canada might not make economic or political sense for the U.S., but it seems to make sense for a decaying president.

Trump is flailing in Iran, and so—as national security scholar Tom Nichols pointed out in The Atlantic after Trump nonsensically attacked South Korea, another longstanding and loyal ally—he is looking to reassert his dominance. Trump doesn’t dare to cross the leaders who actually threaten the U.S., those like Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Instead, Nichols writes, he is trying to make himself feel better by “kicking America’s allies, the nations he can punish without fear that they will kick him back.”

“At a better moment in American history, an enraged Congress would step in and demand answers about such dangerous idiocy,” Nichols wrote. “They would rush to the White House, talk to the press, hold hearings, and in general act like responsible stewards of American power.” But Republicans in charge of Congress appear to be unwilling to cross Trump. Our allies, though, Nichols notes, “have power and agency of their own, and even now are likely planning for a world in which the Americans are no longer men and women of principle who stand by their word and by their friends.”

That moment appears to have arrived.

In Davos, Switzerland, in January 2026, Carney warned the World Economic Forum that the world is “in the midst of a rupture.” He warned that the post–World War II rules-based international order is no longer automatically a route to prosperity and security as the world’s most powerful nations are using the economic integration that system championed as a way to coerce other countries.

He urged “middle countries” to create “coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests” as an alternative to a “world of fortresses” made up of major powers with spheres of influence.

On Friday night, after recalling Canada’s negotiators, Carney released a statement saying: “We have recognised from the beginning that America has changed, and that we will not return to our old relationship. Our government understood, before many, that America is altering all its trade relationships. Putting tariffs on its closest allies and charging for access to its vast market.”

Although negotiators had tried to work with the U.S., he wrote, Canada’s core economic strategy has been on building Canada’s economy and diversifying economic partnerships. He noted that Canada is creating jobs at four times the rate of the United States. “Canada has what the world wants,” he wrote, “And we will not allow any nation to determine our future.”

In an address to Canadians on Saturday, Carney said: “Last spring, I warned that America is trying to break us so that they can own us. And I promised: ‘That will never, ever happen.’ We are keeping that promise.” “Canada is becoming stronger and less dependent on America. We are already giving ourselves more than they can take away. And we are just getting started.”

Carney said Canada will retaliate against the U.S. tariffs, dollar for dollar, beginning on September 8.

This morning, Trump exploded on social media, claiming that “Canada has been ripping off the United States of America for years” and warning that “Canada will be treated like a State no longer!” He said that on “January First, 2027,” he would place tariffs of 50% on “all Cars, Trucks, both large and small, Automotive Parts, and Steel.” Canadians “feel entitled,” he wrote, “and yet, WE DON’T NEED CANADA, THEY NEED US!” Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who used to be a Trump fan, told reporters today “I have a lot of real estate on my ass, so [Trump] has a lot of room to kiss my ass.”

Today Carney told reporters that Canada will soon “begin intense discussions with the European Union, the world’s second-largest economy, to build a much stronger and deeper economic and security partnership. Now,” he said, “we can build such unparalleled access because we’re trusted, because we’re reliable, and because we have what the world wants.”

On Friday The Economist reviewed polling by YouGov showing that Trump has a positive job approval rating in only three states: West Virginia, Idaho, and Wyoming.

There seems little reason to think those numbers are going to turn around. On Friday, Trump announced he would try to lower beef prices by suspending tariffs on imports of up to 300,000 metric tons of imported ground beef that he said would be sold “at 25 percent below current prices.”

Cattle ranchers and farmers, who have in the past strongly supported Trump, cried foul, saying the imports would drive down prices while making it impossible to distinguish between U.S. and foreign meat just after nearly 30,000 pounds of Argentine beef were recalled after missing a required inspection in the U.S.

Trump has refused to identify from which country or countries he plans to get the ground beef, a reluctance dovetailing unfortunately with a report from Dave Philipps with visuals by Erin Schaff in the New York Times on August 20 that the Bureau of Land Management under Trump has been selling wild horses for slaughter as meat for as little as $25 a head. Wild horses are legally protected from hunting or capture, but the administration appears to be selling them to middlemen who resell them into the food pipeline unquestioned.

In a sign of just how untrustworthy many Americans now consider Trump, anti-Trump social media users were quick to put the two stories together.

Georgi Kantchev, Rebecca Feng, and Summer Said of the Wall Street Journal today also cast doubt on the administration’s claims that large volumes of oil are moving through the Strait of Hormuz. “The trackers whose job it is to count the world’s oil shipments see much less,” they write.

On Sunday, Noah Robertson and Dan Diamond of the Washington Post reported that Trump’s insistence that he needs his new ballroom for security is bunk: the White House already has a secure, hardened facility that can withstand a nuclear blast and house dozens of people for weeks. It was built secretly during the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, the angry opposition to the Trump administration and the wealthy tech bros it serves is taking shape with popular fury over the data centers. These facilities house computers, servers, and data storage infrastructure and have existed for a long time, but to support the extraordinary demands of artificial intelligence they have grown exponentially lately. Tech giants have built huge facilities that are noisy, pollute, and require huge amounts of energy and water.

Technology advocates have pushed their agenda by claiming they will dramatically expand the economy, and the Trump administration has backed their ambitions. Trump even brought billionaire Elon Musk into the administration after he poured almost $200 million into getting Trump elected.

But opposition to the data centers is bipartisan and growing as they appear to symbolize the takeover of our system by a few wealthy men like Musk. Molly Hennessey-Fiske of the Washington Post reported today that in Texas, some Republicans are mobilizing to prevent Republican Greg Abbott from winning a fourth term as governor because of his support for data centers.

Over the weekend, the growing fury over Trump and his administration led to an uproar over a report in the New York Times by Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni about a meeting in the past weeks between House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The journalists said the meeting was about “potential areas of common ground,” a vague description that led a clearly nervous House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to warn Kushner: “You better not bet against the House Republicans.”

But even the idea that Jeffries was talking to Kushner was enough to infuriate opponents of the administration, a fact that seems likely to have been behind the leak of the meeting in the first place. For his part, Haberman and Karni note, Jeffries has emphasized that he wants “to get rid of toxic Trump cabinet secretaries,” including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth,” but it’s clear that demands for even more widespread accountability are growing.

In addition to posting a number of references to the first plane landing “at the newly named President Donald J. Trump International Airport,” claims that the “Radical Left Democrats are going CRAZY with Fake Polls,” and two photos of himself with Kim Jong Un, Trump posted today that “IRAN IS COMPLETELY COLLAPSING!!!”

And yet Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent today announced “Operation Economic Outcast,” an initiative to demand other world leaders join with the U.S. in strangling Iran’s economy. Bessent says Trump is contacting other leaders, but, as Riley Beggin, David J. Lynch, and Aoife Walsh of the Washington Post note, would neither say who they were nor specify the deadline.

“The United States expects action,” Bessent told reporters. “We do not have infinite patience here.”

Trump started the morning on social media saying: “The United States is giving serious consideration to changing the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America in that we don’t expect to [be] doing much business with Ontario any longer.” On X, the account of the Republicans pushed the idea of renaming the lake.

In contrast to MAGA’s performative nonsense, Canadian officials announced today that on September 8 they will begin to impose tariffs of up to 50% on about 700 products worth about $20 billion in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs on Canada. Those products include U.S. steel, aluminum, chain saws, appliances, processed cheese, and clams. Paul Vieira of the Wall Street Journal noted that the tariffs appear targeted toward plants in Republican-held congressional districts.

Canada will also invest about 7.5 billion in Canadian dollars ($5.4 billion U.S.) in Canadian firms and workers hit by the trade war.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s threat of yesterday that the U.S. intends to strangle Iran’s economy isn’t faring much better than Trump’s attempt to rename Lake Ontario.

As economist Paul Krugman pointed out in his newsletter today, China can supply much of what Iran needs and has incentive to do so as Trump’s “self-inflicted quagmire in Iran” saps U.S. strength and respect. Krugman warned that Bessent’s threat “reeks of desperation,” a scent China would surely smell.

Krugman concluded with a prediction: “I can safely predict that the Chinese will make sure that the Iranian regime survives, and that they will thoroughly enjoy watching Trump slowly twist in the wind over the Strait of Hormuz.”

Indeed, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian today rejected the administration’s call for isolating Iran economically. “Cooperation between China and Iran has always been conducted within the framework of international law and should not be interfered with or disrupted,” Lin said. “China has already stated many times that it firmly opposes illegal unilateral sanctions.… China will take all necessary measures to firmly safeguard its own rights and interests.”

As Krugman pointed out, the Iran war has forced the U.S. to abandon many of its Middle East bases—that’s why the USS Lincoln couldn’t be resupplied—and it has little prospect of reclaiming them now that Iran has been emboldened to attack the troops there. MS NOW national security analyst Barry R. McCaffrey, a retired Army general, posted Saturday: “In my judgement, the US Armed Forces have probably permanently lost access to 15 Persian Gulf bases. Iran now poised to control access [to] the Gulf States. US will have to negotiate new access in western Saudi Arabia, Israel, southern Europe.”

On Sunday, in The Atlantic, Robert Kagan noted that the Iran war has reconfigured the Middle East. For years, Iran was on the ropes, with the U.S. dominating the region alongside countries aligned with the U.S., including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Now Iran has withstood six months of attacks from the U.S. and Israel. Its survival has reconfigured the power structure of the region, with Iran emerging as the area’s dominant power as it has demonstrated its ability to damage the oil and gas infrastructure of its neighbors.

It is plain, Kagan wrote, that “Washington fears escalation more than Iran does,” limiting what the U.S. can do as Iran not only exercises the right to collect tolls on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz but also decides who can use the strait. That control, Kagan notes, gives Iran “leverage every day, over dozens of countries.” It can “reward friends, punish enemies, extract revenue, force the loosening of sanctions, and make governments think twice before opposing Iranian policies…without firing a shot.”

The policy of Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to bring a “warrior” ethos to the Pentagon by putting it “on offense, not just on defense” using “maximum lethality, not tepid legality,” and having “violent effect, not politically correct,” has given the U.S. a tremendous loss in Iran.

And a report today from Megan Rose and Hannah Allam of ProPublica suggests that officers in U.S. Central Command recognized the dangers of Hegseth’s approach to warfare. Rose and Allam report that when Hegseth polled top commanders about cutting the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response program instituted after civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan hardened opposition to the U.S., they universally objected.

Current and former defense officials told the journalists that Hegseth apparently thought senior officers would agree with him that focusing on civilian security was “woke” and would hamper “maximum lethality.” Instead, they uniformly disagreed, warning that scaling back the effort to protect civilians would “result in decreased efficiency of U.S. lethal operations due to an increased risk of target misidentification and reduced battlespace awareness.” Hegseth gutted the program anyway, and U.S. strikes have killed hundreds of civilians. Now it appears the administration is considering rebuilding the program.

Social media this morning picked up that a U.S. Air Force transport aircraft that had taken off from Joint Base Andrews near Washington, D.C., landed in Moscow. Later reports said the U.S. official traveling to Moscow was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), John Ratcliffe. There’s been lots of speculation about the purpose of his trip to Moscow, but so far it’s all guesses.

Journalist Greg Sargent notes that Trump’s trade war with Canada will hit the Midwest right before the midterms. Josh Turek, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Iowa and a leading voice for a new prairie populism that works for farmers, told Sargent, “It’s a really dangerous time to be a farmer in the Midwest.” “You talk to farmers, and they’ll tell you it’s one gut punch after another,” Turek said. Iowans tell him they feel betrayed.

Michigan’s Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, Abdul El-Sayed, said that “Trump is escalating a trade war with Canada for his own vanity” and that his Republican opponent, former representative Mike Rogers, is a “rubber stamp” for Trump’s plans.

Maine, too, will be hit by the trade war with Canada. Yesterday, Vice President J.D. Vance was in Maine campaigning for Senator Susan Collins, but while he praised her, she did not show up for the rally. Vance made it a point to call Collins “independent,” a descriptor that many former MAGA candidates in Maine are using in this election cycle.

Collin’s Democratic opponent, Troy Jackson, was a logger on the Canada border before pursuing a career in politics, giving him an authentic voice as he explains the cost of a fight with Canada for Mainers.

NBC News national political reporter Sahil Kapur noted today that Ralph Alvarado, who is running for the U.S. House from Kentucky’s sixth District, which Trump won in 2024 by 15 points, has scrubbed his website of references to Trump and has changed his slogan from “America First Fighter” to “Independent Leadership.”

Still, Trump appears to think his power is unchallenged and, in the midst of the fires all around him, continues to be focused on his renovations to Washington, D.C. A report today from Jonathan Edwards in the Washington Post showed that ticket sales and fundraising for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts plummeted after Trump’s name was added to it, even though the board insisted his takeover was a financial rescue.

Today Trump’s lawyers suggested that the administration might have to demolish the Kennedy Center if the courts don’t allow the board to renovate it over the next two years and add Trump’s name to the facade. After the renovations, it would read: “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump.”

As Gary Grumbach and Dareh Gregorian of NBC News reported, Justice Department attorney Brantley T. Mayers wrote: “Without those efforts, the Center will deteriorate further into an unsafe, decrepit structure that will be required to be taken down, with a determination to follow on what to build on the site, such as a large outdoor amphitheater overlooking the Potomac River that has been proposed, by some, for many years.”

Trump’s threat to destroy the Kennedy Center unless he gets to do what he wants to it seems to be a metaphor for the United States: “Nice country you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.”

Last night, at exactly 9:25—9 to 5—the top of the Empire State Building in New York City lit up pink. The antennas of Chicago’s Willis Tower—formerly the Sears Tower—lit up pink, too. So did the Ferris wheel at the Santa Monica Pier, which also sported a giant pink heart. The Hoan Bridge in Milwaukee; Reunion Tower and other buildings in the Dallas skyline; and the Longfellow, Burns, Fore River, Braga, and Zakim bridges of Boston; Caesar’s Superdome in New Orleans; and, of course, Nashville’s KVB Bridge and historic Metro Courthouse were all lit up in pink last night.

The Arthur Ashe Stadium played “Jolene” during the U.S. Open. Jack White played Jolene in London. Elsewhere in London, the Buckingham Palace band played “9 to 5.”

All this and more for a woman born on January 19, 1946, in Sevier County, Tennessee, in a cabin in the Smoky Mountains without electricity or running water.

Dolly Rebecca Parton was the fourth of twelve children born to illiterate sharecropper Robert Lee Parton Sr. and Avie Lee Caroline Owens. A musical prodigy encouraged by her mother, Dolly was singing on local radio and television shows in Nashville by the time she was 10 and debuted at the Grand Ole Opry when she was 13. In 1964 she moved to Nashville, where other musicians quickly recognized her talent as a songwriter. Over her career, she would write songs made famous by Kenny Rogers, Merle Haggard, Waylon Jennings, Whitney Houston, Tina Turner, and others.

In 1965, Parton made her first record, and the following year she married asphalt paver Carl Dean, who stayed out of the limelight during their 59-year marriage. Following the success of Parton’s first record, country music star Porter Wagoner invited her to become part of his show in 1967.

There she blossomed, joining Wagoner to record a dozen studio albums that produced a number of top 10 hit singles. Playing off Wagoner’s famous rhinestone-studded suits made by Ukrainian-American designer Nudie Cohn, the petite Parton adopted huge hairstyles and emphasized her figure, and soon began wearing rhinestones herself.

She once told a journalist that she modeled her public image after a woman others called the “town tramp” but whom she saw as a glamorous contrast to the women in Parton’s own life. “She had bright red lipstick, long red fingernails. She had high-heeled shoes, little floating plastic goldfish in the heels of them, short skirts, low-cut tops, and I just thought she was beautiful. When people would say, ‘She ain’t nothing but trash,’ I would always say, ‘Well, that’s what I’m gonna be when I grow up.’” But, in an industry dominated by men, Parton also noted her style was a way for a small woman to “fill my space.”

By the 1970s, Parton was coming into her own, taking on the music industry on her own terms.

“Find out who you are and do it on purpose. And do it with purpose,” Parton was famous for saying. “Don’t ever sacrifice who you are, your principles and your morals and your values to just try to get ahead in business. It ain’t worth it.”

Rather than running from her upbringing in rural poverty, Parton embraced the values that upbringing had inspired in her. In 1971 she hit #1 on the country charts with her song “Joshua,” inspired by the Appalachian men around whom she had grown up whose rough looks covered their quality. In the same year, her “Coat of Many Colors” reached #4, telling the story of how her mother had made her a coat of rags, rich with love. Those who valued possessions over love, she sang, were the ones truly impoverished. In 1972 she wrote “My Tennessee Mountain Home,” about the peace and humanity of rural life, “walking home from church on Sunday with the one you love, just laughing, talking, making future plans.”

She parted ways with Wagoner in 1974, and her farewell song to him, “I Will Always Love You,” became a global sensation that reached #1 on the country charts in 1974, 1982, and again in 1992, when it spent 14 weeks at #1 after Whitney Houston covered it. In 1974, Parton also delivered “Jolene,” the desperate plea of a woman to a beautiful rival not to “take my man.” “Jolene,” too, hit #1 on the country charts.

In 1975 and 1976 the Country Music Association named Parton Female Vocalist of the Year, and in 1978 it honored her as Entertainer of the Year, just three of the many awards she would win as her musical career took off not just at home but also internationally.

In 1976, Parton began working with manager Sandy Gallin, and in 1980 she launched her film career, starring with Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin in 9 to 5, a comedy with a subversive subtext about discrimination against women. In the film, for which Parton wrote the theme song, three working women replace their sexist, domineering boss and implement programs their colleagues like, including equal pay, flexible hours, and an on-site daycare center, all of which result in dramatically improved office productivity.

A massive success at the box office, 9 to 5 opened doors for Parton in the movie industry, leading to parts in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, Steel Magnolias, and other films. She and Gallin created a production company, Sandollar, which produced her television specials and the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

For almost sixty years, Parton was a member of the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, a labor union that represents about 70,000 singers and players and is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. She joined the Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) in 1969.

AFM International president Tino Gagliardi told John Nichols of The Nation: “Before she was an icon, Dolly was a working musician. Dolly never forgot the musicians who helped bring her music to life. By standing firm for solidarity and treating every player with dignity, she elevated our entire profession.”

In 1989, Sandollar helped to bring awareness and empathy to the AIDS crisis with the documentary Common Threads: Stories from the Quilt. The film explored the lives of five of the individuals memorialized in panels on the AIDS Memorial Quilt and called attention to the Reagan administration’s lack of response to the epidemic.

In 1990, Common Threads won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, and in the 1991 song “Family” that she wrote with Carl Perkins, Parton sang: “Some are preachers, some are gay, some are addicts, drunks, and strays, but not a one is turned away when it’s family. Some are lucky, others ain’t, some are fighters, others faint. Winners, losers, sinners, saints, it’s all family.”

In a conversation with host Larry King in 2016, Parton noted that she had taken heat for her support for the LGBTQ community, but that she did “not believe that we should criticize and judge other people. I think we should be accepting and loving. We are all God’s children. We are who we are, and we should be allowed to be who we are…. I just think that we should be more loving, more caring. We are who we are. If you’re gay, you’re gay. If you’re straight, you’re straight, and you should be allowed to be, you know, how you are, and who you are.”

In 1986, Parton bought an interest in a theme park owned by Jack and Pete Herschend in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. Renamed “Dollywood,” the park became the biggest ticketed attraction in the state, now visited by about 4 million people a year and employing about 4,000. “I always thought that if I made it big or got successful at what I had started out to do, that I wanted to come back to my part of the country and do something great, something that would bring a lot of jobs into this area,” she told a reporter.

Two years later, she established the Dollywood Foundation to support education in Sevier County. In 1990, her “buddy” program decreased the high school dropout rate in classes that participated from 35% to 6%. In 2016, the Dollywood Foundation created the My People Fund—as in, these are my people—providing immediate financial assistance to families who lost their homes in wildfires in Sevier County that November. It donated more than $12 million.

In 2020, Parton donated $1 million to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to fund the research that allowed researchers to prove that mRNA vaccine technology worked. That research led to grants that enabled development of the Moderna mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 that saved millions of lives. She also helped encourage others to get vaccinated, taking her own shot on camera in a dress she had cut the shoulders out of so the doctor would have easier access.

Beginning in February 2022, under the Grow U program, Parton provided 100% free tuition, fees, and books to any of the 11,000 employees at any of the 25 amusement parks and attractions under Herschend Enterprises. The president of Dollywood told reporters that one of the key tenets of the Dollywood Foundation is to “learn more.” He said that Parton is “very supportive of the employees learning and continuing to grow themselves.”

That drive for growth and opportunity was behind Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library, which Parton founded in 1995 to put books into the hands of every young child in Sevier County. Her inspiration, she said, was her father, who was “the smartest man I have ever known but I know in my heart his inability to read probably kept him from fulfilling all his dreams.” The program has grown until it now serves children across the United States, Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom.

In February 2018, Parton donated the 100 millionth book from her Imagination Library to the Library of Congress. It was a copy of her book Coat of Many Colors, dedicated to her father.

By the time Dolly Parton died on Tuesday, August 25, at the age of 80, her Imagination Library had delivered more than 332 million books to more than 3 million children.

“When I was growing up in the hills of East Tennessee, I knew my dreams would come true,” the Imagination Library website reads. “I know there are children in your community with their own dreams. They dream of becoming a doctor or an inventor or a minister. Who knows, maybe there is a little girl whose dream is to be a writer and singer. The seeds of these dreams are often found in books and the seeds you help plant in your community can grow across the world.”

When children age out of Dolly’s Imagination Library, they receive a final letter from her hoping they would “have a great time” in school and urging them to keep reading.

The letter ends: “You and all of your friends are very special. There is no limit to what you can do or how far you can go. Just remember the lessons my family taught me—dream big dreams; learn everything you can learn; and care for all those who care for you. You do all of these things and you can be anyone you want to be.

“You are terrific, and remember…

“I Will Always Love You,

“Dolly.”

This morning, a headline in the Guardian read: “RFK Jr lied in Senate confirmation hearings, newly revealed documents indicate.” The story by Michelle R. Smith reports that letters, newly obtained by members of the press, contradict Kennedy’s repeated assertions to members of Congress in early 2025 during his confirmation process to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that his 2019 visit to Samoa had “nothing to do with vaccines.” In fact, in a letter to the Samoan prime minister before the trip, Kennedy said explicitly that he wanted to investigate the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine used there.

Observers claim that Kennedy’s visit empowered anti-vaccine activists in Samoa. After he left, a measles epidemic killed 83 people. Smith notes that knowingly lying to Congress is a crime, although it is rarely prosecuted. Still, Smith points out, the apparent proof that Kennedy lied to Congress is a clear opening for hearings into Kennedy’s testimony, history, and conduct in office—including changing the vaccine schedule after promising not to—that would illuminate what has been happening to the U.S. government, information that would likely prove embarrassing to the Trump administration.

The U.S. is now in the midst of its own measles outbreak, which has killed two unvaccinated people in Pennsylvania. One of them was a newborn, too young for the vaccine and thus dependent on herd immunity. Yesterday, Kennedy suggested that Democratic governor Josh Shapiro’s announcement of the deaths might “have been altogether fabricated by one of the Governor’s hopeful staffers.”

Smith reports that a spokesperson for HHS said: “Secretary Kennedy’s visit to Samoa in 2019 was unrelated to vaccines. Any claim or insinuation based on these letters that Secretary Kennedy lied under oath or to Congress is not only false but outright defamatory.” Kennedy was not under oath in the hearings.

This afternoon, Aram Roston of the Guardian reported that Trump’s war on Iran has “driven the US military into a severe financial crisis.” Roston reports that the U.S. Navy, which is bearing the brunt of the operation, is transferring money from payroll to combat operations, creating shortfalls. Officials are covering that shortfall by raiding other accounts.

This issue has already come up in a July hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee, when Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the top-ranking Democrat on the committee, noted that Defense Secretary Hegseth was using a funding mechanism that “does not make a lot of sense.” Hegseth responded by blaming the “gross negligence” of the Biden administration and its “woke” policies. The ways in which he has spent the department’s budget were not closely examined.

Defense analyst Todd Harrison of the conservative American Enterprise Institute told Roston that the shortages are no secret, but speculated that “that is a deliberate decision of the civilian leaders in the Pentagon, starting at secretary, that this is for political reasons, that they don’t want to look like they’re damaging future military readiness over a war that is becoming increasingly a political liability.”

A former military officer who now works for a company that contracts with the navy told Roston: “They’re f*cked. They shot all their weapons; they trashed all their ships; they ran out of their money.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. Navy denied that funds for maintenance and operations have been run down. “The Department of the Navy,” the statement said, “is actively managing its resources to meet current pay obligations on time. We continue to work closely with Congress to address ongoing operational demands and sustain our personnel and readiness throughout the fiscal year.”

In the Washington Post, Evan Halper reported that the administration’s latest move to cancel an offshore wind project and nurture the fossil fuel industry will funnel a fortune to Australian billionaire Michael Dorrell, who donated about a million dollars to Trump’s inaugural committee. The way it works is this: the German company RWE will get $1.2 billion from the U.S. government to give up its wind leases for projects off of New York, California, and Louisiana if it invests instead in “conventional energy” projects. RWE will spend $900 million of that $1.2 billion for a stake in a giant liquefied natural gas project in Louisiana.

Halper reports that that stake is currently owned by a private equity fund run by Dorrell, meaning that the $900 million RWE invests in the “conventional energy” project after abandoning its wind projects will go to Dorrell’s private equity fund.

Administration officials told Halper they had nothing to do with RWE’s decision. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said: “This story is a brazen attempt to insinuate a conflict-of-interest that does not exist.”

Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA), the top-ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, had already called for investigations of the more than $4 billion the administration has spent buying the abandonment of offshore wind development. After the new story dropped, he told Halper “These fake ‘settlements’ were already an insane waste of taxpayer funds and a ridiculous charade that seems to be blatantly illegal. This now adds the stench of corruption.”

Huffman said of the buyouts of offshore wind projects: “The deals are deeply corrupt and illegal. When the accountability comes, and I promise you accountability is coming, everyone involved in them will answer for it.”

Last week, Kenneth P. Vogel and Hamed Aleaziz of the New York Times reported that three days after Trump administration officials awarded a 5-year federal contract worth $85 million a year to the private prison company GEO Group to house people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a subsidiary of GEO Group donated $1 million to MAGA Inc., a political super PAC run by Trump’s allies. Two days after announcing another ICE contract worth $80 million annually, the company donated another $413,000.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement: “Any allegation that political donations play a role in agencies awarding government contracts are [sic] false. It is not shocking that ICE is announcing more contracts to detain illegal aliens as President Trump carries out the largest deportation operation in American history.”

In a major story for Public Citizen, Zach Everson examined the Trump family’s cryptocurrency products, reporting that Trump appears to have made at least $1.4 billion off crypto in 2025, although he put none of his own money into the ventures. The money, Everson says, comes from foreign governments, pardon seekers, corporate interests, and targets of government investigations.

It also comes from retirement accounts and MAGA supporters who believe Trump when he tells them his coins are a good investment. Everson reports that “Trump’s crypto schemes have left investors at least an estimated $4.7 billion underwater.” The losses reflect “wealth transferred to a small group of early buyers rather than money that simply vanished.

The White House claims: “Neither the President nor his family have ever engaged, or will ever engage, in conflicts of interest.”

This afternoon, Rebecca Ballhous, Sam Kessler, and Angus Berwick of the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump family’s new crypto bank is backed by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed al Nahyan, the national security advisor of the United Arab Emirates who is also the brother of the country’s president. Last year, the Abu Dhabi royal invested $500 million in the Trumps’ World Liberty Financial.

Such an investment in a president’s company by a foreign government official is unprecedented. Even more alarming is that Trump is currently negotiating with the UAE over whether it can have access to U.S. artificial intelligence chips that experts fear will make their way from the UAE to China. “How many red flags do we need?” ethics lawyer Kathleen Clark told the reporters. “Trump is selling out our national security in exchange for his own wealth maximization.”

If voters put Democrats in control of either or both chambers of Congress this fall, investigations and hearings into the machinations of administration officials will be epic. It is no wonder Trump appears frantic at the idea of midterm losses.

And the ranks of his supporters appear to be thinning. G. Elliott Morris of Strength in Numbers reported yesterday that Trump approval among American adults is underwater on every single issue, including border security. And there is a strong intensity gap: 49% strongly disapprove of his job as president, while only 17% strongly approve. Morris notes that the “movement against the president is now primarily in his own coalition, with significant softening in the share who say they ‘strongly support’ the job he’s doing.”

As his popularity falls, Trump appears to be adopting the belief that people don’t like him because they don’t understand all he’s done for them. Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, Michael Scherer, and Ashley Parker of The Atlantic reported Tuesday that Trump intends to buy a blitz of midterm ads that focus on him, rather than the candidates on the ballot, making the election all about him.

He is already trying to sell that story. Yesterday morning, he tried to recast his disastrous Iran war as a success, posting an AI image of himself in front of a giant American flag, an aircraft carrier, and military aircraft. In the image, he leans over dirt as if it were a desk, with President George W. Bush in the lower left corner of the image surrounded by flames and a pair of empty soldier’s boots. In front of Bush is a sign that reads: “MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED 2001–2021.” In the lower right corner of the image is a picture of the former leader of Iran, killed in Trump’s strikes, with a sign that reads: “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED 2026.”

Journalist Jim Acosta noted, “This is delusional for Trump to post this and it should be covered as such. It was a massive story when Bush declared ‘mission accomplished’ during the Iraq War. The image dogged Bush throughout much of his presidency. Should be the same for Trump.”

After the “mission accomplished” post, Trump reposted someone else’s social media post warning that voters are mad at the Republicans not because of Trump but because Republicans in Congress have not gone far enough in implementing Trump’s will.

“I don’t think the [Republicans] fully grasp how badly they are f*cking up right now,” the post read. “I’m talking to people who normally have ZERO interest in politics who are legitimately pissed off. They are not seeing the major reform they thought would happen and are REALLY MAD about it. No true accountability. No true mass deportations. No meaningful decrease in the deficit. Lots of very long vacations and no work. No bills being passed that REDUCE the government involvement in their lives.”

The poster continued: “I’m very worried the [Republican Party] is sleepwalking toward a midterm reckoning they don’t see coming. People are pissed off that they voted Trump into office and then the [Republican Party] continues to slow-walk every reform people want.”

Later this afternoon, in what seemed to be an attempt to bully Canada—although Canadians and Americans both have made it very clear that strategy is backfiring—Trump signed an executive order directing Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to change the name of Lake Ontario to “Lake America” in official U.S. government documents and communications, as well as the Geographic Names Information System.

As Marianne LeVine, Natalie Andrews, and Amanda Coletta of the Wall Street Journal reported, in Trump’s discussion of his executive order, he harked back to his change of the name of the Gulf of Mexico in official U.S. documents.

“We took something called the Gulf of Mexico, we changed it,” the president of the United States said. “So if you think about it, we have a gulf and we have a lake, now all we need is an ocean. So maybe we’ll have to change the name of the Atlantic and/or the Pacific.”

The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom that took place on August 28, 1963, in Washington, D.C., is remembered today primarily because it was the occasion when the final speaker, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and delivered what became known as the “I Have a Dream” speech.

While that speech is often excerpted to make it sound like King’s concerns were simply about the way individuals thought about race, in fact, the march’s organizers, Black labor leader A. Philip Randolph and civil rights leader Bayard Rustin, focused on economic discrimination and the lack of decent jobs for Black Americans. In the process of organizing the march, they brought on board not only civil rights organizers but also white labor organizer Walter Reuther, the head of the United Auto Workers.

King acknowledged the economic focus of the march when he centered his speech around the idea that Black Americans had received “a promissory note” that had become “a bad check, a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.’” “But,” he said, “we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt.”

Dr. King was not the only speaker that day; he anchored the event. Before him spoke the chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, a young John Lewis. Just 23 years old, he had been one of the thirteen original Freedom Riders, white and Black students traveling together from Washington, D.C., to New Orleans in 1961 to challenge segregation.

At the Washington march, Lewis railed against the systems that kept Black Americans in poverty and permitted white men to commit violence against them, and explained that the remedy for the economic deprivation and racial violence Black Americans suffered was not in the civil rights bill proposed by the administration of President John F. Kennedy, but in the power of peaceful demonstrations and the vote. “‘ONE MAN, ONE VOTE’...must be our [cry],” he told the crowd.

“The revolution is at hand, and we must free ourselves of the chains of political and economic slavery,” Lewis said. “The nonviolent revolution is saying, ‘We will not wait for the courts to act, for we have been waiting for hundreds of years. We will not wait for the President, nor the Justice Department, nor Congress, but we will take matters into our own hands and create a great source of power, outside of any national structure, that could and would assure us a victory.’”

In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Acts to protect voting rights. That year, when Republicans ran Arizona senator Barry Goldwater for president, calling for a rollback of business regulation and civil rights to the years before the New Deal, voters gave Democrats such a strong majority in Congress that President Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Democrats were able to pass 84 new laws to put what Johnson called the Great Society into place.

They cemented civil rights with the 1965 Voting Rights Act protecting minority voting, created jobs in Appalachia, and established job-training and community development programs. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 gave federal aid to public schools and established the Head Start program to provide comprehensive early education for low-income children. The Higher Education Act of 1965 increased federal investment in universities and provided scholarships and low-interest loans to students.

The Social Security Act of 1965 created Medicare, which provided health insurance for Americans over 65, and Medicaid, which helped cover healthcare costs for folks with limited incomes. Congress advanced the war on poverty by increasing welfare payments and subsidizing rent for low-income families.

Congress took on the rights of consumers with new protective legislation that required cigarettes and other dangerous products to carry warning labels, required products to carry labels identifying the manufacturer, and required lenders to disclose the full cost of finance charges in loans. Congress also passed legislation protecting the environment, including the Water Quality Act of 1965 that established federal standards for water quality.

But the government did not simply address poverty and safety. Congress also spoke to Johnson’s aspirations for beauty and purpose when it created the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. This law created both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities to make sure the era’s emphasis on science didn’t endanger the humanities. In 1967 it would also establish the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, followed in 1969 by National Public Radio.

In 1968, former vice president Richard M. Nixon won the presidency after promising that he would not continue to use the federal government to protect Black rights in the South. With that promise, racists made a permanent move from the Democrats to the Republicans, joining forces with businessmen who wanted an end to regulation and to taxes and the social welfare programs they funded. The race to tear apart the postwar government that helped all Americans by appealing to racism was on.

Now, in 2026, the contours of that bargain are extreme and unmistakable.

Yesterday the Department of Homeland Security under Trump served up straight racism and cruelty to its wavering base in a post about Haitians. About 350,000 Haitians came to the United States after a catastrophic earthquake hit their country in 2010, destabilizing both the economy and the government. As the country became overrun with violent gangs, the U.S. granted Haitians Temporary Protected Status, allowing them to stay in the U.S. because it was too dangerous to go home.

Former secretary of homeland security Kristi Noem, who described Haitians as “entitlement junkies” and “foreign invaders,” refused to extend TPS for those immigrants, despite the fact that the State Department warns travelers not to visit Haiti “due to the risk of crime, kidnapping, terrorism, unrest and limited health care.” In June the Supreme Court ruled that the administration had the power to make that determination, and the administration promptly warned Haitian immigrants, many of whom have deep roots in the U.S. now, that they no longer have legal status and would be deported.

Yesterday the Department of Homeland Security posted on social media: “Haiti TPS has been TERMINATED. Those with TPS are in our nation illegally. They have two options: LEAVE IMMEDIATELY or be DEPORTED.” Attached was a video of chained Black men and women being moved through the rain toward a waiting plane.

Officials at DHS chose to publish a video of Black people in chains that evoked the slave coffles of the Old South.

Today Theodore Schelifer and Matt Zdun of the New York Times reported on the top 20 megadonors, who have already poured $1.2 billion into the midterm elections. Elon Musk alone has put in more than $90 million to keep Republicans in office as they dismantle a government that worked for the people and replace it with one that continues to funnel money upward.

In Washington, D.C., today, students, union members, civil rights organizations including the NAACP and National Urban League, and 90 community partner organizations held a “March on Washington 2026: Defend the Vote.” Earlier this year, the Supreme Court weakened yet another key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. “We know in this fight we’re fighting powerful forces, but this is why we rally today,” ​National Urban League president Marc Morial said. “This is why we seek to bring Americans together of goodwill from all races, from all sections of the ​country to push back as forcefully as we can.”

Indeed, in the rush to cement MAGA power, the assault on voting is no longer directed at Black and Brown Americans alone. The Department of Justice sent more than 80 election monitors to observe the primary elections in seven states and has said it will send about 1,000 monitors to specific polling places for the November midterm elections.

Republican candidates in Georgia, Maine, and Michigan have been recorded calling for deployment of retired police officers or ICE agents to polling places to make sure undocumented immigrants can’t vote, although it is widely understood that they don’t. Natalie Hausmann of Democracy Docket reported that Rick Jackson, the billionaire Republican nominee for Georgia governor backed by Trump, told a supporter he was confident that outgoing Republican Georgia governor Brian Kemp would deploy the National Guard at polling places.

In Maine, Republican nominee for governor Bobby Charles told the Maine Young Republicans that he will call his friend Tom Homan, Trump’s border advisor, to ask him to send ICE and U.S. Marshals to the polls. And in Michigan, Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers has called for off-duty police officers to go to the polls to intimidate voters: “I mean, they wouldn’t be able to wear their uniforms, but they would, you know, all you got to do is open your jacket and you see the badge on the belt, right?” he said.

Today Kaanita Iyer of CNN reported that the Republican governor of Wyoming, Mark Gordon, has asked the state’s attorney general to investigate the “aggressive” behavior of the election monitors the Department of Justice sent to observe last week’s primary election. Gordon said the “behavior” of the election monitors sent by the DOJ “seemed to exceed what the authority that Congress had given them was.” He added: “I don’t like the federal government coming in and taking our votes.”

On Thursday, August 27, Tolouse Olorunnipa reported on the attempts of Republican lawmakers to restrict the ability of naturalized and dual citizens to run for office. In several states, Republican lawmakers have introduced measures to cut those Americans out of candidacy for elected positions, while in Congress, at least five Republicans have called for prohibiting them from federal judgeships, Cabinet posts, ambassadorships, and congressional seats.

The push has come in the wake of the rise of New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani and other naturalized U.S. citizens whose policy positions those like South Carolina representative Nancy Mace consider un-American. These policies are, of course, the ones voters elected people like Mamdani to put into place. In her comments to Olorunnipa, Mace said: “This isn’t personal. It’s about what standard we want for the people entrusted with enormous power over the American people.”

Her word choice was revealing. Our elected officials are entrusted with the enormous power of the American people, not over them.

In the 1850s, Americans struggled over the question of equality and immigration. The United States had always been a nation of immigrants, but in the 1840s the failure of the potato crop in Ireland sent at least half a million Irish immigrants to the United States. As they moved into urban ports on the East Coast, especially in Massachusetts and New York, native-born Americans turned against them as competitors for jobs, warning that Catholics were un-American and could never assimilate into the U.S.

The 1850s saw a similar anti-immigrant fury in the new state of California. After the discovery of gold there in 1848, native-born Americans—the so-called forty-niners—moved to the West Coast. They had no intention of sharing the riches they expected to find. The Indigenous people who lived there had no right to the land under which gold lay, native-born men thought; nor did the Mexicans whose government had sold the land to the U.S. in 1848; nor did the Chileans, who came with mining skills that made them powerful competitors.

Above all, native-born Americans resented the Chinese miners who came to work in order to send money home to a land devastated by the First Opium War of 1839–1842, hoping to make money in America and then return to China, from which they could not legally emigrate. Expecting to go home again, they retained their languages, their culture, and their clothing. They tended to work the mines Americans had cleaned of their biggest deposits, focusing on meticulous reworking of the gravel, and they did better than native-born Americans thought they should.

Democrats and the new anti-immigrant American Party (more popularly known as the “Know Nothings” because members claimed to know nothing about the party) turned against the new immigrants, seeing them as competition that would drive down wages. In the 1850s, Know Nothing officials in Massachusetts persecuted Catholics and deported Irish immigrants they believed were paupers.

In 1850, in California, a legislature charged with establishing the legal framework for the proposed state adopted the federal law enacted a half-century earlier, in 1802, that limited citizenship to “free white persons.” The state legislature then went on to impose a foreign miner’s tax on Chinese and Mexican miners; then, in 1854, the state courts agreed that Chinese nationals could not testify in court against white Americans. In 1855 the legislature tried to stop Chinese immigration altogether by passing a $50 tax on shipmasters for each person ineligible for citizenship they brought to the state.

The construction of castes of immigrants mirrored the ideology of southern whites who enslaved their Black neighbors. As Georgia’s Alexander Stephens explained, the men who framed the Constitution had made the terrible error of believing in equality, and northerners stupidly clung to the outdated idea that Black people were equal to white people, “and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man.” In contrast to the United States government, men like Stephens believed that “subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”

In 1855, Illinois lawyer Abraham Lincoln wrote to his friend Joshua Speed to reiterate his dislike not just of enslavement, but also of the caste system going into place in places like Massachusetts and California.

“I am not a Know-Nothing,” he wrote. “That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of [Black Americans], be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except [Black people].’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except [Black people], and foreigners, and catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty---to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.”

Lincoln understood that once you give up the principle of equality, you have given up the whole game. You have admitted the principle that people are unequal, and that some people are better than others. Once you have replaced the principle of equality with the idea that humans are unequal, you have granted your approval to the idea of rulers and servants. At that point, all you can do is to hope that no one in power decides that you belong in one of the lesser groups.

Arguments that some men were better than others, “are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world,” Lincoln said. “You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden…. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent….”

“I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop,” he asked.

Americans answered him definitively in 1868 when they added the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It recognized that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It also established that states could not draw lines around different groups of citizens by providing that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

That same constitution also establishes requirements for officeholders. The president must be at least 35 years old and a natural-born citizen of the United States. A U.S. senator must be at least 30 years old, a citizen of the U.S. for at least nine years, and a resident of the state they’re representing. A U.S. representative must be at least 25 years old, a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and live in the state they represent.

Law professor Pamela Karlan told journalist Olorunnipa that “Those qualifications are exclusive. The state can’t add qualifications on top of those, nor indeed can the federal government.” Former representative Mo Brooks (R-AL) added that in a country growing more diverse, telling naturalized Americans that they can’t run for office will ensure they vote for the opposing party. “It is one of the dumbest tactical moves I’ve ever seen politicians make,” he told Olorunnipa.

Karlan summed up the idea of discriminating against naturalized citizens, telling Olorunnipa it is “just incredibly ugly, stupid, and unconstitutional.”

One of our founding myths is that of George Washington and the cherry tree. In his The Life of Washington, first published in 1800, minister and writer Mason Locke Weems, more commonly known as Parson Weems, wrote down for the citizens of this new nation the qualities they should require in a leader. The book was written not to reflect the facts of Washington’s life—biographies would not focus on facts for almost a century—but to show virtues the nation’s youth should imitate and to establish a set of attributes against which future voters could judge those vying to lead the nation.

Weems’s Washington was generous, reverent, studious, athletic, martial, hardworking, and beloved by his comrades. And, beginning with an 1806 edition of the book, he could not tell a lie. According to Weems, when George was about six years old “he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet, of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping every thing that came in his way. One day, in the garden…he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry-tree…. The next morning the old gentleman finding out what had befallen his tree…, came into the House; and with much warmth asked for the mischievous author…. Nobody could tell him anything about it. Presently George and his hatchet made their appearance. ‘George,’ said his father, ‘do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?’

“This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all-conquering truth, he bravely cried out, ‘I can’t tell a lie, Pa; you know I can’t tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet.’

“‘Run to my arms, you dearest boy,’ cried his father in transports, ‘run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold.’”

Like many of the other anecdotes Weems delivered, this story was almost certainly invented. But it established the importance of truth-telling in a leader.

On Friday, Rick Maese of the Washington Post reported that despite orders from U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes saying that she wanted advance notice before the government took down more than ten trees from the East Potomac Golf Links or brought equipment larger than a sedan onto the property, the Trump administration has taken down more than sixty trees in apparent preparation for Trump to redesign the golf course.

Opponents have sued to stop the redesign of the historic publicly owned course. Trump has said the makeover will begin on September 1, but Maese notes that the administration has released “no final design, construction schedule or estimated cost.” It has apparently not conducted either environmental or historical preservation reviews. It has not said how changes to the course will affect public access to the three courses and to the popular recreation path on the property.

Reyes said she would not stop administration officials from doing routine maintenance on the property, and the administration says the tree removal is routine maintenance. A spokesperson for the Interior Department said: “Arborists are doing routine maintenance at East Potomac Park with selective removal of hazard trees, non-native invasive trees, and declining and dying trees that cannot be brought back to good health through any degree of intervention.”

One of the trees they have cut down is a cherry tree.

It seems like the writers for the 250th season of American democracy are becoming increasingly desperate to get the country’s attention.

On Friday, Trump announced: “The United States of America has just entered into an Agreement with the Country of Venezuela on, THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY! At my direction, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, working closely with Highly Respected Interim President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, and, through a partnership with private business, have secured majority U.S. control of more than 65 BILLION BARRELS of proven Oil Reserves in Venezuela, at no cost to the American Taxpayer. This Historic Transaction MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves, greatly increases our Oil Supply, and will substantially lower Gas Prices for all Americans, long into the future, while helping to continue to set Venezuela on a course toward Tremendous Success and Great Prosperity. This Transaction will greatly strengthen the already growing relationship between Venezuela and the United States! Thank you for your attention to this groundbreaking matter.”

There are reasons to greet this announcement with skepticism.

A U.S. official told Megan Messerly, Ben Lefebvre, and Scott Waldman of Politico that this deal was a new venture between the U.S. government and an “experienced private operator in Venezuela.” Although the official did not identify which operator that is, it became clear over the weekend that the person in question is Alejandro Betancourt López.

Rebecca F. Elliott, Anatoly Kurmanaev, and Edward Wong of the New York Times explained that Betancourt’s family controls Venezuela’s second largest private oil producer, North American Blue Energy Partners. Betancourt has been accused of corruption for years; Switzerland has investigated him for money laundering and has issued a warrant for his arrest, although it has not charged him.

According to the New York Times reporters, it appears the plan is for the U.S. government to back North American Blue Energy Partners, which will, in turn, develop oil reserves in 17 of Venezuela’s oil fields. The U.S. official who talked to the Politico journalists said the new venture would be the second-biggest private oil company in the world, after Saudi Aramco. The U.S. would control 55% of the venture’s output. When production starts, the person told the journalists, “the resulting stable supply of at-cost oil in our Hemisphere will go toward filling the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve and fulfilling the supply needs of our Great U.S. Military.”

But an executive in the oil industry told the journalists that the deal was “built on a legal environment that does not exist. The Venezuelan constitution does not allow for anyone other than [Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas company] to own rights to oil and gas in the country,” the executive pointed out.

“The end of story,” the person said, “is the president wants to say we have billions of barrels of oil in reserve. That would act as a price stabilization nuclear bomb. Oh, the Iranians have blocked Hormuz? The president could say[,] ‘I have 65 billion barrels in reserve.’”

The Politico journalists report that Trump has been frustrated that U.S. companies have been slow to invest in Venezuela and that the administration has pressured Rodríguez to give them better terms. Samantha Schmidt and Helena Carpio of the Washington Post today flat out said the deal “cements the United States’ long-term dominance over Venezuela, which has become a neo-colony since the U.S. military’s capture of Maduro in January, when Trump vowed to ‘run’ the country and exploit its oil wealth.”

Last September, the Trump administration began striking small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that Trump claimed—without evidence—were being operated by narcoterrorists from Venezuela. The U.S. massed military vessels off Venezuela’s shores, where they blockaded Venezuelan oil tankers after Trump called Venezuela’s government a foreign terrorist organization. On January 3, Trump authorized the military to kidnap Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife Celia Flores in a nighttime raid and bring them to the U.S. for trial on weapons and drug charges.

Although opponents of Maduro, who had seized power after losing a presidential election, cheered the raid in the belief that Trump would help them put opposition candidate Edmundo González in power, in fact the administration supported Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez. On January 5 it formally recognized her as Venezuela’s head of state. Venezuela’s high court disagreed. It called Maduro’s absence a “kidnapping” and determined that under the country’s constitution, elections had to be held to replace him.

Now the U.S. government says it has made a “deal” with Rodríguez, who told reporters: “The agreement is based on a very simple premise. Each party contributes what it does best. Venezuela contributes oil, its industry and the experience of its workers accumulated over more than 100 years. The United States contributes the capital and technology needed to recover and develop those assets.”

“So, let me get this straight,” national security reporter David Rothkopf wrote. “[T]he US illegally attacks a country, kidnaps its president, threatens its government with massive military force, gets them to hand over to US control a huge portion of their national assets, hails the billions it has already brought in and promises billions more[,] but we don’t know where the money’s going, how it is going to benefit the US, if it is going to benefit the US, who’s privately going to benefit, what side deals have been struck with the corrupt leaders of their country or ours, & we are supposed to celebrate this act of aggression and theft that violates international law and that could well turn out to be a massive mafia-style shakedown scheme to benefit the anti-democratic forces in Venezuela and the US, the president’s friends and supporters, possibly the president and his family?”

Rothkopf appears to have understood the point of the story of George Washington and the cherry tree.

Alex Horton and Tara Copp of the Washington Post reported on Sunday, August 30, that military leaders are warning Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that a plan to continue large-scale operations in Iran is unsustainable and is weakening their ability to protect U.S. interests in other places, including at home.

The warning is in the classified Secretary of Defense Orders Book of August 14 and is laid out by the heads of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and the four-star commanders who oversee U.S. operations in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Trump’s insistence that he must keep all options open, including the ability to launch major attacks, has forced more than 50,000 troops to be kept on alert for months. Plans to extend that alert made the Navy’s top admiral, along with leaders of the U.S. European Command, the U.S. Pacific Command and the U.S. Southern Command, register that they did not concur with those plans, although their disagreement does not mean they will not execute the order.

Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Daryl Caudle warned that the Navy, which has borne the brunt of operations against Iran, cannot sustain its current level of support for the war. Barely a quarter of the Navy’s destroyer fleet is currently able to deploy, while delays in maintenance are threatening the readiness of other ships.

Leaders of the Army and Air Force concurred with the plan to extend force deployments but warned that there would be significant risk to such an extension.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell took to social media to push back against the story, saying, “Publishing highly classified assessments from the Secretary’s orders book is a crime. It’s a betrayal of the force…. We are in great shape around the world. This story isn’t about readiness. It’s TDS [Trump Derangement Syndrome] and PDS [Pete Derangement Syndrome]—they hate President Trump and Secretary Hegseth more than they love America.”

Charlotte Clymer of Charlotte’s Web Thoughts pointed out that Hegseth has either fired or forced into early retirement several admirals and generals whom he considered insufficiently loyal in what appears to be “an ongoing, blatant campaign of intimidation to keep senior brass in the Pentagon toeing the line and not pushing back against administration officials.” And yet, a broad range of military leaders are speaking out against the administration’s plans in Iran.

“If any of the defense secretaries under Presidents Biden, Obama, or Bush had gotten this degree and range of pushback from top uniformed personnel, there would be immediate congressional hearings, calls for resignations, and talks of impeachment,” Clymer writes. “Moveover,” she notes, “someone had to leak the information contained in this classified briefing and did so knowing that it would further confirm the extraordinary weakness the Trump administration has exhibited in its apparently dead-on-arrival ‘negotiations’ with the Iranian regime to end the war.”

National security scholar Tom Nichols commented: “This is a good time to note that Hegseth is terrible at his job, that the Pentagon is a mess, that he should never have been confirmed, and that he should be fired first thing in the morning. But in this administration, sycophancy is more important than competence.”

At 10:18 last night, Trump posted an AI video of military strikes and fires on what appears to be Iran’s Kharg Island, a major storage facility for Iran’s oil and the seaport for about 90% of its oil exports. The caption read: “Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!! President DJT.”

The Defense Department this morning clarified that the U.S. had not attacked Kharg Island. The U.S. did claim to have launched attacks on two Iranian rocket launchers yesterday as they attempted to mine the Strait of Hormuz. Iran claimed to retaliate with strikes against Jordan, which the Jordanian military said were all intercepted. The price of oil rose again.

At 8:09 this morning, Trump posted: “Iran is officially a Failed Nation. IT IS DEAD! They have no Navy, they have no Air Force, they have no currency, they are not paying their soldiers or police, Inflation is at 300%, and their leadership is in total disarray and incapable of properly representing the country. The only thing they have is FAKE NEWS from the USA, a willingness to kill their protesters (now over 100,000 people dead. They must be tried for war crimes against humanity!), and a good line of “BULLSH*T.” Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

Trump continues to try to sell an image about Iran that does not reflect reality. In that, he appears to have the support of Defense Secretary Hegseth, who has restricted journalists’ access to the Pentagon and last week oversaw the firing of three staffers at the military publication Stars and Stripes.

In January the Pentagon tried to take away protections for the paper’s editorial independence, and last week it fired Erik Slavin, editor-in-chief of Stars and Stripes, and Lara Korte, a reporter who covers the Middle East. Max Lederer, the paper’s publisher, announced he would retire at the end of September but was pushed out immediately.

The three are suing Hegseth, the Defense Department, Principal Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Andrew Brey, and Defense spokesperson Sean Parnell, saying they were being attacked “for speaking up as private citizens in support of the press’s freedom to cover military operations, its need to reach all servicepersons, and in retaliation for their publication of a news report on deteriorating conditions aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln during its extended tour of duty in the Mid-East.” They called the firings a “blatant violation” of the First Amendment and called out the “extraordinary censorship efforts” of the Defense Department.

But it appears Hegseth is doing more than just trying to stop negative press. Last week, Will Sommer of The Bulwark reported that the Pentagon has hired right-wing social media influencers as special government employees, using taxpayer money to amplify Hegseth’s viewpoints and attack anyone who tries to hold the Trump administration to account. Sommer also noted that an active-duty U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, Adam D’Ortona, posts pro-Hegseth and anti-Democratic material during working hours in violation of the military’s traditional nonpartisanship.

Sommer reported on a video by former representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), who commented: “How many more people that are blue checkmarks on X, that are putting out information on behalf of the federal government and Donald Trump and the Republican Party…are actually special government employees being paid by your tax dollars?”

A story in the Washington Post by Dan Lamothe and Tara Copp yesterday found more. They report that the Pentagon has secretly hired several right-wing military veterans with large social media accounts, including Rob Maness, Kurt Schlichter, and Thomas Anderson, to boost Hegseth’s positions. A Pentagon spokesperson would not comment on the content of their jobs, whether they are receiving a taxpayer-funded salary, or how long their employment is expected to last.

In Public Notice today, Paul Waldman notes that Trump intended to show strength when he made a show of changing the name of Lake Ontario last week, but it really shows he is “weak and getting weaker.” He is still trying to shore up his fantasy world even as the real world is asserting its power.

On Saturday, Trump made an exception in his war on the media, praising CNN’s pollster Harry Enten “because he was willing to show that Donald J. Trump is six times more popular than Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or any other President,” a reference to Trump’s standing among Republicans alone.

Tonight Michael R. Gordon and Marcus Weisgerber of the Wall Street Journal reported that Army Secretary Dan Driscoll has submitted his resignation after struggling with Hegseth for months over Hegseth’s firing of senior Army officers and over the direction of the military.

Driscoll’s departure, the journalists note, leaves the Army without any Senate-confirmed civilian or military leaders.