I can’t overstate the importance of Judge Kathleen Williams’s decision on Friday to reopen Trump’s $10 billion case against the IRS.
She said she wants to investigate “grievous allegations” that the hasty deal to resolve it was “premised on deception,” and she ordered Trump’s lawyers to tell her by June 12 whether the lawsuit should be formally reopened because “the court was the victim of a fraud.”
The “deception” and “fraud” Judge Williams refers to were allegedly carried out by Trump and his Justice Department.
This is a big deal.
Judge Williams’s decision came in response to court papers filed on Wednesday by a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges who urged her to revive the case and dig into the details of the agreement to settle it.
I don’t recall a similar instance of 35 former federal judges filing such a motion or amicus (friend of the court) brief.
In it, the judges argue that the parties’ — Trump and the Justice Department’s — so-called “settlement” agreement was made to circumvent the court’s possible finding that the case presented no actual controversy, since Trump is on both sides of it.
This, they conclude, constitutes a fraud on the court.
Let me quote the remarkable brief filed by the 35 former federal judges:
“The parties have used this lawsuit—which was never an adversarial proceeding over which the Court even had jurisdiction—as a means to allow a “commission” controlled by the President to dole out $1.776 billion in taxpayer dollars without constitutional or congressional authority to do so, and to confer unlawful private benefits to the President and his family by purportedly prohibiting the United States from prosecuting any and all claims against them.
And the parties have plainly tried to shield this conduct from necessary judicial scrutiny by short-circuiting this Court’s inquiry into whether the lawsuit is in fact an actual case or controversy by [seeking to dismiss the case] before they announced the “settlement”—clearly in hopes of preventing the Court from ever completing that inquiry, which, if it comes out against the parties, will undo their collusive “settlement.” ….
Accordingly, because “[t]he parties’ ‘collusive’ activity perpetrated a fraud on the judicial machinery itself, by fostering an appearance that the litigation involved adverse parties, when, in fact, it did not,” the Court should void its prior dismissal and reopen the case to assess in due course whether a fraud occurred.”
In her order on Friday, Judge Williams said she wanted to investigate the circumstances surrounding Trump’s efforts to settle the lawsuit in a way that benefited him and his allies.
She added that a federal court rule requires attorneys to ensure that court filings are “not presented for any improper purpose” and that “a party’s decision to file a frivolous lawsuit for the sole purpose of forcing a settlement may qualify as such an improper purpose.”
She also noted that the settlement appeared to run afoul of Department of Justice policies that require any settlements to be “specifically limited to the immediate subject matter of the claim.”
Finally, Judge Williams pointed out that a settlement addendum that waives all tax claims the U.S. may currently have against Trump, his two eldest sons, and his businesses and trusts was signed only by Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general.
This could result in questions being asked of Blanche. Ultimately, it could result in his disbarment or even imprisonment. Recall that Nixon’s attorney general, John Mitchell, was convicted of conspiracy, perjury, and obstruction of justice for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up. He served 19 months of a two-and-a-half to eight-year sentence in federal prison before being paroled. He was the first attorney general in United States history to be incarcerated.
Let me just say that there are forces in this country — specifically, Judge Kathleen Williams and the bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges — bent on preventing Trump from exercising authoritarian power.
In so doing, they’re displaying extraordinary courage and commitment to democracy and the rule of law. They are in effect representing all of us, seeking to create a bulwark against Trump’s and his regime’s corruption.
We owe them a great debt of gratitude. (I’m awarding them this week’s Joseph N. Welch Award for Courage in the Face of Tyranny.)
Attorney Joseph N. Welch, who stood up to Senator Joe McCarthy in the Army-McCarthy Hearings of June 1954
Heather is back (after a grueling week; we wish her mother a speedy recovery).
Today we take a deep dive into Trump’s Department of Injustice, now headed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who’s criminally prosecuting Trump’s enemies — including private citizens such as E. Jean Carroll.
We also examine Trump and the Republican Party’s obsession with testosterone — part of the so-called “manosphere” — which includes the scheduling of UFC cage matches on the White House’s South Lawn, denigrating Democrats such as Senate candidate James Talarico as being “low T,” ridiculing LGBTQ+ people, Trump and Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth’s hyper-aggressiveness, and Trump’s fear of strong women who stand up to him.
We also discuss the blatant corruption of the Trump regime and its relationship to the horrific U.S. economy.
So please pull up a chair, grab a cuppa, and join in the conversation.
When the history of the sordid and cruel megalomaniac who now occupies the Oval Office is written, it may well be that his deal with himself to set up a $1.8 billion fund for reimbursing anyone he feels was harmed by the federal government is chronicled as the final straw.
Why not Trump’s absurd tariffs, which are really import taxes passed on to consumers? Why not Trump’s needless war against Iran, which caused prices to soar and is unlikely to result in a better deal on its nuclear ambitions than the one struck by Obama? Why not his cruel ICE and Border Patrol dragnets? Why not the Epstein files or dozens of other lawless or outrageous things he’s done?
I think because almost everyone knows that the fund will be used to pay off Trump’s supporters — including the 1,500 who attacked the U.S. Capitol and then were imprisoned for it — and that paying them is a bridge too far.
This morning a federal judge barred the government from taking steps to launch the fund or process payments at least until a hearing is held in June in a pending lawsuit challenging its legality.
The order came in a case brought by a group of individuals and entities who say they have faced partisan attacks by the Trump regime but who say they expect to be excluded from accessing the fund.
It’s unusual, to say the least, that such a group would be recognized by a court as having standing to bring such a suit, because their status is entirely speculative. They merely expect to be excluded. But such is the level of cynicism about the motives and processes of Trump that even a district court judge would automatically recognize the validity of such an expectation.
It is impossible to conceive that those who have been attacked by Trump’s Justice Department — such as former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James — would be compensated by Trump’s fund. Nor would the former federal prosecutor who claims he was fired for his work on the January 6 investigation, or people arrested while protesting immigration raids.
Other lawsuits challenging the fund have been filed in the District of Columbia and in California. But the interesting thing is it’s not just lawsuits, and it’s not just Democrats. A number of prominent Republican lawmakers have publicly objected to the fund.
The fact that public money would be spent, and that the fund would be entirely under Trump’s control, also figures in.
Remarkably, 35 former federal judges on Wednesday urged the judge who closed Trump’s case with the IRS — the origin of the fund — to take another look at the terms of the deal. I can’t recall another instance of former judges petitioning a sitting judge to take another look at the terms of a settlement.
The stench of Trump’s self-dealing, compounded by the absurdity of his suing his own Justice Department for $10 billion — and the department’s responding with a “deal” that would give him $1.8 billion to reward his supporters, and future immunity from IRS audits — seems to have tipped some set of cosmic scales.
The scales of justice and also the political scales. Republican members of Congress are hearing an uproar from their constituents about this, which persuaded many to leave town without acting on Trump’s second big reconciliation bill.
I asked earlier this week if Trump has finally overplayed his hand. I believe the cumulative effects of all his wanton and harmful initiatives over the last several months are now setting in. The $1.8 billion fund will be seen as the straw that broke Trump’s legal and political back — the act of hubris that illuminated all the other acts of hubris, the very emblem of Trump’s contempt for anything and everyone beyond himself and his own self-glorification.
Trump’s Department of Injustice Justice has opened a criminal investigation into writer E. Jean Carroll.
I’ve spoken with E. Jean about her cases against Trump and her fabulous (and, believe it or not, hilarious) book about what she’s been through — Not My Type: One Woman vs. a President, which I can’t recommend highly enough. (See the interview Heather Lofthouse and I did with E. Jean on March 14, above.)
First, some background:
In 2022, Carroll alleged that a chance encounter with Trump at Bergdorf Goodman’s Fifth Avenue store in Manhattan in the mid-1990s ended violently — that Trump slammed her against a dressing room wall, pulled down her tights, and forced himself into her.
In May 2023, a federal jury in New York unanimously found that Trump was liable for sexually abusing Carroll. The judge in that trial clarified that Trump didn’t just “sexually abuse” her. He “raped” her:
The finding of sexual abuse “does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
(When Trump sued ABC News over George Stephanopoulos’s assertion that Trump had raped Carroll, ABC chose to give in and pay Trump $16 million rather than rely on the judge’s clarification.)
The jury also found that Trump had defamed Carroll by saying she had lied about the assault. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million.
Trump appealed, but the verdict was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A three-judge panel unanimously rejected Trump’s request for a new trial, concluding that he had “not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings.”
(Last November, Trump asked the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. It has yet to decide whether to hear the case.)
After the verdict, Trump denied he had assaulted Carroll, called her claims “a complete con job” and a “Hoax and a lie,” and said she was not his “type.”
Trump’s comments caused Carroll to charge Trump with defaming her once again. After this second trial, a unanimous jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million.
The verdict included $65 million in punitive damages. The jury found that Trump had acted with malice in defaming Carroll a second time. Her lawyers had argued that a large verdict was necessary to “make him stop” his attacks on her — which he continued at news conferences, in social media posts, and during the trial itself.
The $83.3 million verdict was upheld by a Second Circuit appeals court in a unanimous three-judge ruling, in which the judges found that Trump “never wavered or relented in his public attacks” on Carroll and that she was subjected to public harassment as a result of his statements, including death threats and threats of physical injury.
Trump has vowed to appeal this case to the Supreme Court as well.
And now Trump is using the Justice Department as another cudgel against the woman he sexually abused (the judge said “raped”).
The mainstream media is characterizing this as “the latest chapter” in Trump’s retribution campaign carried out by the Justice Department — following the department’s criminal investigations of former FBI director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and other Trump opponents.
Wrong. This investigation marks a dangerous escalation of Trump’s use of the Justice Department for personal vendettas.
In going after Carroll, Trump is no longer simply weaponizing the department against people he considers political enemies. Carroll has never been a politician; she’s never served in a president’s administration; she’s never been a prosecutor. She’s a private citizen whom a jury unanimously found Trump had sexually abused (raped), and two juries unanimously found he had defamed.
Hell, if Trump can use his Justice Department to criminally investigate private citizens who have held him civilly accountable for past brutality, there’s no logical end to his potential vindictiveness. Any of us who has tried to hold him accountable, in any way, could be next.
A criminal investigation isn’t a party invitation. It’s hugely costly to the people targeted, time-consuming, often grueling and anxiety-provoking.
The Justice Department’s trumped-up criminal investigation is looking into whether Carroll committed criminal perjury when she said in a 2022 deposition before her first civil lawsuit against Trump that she hadn’t had outside help in funding it — although some of her legal bills were paid by a nonprofit financed by Reid Hoffman (a major Democratic donor and founder of LinkedIn, who may also be the target of a criminal investigation).
But this issue was already considered, and dismissed, in Trump’s appeal of that first verdict — in which Trump’s lawyers accused Carroll of concealing financial support from Hoffman, and her lawyers argued in response that Hoffman’s financial support was irrelevant to Carroll’s legal claims and that she had nothing to do with obtaining the outside funding.
The appellate court found that she had “plausibly … forgotten about the limited outside funding counsel obtained” and that “Carroll simply was not involved in the matter of who was or was not funding her litigation costs.”
For Trump’s Justice Department to now launch a criminal investigation of Carroll on the same claim his lawyers made years ago, which was dismissed by an appellate court, is a transparent abuse of justice, harassment of a private citizen, and violation of the rule of law.
Even worse, Todd Blanche, Trump’s acting attorney general, was the lawyer who represented Trump in Trump’s appeals of Carroll’s verdicts and who made the very argument that the appellate court rejected and the Justice Department is now turning into a criminal investigation.
Although Blanche is said to have recused himself from the probe because of his prior representation of Trump in Carroll’s cases, his fingerprints are all over it. Blanche is desperate for Trump to promote him to full attorney general, and, to this end, has been even more accommodating of Trump’s thirst for revenge than his predecessor, Pam Bondi. Moreover, officials from department headquarters have been involved in the decision to investigate Carroll — officials who directly report to Blanche.
Friends, I was an attorney in the Justice Department soon after Richard Nixon had tried to turn it against his enemies and Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell had gone to jail for his role in Watergate. I was fortunate enough to work for Edward Levi, Gerald Ford’s attorney general, who sought to insulate the department from any similar abuses in the future and regain the public’s trust in our system of justice. President Ford supported Levi’s efforts. Levi’s successors, Griffin Bell and Benjamin Civiletti, continued Levi’s work to depoliticize — and professionalize — the department, with the support of Jimmy Carter.
The next president and attorney general must rededicate themselves and the Justice Department to the same principles.
Nixon’s Justice Department was bad. Trump’s is far worse, and more dangerous.
I sometimes share with you perspectives about what we’re up against from non-American writers and journalists. Asli Aydintasbas, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C., and a former journalist, published this short essay, titled “Trump Will Overplay His Hand: Here’s How to be Ready,” on December 1, 2024, in PoliticoMagazine, just weeks before the start of Trump’s second regime. Eighteen months later, I still find this essay a useful guide.
***
American democracy is about to undergo a serious stress test [this was written January 1, 2025.] I know how it feels, in part because I lived through the slow and steady march of state capture as a journalist working in Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey.
Over a decade as a high-profile journalist, I covered Turkey’s descent into illiberalism, having to engage in the daily push and pull with the government. I know how self-censorship starts in small ways but then creeps into operations on a daily basis. I am familiar with the rhythms of the battle to reshape the media, state institutions and the judiciary.
Having lived through it, and having gathered some lessons in hindsight, I believe that there are strategies that can help Democrats and Trump critics not only survive the coming four years, but come out stronger. Here are six of them.
1. Don’t Panic — Autocracy Takes Time
President-elect Donald Trump’s return to power is unnerving but America will not turn into a dictatorship overnight — or in four years. Even the most determined strongmen face internal hurdles, from the bureaucracy to the media and the courts. It took Erdoğan well over a decade to fully consolidate his power. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Poland’s Law and Justice Party needed years to erode democratic norms and fortify their grip on state institutions. [Reminder: On April 12, 2026, Péter Magyar led his Tisza party to victory with an extraordinary 138 seats over Orbán's Fidesz party, which retained only 55 seats, and the far-right Our Homeland, with 6.]
I am not suggesting that the United States is immune to these patterns, but it’s important to remember that its decentralized system of governance — the network of state and local governments — offers enormous resilience. Federal judges serve lifetime appointments, states and governors have specific powers separate from those granted federally, there are local legislatures, and the media has the First Amendment as a shield, reinforced by over a century of legal precedents.
Sure, there are dangers, including by a Supreme Court that might grant great deference to the president. But in the end, Donald Trump really only has two years to try to execute state capture. Legal battles, congressional pushback, market forces, midterm elections in 2026 and internal Republican dissent will slow him down and restrain him. The bottom line is that the U.S. is too decentralized in its governance system for a complete takeover. The Orbanization of America is not an imminent threat.
2. Don’t Disengage — Stay Connected
After a stunning electoral loss like this, there’s a natural impulse to shut off the news, log off social media and withdraw from public life. I’ve seen this with friends in Turkey and Hungary with opposition supporters retreating in disillusionment after Erdogan’s or Orbam’s victories. Understandably, people want to turn inwards.
Dancing, travel, meditation, book clubs — it’s all fine. But eventually, in Poland, Hungary and Turkey, opponents of autocracy have returned to the fight, driven by a belief in the possibility of change. So will Americans.
Nothing is more meaningful than being part of a struggle for democracy. That’s why millions of Turks turned out to the polls and gave the opposition a historic victory in local governments across Turkey earlier this year. That’s how the Poles organized a winning coalition to vote out the conservative Law and Justice Party last year. It can happen here, too.
The answer to political defeat is not to disconnect, but to organize. You can take a couple of days or weeks off, commiserate with friends and mute Elon Musk on X — or erase the app altogether. But in the end, the best way to develop emotional resilience is greater engagement.
3. Don’t Fear the Infighting
Donald Trump’s victory has understandably triggered infighting inside the Democratic Party and it looks ugly. But fear not. These recriminations and finger-pointing are necessary to move forward. In Turkey, Hungary and Poland, it was only after the opposition parties faced their strategic and ideological misalignment with society that they were able to begin to effectively fight back.
Trump has tapped into the widespread belief that the economic order, labor-capital relations, housing and the immigration system are broken. You may think he is a hypocrite, but there is no doubt that he has convinced a large cross-section of American society that he is actually the agent of change — a spokesman for their interests as opposed to “Democratic elites.” This is exactly what strongmen like Erdoğan and Orban have achieved.
For the Democratic Party to redefine itself as a force for change, and not just as the custodian of the status quo, it needs fundamental shifts in how it relates to working people in the U.S. There is time to do so before the midterms of 2026.
4. Charismatic Leadership Is a Non-Negotiable
One lesson from Turkey and Hungary is clear: You will lose if you don’t find a captivating leader, as was the case in 2023 general elections in Turkey and in 2022 in Hungary. Coalition-building or economic messaging is necessary and good. But it is not enough. You need charisma to mobilize social dissent.
Trump was beatable in this election, but only with a more captivating candidate. For Democrats, the mistake after smartly pushing aside President Joe Biden was bypassing the primaries and handpicking a candidate. Future success for the party will hinge on identifying a candidate who can better connect with voters and channel their aspirations. It should not be too hard in a country of 350 million.
Last year’s elections in Poland and Turkey showcased how incumbents can be defeated (or not defeated, as in general elections in Turkey in 2023) depending on the opposition’s ability to unite around compelling candidates who resonate with voters. Voters seek authenticity and a connection — give it to them.
5. Skip the Protests and Identity Politics
Soon, Trump opponents will shake off the doldrums and start organizing an opposition campaign. But how they do it matters. For the longest time in Turkey, the opposition made the mistake of relying too much on holding street demonstrations and promoting secularism, Turkey’s version of identity politics, which speaks to the urban professional and middle class but not beyond. When Erdoğan finally lost his absolute predominance in Turkish politics in 2024, it was largely because of his mismanagement of the economy and the opposition’s growing competence in that area.
Trump’s appeal transcends traditional divides of race, gender and class. He has formed a new Republican coalition and to counteract this. Democrats too, must broaden their tent, even if means trying to appeal to conservatives on some issues. Opposition over the next four years must be strategic and broad-based.
Street protests and calls to defend democracy may be inspirational, but they repel conservatives and suburban America. Any grassroots action must be coupled with a clear, relatable economic message and showcase the leadership potential of Democratic mayors and governors. Identity politics alone won’t do it.
6. Have Hope
Nothing lasts forever and the U.S. is not the only part of the world that faces threats to democracy — and Americans are no different than the French, the Turks or Hungarians when it comes to the appeal of the far right. But in a country with a strong, decentralized system of government and with a long-standing tradition of free speech, the rule of law should be far more resilient than anywhere in the world.
Trump’s return to power certainly poses challenges to U.S. democracy. But he will make mistakes and overplay his hand — at home and abroad. America will survive the next four years if Democrats pick themselves up and start learning from the successes of opponents of autocracy across the globe.
[Question to you: Does this essay still ring true? In what ways does it seem especially relevant today? Are there ways in which it seems either naive or overly optimistic?]
I do not wish Trump ill. While he hasn’t shown a shred of compassion for anyone other than himself, this doesn’t justify our lacking compassion for him.
It’s also in the interest of America and the world that he be physically and mentally able to discharge the duties of his office.
So we have reason to be concerned about Trump’s visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center early Tuesday for what the White House called a “routine annual dental and medical assessment.”
Trump turns 80 next month. I feel entitled to comment on the practical meaning of this milestone because I’ll also turn 80 next month (he was born 10 days before me).
Let’s just say that reaching it doesn’t mean altogether good things, unless you consider the alternative.
Even in a healthy person, small things begin to break down as one approaches 80. Everything takes just a bit more time and effort. Joints ache. Energy isn’t quite as abundant.
The 80-year-old mind isn’t as quick. The frontal lobe’s capacity to remember names goes to shit. (Yesterday, I could barely remember the name of a garage mechanic whom I’ve known for nearly half a century.)
Taken separately, such minor frailties are typically no more than a personal frustration, but they begin to mount up. In a president of the United States, they can pose a major challenge to the nation and world.
Trump frequently proclaims he’s in excellent health. “Just finished my 6 month physical at Walter Reed Military Medical Center. Everything checked out PERFECTLY,” he wrote on Truth Social early yesterday afternoon. “Thank you to the great Doctors and Staff! Heading back to the White House.”
But even “PERFECTLY” is a relative concept for someone ending his seventh decade and beginning his eighth, who’s the oldest person to assume the presidency and the second-oldest to hold the office. (Joe Biden was 82 when he left in 2025.)
Presidents aren’t legally required to release their medical records, but, given the effluvium of lies in which Trump permanently floats, we’d be excused if we didn’t entirely trust this PERFECTLY report.
Plus, there are his bruised hands, swollen ankles, bouts of drowsiness, exceedingly long blinks during official meetings (some call them “naps”), and erratic — if not off-the-charts weird — behavior.
Add in the frequency of his health “checkups.”
Tuesday’s visit to Walter Reed was Trump’s third in-person doctor’s visit in a little over a year. His first physical of this term of office was in mid-April last year. He returned in early October for a “semiannual physical.” In early January, he had what was described as a brief dental appointment. Earlier this month, another dental appointment. Followed by his return to Walter Reed on Tuesday for his third “annual” physical in 13 months.
Consider also the shifting explanations. In July, Navy Capt. Sean Barbabella, Trump’s physician, explained that bruises on Trump’s right hand were “consistent with minor soft tissue irritation from frequent handshaking.” The explanation seemed plausible until the bruises spread to his left hand.
Then there’s the changing story about Trump’s scans. In December he told reporters that he’d had an MRI in October but wasn’t sure what part of his body was scanned. “It wasn’t the brain,” he said, defensively, “because I took a cognitive test and I aced it.” Barbabella then issued a memo explaining it had been a scan of his heart and abdomen, and that in both cases the advanced imaging was “perfectly normal.”
In January, Trump altered his story to say it was a CT scan rather than an MRI. Why? Trump being Trump, he doesn’t want anyone to know anything about his health that might reveal something he fears enemies and critics might see as a weakness.
“In retrospect, it’s too bad I took [the scan] because it gave them a little ammunition,” Trump said. “I would have been a lot better off if [I] didn’t, because the fact that I took it said, ‘Oh gee, is something wrong?’ Well, nothing’s wrong.”
What’s he afraid of? Probably that the American public will catch on to his rapidly diminishing capacities.
Three years ago, according to a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, only 28 percent of the public thought Trump insufficiently healthy to hold the nation’s highest office. Earlier this month, the same poll found that 55 percent of the public thought his health insufficient for him to serve effectively.
Behind the public’s mounting worries is a growing sense that Trump isn’t mentally all there.
Physical and mental health aren’t easily separated, especially as one reaches 80. I often can’t remember where I put my wallet and keys or why I’ve entered a room. I also have less patience than I used to. I’m less tolerant of long waiting lines, automated phone menus, and Republicans.
But if Trump can’t remember where he put, say, a top-secret memo or why he entered the Situation Room, or if he expresses bizarre impatience, it’s a potential risk to the nation and world.
Worse, Trump is exhibiting clear symptoms of dementia.
“Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell,” Trump exploded on his social media Easter morning, adding an Islamic prayer to the end of the post.
The following Tuesday he threatened that unless Iran struck a deal in 12 hours, its whole civilization would die.
When Iran shot down two U.S. airmen, aides who were getting minute-by-minute updates reportedly kept Trump out of the Situation Room because they believed his impatience wouldn’t be helpful, a senior administration official said.
Then came Trump’s rant against the pope.
“Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy. … I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA. He gets it, and Leo doesn’t! … Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician. It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church!”
During a subsequent Q&A with reporters, Trump doubled down: “I don’t think he’s doing a very good job. He likes crime, I guess. … I am not a fan of Pope Leo.”
Days later Trump posted an AI-generated portrait of himself as a kind of American Jesus. When this caused a wave of criticism and outrage (much of it from fundamentalist Christians), he insisted he was portraying himself “as a doctor, making people better.”
Rather than helping Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections by, for example, embarking on an “affordability tour” (as White House aides have urged him to do), Trump has been on a “revenge tour” against Republican members of Congress he deems insufficiently loyal — a gambit that may cost Republicans dearly in the midterms.
At yesterday’s Cabinet meeting, Trump touted the primary wins of Republicans he endorsed, including yesterday’s Texas victory of Ken Paxton over incumbent Republican Senator John Cornyn.
Paxton carries more baggage than the U.S. Postal Service — including abuse-of-office allegations from his top staff, an indictment for securities fraud, impeachment by Texas’s Republican House, and an ongoing divorce initiated by his wife, who alleges adultery — which will help the Democratic challenger, James Talarico.
Yet Trump insisted at the Cabinet meeting that “I don’t care about the midterms.” He was referring to Iranian officials who “thought they were going to outwait me” by relying on mounting political pressures to force him to give up, but he might as well have been talking about the blowback from his revenge tour.
Trump ended yesterday’s Cabinet meeting with further evidence of his mental decline in another rant against Somali-Americans. “The Somalians, what they’ve done to Minnesota, the Somalians, crooked as hell. Ilhan Omar, crooked as hell,” he said, in reference to the Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota. “They’re all crooks, and we got them, we got them. Now we’re putting the clamps on,” Trump said.
His antipathy toward Somali-Americans is growing, with his dementia. In December, weeks before ICE went on a rampage in Minneapolis, Trump claimed Somalis made Minnesota a “hellhole,” saying “the Somalians should be out of here. They’ve destroyed our country.” Of Somalia-born Omar, Trump said, “she shouldn’t be allowed to be a congresswoman, and I’m sure people are looking at that. She should be thrown the hell out of our country.” A day earlier, he called the congresswoman “garbage,” saying he didn’t want Somalis in the U.S.
Can you imagine any other president of the United States singling out a group of foreign-born Americans like this? Of course not.
The evidence continues to mount. Trump is both physically and mentally incapable of discharging the duties of president of the United States.
The sooner the 25th Amendment is invoked, or he is impeached, the safer America and the world will be.
Trump’s war in Iran is entering its third month. Gas is $1.50 more at the pump than it was before February 28. Other prices are rising. The American economy is showing signs of the dreaded stagflation (the combination of inflation and stagnation that’s difficult to overcome). There’s a loud outcry over revelations about Trump’s self-dealing, including his $1.8 billion slush fund and permanent immunity from any IRS audits of him and his family.
Given all this, some political observers I rely on tell me Trump has finally overplayed his hand. He’s a lame duck who’s now facing the beginning of the end. His power is disappearing. Not all political observers I’ve been consulting agree.
Hence, this week’s Office Hours question: In your view, has Trump finally overplayed his hand, and, if so, what are the likely consequences for him, America, and the world?
I’ve grouped the responses I’ve received from seasoned political observers into several categories, which I’ve summarized below. I’d appreciate your thoughts.
The 2026 Billionaire Tax Act initiative recently submitted enough signatures to be put on the California ballot for the November 2026 elections. Its goal is to raise revenue by imposing a one-time 5 percent wealth tax on California billionaires to offset large cuts to California’s Medicaid caused by the Trump regime and Congress when, in July 2025, they cut federal taxes mainly on the wealthiest.
The reason for targeting California billionaires for new revenue is their wealth has grown faster than anyone else’s in recent years and they currently pay low taxes relative to their large wealth gains. Many borrow against their wealth for living expenses (banks are delighted to lend to them), enabling them to claim little or no taxable income.
As a result, taxing billionaires can both raise substantial revenue and restore tax progressivity at the very top. California is in the vanguard of what the nation must do. I believe they will do it when Democrats are back in control, and when they enact campaign finance reforms so no member of Congress is necessarily dependent on the super-wealthy for the bulk of their campaign contributions.
The following oped appeared in today’s New York Times. It was written by two of my colleagues at Berkeley, Professors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman (who is also at the Paris School of Economics). I have reproduced it in its entirety, with permission, and have highlighted paragraphs I believe to be particularly important.
They make the case for the billionaire wealth tax in California, and indirectly for a billionaire wealth tax nationwide. They also answer the arguments against the tax, such as that California billionaires may leave the state in expectation that such wealth taxes would be renewed, possibly reducing future income tax revenue to the state and reducing its economic dynamism as the engine of tech innovation.
With wealth inequality now surging beyond anything ever witnessed in America, the dictum attributed to Justice Louis D. Brandeis has become dramatically relevant: “America faces a choice: We can have great wealth in the hands of a few, or we can have a democracy, but we cannot have both.” A wealth tax is a necessary precondition for everything else.
***
The billionaire class in California includes roughly 250 households, a mere 0.001 percent of the state’s families. Yet its wealth now amounts to more than half of California’s entire annual economic output.
This means that if these billionaires spent all of their wealth, they could buy more than half of the goods and services produced in a year in the entire state.
This extraordinary wealth does not translate into extraordinary tax contributions.
From 2019 to 2025, California billionaires’ wealth grew an average of over 15 percent per year, while they paid, on average, just 0.26 percent of their wealth annually in state income taxes. Their income tax payments accounted for only 2.4 percent of California’s income tax revenue.
For the very richest individuals, the effective burden was even lower. The four wealthiest Californians — former Google co-founder Sergey Brin, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, former Google CEO Larry Page, and Facebook’s (Meta’s) Mark Zuckerberg — paid an average of just 0.07 percent of their wealth annually in California income tax over that period, according to our analysis of Securities and Exchange Commission records on stock sales and executive compensation from their companies.
California’s tax system fails to effectively tax ultrahigh-net-worth individuals. The same is true of the United States’ tax system and those of other countries.
The problem is that billionaires’ fortunes are largely held in assets (mainly stocks) that rise in value over time. This rise in value is not taxed unless the assets are sold. Under current law, when billionaires don’t sell their stock, wealth accumulates while taxes on their gains are deferred indefinitely and sometimes avoided entirely.
To understand how California’s billionaires have become so unfathomably rich, it’s helpful to think of their fortunes as icebergs. Some earnings are easy to see — and tax. From 2019 to 2025, Mr. Zuckerberg reported more than $7.1 billion in income from Meta: $181 million in compensation, $1.4 billion in dividends and $5.6 billion in gains from selling stock.
Despite making so much money, Mr. Zuckerberg was taxed a combined state and federal rate of just 27 percent on that income. That’s not much higher than the average California household’s effective tax rate of about 20 percent.Mr. Zuckerberg’s tax rate was relatively low in large part because most of his income was in the form of capital gains — what he made from selling stock that had risen in value. Capital gains are taxed federally at a lower rate than ordinary income.
Most of Zuckerberg’s wealth is hidden from income taxes. Since 2019, Meta has made hundreds of billions of dollars in profit. As Meta’s chief executive, Mr. Zuckerberg has invested much of that money back into the company, of which he owns about 13 percent. These profits have been taxed at a relatively low 17 percent, Meta’s effective corporate income tax rate. Their reinvestment has boosted the company’s value and, therefore, the value of its shares. This caused Mr. Zuckerberg’s wealth to rise by tens of billions of dollars.
The same is true of the wealth Mr. Zuckerberg accumulated as Meta grew and investors became more bullish about the company. This dynamic increased the value of his shares by an additional $142 billion. Unless Mr. Zuckerberg sells his shares, all of this growth remains untaxed.
But he can put his gains to use without selling them, borrowing tax-free against his holdings at low interest rates, as he did in 2023, when he pledged $3.1 billion worth of his Meta shares as collateral for a loan.
California’s other top billionaires have similarly structured fortunes. Without a wealth tax, these tech barons will continue to hoard the rewards of the state’s economic growth while its cities cut services and its workers lose health care.
Google’s founders, Mr. Brin and Mr. Page, are the state’s richest individuals, with more than $600 billion in wealth between the two of them — up from $345 billion last September. They have come out against the wealth tax initiative while making moves to leave the state. They benefit from the status quo.
Mr. Brin has funded the political campaign against the measure and has funded signature collection for two competing ballot initiatives that could undercut the wealth tax, spending at least $57 million to fight it.
They stepped down from day-to-day management at the end of 2019. That year and in 2020 and 2023, each got from Alphabet, Google’s parent company, only $1 per year in executive compensation.
They didn’t sell stock, and they didn’t receive dividends or any other compensation relating to Alphabet, so they paid no income tax on their wealth related to the company. But their stock wealth rose by $133 billion, driven in part by the reinvestment of their share of company profits, which amounted to $20 billion in those three years. Scenarios like this show why some of the very wealthiest people in America are among the least taxed.
This arrangement violates basic principles of fairness, deprives the government of revenue it needs for public services and fuels wealth concentration.
Overwhelming wealth becomes power — power to influence the direction of corporate behemoths, power to sway society through donations and media ownership, power to steer politics through unlimited campaign contributions to super PACs.
Elon Musk’s recent adventures in the executive branch, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars to help elect Donald Trump, demonstrate how quickly concentrated wealth can transmute into political control.
We don’t imagine that a one-time 5 percent tax on the wealth of California billionaires, as proposed in the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, would fix all these problems. But it could raise nearly $100 billion in revenue for California. This amount would make up for the funding the federal government is taking away from the state over the next five years. It would also be tiny relative to billionaires’ recent wealth gains.
In the past three years alone, the total wealth of California’s billionaires grew by a staggering 144 percent, to over $2 trillion.
Taking such a small bite out of billionaires’ exponentially growing tech wealth wouldn’t doom Silicon Valley because the value of California’s concentrated tech talent dwarfs the proposed wealth tax. Nvidia’s chief executive, Mr. Huang, who would be one of the biggest payers of the tax, said he would be “perfectly fine” with it.
Other myths about the proposal need to be dispelled. It would tax only billionaires. It has been carefully written to respect the California and U.S. Constitutions. It contains provisions designed to prevent taxation beyond 5 percent of the fair market value of anyone’s shares and to avoid hitting start-ups hard. Billionaire entrepreneurs, with sizable illiquid stakes in newly founded private companies, would be able to defer payments until they began to cash out.
It is too late for superrich Californians to flee the state to avoid the tax. If approved in November, the tax would apply to billionaires who were residents of California as of Jan. 1, 2026. Some affected taxpayers might have left between the ballot initiative’s introduction, in late October 2025, and the end of the year. But it is improbable that any significant number of billionaires fully cut ties with California in that short period.
Critics of the ballot measure have voiced concerns that even a small number of billionaires leaving the state would lead to lower state tax revenues overall. Their math doesn’t add up. California’s billionaires currently pay such a low tax rate that even if all of them left the state, it would take 25 years for the loss of their tax payments under the current set of rules to surpass the amount the state would raise if the one-time tax succeeds this fall.
In 2025, California collected $4.1 billion in income tax from its billionaires. We estimate that California would collect about 25 times that much revenue — about $103 billion — from the proposed wealth tax.
While billionaires who no longer run their businesses day to day may choose to eventually leave California, uprooting an established business that relies on the pool of California’s tech talent and tech ecosystem would be much harder: While Mr. Page and Mr. Brin may leave for Florida or Nevada, there are no discussions of Google leaving Mountain View.
California’s tech sector produces billionaires faster than any other state’s. Its superrich — who have benefited from the state’s infrastructure, universities and networks of people and businesses — have accumulated enormous fortunes almost tax-free. The proposed billionaire tax would finally make them contribute in modest proportion to their gains.
In November, California’s voters should show the nation the way forward.
He’s no longer even trying to hide it. He makes a deal with himself for a $1.8 billion slush fund to reward loyalists willing to defy the law and commit violence on his behalf, and for a pardon of himself and his family for any illegal self-dealing and financial wrongs “FOREVER” (it’s in all caps in the document).
Then, when the deal is widely criticized, he posts:
“I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward. I could have settled my case, including the illegal release of my Tax Returns and the equally illegal BREAK IN of Mar-a-Lago, for an absolute fortune. Instead, I am helping others who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE! President DJT.”
Does he really believe he could have settled his case for an absolute fortune — the case that he brought against himself — the case a federal judge doubted was even a “case” because he was on both sides of it?
Last week, a disclosure form showed that Trump’s investment portfolio executed more than 3,600 trades in the first three months of this year alone, many involving companies that he has favored with access or policies.
America is slouching toward the 250th anniversary of our revolution against arbitrary power with a president who shamelessly exercises it. Never before have we witnessed this degree of self-dealing, bribe taking, usurpation of congressional authority, and open defiance of federal courts.
It’s an unconstitutional slippery slope. If Trump can get away with creating for himself a $1.8 billion slush fund that Congress never approved and courts cannot oversee, and wantonly trade the shares of companies his policies are favoring, what’s to stop him from creating a $10 billion or $10 trillion self-dealing slush fund?
If he can get away with preemptively pardoning himself and his family for any and all future financial wrongdoing, what’s to stop him from pardoning himself and his family for any future criminal acts?
These are only a part of the slippery slope we’re on. If he can abduct a foreign president without Congress’s permission, what’s to stop him from abducting anyone? If he can order the U.S. military to kill a foreign head of state without even Congress declaring a war, what’s to stop him from ordering the military to kill anyone?
If he can target political enemies for criminal prosecution, what’s to stop him from jailing or murdering his opponents?
If he can unilaterally decide that someone on a boat in the high seas is an “enemy combatant” and summarily kill them, what’s to stop him from calling anyone he dislikes an enemy combatant and having them killed?
If he can put his name on buildings all over Washington and take a wrecking ball to the East Wing of the White House, what’s to stop him from taking a wrecking ball to the entire edifice and putting up a Trump tower?
He feels unstoppable because there’s no one around him to tell him no. Instead, he’s surrounded by sycophants who tell him yes. He gets blind loyalty from his lapdogs — his vice president, his Cabinet, and most Republicans in Congress — who work for him rather than for the American people.
He feels indomitable because his billionaire backers — Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Larry and David Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, and Rupert Murdoch, among others — have stuffed his PAC with their money and silenced criticism of him on their media platforms, in order to garner his favors. Meanwhile, his followers feast on his white Christian nationalism and regard him as godlike.
He feels invincible because he was reelected president even though he was impeached twice and has been found guilty of 34 felony counts, and the Supreme Court has shielded him from further criminal prosecution for “official” acts (which he takes to mean any actions while he’s president). Congress is barely an obstacle because, as he demonstrated as recently as last week, he has a chokehold over the Republican Party. He even says he “doesn’t need Congress.”
He feels invulnerable because he’ll never directly face voters again, and therefore will never lose — nor, he assumes, ever be held accountable for anything.
My friends, this is full-frontal neofascism. I suggest we respond in these ways:
On July 4, the 250th anniversary of the nation’s independence, we wear black armbands to acknowledge the near death of our democracy and the rule of law under Trump.
In the weeks and months leading up to the midterm election on November 3, 2026, we commit to getting the largest voter turnout in American history, to take back Congress and stop the neofascist in the White House. Not just a blue wave but a blue tsunami.
On Election Day 2028, we elect a president whose character and temperament are consistent with the founding ideals of the United States — someone both humble and honorable, who’s committed to strengthening democracy and the rule of law, who will revive the self-governing institutions that Trump has shat on and refocus the nation on our vast unfinished agenda of inclusion, rather than exclusion.
Beyond these, we will do whatever we can to learn from this catastrophe and help America learn. We will teach our children and grandchildren the truth of what has happened and how close we’ve come to losing our democracy. And we will educate future generations on what we owe one another as citizens of this great land.
To accomplish all this we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
I met him in our dormitory the day we entered college in 1964. He saw me struggling to carry my big luggage crates up the two flights of stairs to my dorm room and, without saying a word, grabbed one and hauled it to the second floor.
“Thank you!” I stammered when we reached the landing.
“Don’t mention it,” he said with a broad smile, and then offered his hand. “I’m Robbie.”
“Bob,” I said, shaking his hand.
“Good to meet you, Bob!”
He must have noticed I was exhausted by the effort, and lonely to boot. “It’s close to dinner time,” he said. “Wanna walk over to the dining hall?”
“Sure!”
That was the start of our friendship.
Robbie was intuitively and naturally kind. He combined a remarkable warmheartedness with a degree of compassion I had never known before. And it wasn’t only toward me. Every young man in our dorm, and many in our class, came to admire and depend on Robbie.
Robbie went missing in action in Vietnam on October 12, 1972. His body has never been recovered.
I think of Robbie on Memorial Day, as I do of others who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces.
I was strongly opposed to the Vietnam War. I demonstrated and marched against it. I was too short to be drafted, but I detested the cruel absurdity of that war, the lies with which it was sold to the American people, the utter waste of it. In the end, more than 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese lost their lives in it. Many more were grievously wounded.
But when I think of Robbie, I also remember his sense of duty. Duty was inseparable from his kindness. Whatever the situation, Robbie was eager to help.
What do we owe one another as members of the same society? To me, that question lies at the heart of this Memorial Day.
Our current president apparently believes we owe each other nothing. To him, everything is a transaction — a deal in which each of us is in it for as much money and power as we can get.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump denigrated Senator John McCain, whose plane was shot down over Hanoi in 1967.
McCain became a prisoner of war. The North Vietnamese offered him early release because McCain’s father was commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam at the time. But the young McCain refused the offer in order to uphold the Code of Conduct, which stipulated that prisoners of war should be released in the order they were captured. As a result, he remained in North Vietnam for nearly five additional years, during which time he was put into solitary confinement and tortured.
“He’s not a war hero,” Trump said of McCain during the 2016 presidential campaign. Then he altered his comment: “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, OK?”
Trump avoided serving in Vietnam by claiming he had a bone spur in his heel. As Michael Cohen, Trump’s “fixer,” told members of the House Oversight Committee in 2019:
“Trump claimed [his medical deferment] was because of a bone spur, but when I asked for medical records, he gave me none and said there was no surgery. He told me not to answer the specific questions by reporters but rather offer simply the fact that he received a medical deferment. He finished the conversation with the following comment: ‘You think I’m stupid, I wasn’t going to Vietnam.’”
Trump and his family business are now planning a $1.5 billion golf complex outside Hanoi and a Trump skyscraper in Ho Chi Minh City — the Trump family’s first projects in Vietnam. The two projectsare part of a global moneymaking enterprise that no family of a sitting American president has ever before attempted.
Robbie was never in it for himself. He did what he did because he felt he had an obligation to do it, a duty to the nation he loved. It’s why I remember and honor Robbie today.
I keep hearing that one of America’s biggest problems is we’re “divided and polarized.” For example, New York Times columnist David French: “We’ve known for a long time that America is deeply polarized, and we’ve known the problem is only getting worse.”
This is bullsh*t. The problem is not that we’re divided and polarized.
The problem is that a significant portion of America is buying Trump’s violent, hateful, lawless crap. Some of those buying it are white supremacists. Others are conservative fundamentalist Christians. Others are xenophobic nationalists.
I feel compassion for those who’ve been seduced into supporting Trump after being brutalized and mistreated for years by employers, big corporations, Wall Street, and America’s oligarchs. As I warned 32 years ago, widening inequalities of wealth, income, and opportunity would eventually persuade some on the losing side to support a demagogue.
But an explanation for why some of Trump’s followers have bought into his neofascism isn’t a justification for them to do so. And it’s certainly no reason for us to put aside our differences and compromise with them.
As you undoubtedly know, Trump has created a violent police state inside America. He is conducting an illegal war abroad. He has usurped the powers of Congress and defied court orders. He is taking bribes. He’s criminally prosecuting his enemies and pardoning his criminal supporters (he has even set up a slush fund to compensate them). He has gotten his Justice Department to immunize him and his family from any future tax audits. He is silencing critics. He is fomenting racism and bigotry.
None of us should fall for the false equivalency between this, and opposition to it. The contest today is not between “right” and “left,” as the two sides have traditionally been understood in America. It’s not even between “Republicans” and “Democrats,” as we’ve defined the two major parties over most of the past century.
No, the contest today is between democracy and authoritarianism. It’s between tolerance and bigotry. Between a multiracial, secular, inclusive society and one that believes in white Christian nationalism. Between the rule of law and neofascism.
The two sides in this contest do not merit equal weight. If we are going to have a decent society, the nation must come down on the former side.
As long as Trump has followers who support his bigotry, racism, corruption, and violence, the nation will remain divided and polarized. That is necessary and proper.
We shouldn’t “reach out, or “meet halfway,” or “find middle ground,” or “split the difference,” or any other of today’s hackneyed expressions for putting aside what divides us and agreeing.
Generations of Americans fought and died for the ideals of democracy, freedom, social justice, the rule of law, and equal opportunity. We have never fully achieved them, but they remain our ideals. Tomorrow we celebrate Memorial Day to honor those ideals and the memories of those who died for them.
There cannot be, must not be, any compromise with neofascism.
My grandmother Minnie as a young woman, circa 1911
Friends,
Thinking you might need a break from the ongoing horrors of Trump and his regime, I’m going to tell you about an incident involving my grandmother Minnie.
Minnie was weird and wonderful, neurotic and nonsensical, fragile and funny.
When she was 97 and had been a widow for as long as anyone could remember, an elderly gentleman who was almost her age asked Minnie out to dinner.
This threw her into a panic.
She phoned me, her oldest grandson. I was then in my late 30s, married and with two little children. The last thing I expected was to be giving dating advice to my grandmother.
“What am I supposed to do?” she asked in a voice even more tremulous than usual.
I encouraged her to accept. “If you like him, of course go out to dinner with him.”
“But I haven’t been on a date in 75 years!” she exclaimed. “I don’t know what people do on dates now!”
I tried to calm her. “Look, he probably hasn’t been on a date in years, either. Just be natural. Be yourself.”
After a long pause, she said okay, she’d accept. The date was to occur in two weeks.
The next week, my grandmother phoned again. Now she was worried about the details.
“Are we supposed to split the check?” she asked.
I suggested she let him pay; he had asked her out. But if she had any doubts, she could offer to split the check, and let him be the one to say he’d pay.
“How long should the dinner go?”
I said that if the restaurant weren’t too crowded, she and the gentleman could continue talking for a while after dessert.
“What should I wear? I haven’t worn anything fancy in decades!” I could hear her anxiety growing.
I told her she could wear anything she felt comfortable in. This was just a first date, and I was sure it would be informal.
“What if he asks me out again?”
“Don’t worry about that now. Just have a good time.”
“What happens if he wants to, to .…” She paused. I waited for her to continue, but there was only silence.
“Don’t be embarrassed, grandma,” I said, softly. “You want to know what you should do if he wants to kiss you when he brings you home?”
She whispered, “Yes.” And then, even more quietly: “I hear all kinds of things. What if he wants to go … further?”
How wonderful. I was now giving sex advice to my 97-year-old grandmother.
“Well, a kiss isn’t normally done on a first date,” I said as gently as I could. “But if you really enjoyed being with him, and if a kiss feels natural, sure, go ahead and let him kiss you. Nothing more.”
“Oh!” she blurted out in exasperation, “I don’t know why I have to do this!”
“Look, grandma, no one is making you do this,” I said. “But if I were you, I’d think of it as a special occasion. You might try feeling flattered that he wants to have dinner with you.”
She thanked me and quickly got off the phone.
As the day approached, I expected to hear from her again, but she didn’t phone.
Nor did she phone the next day.
Nor even on the day of the date. Nor the day after.
Two days later, bursting with curiosity, I phoned her.
“So, grandma, how did it go?”
“What go?” she asked.
“Your date! How did it turn out?”
“Oh, there was no date,” she said, as matter-of-factly as if she were referring to a canceled appointment with a hairdresser.
“What happened?” I asked.
“He died,” she said.
“He died?”
“His son called me three days ago to tell me he passed away. He was 95, after all.”
Today Michael and I take a deep dive into Trump’s corruption — beginning with CBS’s merger deal with Skydance that was conditioned, in part, on its canceling Stephen Colbert’s show (which is why I’m wearing a T-shirt I got when I appeared on Colbert’s “The Late Show”).
We then examine whether Jeff Bezos — the fourth-richest person in the world — is a knave or a fool for going on network television claiming that the richest 1 percent of Americans pay 40 percent of all taxes (a Trump-like lie).
And, as long as we’re talking about rogues and corruption, we look at Trump’s Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s $1.8 billion Trump slush fund and immunity from all future IRS audits — and its political fallout.
All that and more on today’s Coffee Klatch. So pull up a chair, grab a cuppa, and join in the discussion.
I watched Stephen Colbert’s last “The Late Show” episode last night with a mixture of laughter, sadness, and anger — anger at the cowardly and craven executives of CBS and its new corporate owner, Skydance. And at Skydance’s robber-baron Trump suck-ups Larry and David Ellison.
CBS says they canceled Colbert for financial reasons, which is utter bullshit (they made gobs of money from selling the show to affiliates). They canceled because they wanted to sell the network to Skydance and worried that Trump would block the deal unless they got rid of Colbert, who Trump despised because Colbert has been a courageous Trump critic.
Colbert hosted more than 1,800 episodes of “The Late Show” after taking over the mantle from David Letterman. This week Letterman called CBS’s decision to cancel Colbert a “huge mistake.”
To add insult to this corrupt injury, CBS is putting Byron Allen into Colbert’s 11:35 p.m. time slot.
Never heard of Byron Allen? Well, besides being a self-described comic, Allen is also a billionaire media mogul who owns The Weather Channel, BuzzFeed, and HuffPost.
Allen promises that his late-night humor on CBS won’t be “political” — that is, he won’t skewer Trump. He won’t even mention Trump. Allen claims that “people are totally good with not doing political humor. They just want to watch. For me, I don’t care who you vote for and I’m not trying to push an agenda. You’re going to vote for who you want to vote for. Just show up if you want to laugh.” For Allen, it’s just about making money: “This is business show, not show business. You have got to make the numbers work.”
CBS executives claim the deal will provide “immediate profitability” for the network.*
Well, duh. That’s because CBS won’t be paying Allen. Allen will ignominiously be paying CBS for Colbert’s time slot; CBS will “lease” Colbert’s time slot to Allen, and Allen will pocket whatever advertising revenue the show brings in.
Going from Colbert’s trenchant satire of America’s first dictator to billionaire media mogul Byron Allen’s jejune rental agreement is a stunning comedown. It’s also a perfect manifestation of an era in our nation’s history when greed and power have merged into a huge force that’s collaborating with authoritarianism. (For further evidence, look at Jeff Bezos’s insistence that his Washington Post not editorialize against Trump.)
Allen’s rental agreement is also an example of how the media is rapidly shifting from a public-centered model of broadcasting to a privatized, anyone-rich-enough model.
That public-centered model was hardly ideal. I’m old enough to remember when, in 1961, then FCC commissioner Newt Minow castigated TV broadcasters for prioritizing profits over public service. Minow said that if the media executives watched an entire broadcast day without distractions, they’d observe a “vast wasteland” filled with game shows, mindless violence, formulaic westerns, and endless commercials.
Newt Minow would be turning in his grave if he saw his vast wasteland turn into an arm of neofascist capitalism.
I strongly suggest you boycott Byron Allen’s show. Hell, boycott CBS.
Here’s a memo to Democrats as they begin campaigning in earnest for control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections. (Please send to any candidates you care about.)
***
TO: Democratic candidates in the 2026 midterm elections
RE: Connect Trump’s lousy economy to his corrupt regime.
The purpose of this memo is to help you shape your midterm message around the crisis of affordability and Trump Republican corruption. I urge you to present these two issues as aspects of the same underlying problem: The economy is lousy for most Americans because Trump Republicans are enabling super-rich oligarchs to siphon off most of its gains while exerting increasing control over it. Their — and Trump’s — self-dealing is undermining trust and confidence in the U.S. economic system.
1. Republicans in the House and Senate have put oligarchs in charge of America.
House and Senate Republicans have allowed Trump’s war and his tariffs to drive up prices and Trump’s corruption to undermine faith in the economy. They’ve allowed Trump to gild his White House in gold leaf, plan a giant Arc de Trump, throw lavish parties, and build a Billionaire’s Ballroom — at a time when most Americans can’t afford gas or groceries.
They raided Medicaid to pay for Trump’s giant tax cut, whose benefits are going mostly to the rich. Legislative efforts advanced by House Republicans and signed into law have targeted up to $2 trillion in federal health care cuts, forcing millions of Americans off Medicaid rolls to pay for these tax reductions.
They refused to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies. This is causing average premiums to more than double and has already pushed 1.2 million people off coverage because they can’t afford it. Coverage losses are mounting as many who initially selected a plan or who were automatically reenrolled have to drop coverage.
Big Tech oligarchs — centi-billionaires Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Ellison, and other robber barons — paid for Trump’s 2024 election, his inauguration, and his ballroom and are major donors to Senate and House Republicans. They’ve shown up at Trump’s inauguration, White House dinners, and official visits to China.
In return, these oligarchs have been allowed to monopolize and drive up the prices we pay and silence Trump critics.Bezos’s Amazon, for example, won’t allow any seller on the site to post lower prices on any other site, and Bezos won’t allow his Washington Post editorial pageto criticize Trump. Larry and David Ellison have bought CBS and sanitized “60 Minutes” of Trump criticism and effectively canceled Stephen Colbert. After buying X (formerly Twitter), Musk turned it into a pro-Trump voice box.
The AI oligarchs have bribed Trump and congressional Republicans to allow unfettered and unregulated growth of AI and its data centers, threatening millions of jobs and posing potential dangers to human life itself.
The crypto oligarchs have bribed Trump and congressional Republicans to allow them to create the world’s largest Ponzi scheme — which is enriching Trump and his family while providing a means for criminals to hide insider trades, child trafficking, and drug deals.
The Big Oil and aerospace oligarchs have bribed congressional Republicans to allow Trump to go to war in Iran, resulting in massive profits for Big Oil — while the rest of us pay $1.50 more per gallon of gas — and giant profits for giant military contractors.
This war spending has also contributed to higher inflation, which the rest of us pay for in higher mortgage rates and higher rates on car loans and education loans. The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate has surged to over 6.6 percent, reaching its highest level in nearly nine months, driven by rising Treasury yields, higher oil prices, and broader economic inflation concerns stemming from the war in Iran. The major beneficiaries of these higher rates — who pocket the higher payments we have to make — are the biggest banks and super-rich who make the loans.
Oligarchs have also bribed Trump and congressional Republicans to (1) get no-bid contracts, (2) deregulate Wall Street, (3) roll back environmental safeguards and worker safety, and (4) get massive subsidies for their corporations — all of which have made them even richer while making life for the rest of us more dangerous and more costly.
2. Republicans have created crony capitalism on steroids.
The system is an extreme form of crony capitalism. Congressional Republicans have rubber-stamped Trump’s corruption or pretended not to notice it, while average Americans get shafted and billionaires do better than ever. Corporate profits have never been higher. But wages aren’t keeping up with prices, which means most people are getting poorer, and the confidence of average consumers has never been lower.
Trump and his family’s corruption are leading the pack, setting an example for the rest of the American oligarchy.
Congressional Republicans have been silent in the face of bribes paid to Trump and his family. They didn’t raise a word about Jeff Bezos’s outright bribe to Melania Trump of $40 million for her film rights and $35 million to promote it, for a total of $75 million, when the best-case scenario is that Bezos’s Amazon earns $10 million on it.
But that’s just one example of the bribes coming Trump’s way. Qatar gifted Trump a Boeing 747 luxury jet valued at $400 million. Days before Trump’s second inauguration, the United Arab Emirates’ “Spy Sheikh” secretly bought 49 percent of the Trump family’s crypto firm. Months later, the administration handed over America’s most sensitive AI chip technology to the United Arab Emirates despite national security concerns. The Trump cryptocurrency business has rolled out a stablecoin called (USD1) pegged to the U.S. dollar. The stablecoin was utilized in a subsequent $2 billion investment into the cryptocurrency exchange Binance by MGX, an Abu Dhabi government fund. And so on.
Congressional Republicans have been silent as Trump has executed thousands of stock trades, many in individual stocks affected by his regime’s policies. And congressional Republicans won’t pass legislation to stop the regime from profiting off its policies. They’ve been silent as Trump praises and boosts corporations (as he did Apple on March 11) on the same day he invests in them and won’t hold Trump or the regime to any ethical standards.
Congressional Republicans have been silent in the face of the Trump family’s looting of America. In his first year of his second term of office, Trump increased his net worth by almost $4 billion to $7.8 billion by the end of 2025, according to TIME. Forbes estimated that in 2025, Eric Trump became 10 times richer, ending up worth some $400 million, and Donald Trump Jr. became six times richer, ending up worth some $300 million. Even Barron Trump, while still in college, reportedly ended up worth some $150 million in 2025.
Congressional Republicans have also been silent about Trump’s “agreement” with the Justice Department to create a $1.8 billion slush fund and immunity to all future IRS audits of Trump and his family. The agreement was based on Trump’s withdrawal of his absurd $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for damages (after a contractor leaked Trump’s tax information during his first term), when the federal judge to which the case was assigned indicated she’d throw it out because Trump can’t be in charge of both sides of the lawsuit.
So Trump’s own Justice Department then offered him — not as an official legal “settlement” but as a kind of consolation prize — a $1.8 billion slush fund, enabling him to compensate anyone he feels has been unfairly convicted. Likely beneficiaries would include fat-cat contributors to the Republican Party, as well as those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The Justice Department has also offered Trump and his family immunity from any IRS audit ever again — allowing him and his family to permanently bury any and all illegal bribes they’ve received.
This is outright robbery from the citizens of the United States. Billions of dollars that Trump and his family have pocketed — from foreign governments, billionaires, and corporate supplicants — are now untraceable, unaccounted for, and hidden for good.
Republican members of Congress are reportedly unhappy with this agreement, presumably because their constituents are furious about it. But they won’t take any action or even say anything about it for fear of angering Trump; their silence about it is deafening.
3. The larger Republican scam is to replace our economy with bribes.
The Republicans’ increasingly corrupt political system — rife with crony capitalism, corporate welfare, and payoffs to the powerful — inevitably produces a corrupt economy. That’s because politics determines the rules by which an economy functions — and if those rules are products of corruption, the economy is corrupted.
In such an economy, investors can no longer rely on a system of stable rules and reliable laws. Everything depends on bribes and personal deals made by the biggest Republican loyalists and grifters, oligarchs and plutocrats, billionaire and multi-billionaires, and monopolists.
This inevitably leads to economic sclerosis and decline, as political and economic deal-making become personal transactions. Greed and payoffs replace trust. It’s happened before, after America’s first Gilded Age (see the Great Crash of 1929, leading to the Great Depression).
4. A lesson: Péter Magyar’s victory over Viktor Orbán relied on connecting the economic problems of ordinary Hungarians with Orban’s corruption.
Finally, recall that the key to Péter Magyar’s remarkable defeat of Viktor Orbán’s entrenched regime was Magyar’s ability to connect the economic problems faced by ordinary Hungarians to Orbán’s corruption.
Magyar showed how Hungary’s soaring cost of living and crumbling public services were linked to the illicit enrichment of Hungary’s ruling elite. He exposed how state resources were siphoned into a “mafia state” and showed that Hungary’s crumbling healthcare system, dilapidated schools, and failing infrastructure were a consequence. The inner circle of Orbán-aligned oligarchs had amassed immense fortunes while ordinary Hungarians suffered from high inflation, stagnant growth, and an erosion of their purchasing power.
Magyar’s anti-corruption message resonated because he presented elite graft not merely as a moral or governance issue, but as the root cause of Hungary’s cost-of-living crisis and declining standards of living.
Democrats should do the same. The parallels between what happened under Orbán and what’s happened under Trump and the Republicans are almost exact.
5. The Republican Party is responsible for the corruption. Democrats must respond with a plan to revive the economy and end the corruption.
The Democrats’ record on corruption is not perfect, to be sure, but Republicans are now in charge of the entire government — and we have never before witnessed corruption on this scale. The twin issues of an economy that’s unaffordable for most Americans and a system overwhelmed with corruption are closely linked, and Trump and his Republican Congress are largely responsible.
Most Americans are beginning to catch on, but Democrats need to hammer this home — and propose ways to lower prices while fighting the corruption.
Democrats should propose: (1) more vigorous anti-monopoly enforcement, including busting up giant corporations, (2) prohibiting insider trading by all elected officials and their families, (3) getting big money out of politics (see here), (4) raising taxes on the super-wealthy, including a wealth tax, and (5) using the proceeds to improve the lives of average working Americans through Medicare for all, universal childcare, paid leave, and free public higher education.
I was born just after the end of World War II. The first half of the 20th century marked a particularly difficult, violent era.
But the 21st century so far has been, well, one trauma after another.
It started with 9/11, followed by the grim wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then the Wall Street crisis of 2008 and subsequent Great Recession. The COVID pandemic of 2020 and its own economic crisis. The attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Then, beginning in 2024, Trump’s full-scale attack on democratic institutions, followed by his war on Iran and soaring prices. Soon to come: Artificial Intelligence invading all aspects of our lives.
At the same time, we’ve been experiencing widening inequalities of income, wealth, and opportunity, along with a growing climate crisis.
When a nation’s people experience these sorts of stresses, they begin expecting stress. They gird themselves for the next crisis. They shut down their capacity to be shocked or appalled.
Trump’s lies swirl around us in the daily flow of hyper-digital noise. His attacks on democracy and his abject cruelty have by now become expected features of politics. The corruption, too, has come to be normalized, along with the public cynicism that accompanies it.
According to a survey from the American Psychological Association, 76 percent of Americans are concerned about the future of the nation. This is now the leading cause of stress, above the economy or work or money. Anxiety has moved from being a psychological disorder to becoming part of a seemingly natural order. We no longer see the degree of stress we’re under as exceptional because we’re enveloped in it.
Trump is not the only cause of stress. In fact, anxieties that have grown over the last four decades may explain why so many Americans voted for him in the first place — a so-called “strongman” who assured them he would take care of their troubles (he obviously didn’t; he added to the troubles).
Job tenures have become shorter and incomes more volatile. That’s because economic disruption has moved from the periphery of our economy to its center.
Marriages are postponed and births are falling because the future is too uncertain to make lifelong commitments.
Counselors, therapists, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies now focus on problems that are consequences of chronic anxiety — heart ailments, chronic headaches, ulcers and bowel issues — rather than traditional ailments.
We are becoming a PTSD nation. We are no longer shocked by the shocking circumstances we find ourselves in, but we are frightened by them all the same. We are seemingly numb to painful realities all around us that nonetheless keep us up at night.
I can’t help wonder: Have we silently relinquished a major reason we joined together in the first place, more than two centuries ago — to ensure domestic tranquility?
Have we unwittingly entered a Faustian bargain? We are paying an exorbitant price for aspects of our system we’ve been told are indubitably good or over which we have no control: the constant stream of new “stuff.” So-called “economic efficiencies,” economic growth, and technological disruption. Digital access 24 hours a day, wherever you are. Social media. An exciting (and exhausting) “what-has-he-done-now?” politics that substitutes for entertainment.
Maybe the tradeoff isn’t worth it.
In addition to ridding ourselves of Trump, we’ll also need to turn down the noise. Seek more peace, quiet, and stability in our lives.
Do we really need AI? Do we have to work this hard? Is all this stuff really necessary? Can’t this rich nation afford to give everyone at least a universal basic income? Can’t we just elect quiet, humble, capable leaders?
Republican congressman and Trump critic Thomas Massie lost Tuesday to Trump-backed challenger Ed Gallrein in the most expensive House primary in U.S. history (total cost was more than $32 million from combined campaign and super PAC spending).
Massie lost by a 10-point margin after being outspent 2-to-1 for most of the race. Pro-Israel groups (AIPAC, RJC) accounted for just over 30 percent of outside spending in the race, while Trump’s own super PAC accounted for another 30 percent.
This is just Trump’s latest victory on what has been dubbed his “revenge tour.” Other Trump victories include:
The retirement of North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis, who announced last summer he would not run for reelection after voting against Trump’s Big Ugly Bill.
The primary defeat of all but one of the Indiana Republicans who stood up to Trump by opposing Trump’s demand for redistricting.
The primary defeat of Louisiana’s Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, who voted to impeach Trump for January 6.
The potential loss of Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn to Trump-endorsed Ken Paxton in next Tuesday’s runoff. (Trump says he decided to back Paxton because Cornyn was “very late in backing me” in 2024, despite Cornyn’s record of voting for everything Trump has wanted.)
Incumbent Georgia Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who opposed Trump’s plot to “find 11,780 votes” in Georgia in 2020 and declined to seek reelection to another term as secretary of state in favor of running for governor, was easily trounced in the Republican primary for governor. (The GOP secretary of state primary in Georgia is headed to a June 16 runoff, with both candidates having promoted voter fraud conspiracies.)
These purges cement Trump’s stranglehold over the GOP. They send a clear signal to all Republicans who seek office or who are planning to run for reelection that they must be a rubber stamp for Trump to gain or remain in power.
They have thereby converted the official Republican Party from a political party into an extension of Trump’s regime — further eroding American democracy.
Trump’s retribution victories have encouraged him to settle additional scores. He’s now demanding that Senate Republicans fire parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough after she ruled that funding for the White House ballroom cannot be included in Republicans’ party-line immigration enforcement bill.
When Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Trump’s threat against MacDonough was “concerning,” Trump doubled down — posting this morning on Truth Social: “Get smart and tough Republicans, or you’ll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible!”
Trump also reiterated his threat to seek revenge against Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Col.), an “America Firster” who broke with Trump by pushing to release the Jeffrey Epstein files and campaigning with Massie last weekend. (Boebert declared last night on X after Massie’s defeat that “Trump is my President!”)
Trump is also threatening Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, who last week criticized Trump’s ballroom funding request. Fitzpatrick is a moderate Republican from a must-hold district if the GOP hopes to defend the House majority. “He likes voting against Trump,” Trump said. “You know what happens with that — doesn’t work out well.”
**
But the purges in Congress could also make Trump a premature lame duck over the next six months if Tillis, Cassidy, Massie, and Cornyn break with him for the remainder of their terms.
And why shouldn’t they, if they have left a shred of integrity?
They’re already showing some courage. Since his loss, Cassidy has rebuked Trump by voting against ballroom funding and voting for a procedural vote to advance a war powers resolution aimed at limiting Trump’s military action in Iran. The resolution forces Trump to either end hostilities or seek congressional authorization. The motion to advance the resolution passed by a 50-47 vote, marking the first time Democrats successfully advanced this measure.
In addition to Cassidy, other Senate Republicans who broke party lines with their May 19 procedural vote to advance a war powers resolution were Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul. Notably, Thom Tillis and John Cornyn were absent from the vote. (Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, who’s fast becoming a DINO, was the sole Democrat to vote with most Republicans against the resolution.)
If Cornyn loses in Texas, the rift between Trump and Thune is likely to deepen — thereby threatening Senate passage of the second reconciliation bill (which incorporates a huge funding increase for ICE as well as $1 billion for Trump’s ballroom).
I was honored to be selected to give the commencement address at Berkeley. For any of you who’d like to see and hear what I said, I’m posting the address above (and the written version below). I’d be very interested in your reactions, so please don’t hesitate to comment.
**
Faculty, staff, administrators, alumni, parents, significant others and insignificant others, and finally and most importantly, members of the great class of 2026.
It is a profound honor to be here with you today. Now, I know every commencement speaker probably says this. The graduates down on that little farm in Palo Alto will probably find someone to say how honored they are to speak there.
But as we all know, those other places are not Berkeley, the best university in the world. I may be accused of some bias. I had the privilege of teaching here for 17 wonderful years. Yet as someone who attended and taught in other places, I can honestly say that nowhere is quite like Berkeley.
Yes, it’s beautiful. Yes, the weather is superb. Yes, its faculty are world renowned. But more than anything, this place is the best because of you, the best students I have ever had the honor of teaching. You are exceptionally curious, remarkably kind, amazingly smart, and you care extraordinarily about each other.
Three years ago, I taught my last big undergraduate course, in Wheeler Hall. Some people call what happened next “retirement.” I hate that word. I didn’t retire. I just graduated into the next phase of life.
But the truth is I’ve missed you. So, like many Berkeley graduates, I found excuses to never leave here. Maybe one of the reasons you selected me as your speaker is that you took pity on this old guy roaming the campus telling anyone who would listen how much he missed you.
There’s a reason why both professors and students have such affection for this place. While your time here is relatively brief -- in the span of what will hopefully be a long and happy lifetime -- the bonds formed here, the people you met, the way you learned to think, the passage from childhood to adulthood, will never leave you.
Do you remember beginning your formal education? Maybe the first day of kindergarten? My memory is a bit fuzzy because it was back when Abraham Lincoln was president. But if you think that you’re now leaving your student days behind, I want to let you in on a little secret. You may have had your last final exam and your last term paper, but the most important thing we’ve taught you is to be a student as long as you’re alive. Life is about learning.
While our job as professors has been to teach you, what makes being a professor so rewarding, especially in a place like this, is that we are also learning from you. To be a teacher is also to be a student. To be a student is to be a teacher. Two parts of the same impulse – to engage with a world continuously replenished by curiosity and community. I see in teaching and learning an embrace of life itself. Think about how much of who you are now, you’ve learned from the people now sitting next to you in their caps and gowns. And think of what you’ve been able to teach them.
A question that often haunts me is who the teachers of tomorrow will be. Not only in the formal classroom sense, although classroom teachers are desperately needed. But also in the larger sense of helping make sense of the world and showing the way forward. That is, leading.
You don’t need to be cloaked in formal authority to be a leader. You don’t need a fancy title or a big office. You certainly don’t need to be a Cabinet secretary to be a leader. Many of our most important leaders through history had no formal title. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dolores Huerta, Rosa Parks, W.E.B. DuBois, Susan B. Anthony. To be a leader you need to understand where we should be heading and why, what we need do to get there, and how to summon the intelligence and energies of many people to help accomplish it. Leadership is a moral vocation.
We live in a world obsessed with doing things. We’ve invented incredible tools -- machines, robots, now AI. But a much more important and interesting problem than what we are doing is why we’re doing it.
Engineers are already designing headphones that can simultaneously translate other languages. It’s remarkable. But the purpose of learning a foreign language is not just to order a beer in Belgium. It’s to teach ourselves how to see the world from different perspectives and connect with people who have other ways of living and knowing. As I used to tell my students, the best way of learning anything is to talk with people who disagree with you.
The purpose of so much of what you have learned, and will learn, is not just to master complicated concepts or solve difficult problems but to understand why you have mastered these concepts and problems, what you might do with your mastery, and how they might help you connect with others in mastering or at lease improving your community, your society, the world.
I didn’t discover much of this until I was in my 50s. That’s when I came to teach here, the best university in the world.
I was running for governor of Massachusetts and came to the Bay Area to raise money for my campaign (the part of campaigning I hated most). I stopped for a cup of coffee at Cafe Strada, and it suddenly hit me: I didn’t want to be governor of Massachusetts. I wanted to be a professor at Berkeley, a public university that prizes education as a public good, where I could teach a diverse group of brilliant students who would help heal the world.
Thankfully, the good people of Massachusetts saw the light and decided they didn’t want me to be their governor. And luckily, the Berkeley faculty decided they did want me to be a professor, here.
So, I left Massachusetts and came to Berkeley. Amazing. It was like that moment in the movie the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy opens the window of her house that’s fallen into Oz, and everything’s in technicolor.
That’s really what it’s about. Sometimes getting caught up in a tornado, occasionally coming down with a crash, and, if you’re fortunate, opening your window and seeing the beauty of the world you’ve landed in.
One lesson you have taught me is that you are part of an incredible wave of youthful energy, empathy, and intelligence. Whenever I despair – which, these days, is more often than I’d like to admit -- I just take a stroll through campus, past the Campanile, through Sproul Plaza, under the towering redwoods, and I see the flyers on the bulletin boards, the intricate group dances being rehearsed, I see you going to or coming from classes. And I have a feeling that the nation and world are not just going to be okay, you will also make them better. Much, much better.
But I’d be remiss if I didn’t tell you, if you hadn’t noticed, that we’re in trouble right now. With each passing day, the systems that have been in place in this nation for nearly 250 years to advance democracy and prevent authoritarianism are under ever-greater strain.
Why is democracy so important and authoritarianism so dangerous? Because the moral purpose of a civilized society is to prevent the stronger from attacking or exploiting the weaker. Otherwise, we’d be permanently immersed in a brutish war in which only the fittest and most powerful could survive.
This moral imperative lies at the center of America’s founding documents. It’s also at the core of the postwar international order championed by the United States – emphasizing multilateralism, human rights, and the rule of law.
It’s an aspiration we have not always lived up to. Maintaining it has required that the powerful possess sufficient integrity and civic virtue that they not abuse their power -- and if they do, they are held accountable.
Yet we now inhabit a society and world grown vastly more unequal. This itself invites the powerful to exploit the weaker, because in an extremely unequal society and world, some of the powerful come to feel omnipotent.
But unfettered might does not make right. It makes for instability, upheaval, depravity, and war.
History shows that laws and norms designed to constrain the powerful also protect them. Without such constraints, their insatiable demands for more power and wealth eventually bring them down – along with their empires, dynasties, or nations. And threaten the entire world.
It is the responsibility of every one of us – and of this great university -- to do whatever we can to preserve democracy, fight authoritarianism, protect freedom of speech and expression, and treat all workers well.
It is the responsibility of all of us to seek the truth and speak truth to power, regardless of any pressures and threats the powerful may place on us. And it is our responsibility to work toward a society based on inclusion rather than exclusion.
Mind you, these ideals do not belong to one political party or one part of America. They are fundamental. They underpin the education you have received. They form the basis of our lives together. They are central to the meaning of a good society.
I’m not going to minimize the challenges you face – from authoritarianism to climate change, to the job market, and a world in turmoil. But I know that you will take what you have learned at this wonderful place, and teach others what is worth doing, how to do it better, how to protect the powerless and how to hold accountable the powerful.
This is the great unending chain of inspiration and responsibility. All of you are products of it and all of you have the capacity to keep it going.
No pressure at all, but we’re counting on you. We believe in you.
We also love you. The people who have gathered here today to see you get your degrees – your families, friends, and significant and insignificant others -- love you. We the faculty who have poured our hearts into teaching you and have learned so much from you, we love you.
And those of you embarking on the adult part of your life today – the part where you’re on your own, when your life is really yours – well, treat it as you would someone you love, too. Not in order to boast or gloat. Not to look down on anyone else. Not to be rich or famous. But to learn to be you, authentically you. To know yourself. To be patient and kind to yourself. And to be the best version of yourself you can possibly be. You are the teachers and the leaders the world needs.
I’ve been spending much of the last month watching and listening to Democrats trying to find their core message for the upcoming midterms.
The sad truth is that (with a few exceptions, such as Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, and AOC) a clear Democratic message isn’t getting through about the dangers Trump poses to America and the world, and what must be done.
So I’ve begun to look farther afield for effective messengers.
Several individuals in the media are doing an excellent job educating the public about the dangers of Trump. Among the most effective are Amy Goodman, co-founder, host, and executive producer of the independent news program “Democracy Now!”Also, Substack’s Heather Cox Richardson, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell and Ali Velshi, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, and John Oliver of “Last Week Tonight” (on HBO).
I’d add New York Times columnists Jamelle Bouie and Michelle Goldberg, Dana Milbank (formerly with TheWashington Post and about to join a new Allbritton-backed news organization), actor Robert DeNiro, and The View co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin.
But my candidates for the people who have been most successful in educating the public about the dangers Trump poses are listed below. In my view, each can teach us a great deal about how to be effective communicators and powerful voices against the neofascist takeover of this nation and world.
Hence, your Office Hours assignment today is to select from the following list the person you think has been the most effective of all, or suggest someone else and explain why. Here’s the list:
Login
