Subscribe now

How many times have you heard the tired old refrain, “Ohhh... all politicians are the same”?

Now, ask yourself another question. How many times did you hear that before Donald Trump occupied the White House?

Not too many… right?

Whenever someone defends Donald Trump’s latest act of brazen and wanton corruption by shrugging, “Ohhh... all politicians are the same,” I can’t help but wonder why that sentiment was rarely expressed when genuinely progressive individuals – of either party – were in office.

One of the greatest misconceptions in modern American politics is that the Republican Party has always stood for corporate interests, has always sought tax breaks for the rich, and has always vehemently pursued the re-establishment of aristocracy in the United States. While it may be true that this has been the case in our lifetimes, history could definitely challenge that perception.

Let’s not forget that it was the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln that abolished slavery. Did working class people look upon good ol’ Honest Abe and mutter under their breath, “Ohhh... all politicians are the same”?

Let’s also remember that it was the Republican Party of Theodore Roosevelt who believed that government had a responsibility to protect ordinary citizens from concentrated economic power. Roosevelt took on some of the largest and most powerful corporations in American history. He challenged monopolies, strengthened consumer protections, expanded food and drug safety laws, protected millions of acres of public land, and argued that no corporation should become so powerful that it could dominate government.

In one respect, Roosevelt’s successor, Republican William Howard Taft, went even further. Taft filed roughly twice as many antitrust lawsuits as Roosevelt, enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act against monopolies that threatened competition and consumers.

Fast forward another half century, and we see Republican President Dwight Eisenhower choosing to preserve Social Security rather than dismantling it. He expanded the nation’s infrastructure with the Interstate Highway System, increased the minimum wage, enforced school desegregation in Little Rock, and accepted that the federal government had an important role in protecting both opportunity and economic security.

Still skeptical?

Well then, let’s take a moment to examine the Republican Party Platform of 1956. A platform that would be utterly unrecognizable to Americans today. This platform reads like something that many current Republicans would probably describe as a communist manifesto.

This long-forgotten platform shows that, under President Eisenhower, the Republican Party proudly declared its support for:

• expanding Social Security,

• broader unemployment insurance,

• improved housing,

• better health protection for all Americans,

• continued progress on civil rights,

• equal rights for women,

• honest, ethical government, and

• an economy in which “every citizen fairly shares” in prosperity.

The platform even proclaimed:

“America does not prosper unless all Americans prosper.”

Imagine reading such a thing in today’s Republican Party platform.

The contrast between the Republican Party of the 1950s and the Republican Party of today is so dramatic that there is literally a Snopes article written about the existence of the 1956 Republican Party Platform. That article confirms the authenticity of the 1956 Republican Platform, and it goes on to contrast that policy document with the Republican Party platform of 2012.

Dare to compare, my friends – the Republican Party of 1956 with the Republican Party of 2012.

None of this means that any of those past Republican administrations were perfect. To be sure, they weren’t. Nor does it mean that today’s Democratic Party is identical to the Republicans of Theodore Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhower. It isn’t.

The point is much simpler, and, in some respects, far more important.

History demonstrates that the Republican Party in particular has not simply evolved: it has become both corrupted and rotted to the core… by money.

There have been periods when Republicans championed policies that strengthened the positions of working-class Americans, challenged corporate monopolies, expanded economic opportunity, protected consumers, and accepted that government could and should be a force for the public good.

So the next time someone dismisses politics by saying, “All politicians are the same,” remember this:

If all politicians were the same, Abraham Lincoln would never have abolished slavery, Theodore Roosevelt would never have confronted the trusts, and Dwight Eisenhower would never have defended Social Security or sent federal troops to enforce constitutional rights.

Read more

Donald Trump’s second inauguration featured an unprecedented gathering of prominent tech billionaires and corporate titans, most of whom secured front-row seating in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda near unconfirmed cabinet nominees. Attendees included Elon Musk (Tesla/X/SpaceX), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Sundar Pichai (Google), Tim Cook (Apple), Sergey Brin (Alphabet), Shou Zi Chew (TikTok), and Sam Altman (OpenAI).

Share

Let’s pause for a moment and think about why this would be the case. Any astute business tycoon would generally be hesitant to publicly associate themselves with a political party that they themselves were propping up in an effort to gouge working class Americans (who represent the vast majority of voters) in an effort to increase their own wealth and privilege. I’m not saying that this relationship between the aristocracy and political parties is anything new, but I will say that this relationship has historically been kept on the down low. Now they make a display of it.

Why do you suppose that is?

It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with the popularity of Trump or the Republican Party.

Trump’s Historic Unpopularity

Two days ago, the New York Times published an article entitled, “Trump's Polling Numbers Hit a New Low. Don't Expect Him to Change Course.”

The central thesis of that article is that Trump’s declining approval ratings are unlikely to produce any meaningful change in his governing strategy because both his political incentives and his governing style reward doubling down rather than moderating.

The article acknowledges that Trump’s approval ratings have deteriorated significantly, citing multiple national polls that have put his approval at or near the lowest point of his presidency, with particularly sharp declines on issues such as the economy and the administration’s handling of the conflict with Iran.

The article also acknowledges that most presidents would pivot under these circumstances by moderating policies, changing personnel, emphasizing popular issues, or adopting a more conciliatory tone. The article then arrives at the overly-simplistic conclusion that Trump is simply… different.

According to the article, Trump has repeatedly shown over the course of his political career that he rarely responds to political setbacks by changing direction. Instead, he tends to:

• portray unfavourable polls as biased or fraudulent,

• reinforce the themes that energize his core supporters,

• maintain a combative style, and

• treat compromise as a sign of weakness.

What the article does not acknowledge, however, is why Trump would consistently show these bizarre tendencies. As such, the article is essentially missing the forest for the trees… and it does so because it simply cannot acknowledge the forest standing right in front of us.

Read more

At a Glance:

• What happened? In March 2025, Trump dismissed Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, the two Democratic commissioners serving on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

• Why was that controversial? The Federal Trade Commission Act said a head of the FTC can only be removed “…by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

• Why did Rebecca Slaughter sue? Slaughter argued that her firing violated both the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Supreme Court precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935).

• Why did the case matter? The Slaughter case required the Supreme Court to decide whether a nearly century-old precedent should survive.

Share

For more than 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) upheld Congress's constitutional authority to create independent regulatory agencies whose leaders could not be removed by the President without good cause. In Trump v. Slaughter, a 6–3 Supreme Court majority swept that precedent aside, holding that presidents may remove the heads of independent agencies essentially at will.

The case arose shortly after President Donald Trump began his second term in office. In March 2025, Trump dismissed Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, the two Democratic commissioners serving on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Rather than alleging that either commissioner had engaged in "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office"—the only grounds for removal under federal law—the President stated that their continued service was simply "inconsistent" with his Administration's priorities and asserted that he possessed the constitutional authority under Article II to remove them. Slaughter challenged her dismissal in federal court, arguing that the President had violated the FTC Act and long-standing Supreme Court precedent established in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), which held that FTC commissioners could not be removed without good cause. The lower courts agreed with Slaughter, setting the stage for a landmark constitutional showdown before the Supreme Court.

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled to support Trump’s authoritarian grasp on all independent government agencies operating in the United States, essentially permanently changing their former status as “independent” agencies.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a sweeping dissent that may become one of the defining constitutional dissents of this generation.

Here are five of the most important arguments made in Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion.

1. The Majority Gives the President More Power Than Even the British King Possessed

Justice Sotomayor wastes no time explaining what she believes is at stake.

She argues that the Court has transformed the President from someone who must faithfully execute the laws into someone who can effectively ignore laws that limit his own authority.

One of the most striking passages in the dissent reads:

“The Court gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted, elevating him above his once-coequal branches by transforming a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed into a license to act in defiance of those very laws.” (Page 2 of the dissent.)

This is an extraordinary accusation.

Rather than saying the Court merely interpreted Article II differently, Sotomayor argues the majority has created an executive power that exceeds what the Founders themselves fought against during the American Revolution.

In other words, she believes the Court has replaced constitutional limits with presidential discretion.

2. Independent Agencies Exist Because Some Decisions Should Be Protected From Politics

A major theme throughout the dissent is that Congress deliberately created independent agencies because some government functions require expertise rather than partisan loyalty.

Sotomayor begins by writing:

“The wisdom of the centuries has taught that some decisions should depend not only on who is in office... but also on judgment, expertise, and the public good.” (Page 1 of the dissent.)

She points to agencies responsible for areas such as:

• nuclear energy,

• monetary policy,

• workplace safety,

• consumer protection, and

• chemical hazards.

These agencies were intentionally designed to avoid becoming political weapons that change direction every time the White House changes hands.

Sotomayor argues that today’s decision doesn’t merely affect the Federal Trade Commission, it potentially changes the nature of dozens of independent regulatory agencies that Congress deliberately insulated from day-to-day political pressure.

Instead of relying primarily on expertise and continuity, future commissioners may now have to focus on simply maintaining the favor of the President who can remove them.

3. The Majority Ignores More Than a Century of Constitutional Practice

One of the strongest historical arguments in the dissent is that today’s ruling disregards generations of bipartisan constitutional practice.

Sotomayor notes that Congress began creating independent commissions as early as the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, followed by numerous others over the next century.

She explains:

“For most of our history, the Court has rightly left the removal question primarily to its coequal branches.” (Pages 2 and 10.)

Later she writes:

“The political branches have long believed, and acted upon the belief, that Congress has the power to set limits on the President’s removal authority.” (Page 18 of the dissent.)

Constitutional law often places enormous weight on longstanding governmental practice.

Sotomayor argues that Congresses and Presidents of both political parties relied upon these removal protections for nearly 140 years.

That history, she says, should have carried tremendous constitutional weight.

Instead, the majority treated it as essentially irrelevant.

4. The Court Discards Stare Decisis With Barely a Second Thought

Perhaps the most forceful legal portion of the dissent concerns stare decisis – the principle that courts generally respect established precedent.

Sotomayor writes:

“Faithful adherence to precedent is a ‘foundation stone of the rule of law.’” (Page 34 of the dissent.)

She continues:

“Along every metric that the Court usually considers... Humphrey’s should have survived.”

She argues that:

• Humphrey’s Executor was workable,

• Congress repeatedly relied upon it,

• presidents relied upon it,

• courts relied upon it, and

• the majority fails to meaningfully account for those reliance interests.

The Supreme Court often says it does not overturn precedent lightly.

Sotomayor argues today’s majority abandoned that principle without satisfying the Court’s own standards for overruling settled law.

In her view, this case represents not just a constitutional shift but a judicial one, weakening confidence that long-established precedents will remain stable.

5. The Real Danger Is the Concentration of Presidential Power

The dissent concludes with perhaps its most important warning.

Sotomayor argues that the Constitution intentionally distributes authority among Congress, the President, and the courts.

Today’s ruling, she says, fundamentally changes that balance.

Her closing paragraphs state:

“The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before.”

She continues:

“It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him.” (Pages 49–50 of the dissent.)

Sotomayor ends with an unmistakable warning:

“The Court upends its precedent, misconstrues our history, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty.” (Final page of the dissent.)

The dissent frames this case as being about far more than the FTC.

According to Sotomayor, the decision changes the relationship between the Presidency and the entire administrative state.

Her concern is not simply that presidents will remove more officials, but that independent agencies themselves may cease to be genuinely independent.

The Dissenting Opinion in Summary

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent is ultimately a defense of constitutional restraint. She argues that the Framers designed a system in which Congress could, in appropriate circumstances, create institutions insulated from immediate political pressure, and that both political parties have relied on that arrangement for generations.

Whether one agrees with the majority or the dissent, the disagreement is profound. The majority sees the decision as restoring presidential accountability over executive officers. Sotomayor sees it as concentrating executive power in a way that both departs from long-standing constitutional practice and weakens one of the principal checks built into the modern federal government.

Few Supreme Court decisions have the potential to reshape the structure of the executive branch as dramatically as Trump v. Slaughter. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent makes it clear that, in her view, this is not simply the overruling of one precedent – it is a fundamental reallocation of power within the American constitutional system.

Why Were Some Federal Agencies Considered “Independent”?

One of the most important aspects of Trump v. Slaughter to understand is the legal definition of an “independent agency.” Contrary to what the name suggests, these agencies are not independent of the federal government. Rather, they have traditionally been independent of direct presidential control.

Another category of government departments, known as “executive branch departments” (such as the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State) operate under the direct supervision of the President. Their leaders serve at the President’s pleasure and can generally be dismissed whenever the President chooses.

Starting in the late 1800s, Congress decided that certain governmental functions required a greater degree of political neutrality and institutional stability. Agencies responsible for regulating financial markets, policing monopolies, overseeing communications, setting monetary policy, or ensuring nuclear safety often make highly technical decisions that can have profound long-term consequences. Congress feared that allowing every new President to replace their leadership immediately upon taking office could undermine public confidence and encourage short-term political decision-making.

To address those concerns, Congress started to create a number of independent regulatory agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, and provided that their commissioners would serve fixed terms and could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” These agencies were largely created in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld that arrangement in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, concluding that Congress had the constitutional authority to insulate these agencies from direct presidential control.

For nearly a century, this distinction formed a cornerstone of the modern administrative state. Executive agencies answered directly to the President, while independent agencies exercised their statutory responsibilities with a measure of insulation from political pressure. That constitutional distinction is what the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter has now fundamentally altered.

In my Humble Opinion

In my opinion, the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Slaughter should fill Americans with dread. The fact of the matter is that the president of the United States now has the power to remove the head of any so-called “independent” agency for no reason other than that person not capitulating to the president’s will. Such an arrangement presupposes that anyone who manages to get elected to the Office of the President is automatically smarter and more knowledgeable in areas such as nuclear safety, monopolies, securities, communications, and monetary policy than the professionals who have dedicated their careers to those fields. Beyond that, it also assumes that a president’s partisan interests must somehow be more neutral than the interests of the career professionals who once managed these independent agencies at arm’s length from the President.

Such notions are, on their very face, completely absurd.

Given such power, what couldn’t the president do? What couldn’t he get away with? These are serious questions.

If the President of the United States wanted to declare that the Federal Reserve should now issue every Republican voter a $1,000 bond, what could stop him? If he wanted to reward his financial backers with monopoly power in their respective markets, why couldn’t he do that?

Seriously. Think this through with me. Such egregious policies would be pursued through agencies that were, until just a few days ago, completely independent of the President. Now the head of each of these agencies is controlled by Donald J. Trump.

Oh, but what about the courts, you ask?

What about them?

The courts are just courts. The courts possess no enforcement power. They rely on other agencies for that: agencies such as the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, to name just a few.

Think about this for a moment: who cares about courts when you control their enforcement agencies?

If history has shown us anything, it is that democracies rarely disappear overnight. More often, they erode one institution at a time, one precedent at a time, one transfer of power at a time. Trump v. United States, 2024 and Trump v. Slaughter, 2026 represent two significant steps toward concentrating unprecedented authority in the presidency. We are now forced to ask, at what point does a president become so powerful that the constitutional checks designed to restrain him no longer function as intended?

My fear, ladies and gentlemen, is that we have now reached that point.

If I am right, we will now bear witness to Donald Trump using his newfound power in a myriad of ways that have already been brainstormed, workshopped, modelled, and refined by both Trump’s inner circle and a number of far-right think tanks: all with the ultimate goal of effectively making the United States government a single-party system. If that is the case, then the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter may represent far more than just another controversial Supreme Court decision… more even than the moment the balance of power envisioned by the Framers decisively shifted toward the presidency. No, ladies and gentlemen, my fear is that, in the fullness of time, Trump v. Slaughter may one day be remembered as the final nail in the coffin of American democracy.

Share

If the reports are accurate, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff has just demonstrated exactly why personal loyalty should never be confused with professional qualification.

According to Rep. Madeleine Dean, Witkoff erupted during a bipartisan conference call on America’s negotiations with Iran, calling her questions “stupid” and “smarta--ed” before reportedly cutting off her microphone. This exchange occurred yesterday, on Monday, June 29th. It took place during the administration's first official congressional briefing following the signing of the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding. The briefing also included Secretary of State Marco Rubio and focused on the administration’s proposed 14-point memorandum of understanding with Iran. Dean says she was asking straightforward questions about who drafted the agreement, why portions appeared so favorable to Iran, and whether Witkoff’s private business interests could create conflicts with his diplomatic responsibilities.

Dean stated that Special Envoy Steve Witkoff called her questions "smart-assed" and "stupid" before cutting her microphone and saying, “There’s your answer.”

Sadly, there is indeed an answer in Witkoff’s response, but it’s not the answer to any of Rep. Dean’s questions. It’s the answer to a much larger question: should completely inexperienced and unqualified political loyalists be appointed to positions of such drastic importance?

Diplomacy Is a Profession

International diplomacy is not simply a matter of making deals.

It requires years – often decades – of developing relationships, understanding regional history, recognizing cultural sensitivities, navigating competing national interests, and knowing precisely how every word, every gesture, and every emotional outburst will be interpreted around the world.

That is why the United States has historically relied upon seasoned diplomats, experienced foreign policy professionals, career ambassadors, military strategists, and national security experts to negotiate with adversarial nations.

Negotiating with Iran is among the most delicate assignments imaginable. A single miscommunication can increase regional tensions, destabilize energy markets, endanger allies, or even contribute to military conflict.

My friends, this is not the place for improvisation… or for learning on the job.

We’ve Seen This Before

Steve Witkoff is hardly the first Trump loyalist to receive an extraordinarily important diplomatic portfolio despite lacking traditional foreign policy experience.

During Donald Trump’s first administration, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, became one of the administration’s principal architects of Middle East policy despite having no background as a diplomat, ambassador, military officer, or foreign affairs specialist.

Now history appears to be repeating itself.

Once again, one of the world’s most volatile regions has become the responsibility of a wealthy real estate developer whose primary qualification appears to be his personal relationship with the president.

Now the world is witnessing in real time why friendship is not a credential.

Not even close.

Temperament Matters

What makes the reported exchange with members of Congress particularly troubling is not merely that insults were allegedly exchanged.

It is what those insults suggest about temperament.

Successful diplomats spend their careers remaining calm while dealing with hostile governments, authoritarian leaders, military commanders, intelligence agencies, and negotiators whose interests are directly opposed to their own.

If an American diplomat loses patience with a member of his own Congress who is asking difficult questions during a domestic conference call, what happens when negotiations with Iranian officials become even more contentious?

Diplomacy frequently requires listening to accusations that are unfair, provocative, or deliberately inflammatory. That’s just part of the job.

Responding with insults shows neither strength nor strategy – it shows emotional immaturity and a complete lack of self-discipline.

The Stakes Could Not Be Higher

The United States is currently navigating one of the most dangerous geopolitical environments in decades.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions, proxy conflicts throughout the Middle East, maritime security, sanctions, regional alliances, and the possibility of wider war all demand extraordinary care.

These are negotiations where precision, words, temperament, and experience all play a crucial role.

Every country involved is watching carefully – not only what America’s representatives say, but how they conduct themselves.

Professionalism inspires confidence. But impulsiveness creates both uncertainty and unnecessary escalations in an armed conflict that should never have been started in the first place.

America and Iran Deserve Better

The US conflict with Iran is ultimately bigger than Steve Witkoff.

This situation raises a broader question about whether the United States should continue filling critical diplomatic positions based primarily on personal loyalty rather than credentials and expertise.

There is nothing wrong with appointing successful business leaders to government roles if they possess the knowledge, temperament, and experience necessary for the job.

But diplomacy is not an apprenticeship that should begin in the middle of negotiations that could very well affect global security.

Americans – regardless of party – should expect their country’s representatives to embody patience, professionalism, and discipline, particularly when the consequences of failure extend far beyond Washington. Lord knows that millions of innocent Iranians deserve better as well. Much better.

In fact, one can and probably should ask how many innocent Iranians have already lost their lives in a conflict that has dragged on much longer than it might have owing directly to Witkoff’s lack of experience, decorum, and self control.

If the reported conduct toward Rep. Dean is an accurate reflection of how Steve Witkoff handles himself, it should concern Democrats, Republicans, independents, and America’s allies alike.

Given his recent behaviour, it certainly appears that Witkoff cannot maintain his composure with elected officials from his own country. That begs an obvious question: how has this unqualified loose canon been performing as he has been sitting across the negotiating table from one of America’s most challenging and unpredictable adversaries?

Yesterday, Senate Democrats unveiled what they’re calling the “Protect Our Polls Act.”

The bill is aimed directly at a concern that has become increasingly prominent in American politics: whether a future president could use federal law enforcement agencies or even military personnel in ways that might influence, intimidate, or interfere with the election process.

Share

Democrats argue that Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested actions that would blur the line between election administration and federal enforcement. Republicans, may argue that election integrity concerns justify stronger federal involvement. But let’s not forget: Trump has never presented any evidence of Democratic voter fraud, yet Trump has himself demonstrated a willingness to do absolutely anything to hold onto power, including asking Georgia’s Secretary of State to find him 11,780 votes,” orchestrating the fake electors scheme to essentially pretend that he won the 2020 election, and when none of that worked, Trump instigated the January 6th insurrection: the first attempted coup of an American government. Given the statements that Trump has been making in recent weeks regarding the upcoming midterms – all in the face of historically low polling results and a tsunami of former MAGA Republicans defecting the party – it’s no wonder that the Democrats are being proactive in protecting the upcoming midterms.

In the unveiling of the bill, Senator Slotkin laid out the three core components of the bill.

First, a president would need congressional approval before deploying military personnel to polling locations.

Second, the bill would prohibit federal funds from being used to seize ballots or voting machines.

And third, it would provide protections for military personnel who refuse what they believe are unlawful orders involving election administration.

Whether you agree with the bill or not, it’s important to note that Democrats are framing this as a preventative measure. Their argument is essentially: if there is even a possibility that these powers could be misused, Congress should establish clear guardrails before an election crisis occurs.

A Point Worth highlighting

Much of the Democratic argument rests on two claims.

First, that Trump continues to challenge the legitimacy of the 2020 election and has discussed a plan he had to seize ballot boxes and voting machines back in 2020 that he now wishes he had taken at that time.

Second, that documented cases of non-citizen voting and large-scale voter fraud remain extremely rare.

Supporters of the bill say that introducing federal agents or military personnel into the voting process would discourage legitimate voters from participating.

Critics, however, are likely to argue that federal authorities should be available to investigate election crimes and ensure election integrity.

So the real debate here isn’t whether elections should be secure. Presumably, both sides agree on that. The debate is whether additional federal involvement protects democracy or threatens it.

Bringing a Spoon to a Knife Fight

The Protect Our Polls Act now joins a growing list of election-related legislation that reflects the deep political divisions surrounding American democracy.

Supporters see this bill as a necessary safeguard against potential abuses of executive power. They argue that election administration should remain firmly in civilian hands and free from military involvement.

Opponents will likely argue that this proposed legislation is a solution in search of a problem and that it unfairly assumes bad faith on the part of federal authorities.

However, those of us who are merely realists aren’t quite ready to celebrate anything quite yet. While the gesture is appreciated, and witnessing these high-ranking members of the Democratic Party articulating an awareness of the moment that they’ve found themselves in is certainly refreshing. Having said that, tabling legislation that essentially asks a dictator to fight fair could certainly be perceived to be, shall we say, cute… if not perhaps a bit laughable.

Democrats have demonstrated, yet again, their proclivity for playing within the rules, but given Republican control of Congress and the fact that similar provisions have already failed on party-line votes, the bill currently faces very long odds. Its immediate significance may be less about becoming law and more about putting members of Congress on the record ahead of the 2026 elections.

Subscribe now

When news broke that Federal Judge Susan Paradise Baxter had dismissed the Election Truth Alliance’s lawsuit in Pennsylvania (wherein the ETA was challenging aspects of Pennsylvania’s 2024 election results), supporters of the ETA immediately became deflated.

Proponents of the Trump regime proclaimed that the court had debunked the ETA’s allegations, while the skeptics who are criticizing the validity of the 2024 election insisted that the judge refused to look at the evidence.

Well, one of those interpretations is pretty darned correct, and I’ll give you until the end of this article to decide which one.

Share

The Court Never Reached the Central Question

Some people naturally assume that the judge reviewed the Election Truth Alliance’s evidence and concluded that the election results were accurate.

That, my friends, is not what happened.

In her June 12, 2026 Memorandum Opinion, Judge Baxter focused primarily on a threshold legal issue known as standing. In federal court, before a judge can consider whether a claim is true or false, the plaintiffs must first establish that they have suffered a legally recognizable injury and that the court has the authority to remedy it.

The court concluded that the ETA failed to satisfy those requirements.

As a result, the judge never proceeded to determine whether the alleged election irregularities occurred.

What Is Standing?

Standing is one of those legal terms we’ve heard a lot around allegations of voter fraud in the United States. Yet, it remains one of the most misunderstood concepts in American law.

A plaintiff cannot simply point to something they believe to be unlawful and demand a judicial investigation.

Instead, they must demonstrate three things:

1. They suffered a concrete and particularized injury.

2. The injury was caused by the defendants.

3. A favourable court ruling would likely remedy that injury.

Judge Baxter found that the ETA’s plaintiffs failed to establish all three elements.

The plaintiffs alleged that voting machines and tabulation systems in several Pennsylvania counties may have produced inaccurate results.

However, the court noted that none of the individual plaintiffs identified a specific ballot that was miscounted, a specific vote that was lost, or a specific tabulation error that affected them personally.

The court therefore viewed the alleged injury as too generalized to support standing in federal court.

What Did the Court Permanently Dismiss?

This is where the ruling becomes significant.

Judge Baxter dismissed all claims seeking retrospective relief concerning the 2024 election with prejudice.

In plain English, that means those claims are finished in this federal case.

The court ruled that the ETA can no longer use this lawsuit to seek:

• A recount of the 2024 election.

• A forensic audit of the certified results.

• A judicial determination that the certified vote totals were inaccurate.

• Any order that would alter or disturb the certified results.

The judge reasoned that the election has already been certified, public officials have taken office, and government has been operating under those results for many months.

On Page 13 of her opinion, Judge Baxter wrote, “…the results of the 2024 General Election have been certified by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the winning candidates have assumed office. An order directing a recount or forensic audit could not, as a practical matter, alter the certified results or the composition of the government formed based on those results. The retrospective claims are therefore moot.”

In so many words, Judge Baxter is saying that, if the Trump campaign did cheat in the 2024 election, then they got away with it… so there’s nothing anyone can do about it now. You may have evidence of widespread vote manipulation, but, until you have evidence of specific vote manipulation (ie. a particular ballot that was tampered with), then the court won’t even look at any of that other evidence.

What Survived?

This is the part of the ruling that many headlines overlooked, and perhaps for good reason.

Judge Baxter did not completely close the door on the case.

Instead, she dismissed the ETA’s claims relating to future elections without prejudice and granted the plaintiffs thirty days to file another amended complaint.

In legal terms, “without prejudice” means the plaintiffs are being given another opportunity to try again.

However, the court imposed strict conditions.

Any amended complaint must specifically identify:

• Future elections in which the plaintiffs intend to vote.

• A credible threat that the alleged problems will recur.

• A direct connection between the alleged future harm and the conduct of the named defendants.

This is not a simple technical correction.

It requires the ETA to fundamentally reshape portions of its case. Beyond that, it is essentially asking the ETA to do the impossible. That is to say, it would be impossible if Judge Baxter held the ETA to the same high bar to which she has held them up to this point, which is to essentially say, “Prove that the Trump campaign cheated, show me how they did it, and bring me some witnesses who can testify about their participation in efforts to manipulate the results of the 2024 election. Oh, and while you’re at it, prove that they altered a particular person’s vote who happens to be standing in the court room right now.”

Nonetheless, this faint hope means that a final ruling in the case has not yet been made, and that has implications on the ETA’s ability to appeal because higher courts are loathed to hear appeals on cases where a final judgment has not yet been rendered.

Why the Court Focused on Future Harm

Federal courts are generally reluctant to issue advisory opinions.

A plaintiff must show not only that something happened in the past, but that a court order could prevent a future injury.

Judge Baxter concluded that the ETA had not adequately shown that any named plaintiff faced a concrete future injury that the court could address. (Remember the requirement to show that a particular ballot was tampered with?)

The judge nevertheless suggested that such a claim might be possible if pleaded with greater factual specificity.

In so doing, Judge Baxter invariably reminds us of bugs that we all tend to encounter in apps or websites from time to time. You might, for example, not be able to sign into a website, so you enter your email address to allow you to reset your password, but then you are told that your email address has never been registered, so then you try to register, and then you’re told you can’t because that same email address is already in use. There you are, stuck in a loop.

In this case, the ETA can show the court a plethora of evidence supporting the existence of widespread election manipulation in the 2024 election, but the court won’t look at it unless the ETA can first prove that a particular individual’s vote was manipulated. They can show that thousands of votes for Trump just magically appeared out of nowhere, but unless the ETA can somehow prove that a particular individual’s vote was changed, and that this will likely happen again, then the court will not even examine the evidence that the ETA has brought.

The Catch 22

The ETA is asking the court to grant access to evidence that they believe may reveal election inaccuracies. The court, however, is requiring a more concrete showing of injury and causation before granting access to that evidence. Thus, the ETA needs the investigation in order to obtain the very evidence that the court says is missing.

You can probably imagine how absurd this would all sound if we were talking about a bank robbery where there is plenty of evidence suggesting that the robbery took place and the money is now hidden under the floorboards of the suspect’s house, but the plaintiff can’t even get a search warrant unless they can first produce a customer who can prove that their money, in particular, was stolen by the bank robber. Otherwise, sorry… no search warrant for you!

Apparently, the prospect of the entire US election system being systematically rigged by the most powerful men in the world just isn’t serious enough to warrant any latitude by Judge Baxter.

What About Pennsylvania Election Law Claims?

Another important aspect of the ruling received little attention.

The ETA asserted claims under Pennsylvania’s Election Code.

The court did not reject those claims on their merits.

Instead, after dismissing the federal claims, Judge Baxter declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law issues.

Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

That means the ETA remains free to pursue them in an appropriate Pennsylvania state court.

What were those claims?

The ETA asserted several claims under Pennsylvania’s Election Code in addition to its federal constitutional claims. According to the complaint, the ETA alleged that election officials failed to comply with statutory requirements governing the administration of elections, including provisions relating to voting-system certification, testing and auditing procedures, chain-of-custody safeguards, and the handling and tabulation of ballots.

The ETA argued that these alleged violations were significant because Pennsylvania’s Election Code establishes detailed procedures intended to ensure election integrity and public confidence in election outcomes. The organization contended that election officials either failed to follow certain mandatory requirements or relied on practices that were inconsistent with the Code’s safeguards.

Judge Baxter did not decide whether any of those allegations were correct.

The court did not rule that Pennsylvania election officials complied with the Election Code, nor did it rule that they violated it.

Instead, after dismissing the federal claims that formed the basis for federal jurisdiction, Judge Baxter declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Federal courts often take this approach when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial. Rather than deciding unresolved questions of state law, the federal court leaves those issues for state courts to address.

As a result, the ETA’s Pennsylvania Election Code claims were dismissed without prejudice.

That means the ETA remains free to pursue those claims in an appropriate Pennsylvania state court, where the merits of the alleged Election Code violations could be litigated directly.

Again, sounds like Judge Baxter left the ETA with some faint hope, right?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

What Options Does ETA Have Now?

At this point, the ETA appears to have three primary options.

Option One: File Another Amended Complaint

The court has provided a thirty-day window to submit a revised pleading focused on future elections.

To succeed, the ETA would need to provide much more specific allegations regarding future injury, future elections, and causation.

Option Two: Appeal

The ETA may seek review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

An appeal would likely focus on whether Judge Baxter applied standing doctrine too narrowly and whether the plaintiffs’ allegations should have been sufficient to allow the case to proceed.

Option Three: Proceed in Pennsylvania State Court

Because the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice, the ETA may attempt to pursue Pennsylvania Election Code claims in state court rather than federal court.

Whether that strategy could possibly prove to be successful remains to be seen.

The Bottom Line

The most important takeaway from Judge Baxter’s ruling is that it was largely procedural rather than factual.

The court did not determine whether the Election Truth Alliance’s allegations were true. Nor did it determine that they were false.

Instead, the court concluded that the plaintiffs, as presently pleaded, lacked the standing necessary to litigate those claims in federal court.

As a result, the door has been permanently closed on efforts within this case to challenge the certified results of the 2024 election in Pennsylvania.

Yes, a narrower door remains open. However, I might describe it as a window. To be more precise, I might describe it as window dressing.

The ETA may still attempt to amend its complaint regarding future elections, appeal the standing ruling, pursue state-law claims in Pennsylvania courts, or some combination of all three.

However, by my reading of the ruling and the circumstances surrounding the case, Judge Baxter – a trump appointed judge – is merely seeking to burn up precious time for the to launch an appeal to a higher court by refusing to issue a complete and final ruling in this case. By leaving faint hope to resubmit an amended complaint within 30 days, Baxter is essentially toying with the ETA, enticing them to burn up more time and more money fighting a case that they could not possibly win in Judge Baxter’s court…

because, by my reading of the situation, Judge Baxter is apparently unable to see the forest for the trees.

Subscribe now

Please follow and support the work of the , , and .

Leave a comment

As discussions about the future of the American republic become increasingly heated, one question appears with growing frequency:

What happens if the Trump regime becomes unwilling to surrender power after losing an election?

For many Americans, the question feels alarmist. For others, recent political developments have made it seem increasingly plausible.

Share

The Martial Law Scenario

One possibility frequently discussed online is that of declaring martial law before the upcoming mid terms.

Martial law is generally understood as the temporary replacement of civilian authority by military authority during an extreme national emergency. Historically, democratic governments have occasionally invoked emergency powers during wars, insurrections, natural disasters, or other crises.

Could a president attempt to use an emergency declaration to postpone or disrupt elections?

In theory, a national emergency could create extraordinary legal and political pressures. However, the United States Constitution, federal law, state governments, Congress, the courts, and the decentralized administration of elections all create significant barriers to such a move.

While commentators, such as Joy Behar of The View, have discussed martial law as a possibility that Trump might employ in an effort to cancel the upcoming mid-terms, there is currently no publicly available evidence that the Trump regime has plans to impose martial law. Of course, that hasn't stopped the regime from doing a myriad of blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional actions in their first 18 months of power, so we can't necessarily write off this possibility just yet.

A Less Dramatic Possibility

History suggests that democratic backsliding rarely begins with tanks in the streets.

More often, it occurs gradually.

Control over election administration, voter access, district boundaries, media narratives, legal challenges, and certification processes can all influence political outcomes without formally suspending democratic institutions.

Political scientists studying democratic erosion frequently point out that modern democracies often weaken through legal mechanisms rather than outright coups.

In their book, How Democracies Die, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt observe that, “Democracies may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders.” This is a reminder that democratic backsliding often occurs through the gradual manipulation of laws and institutions rather than sudden, overt seizures of power.

The question therefore becomes not whether elections occur, but whether they will remain genuinely competitive and trusted by the public.

The 2024 Election Debate

Some critics of the 2024 election, such as , have pointed to unusual statistical patterns and argued that they deserve closer scrutiny.

One frequently cited observation is that Republicans won all seven major swing states by just more than the margin that would allow hand recounts of the ballots. Others have noted county-level shifts that flipped precisely 88 counties from the Democrats to the Republicans, while absolutely no counties flipped from the Republicans to the Democrats. To say that this is unprecedented would be an understatement. Even in 1984, despite Ronald Reagan winning 525 electoral votes and 58.8% of the popular vote, Walter Mondale still managed to flip 30 counties nationwide from red to blue compared to the 1980 outcomes.

If you are familiar with Nazi culture, 88 is a widely used white supremacist and neo-Nazi numeric code that stands for Heil Hitler. The bizarre and highly improbable election outcome of 88 flipped states would invariably have the effect of conveying a sense of confidence amongst American White Supremacists, especially when paired with the fact that Trump had two new American flag poles installed on the White House property soon after taking power in 2025 – each reportedly measuring 88 feet in height. Taken in combination, this would all convey a powerful message to White Nationalists in the USA. It would say that they no longer need to suppress their racist ideology, nor delay their White Nationalist goals… because their people now control both the White House and the election outcomes in the USA.

These observations are real. The interpretation of these observations are up to individuals to make for themselves, but, personally, I stop believing in coincidences when the odds of such occurrences start measuring in probabilities that are lower than one in a nonillion. At that point, I’m not shy about calling BS, and naysayers don’t get to hide behind an excuse of “no evidence” when they themselves refuse to look for the evidence where it would be found. The and have been screaming for recounts on behalf of the American people for more than a year. Sadly, those pleas have so far fallen on deaf ears.

This all speaks to something I often point out about human behaviour: if someone does something good, they want to prove it. If they do something bad, they want to hide it.

If Trump legitimately won the 2024 election, why wouldn’t he want to prove it?

The Real Concern

The greatest threat to democracy in the USA may not be a dramatic declaration of martial law.

It may be the gradual normalization of the idea that democratic rules should only apply when they produce outcomes we like.

A healthy democracy requires more than elections. It requires a political culture in which leaders are expected to leave office when voters decide that it is time for them to go. And, when America has a leader who literally perpetrated a fake elector scam to steal the 2020 election by fraud, who then attempted to stage a coup in order to stay in power by force, and who has openly declared in the time since that the only mistake he ever made was leaving the White House after losing the 2020 election, we no longer have to look at such a scenario as being theoretical.

In Donald Trump, the US has a man occupying the White House who simply believes that he is entitled to stay in power, and, according to the Trump 2028 hats that he sells in his own online store, he believes that privilege extends for life.

The question Americans should be asking at this point is not whether Trump intends to leave.

It is whether they have the power to make him.

One of the less popular, but nonetheless persistent, beliefs in modern politics is the idea that Donald Trump is some kind of master strategist – a political chess grandmaster who is always ten moves ahead of everyone else.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Trump’s rise to power does not require us to believe that he possesses extraordinary political genius. A far simpler explanation is not only available, but patently obvious: he is a deeply self-absorbed individual whose desire for wealth, status, attention, and personal validation has made him unusually vulnerable to manipulation.

Throughout his business and political career, Trump has displayed many of the traits that intelligence agencies, corporate interests, and foreign actors traditionally look for when identifying potential assets. Individuals driven by ego, greed, resentment, or the need for admiration are often easier to influence than those guided by principle or institutional loyalty.

This is where the concept of kompromat becomes relevant. The Russian term, short for “compromising material,” refers to information that can be used to pressure, coerce, embarrass, or influence a public figure. While the public may never know the full extent of what various actors may or may not possess regarding Trump, the mere possibility highlights a larger point: a person with significant vulnerabilities can become highly valuable to those seeking influence.

From this perspective, Trump’s appeal to powerful interests is not that he is a genius. Far from it, my friends. No… it’s that he’s useful.

Whether the actors involved are foreign governments, wealthy donors, corporate interests, or ideological movements, a compliant figurehead can be far more valuable than an independent thinker. Such a person can mobilize supporters, dominate media attention, and advance policies that benefit others, all while believing – to one degree or another – that he is acting in his own interest.

Time is Running Out

The relationship between kompromat and coercion resembles a business investment. If powerful actors have invested significant resources in both compromising and elevating a political figure, they naturally want a return on their investment. They want favorable policies, strategic advantages, regulatory changes, judicial appointments, or geopolitical concessions. And because political opportunities are often temporary, there is pressure to extract those benefits as quickly as possible.

Viewed through this lens, Trump’s political survival becomes critically important to those who benefit from his influence. He is both the vehicle through which the puppet masters achieve their goals and the source of their continuing returns. As long as Trump remains politically viable, the investment continues to pay dividends.

This interpretation may not be as dramatic as the image of a master strategist secretly controlling world events. In fact, it is far more mundane. History is filled with examples of ambitious, narcissistic leaders who believed they were in command while simultaneously being steered by interests operating behind the scenes.

History offers many examples of wealthy and powerful interests attaching themselves to ambitious leaders. But rarely have those interests become so dependent on a single individual that they appear willing to openly flirt with overriding constitutional limits in order to keep their man in power.

If Trump is merely a vehicle through which various political, financial, ideological, and even foreign interests pursue their goals, then his eventual departure presents a problem. The goose that lays the golden eggs will eventually stop laying.

And they can’t have that.

Trump 2028

The normalization process is already underway. Trump 2028 merchandise is openly marketed by the Trump Organization LLC despite the Constitution's two-term limit. Steve Bannon repeatedly speaks of a third Trump term as though it were an ordinary political possibility. Whether these proposals are legally viable is almost beside the point. The more significant development is that Americans are being encouraged to discuss constitutional limits as obstacles to be overcome as opposed to safeguards to be respected. As Bannon openly and matter-of-factly declared in an interview with Zanny Minton Beddoes, the editor-in-chief of The Economist, on October 23, 2025, “Trump is gonna be president in 2028 and people just oughta get accommodated with that.”

Notice what’s happening here. The objective is not necessarily to present a credible constitutional pathway. The objective is simply to normalize the conversation itself.

Once a democratic society begins treating constitutional limits as negotiable suggestions rather than hard boundaries, the debate is no longer about one rule or any particular politician. It becomes a debate about whether institutions exist to constrain powerful individuals… or whether they exist to serve powerful individuals.

Subscribe now

When election results produce an outcome that seems surprising, that is not – in of itself – evidence of wrongdoing.

Hey… sometimes voters change their minds.

But there comes a point when a result becomes so unexpected and so inconsistent with the political realities on the ground that reasonable people start to ask whether additional scrutiny is warranted.

The recent Republican primary in Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District could definitely be one of those cases.

According to unofficial results, longtime Congressman Thomas Massie was defeated by challenger Ed Gallrein.

On its face, that outcome is difficult to reconcile with three realities that existed before a single ballot was cast.

Reality #1: Thomas Massie was one of the most popular Republicans in Congress

Massie was not an obscure incumbent. He wasn’t a scandal-ridden politician. He wasn’t a backbencher unknown to Republican voters.

The man was a freakin’ superstar.

For years, Massie cultivated a reputation as one of the most principled constitutional conservatives in Washington.

Even many Republicans who disagreed with him on particular issues respected him for being willing to stand on principle regardless of political pressure.

Unlike many members of Congress, Massie frequently voted against his own party leadership when he believed legislation violated constitutional limits or fiscal responsibility.

That independence earned him both admirers and enemies.

But it also helped build a loyal following among Republican primary voters – the very voters who traditionally reward politicians who are willing to challenge the establishment.

Massie had repeatedly demonstrated that support at the ballot box.

Which makes what happened next all the more unusual.

Reality #2: Republican voters wanted transparency on the Epstein Files

One of the highest-profile issues in conservative politics over the past year has been the demand for transparency surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Poll after poll, grassroots activists, commentators, and ordinary Republican voters have expressed frustration over the continued secrecy surrounding records connected to Epstein’s network.

Massie was one of the most prominent voices pushing for greater disclosure.

His support for the Epstein Files Transparency Act aligned closely with the views of many Republican voters who have spent years demanding answers.

If anything, one might expect that stance to strengthen Massie’s position among Republican primary voters.

Instead, according to the reported results, the opposite occurred.

Kentucky Republicans supposedly rejected one of Congress’s strongest advocates for transparency and replaced him with a challenger who was backed by enormous outside spending.

Weird, right?

It’s not impossible, I suppose… but it is certainly counterintuitive.

Reality #3: Massie didn’t lose support – he gained thousands of votes

The most striking aspect of this election may not be that Massie lost.

It may be the vote totals themselves.

According to data compiled by the Election Truth Alliance, Massie’s vote total reportedly increased by more than 7,600 votes.

That’s a gain of approximately 19%.

In most elections, increasing your vote total by nearly one-fifth would be a sign of political strength.

Yet, Massie somehow lost this primary despite receiving dramatically more support than he had in the previous primary… which he had won.

Again.. weird.

Made weirder still by the fact that the total number of votes cast allegedly doubled.

That’s right… doubled.

The challenger’s side increased from approximately 12,600 votes in 2024 to nearly 58,000 votes in 2026.

That represents an increase of more than 350%.

Mathematically possible?

Yes… I suppose it is.

Politically plausible? That, my friends, is highly, and I mean highly, doubtful.

The Turnout Explosion

For Gallrein’s victory to reflect the genuine will of Republican voters in Kentucky, we must accept several things simultaneously.

We must accept the idea that:

• A highly popular incumbent suddenly became less attractive to Republican voters.

• A challenger with far less name recognition generated unprecedented enthusiasm.

• Republican voters punished one of Congress’s most vocal transparency advocates despite transparency being a major grassroots issue.

• Overall participation doubled in a congressional primary.

Again, none of these events is individually impossible.

But taken together, they create a result that quite obviously deserves careful examination.

Why Verification Matters

The Election Truth Alliance has reported several statistical anomalies that it believes warrant further investigation.

Importantly, the organization itself has not claimed to possess definitive proof of election fraud.

Instead, the ETA argues that the data contains unusual patterns that justify additional scrutiny and it recommends a full hand recount and audit of paper ballots.

Democracy depends on public confidence, my friends, and we are well past the point where that confidence has been substantially, perhaps even dangerously, shaken.

When election outcomes appear inconsistent with political expectations, the proper response is neither blind acceptance nor blind rejection.

The proper response is verification.

If the reported result is correct, then a thorough audit would strengthen confidence in the outcome.

If it is not correct, then an audit would help uncover the truth.

Either way, transparency benefits everyone.

The Irony

Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this story is that it involves a politician who spent years demanding transparency.

Now the election that removed him may itself require greater transparency.

Thomas Massie’s supporters are asking a simple question:

How did a popular incumbent who increased his vote total by thousands of votes lose to a relatively unknown challenger whose support supposedly exploded by more than 350 percent?

That question deserves an answer.

The burden should not be on skeptics like , the , or myself to explain why such an unlikely outcome feels improbable.

The burden, my friends, is on election officials to demonstrate that the outcome accurately reflects voter intent.

And if election officials genuinely wanted to demonstrate that their elections are indeed free and fair…

they’d do it.

Subscribe now

What do you think? Does the Kentucky primary result seem politically plausible, or should Kentucky conduct a full hand recount and audit to restore public confidence?

Let me know in the comments below.

When host Kristen Welker asked him for evidence regarding California’s vote, Trump’s response was revealing.

“All I have to do is look… and I listen,” the visibly disheveled Trump crowed.

Welker’s reply was brief yet devastating:

“That’s not evidence.”

While the interview was fairly extensive, the final exchange based around fact checking Trump’s outlandish claims lasted only minutes. Yet, I suspect future analysts may someday view those few minutes as being a historically significant moment.

To be clear, that’s not because Trump made yet another outrageous, unsupported claim. At this point, that is hardly news.

In fact, it’s not even because a journalist challenged Trump on his lies. Others have done so before.

Sidebar: Journalists pushing back on Trump’s lies

On August 13, 2020.S.V. Dáte, the White House correspondent for the HuffPost, asks Trump, “After three and a half years, do you regret at all all the lying you have done to the American people?”

US president Donald Trump quarrels with Terry Moran, an ABC News interviewer, after Moran corrected Trump on the case of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Salvadorian man, who was deported and who Trump alleged had MS-13 tattoos.

What made this moment different was Welker’s complete absence of fear.

For years, much of the media seemed trapped in a peculiar dilemma. Journalists understood that many of Trump’s claims were false or unsupported, but they often hesitated to say so plainly. Questions were asked, but answers were allowed to stand. Unsupported assertions and proven facts were frequently treated as though they occupied the same ground.

However, in this moment, Kristen Welker did something refreshingly simple.

She applied the basic standard that every citizen should expect of themselves and of others who purport to live in a democracy: she said that extraordinary claims require evidence. And when that evidence was not provided, she said so.

She remained calm and respectful. She did not meet rudeness with rudeness. She did not respond to outrage with more outrage. She did not reply to grandstanding with more grandstanding. She simply asked Trump what evidence he had to support his claims.

In many respects, Trump’s reaction was perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the entire exchange. Not being someone who is used to being challenged on his assertions, Trump was like a deer caught in headlights. In simple terms, he had nothing. No response of substance. And where substance fails, emotion takes over.

When asked about evidence of a supposedly rigged midterm election in California, all Trump could say was, “All I have to do is look. And I listen. And I listen to people. And let’s see what happens.”

All I have to do is look. And I listen. And I listen to people. And let’s see what happens

Rather than providing any evidence whatsoever, Trump embarked on a tirade wherein he began to berate the reporter who was interviewing him, criticize the elections (which are also the elections that have twice brought Trump to the White House), and even insult the United States of America, which he described as a third world country. He concluded by accusing the media and many of the television networks of being “crooked” before he abruptly ended the interview.

“Sorry, let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough.”

Those are not the words of a leader confidently defending a position. Those are the words of a coward who was completely taken off guard by a reporter who had the courage to challenge him on his lies.

But make no mistake, what struck me most about this interview was not Trump’s slobbering and meandering tirade of gibberish. It was the broader cultural shift that this moment seemed to represent.

Fear of America’s first would-be dictator appears to be waning.

Increasingly, journalists, judges, public servants, and ordinary citizens appear willing to challenge claims that do not withstand scrutiny. Whether one supports Trump or not, that kind of courage and commitment to truth should be welcomed, encouraged, and rewarded. After all, it is well accepted that the health of any democracy can be measured by the ability to question those who wield power, and for that reason, that is exactly why the Trump regime wants to suppress the freedom of expression in the United States. One need look no further than the multi-million dollar defamation lawsuits against CBS / Paramount, ABC News, and the Wall Street Journal, the targeting of late-night comedians, the weaponizing of the FCC, the restructuring of White House Access, the rescinding of journalist protections, and the new “White House Media Offenders” list. All the trappings of classic authoritarian regimes.

Yet, courage has still found a way to sprout up through the cracks of a once-thriving democracy that has only recently been paved-over by a dogged and determined fascist regime. And that courage offers hope.

Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps this exchange will at best be remembered as a small footnote in history. But, if I’m right, this interview will come to symbolize the moment when a critical mass of Americans stopped being intimidated by tyranny, and started to reclaim their freedom.

If so, Kristen Welker’s simple response, “That’s not evidence,” may prove to be a clarion call not only to journalists in the United States, but to all freedom-loving Americans currently fighting to restore the ideals of their nation’s founding.

US senators have passed a resolution stating that, in future government shutdowns, they too will have their pay checks delayed.

The House of Congress passed a War Powers Resolution limiting Trump’s authority with respect to the war in Iran.

The Trump regime is scrapping the $1.8 billion “Anti-weaponization” fund.

Trump just posted, “I’ll be going to the G7, in France, immediately following what will be one of the Most Entertaining Nights in American History!”