So who knows what other levers Trump may try to pull before the election?

For the long-term, this episode may foreshadow a fierce, and overdue, debate about the wretched state of our government’s finances. So far, voters and Democratic leaders have ignored the issue, because they face more urgent concerns, such as:

· Will Trump destroy our democracy and establish one-party rule?

· How many Americans will Trump cut off from health insurance and food stamps?

· Will Trump trigger a broader war in the Middle East?

And so forth.

But eventually, politicians on both sides will have to address the massive government deficits and skyrocketing national debt. Their rapid growth has already imposed a heavy financial burden on the government, and the current trajectory is not sustainable.

The government’s weak finances, and its ability to maintain major programs, could become a major issue in 2028, especially if a Democrat becomes President. The pattern for the last three decades has been that Republican administrations pile up debt and deficits, and Democrats clean up the mess. But when Democrats try to restore tax rates to reasonable levels, Republicans start yelling about “socialism” and “crippling the economy”.

Talking Down to the Market

When he announced the buyback, Treasury Secretary Bessent indicated that bond investors were reacting to headlines and did not understand the key trends:

“We have a big toolkit, so we’ll see. Part of it is signaling here and to show that we believe that the yields don’t reflect the underlying fundamentals.”

Bessent’s remarks were condescending, if not insulting. Rule No. 1 for a government official: Do not say that you are signaling a view or a course of action; investors will figure that out. Rule No. 2: Do not claim that you know better than the market. You have a vested interest—keeping interest rates on your debt low. Meanwhile, the market reflects the collective judgment of thousands of investors sifting through the data.

Investors have focused on the fundamentals, and they do not like what they see.

The $40 Trillion Problem

Sometimes a few simple numbers get the attention of the public…and the President. Last week, Federal debt reached $40 trillion…and 100% of gross domestic product. In other words, our national debt is now as big as the US economy.

The last time that happened was during World War II, when the government was spending massive amounts on building ships, airplanes and tanks. Furthermore, the national debt has quadrupled since 2010, and it has doubled since 2017, when Trump pushed through his enormous tax cuts.

Rising Interest Rates

After the $40 trillion figure was released last week, the yield (interest rate) on the 30-year Treasury bond rose to 5.3%, the highest in 20 years. The yield on the 10-year Treasury bond increased to 4.74%, the highest since early 2025, when Trump returned to the White House.

The yields on both bonds are important, because interest rates on other financial instruments are priced at a spread over them. Trump follows the bond market carefully, so he is acutely aware of this trend.

Voters are very unhappy about the inflation that Trump’s policies have caused; 60% of them think he is doing a bad job of managing the economy. That does not bode well for his party in the midterm elections, particularly since, as Trump has said, he is the Republican Party. That is why he ordered Bessent to find a way to cut interest rates.

But Bessent’s intervention did not sway bond investors, for two reasons. First, the buyback was small compared to the trillions of government bonds outstanding. Second, investors are justifiably concerned by the underlying trends, so jawboning by Treasury officials won’t change their opinion.

Leave a comment

What Bond Investors Worry About

Government bond investors pay attention to numerous factors, but here are some crucial ones:

· Is the trend of inflation stable or rising?

· Is the government committed to containing inflation?

· Is the deficit stable or growing?

· Is the supply of Treasury bonds increasing?

· Is the demand for Treasury bonds stable or falling?

As we all know, inflation has increased, rising above 3%, since Trump returned to office. His tariffs and mass deportations have contributed to higher costs, and his war in Iran has caused gasoline prices to spike. Furthermore, investors are not sure that the new head of the Federal Reserve, Kevin Warsh, will hike interest rates, if necessary, to bring inflation under control.

For the bond market, like others, it’s important for supply and demand to be in equilibrium. However, the supply of government bonds is rising rapidly. Meanwhile, demand for government bonds is softening, which is a topic for another day. Spoiler alert: some foreign investors have become less enthusiastic about the current US regime (tariffs, nonstop insults) and the outlook for inflation and therefore less inclined, at the margin, to buy Treasuries.

Huge Deficits

The debt has grown rapidly over the last 10 years, as the government has racked up bigger and bigger deficits. The primary driver has been Trump’s massive tax cuts, which slashed government revenues. Covid also played a role, as the Trump and Biden administrations launched stimulus programs to keep the economy from cratering, but the tax reductions have been the key factor.

After Trump pushed through his tax cuts in 2017, the deficit shot up 80% from $500 billion to $900 billon over the next twelve months. Those figures now look quaint and manageable. The deficit has continued to mushroom, as the government issues more debt every year to fund its operations, and it pays more interest. The extension in 2025 of Trump’s tax cuts, through his One Big Beautiful Bill, will continue to hobble the government’s finances.

The deficit has risen to about $2 trillion a year. That’s about 6% of GDP. As a rough rule of thumb, 3% is a prudent level for a deficit, so this flow of red ink is not sustainable over time.

The US already spends more on interest payments than on defense. The government is spending about $1 trillion a year on interest—about 15% of its outlays—compared to about $960 billion on military expenditures.

Share

Interest expense will grow over time, as the government issues more debt and it has to replace older Treasuries with lower rates as they mature. This rapid growth in interest expense could eventually force the government to curtail spending on major programs.

A Lesson Forgotten

Bessent should know better than to challenge the market. In 1992, he was working for George Soros, when the legendary investor took on the Bank of England…and beat it.

Soros shorted the British pound, which he considered overvalued. Other investors piled on, taking short positions in the pound. The BOE tried to defend the currency, buying back billions of pounds. However, it eventually exhausted its resources and capitulated. The pound fell to a market-determined level.

Soros reportedly earned a profit of $1 billion on his bet.

Score: the Market 1, the Bank of England 0.

Sometimes, history does repeat itself.

The Wall Street Democrat

DSA candidates have ousted mainstream Democrats in some important, highly visible primaries, notably in New York City. However, centrist politicians have prevailed in other contests. DSA member Francesca Hong just lost the Democratic primary for governor in Wisconsin, which may indicate that democratic socialists still face obstacles in “battleground” states.

We should distinguish between progressives—who do seem to be attracting broader support among Democrats—and democratic socialists. Several pundits and journalists have lumped the two groups together, which muddies the waters. (President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders attack both groups as “communists”, for their own nefarious purposes.)

For instance, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times recently referred to Dr. Abdul El-Sayed as a democratic socialist. However, El-Sayed, who won the Democratic Senate primary in Michigan, has declared, “I am a capitalist, not a socialist,” and has emphasized that he does not belong to the DSA.

Progressives Versus Social Democrats

Progressives and democratic socialists share some goals, such as improving the social safety net and cutting aid to Israel, but there are profound differences between them. Most progressives want to reform our capitalist economy and our tax system, so that more Americans will benefit from the US’ sustained growth.

Progressives also want to create a government-run, universal health system, or Medicare for All, as do democratic socialists. But otherwise, most progressives call for tighter regulation of industries, while leaving the structure of our market-based economy intact.

Many Democratic Socialists advocate a much more radical approach. They reject capitalism as inherently evil. They want to nationalize large corporations and “essential industries”.

The DSA’s other proposals are often half-baked, utopian and utterly unrealistic. The party wants to eliminate any border controls, defund the Pentagon and, eventually, abolish the police and prisons. DSA leaders oppose any aid to Ukraine. These are dangerous ideas. They are wrong on the merits, and they will alienate moderate voters and independents.

Most Democrats probably do not understand how radical the Democratic Socialist agenda is. Rather than reaching an accommodation with them, centrist Democratic leaders should sharpen their own message to voters… and clearly reject the DSA’s extreme ideas.

A Revolutionary Agenda

The DSA Party has ambitious, sweeping plans to revamp American society, its economy and its foreign policy. The DSA aspires to replace the US’ capitalist economy with a socialist, classless society, according to its platform Workers Deserve More. I will discuss some proposals in more details, but first I will list DSA’s principal goals, to demonstrate how extreme they are.

The Economy

· Nationalize largest corporations and essential industries

· Mandate a 32-hour work week with no reduction in pay

· Impose universal rent control

· Tax the “criminal” billionaire class

· Cancel all student debt

· Enact reparations by making “massive investments in minority communities”

Law and Order

· Abolish the police and prisons

· Open borders: no limits on immigration, no deportations, amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status

Foreign Affairs/Middle East

· Defund the Pentagon and close all overseas military bases

· Provide no aid for Ukraine

· End all military and economic aid to Israel

· Recognize Palestinians’ right of return, right to resist military occupation, and right to self-determination in a free Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital

· End economic warfare against Cuba, Venezuela and Iran

The platform does not make it clear whether Palestinians can resist military occupation by using weapons, although that seems a reasonable inference.

Government Structure

· Reduce Congress to one chamber, abolishing the Senate

· Make the House the most powerful branch of government

· “Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress”

The last proposal raises a question: would Congress, and not the voters, elect the President? The platform is not clear on that point.

The Romer Interview: A Train Wreck

The DSA leadership is very serious about achieving these goals. These are not mere talking points to get voters’ attention or whip up enthusiasm. If you have any doubts about this, listen to David Remnick’s August 8 interview with Megan Romer, the DSA co-chair How Socialist Is the D.S.A.? Remnick is the editor of The New Yorker and served as a foreign correspondent for several years.

Romer enthusiastically, although not always coherently, defended the DSA’s platform during the interview. In my opinion, she demonstrated the shallowness of the democratic socialists’ thinking on important issues.

I’ll focus on a few key exchanges during the interview.

Romer tip-toed around the issue of the government taking over companies. However, she said that DSA wants to end capitalism’s “exploitation” of all workers who receive a paycheck, so workers should own the means of production.

Sounds like socialism to me.

Leave a comment

Abolishing the Police

The DSA intends to abolish the police and prisons eventually, Romer argued, since minority-Americans suffer disproportionately from police brutality and incarceration, because of the racism rampant in American society. Instead, she said, governments should devote more resources to improving minority communities and deploy mental health workers rather than police.

Fair enough, but Black Americans and Latinos consistently oppose cutting the number of police; they just want the cops to treat them with respect. And in any event, how should society protect the public from dangerous criminals?

Furthermore, the Democratic Party has not yet recovered from the “defund the police” slogan—one of the dumbest ever created—that a few progressives adopted in 2020, during the turmoil triggered by George Floyd’s murder. President Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders quickly disavowed the phrase, but many voters still do not trust the Democratic Party on the issue of crime.

Naive Approach to Foreign Policy

Remnick agreed with Romer that the Netanyahu government was pursuing brutal policies in Gaza and the West Bank. Then he asked, “Why did one of your colleagues attend a rally supporting Hamas a day after the attacks on Israelis?” Romer replied that one should expect violence from a people that had been oppressed for many decades. Despite repeated questioning by Remnick, she refused to condemn Hamas.

The US should not provide any aid to Ukraine, Romer maintained, because US interventions abroad have never worked. Instead, she said, the US should use diplomacy. Remnick replied, with great restraint, that the US and other countries have repeatedly tried to negotiate with Russia, but Putin keeps attacking Ukraine. How can the Ukrainians defend themselves without help?, he asked her.

Romer refused to concede the point. She did not say that NATO expansion caused the war, although the DSA released a statement to that effect when the invasion began. However, Romer was otherwise parroting the DSA platform, which calls for defunding the Pentagon and closing all American bases abroad.

There is a fundamental flaw in DSA’s “logic” on the war in Ukraine. The US did not intervene in Ukraine; the Biden Administration responded to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s desperate pleas for assistance. The Trump Administration has not provided any new aid to Ukraine.

Most Voters Are Skeptical

Americans seem confused about what Democratic Socialists want to achieve. That is not surprising, because there is a wide spectrum of views within the DSA. In addition, the party may have become more radical in the last few years, and the public’s perception has not caught up yet.

In any event, most Americans would not vote for a DSA candidate running for President, according to a recent poll by the Washington Post and Ipsos Poll shows what Americans think about democratic socialism. Thirty-nine percent of Americans would “consider” voting for a Democratic Socialist running for president, but 54% would not.

A high percentage of Democrats—75%—have an open mind on that score. However, only 36% of independents do, and they are a crucial swing factor in elections. Not surprisingly, 90% of Republicans would not support a DSA candidate.

Younger Americans are particularly enthusiastic. Almost half—46%—of Americans under the age of 30 would consider voting for a DSA presidential candidate.

Some of these figures look encouraging for the DSA, but they may reflect voters’ misconceptions about the party. In the WaPo/Ipsos poll, only 13% of voters associated the DSA with government control of industry or anti-capitalist views. But those are key planks in its platform.

Friendly Faces for the DSA

Voters’ confusion is understandable. Prominent DSA members such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are social democrats, not socialists, in my opinion. They want to pass Medicare for All and expand other benefit programs, but they do not seek to nationalize industries.

Medicare for All is a highly debatable proposition, because it would be extremely costly to implement. But it is not a “socialist” program; many European countries with capitalist economies have universal health care.

Sanders has said flatly that he does not favor government ownership of companies.

Democratic Socialists’ reputation has also benefited from Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s pragmatic approach to governing New York City. So far, Mamdani has mostly focused on taking practical steps to improve his voters’ lives, and he enjoys a 49% approval rating.

Share

Sanders and AOC have distanced themselves from hard-core DSA members like Francesca Hong, who campaigned for the Democratic nomination for governor in Wisconsin. Several years ago, Hong published tweets that called for abolishing the police and even “cancelling” Thanksgiving.

During her campaign for governor, Hong tried to disavow those comments, but they hurt her with centrist voters. Her opponent, David Crowley, a moderate who is the Milwaukee County Executive, also persuaded many voters that he would be more electable in the general election. Nonetheless, the contest was a squeaker: Crowley beat Hong by only 0.5%.

The Democrats dodged a bullet. If Hong had won the primary, she would have been a gift for the Republicans, providing plenty of ammunition for their attack machine.

Lurching to the Left

The DSA may also be attracting new members who hold more extreme views than Sanders, AOC and Mamdani.

Michael Harrington, a socialist, founded the Democratic Socialists of America in 1982, with the goal of pushing the Democratic Party to adopt more humane domestic and foreign policies. A profound believer in democracy, Harrington worried that communists might try to infiltrate his group, according to Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic There’s Nothing Democratic About These Socialists.

As a result, the DSA’s founding charter authorized its leaders to expel communists. However, the DSA recently amended its charter to delete that clause, which seems suspicious, as Chait pointed out. He also noted that Hasan Piker, a DSA fellow traveler, has expressed admiration for authoritarian regimes such as China.

In addition, DSA’s platform calls upon the US to end “economic warfare” –sanctions--on countries “operating independently of the US such as Cuba, Venezuela and Iran”. It’s not clear why DSA wants to help these despotic regimes.

Are Americans Ready To Embrace Socialism?

Socialist movements gained some popularity in the US when the capitalist system seemed to break down, during the early 1900s when workers were terribly exploited, and during the Great Depression. Have we reached a similar crisis now? Are Americans so fed up with economic inequality that they are willing to reject capitalism?

Probably not. Overall, the US economy has generated remarkable growth, innovation and employment opportunities. Most Americans want a better safety net and a larger slice of the economic pie, which are reasonable demands. They are in sync with social democrats, but they probably do not want socialism. Once voters really understand the DSA’s agenda, democratic socialists are likely to remain a fringe movement.

It is Democratic leaders’ job to educate the voters…and stave off the DSA’s challenge.

The Wall Street Democrat

· Why Abdul El-Sayed won the Democratic Senate primary in Michigan

·How his victory could affect the Democratic Party

· What are the differences between progressive Democrats (like El-Sayed) and the Democratic Socialists of America

· What is the the outlook for the midterm elections

· How might President Donald Trump try to interfere in the elections

and more.

Amy hosts “The Trump Report” and “Frontline” podcasts. The “Trump Report” is part of the digital division of News UK, which owns The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun, and Times Radio.

As always, I look forward to your comments and reactions.

Ryan O’Connell

The Wall Street Democrat

Trump is also, once again, attacking the separation of powers that has helped to keep the US a democracy. Tariffs are taxes, and Trump is sabotaging Congress, which under the Constitution has the sole power to levy taxes.

Certain statutes grant a President the authority to impose tariffs in specific situations that threaten national interests, usually on a short-term basis, but Trump has abused those powers. Now, he is defying the Supreme Court’s decision that struck down his first rationale for imposing high customs duties.

Trump is acting like a mad king, oblivious to the harsh consequences for American companies and ordinary Americans. In addition, he is infuriating our trading partners and allies yet again, using bogus claims to justify high customs duties on them.

But Trump is making two groups happy:

· The ultra-rich, who have received massive tax cuts from Trump that dwarf any impact that tariffs have on them

· Bond investors, who like the “revenue stream” (a.k.a. taxes) that the tariffs provide to service the US’ huge and growing government debt

The far-right has dreamed for years of scrapping personal income taxes and replacing them with a national sales tax. Trump is taking steps to make that bizarre notion a reality.

Playing Whack-A-Mole with the Courts

The Constitution grants Congress the power to impose taxes and tariffs. However, Trump has claimed the authority to impose punitive tariffs on countries under various statutes, based on contrived rationales.

After the Supreme Court recently ruled that he had invoked a certain statute without justification, Trump promptly re-imposed tariffs alleging that 120 countries--most of the world--were resorting to unfair labor practices. That group included the members of the European Union, most of which have stronger labor protection laws than the US, so Trump’s claims are ludicrous. The members of the EU, collectively, are America’s largest trading partners, and they rightly feel abused.

The US’ trading partners in Asia are also deeply offended. They are particularly resentful because they must pay tariffs that are similar to China’s, which can put them at a disadvantage because of China’s scale in manufacturing.

A Hit to Consumers

Trump’s tariffs will cost the average American family about $1,100 a year, according to the Yale Budget Lab’s estimates. That is a big hit for working-class and middle-class Americans. Many of them live paycheck to paycheck; spending close to $100 more each month is a strain on their budgets.

This should come as no surprise, because in his first term, Trump imposed tariffs that cost consumers about $800 annually. Now, he is levying tariffs that are higher and apply to more countries, including Canada and Mexico, the US’ two largest trading partners.

In effect, Trump has imposed a national sales tax on American companies and consumers. Companies importing goods from abroad pay the customs duties to the US government. They may absorb some or all of the costs at first, because they don’t want to alienate their customers.

However, as time goes on and their margins are squeezed, most firms eventually pass the added expense onto consumers. Furthermore, many companies have been cautious about investing more in their operations, because Trump’s zigzagging on tariffs makes it very hard for them to plan.

Tariffs are Inflationary

Many commentators have noted with relief that the US economy has held up fairly well despite the tariffs (and now, the war with Iran). But that is not the right way to look at it. Instead, they should ask, how much better would the economy have performed without the tariffs?

The short answer: inflation would have been lower, and economic growth would probably have been higher. As a result, consumers and companies might have felt more confident and spent more, stimulating the economy.

These tariffs have spurred inflation, although it is hard to quantify the precise impact. Nonetheless, consumers know that the tariffs have raised prices, and they are very unhappy about that.

Under the Biden Administration, inflation dropped sharply in 2023, as the effects of Covid disruptions subsided and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. Inflation declined by another 50 basis points to 2.7% by year-end 2024. Inflation began to decline further in 2025, the first year of Trump’s second term, but then it rose back to 2.7% at year-end, partly because tariffs boosted prices on many goods.

Inflation then spiked to 3.5% by June 2026, as the war with Iran caused energy prices to soar.

About 60% of Americans oppose the tariffs, and they do not think that Trump makes good decisions on economic policy, according to a Pew Research report Americans largely disapprove of Trump’s tariff increases. That is a key reason why only 35% of them have a favorable view of Trump, according to Pew. A normal administration would pay attention to the voters’ views and make a mid-course correction. But not King Donald.

Leave a comment

No Boom in Manufacturing Jobs

Trump loves to claim that his tariffs are boosting the economy and sparking a revival in manufacturing jobs. That did not take place in his first administration, and it is not happening now. The rate of economic growth has slowed, and manufacturing employment declined modestly in 2025. There are several reasons for that, including automation, but the point is that Trump’s tariffs have not led to a surge in factory jobs.

In 2021-23, manufacturing employment rose by about 600,000 jobs to 12.8 million, as the US recovered from the Covid-induced slowdown. In addition, the Biden Administration’s incentives for alternative energy projects sparked a wave of investment in manufacturing green-energy equipment.

In 2024-26, manufacturing jobs declined somewhat and then stabilized. Trump has taken extreme, possibly illegal measures to kill alternative energy projects, which had been a good source for jobs. Furthermore, the uncertainty caused by the frequent shifts in tariff policy has led many companies to be cautious in hiring.

Source: Amtec (recruiting company)

Declining Economic Growth

The American economy grew about 2.8% in 2023 and 2024 as it recovered from Covid disruptions and the Biden infrastructure and green-energy programs stimulated growth. However, US economic growth declined to 2.2% in 2025, partly because of the disruptions caused by the tariffs.

Gross Domestic Product grew 2.1% in the first quarter of 2026 and decreased to 1.5% in 2Q 2026. The jump in energy prices caused by the war with Iran dampened consumer sentiment and spending on other goods. Trump’s re-imposition of tariffs and disruptions linked to mass deportations may also have weighed on the economy.

In any event, the tariffs have not led to a “Golden Age” for the US.

The Bond Market Learns to Love Tariffs

Bottom line: the tariffs have hurt many American consumers and companies, raised inflation and weighed on economic growth. The tariffs would seem to be an experiment that has failed miserably, so they should be scrapped, right?

But the bond market is quite satisfied with the results.

When Trump first imposed his tariffs on his “Liberation Day” in April 2025, the bond market sold off, as investors assumed (correctly) that the tariffs would distort economic activity and cause inflation. A rise in inflation usually leads to higher interest rates, which lowers the value of bonds, so it’s anathema to the bond crowd.

However, the market has adjusted to the new reality, apparently, and sees a silver lining. Josh Lipsky, an economist at the Atlantic Council, wrote in the New York Times Trump’s Canada Threats Are Nothing Compared With What’s Coming that bond investors have come to consider the tariffs a good source of government “revenue” that will help service its enormous debt.

In 2025, Lipsky noted, tariffs contributed $264 billion to the government’s coffers, three times the amount of the previous year. Meanwhile, the national debt has soared to almost $40 trillion, and it is increasing by $40 billion a week.

Lipsky observed that when the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s first round of tariffs in February, the bond market fell sharply. However, Trump had a backup plan. He immediately reimposed tariffs, relying on a different statute that, in Lipsky’s opinion, the Supreme Court is less likely to challenge (even though Trump’s rationale is frivolous). The bond market rose, as investors were reassured that the government would continue to collect large amounts of tariffs.

As Lipsky concluded:

“In less than a year, America’s financial markets went from hating tariffs to being able to live with them to needing them to help cope with the country’s deficit. “

A subheading for his article put it more succinctly: “The US bond market is hooked on trade taxes”.

Share

The Oligarchs Are Happy

Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” was a magnificent payoff to his large donors. The Bill permanently extended the massive tax cuts Trump had rammed through Congress in 2017 for corporations and the ultra-rich (the top 0.1% of taxpayers), which otherwise would have expired. The Bill also expanded some tax deductions for companies.

Trump has promoted the tariffs as an easy, painless way to reduce the huge government deficits that his tax cuts have played a major role in creating. (Slashing Medicaid benefits and food stamps is another way for him to “fund” the tax cuts).

The tariffs certainly do not affect the donor class much. Ultra-wealthy Americans are individually receiving tax cuts worth tens of thousands of dollars, at least, so any additional expense caused by tariffs is chump change by comparison. Furthermore, the rich spend a smaller share of their income on goods, rather than services, compared to ordinary Americans.

Fulfilling a Right-Wing Dream

As Trumps brags about his tariffs and all the “revenue” they bring in, he has often mused that eventually they could replace income taxes. That is a fantasy, of course, but the right wing has for many years agitated to repeal income taxes and institute a national sales tax. It would be a great deal for wealthy Americans and a terrible one for regular working stiffs.

The right wing hates the progressive tax system that the US and most major democracies have adopted, because they must pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than most Americans. They love the idea of a national sales tax, because it is regressive. A sales tax falls more heavily on less affluent Americans because, with their limited means, they spend more on the necessities of life (food, gas, clothing) than wealthy Americans do.

Abolishing income taxes has been a fringe idea since the New Deal. But Trump wants to make this radical concept a reality rather than a dream. He and his donors would like to shift most of the tax burden onto working class and middle-class Americans. That is why they are so enthusiastic about tariffs. They want to tax us, so they can pay less.

And that is a message the Democrats should carry to the voters, relentlessly, in this election.

The Wall Street Democrat

Muslims, whom Vance particularly fears, represent a tiny percentage of immigrants to the US. Most Muslims in the US seem to share American civic values, including a desire to participate in our democracy. For example, Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York, is a practicing Muslim…and a savvy politician.

The real problem for Vance seems to be that most immigrants are not white. Vance has demonized Haitians in Springfield, Ohio as “eating dogs and cats”. In this instance, Vance is trashing fellow Catholics, because about two-thirds of Haitians belong to that denomination. Another 30% are Protestant, so almost all Haitians are Christian.

Vance has articulated what President Trump, Marco Rubio and other top officials in the Trump Administration seem to believe: the US must stop immigration to remain a Christian, white nation. Otherwise, America will lose its identity and fall into permanent decline.

America…a Christian Nation?

In his new book, “Communion”, Vance has written, “Christianity is America’s creed, the shared moral language from the Revolution to the Civil War and beyond.” That is a true statement.

However, we should note that under the Constitution the United States is not a “Christian nation”. The Founding Fathers envisioned a new country that would be open to believers of all faiths. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, in arguing for the passage of a law guaranteeing freedom of religion in Virginia, the statute was intended to protect “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

Vance then makes another conceptual leap, as he attacks immigrants for undermining this unifying Christian culture. As Carlos Lozada recently observed in the New York Times (JD Vance is Worried, July 7, 2026):

In ‘Communion,’ Vance pits immigration not just against security or employment, but faith as well. ‘As our leaders have ushered in an unprecedented increase in demographic diversity through immigration,’ he writes, ‘they have simultaneously discarded the most powerful force for cultural cohesion: Christianity.’

In Vance’s apocalyptic view of the world, hordes of Muslims and other infidels are pouring into the US and undermining our national values and identity. He has used his pulpit as Vice President to attack immigrants repeatedly and viciously.

Most Immigrants Are Christians

But 70% of immigrants since 1965 to the US have been Christians, according to Pew Research’s Geographic Spotlights; A closer look at 4 migration stories (August 19, 2024). That is a higher percentage than the 65% of native-born Americans who practice Christianity. The US has rapidly become more secular over the last three decades; 30% of Americans no longer have a religious affiliation. However, most immigrants come from less secular countries, so they are more religious. Only 13% are not affiliated with a religion.

Non-Christian groups represent less than 20% of immigrants: Muslims constitute 7%, Hindus, 5%, Buddhists, 3% and Jews, 1%. The new arrivals have led to modest increases in the percentages of Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists, but each still constitutes about 1% of the total population. Jews remain about 2%.

Presumably Vance does not have a problem with Hindus. After all, his wife Usha is Indian American and Hindu (although Vance has said that he wishes that she would convert to Christianity.)

So most immigrants by far have been Christians, and they have helped to mitigate, not cause, the decline in practicing Christians in the US.

Non-Christian groups, including Muslims, are only about 5% of the population. However, like previous groups of migrants, they tend to concentrate in certain regions and cities, which heightens their visibility. Many build their social lives around their temple or mosque, so they can connect with others from their country or culture…just as previous waves of migrants established their own churches.

I recall that in my hometown, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, there were separate churches for Moravians, Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Windish and other ethnic groups. Each “tribe” worshipped the same God, but its members wanted to congregate in their own place of worship because it also served as a community center.

Leave a comment

Hispanics Revitalized the Catholic Church

Vance does not seem to realize that immigrants have helped the Catholic Church in the US avoid the fate of mainline Protestant denominations, which have shrunk as Americans lose their faith or gravitate to evangelical churches. The Catholic Church has benefited enormously from the waves of Latinos who have come to the US over the last 50 years. More than one-in-three American Catholics (36%) is Hispanic, according to Pew Research.

Furthermore, Latinos have accounted for 70% of the growth in the Catholic population in the US. Put another way, without this influx, the number of American Catholics would have plummeted.

Vance may not be aware of this trend, but Pope Leo and his predecessor, Pope Francis, recognized how important Latinos are to maintaining the American Catholic Church. Both popes have spoken out in support of legal immigrants to the US and criticized President Trump’s harsh tactics to round up and deport illegal migrants.

Latino Evangelicals

Most Americans were concerned about border security in 2024 (before Trump returned to the White House), but white evangelicals were especially worried. About 70% of them said that the influx of migrants at the US-Mexico border was a “crisis”, compared to 42% of American adults who felt that way.

Their anxiety, like Vance’s, seems based on race and ethnicity, rather than a concern about the newcomers’ religious beliefs. About half of Hispanic immigrants are Catholic, and about 20% are evangelical Protestants. In either case, they are obviously Christians.

Some white evangelicals have realized that Hispanic evangelicals tend to vote Republican and should be welcomed. But many other white evangelicals seem to be white nationalists who happen to be nominally Christian. They may also oppose the influx of newcomers because most Hispanics are Catholic.

The Real Issue: Race, Not Religion

Vance and his ilk are reacting to three major trends:

· A massive change in the origins of most immigrants

· The highest peak in immigration in US history

· A sharp rise in migrants and illegal ones in 2020-24

Until the 1960s, about 90% of immigrants arrived from Europe, with the remainder coming mostly from Canada. (I have relied on Pew Research reports for the statistics on immigrants cited below). Then, in 1965, Congress revised the law to allow much more immigration from Latin America and Asia.

Over the last six decades, the flows changed dramatically:

· Only 12% of immigrants came from Europe

· 50% were from Latin America and half of those—25% of the total--were Mexican

· A quarter came from South and East Asia, primarily China, India and the Philippines

· 8% arrived from Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East

It is hard to generalize about the religious affiliations of migrants from the regions outside Latin America, although many are probably not Christian. However, most Filipinos are Catholic, and many Chinese are also Christian.

Sub-Saharan Africans are roughly 60% Christian and 30% Muslim, but Pew did not provide a breakdown for immigrants from that region to the US. Many newcomers from the Middle East, such as Lebanese, may have been Christians fleeing persecution or civil war.

Share

A Historic Spike In Immigration

In January 2025, 15.8% of US residents were foreign-born. That was the highest percentage in our history, surpassing the previous peaks of 14.8% reached n 1890 and 1910. By June 2025, Trump’s vile rhetoric and brutal ICE sweeps had reduced foreign-born residents to 15.4% (still aa peak) or almost 52 million people. An estimated 11 million of them (about 20%) were undocumented.

Each time that foreign-born residents have approached 15% of the US population, that has triggered a wave of nativist reaction and restrictive policies, as the locals feel overwhelmed and threatened.

President Donald Trump has ridden the current wave of xenophobic fear and hatred to the White House twice. It’s distressing, but not surprising, that Vance is also feeding these flames, since he is a leading candidate to be the next Republican Presidential nominee.

A Surge In Undocumented Immigrants

An unprecedented number of immigrants—11 million—arrived in the US between 2020 and 2025. There were many factors behind this trend, such as war, famine, drug cartel violence, and climate change. However, President Joe Biden compounded the problem with his feckless policies and his reluctance to clamp down on illegal entrants. He finally took forceful measures in August 2024, but that was too late to prevent Trump from returning to power.

The surge in immigration led to the 15.8% peak in foreign-born residents and chaotic situations in border towns and some major cities, often courtesy of Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who sent undocumented immigrants to Blue states in buses.

The border is now closed, effectively, and illegal crossings have fallen to 1960s levels. But emotions still run high, and demagogues like Vance and Trump focus on exploiting them with their racist and bigoted lies about immigrants.

Democrats Should Defend Immigration

Democrats should go on the offensive on immigration, rather than acting like deer in the headlights. They should talk about the overwhelmingly positive contributions of immigrants to our economy, our demographics and our culture. Without immigrants, the US economy would grow more slowly, our population would decline, and we would not have breakfast burritos.

Many Democratic leaders are not comfortable talking about religion, because many of their followers are secular or even anti-religious. But Democrats should face the issue squarely. They should refute Vance’s Big Lie that immigrants are threatening the religious base and cultural values of our country.

The Wall Street Democrat

July 8, 2026

For President Donald J. Trump, like the legendary P.T. Barnum, there’s a sucker born every minute. In Trump’s case, that includes his devoted MAGA followers. They not only voted for him; they paid hard cash for worthless digital trinkets that Trump peddled to them.

You may have read comments that Trump did not violate the law. That’s not the point. Presidents are not subject to conflict-of-interest laws, but they should not turn their office into a personal profit center.

Trump engaged in massive corruption, using his position as president to make a fortune. He changed government policy to benefit his family’s cryptocurrency businesses, World Liberty Financial. He granted a dubious pardon to an executive who supported that venture. Trump approved a technology deal with a foreign investor in World Liberty Financial that may have weakened the US’ national security.

The scale of Trump’s corruption and greed is staggering. He reported revenues of $2.2 billion in 2025, the first year of his presidency. That was a $1.4 billion increase over the previous year, when he was a private citizen. The Trump family’s cryptocurrency business accounted for most of the jump in revenues.

In the old days, hucksters sold snake oil. Trump’s family sold “digital tokens” and “meme coins”, banking on his followers’ devotion to him as he was about to be inaugurated. The Trumps’ techniques were more modern, but the outcome was the same: Trump and his family reaped a windfall, earning $1.1 billion from those sales, while his investors/supporters lost over 90% of their money.

The Trump family earned another $260 million when an investor group from Abu Dhabi purchased 48% of World Liberty Financial.

Trump’s Flip Flop on Crypto

In his first term, Trump was a skeptic about crypto—appropriately, in my opinion. Crypto advocates argue that certain forms of digital currencies can be more stable than regular currencies. They also maintain that crypto technology can be used to expedite transactions more rapidly than bank transfers.

That might be true in some cases, although the most enthusiastic users of crypto are apparently people who don’t want their transactions traced, such as drug dealers and Russian oligarchs (and perhaps foreigners making illegal contributions to Trump). Furthermore, most crypto currencies are extremely volatile, because, unlike regular currencies, they are not backed by a government.

President Joe Biden planned to regulate cryptocurrencies extensively in a second term, precisely because many of them are very risky investments. His stance antagonized some heavy hitters in Silicon Valley, who had invested in crypto and wanted to avoid any regulation. They contributed heavily to Trump’s 2024 campaign and lobbied him on the “virtues” of crypto.

When Trump saw the profit potential, he changed his mind. He campaigned for the presidency on a crypto-friendly platform. Meanwhile, his sons Eric and Don Jr. formed World Liberty Financial as the Trump family’s crypto vehicle and began appearing at crypto conferences to promote it.

Bilking the Public

In January 2025, just a few days before Trump’s inauguration, World Liberty Financial offered two digital coins to the public:

A “digital token”, $WLFI, which offered voting rights on World Liberty Financial’s “future direction”

A “meme coin”, $TRUMP

Trump himself publicized these digital offerings on his social media account.

World Liberty generates revenues from selling the coins. The company also charges fees when purchasers buy or sell the coins.

Some crypto firms, including World Liberty, sell “stable coins” as well. These digital currencies are backed by assets, such as cash or Treasuries, which are supposed to prevent wild fluctuations in the coins’ values. They are intended to be used for conducting transactions, not to serve as speculative instruments.

However, neither the $WLFI token nor the $TRUMP meme coin is backed by any assets. They are not “stable coins”. They are essentially collectible items that do not have any intrinsic value. (It is hard to assign a value to the $WLFI voting rights.)

When they were launched, the token and the meme coin allowed investors to feel that they were part of the Trump vibe. They might have hoped that the coins’ value would increase based on the President’s popularity. Trump hyped the coins, staging a Crypto Ball dinner to whip up enthusiasm among investors.

However, Trump was in essence selling his followers shares in a company with no assets or earnings. On Wall Street, that would be called fraud.

Melania Trump also got in on the action, offering a $MELANIA meme coin. After all, it’s a family business. But her coin did not sell very well.

Catastrophic Drop in Value

After soaring initially, the $WLFI and $TRUMP coins have plummeted in value. $TRUMP has lost over 90% of its peak value, according to the New York Times, which reported that about 990,000 investors lost almost $4 billion. Nearly a Million Investors Lost a Total of $3.8 Billion on Trump Crypto Coin. The Times added that the $WLFI token’s price has dropped about 80% from its high, also causing large losses for investors.

Meanwhile, Trump reported revenues of $636 million from the $TRUMP coin and $527 million from the $SWFI coin. So he did just fine.

An Opportunity for Democrats

The President of the United States was perfectly happy to swindle at least a million of his disciples. In the midterm elections, Democratic politicians should emphasize Trump’s callous behavior toward ordinary Americans.

Here’s a possible script for an ad:

“Donald Trump took advantage of the American public’s trust in him. He sold them digital “coins” that had no intrinsic value (a picture of the $TRUMP coin flashes on the screen). Trump took home over $1billion…while a million Americans lost about $4 billion.

As Trump has said, he does not care about your financial condition. And for many of you, he made it a lot worse. As Trump sees it, that’s your problem, not his. Republicans in Congress seem to agree, because they are still supporting Donald Trump.

Vote for (name of Democratic running in the local race). He (she) is looking out for you, not trying to make money off you…unlike Donald Trump.“

Putting a Leash on the SEC

During the Biden Administration, the Securities & Exchange Commission exercised oversight over meme coins, and it was planning to launch comprehensive regulations for all crypto currencies. However, after Trump became President, the SEC reversed its position and decided not to regulate transactions involving meme coins or crypto currencies.

That stance created a more favorable environment for World Liberty Financial’s products. The regulatory pullback might also have made it more difficult for angry purchasers to file lawsuits that would be successful.

The SEC very likely made this 180-degree turn in response to pressure from the White House.

Abu Dhabi Investment

In January 2025, following Trump’s victory in the 2024 election, Eric Trump signed a secret agreement with an investor group based in Abu Dhabi. The group was closely linked to the United Arab Emirates government, which includes Abu Dhabi. The leader, Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyanis, is the brother of the UAE’s President, a national security adviser and the manager of the UAE’s sovereign wealth fund.

Tahnoon’s group agreed to invest $500 million to acquire 49% of World Liberty. What is curious about the transaction is that World Liberty did not have any products at that time and the Trump brothers did not have a track record in crypto. It is also strange that the Trump family did not report the transaction at the time.

As the Wall Street Journal noted in January 2026, “The deal marked something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.” Spy Sheikh Bought Secret Stake in Trump Company

Subsequently, the Abu Dhabi group invested in Binance, an established, large crypto firm that had encountered some legal problems in the US. Binance began to promote a “stable coin” that World Liberty issued, which helped it become a major crypto currency.

When President Trump filed his financial disclosure forms last week, he revealed that the Trump family had realized a gain of $260 million from selling the equity stake to the Tahnoon group.

A Dubious Pardon

A few months later, Trump pardoned Binance’s founder, Changpeng Zhao. In 2023 Zhao had been convicted in the US of not monitoring internal money-laundering controls. These measures can discourage unsavory types from using major crypto firms to transfer funds, so Zhao’s negligent approach was a serious violation of US money-laundering laws.

A Quid for Quo?

Tahnoon had lobbied the Biden Administration repeatedly for access to highly sensitive computer chips that could be used in artificial intelligence data centers. Abu Dhabi wanted to build up an AI capability as it sought to diversify its economy.

However, Biden officials refused his requests because they were worried that the Chinese companies might acquire such chips from sources in Abu Dhabi. They were particularly concerned about one of Tahnoon’s own companies that had had close ties with Huawei, the Chinese tech giant.

Tahnoon met with Trump and other high-level US officials several times after he became President, including a meeting in March 2025 at the White House. In May 2025, the US government granted access to the chips, authorizing a large volume of purchases, in a decision that was very controversial. Meanwhile, the Tahnoon group’s investment in World Financial remained hidden until the Wall Street Journal broke the story in January 2026.

Sleazy…but Small Potatoes

Trump also made about $90 million personally from frivolous lawsuits that he filed against media firms, such as ABC and CBS, after he assumed the presidency. Trump used brazen, unprecedented pressure tactics against companies whose broadcasting licenses and mergers are subject to government approval.

The Trump family’s real estate company has signed numerous to build hotels in several foreign countries, where governments call the shots on such developments. Melania Trump sold her less-than-spellbinding documentary to Amazon for an astounding $40 million.

These were all highly unethical, previously unimaginable activities for a President and his close relatives. Still, the amounts they generated were small potatoes compared to the massive haul from the crypto businesses.

But let’s not be petty. After all, what’s good for Trump is good for America, right?

The Wall Street Democrat

Trump has made terrible mistakes in his first and second terms as President, but withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement stands out as one of his dumbest. Furthermore, his disastrous war has not produced any gains for the US. Instead, the “excursion” has weakened America’s position while strengthening the Iranians’ hand.

This is not just a trip down memory lane. We must puncture Trump’s myth that only a war against Iran could have prevented it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Obama showed that diplomacy and negotiations were the most effective ways to keep Iran’s nuclear program under control, even though they involved difficult trade-offs.

China is the Winner

The long-range consequences of this war could be far-reaching. America’s relationships with its allies around the world have taken another big hit. Trump and his minions have repeatedly bashed NATO members for not supporting his war of choice. Higher energy costs have inflicted significant pain on Asian countries, which depend heavily on oil and gas from the Middle East.

“The United States and Israel fought Iran, and China won” -- Ryan Hass of the Brookings Institute (June 8, 2026)

Countries will accelerate their use of solar and wind power and electric vehicles, so that they will be less exposed to a future “supply shock” if Iran should close the Strait of Hormuz again. This shift in demand will benefit China, which dominates these technologies. The Trump Administration has ceded this critical market to China, as it attacks wind and solar projects and EV production in the US.

The US-Israel relationship is already on shaky ground, and the two countries have very different objectives regarding Iran. If Israel refuses to cooperate with the US and undermines the cease-fire, this might cause a major rupture.

Making the Obama Deal Look Great Again

In his remarks at the G-7 summit, Trump repeated his criticisms of the Obama nuclear accord, claiming that:

“It was like a short-term lease, it had very little time left”
“It legally would have given Iran a nuclear weapon”
“Israel would have been terminated” [destroyed in a nuclear attack]
“Obama took $1.7 billion out of American banks and gave it to Iran”

The first three statements are false, and the fourth is extremely misleading.

A Tight Agreement

Fifteen years of controls. After 18 months of tough negotiations, in 2015 the Obama Administration and Iran signed an agreement that restricted Iran’s enrichment activities until 2030. However, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the accord in 2018. He imposed a policy of “maximum pressure” applying stricter economic sanctions, which he thought would bring the Iranians to heel.

The Iranians continued to comply with the agreement’s terms for another year, hoping that Trump would return to the negotiating table. When he did not, they started to increase their processing of uranium… and the enrichment levels. That was, of course, the opposite of what Trump wanted. His policy of “maximum pressure” stiffened the Iranians’ resistance.

Strict limits on enrichment. Under the 2015 agreement, Iran could enrich uranium only to 3.7%, which is appropriate for fuel used in nuclear reactors. That was consistent with Iran’s position that it hoped to use nuclear power at some point, so that it could reduce its reliance on oil and gas. Furthermore, Iran could stockpile only 300 kilograms of enriched uranium.

Since Trump terminated the agreement, the Iranians have enriched the uranium to 60%, which is much closer to the 90% needed to make weapons. The Islamic Republic has accumulated over 9,000 kilograms (almost 20,000 pounds) of enriched uranium. That is 30 times the amount permitted under the Obama agreement.

Shipping Uranium out of Iran. Iran had enriched some uranium to 20% before the agreement was signed in 2015. Pursuant to the accord, Iran sent 97% of that enriched uranium to Russia and other countries, where it remained.

Frequent inspections. Under the agreement, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency often inspected Iran’s nuclear facilities, and they maintained monitoring devices inside them. Although the Iranians may have tried to hide some activities, inspectors consistently said they were confident that the Iranians were complying with their obligations.

No Nukes

In brief, the agreement prevented Iran from starting to work on developing a nuclear weapon at least until 2030. If the accord had remained in effect, Iran could not have tried to destroy Israel, or any other country, by launching a nuclear strike.

Obama and his team hoped that that a future administration could extend the agreement beyond 2030, by offering Iran incentives, such as additional relief from sanctions that could lead to more normal trade and financial relationships.

Whose $1.7. Billion Is It, Anyway?

As Trump tells the story, it sounds like Obama took money from American banks… “so they could not even make payrolls” …and gave it away to Iran.

What really happened? As part of the negotiations, the Americans offered some carrots, such as returning $1.7 billion of frozen Iranian assets.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s government purchased large amounts of military equipment from the US. His government frequently deposited funds in US banks to secure those orders. When the Islamic Revolution erupted in 1979 and the Shah abdicated, the US placed the $1.7 billion (and other funds) in interest-bearing accounts. The new regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, tried to retrieve the money for over 30 years, but the US refused to transfer the funds until the 2015 agreement.

In a sharp contrast, Trump’s MOU contemplates a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, although it is not clear who will provide the money. Trump has said that the US will not contribute any funds. In any case, $1.7 billion looks like chump change by comparison.

Leave a comment

What About Iran’s Proxies?

Trump and many other Republicans criticized the Obama deal in 2015 because it did not compel Iran to stop assisting its proxies in the Middle East: Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Syrian government. They alleged that Iran would use the $1.7 billion to provide more weapons to its allies rather than invest the funds at home.

In an ideal world, the agreement would have limited Iran’s support for its proxies, but one must remember the context. Obama had inherited two “endless wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the public no longer supported. In 2011, Obama had drawn down some troops in Iraq, but in 2014 he had to send more soldiers to fight the ISIS insurgency. And when the US and some NATO allies intervened in the Libyan civil war, in 2011, that did not go well.

As a result, the last thing that Obama wanted was a third war in the Middle East. And the Iranians knew that, which constrained the US’ negotiating position.

During a debate that I attended in 2016 on the nuclear accord, a critic attacked the agreement because it failed to address the question of the proxies. The other speaker, a former Obama official who helped to negotiate the accord, replied, “I understand your complaint, but politics is the art of the possible. Dealing with the proxies was not on the table. We decided to focus on the greatest threat, which was that Iran might get a nuclear weapon”.

That was a realistic, practical approach, given the circumstances. And after all his huffing and puffing over the years, Trump now seems to have given up on cutting Iran’s support for its proxy militias.

A Fragile Truce

Hezbollah is Iran’s most important proxy, although Israel’s attacks have severely diminished its capabilities. The Islamic Republic has insisted throughout the negotiations that any cease-fire must also apply to the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Trump’s MOU does not even mention Iran’s support of Hezbollah (or the Houthis). Instead, the first paragraph declares the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon” and [ensures] “the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon”.

In other words, Israel must stop attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon and it must withdraw from the southern tier of the country that it is occupying. However, Israel is not a party to the MOU, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is clearly furious about this provision. Most Israelis are outraged, too.

This is a very complicated situation. Hezbollah has continued to fire missiles into northern Israel, to show its solidarity with Iran. However, Israel has responded with harsh, scorched-earth tactics, demolishing many Lebanese villages.

On Monday, June 15, Netanyahu said defiantly, “I want to make clear: We will remain in the security zones as long as required in order to defend our country.” And today, June 19, Israel again attacked Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. This prompted Iran to postpone the negotiations that were about to begin in Switzerland.

Share

Will Netanyahu Play Ball?

It is not clear how the US can force Israel to stop its attacks on Lebanese towns and cities. Trump undoubtedly offended the Israelis by saying, “Israel can do a much better job on Hezbollah. I feel sorry for Lebanon.”

At the G-7 summit, Trump also described the Israeli American relationship in humiliating terms, referring to the US as the “big partner” and Israel as the “very small partner”. This must be especially galling to Netanyahu, who has often acted as though he were the senior partner.

The Israeli Prime Minister is in a very tough spot; he will face an election this fall, and he is very unpopular. Kowtowing to the US will not help him with the voters.

However, as Vice President J.D. Vance bluntly warned on June 18, Israel is badly isolated: “Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel”. Vance also emphasized that two-thirds of the weapons used by Israel were made in and paid for by the US. Netanyahu is no doubt keenly aware that even in the US, support for his government has cratered because of its brutal policies in Gaza and the West Bank.

So the US has a lot of leverage over Israel. Trump will undoubtedly apply a great deal pressure on Netanyahu to pull back from Lebanon. If he succeeds, the cease-fire with Iran will probably hold. If not, his “deal” might fail.

Giving Up Leverage Over Iran

Trump basically gave away the store to the Iranians. Let’s focus on two major flaws in the MOU.

The Obama accord eased some sanctions on Iran, but it kept most in place. However, the Trump MOU provides for terminating all sanctions on Iran on “an agreed-upon schedule” and stresses that the parties will give priority to this issue. Meanwhile, the US will “immediately” allow Iran to export its oil and to use the international banking system to receive payments. The Obama Administration never made such concessions, because applying sanctions and barring access to banks were powerful ways to exert pressure on Iran’s leaders.

The MOU seems to allow Iran to start charging tolls on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz after 60 days have passed. This will provide another source of revenue to Iran, strengthening the regime.

In addition, this is an unprecedented violation of a basic principle underlying global trade: freedom of navigation on the high seas. No other country charges tolls on international waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz.

The British Navy enforced this doctrine for centuries. After World War II, the US Navy assumed this role. If the US abandons this principle, as the Trump Administration seems to have done, this will further weaken our allies’ faith in America’s commitment to protect them.

The Art of the Deal

Now we know who the grand masters of the art of the deal are. They live in Tehran. After all, they have been playing chess for 1,500 years.

The Wall Street Democrat

First, Trump unleashed a gerrymandering war that has given Republicans an additional 10 safe seats, by effectively stripping Southern Blacks of their voting rights. In other democracies, this would be called cheating.

Second, Trump is stepping up his assaults on the press as “crooked”, as he seeks to discredit the media.

Third, Trump calls our electoral system “rigged”, as he sows doubts about the fairness of our elections.

And Trump often attacks the press and our electoral system simultaneously.

What is Trump’s main motive? He is laying the groundwork for challenging—or overturning—the results in November. But there is another reason: as he grows more autocratic, Trump apparently thinks that reporters should not ask him tough questions or run negative stories about him.

We should expect Trump to accelerate his pressure campaign as we approach the elections, particularly if the news on inflation remains bad. In May, inflation rose to 4.2%, mostly because of higher energy prices caused by Trump’s war in Iran.

Vitriolic Rhetoric

Trump has always bashed the press and claimed that elections are “rigged”. He even claimed early in the 2016 election that it would be rigged—probably because he expected to lose. But his rhetoric has become even more vitriolic.

This month, the President launched highly personal attacks against two well-known female reporters, Kaitlan Collins and Kristen Welker, within the same week. Trump all but called them and their networks “enemies of the state”.

In the short term, Trump’s lies about our elections and free press are dangerous because he may use them to justify interfering with the midterms. The long-term effects are also sinister. Trump’s relentless assaults on these two pillars of our democracy have badly weakened many Americans’ faith in our system of government. He is laying the foundation for censorship and dictatorship.

“She Never Smiles”

On June 3, when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins took part in a press conference in the Oval Office, the President singled her out for remarkable abuse. First, Trump launched a diatribe against Collins and her network:

“CNN is crooked as hell. CNN is a very corrupt organization with a very corrupt reporter standing right there (pointing at Collins). “

Trump then viciously attacked the journalist alone:

“She never smiles. She’s a young beautiful woman. I see her standing there with hatred in her eyes, like she has hatred because we have borders… [Trump lists a series of his “achievements”] so the reporter should be happy, they [sic] should not be unhappy.“

Trump’s remarks about Collins’ looks were inappropriate and irrelevant, of course; they are part of his pattern of demeaning women.

Furthermore, his comments about Collins’ supposed feelings are ominous. A reporter’s role is to be an objective observer, not a cheerleader for a President. But Trump implied that Collins is somehow unpatriotic or subversive, because she is not one of his fans.

The context matters, too. David Ellison, a Trump ally and the CEO of Paramount Skydance, has agreed to acquire Warner Bros Discovery, which owns CNN. (He is the son of Larry Ellison, who co-founded Oracle Corporation.) However, the deal requires government approval. Trump may have been warning Ellison, as CNN’s prospective new owner, to soften the network’s coverage of his administration once the acquisition closes.

The Clash on “Meet the Press”

On June 7, Trump met with Kristen Welker of “Meet the Press” for an extensive interview. Their conversation lasted about 40 minutes, until Trump abruptly terminated it and walked off in a huff.

Most of the interview proceeded in a normal fashion, as Welker raised questions about the war in Iran and the economy. Trump lied almost constantly, and he seemed vague on some important details. He apparently could not remember the name of Iran’s current Supreme Leader, for example. Nonetheless, Trump appeared rational and kept his composure, until 35 minutes into the interview.

Then Welker asked him about his $1.776 billion slush fund. Trump argued that the January 6 participants had been “badly hurt by corrupt politicians and should be reimbursed for that”. When Welker asked if he thought that those who injured Capitol police officers should be compensated, Trump quickly became evasive.

Welker had clearly hit a nerve, because in Trump’s mythology, January 6 was a peaceful protest of an election that was stolen. Trump pivoted, claiming that the election currently taking place in California was rigged. This was his rationale: the state had not produced a tally four days after election day, so Democrats were obviously cheating.

Trashing the “Crooked Press”

Welker pushed back, noting “that’s the way California counts votes” and “state and local officials acknowledge they’re slow”. Suddenly, Trump went off the rails. His face contorted with anger, Trump barked, “No, they are crooked, just like you are crooked, the press is crooked, “Meet the Press” is crooked”.

Welker tried to turn down the temperature, gently admonishing Trump by saying, “To be fair, I’m not crooked”.

Trump then launched an unhinged tirade that lasted for minutes. In his first salvo, he roared:

“You play right into their hands. You’re either crooked or stupid. [Welker graduated from Harvard magna cum laude, i.e., with high honors.] You know that these elections are rigged, your network knows that these elections are rigged.”

Welter tried several times to change the subject, proposing that they discuss Todd Blanche, but Trump refused. Trump complained that the press only reported negative news about him and snarled, “You have no credibility”.

“Like a Third World Country”

As he continued to rant, Trump combined his lines of attack in another one of his Big Lies. He condemned the electoral system, the press, generally, and the three major TV networks specifically:

“We’re like a Third World country. Your elections are crooked. And you’re crooked and Meet the Press is crooked. The press is crooked. So is ABC and CBS and CNN. You’re one-sided, crooked networks.”

This outburst was bizarre, partly because it was so repetitive. And what did Trump mean by “crooked”? That the media criticized him? That they were taking money from Democrats?

Then the President of the United States issued a veiled threat, saying to Welker:

“You ought to straighten out your press. You know what? A country can never be great with a dishonest press.”

Trump seemed to imply that to make America great again, the government would have to stop journalists’ “dishonesty” ...that is, control what the media reports.

Sounds like censorship to me.

When Welker tried to continue the interview, Trump said, “I’ve had enough”. Then, patting Welker on the arm, he added, “Thank you, darling”, which was patronizing.

Leave a comment

Assault on ABC

The Trump Administration has already taken radical steps to intimidate the media. In an unprecedented move, Trump, a sitting President, filed a personal lawsuit against ABC based on a shaky claim of defamation. To its shame, ABC paid Trump $15 million, even though Trump’s odds of success were very low under long-established case law.

Despite this humiliating capitulation, Brendan Carr, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, has continued to put pressure on ABC. He recently announced that the FCC would conduct a full-blown review of ABC’s broadcasting licenses to examine its DEI policies. HR policies have not previously been considered relevant to a broadcaster’s fitness to retain its licenses.

In any case, ABC’s licenses are not due for renewal until 2028. The move has been widely seen as a tactic to pressure ABC to curtail negative reporting about the Administration.

Muzzling CBS News

In August 2025, David Ellison, then CEO of Skydance, acquired Paramount Pictures, which owned CBS. Ellison pledged that CBS News would remain free from editorial interference. However, in October 2025, he brought in Bari Weiss as the new head of CBS News, even though she did not have a background in TV journalism or managing a large enterprise. Weiss is generally regarded as conservative.

Weiss’ tenure at CBS News has been highly controversial. In December, she stunned the news staff by suspending the release of a “60 Minutes” segment on a prison in Nicaragua, just three hours before it was to go on the air. The Trump administration had sent large numbers of undocumented immigrants to the prison. The “60 Minutes” report was highly critical of the facility and its treatment of its prisoners.

Last week, Weiss conducted a purge at “60 Minutes”, firing the executive producer and three senior correspondents. Only three senior reporters remain. Anderson Cooper left the show several months ago because he did not want to work for Weiss, according to his former colleague Scott Pelley.

Pelley was fired on June 2, after he criticized Nick Bilton, the new head of “60 Minutes”, face to face during a staff meeting. In an interview with the New York Times after his firing, Pelley said that Weiss had tried to inject falsehoods and bias into a “60 Minutes” report on Renee Good’s death in Minnesota. He cited specific examples.

Share

What is CNN’s Future?

Ellison has agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery, the parent company of CNN. This pending acquisition has raised a great deal of concern for several reasons:

· Ellison’s company will be a dominant force in the media world, controlling CBS, CNN and two major film studios

· Ellison is an ally of Trump

· Ellison presumably hired Weiss to rein in CBS’ negative coverage of the Trump Administration and curry favor with government officials

Industry observers believe that Ellison is likely to seek cost savings by combining CBS and CNN’s operations, assuming the government approves the acquisition. Many expect Weiss to head the merged units. Given her track record at CBS, it is likely that she will seek to make CNN’s coverage more “balanced”, that is, less critical of Trump.

What Can You Do?

Trump is waging an all-out war on our free press and spreading lies about our electoral system.

How can you fight back?

Defend reporters when you speak with conservative friends…and tell them our elections are free of fraud.

Subscribe to independent news publications and media.

Vote in November.

The Wall Street Democrat

Trump won the 2024 election by increasing his support among Latinos, Black men, independents, and younger voters. But Trump has squandered those gains by pursuing policies that have alienated many of these voters—especially Latinos.

This is bad news for Republican candidates for the House. Opposition parties often gain seats in midterm elections, because voters are dissatisfied with the incumbents, and low Presidential approval ratings can help them to win a majority. There is even a possibility of a “Blue Wave” like the ones that occurred in 2018, during Trump’s first term, or in 2006, during George W. Bush’s second term.

However, when Trump realized that his party might lose the House, he took unusual steps to stack the deck in favor of Republicans (i.e., rig the election). He instigated a new round of gerrymandering, which may have given Republicans 10 new “safe” seats, at Democrats’ expense. That raises the bar for Democrats, so this is no time for them to be complacent.

Revamping the Electoral Map

A political party must win 218 seats to gain control of the House, which has 435 members. The Democrats currently hold 212 seats and Republicans have 218, giving them a bare majority. (Five seats are vacant.)

However, the Democrats must win 23 seats (not six), to win a majority, according to the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, as cited by the New York Times in Tracking Competitive Races in the House and Senate (June 3, 2026). Cook estimates that “secure” Democrats seats have fallen to 195, as we head into the elections. That is because Democrats have probably lost 16 seats after the recent wave of redistricting.

The Rigger-in-Chief

Last summer Trump realized that his approval ratings had slipped badly, because he had failed to improve the economy or tame inflation. Furthermore, his harsh crackdown on undocumented immigrants was driving away voters who had supported him in the 2024 election.

A traditional, democratically inclined politician would have changed his policies to win back public support. But that is not Trump’s approach. Instead, he developed a two-prong strategy to tilt the playing field in Republicans’ favor.

First, Trump essentially ordered Texas and several other Republican-led states to redraw their electoral maps, to put Democratic candidates at a disadvantage. The timing was highly unusual, because states generally revise their election districts only once every 10 years, after they get the census results.

Second, Trump pushed hard for Republicans in Congress to ram through the SAVE Act. This legislation was designed to make it harder for many voters (i.e. Democrats) to cast ballots, by eliminating mail-in voting, requiring proof of citizenship, and creating other obstacles. House Republicans enthusiastically passed the bill on a party-line vote, but it has stalled in the Senate.

An Assist From the Supreme Court

The gerrymandering initiative was very successful, partly because of some assistance from the Supreme Court. In April, the Court ruled in Callais v. Louisiana that Louisiana could eliminate a majority Black electoral district and create more gerrymandered maps. This was a highly partisan decision, guaranteed to help Republicans gain more seats in Congress. Several other Southern states, all with a long history of racism, quickly took advantage of the Court’s decision, as I discussed in Southern States Rush to Disenfranchise Black Voters (May 14, 2026).

Democrats counterattacked, trying to reduce the Republicans’ advantage. They revamped six electoral districts, mostly in California, that are currently represented by Republicans. After deducting those six seats, Republicans probably have picked up 10 new seats. As a result, it may be difficult for Democrats to gain a majority unless there is a “Blue Wave” in November.

Toss-up Seats…and a Caveat

There are only 35 highly competitive House elections, in The Cook Report’s analysis, and about half of those—18—are toss-ups. The other seats either lean Democratic (12) or lean Republican (5). To gain control, the Democrats must win all the “lean Democratic” seats and 11 of the toss-up seats, according to the Cook Report.

However, Democratic incumbents are defending six of the toss-up seats, and of course they could lose their races.

Here’s an important caveat: some of the redrawn districts may not succeed, and they might even backfire on the party that created them. Some of the new districts in Texas, for example, are majority Latino. As they gerrymandered the maps, state legislators assumed that Hispanics who voted for Trump would support a Republican for Congress. That may be true for some districts but not in others, because many Latinos have lost their enthusiasm for Trump.

Similarly, Republicans might still win some of the new districts in California.

Although the midterms represent a great opportunity for the Democrats, there is no guarantee of victory. Still, there are strong winds blowing in the Democrats’ favor.

Sky-High Disapproval Ratings

Trump’s disapproval ratings are hitting very high levels, which could hurt Republican candidates in November. Yes, local issues and candidates’ personal qualities matter most to voters. But their views on the current President and his policies often have a big impact on midterm elections, too.

Outside the enchanted realm of Magaland, where everything Trump does is wonderful, most voters give a thumbs-down to him and his policies...and by a huge margin.

Overall, 59% of voters disapprove of Trump, and only 37% approve, as the New York Times reported in discussing the latest NYT/Siena poll (May 18, 2026) in Trump’s Approval Sinks Amid Unpopular War, Darkening G.O.P. Prospects. That is a very low approval rating, even in these highly polarized times.

Losing Support on the Economy and Inflation

Trump won the 2024 election by focusing on three issues: the economy, inflation and immigration. Trump significantly increased his support from many voters, especially Latinos and Black men, based on these issues.

Now, however, two-thirds of voters don’t think Trump is handling the economy or inflation well. Trump has disappointed those groups, as well as many other Americans, with his economic policies.

Voters realize that Trump’s tariffs have stoked inflation and have created a drag on the economy. They have not created more jobs or helped manufacturers. Voters also understand that Trump’s war with Iran has increased inflation, raising prices for gasoline, oil, natural gas, and fertilizer. They also know that his One Big Beautiful Bill showered tax benefits mostly on the ultra-rich, while cutting medical benefits and food stamps for less affluent Americans.

So when Trump tries to blame Joe Biden for the economy, 16 months into his second term, his attacks do not resonate with consumers. After all, the economy was growing solidly under Biden, the labor market was strong, and inflation had dipped below 3%. Inflation was still too high…. but it was better than the latest reading of 3.8%.

Driving Away Minority Voters

Trump skillfully exploited Americans’ fears and resentments about immigration during the 2024 election. That was a winning strategy, and voters (including some Democrats) initially gave him high marks for securing the border with Mexico.

Trump won in 2024 partly because he increased his share of the vote by about 11 points among Hispanics and 9 points among Black men. Like other Americans, they switched their support to Trump because they expected him to improve the economy, tame inflation and control the border.

But Trump has badly disappointed them with his economic policies. And Trump’s harsh treatment of undocumented immigrants, who are mostly Latinos, has infuriated many Hispanics.

Republican lawmakers have probably also alienated African-American men who supported Trump, as they frantically redrew maps to eliminate districts represented by Black Representatives. Black voters sometimes complain that Democrats don’t do enough for them. Now they have seen what Republicans do to them.

Leave a comment

The Anti-War Vote

For many voters, the war in Iran may have been the last straw.

Voters overwhelmingly disapprove of the war with Iran, by a margin of 65% to 30%. That is not surprising, because voters opposed the idea of attacking Iran in the run-up to the conflict. Americans were already tired of foreign wars—Trump’s pledge to avoid them was part of his appeal in 2016 and 2024.

Now, voters probably feel dissed, especially since Trump made no attempt to win their support before launching his “excursion”. Voters are keenly aware that the war has aggravated inflation, caused hundreds of American casualties, and might produce another defeat for the US. The war has tarnished Republicans in Congress, as well as Trump, because they have done nothing to stop or limit the fighting with Iran.

The Importance of the Popular Vote

Before the latest wave of redistricting, if the opposition party won the popular vote for the House by three to five points, it could have reasonably expected to gain 10-15 seats. That was often enough to switch control of the House. But now, Democrats must win by a much bigger margin to gain a majority.

Before the Iran war erupted, voters favored Democratic Congressional candidates by an overall three-to-five-point margin. That might not have moved the needle, because of the 10 seats Republicans have picked up through gerrymandering.

Now, however, that margin has increased to 10 points, according to the latest NYT/Siena poll. In other words, 47% of voters intend to vote for a Democratic candidate, versus 37% who plan to back a Republican. If Democrats perform that strongly, they will probably win control of the House. That was the case in 2006 and 2018.

This dynamic could change, if Republicans in Congress take concrete action to stop the war or if Trump finally finds a meaningful exit ramp from the conflict between now and November.

Share

Will History Repeat Itself?

It’s instructive to look at the midterms in 2018 and 2006, when Democrats won control of the House because voters were angry at the then President.

In 2018, Trump had pursued policies that voters did not like, and they punished Republicans at the polls. Trump had imposed tariffs, which were modest compared to those of his second term but nevertheless caused prices to rise. He had passed a massive tax cut in 2017 that primarily benefited the top 0.1% of taxpayers. The law was so unpopular that Republican candidates tried to avoid discussing it on the campaign trail. And Trump’s administration was chaotic, although not as erratic as his current regime.

As a result, only 44% of voters approved of Trump, while 50% disapproved. Still, his approval rating was six points higher than his current 38%.

That was not enough to prevent a Democratic sweep. They gained control of the House, picking up 31 seats. The Democrats won the popular vote for Representatives nationally by an 8% margin.

A Replay of 2006?

In 2006, the American political system was much less gerrymandered and less polarized than it is today. However, there were some similar factors at play. The US was bogged down in the Iraq war. President George W. Bush had tried to privatize Social Security, which many voters saw as an attempt to cut their benefits. The Bush Administration was plagued by scandals and its bumbling approach to Hurricane Katrina. Bush’s approval rating fluctuated in the high 30s-low 40s before the midterms.

That year, the Democrats won the popular vote for the House by almost 9%, and they picked up 40 seats.

The political situations in 2006 and 2018 were obviously quite different from our present circumstances.But if the Democrats win the popular vote in November by 8% or more, they might obtain a large majority, despite all the redistricting. That is a hurdle, but not an insurmountable one.

As Trump would say, “we’ll see what happens”.

The Wall Street Democrat

For the first time, an American President treated his Chinese counterpart as an equal, as Trump lavished praise on Xi. While the American gushed about his “great friend”, Xi implied that the US was in decline, indicating that in his opinion, China would soon be the greater power.

Trump played into Xi’s hands, as he acted like a supplicant, asking for China to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz and to buy more products from the US. The President all but kowtowed to Xi.

Worst of all, Trump indicated that he might abandon yet another ally—Taiwan—if China stepped up its purchases. In other words, I’ll trade you one Taiwan for 200 Boeings.

As usual, Trump was thinking short-term, hustling to do some business deals. Meanwhile, Xi was playing the long game, using Trump to deal another blow to the US’ credibility on the global stage. Trump’s comments must have shocked America’s allies in Asia and Europe.

The summit score was Xi 1, Trump 0.

The Key Issue: Taiwan

The main topic in the summit was Taiwan.

Under Xi’s rule, China has become increasingly aggressive in its rhetoric and its actions regarding this raucously democratic, prosperous nation of 28 million. Xi wants to take over Taiwan partly because this free, capitalistic, Chinese society represents an attractive alternative to his repressive regime. It is a thorn in his side. (Vladimir Putin wants to crush Ukraine for similar reasons.)

Both Xi and Putin claim that these neighboring countries belong to the “motherland”, regardless of what their citizens think. These dictators may be sincere in that misguided belief, but it also serves as an excuse to extinguish a political model that they consider a threat.

Xi’s Lecture

Xi lectured Trump on the subject, declaring that the US should proceed “with utmost caution” about Taiwan. Xi was warning the US, in very haughty fashion, to drop its support for the island nation. The Chinese leader was indirectly referring to the $14 billion military aid package that Congress approved for Taiwan in January, with strong bipartisan support. Trump had been stalling the package for four months, declining to sign the bill, to avoid irritating Xi before the summit.

No Pushback from Trump

Although it should have been obvious that Xi would bring up Taiwan, Trump did not seem prepared. He let Xi’s warning pass without comment, instead of pushing back.

Previous presidents, such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden, would have responded diplomatically but firmly, along these lines: “Our relationship with China is very important to us, and we understand and respect your position on Taiwan. However, we have long-standing treaty obligations toward Taiwan, and we will honor them. “

This has been the US’ approach for decades: express a somewhat vague position, which provides flexibility, and keep the Chinese guessing about America’s response to an invasion. These ambiguous statements remind China that the treaty could be interpreted to mean the US would assist Taiwan if it were attacked.

President Joe Biden created a stir when he broke with protocol and bluntly said the US would defend Taiwan, angering the Chinese. That might have been somewhat impolitic, but Biden was telling XI that China could not dictate the US’ policy toward Taiwan.

However, Trump seems willing to abandon Taiwan, rather than defend it.

Leave a comment

From An Ally to a “Bargaining Chip”

After the summit, Fox News’ Bret Baier asked Trump if he would approve the $14 billion arms deal for Taiwan. Trump said that his decision would depend on what China offered him:

“I’m holding that in abeyance, and it depends on China. It’s a very good negotiating chip for us, frankly. It’s a lot of weapons.”

Xi and his ministers must have broken out the champagne when they heard Trump indicate that US’ position on Taiwan was for sale at the right price. Taiwanese officials must have been appalled by the President’s willingness to sell out their country if he could get more trade deals from China.

A New Sphere of Influence—for China

A few days later, Trump cast more doubt on the US’ commitment to Taiwan, saying:

“We’re supposed to travel 9,500 miles to fight a war. I’m not looking for that. I want them to cool down. I want China to cool down... [a war in the region] is the last thing we need right now.”

His remark seemed to accept Beijing’s argument that Taiwan—and Southeast Asia generally—fall within China’s sphere of influence. That is a stunning reversal of longstanding American policy. Ever since World War II, the US has regarded Southeast Asia as a critical strategic focus, for both military and commercial reasons.

Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are important US allies and trading partners. American manufacturers rely on Taiwan for 90% of the computer chips they use. Vietnam and the Philippines have been drawing closer to the US, because they are wary of China’s increasingly aggressive moves in the South China Sea.

But Trump seems oblivious to these long-standing ties and important ramifications. His comments must have outraged our Asian allies. If the US is ready to abandon Taiwan, how will it treat its other strategic partners in Asia?

Furthermore, Trump has a weak grasp of geography, which has led him to bad conclusions. Taiwan is 6,800 miles, not 9,500 miles, from the West Coast. That is only 500 miles more than the distance between Washington and the Strait of Hormuz (6,300 miles)—not much farther, as the missile flies.

No Support for Japan

Trump had probably already undermined Asian allies’ confidence in the US.

In November, the Japanese Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi, was asked in Parliament what circumstances might cause Japan to deploy its forces abroad. She replied that if, hypothetically, Taiwan were attacked, that might constitute such a situation. Takaichi later added that an attack on American warships sent to break any Chinese blockade on Taiwan could require Tokyo to intervene militarily to defend itself and its ally, the US.

Taiwan lies only 70 miles from Japan’s territorial waters, and the Taiwan Strait is a key route for shipping energy supplies and other goods to Japan. So Taiwan’s fate is a matter of deep concern for the Japanese government.

Takaichi’s comments provoked a sharp protest from Beijing, and she subsequently said that she would not make such comments again in Parliament. But the prime minister’s answer reflected reality; Japan would feel threatened if China seized Taiwan. If such an incident had occurred during Biden’s term in office, he might well have issued a statement expressing solidarity with Tokyo, particularly because Takaichi referred to assisting US forces.

The response from the Trump Administration to this incident? Radio silence.

Share

Dismantling Alliances

Trump’s backsliding on Taiwan follows a pattern of dismantling alliances and betraying the US’ partners, beginning with his constant attacks on NATO in his first term.

After Trump returned to the White House, he cut off any new aid to Ukraine. Predictably, Ukraine began to lose territory to Russian forces a few months later, as US assistance dwindled to nothing.

Recently, Trump took two steps that further undermined the NATO alliance.

On May 1, Trump ordered the Pentagon to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany. Why? Trump was furious because Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor and a staunch ally, had said that Iran had “humiliated” the US. In a fit of pique, Trump decided to punish Germany, regardless of the ramifications for NATO.

Leaving Poland in the Lurch

On May 13, Trump canceled the deployment of 4,000 soldiers to Poland…even though it had already started. Pentagon officials were stunned, especially because stationing US troops in Poland would create an important tripwire that could deter a Russian invasion. If Putin’s forces attacked American soldiers, he would trigger a war with the US.

This decision was especially egregious because, unlike many NATO allies, Poland spends heavily on its military—about 5% of its GDP. Trump could not complain that Poland was not “paying its fair share.” (The US spends about 3% of GDP on its armed forces.)

This time, even Republicans in Congress revolted. The backlash was so severe that Trump quickly reversed himself. Trying to save face, he declared that the US would go ahead with the deployment and increase it to 5,000 troops. That was a welcome reprieve for NATO. Nonetheless, Trump’s back-and-forth telegraphed once again his lack of commitment to the alliance.

The US: A Paper Tiger?

The situation regarding Taiwan could become more volatile, because the US appears to be a less credible deterrent to Chinese aggression, for several reasons.

The US has expended a huge amount of munitions in the war against Iran, especially air-defense missiles, and it will take years to replace them.

The Navy has deployed aircraft carriers and other large vessels for unusually long periods at sea, as Trump ordered warships to be stationed off Venezuela and then dispatched them to the Middle East. These vessels must be taken out of service for repairs and maintenance after extended deployments. This could further reduce the US’ capability to respond to a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan.

Finally, Trump has signaled to the Chinese that the US may also lack the political will to defend Taiwan, i.e., it may have become a “paper tiger”.

This combination of factors might encourage Taiwan hawks in the Chinese leadership.

The good news is that recent events might give the Chinese some pause. Russia is bogged down in Ukraine, where it is suffering massive losses. The war in Iran has turned into a quagmire for the US that is, in fact, humiliating. The Davids are giving the Goliaths a hard time.

But enough for the big-picture stuff. Let’s see how many orders Boeing gets from China.

The Wall Street Democrat

Democrats could lose eight seats or more in those states, as Republicans engage in extreme gerrymandering that will make it all but impossible for Black candidates to win races for Congress in those states. As a result, it will be more difficult for Democrats to win back the House in November.

In the short term, four million Black Americans’ votes in Congressional races either won’t count or, in the best case, will be severely diluted. That number could rise to 7 million, depending on possible developments in two other states.

Although African Americans represent a large segment of residents—20% to 33%—in seven Southern states, they will suffer a crushing loss of political power because of the Court’s decision. In most cases, their votes in Congressional races will be wasted.

Back to One-Party Rule?

We should also expect white legislators to start gerrymandering election districts on the state and local level, further diminishing Black political power. We could see the restoration of the system that governed the South before the 1960s’ civil rights movement: one-party rule by white majorities, greater voter suppression, and few if any Black politicians in power.

The Court’s decision was a highly partisan one that ignored the language of the Voting Rights Act, previous Court decisions, and the legislative history behind the Act, as I discussed in Supreme Court Stomps on Voting Rights Again. This perverse ruling has destroyed what was left of the Court’s legitimacy.

With the deck stacked against them, Democrats should focus on winning back Latino voters, who have become even more important. If Democrats regain control of the three branches of government, they should expand the Supreme Court. They should also pass legislation to ban gerrymandering and mandate the use of independent commissions to draw election maps in all states.

Blacks : A Large Southern Minority

African Americans represent a large percentage of the population in numerous Southern states, as shown in the chart below. In Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana, about one in three residents is Black. Almost 40% of Mississippians are African American, and in South Carolina, Blacks are almost 30% of the populace. Congressional representation is based on the number of residents, not voters.

The percentage of Black voters is generally lower than their share of the population in the various states. In my opinion, that reflects a long history of voter suppression and current practices that depress Black participation in elections (such as large voter purges in Georgia). In a better world, Blacks’ share of voting would be closer to their percentage of the population.

After the Civil War and Reconstruction, white legislators used a variety of measures to prevent African Americans from voting, so they would not have any political power. White politicians installed a rigid system of one-party rule and voter oppression precisely because Black Americans constituted such a large minority. African Americans could have affected election results, particularly if they joined forces with poor white voters.

It was not until 1965 that southern Blacks finally won the right to vote, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act. After it went into effect, Black Americans could cast ballots and elect political leaders on the state, local and federal level. The courts interpreted the Act to require the creation of majority-minority districts that would give Black politicians a reasonable chance of winning some seats in Congress.

Wiping Out Black Districts

In Callais the Supreme Court abruptly destroyed the Act’s last remaining protections for minority voters. After it rendered the decision in late April, six Southern states immediately began to overhaul their election maps. In an unprecedented move, the governor of Louisiana stopped the state’s primary, even though citizens had already started to cast ballots. He called the legislature into session to draw a new map that would eliminate one of the state’s two majority-Black districts.

Alabama promptly asked the Supreme Court for permission to redraw its maps, so it could wipe out one of its two Black districts. The Supreme Court granted Alabama’s request, basically reversing a decision it had made only three years earlier. In 2023, the Court had upheld an appellate court’s decision that ordered Alabama to create a second majority-Black district, to ensure fair representation for African Americans in the state.

Gov. Ron DeSantis quickly rammed through new maps in Florida, hoping to create four more Republican seats. The law clearly violates the state constitution, which was amended in 2014 specifically to ban gerrymandering. That detail did not deter the intrepid Governor. However, Democratic and good-government groups will presumably file lawsuits challenging the measure. Florida has three Black Representatives at present, one of whom is a Republican.

Share

Although 40% of people in Mississippi are Black, only one of the state’s four Congressmen is African American...25% of its delegation. State legislators are “discussing” whether to revise election maps to eliminate the state’s only majority-minority district.

In South Carolina the situation is in flux. The lower house voted to redraw the district maps and eliminate its sole majority-minority district. However, state senators have balked, fearing a backlash from voters.

Tennessee brazenly carved up the Congressional district for Memphis, which is over 60% Black and heavily Democratic, into three districts that stretch out into conservative, white areas. This virtually guarantees that in November the Democratic incumbent, Steve Cohen, will lose his seat. So all nine of Tennessee’s Representatives will be Republican, even though 20% of its residents are Black.

Memphis has elected its own Representative to Congress for decades. So this is a major blow to the city and essentially disenfranchises its citizens.

Two Potential Wild Cards

This blatantly partisan, racist wave of gerrymandering will deprive millions of Black Americans of the opportunity to make their votes count. Some states might wipe out “only” one out of two majority-minority districts, but that still would diminish the overall power of Black voters in a state. If South Carolina decides to eliminate its only Black district, and Florida succeeds in its gerrymandering project, roughly four million Americans will lose their right to choose their Congressional representatives.

There are also two possible wild cards: Georgia and North Carolina. So far, lawmakers in those states have not taken any action after the Supreme Court opened this Pandora’s Box. However, both states have a long, ugly history of marginalizing Black voters. North Carolina Republicans, like their counterparts in Texas, have set the “gold standard” in gerrymandering.

If these two states also moved to restrict Black voting rights, that would increase the number of disenfranchised voters to about 7 million. That is a lot of people. Many of those Americans might become apathetic and stop participating in politics, since their votes would no longer matter in many races. That may be part of the Republicans’ long-term plan.

Latinos: The Swing Factor

Democrats must resign themselves to losing several Congressional seats in the South, as many Black Democrats will be effectively shut out of elections. To go on the offensive, Democrats should redouble their efforts to win back Latino voters, especially men, who shifted 20-25 points to Trump in 2024. Democrats should also concentrate on Latina voters, but Hispanic women voters did not swing as much to Trump.

Latinos have been a swing factor in several recent elections, and with many Black voters in the South sidelined, they could become even more important for Democrats. One in five Americans is Hispanic. Although Latinos live throughout the country, they are large constituencies in battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin…as well as Texas. They might provide the crucial margin in some Congressional races.

There are some grounds for optimism on this front. Some Democratic politicians have recently won elections based on strong support from Latino voters, such as:

· Mikie Sherrill--gubernatorial race in New Jersey

· Taylor Rehmet—state senate race in Fort Worth

· James Tallarico--Democratic Senate primary in Texas

Leave a comment

Reforming A Hyper-Partisan Court

This Supreme Court has wreaked a great deal of damage on our democracy, issuing a series of rulings that have severely weakened voting rights. If the Democrats regain control of all three branches of government, they should expand the size of the Supreme Court. Congress can do this by simply passing a law.

Yes, that would be packing the Court, but so what? The Republicans have already packed the Court, which is making decisions that are clearly intended to help the Republican Party. The Court has forfeited its legitimacy, and it needs to be reformed.

The US is one of the few countries in the world that does not set term limits for its judges. We should set an 18-year term for all Federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court. The reform would allow each President to nominate two Justices in a four-year term, which seems fair. In addition, it might reduce the skirmishing and drama in the confirmation process, since Justices would not serve for multiple decades.

However, this step might require amending the Constitution. Article III has been interpreted as saying that judges and Justices are appointed to lifetime terms, although it does not say so explicitly.

Ending Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is a uniquely American form of political malpractice. In 2021, when Joe Biden was President, Democrats tried to ban gerrymandering, in their massive “For the People Act”. This was a comprehensive but overly ambitious attempt to correct many flaws in our electoral system. If they get another chance, Democrats should pass a stripped-down law that focuses on ending gerrymandering.

The bill should require all states to establish independent commissions to draw up election maps. That is how several states, such as Arizona, California, Colorado, Michigan, and Utah, have created their maps, which have resulted in very fair elections. Republicans will yell about preserving “states’ rights”, of course. But recent developments are reminding us, yet again, that “states’ rights” is often code for “voter suppression”.

Let’s try some democracy instead.

The Wall Street Democrat

This landmark law had finally enabled African Americans to achieve some political power in the South, after 100 years of Jim Crow, by protecting their right to vote. Over the last 13 years, in a series of wrongheaded, highly partisan decisions, the Roberts Court has gradually nullified the Act’s key provisions. Last week, the Court completed its mission, removing any remaining protections for minority voters, in its Louisiana v. Callais decision.

This stunning ruling will sharply dilute Black Americans’ voting power in Southern states. The decision will reduce the number of African American Representatives in Congress, and it could generate equally important ripple effects on state and local elections.

The Court has given white-dominated legislatures carte blanche to abolish majority-minority districts, which offered Black politicians a decent chance of winning public office. Republicans could eventually pick up an additional 12 seats in Congress.

Even worse, through this decision the Court has encouraged Republican legislators to engage in partisan gerrymandering. This will trigger another wave of extreme gerrymanders, which will further distort our dysfunctional system of elections.

Key Civil Rights Achievement

First, some background. The Voting Right Act was a fundamental achievement of the civil rights movement. The law has two key provisions. Section 5 required 15 states, which were mostly located in the South and had a history of blatant racial discrimination, to submit all their proposed voting laws and regulations to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance.

As a result, state officials did not even dare to put forth proposals that could restrict or dilute Black Americans’ voting rights, because they knew that the DOJ would reject any such laws or regulations. So, to avoid a Federal crackdown, they repealed the old Jim Crow laws that had prevented Black Americans from voting.

For the first time in almost a century, African Americans did not have to face ridiculous hurdles--literacy tests, trick questions, poll taxes etc.--to cast their ballots. Black voter turnout rose, and Black politicians started to win some elections.

Section 2 allowed individuals to file lawsuits challenging practices and regulations that had impeded their ability to vote. This provided an after-the-fact remedy that enabled litigants to sue governments over measures that might not, on their face, appear discriminatory.

These two provisions, Section 5 and Section 2, gave Federal and civil rights lawyers important tools to prevent Southern states from tilting the playing field against Black voters and politicians. However, since racism persisted, and Blacks constituted a minority in the relevant states, most elected officials were still white. Whites voted for Republican candidates, while Black Americans voted for Democrats.

Bearing this reality in mind, Federal courts often required state legislatures to draw up electoral maps that created one or more “majority-minority” districts. Since Black Americans were a majority of voters in that district, that increased an African American’s chances of winning the election. Majority-white districts simply did not send Black Representatives to Congress.

Share

Roberts’ Hostility to Voting Rights

However, Chief Justice John Roberts has been hostile to protecting minorities’ voting rights throughout his career, ever since he served as a young lawyer in the Reagan Administration. Under his leadership, the Court has effectively repealed the Act, usurping Congress’ role, in an extraordinary expansion of its power.

The Court has ignored:

· The statute’s language

· The legislative history--Congress’ intent in passing and amending the law

· The Court’s previous decisions interpreting the Act

Conservatives love to complain about “unelected, activist judges” who do not defer to the legislature. But they are very pleased by the Supreme Court’s sustained campaign to eviscerate this law.

A Tragedy in Three Parts

The Court first attacked the Voting Rights Act in 2013, in its Shelby County v. Holder decision. The Justices gutted Section 5, airily declaring that racial discrimination had declined so much in the US that pre-clearance of voting rules was no longer necessary.

However, it is the role of Congress, not the Court, to make any such finding of fact. The Court also ignored Congress’ decision to renew the Act repeatedly, on a bipartisan basis.

In any event, within hours of the Shelby decision, most of the Southern states passed voting laws that the DOJ would have rejected as prejudicial to Black voters.

The Court then undermined Section 2’s prohibition on discriminatory voting laws and regulations in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021). In that case, minority voters challenged Arizona’s newly enacted bans on ballot collection and voting outside one’s precinct. A ballot collector gathers ballots from various voters, often for a fee, and delivers them to a polling station.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, which created a brand-new test for Section 2 challenges, requiring plaintiffs to show that a state or local government had a discriminatory intent.

A Faulty Rationale

In a blistering dissent, Justice Elena Kagan shredded the majority opinion’s rationale. She emphasized that previous decisions had focused on a statute’s effects, not on trying to prove whether it was motivated by discriminatory intent, which is very difficult.

Kagan also pointed out that Alito had not mentioned key facts and findings from the lower court’s opinion, which emphasized the burdens the new rules placed on minority voters in Arizona. For example, many voters were Native Americans who lived on a reservation and would have to travel long distances to reach a polling booth or post office. However, as Kagan emphasized, 25% of them did not own a car.

In my opinion, Kagan was correct. Alito wrote a deceitful, unjustified opinion that upheld laws that would clearly suppress minority voters in Arizona.

Alito and Kagan reprised their roles in the Callais decision. Once again, Kagan set forth the superior analysis and exposed the flaws in the majority’s reasoning.

Callais: A Question of Intent

About one-third of voters in Louisiana are Black. However, for decades the state had only one majority-minority district, and Black voters elected just one out of 6 delegates (16%). A lower federal judge ordered Louisiana to draw electoral maps with two such districts, based upon Section 2, so that Black voters would have the possibility of electing two Representatives (33% of the delegation).

After the state drew up a revised map, a group of white voters filed suit, claiming it was a racially motivated gerrymander and therefore violated the Constitution. So Callais involved a dispute over whether officials had engaged in discriminatory map-drawing practices. This was the last vestige of Section 2 protection after the Brnovich decision.

As in the Shelby decision, the Court’s majority declared that a vast improvement in race relations had changed the landscape, so that there was less risk that states would maneuver to limit Blacks’ voting power. Once again, the Court was acting as a factfinder, and its conclusions were not well-founded.

As in Brnovich, the Court ruled that to succeed under Section 2, a plaintiff had to show that the legislature had drawn electoral maps with the intent to discriminate against minorities.

Leave a comment

Gerrymandering…A Compelling Interest?

Furthermore, a state might have compelling interests, such as creating partisan gerrymandering or protecting incumbents, the Court said. These “political” factors in drawing a map could outweigh possible Section 2 concerns, according to Alito, unless a plaintiff could prove discriminatory intent.

Election law experts had unhappily expected the Court to nullify Section 2, but they were appalled by this aspect of the Callais decision. I will return to this topic below.

Kagan’s Dissent

In another brilliant, fiery dissent, Justice Kagan shredded Alito’s logic. She pointed out that Congress had amended Section 2 specifically to establish a test based on a statute’s effect, not the underlying intent. in 1982 Congress passed this amendment to overrule a decision by the Court that had put forth an “intent” test.

The Court was again improperly acting as a legislature, Kagan added. She also criticized colleagues for ignoring the legislative history and previous court decisions regarding the Act.

Kagan also took the majority to task for ignoring the realities on the ground, noting that the studies showed that only “12% of White voters in Louisiana would support Black-preferred candidates in statewide contests”. This was in response to the majority’s rosy view of voter trends in Louisiana.

In a key passage, Alito had written:

“Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate, even turning out at higher rates than white voters in two of the five most recent Presidential elections nationwide and in Louisiana.“(emphasis added)

But this statement is highly misleading, as voting law experts at the Brennan Center for Law and Justice pointed out in Finishing Off Voting Rights Act, Supreme Court Declares Racism Over — Again. Voter turnout rates were similar in the first two elections, in 2008 and 2012, when Barack Obama ran for President and inspired unusually high Black turnout.

However, Black turnout was lower in the next three elections, for two reasons. The Shelby decision (2013) allowed states to restrict minority voting rights, and African Americans were less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

Triggering Another Wave of Gerrymandering

The Court also shifted its stance on gerrymandering. In its Rucho v. Common Cause decision (2019) the majority said that it could not rule on gerrymandering disputes. Its rationale? These were “political matters”, outside its jurisdiction, and the Justices did not have the technical expertise to gauge whether election maps were fair or not.

Rucho was another bad decision, which triggered another sharp dissent by Kagan. Gerrymandering by its very nature is designed to dilute voters’ power, so it is a critical issue that the Supreme Court should have addressed…and banned.

Furthermore, several state courts have ruled on the fairness of election maps, relying upon highly detailed maps and sophisticated computer models. There is considerable expertise available to courts weighing challenges to gerrymandering schemes.

Now, in Callais, the Court has suggested that gerrymandering is an appropriate, indeed a compelling state interest, which can be used to defend a controversial map. That is a far cry from saying, “Sorry, that’s outside our area of expertise”.

This is one of Callais’ most pernicious aspects. The Supreme Court has all but invited state legislatures to launch yet another round of gerrymandering, so they can wipe out minority-majority districts…and enshrine one-party rule.

Something is Rotten in the State of America

Partisan gerrymandering is a primary cause of the rot in our political system. It is not a legitimate state interest, nor is protecting incumbents, and it is shocking that the Court is endorsing such motives. Elections are supposed to be competitions, not coronations.

Unfortunately, many, if not most, Congressional races are not competitive, often because gerrymandering has ensured that a district is a “safe” one for either Republicans or Democrats. If only the primary election matters, candidates do not have to appeal to moderate voters. Instead, they must pander to the most partisan voters in their own party, or they risk losing the primary to a more extreme candidate. This has caused much of the polarization in our country.

Discriminating Against Democrats? No Problem

Extreme gerrymandering is a peculiarly American problem. In Western European countries, independent commissions draw up the maps for elections, which are fair and competitive. In recent years, we had been making progress in curtailing gerrymanders, as several states established independent commissions. There was growing momentum to get rid of this scourge.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump’s shameless, unprecedented calls for mid-decade gerrymanders and the Callais decision will probably reverse that positive trend, possibly for a long time. Democrats have concluded that they must abandon the high road and fight back.

The Brennan Center summed up the Court’s approach in Callais succinctly in its The Briefing newsletter (May 5, 2026):

“We aren’t discriminating against Black people, you see.

Just against Democrats.

Case closed”.

The Wall Street Democrat

Four distinguished journalists will discuss the threats and the opportunities facing journalists today. You can register for the program using this link.

Moderator Richard Tofel ’79, who was the founding general manager of ProPublica and the assistant publisher of the Wall Street Journal, will head a panel of lawyers and reporters to discuss the current physical and legal threats the press faces.

David McGraw, deputy general counsel and senior vice president at the New York Times and lead lawyer for the paper’s newsroom, will join the discussion along with Bruce Brown, president of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Francia García Hernández, a reporter for Block Club Chicago who covered Operation Midway Blitz, will describe what it is like to cover immigration and ICE operations in a city where nearly one-quarter of the residents are immigrants.

The Freedom of the Press PDF contains the panelists’ bios and a link for registering. Please register for the forum and pass this along to others who might be interested.

I hope to see you on May 6!

The melting pot is still working in our country. Our mission is to vote the racists out of office and stop the brutal assaults on immigrants and minorities.

Big Donald is Looking at You

Like other autocrats, Trump has hung huge banners of himself on government buildings. The Department of Justice displays one of a scowling Trump—no benevolent dictator here—with the slogan, “Making America Safe Again”. That’s an Orwellian twist: Trump is the first President since Richard Nixon to use the DOJ to persecute his political opponents.

(I took the photos, unless otherwise indicated).

By politicizing the DOJ, Trump and his minions are making America less safe. About one-third of the DOJ’s attorneys have resigned or been pushed out. Many seasoned prosecutors left the Department rather than participate in the frivolous, highly partisan lawsuits that former Attorney General Pam Bondi started, as she sought to carry out Trump’s incessant demands for “retribution”.

At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a key part of DOJ, Director Kash Patel has conducted a massive purge of agents on political grounds. He has forced out hundreds of agents simply because they investigated the January 6 uprising, Russian interference in the 2016 election or other probes that angered Trump. He fired some senior officials, apparently, because they were women.

Patel got his job as Director because he is slavishly loyal to Trump, and he has implemented the President’s priorities at the expense of the FBI’s core missions. Patel has reassigned many specialists in counterterrorism and counterintelligence to pursue illegal immigrants. Patel has fired others. As a result, the National Security Division has lost about 40% of its staff.

The purge and the reassignments are not just a colossal waste of talented, highly trained agents. Patel has reduced the US’ ability to defuse real threats against our country, as he focuses on fighting an imaginary crime wave caused by illegal immigrants.

Labor’s Best Friend?

The same grim picture of Trump appears on the headquarters of the Department of Labor, with the slogan, “American Workers First”. In fact, his Administration has followed extremely anti-labor policies. It has stripped one million Federal employees of union protections and terminated collective bargaining agreements for various government departments. The Administration has also made it harder for private sector employees to form unions and stacked the National Labor Relations Board with anti-union officials.

We did not walk by the Department of Agriculture, which has a similar display, but you get the idea.

Thank you, Mr. President!

In the Trump era, any project, any space, no matter how small, is an opportunity for grateful Federal employees to celebrate their President. The National Park Service is renovating a modest area near the Departments of Justice and Labor. This appears to be a routine project.

However, the Department of the Interior’s banners include a picture of Trump wearing a hard hat and they say, “Thank you, President Trump”. Maybe this is what North Korea looks like.

In any case, it appears that little renovation has been done over the last several months.

Draining the…Reflecting Pool

Unfortunately, the small park renovation may not attract many visitors. But the Lincoln Monument is a powerful branding opportunity for the President, with lots of foot traffic. The National Park Service has erected another 100-foot-long banner right in front of the monument—great placement! —to thank the President for the opportunity to drain and clean the Reflecting Pool on the Mall.

The banner says, “Making DC Safe & Beautiful”. It’s not clear why draining the Reflecting Pool is making the city safer. The Pool is so shallow that it’s hard to imagine drowning in it…

But Trump Is Always Right.

By the way, the Trump Administration has cut the Park Service’s staff by about 25%, mostly by firing people. The Administration will also drastically downsize the National Forest Service, closing 55 of its 77 research centers.

The Contrast with FDR

As we strolled around the monument to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, reading excerpts from his key speeches, we were reminded how reactionary and radical Donald Trump’s policies are. They are a 180-degree turn from FDR’s New Deal, which created a basic social safety net for Americans (and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, which created Medicare and Medicaid). We realized that Trump and his cronies want to abolish the New Deal’s programs and its core principle: government should focus on helping vulnerable Americans achieve a better life.

FDR dramatically expanded the role of the Federal government, but, unlike Trump, he did not hang banners of himself on public buildings. Nor did he pursue retribution against his political enemies or adopt policies that would benefit a small, wealthy elite.

Leave a comment

The Fight Against Fascists

FDR knew that unless the Federal government drastically improved most Americans’ lives, they might turn against democracy, as Germans and Italians had. Facing an existential struggle against fascist movements—in the US as well as in Europe—FDR enacted sweeping programs to alleviate poverty and hunger. His goal was to relieve Americans’ suffering and to preserve the US’ democratic form of government.

In one excerpt that we read, FDR warned about the dangers of submission to an all-powerful leader, in words that are just as applicable today as they were on the eve of World War II:

“They who seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers…call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order.“

Militarizing America

Previously, Presidents deployed the military within the US only to quell massive civil unrest or to enforce the civil rights laws. However, Trump has ignored that critical restraint on dispatching troops to American cities. He has circumvented the Posse Comitatus Act’s ban on using the military for domestic law enforcement. Trump has turned ICE into a personal army with a massive budget and almost no restrictions on its tactics. Its agents have attacked civilians, often without provocation.

Trump has also deployed National Guard troops in several major cities. All but one are Democratic-led, and most have large minority populations.

National Guard troops have patrolled Washington, DC, since August 2025, and the Administration has announced that they will remain there until the end of this year. The city has a Democratic administration and a large Black population. The troops are stationed in tourist areas, where crime is rare. Although DC’s crime rates are higher than some other cities’, such as New York’s, they fell significantly in 2024-25, following the national trend.

From Democracy to Plutocracy

FDR took drastic action to help the 25% of Americans who were out of work because of the Great Depression. Under his leadership, Congress established Social Security and other benefit programs, so that older Americans would not live in abject poverty.

“The test of our progress”, FDR declared, “is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.“

A Golden Era …for Wealthy Americans

And what are Trump’s goals? You can judge a President by the furnishings he keeps:

In his second term, Trump has catered to the ultra-wealthy in America. His One Big Beautiful Bill extended his steep 2017 tax cuts for corporations and the top 0.1% of Americans.

Trump talks like a populist but enacts policies that hurt middle-class and lower-class Americans. His massive tax cuts will cause the Federal deficit and debt to soar. To offset some of those cuts, the One Big Beautiful Bill will slash medical insurance coverage and food stamps for millions of Americans.

Under the law, medical insurance premiums will double for many families. Up to 16 million people—many of them children--could lose their coverage under Medicaid.

Scrooge would have applauded. FDR would have been appalled.

Share

A Servant of the People

FDR was a wealthy man, an American aristocrat, but he was keenly aware that his duty was to serve the public…not vice versa. He described his role as follows: “I never forget that I live in a house owned by all the American people and that I have been given their trust”.

Those words are particularly pertinent today.

FDR left an enduring, positive legacy for our nation. His Administration radically changed the scale and scope of the Federal government. But FDR worked closely with Congress, and he sought consensus. He inspired people to act; he did not dictate. He rarely issued executive orders to achieve his goals.

Trump is frantically trying to create his legacy by putting a physical stamp on Washington. Where the East Wing once stood, construction cranes tower next to the White House, as Trump prepares to build a gigantic ballroom.

In addition to that structure, which will apparently feature a lot of gold, like the Oval Office, he wants to build an Arch of Triumph that will be 250 feet high—almost 90 feet taller than the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. When a journalist asked which political figure the Arch would be built to honor, Trump said, “me”. Perhaps his role model is Louis XIV, the Sun King of France, who said, “L’Etat, c’est moi.” (I am the State.)

FDR rescued the US from the Great Depression, defeated the Nazis and the Japanese, and saved American democracy. He ushered in a new era of dignity and prosperity for his countrymen.

The photo below shows the original memorial for FDR, which followed his specifications. This modest monument stands on a small lawn…across the street from the Department of Justice and the giant banner of an angry man glaring at the world.

The Wall Street Democrat

But will Trump absorb the wrong lesson? Will Trump modify his policies, or will he double down on his efforts to control the midterm elections?

The opposition leader, Peter Magyar, conducted an energetic race, focusing primarily on pocketbook issues and corruption’s impact on ordinary Hungarians. Magyar also attacked Orban’s authoritarian regime, and, unlike his opponent, he is a devout Catholic, which appealed to many voters. Magyar traveled throughout the country, speaking in rural areas as well as cities. Will Democrats in the US learn from his campaign?

It’s the Economy…and Corruption

Orban has badly mismanaged the Hungarian economy, partly because of the distortions caused by massive corruption. Hungary is much poorer than Western Europe, and for several years under Orban the country received large subsidies from the European Union. However, in 2022, the EU finally lost patience with Orban and suspended the subsidies because of his anti-democratic maneuvers.

Economic growth became anemic, reaching only 0.4% in 2025, and unemployment reached a 10-year high. Inflation surged, compounding the misery. Furthermore, the government failed to maintain essential infrastructure, particularly the public health system. Hungarians even had to bring their own toilet paper to financially strapped hospitals.

Meanwhile, Orban and his circle of oligarchs built luxurious mansions—a point that Magyar constantly emphasized.

Donald Trump and his BFF Viktor Orban / photo: Getty Images

Restoring Democracy in Hungary…Perhaps

Peter Magyar’s Tisza Party won a smashing victory, taking over two-thirds of the seats in Parliament. (Tisza means “Respect and Freedom”, and Magyar means “Hungarian”. Names can have power.) With such a large majority, perhaps Magyar can enact reforms that will begin to restore democracy in Hungary.

However, Magyar will face an entrenched and hostile “deep state”. Over the last 16 years, Orban systematically dismantled most of the country’s democratic institutions, and he staffed government agencies and the judiciary with his apparatchiks. They may be hard to dislodge. Still, it is encouraging that Magyar has already called for the heads of the judiciary and government agencies to resign, signaling that he intends to clean house.

Magyar has also said that Hungary will rejoin the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, an arm of the EU that investigates financial crimes. That would allow EU investigators to probe the business dealings of Orban’s cronies, especially his son-in-law, who became remarkably successful during Orban’s reign.

Orban cemented his hold on power partly by forcing his political opponents to sell their businesses, such as media properties, to Hungarian oligarchs at very low prices. Orban also improperly distributed EU assistance funds to his cronies so they could buy up Hungarian farmland.

Big Boost for Ukraine

Orban’s fall from power could help Ukraine significantly. The Hungarian leader took Russia’s side in its war against Ukraine, and he frustrated the other members of the European Union by consistently voting against aid for Kyiv. Orban repeated Kremlin talking points and issued dire warnings that Hungary could be dragged into the war. In effect, Orban contributed to Russia’s propaganda campaign against Ukraine.

His intransigence delayed a number of EU assistance packages for Ukraine for several months, until Orban relented, having secured special benefits for Hungary. This was particularly egregious because Hungary was not required to contribute to those programs, since it is one of the poorest members of the EU.

However, in the latest go-round, Orban refused to budge, blocking a 100 billion Euro package from the EU. Ukraine desperately needs this aid, because when Trump returned to power, he refused to provide any new assistance to Kyiv.

Magyar is a conservative, but he is democratic and anti-Putin. The new leader has indicated that he will not block EU assistance to Ukraine.

Leave a comment

Setback for the American Far Right

Orban has been an icon for the American far right, which has a stranglehold on the Republican Party. These conservatives have cheered him on as he railed against gay people and immigrants, often in highly racist terms, and (supposedly) supported traditional Christian “family” values. They endorsed his “illiberal democracy”, with its extreme gerrymandering, controlled press and politicized judiciary. Why? Because Orban’s system enabled a minority party to implement a far-right agenda that most voters opposed.

This is the far right’s vision for America. They admire the Hungarian leader so much that they have held their Conservative Political Action Conference five times in Budapest, often featuring Orban as a keynote speaker.

Did Trump’s Intervention Backfire?

Donald Trump, one of Orban’s biggest fans, invited him to the White House in 2019, over the strident objections of senior aides. George W. Bush had ducked a meeting with Orban, and the Obama Administration snubbed him because of his anti-democratic behavior.

Trump met again with Orban at the White House in November 2025. He lavished praise on the Hungarian leader, saying:

“He’s done a fantastic job. He’s a very powerful man within his country ... He’s run a really great country, and he’s got no crime, he’s got no problems, like some countries do.” –Donald Trump, Nov. 7, 2025

When it became clear that Orban might lose the election, Trump dispatched Vice President J.D. Vance to Hungary to bolster the Prime Minister. However, that may have backfired, as Trump and Vance have become very unpopular among mainstream European voters.

Furthermore, Hungarians living in large towns and cities—centers of opposition to Orban’s rule—are probably keenly aware that Trump has also pursued bad economic policies (such as his tariffs) and has presided over an extraordinarily corrupt administration. That may have reinforced their grievances against the Orban regime and contributed to the massive (80%) turnout in the election.

Orban’s Political Odyssey

Orban first became Prime Minister in 1998, as a conventional, even leftist, politician. But when he lost an election in 2002, it was such a shock that it soured him on democratic practices.

After brooding for eight years, Orban returned to power in 2010, a changed man. The Prime Minister immediately attacked the key institutions of Hungarian democracy and civil society, seeking to minimize any constraints on his power.

Orban used financial pressure to force independent newspapers and media companies to sell out to his hand-picked bidders. They promptly turned those outlets into government propaganda organs. The Prime Minister punished judges who ruled against the government, and he soon controlled the judicial system.

The Prime Minister also attacked universities, particularly the Central European University founded by George Soros, because they were centers of critical, independent thinking. Eventually, after years of harassment, the CEU moved to Vienna. Professors at public Hungarian universities learned that it was safer not to criticize the government. Dissent became rare.

Share

Following the Autocrat’s Playbook

Trump has borrowed the script for his second administration from Orban’s playbook.

In his first term, Trump savagely attacked immigrants and the free press; he and Orban have always been aligned on those issues. But in his second term, Trump has openly tried to mimic Orban’s tactics—financial pressure and harsh propaganda campaigns--to subjugate the media and universities. He has failed to curb the independence of Federal judges, however, because they have life tenure.

Like Orban, Trump has tried to redraw electoral districts to stack the deck against the opposition party. The President demanded that Republican state leaders rewrite voting maps so that Republicans would keep control of the House in November. This was an unprecedented move to gerrymander voting districts in mid-decade.

Trump has cultivated a group of extremely wealthy businessmen, mostly from the tech industry. Trump has reveled in blatant displays of corruption, enriching his own family and gaining new allies. Like Orban, he is building a circle of loyal oligarchs who depend on his good graces.

Flashing Red Lights for Trump

In another parallel with Orban, Trump has lost touch with American voters. He won the 2024 election by promising to improve the economy and reduce inflation; in fact, he pledged to reduce prices. Those promises, and Americans’ concerns about Joe Biden’s mental acuity and immigration policy, helped Trump pick up critical support from Latino and Black men. They provided much of his margin of victory.

But Trump’s policies—the tariffs, massive deportations, terminating green energy projects--have retarded economic growth and stoked inflation. Harsh ICE sweeps have further alienated Hispanic voters. His anti-DEI initiatives have targeted programs that honored or helped African Americans, who have no doubt taken notice. Trump’s poll numbers are abysmal.

Nevertheless, so far the President does not seem willing to make mid-course policy corrections that might win back voters. Instead, he has launched a highly unpopular war—breaking another key promise—that is causing energy prices to soar.

Danger of a Coup

Orban’s loss shows that it is possible to defeat an autocrat despite his attempts to stack the deck against his opponents. To his credit, Viktor Orban accepted the voters’ verdict and promptly conceded that he had lost the election. But as we know, that is not Donald Trump’s approach.

The clear and present danger is that Trump may decide to interfere with the midterm elections, pulling out all the stops to prevent the Democrats from winning.After all, the only thing that would prevent him from doing that is his “morality”.

The Wall Street Democrat

When Tucker Carlson attacks Trump, you know there’s a problem.

Trump may well have destroyed NATO by this point. Our European allies were already reeling from Trump’s punitive tariffs and his threats to annex Greenland. Now, instead of protecting them, Trump has tried to drag our NATO allies into a war that he started.

The President has also infuriated Asian partners such as Japan and Korea, who rely heavily on energy supplies from the Middle East. After Trump’s airstrikes led Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, he demanded that the Europeans and Asians send their warships to re-open the waterway.

As political analyst Robert Kagan has said, “Donald Trump does not want allies. He wants vassals.” However, Trump does not understand that in the past kings earned their vassals’ loyalty, by protecting them. Trump harasses and humiliates the US’ allies…and then abandons them.

Trashing America’s Reputation

If Trump continues to behave like a barbarian, his only remaining allies may be Israel and Russia. They appear to share his “morality”, with their disregard for the rules of war.

The Netanyahu administration has recklessly bombed residential areas in Gaza. In March Hezbollah fired missiles at Israel, to support Iran. Since then, in an attempt to eradicate Hezbollah, President Benjamin Netanyahu has launched waves of airstrikes in Lebanon. This campaign has killed large numbers of civilians and displaced close to 20% of Lebanon’s population.

Russia has deliberately targeted residential buildings and power plants in Ukraine. Israel may have committed war crimes, and Russia certainly has. Trump’s continued support of these regimes has not enhanced the US’ reputation abroad.

Meanwhile, Trump’s own war crimes and crude threats make China look like a stable, respectable power. The US’ allies may drift into Beijing’s camp or at least develop closer ties with China, hedging their bets.

Taking Aim at Iran… During A Press Conference/ photo: Getty Images

Launching An Illegal War

The war against Iran is illegal and unjustified. Under international law, nations can go to war to defend themselves against an attack or to prevent an “imminent threat”. The Islamic Republic is an evil, tyrannical regime, but it did not present a current threat to the US.

Although Trump claimed, as a justification for the war, that Iran was “two weeks” away from developing a nuclear weapon, that was false. In fact, US intelligence agencies stated in their March 2025 annual risk assessment that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.

The agencies issued that analysis before Israel and the US bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, in July 2025, inflicting significant damage. Furthermore, Iran’s ballistic missiles cannot reach Europe, let alone the US, so it does not have the capacity to launch an airborne nuclear weapon against the US. Iran might at some point represent a nuclear threat against the US, but not now.

None of the US’ traditional allies has supported the war on Iran, because they consider it unnecessary and illegal.

War Crimes in Iran

The US has further alienated its allies by attacking civilian areas in Iran. The US and Israel divvied up the targets for bombardment in Tehran and other Iranian cities, so it is often not clear which air force struck specific buildings or individuals. But what is clear is that the two allies have bombed many apartment buildings, schools, cultural sites and bridges. War is messy, as former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld might have said, but there are still rules. Targeting civilian infrastructure is prohibited.

The Israelis and the US claim that many of the targeted structures are dual purpose, that is, used for both military and civilian purposes. If that were the case, an installation or facility could be a legitimate target. However, both allies seem to have abused that exception. The press is full of pictures of ruined apartment buildings in Tehran.

Threatening Apocalypse Now

On April 5 (Easter) and April 9, Trump posted two messages on his Truth Social account that taken together:

· Threatened he would cause a “civilization to die tonight, never to be brought back again”

· Warned he might bomb Iran into the Stone Age, “where they belong”

· Called the Iranian leaders “crazy bastards”.

· Ordered them to “open the f****** Strait” (Trump did not use asterisks)

· Blasphemed Muslims’ God, by saying sarcastically, “Praise be to Allah!”

These were direct threats to attack civilians and critical infrastructure, such as bridges and power plants, if Iran refused to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. In effect, Trump was declaring that he would commit genocide, if necessary, to force Iran to concede to his demands. His posts generated shock around the world. They even provoked outrage from Carlson Tucker and Marjorie Taylor Green.

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH. Praise be to Allah.” –Donald J. Trump (April 5, 2026)

Trump insulted the Iranians by disparaging their culture and leaders. In fact, the Persian civilization is 3,000 years old and a source of great pride to Iranians.

Furthermore, Trump insulted all Muslims with his snarky reference to Allah. That was like saying “To Hell with Jesus Christ”, a phrase that would be guaranteed to offend Christians.

A Discreet Putin

I will leave it to psychologists to evaluate Trump’s mental health and his ability to grasp reality. As a political matter, these posts were a disaster, perhaps even worse than his threats to grab Greenland. Trump’s message came across as barbaric and thuggish. For some allies, these posts may have been the last straw.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is relentlessly bombing Ukrainian cities and the country’s power plants, trying to freeze its citizens into surrendering. But Putin does not brag about destroying Ukraine’s culture, although that is his goal, or threaten to slaughter its civilians. Even Putin knows better.

Leave a comment

Dissing Allies in Europe and the Gulf

Trump, and other officials such as Vice President J.D. Vance, have treated the US’ European allies with condescension and contempt. They imposed arbitrary and punishing tariffs, without any justification. It was a pure power play, which humiliated heads of state in Europe and elsewhere.

In January 2026, Trump stunned European leaders by threatening to seize Greenland, which is part of Denmark, a member of NATO, and refusing to rule out the use of force. This would not only have been a blatant violation of international law; it was a dagger pointed at the heart of the alliance. For the first time, European leaders began to express doubts publicly about whether the alliance would survive, if Trump carried out his plan to take Greenland. They eased a sigh of relief when he backed off those plans in late January, but they have remained bitter.

So the Administration had already severely damaged its relationships with key European allies. Then, in another shock, Trump launched airstrikes on Iran without even consulting them.

Administration officials also did not listen to Gulf State leaders, who desperately wanted to avoid a war with Iran. (Saudi Arabia, alone, reportedly encouraged the US to attack Iran.) Most Gulf officials expressed their fears that if war broke out, Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz and would attack them. Their predictions were all too accurate.

Huge Economic Hit for Allies

The war in Iran has triggered a massive economic shock for the US’ allies. American consumers are angry about higher gas prices, but the US is getting off easy compared to most other nations. The US is almost self-sufficient in energy, and it does not depend on importing oil and gas from the Middle East.

However, most European and Asian nations depend heavily on oil and gas imported from the Gulf region. That is particularly true for the Europeans, who slashed their purchases of energy products from Russia after it invaded Ukraine. But Japan, Korea and Taiwan are also suffering from much higher energy prices.

You can imagine their reactions to Trump’s cavalier statement that a rise in energy prices was a worthwhile, temporary sacrifice. And they were dumbfounded when Trump said that re-opening the Strait was not America’s problem, because the US did not need the energy supplies. Instead, Trump said, it was up to the countries that rely on oil and gas from the Gulf to patrol the waterway. In other words, we broke it, but you have to fix it.

Share

Triple Whammy for Gulf States

The war has hit the Gulf States in three ways. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has prevented them from shipping their oil and gas to their customers, cutting their revenues on a short-term basis.

In addition, Iran has struck some major installations, which may reduce their production capacity significantly for several years. Here’s one example: Iran hit Qatar’s Ras Laffan facility, which is the largest processor of liquified natural gas in the world. The attack knocked out almost 20% of Qatar’s gas exporting capacity, and this could cost the country about $20 billion a year. Qatari officials have estimated that repairs could take three to five years.

The war could have another long-term impact. Dubai, Bahrain and other Gulf states have marketed their cities as safe, convenient places for companies engaged in transportation, finance and technology—the Switzerland of the Middle East. But the stark photos of hotels hit by Iranian missiles, and the closures of their airports, have undermined their image as safe havens.

It is amazing how much damage Donald Trump has inflicted on America’s reputation and its alliances in less than 15 months. Trump should change his slogan from “America First” to “America Alone”.

The Wall Street Democrat

The turnout in Manhattan was massive. Protestors streamed down Seventh Avenue and Broadway, marching from Central Park South (59^th Street) to 34^th Street. That’s over a mile. People walked 20-25 abreast on Seventh Avenue (where I marched), spilling over to the bike lane.

After my wife, some friends and I completed the route, we returned to 40^th Street. We watched people march by, swiftly, for about 40 minutes. When we left, the lines of protestors stretched all the way back to 59^th Street, so the rally was going to continue for quite a while. (I took the pictures shown in this article. )

The mood among the marchers in Manhattan was serious but generally upbeat. The main themes of the protest were summed up by posters that said: “No ICE-No War-No Kings”. The earlier rallies focused on President Donald Trump’s war against democracy (No Kings) and his war against immigrants (No ICE). However, many posters in this rally said “No War”, and opposition to the conflict with Iran may have attracted more young people to the third No Kings Day.

Unions were heavily involved in the protest and, not surprisingly, they were the most organized groups. They carried formal banners. Some were written in Chinese or Spanish, reflecting New York’s potpourri of languages.

No Kings considers itself a “big tent” movement and accommodates a wide range of views. A Palestinian flag was flying next to one union’s banners.

However, most protestors focused on Trump’s attacks on our democratic traditions and ICE’s harsh tactics against immigrants.

We did not see organized counter-protests, although we encountered a few Trump sympathizers. I was carrying an anti-war poster (“Did You Vote for War?”). An unkempt man, who apparently had anger management issues, saw my sign and suggested that I perform a physical act upon myself. I declined.

A few minutes later, upon seeing my poster, a woman shouted at us, “The Iranians voted for this war!” We concluded that she had a weak grasp of the power dynamics in the Islamic Republic. The mullahs don’t pay much attention to public opinion, and the war seems to be as unpopular with Iranians as it is with Americans.

Most of the protestors were white and middle-aged, even though only 36% of New York City residents are Caucasian (including Hispanic whites). However, many protestors may have come from the suburbs, and the rallies in other boroughs may have attracted more Black and Latino New Yorkers. The union groups were more diversified racially. In any event, there may be some discrepancy between the composition of the movement’s leadership and the marchers in Manhattan, as I will discuss later.

A Grassroots Movement

No Kings is a grassroots movement, not a highly orchestrated protest. Many protestors carried whimsical signs, and some wore costumes. In 2025, Seth Todd, an anti-ICE protestor in Portland, Oregon began wearing a frog costume to boost morale during demonstrations. After a federal agent pepper-sprayed him, the tactic went viral.

Some No Kings protestors wear the frog costumes to emphasize that the protests are joyous, not threatening or violent. They are also drawing a sharp contrast with heavily armed ICE agents.

Another marcher came dressed up as “Uncle Scam”, with bright orange hair. Not our “favorite President”, not our favorite ex-New Yorker.

Even Chewbacca made an appearance, with a detailed message from George Lucas for onlookers.

Some New Yorkers carried posters that were deeply heartfelt. One woman’s reflected the pain and anguish that many Americans (perhaps most, now?) feel about the damage Trump has inflicted upon our country and our traditions.

Other signs were classic examples of New Yorkers’ sense of humor:

The NY Times Has Doubts

The New York Times took a rather dour view of the No Kings movement on the cusp of the protest. In an article published a few hours before the rally started, the paper wondered how much impact No Kings would have:

“Deflated by their electoral losses and demoralized by President Trump’s return to power, millions of his most ardent opponents turned out at two nationwide protests last year and found an outlet for their discontent….

Organizers hoped Saturday’s protests would turn out to be the largest yet. But as the marchers tried to fulfill that promise, it remained an open question whether another big turnout would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics. Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections? How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper? (“A Challenge for ‘No Kings’ Protests, the Third Time Around”, March 28, 2026)

The Times is too pessimistic, in my opinion, although the paper raises a fair point about whether the enthusiasm unleashed by No Kings will affect the election results.

First, the organizers did pull off the largest single-day protest in US history, which should count for something. Second, the three protests have steadily grown in numbers, from four-five million to seven million and now eight million.

Furthermore, the three No Kings rallies have inspired ordinary Americans and given them hope. That is crucial, because many Americans have felt paralyzed, fearing that resistance to Trump is futile. (His goal is to convince them to give up, of course, so he faces no constraints.) The rallies show concerned citizens that collective action is possible and that it sends a powerful message to the political elite.

The rallies may not sway Trump, who cares only about his MAGA base, but they may worry Republicans in Congress. In addition, the demonstrations seem to have stiffened the spines of Senator Chuck Schumer and other Democratic leaders.

And the rally was fun! Who knows, the young man dressed as Uncle Sam in the picture below may get involved in a voter registration drive or another political effort.

No Kings Organizers Are No Fools

The organizers of the No Kings movement know that a one-day protest is a start, not an end goal. They want to motivate people to get more deeply involved in politics on a sustained basis. On March 31, they conducted a post-mortem webinar to discuss their aims and next steps, with over 20,000 participants.

They focused on practical actions such as:

• Training to become an “ICE watcher” (like St. Paul citizens monitoring agents)

• Lobbying Congress members to vote against the SAVE ACT (voter suppression bill)

• Joining an election protection group (“because we expect Trump to try to sabotage the election”)

They also urged people to attend May Day (labor) events, acknowledging the important role that some unions play in the movement.

Diverse Speaker Line-up

The line-up of speakers on the webinar featured union members, minorities and immigrants:

• Ash-Lee Woddard Henderson, African American, moderator

• Liz Schuler, President, AFL-CIO

• Edwin Torres, Immigrant Defense Network (Minnesota)

• Sarah Parlor, African American, National Coordinator, 50501 movement

• Leah Greenberg, Co-Executive Director, Indivisible

• Neidi Dominguez, Executive Director, Organized Power in Numbers (labor organizer)

Indivisible and 50501 (50 states-50 protests-1 movement) have been deeply involved in the No Kings events. I attended the rally as part of a group organized by Indivisible leaders who live in my suburban community.

The first and last speakers were union members. The moderator and one speaker were Black women, and the two other women were white. Both Latinos immigrated to the US and became citizens. The speakers did not include a white man. That seemed an odd omission for a movement seeking to build a broad coalition, especially since many, if not most, No Kings participants are white.

My main takeaway is that the speakers were intensely practical people, not starry-eyed idealists. Two dropped hard-hitting lines of the kind that I would like to see Democratic leaders use. “Immigrants are a blessing”, Torres said, which is a good rebuttal to Trump’s constant demonization of foreign workers.

Parlor stressed the urgent threat to our democracy, saying: “We are not on the way to fascism. Fascism is knocking on our door”.

As Americans, we should be proud of this vibrant movement. Millions of Americans spent hours on a Saturday protesting against a tyrant. The Founding Fathers would have been thrilled to join in this protest. They had no use for kings, either.

Now, on to the midterms…

The Wall Street Democrat

· For $34 billion, the government could subsidize insurance premiums for millions of Americans covered by Obamacare, instead of ending that critical support.

· For $60 billion, the US could provide Ukraine with enough weapons and funds to hold the Russians at bay.

· For $60 billion, USAID could have continued to provide food and medicine around the world, saving three million or more lives a year.

That adds up to $154 billion, which could fund those initiatives for a year. To use the entire $200 billion, the government could fund the Obamacare subsidies for more than two years, rather than one.

Kyiv Building Hit by Missile-March 14, 2026 / photo: Getty Images

Cutting Health Care Subsidies

President Donald J. Trump is extremely proud of his One Big Beautiful Bill, which extended his steep tax cuts for ultra-wealthy Americans and corporations. However, the Bill will cause the Federal budget deficit to skyrocket. Trump did not care about the red ink, but many Republicans in Congress did.

To reduce the hole in the budget, Republicans did not renew the subsidies for health care premiums that Congress enacted during the Biden Administration. Those subsidies have enabled millions of Americans to purchase health insurance policies through the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

The annual cost for those premium subsidies was $34 billion, that is, about 0.5% of the Federal budget. So the actual “savings” from cutting them were meager in the context of overall government finances. Ideology played a key role, of course. Many Republican politicians do not believe that the Federal government should play much, if any, role in helping Americans to obtain medical care. They would love to abolish Obamacare and replace it with…something.

To put this is context, restoring the premium subsidies would cost the same as three weeks of waging war. That’s based on a calculation by Nicholas Kristof in his March 21 article The $1.3 Million a Minute War, which describes his extensive list of alternative expenditures.

Sabotaging Obamacare

Obamacare has become a critical part of the American social safety net; the program covers about 45 million Americans. Roughly half are enrolled through the ACA’s insurance marketplaces, and the other half are covered through its expansion of Medicaid.

Ending the subsidies will jeopardize many Americans’ finances or their health. Their premiums will probably double, so many will no longer be able to afford their policies. About 25% of those covered by the ACA said that they are “very likely” to drop their policies if their premiums double, or, if they don’t pay premiums, if their medical expenses rise by more than $50 a month.

About 10 to 15 million Americans may eventually lose their coverage under Obamacare.

Biden Bolstered Ukraine

Under the Biden Administration, the US provided $60 billion a year in aid to Ukraine. That was 1% of the Federal budget.

Half of the assistance was for military expenditures…weapons, munitions etc.….and half was financial support. European states provided roughly the same amount of aid, but it was skewed more toward financial and humanitarian assistance.

With that support, Ukraine managed to hold the Russian invaders at bay for about two years. The front remained stable after the Russians’ initial gains at the start of the invasion. However, from late 2023 until April 2024, Republicans in Congress delayed renewing the aid package for six months. As its military supplies ran low, Ukraine started to lose ground against the Russians.

Leave a comment

A Cold Shoulder from Trump

Under the Trump Administration, the US has not authorized any new aid to Ukraine—not a dime. Instead, Trump agreed to sell US arms and military equipment to the European governments, which donate those supplies to Ukraine. (Trump boasted for a while about how much money the US was making from those sales. But even he realized after a while how crass that sounded). Still, the lack of US aid has put Ukraine at a disadvantage, and the Russians have been making incremental gains for many months.

As the war in Iran grinds on, the fallout for Ukraine has been grim. The US and its allies in the Gulf have fired off so many interceptor missiles that Washington has diverted some that were destined for Ukraine. As a result, Kyiv may have even fewer resources to defend its infrastructure against devastating Russian missile attacks.

A Gift for Putin

Trump’s recent removal of sanctions on Russian oil sales is a reckless move. He took this shortsighted step to slow the rise in oil prices. However, Russia may generate $150 million of additional revenues a day from oil sales, which it needs badly to finance its war machine.

In any event, it is bizarre that Trump is spending a fortune to defend Israel against a potential menace and the US against a remote threat but refuses to help Ukraine repel an actual invasion.

Kyiv faces other problems, such as a much smaller pool of recruits than Russia’s. However, the cutoff in American assistance has been an important factor. If the US resumed giving Ukraine $60 billion a year, that would boost its military…and it would send a strong signal to Vladimir Putin that the war will not end soon.

That development could significantly improve Ukraine’s negotiating position with the Russians. And who knows, maybe it could even end that conflict. Trump should think about that possibility as he pursues the Nobel Peace Prize.

Share

A Crime Against Humanity

When Elon Musk and Trump shut down USAID and its humanitarian programs without Congress’ approval, they did not just violate the law. They committed a crime against humanity. The scale of the suffering and death they have triggered is massive.

With an annual budget of $60 billion, USAID provided a wide range of critical, life-saving programs and projects around the world. The agency supplied food and medical supplies. USAID supported health clinics and clean-water projects, among other initiatives. The agency played a critical role in supporting public health in many regions, but especially in Africa.

USAID’s demise may cause up to 3 million preventable deaths a year, according to the relief organization Oxfam America’s January 27 article What USAID did. In July 2025, The Lancet, a British medical journal, arrived at a similar conclusion, projecting 14 million preventable deaths by 2030. Other organizations have estimated that close to 800,000 people have already perished because USAID was disbanded.

Like the aid to Ukraine, USAID’s $60 billion was only 1% of the Federal budget. The US could spend that amount either pounding Iran for another five weeks…or saving the lives of three million people in one year.

If you were President, what choice would you make?

The Wall Street Democrat

As the American/Israeli war against Iran rages on for a third week, President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are resorting to increasingly violent rhetoric. They probably think that their chest-thumping and threats make them look macho and powerful. But they are presenting a brutal, barbaric image of America to the world. They are creating a dark stain on the US’ reputation.

And if their actions match their rhetoric, especially Hegseth’s, US forces might commit war crimes in Iran. Our government has already been acting like an outlaw regime, violating international law, and Hegseth seems determined to remove all constraints on the military.

In any event, the airstrikes might start to turn Iranians against the US, even if they hate their government, as civilian casualties mount and treasured cultural monuments like the Golestan Palace are hit. Although Hegseth and Trump love to brag about “the best military in the world”, US forces have made some grievous errors, such as bombing a girls’ school.

Incompetence and brutality are not a good combination for winning minds and hearts in the Middle East and the rest of the world.

The heavily damaged Golestan Palace/photo: Getty Images

The Killer-in-Chief

Trump has set an ugly tone for his Administration’s approach to the war, which Hegseth has amplified. Trump has used vulgar terms to describe the Iranian regime, and he has glorified violence. This is not just inappropriate for a President; his harsh language could make it harder to negotiate an end to the conflict.

In a March 13 post on social media, Trump referred to Iran ‘s leaders as “deranged scumbags”. He added that “I am killing them” and that he was honored to do that. He sounded like a gangster, not a statesman.

“Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today. They’ve been killing innocent people all over the world for 47 years, and now I, as the 47th President of the United States of America, am killing them. What a great honor it is to do so!”

One minor detail: Trump, who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War, is not killing anybody. He is sitting comfortably in his gilded Oval Office or fighting the sand traps on a golf course. It is unseemly that Trump is claiming credit for killing Iranian leaders.

The Chinese and the Russians are no doubt using Trump’s crude remarks as propaganda against the US, in their own countries and around the world. Vladimir Putin accuses Ukraine’s leaders of being neo-Nazis, which is vile, but at least he does not boast about killing his enemies.

Elsewhere In his post, Trump crowed about how the US was destroying Iran’s Navy, missiles and drones. In some respects, one should expect that from a Commander-in-Chief who is eager to claim victory…particularly because the war is going on longer than he expected. But Trump seemed to be missing the key point; he did not set forth any goals—lofty or not—that triggered his decision to launch the war.

“Stupid Rules of Engagement”

Defense Secretary Hegseth has proclaimed that US forces fighting Iran will not be constrained by “stupid rules of engagement”, as we discussed in an earlier article, King Donald Rushes Off to War. This is a sharp break from the US military’s traditional approach.

After some horrific mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq that resulted in large civilian casualties, the Obama Administration tightened the rules of engagement. The Pentagon also established a group to find ways to minimize such deaths. This specialized unit, with roughly 200 members, included many soldiers with combat experience.

Last year, Hegseth slashed the team by 90%, to about 20 staffers.

Hegseth’s qualifications for leading the Pentagon are modest; he served in the military but not as a senior commander. Retired officers who had vastly more experience and responsibility than Hegseth have criticized his views about imposing constraints on military operations.

They believe that rules of engagement are needed for two reasons. The rules can help to avoid or minimize civilian casualties. Without such restraints, US forces might kill excessive numbers of civilians and alienate the local populace. Furthermore, if American troops adhere to high standards of conduct in waging war, the US has a strong moral argument for expecting its adversaries to observe the same rules. In other words, the restrictions help to protect our soldiers on the field of battle.

Unlike Hegseth, these retired officers believe that rules of engagement have not hobbled the US’ military operations.

Hegseth: “No Quarter”

On March 13, Hegseth gave a triumphant press conference detailing the extensive damage that the US and Israel had inflicted on Iran’s military infrastructure. Like his boss, Hegseth used coarse language to ridicule the Iranian leaders. He said that they had gone underground and were “cowering…that’s what rats do”.

In another snarky turn, Hegseth noted that Mojtab Khamanei, Iran’s new Supreme Leader, had not appeared in public or released a video recording of his remarks to the Iranian people. “You know why?”, Hegseth asked. “Because he is probably wounded or disfigured”.

Hegseth’s bombastic remarks sounded like propaganda, not a military briefing.

Then Hegseth appeared to cross an important line. The Secretary concluded his remarks by saying that the US would “keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies”.

An order to “give no quarter” means “take no prisoners”, that is, kill them. International law and the US military manual explicitly ban such orders. Senior US military leaders support this ban partly because they want our soldiers to be treated well if they are captured.

Green Light for War Crimes?

Legal experts have denounced Hegseth’s statement as violating those standards and sending a dangerous signal to US forces. International law treats a “no quarter” order as a war crime, like targeting fighters who are wounded or trying to surrender. The US military has banned such orders since the Civil War.

Hegseth has not issued a retraction of his statement as of this writing.

Although it is unlikely, Hegseth might be ignorant about this critical military law and tradition. If so, he is incompetent. Otherwise, Hegseth seems to be encouraging US troops to commit war crimes, in which case he is morally bankrupt. Either way, he is not fit to lead the Department of Defense.

Leave a comment

Glorifying War

The White House has released some disturbing videos that promote the Iran War. Here’s one example: the “Touchdown” video juxtaposes clips of NFL players tackling an opponent with footage of airstrikes on targets in Iran, including a loud “boom” after the hit. The 30-second montage jumps between several legendary tackles and the airstrikes, with rock music thumping in the background.

The film makes the airstrikes look like a video game and seems to equate war with an athletic contest. War is…cool.

But no one dies in a football game. The NFL players featured in the clips, who are retired, have complained bitterly about their images being used to promote war and killing.

Rank Incompetence

Trump and Hegseth share something else besides a love of bloodthirsty rhetoric. They are grossly incompetent.

· The Administration assumed that the Iranians would not close the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint for 20% of global oil shipments.

· The US launched an airstrike on a girls’ school because it was using outdated maps

· Airstrikes have badly damaged important Iranian cultural sites and residential areas

A Strait Jacket for Oil

One did not have to be a strategic genius to anticipate that the Iranians might block the Strait. US military leaders had developed plans around that threat for years. In February, numerous journalists discussed such a scenario, as speculation mounted about whether Trump would join Israel in attacking Iran. But in a major miscalculation, the Administration assumed that Iran would not resort to such a drastic step.

Share

Asking NATO Allies for Help

This week, President Trump called upon some NATO allies to send warships to help the US escort vessels through the Persian Gulf and the Strait. Trump was tacitly admitting that the US may not have enough military assets to protect shipping in the Gulf and the Strait.

Trump seemed surprised that the Europeans reacted very cooly to his request. The German Defense Minister said, “This is not our war; we did not start it”. After all, NATO is a defensive organization, and it was the US, not Iran, that initiated the conflict. The war does not appear to trigger NATO’s Article 5, which commits its members to defend a fellow member that is attacked.

This turn of events is ironic, since Trump is asking for help from leaders of countries that he has hit with heavy tariffs and frequently insulted. He dissed them again on March 16, saying that NATO allies had failed “a great test” to help the US. Trump does not seem to realize that bullying other leaders can backfire.

A Disastrous Airstrike

Early in the war, a US warplane fired a Tomahawk missile at a building that turned out to be a girls’ school. The strike killed 175 people, including many children. The school was located close to a military installation. However, the property had been divided several years ago, and a wall was constructed between the school and military buildings. Two playing fields were placed near the school.

In planning the strike, the US used maps that had not been updated for several years. That is inexcusable in this age of satellite photography. We may have the best and most lethal military in the world, but apparently it is not the most careful.

If Hegseth had not disbanded the unit charged with reducing civilian casualties, its staffers might have asked the planners for “Operation Epic Fury” if all their maps were up to date.

Attacking Key Cultural Sites

Most Iranians despise the Islamic regime and would be ecstatic if it were overthrown. Logically, the US should avoid taking actions that would alienate them. Instead, either the US or Israel has struck cultural sites that are dear to Iranians, such as the Golestan Palace in Tehran, whose oldest sections date from the 16^th Century.

The airstrikes have also damaged historical buildings around Imam square in Isfahan. In particular, the Chehel Sotoun Palace (Forty Columns) suffered significant damage. The Golestan Palace and Imam Square and its surrounding buildings are UNESCO World Historical Sites.

In Tehran, military and political buildings are often located near civilian and cultural structures. The provincial government headquarters was adjacent to Imam Square in Isfahan. So it is not entirely surprising that blast effects from bombs and missiles affected historical structures. But astute military planners and politicians might have decided to spare those structures, which are part of Iran’s heritage. Imagine if the Allies had bombed Notre Dame and the Louvre in World War II…how would the French have reacted?

And as the war grinds on, the US and Israel are destroying more apartment buildings, and more civilians are dying. If this continues, Iranians may start pining for the bad old days…

The Wall Street Democrat

Donald Trump’s war against Iran has wrought havoc on that country and its long-suffering people. They are the primary victims of this unnecessary conflict. But the United States could suffer collateral damage, as Trump pursues his megalomaniacal ambitions. Trump is not just dismantling Iran’s military infrastructure. He is also chipping away at the foundations of our democracy.

Unlike traditional elected politicians, Trump has defied public opinion, which is adamantly opposed to the war. He has lied about key aspects of the conflict. His behavior could foment deeper divisions in our nation, which is already severely polarized.

Trump did not ask for Congress’ approval to launch a major war. Rather than assert their authority under the Constitution, Congressional Republicans have voted down a war powers resolution that would have set limits on his ability to conduct hostilities against Iran.

This development is particularly dangerous because Trump’s approach to negotiating with Iran--a toxic mixture of hubris and naivete--could prolong the war. However, there is a possible “optimistic” scenario: Trump realizes that defeating Iran is not likely, so he simply declares victory and ends the fighting.

The Public Be Damned

Most Americans oppose the war, but Trump seems contemptuous of public opinion. The President has not tried to rally support for the war. Eleven days after launching the first airstrikes, Trump still has not addressed the nation. Instead, he posts on social media and talks to reporters. This is not a substitute for a public dialogue on the war.

Once again, Trump is playing to his base and scorning Democrats and independents. However, almost 60% of Americans oppose the war, according to a recent survey CNN Poll: 59% of Americans Disapprove of Iran Strikes. Although 77% of Republicans support the war, they are a distinct minority. Over 80% of Democrats and almost 70% of independent voters disapprove.

Testing Rationales for War

The President has not put forth a compelling rationale for the war, nor have Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, or Marco Rubio, Secretary of State. They have announced war aims that are vague and muddled. Their efforts have baffled the public, which has not rallied around the flag.

Trump has suggested various reasons for his campaign against Iran:

· Preventing an “imminent attack” on the US

· Stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons

· Changing the regime in Tehran

· Sparking a popular uprising

· Getting revenge on Iran for attempting to assassinate him

The President has seemed to be trying out different explanations, looking for one or two that will land with the American people. So far, he has come up short.

Rubio and Hegseth have attempted to “clarify” the Administration’s goals on Iran. However, they have had to walk back some of their comments because of contradictory comments from the President. On Monday, March 2, Hegseth emphasized in a press conference that the war was “not about regime change”. But his remarks did not jibe with Trump’s call to the Iranian people to overthrow their government. And Trump subsequently demanded a role in selecting Iran’s next leader.

This mishmash of official explanations is confusing and has undermined the Administration’s credibility. This may also weaken the morale of our troops, who may wonder what they are fighting for.

Trump At Arrival of Fallen Soldiers at Dover AFB/photo: Getty Images

The Liar-in-Chief

As I discussed last week in King Donald Rushes Off to War, during the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, the public eventually concluded that its leaders were lying about the reasons for the conflicts and their progress. As a result, many Americans lost their faith in government, which had serious, long-term effects on the country.

This time, the loss of trust could happen very quickly. In wartime, Americans want a leader who will level with them and tell them the truth. Unfortunately, the US entered this conflict under a President who is a habitual liar.

Trump has delivered several “whoppers” since the war broke out:

“The US faced an imminent attack from Iran”…despite US intelligence reports to the contrary.

“Iran would have had a nuclear weapon within two weeks” …despite his statements last summer that US and Israel’s bombing last summer had “obliterated” the country’s nuclear program. In addition, neither the US nor Israel has produced any evidence that Iran has a missile that can carry and deliver a nuclear weapon.

“Iran [not the US] bombed a girls’ school in a southern city”. But the New York Times and BBC News have concluded that it was a US missile that hit the school. The BBC specified that the missile was a Tomahawk, which the US uses but Israel and Iran do not.

When the President issues such blatant falsehoods, he antagonizes voters and probably stirs up even more opposition to his war.

Congress Surrenders Again

In the past, Presidents sought Congressional approval for launching large-scale wars. By bypassing Congress, Trump violated the Constitution and took a crucial power away from the legislature. His defenders minimize this development, claiming that previous Presidents did not always ask Congress for the authority to initiate major conflicts. However, this is false.

Members of Congress had a chance last week to rein in Trump and reassert their authority to decide questions of war and peace. Democrats introduced resolutions in the House and the Senate, under the War Powers Act, that would have set a 30-day limit on the airstrikes and would have prohibited the deployment of ground troops. However, almost all Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, voted against the measures. Congress forfeited another opportunity to re-establish the balance of power in our government.

This is yet another step on the road to one-man rule.

Vladimir Putin and other Russian government officials always refer to their invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation”. In an eerie echo of Russian propaganda, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and other Republicans in Congress refuse to call the Iran conflict a “war”. Instead, they refer to the assault on Iran as “an operation”. One Republican Congressman even said, “We have not declared war, so it is not a war”.

That must be comforting to the residents of Tehran.

Leave a comment

A Dangerous Move

Congress’ decision to give Trump a green light on Iran is very dangerous, because it grants one man, and one man alone, the power to drag America into a major conflict. This is especially risky given this President’s nature. In his second term, Trump has been trigger-happy, bombing seven countries. Trump and Rubio have already been talking about Cuba as their next target for “regime improvement”.

In addition, Trump is remarkably ignorant about history, and his approach to negotiations with Iran is unrealistic.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried for 20 years to convince Trump’s predecessors to join Israel in attacking Iran, but they astutely refused. Barack Obama and Joe Biden were humbled by America’s failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, so they preferred to seek a negotiated solution with Iran. But Trump assumes that he is uniquely qualified to defeat Iran while avoiding the errors of the past.

Arrogant and Naive

Trump’s negotiating style is a toxic combination of hubris and naivete. Knowing a little bit about World War II, Trump demands “unconditional surrender” from Iran. That makes him sound like a great conqueror. But Trump does not understand the context: in 1945 the US and its allies had fought Germany and Japan for over four years, waging huge land battles and incurring massive casualties. They did not just bomb their enemies.

Trump also insisted that he “have a voice” in selecting Iran’s next leader. He declared that Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the recently departed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would be “unacceptable”. And, in his Mafia-type style, Trump said that if Khamenei were picked, “he would not last long”.

It is illegal to assassinate heads of state under international law, and in the US it is prohibited under an executive order that President Gerald Ford issued fifty years ago. For Trump, of course, these are unimportant details.

So Trump has been demanding regime change (no matter what Pete Hegseth says) and, incidentally, trying to humiliate the Iranians. Trump seems to think that he can simply duplicate his triumph in Venezuela.

Share

Iran’s Defiant Response

But, to use his phrase, Trump doesn’t have all the cards. The US and Israel have blown up much of Iran’s military infrastructure, but they have not destroyed the regime. So far, the government remains intact, and it commands hundreds of thousands of heavily armed troops.

The Iranians elected the younger Khamenei—a hard-liner--as their new Supreme Leader. They have sent a strong message; this was a defiant rejection of Trump’s demands.

Trump’s haughty approach to negotiating with Iran makes it hard to find compromises that could end the fighting. Unless Trump tones down his demands and offers Iran some off-ramps, the regime may decide its best option is to keep fighting.

Our Democracy Could Be a Casualty

Throughout history, authoritarian leaders have tried to shore up their regimes by launching foreign wars, assuming that they will score quick victories and regain their public’s support. That’s why Mussolini attacked Ethiopia and Libya and Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. When their adventures abroad faltered, they became even more repressive at home.

Trump is following this playbook. He has launched his reckless war despite the public’s opposition. Trump has dealt another heavy blow to Congress, by giving himself the right to declare war unilaterally. Trump has already attacked journalists and his political enemies. If the war continues for many months, or goes badly for the US, this will spark greater opposition, and Trump may try to crack down harder on his critics.

There is also some risk that Trump could declare a national emergency and try to suspend the midterm elections. Even for Trump, that would be a risky, extreme step, but we cannot rule it out. Such a move would violate the Constitution, of course, and it would trigger a wave of lawsuits. But declaring war without Congress’ approval violated the Constitution, and Trump has shown repeatedly that he can move much more quickly than the courts do.

A Possible TACO Moment?

There is a potential way out of this mess. Trump prides himself on being flexible and unpredictable, a master at deal-making. In his second term, Trump has backed down sometimes when he has faced stiff resistance to his tariffs, such as with China. This has earned him the nickname “TACO” (Trump Always Chickens Out) from his critics. Trump also drew down his ICE forces in Minneapolis when he realized that their harsh tactics were hurting him politically.

If the Iranian regime remains intact, and oil prices stay high, Trump might simply declare victory and send the troops home. He could boast that the US had destroyed Iran’s nuclear program and missiles while claiming Iran’s new leaders would be more compliant, like the Venezuelans—whether any of that would be true or not.

Trump hinted at such a possibility during a press conference on March 9. He said that the war was “very complete, pretty much” and that the US and Israel were “way ahead of schedule”. However, Trump seemed to contradict himself later that day.

Let’s hope that Trump decides to stage a “Mission Accomplished” spectacle soon.

If not, Americans will foot the bill for his war, at a cost of about $1 billion a day for the military operations ….and God knows how many lives. Meanwhile, Trump will continue to hack away at the remaining vestiges of our democracy.

The Wall Street Democrat