Friends,

To remind you, here’s what Trump said on “Meet the Press” that aired on June 7:

“The [2020] election was rigged. It was a dirty election … And it’s happening again right now in California…. they’re cheating on the election. … they’re crooked…. You know that these elections are rigged. … Your elections in this country … are like a third world country. Your elections are crooked.”

When Trump lies with this kind of vehemence, does he sincerely believe what he’s saying — in which case he’s seriously demented?

OR does he know full well it’s a lie, and part of his strategy for the 2026 midterm elections is to undermine public trust in our electoral system, especially in predominantly Democratic states and cities — in which case he’s traitorous?

I think it’s both — he’s a traitor to America and he’s seriously demented — both a knave and a fool.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel know full well that the incidence of voter fraud in America is near zero. They’re playing along with Trump because, well, they’re just traitors.

***

Blanche’s Justice Department is now ramping up its investigations of supposed voter fraud across the country.

Blanche has instructed federal prosecutors to prioritize alleged voter fraud cases.

Over the last year, the Justice Department has sought voter roll data from most states; sued those that have declined to comply; opened a criminal investigation into 2020 election results in Fulton County, Georgia (Trump narrowly lost Georgia that year); subpoenaed records tied to the Arizona Senate’s review of Maricopa County voting; and demanded ballots from the 2024 race from Wayne County, Michigan.

A March 2026 order directed the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to compile state-by-state citizenship lists before federal elections; instructed the Department of Justice to prioritize investigations and prosecutions of officials and private actors involved in issuing or distributing ballots to ineligible voters; and ordered new Postal Service rules for tracking mail and absentee ballots.

Yet despite the Trump regime’s demands for voter roll data, at least eight federal district judges have rejected those demands. Half of those judges were appointed by Trump. The regime is appealing the decisions.

I used to work at the Justice Department, and, to the best of my knowledge, it has never had a 0-for-8 losing streak.

And let me remind you once again: There’s close to zero evidence of any voter fraud in America.

**

California appears to be an early testing ground for Trump’s voting fraud witch hunt.

Speaking to conservative radio host Glenn Beck recently, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, promised “[w]e will be charging some people.” The promise would have been a violation of Justice Department policy under past procedures that barred the department from involving itself in state or local elections, but Essayli has no qualms. “It will be election fraud charges in the next … one or two months, I believe. We need some of these results to be certified so we can prove some of the allegations.”

Essayli dispatched prosecutors to offices where ballots were being counted and has appealed for anyone with evidence of voter fraud to come forward, saying that “what we need right now are witnesses.”

Hello? The way justice is supposed to be served in America begins with investigations followed by allegations and then proof.

On social media, Essayli charges that California “has stonewalled every effort to verify that only eligible U.S. citizens are registered to vote.” He warns that his office will “not look the other way. We will investigate and prosecute,” adding that “every legal vote deserves to be counted. Every illegal vote cancels one out.”

Since taking over as the top prosecutor in Los Angeles, Essayli — a former Republican state assemblyman — has proven that his loyalty to Trump exceeds his fealty to the law. He has dropped cases against the president’s allies; aggressively pursued charges against protesters rallying against the administration’s immigration crackdown, only to face a string of losses; and investigated California over its policies toward transgender athletes.

**

Kash Patel’s FBI is participating in this dangerous charade.

Last Thursday, the FBI executed a search warrant at the office of an Ohio-based community grassroots group — the Ohio Organizing Collaborative — that works to register voters. Over 125 federal agents reportedly showed up at the homes of its employees and volunteers to interview them. The agents knocked on doors and demanded to come into their houses to get phones, without warrants. They followed people in their cars, even followed kids to school.

Last fall, Frank LaRose, a Republican serving as Ohio’s top election official, referred 1,084 noncitizens who appeared to have registered in the state to the Justice Department. Federal investigators have also collected voter records in at least six Ohio counties, Reuters reported in April.

Why Ohio? It’s one of the few states where a Democrat — in this case, Sherrod Brown — has a chance to flip a formerly Republican seat in the U.S. Senate.

The FBI is also probing Wisconsin. It recently attempted to interview the director of elections in Milwaukee County. Earlier this year, Minnesota’s secretary of state received grand jury subpoenas seeking some voter records as part of a federal investigation into whether noncitizens are registered to vote or have unlawfully cast ballots.

**

Trump, his suck-ups Blanche and Patel, and their army of prosecutorial lackeys such as California’s Essayli and Minnesota’s LaRose are not out to win cases against voter fraud.

Their real purpose is to create so much doubt in the minds of the American public about whether voter fraud has occurred that it becomes easier for Trump to claim — after Democrats have prevailed in the 2026 midterm elections — that they did so because they cheated. And then for Trump, Blanche, and Patel to contest those wins.

According to this scenario, Trump would declare that the election results were rigged, as he has in the past. He would assert that the results in specific jurisdictions—counties, cities, or states— should not be recognized. He would allege fraud and irregularities, illegal ballots, or foreign interference, including cyber activity.

In response, compliant federal authorities would require investigation of those results before they were finalized. The authorities would move to secure ballots, voting records, or related materials in contested jurisdictions, building on the actions the Trump regime has already taken.

While these investigations are taking place, Trump would then call on congressional leadership to proceed as if the announced results are invalid, urging the Speaker of the House to organize the chamber on the basis of a Republican majority, and encouraging similar action in the Senate, urging them to ignore any jurisdictions in which the federal government was still undertaking its review.

It’s the only real strategy Trump has left — given that his war in Iran has failed, the prices of gas and food are likely to remain elevated through the midterm elections, and most working Americans are struggling far harder than they did before Trump occupied the Oval Office.

But it’s a dangerous, cynical strategy that will further undermine public trust in our system of government.

**

What can stop them?

Governors and mayors need to get in front of this and warn voters about this treachery.

They should give voters the facts about the infinitesimal incidence of voter fraud in their states and cities, show the resources they’re using to stop voter fraud, and explain any anomalies (such as the length of time it took in California to determine the outcome of the primary elections).

Governors also should communicate clearly and early to their constituents that election results will be honored, that certification will proceed under state law, and that the rights of voters will be protected regardless of federal claims to the contrary. That kind of clarity can shape public expectations before a crisis, not after it.

Governors should decide now that they will certify results under state law and will not alter or withhold certification in response to federal claims. They can secure custody of ballots and direct state law enforcement to protect election materials. They should prepare for the possibility that federal agents will attempt to seize ballots or voting infrastructure and define in advance how state authorities will respond.

Secretaries of state should secure chain-of-custody procedures as well as physical and digital records, and prepare detailed audit documentation for immediate release. They should prepare public reporting systems that make results, audits, and underlying data rapidly accessible. Speed matters. Claims of fraud and irregularities take hold quickly; rebuttal must be quick.

State attorneys general should draft complaints now, identify jurisdictions for filing, and coordinate multi-state litigation strategies. They should prepare to challenge ballot seizures, interference with certification, emergency detentions, and federal control of election processes. They should also coordinate with local prosecutors and law enforcement to define how state criminal law applies to interference with election administration.

All this still may not be enough. Trump is a master conman. But he’s also off his rocker — and part of the response to him and his bonkers claims must also be to emphasize that he’s out of his mind as well as responsible for the havoc America now finds itself in — the failed foreign adventures and the affordability crisis — and therefore must not be trusted.

Share

Friends,

From what has been reported today about the deal between the Trump regime and Iran, only one conclusion can be drawn: Compared to where America and the Middle East were when Trump began this war on February 28, it’s a terrible defeat.

See:

Share

Friends,

I keep having conversations with Democrats and progressives who disagree with each other about a fundamental issue. I’ll call it the “Platner Paradox” because the current controversy surrounding the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Maine exemplifies the disagreement, although it goes well beyond Graham Platner.

The underlying question is how important are attributes such as personal history and character relative to a candidate’s political party or their willingness to oppose Trump and fight for economic justice?

I’m going to try to present each viewpoint as best I can.

Read more

Friends,

The USA has a BIG birthday to celebrate! So, of course, Trump is trying to cash in and make it ALL ABOUT HIMSELF.

This year’s 250th anniversary events, commemorating our Founding Fathers saying NO KINGS, were supposed to be planned by a nonpartisan organization created by Congress called “America250.”

But, in king-like fashion, Trump and his MAGA allies went around Congress and created their own party planning committee, confusingly named “Freedom 250.” This new group, which claims to be nonpartisan, is planning competing events all year that do little more than glorify Donald Trump.

Who is paying for these Freedom 250 festivities? You — at least in part.

That’s because Freedom 250 has gained access to taxpayer funds allotted by Congress last year for the 250th anniversary celebrations.

To recap: President Trump and his allies are using taxpayer dollars to spread his political agenda and granting private donors presidential access — all under the guise of celebrating America’s 250th birthday.

This pay-to-play, MAGA cronyism might be Donald Trump’s definition of a birthday bash — but it certainly isn’t mine.

Please: Share this video to help spread the word.

Share

Friends,

Once a year — around our mutual birthdays — I have a long and prized phone call with a dear old (and getting older) friend. This year’s came yesterday.

One thing about dear old friends is they’ll tell you things about yourself no one else will tell you — stuff you probably already know but don’t want to admit.

My old friend didn’t disappoint yesterday.

“You’re getting up there,” he laughed.

“So are you, you old fart,” I laughed back.

We traded barbs and stories for awhile, and then his voice turned serious.

“You’re working too hard,” he said.

“What are you talking about?”

“I see your Substacks, your videos, podcast, interviews. It’s too much.”

“That’s utter bullsh*t,” I said. Then he went silent — which always puts me on the defensive. “What d’you want me to do — smell the roses? Take up the banjo? Run a marathon?”

“Bob, I’ve known you … how long?”

“Sixty-five years.” (Whenever he pulls this “How long have I known you” maneuver, he’s really getting serious.)

“Have I ever given you bad advice?”

“Yes, when you urged me to date Cindy Hawthorne.”

He laughed. “That was 63 years ago, beyond the statute of limitations.”

“I forgive you.”

Then he resumed his serious tone. “You’ve got to slow down. Stop being so f*cking productive.” And then, more gently: “You don’t have that many years left.”

At which point — I hate to admit it — I lost it.

“That’s exactly why I’m not slowing down! We’re in a national emergency! We’re —”

He interrupted. “I know, I know. Don’t insult my intelligence. Trump is a monster.”

“So all of us have to do whatever we can. For as long as we can.”

After a long pause, he said: “I think you’ll last longer if you slow down.”

That was when our conversation ended. I’m still smarting a bit from it.

The fact is, I’m doing what I do because — and as long as — I’m still able to.

And I work as hard as I do because you make it all worthwhile.

You read my daily missives and share them. You add your comments to them — creating some of the most thoughtful discussions anywhere on the internet. Some of you have been urging others to subscribe and lending your financial support to this effort.

You’ve been making use of the facts, arguments, and analyses I’ve offered. You’ve been writing your members of Congress. You’ve been actively supporting good candidates for public office who oppose the Trump regime. You’ve been marching, demonstrating, making good trouble. You’re boycotting firms and products that support the tyrant. You’re helping and protecting vulnerable people in your community.

You are part of the pro-democracy movement that gives my work meaning and purpose.

For this, I thank you with all my heart.

Share

Friends,

Elon Musk has just become the world’s first trillionaire. Donald Trump is America’s first dictator. But they have more in common than their economic and political dominance.

To describe both as selfish narcissists would be a wild understatement. Both are maniacally obsessed with increasing their own personal wealth, power, and control.

Both have been willing to break laws, norms, and other social constraints in pursuit of these goals. Both have manipulated, bribed, conned, robbed, and bullied their ways to dominance.

Trump tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, was impeached twice, and was found criminally liable for cooking his corporate books and civilly liable for sexual abuse.

Musk paid a quarter of a billion dollars to get Trump elected president, then ran Trump’s illegal and hugely destructive DOGE. Musk’s SpaceX has all the hallmarks of a gigantic Ponzi scheme in which insiders pocket the winnings and leave latecomers holding the bag.

Both pride themselves on paying little or no taxes. Trump famously said that paying not paying federal income taxes “makes me smart.” Musk paid zero taxes in 2018.

Both are notoriously lacking in empathy; they view all relationships as transactions. Trump refuses to be a “consoler-in-chief” in national tragedies and openly withholds sympathy for families of political opponents who die. (When Rob Reiner and his wife were murdered, Trump asserted they were killed “due to the anger [Reiner] caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.”)

Musk has stated that “the fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy” — arguing that a society can only afford to practice broad empathy if it operates from a position of systemic strength.

Both regard themselves as omnipotent and invincible. Both lash out verbally or physically at anyone who crosses them, often getting into raging disputes and fights.

To the extent they have any belief beyond their own omnipotence, it’s white male nationalism. “Whites are a rapidly dying minority,” Musk wrote his 240 million followers in a January post on X. In a February post, he declared that “there has been unrelenting hate and poisonous propaganda in the West against anyone White, straight or male over the past decade or more,” adding, “No more guilt trips. ENOUGH.”

Musk has suggested that race plays a detrimental role in hiring. He’s touted the role of white people in eliminating slavery. He’s accused public figures of racism against white and Asian people.

In recent months, Musk has increased his online posts about perceived threats to whiteness, or what he views as calls for a “genocide” against white people. Over the past seven months, he has posted 850 times about race, nearly daily and triple the rate for the previous two years.

Trump also has a well-documented history of white supremacist actions and rhetoric, including the 1973 lawsuit brought against Trump management for allegedly discriminating against Black renters; his full-page ads in 1989 calling for the death penalty for the five Black and Latino teenagers eventually exonerated in the Central Park jogger case; his leading role in the debunked, racially charged conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States; his 2016 accusation that Mexican immigrants were criminals and “rapists”; his 2017 “Muslim ban”; his “fine people on both sides” of the violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville; his view of Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations as “shithole” countries; his determination to erase Black history from America’s classrooms; and his campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Both Musk and Trump have pushed the conspiracy theory that Democrats are seeking to import undocumented immigrants so they can take over the U.S. government forever.

Both have fomented white nationalism abroad. Trump was an enthusiastic ally of Viktor Orbán, who saw Western civilization as threatened by Muslim immigration into Europe. Many people in Trump’s circle continue to support and encourage leaders of the European far-right.

Musk, too, encourages white nationalism abroad. During the recent anti-immigrant protests and riots in the United Kingdom — particularly in Belfast and London — Musk posted that “civil war is inevitable” and urged British protesters to “fight back or die” (prompting British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to condemn Musk’s comments as “dangerous”). In response to the recent killing in Belfast, Musk blamed “murderous migrants beheading innocent people in their home town.” He shared an image of the stabbing suspect, who is Black, alongside the caption declaring “millions must go.” And he reposted messages claiming that Starmer “hates white people.”

Researchers from the nonprofit watchdog Center for Countering Digital Hate report that “Musk’s amplification” of anti-migrant narratives to his hundreds of millions of followers was “instrumental” in provoking the violence in Belfast: “No individual played a bigger role in spreading [hateful] content on X than Musk himself.”

Both Trump and Musk also have long histories of misogyny.

Throughout his business and political careers, Trump has frequently disparaged women, describing female opponents and journalists as “disgusting,” “slobs,” and “piggy.” He has a well-documented history of sexual aggression. A federal jury found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation against writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her millions in damages. And he has appointed conservative judges instrumental in rulings that overturned long-standing reproductive rights.

Musk, too, has faced frequent claims of misogyny and sexism. Eight former SpaceX engineers filed a lawsuit detailing a pervasive “’Animal House’” culture — accusing Musk of creating a hostile environment, treating female employees as sexual objects, and retaliating when employees challenged his sexism. Separate reports have also emerged alleging that Musk engaged in inappropriate relationships and persistent advances toward employees, including asking them to bear his children.

Musk has 14 kids with different mothers and talks about them as a “legion,” as in a Roman military unit. “To reach legion-level before the apocalypse,” he told one of his partners, “we will need to use surrogates.” He has frequently drawn ire for promoting a “bro culture” and mocking femininity. He sparked a major online debate by stating that “Instagram is for girls” and has repeatedly shared or amplified sexist theories and extremist content regarding traditional gender roles.

**

The question, then, is why have two such loathsome men come to dominate America and much of the rest of the world at this point in history? Is there something about American capitalism or culture in the 21st century that has given both such extraordinary power?

Part of the answer, it seems to me, is a loss of our sense of common good — a decline of the role of public honor and public shame and a disintegration of public morality — that has allowed, even encouraged, these two dangerous men to acquire such untrammeled wealth and power.

The idea of “the common good” was once widely understood and accepted in America. After all, the U.S. Constitution was designed for “We the people” seeking to “promote the general welfare”— not for “me the selfish jerk seeking as much wealth and power as possible.”

To be sure, the Gilded Age, which ran from the late 1880s to the 1910s, was dominated by a few extraordinarily wealthy men who violated social norms and monopolized the economy. “The public be damned,” said William Henry Vanderbilt, head of the New York Central Railroad.

But the reign of these “robber barons” ended when the American public — outraged by their abuses of wealth and power — rose up to demand reform and a return to the common good.

Subsequently, during the Great Depression of the 1930s and World War II, Americans faced common perils that required that we work together for the common good. Many of us — including both white and black Americans — were motivated to fight for civil rights and voting rights in the 1960s. And a sense of common good moved many of us to act against the injustice of the Vietnam War, and others of us to serve bravely in that besotted conflict.

Yet the common good is no longer a fashionable idea. The phrase is rarely uttered today. It feels slightly corny and antiquated if not irrelevant. There is no longer any restraint on aggressive men (almost all of them men) using whatever means possible to accumulate vast wealth and power on a scale that exceeds even the Gilded Age.

This moral breakdown is not one of personal, private, religious morality. It’s a breakdown in public morality — in a broad understanding of what we owe one another as members of the same society. Trump and Musk exemplify that breakdown. The wealth and power accumulated by these two deeply flawed men is evidence of how far we’ve fallen, and the scale of the challenge we face to rectify it.

Share

Friends,

Trump again claims victory in Iran. He’s claimed victory before, but now he has a so-called “agreement” with Iran.

That agreement, which appears to be no more than a memo of understanding — that is, a set of principles to which Iran and the United States have agreed — stops the fighting and reopens the Strait of Hormuz, but it does not deal with the issue that caused Trump to initiate the conflict: Iran’s nuclear program.

Keep that in mind as you hear various renditions of what’s been decided. Recall that the Strait of Hormuz was open before Trump began bombing Iran. At best, the agreement Trump is touting restores the status quo to where it was when he commenced hostilities. Remember also that Iran had agreed to limit its development of nuclear-grade materials in its treaty with the Obama administration, which Trump revoked in 2018.

So what has been accomplished? Iran now is under the control of a more extremist regime than when Trump started this war. Oil prices are far higher and will take some time to return to where they were before it began (if they ever do). Meanwhile, Trump has caused the United States to be more dependent on fossil fuels than we were prior to his inauguration for a second time, and the high oil prices brought on by his war have enriched Vladimir Putin’s regime.

The war with Iran has cost the United States an estimated $90 billion, and that’s a conservative estimate. It has caused widespread suffering throughout the Middle East. It has put Israel in a more precarious situation than it was before — and much of that is due to Benjamin Netanyahu, who is not a party to, and has not approved, the agreement.

This doesn’t look like a victory. Compared to where the United States and the Middle East were on February 28, when Trump began this war, it’s a terrible failure.

Share

Friends,

Sorry this is a bit late today. Please submit your caption in the Comments section and, as before, please use the Comments section only for captions.

Winners will be announced next Sunday. For consideration, please post your caption by Monday at 9 pm PT, 12 midnight ET.

Last week’s winner:

“There’s a reason why women were trusted to represent liberty and justice.”

(Congratulations, Sue Schneider).

Runners up:

“I may be blind but something smells disgusting.”

(Congratulations, Adam Laurie).

“Together girl, we can take that fool down. That’s what we were created for.”

(Congratulations, Beverly Clark).

“Justice may be blind, but I can smell a rat!”

(Congratulations, Diane Fogarty).

“I so envy you, Lady Liberty. I wish I could be standing on an island away from these clowns!”

(Congratulations, Whereabouts Unknown).

“They hate it when women get together.”

(Congratulations, Wyrd Folk).

“I’m not so blind that I can’t see what they’re doing!”

(Congratulations, Edwin Darling).

“OMG It’s supposed to be Justice is Blind NOT Blind to Justice!”

(Congratulations, Renais Winter).

“I’m blind, but I’m not deaf and dumb.”

(Congratulations, Brooks Keogh).

“I can see that Todd has no understanding of justice, and neither does the guy who nominated him.”

(Congratulations, Laurence Hoffmann).

“Just found out you can legally remove the Statue of Liberty... Or you could change the slogan on it, to: ‘Give me your wealthy, your corrupt, your bribers, yearning to avoid taxes.’”

(Congratulations, Lynn E Levine).

“If I drop these scales right now, I can make the world a better place.”

(Congratulations, James Coyle).

Share

Delayed today because I’m out doing errands. Will draw and post as soon as I’m back! (Thanks for your patience.)

Friends,

Tonight, Trump is throwing an 80th birthday bash for himself (he says it’s in honor of the 250th birthday of the United States) with a “Freedom250” Ultimate Fighting Championship cage match on the South Lawn of the White House at 8 p.m. ET.

It will be a bloody gladiator fight taking place inside a 600-ton, 154-feet-tall skeletal structure called “the Claw,” painted red, white and blue. Opponents will punch, kick, wrestle, choke, and use jiu-jitsu on each other until one of them is unconscious or verbally concedes, or a referee stops the fight because one is judged too damaged to absorb any more violence.

This is a money-making operation for the UFC (which is offering special-access VIP packages for $1.5 million), for Trump buddy David Ellison’s Paramount (which will livestream it to you if you buy a subscription for $8.99 a month — see here), for Crypto.com and Ram (which are sponsoring it), and for Trump (who’s deciding which of his billionaire friends and CEO buddies will be invited ringside. Last night, Trump held a $1 million-a-person dinner at the Trump National Golf Club at Potomac, Virginia, to benefit his Super PAC, Maga Inc.).

Beyond the usual Trumpian issues of self-dealing and pay-to-play corruption, today’s fight also raises the question: What does a cage match on the White House lawn have to do with America’s 250th anniversary?

Just this: Trump and his regime are seeking to project an America that’s like the winner of a cage match.

Trump sees everything and everyone in terms of dominance or submission, and he’s hellbent on dominance. “You’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong,” he told his supporters on January 6, 2021, before urging them to go the Capitol.

He views America as locked in a zero-sum match with the rest of the world, and there’s no limit to our violence. Unless Iran opened the Strait of Hormuz, he memorably said, “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

Trump’s entire “manosphere” is obsessed with force and violence. His secretary of “war,” Pete Hegseth, threatens “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies” and “maximum violence to the enemy.” When told some fishermen survived the American bombing of their boat, Hegseth reportedly ordered his commander to “kill them all.”

Trump’s secretary of health and human services frequently posts shirtless workout videos in which he’s lifting weights alongside figures like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Kid Rock. He claims Trump has “the highest testosterone level” ever seen in an individual over 70 years old.

Trump’s whole circle — including Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and JD Vance — glorify male prowess and power. (In a Twitter exchange a few years ago, Musk said he was “up for a cage fight” with Zuckerberg, who replied: “Send me location,” eliciting from Musk: “Vegas Octagon,” and the suggestion that podcaster Joe Rogan referee.) Musk and Vance champion pronatalism — the belief that the single greatest threat to Western civilization is collapsing birth rates — and argue that Western women must have more children.

Much of the Republican Party is likewise focusing on male virility. Texas Republican senatorial candidate Ken Paxton calls the Democratic candidate “low-T Talarico.”

Part of this comes directly from the fascist playbook, organized around a “strongman” touting male dominance. In that playbook, war and violence are thought means of strengthening society by culling the weak and extolling heroic warriors.

I suspect many Americans find Trump’s neofascist “strongman” attractive because they feel powerless in a society that’s left them behind. The cage match and similar public displays of aggression enable them to feel vicariously powerful.

Young men in particular — who make up a disproportionate share of Trump’s base — have been economically emasculated. Most lack college degrees at a time when such a degree is necessary (although hardly sufficient) for a decent job, and when some 60 percent of university undergraduates and 67 percent of graduate students are female.

In this way, cage matches darkly echo “The Full Monty,” the 1997 British comedy about unemployed steelworkers in Sheffield, England, who form a male striptease act to make quick cash.

But the cage match today on the White House lawn is no laughing matter. It’s deadly serious and deeply troubling.

When so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, Trump’s gladiator fight suggests that the essence of the nation on its 250th birthday isn’t the democratic ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, nor is it the pull-yourself-up-from-the-bootstraps ambition that’s driven our economy, but zero-sum violence and male aggression.

What do you think?

Leave a comment

Share

Friends,

State attorneys general are our last best hope for stopping Trump cronies Larry and David Ellison from buying Warner Bros. — and with it, CNN. They’ve already neutered and nearly destroyed CBS News. We cannot allow them to eliminate CNN’s ability to tell the American people the truth about Trump.

PLEASE sign the petition here to help block the merger, and share this video.

Share

Friends,

A number of you have asked me for a simple overview of where things stand in the race to control Congress, so here’s some information you may find useful. It suggests where we need to focus our energies over the next four and a half months.

1. What’s needed for control of each chamber

• In the Senate now: 53 Republicans - 47 Democrats (or independents who caucus with Dems). Democrats need to gain a net 4 seats to take control of the Senate.

• In the House now: 219 Republicans (or independents who caucus with GOP) - 212 Democrats. There are four vacancies (one in a largely Republican district, three in largely Democratic districts). Assuming that none of the current vacancies flip party control in special elections before November, Democrats need to gain a net 3 seats to take control of the House.

2. Vulnerable incumbent Republicans

Senate Republicans in competitive reelection races who are considered vulnerable

• Maine: Republican Senator Susan Collins is being challenged by Democratic oysterman Graham Platner.

• Ohio: Republican Senator Jon Husted is being challenged by former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown.

• Alaska: Republican Senator Dan Sullivan is being challenged by former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola (and potentially another candidate named Dan Sullivan).

• Nebraska: Pete Ricketts is being challenged by independent populist Dan Osborn (who came close to defeating Nebraska’s other GOP senator in 2024).

  House Republicans in competitive reelection races who are considered vulnerable

• Juan Ciscomani (AZ-06)

• Eli Crane (AZ-02)

• David Valadao (CA-22)

• Kevin Kiley (CA-06)

  (Kiley switched his party affiliation to “independent” after California’s Proposition 50 redrew him into a bluer district, but he still caucuses and votes with the GOP majority.)

• Jeff Hurd (CO-03)

• Jeff Crank (CO-05)

• Gabe Evans (CO-08)

• Marianette Miller-Meeks (IA-01)

• Zach Nunn (IA-03)

• Bill Huizenga (MI-04)

• Tom Barrett (MI-08)

• Brad Finstad (MN-01)

• Chuck Edwards (NC-11)

• Tom Kean Jr. (NJ-07)

  (Kean has not been seen in public or voted in the House since March 2026 due to an unspecified medical issue.)

• Nick LaLota (NY-01)

• Mike Lawler (NY-17)

• Max Miller (OH-07)

• Rob Bresnahan (PA-08)

• Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01)

• Ryan Mackenzie (PA-07)

• Scott Perry (PA-10)

• Rob Wittman (VA-01)

• Jen Kiggans (VA-02)

• John McGuire (VA-05)

• Derrick Van Orden (WI-03)

  PS: Republican incumbents who lost their primaries to Trump-backed candidates (and could turn on Trump)

  • Sen. John Cornyn (TX)

  • Sen. Bill Cassidy (LA)

  • Rep. Thomas Massie (KY-04)

3. Vulnerable incumbent Democrats

Senate Democrats in competitive reelection races who are considered vulnerable

• Georgia: Democratic incumbent Jon Ossoff will face either Rep. Mike Collins or former football coach Derek Dooley after a June 16 GOP primary runoff.

  House Democrats in competitive reelection races who are considered vulnerable

• Derek Tran (CA-45)

• Kathy Castor (FL-14)

• Nellie Pou (NJ-09)

• Josh Riley (NY-19)

• Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

4. Competitive open seats

• Competitive open seats for the Senate

  • Texas: Scandal-plagued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will face Democratic state Rep. James Talarico for Republican John Cornyn’s seat.

  • Michigan: Republican Mike Rogers will face a to-be-decided Democratic opponent for retiring Democrat Gary Peters’s seat.

    • The frontrunners for the August Democratic primary are Abdul El-Sayed, a Bernie Sanders-endorsed doctor who supports Medicare for All and getting Big Money out of politics, and Rep. Haley Stevens, a so-called “moderate” Democrat who is receiving major financial support from AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby.

  • North Carolina: Former RNC Chair Michael Whatley will face former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper for retiring Republican Thom Tillis’s seat.

  • Iowa: Republican Congresswoman Ashley Hinson will face Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek for retiring Republican Joni Ernst’s seat.
    

• Competitive open seats for the House

  • AZ-01 (currently GOP-held)

  • ME-02 (currently Dem-held)

  • MI-10 (currently GOP-held)

These are the down-ballot races I’m paying attention to, but let me know if I’ve missed any (and what key midterm races you’re focused on) in the comments below.

Leave a comment

Share

Friends,

Today Heather and I take a deep dive into Elon Musk’s new status as America’s first trillionaire — worth one thousand billion dollars — and its meaning for the future of American capitalism. How much of SpaceX’s valuation is based on hype? How much on connections in the Trump regime? How much on Musk’s lobbying of major stock index funds? Answer: almost all of it.

We also look at Musk and Trump’s (and Pete Hegseth’s and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s and JD Vance’s) obsession with male virility — where that comes from and how it’s connected to tomorrow’s cage match on the South Lawn of the White House.

So please grab a cuppa, pull up a chair, and join in the conversation.

Leave a comment

Share

Friends,

Sometimes I provide you with information that I hope you’ll find helpful in making arguments with others. I don’t expect that what I share with you will change the minds of committed Trumpers, but the facts and the evidence may have some sway with Republicans and independents who are wavering about whom to support in the midterms.

One of the main reasons Trump was elected was his pledge to keep the United States out of wars, especially the kind of “endless” wars America has fought in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Obviously, he broke that pledge. We’re now well into the fourth month of a war he said would be four or five weeks at most.

In addition, the war he initiated in Iran was a war of choice — Iran did not attack the United States, and most specialists in foreign policy say Iran was not close to devising a nuclear weapon at that time. (It’s likely to be closer now, or at least more committed to making one.)

Yet in a lengthy interview with Kristen Welker, the host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” which aired Sunday, Trump was once again trying to rewrite his own history, He claimed:

“I didn’t guarantee no war. So when you say I promised, I didn’t promise anything. I don’t like these endless wars. This is not an endless war. We’ve been doing this for three months.”

In fact, Trump repeatedly and unequivocally promised during the 2024 election campaign that the U.S. would not have any wars during his second presidency.

Herewith, some examples.

In a June 2024 social media post, Trump described the election as “a choice between STRENGTH or WEAKNESS, COMPETENCE or INCOMPETENCE, peace and prosperity or war and no war.”

In one of the highest-profile speeches of his campaign — his July 2024 address to the Republican National Convention — he said, “With our victory in November, the years of war, weakness, and chaos will be over. I don’t have wars.”

He made the promise again and even more directly during an August 2024 rally in the swing state of Pennsylvania, saying: “Under Trump, we will have no more wars, no more disruptions, and we will have prosperity and peace for all.”

Trump reprised the same pledge in an August 2024 interview with Adin Ross, an online personality. After saying there were no wars during his first administration, he promised, “And we won’t have wars again.”

At another rally that month in the hotly contested state of North Carolina, Trump approvingly cited Viktor Orbán, then the prime minister of Hungary, as supposedly having said, “Make sure that Trump gets reelected president, and you’re not going to have any more wars.” Trump reiterated moments later, “No more wars. No more disruptions. We will have prosperity, and we will have peace.”

Trump told versions of the Orbán story at numerous other events. For example, in the swing state of Wisconsin in October 2024, he said, “Viktor Orbán said, ‘If Trump comes back, you won’t have any wars. You won’t have any wars.’ And he’s about as tough as they get, and he said it loud and clear and he said why. But you won’t have any wars.”

Finally, in his victory address in November 2024, Trump made a clear promise that he would not start a war — even when he no longer had to persuade voters to elect him. He said in that high-profile speech: “Four years, we had no wars, except we defeated ISIS. … They said, ‘He will start a war.’ I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop wars.”

In reality, of course, Trump has been one of the most bellicose presidents in modern American history.

His failing war in Iran and his campaign pledge not to start any wars should be held against Republicans in the House and Senate. They’re partly responsible. They have repeatedly refused to stop his wars. They have repeatedly enabled his aggression.

Share

Friends,

The trustees of the Social Security fund said Tuesday that the fund will be depleted by late 2032, a year earlier than the trustees’ projection last year of 2033. If nothing is done, benefits will automatically be cut six years from now.

The common understanding is that Social Security’s shortfall is due to the huge postwar baby boom, now retiring, and to America’s increasing life expectancy. The usual recommended fix is to reduce Social Security benefits or raise the age of eligibility. As Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, warned Monday, “entitlement programs” like Social Security “have to be adjusted and fixed.” He said Republicans will introduce a plan to do that. Brace yourselves.

I used to be a Social Security trustee, and I call bullsh*t.

The baby boom can’t be blamed for Social Security’s shortfall. The Greenspan Commission, which in 1983 recommended the reforms that Congress then made — raising Social Security payroll taxes and also raising the eligibility age for collecting Social Security benefits — knew all about the baby boom and figured it into its calculations. (Early boomers like me can now start collecting full benefits at age 66; late boomers born after 1960 have to wait until they’re 67 to collect full benefits.)

Americans’ increasing life expectancy isn’t at fault, either. While wealthier Americans are living longer, that’s not the case for lower-income Americans. The Urban Institute estimates that life expectancy in the top 20 percent of income-earners is 91 years for people born in the 1990s, four years more than people born in the 1950s. Yet the life expectancy in the lowest 20 percent of income-earners is fewer than 80 years.

So what’s the real cause of the Social Security shortfall? What did Greenspan’s commission fail to predict? Widening inequality.

Remember, the Social Security payroll tax applies only to earnings up to a certain cap. This year, that cap is $184,500. Earnings at or below this amount are taxed at 12.4 percent. The cap rises every year according to a formula roughly matching inflation.

Back in 1983, the cap was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of total income in America. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission’s fixes. The Greenspan commission assumed that, as the cap rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income.

Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 83 percent of total income in America. It went from 90 percent to 83 percent because a steadily larger portion of the nation’s total income has gone to the top.

In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today, the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent.

This year, someone earning $1 million in wages stopped paying any Social Security payroll tax at the beginning of March. Jeff Bezos probably stopped a few minutes past midnight on January 1. Elon Musk, a few seconds after midnight on January 1. (In point of fact, Bezos, Musk, and other robber barons of this Second Gilded Age get all the cash they need by borrowing against their fortunes, rather than bother with pesky wages, so they probably pay a pittance in Social Security taxes.)

Logically, then, to get back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax has to be raised.

If all income in excess of $400,000 were subject to the Social Security payroll tax, Social Security’s solvency would be guaranteed forever. We could also expand Social Security benefits.

So there’s no reason even to consider reducing Social Security benefits or raising the age of eligibility. The logical and necessary response is simply to raise the cap, Mike Johnson and other Republican shills for the oligarchs to the contrary notwithstanding.

Share

Additional background:

Social Security is America’s most effective anti-poverty program. Last year, it lifted 23.5 million Americans out of poverty, including 16.5 million seniors. Before its creation, about half of our nation’s seniors were living in poverty. Today their poverty rate is just 10.3 percent. Without Social Security, nearly 4 in 10 seniors would have had incomes below the official poverty line.

Hollowing out of private pensions makes Social Security all the more important. One in 5 Americans 50 and older have zero retirement savings. Meanwhile, the average Social Security benefit at the start of last year was $1,975 a month ($23,700 annually).

Social Security is also the federal government’s biggest children’s benefit program through its disability and survivors’ benefits. In 2024, 1.7 million children received Social Security benefits, and the vast majority are eligible to receive survivors’ benefits if a parent were to pass away. Additionally, millions more children are part of a household where all or part of the household income comes from Social Security. Social Security is estimated to lift close to 1 million children out of poverty each year.

Other fixes that have been introduced in Congress:

1. The Social Security Expansion Act

Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have introduced this plan for several Congresses. (It is cosponsored by Budget Committee Members Merkley, Whitehouse, Van Hollen, and Padilla.)

The bill imposes Social Security taxes on wages above $250,000 and applies the same 12.4 percent rate to capital gains and business income. That would boost benefits for almost all retirees by $200 per month, using a more generous measure of inflation to calculate the cost-of-living increase, and setting a minimum benefit at 125 percent of poverty. When estimated in 2023, it achieved 75-year Social Security solvency solely by increasing taxes on incomes above $250,000.

2. Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act

Sen. Whitehouse and Rep. Boyle introduced this bill starting in the last Congress. Budget Committee Member Van Hollen is a co-sponsor. It adopts the tax increases of the Sanders bill, adjusted to start at $400,000. The bill has no benefit increases, so it significantly overshoots solvency, and there would be extra revenue. The bill achieves 75-year solvency for both Social Security and the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund.

Share

Friends,

I received the following from Richard Gephardt, who represented Missouri in the United States House from 1977 to 2005 and served as House Democratic Leader from 1989 to 2003, and Tim Wirth, who served in the U.S. House and Senate from Colorado from 1975 to 1993 and as the first U.S. Secretary of State for Global Affairs.

I have worked with both and know them quite well. Neither is an alarmist, but they did want me to help spread this alarm. Hence, I’m sharing with you what they wrote to me. (Research is from Keep Our Republic, a civic education non-profit focused on fair elections.)

***

Between us we have served for seven decades, mostly in elected federal office, through Watergate, the post-Vietnam anti-war demonstrations, years of civil rights marches, Iran-Contra, debates over voting rights, the post-9/11 surveillance debates, two impeachments. We are writing today because we are watching something different from any of these, and because most Americans, including most of our friends in both parties, do not see the big picture.

Many may recognize and be concerned about individual actions or decisions taken by the administration but few have taken a step back and connect the dots. The “rolling coup” is much more than one development, one decision or a single day.

On September 25, 2025, President [Trump] signed a directive called a National Presidential Security Memorandum known as NPSM-7 (titled ‘Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence’).

Its language designates as targets of federal counterterrorism authorities Americans whose sponsors are labeled “anti-American”, “ anti-capitalist”, “ anti-Christian” or “hostile to traditional American views on family, religion and morality.”

No statute authorizes the federal government to treat protected political speech as terrorism; NPSM-7 does it anyway. It tasked the FBI, the IRS and the Treasury Department with tracking the funding sources and supporters of organizations suspected of directly or indirectly facilitating political unrest, with no reference to the First Amendment.

Soon thereafter, the FBI organized a Joint Mission Center, drawing hundreds of personnel from ten federal agencies to identify and prosecute the targets of NPSM-7. The Director of the FBI, Kash Patel, subsequently testified [that there was] a 300 percent increase in domestic terrorism investigations. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi testified that thousands of U.S. citizens and non-governmental organizations are now on a secret watch list tied to the Joint Mission Center.

Concurrently the Justice Department has opened grand-jury investigations and indictments aimed at officials of previous administrations including former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey.

The President’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, has publicly described political opposition as a “fifth column,” and Trump himself amplified this by declaring “Arrest them all. Prosecute them all. Incarcerate them all… But first, Barack Obama.”

On May 6, 2026, the administration’s Senior Director for Counterterrorism, Sebastian Gorka, released a new National Counterterrorism Strategy that names “violent left-wing extremists,” “anti-fascists,” and certain religious minorities as principal threats to the United States.

Bondi provided a Department of Justice operational order that included a five year plan for retroactive mining of data files and plea interrogations along with the requirement that financial donors be named. The Joint Mission Center uses its $12.5 billion dollar budget to do the targeting. The President’s lead lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel have preauthorized the use of domestic force.

Meanwhile the administration has appropriated $45 billion for construction of new ICE detention facilities, a 265 percent increase over previous years and more than four times the entire budget of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Tom Homan, the President’s “border czar” has overseen the proposal for the acquisition of over 100,000 detention beds above the current capacity of 70,000, with contracts for permanent mega-centers whose scale far exceeds anything an immigration processing operation would require. These are undoubtedly prisons for political prisoners, even as 1974 federal law prohibit the detention of American citizens without an act of Congress.

In the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, U.S. forces have killed more than 200 people across nearly sixty strikes on small boats designated as “narcoterrorists” without indictment, trial or judicial review. The commander of U.S. Northern Command has said publicly he would “definitely” execute lawful orders to apply this same authority on American soil.

The White House has declined to rule out using lethal force against U.S. citizens designated as members of domestic terrorist organizations, while Trump has fired most of the Department of Defense officials responsible for overseeing the legality of military operations.

Trump is seeking yet more funding for what appears to be his private army of ICE and Border Patrol agents, to be deployed in numerous target states, at airports and at urban polling places in the states he lost in the 2024 election, where he has now begun to seize voter roles and ballots.

[The U.S. Senate recently passed a $70 billion supplemental funding bill for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. The legislation is on track for an upcoming U.S. House vote. The funds aim to finance these agencies through 2029.]

[Another piece of the puzzle: Over the last year, the Justice Department has sought voter roll data from most states; sued those that have declined to comply; opened a criminal investigation into 2020 election results in Fulton County, Ga., a state Trump narrowly lost that year; and demanded ballots from the 2024 race from Wayne County, Mich.]

Political prisons, a domestic army, control of the military’s legal apparatus, the seizure of voter roles, and much more presage the potential declaration of a national crisis and the implementation of various of the President’s Emergency Action Documents. These are among the many individual actions and plans of the “rolling coup” which is currently underway.

Unlike what might be recognized as a coup with tanks in the streets, this is not the seizure of power on a single day but the methodical construction of an apparatus designed to identify, arrest, prosecute and if necessary forcibly suppress Americans whose only offense is opposition to this administration, by an executive who has openly declared that opposition itself is the enemy.

Why aren’t more Americans seeing this? Because each step has been incremental. Each has been framed in the legitimate-sounding language of national security or law enforcement. Each was paired with a reassuring denial — we are not deploying the military domestically, we are not declaring an emergency over elections, we are not coming for citizens.

Congress, paralyzed and outnumbered, has not mounted a serious institutional response. Some press has reported stories about the pieces but not on the whole dangerous picture.

The first job of any coup is to make the recognition of it seem premature. That is the trap. By the time recognition is no longer premature, the moment to resist has already passed.

So what is to be done?

Congress must reassert its Article I authority over emergency powers, military deployment on U.S. soil, and the Office of Legal Council’s power to rewrite statute by memo.

Governors and state attorneys general must adopt the protective measures that civil liberties lawyers have already drafted to shield citizens, non-profits and election workers from NPSM-7.

Newsrooms must report the rolling coup architecture as a single big picture story, because that is what it is.

And each of us — in pulpits, in classrooms, in podcasts, in union halls, at work and around kitchen tables — must call this by its name out loud, while there is still time and there is still room.

***

Unless we begin to act with resolve, fortitude and clear-eyed commitment to our democracy, a future election will be lost and our democracy will likely be destroyed by a Presidential declaration of a national emergency and the subsequent implementation of the emergency measures, not authorized by law but drafted and implemented without any Congressional oversight.

We took the same oath of office that every member of the military and every federal officer takes — to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The obligation in that oath does not end when one leaves office. We believe that an awake America can stop what a drowsy one will not, but time is short and the challenge is urgent.

— former House Leader Richard Gephardt and former Senator Timothy Wirth

Share

Friends,

Elon Musk’s SpaceX goes on the market tomorrow. Rather than provide a range and then price the deal based on demand, as is customary in Initial Public Offerings, Musk has set a take-it-or-leave-it price of $135 per share.

He anticipates that the resulting corporation will be valued at $1.77 trillion. That’s an extraordinary amount for a company that generated $18.7 billion in revenue last year and recorded an operating loss of $4.2 billion.

In other words, Musk is offering SpaceX stock at roughly 100 times the company’s total revenue in 2025. This is ballsy, to say the least, given SpaceX’s consistent negative profitability and its failure to meet prior goals. But it’s a great deal for Musk. He comes out of it with nearly a trillion dollars.

Granted, it’s difficult to predict the value of activities that don’t yet exist, such as SpaceX’s stated mission to “extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” Interstellar space travel and interplanetary habitation are inherently speculative endeavors. But before tomorrow’s giant IPO, capitalism had never before put a price tag on something nearly as speculative and as large.

Let’s be clear. SpaceX’s IPO is basically nothing more than a show of faith in Musk. After all, much of SpaceX’s value comes out of a deal Musk negotiated between SpaceX’s and his Artificial Intelligence startup, xAI. Musk essentially made that deal with himself, setting the relative valuations by himself, closing the deal by himself, and unilaterally deciding the value of his own transaction. A magic trick, out of thin air!

The closer you look at the SpaceX IPO, the more it looks like Musk’s ill-fated DOGE. It also bears a striking resemblance to Trump’s takeover of the U.S. government. All of it is arbitrary, based on the will of one man with a giant ego and an insatiable thirst for money and power. It’s built on self-dealing. There’s no accountability. No checks. No balances.

Musk will have total control. Shareholders won’t have any voice whatsoever. Each share held by Musk will have 10 times the voting power of a share offered to the public. SpaceX’s board of directors will engage in a pantomime. They’ll have no meaningful authority. As the editorial board of the Financial Times put it, “traditional governance checks are almost entirely absent…. [Musk] will have a virtually unchallenged grip on voting rights and the board.”

None of this would be particular cause for concern if investors could decide for themselves whether the downside risks and potential upside gains from buying SpaceX stock were worth the price. That’s called a “market.” Caveat emptor.

But many of us, if not most of us, with any savings parked in major stock indices (yours truly included) won’t have any choice. We’re going to end up investing in SpaceX whether we want to or not. That’s because the major indices have been rigged.

Normally, major stock indices have a waiting period before they plow their investors’ money into a newly formed company, in order to test whether that company is worth it. But SpaceX has lobbied index funds to change the rules.

On May 1, for example, the Nasdaq 100 implemented a new “fast entry” rule that will include companies among the top 40 most highly valued companies — which will almost certainly include SpaceX.

Presto! A big chunk of Americans’ retirement savings and pensions (as well as university endowments) will automatically be tied to SpaceX’s market value. At the same time, all that automatic infusion of investment will artificially jack up the value of SpaceX, at least in the short term.

But here’s the real kicker. SpaceX insiders — such as Musk and, reportedly, senior Trump officials — will be able to sell their shares sooner than is usually the case with an IPO, because that’s the way the IPO has been organized. Which means they can enjoy the stocks’ upward tide as the major indices force millions of investors to buy it, and then they can exit SpaceX before the tide goes out.

If this sounds to you like a Ponzi scheme, it does to me, too. Even worse, it’s a Ponzi scheme that’s been rigged by Musk, with the acquiescence of Trump’s Securities and Exchange Commission, to require that I and probably you put some of our savings into SpaceX.

Speaking of the SEC, Senator Elizabeth Warren has raised many of these concerns with Paul Atkins, Trump’s SEC chair. She’s even asked him to delay the IPO to determine whether index funds are adequately protecting investors — warning of “a disastrous scenario where retirees’ and families’ investment accounts take a hit if SpaceX’s valuation falters, with little recourse for any corporate misconduct, while the wealthiest man on earth becomes even wealthier due to a lack of oversight.”

But SpaceX’s takeoff is happening tomorrow, regardless. It’s likely to make Musk a trillionaire but also to shaft a lot of innocent people, perhaps without their even noticing. It will be a huge redistribution from most of us to Elon and his buddies.

I don’t want to sound cynical, but this is the sort of thing that brings out the cynicism in me. It’s the story of American capitalism in this Second Gilded Age.

Share

Friends.

Either he knows he’s lying — in order to further undermine confidence in our elections and as a prelude to attacking the outcome of the midterms — in which case he needs to be impeached and convicted.

Or he doesn’t know he’s lying — he really believes that our election system is “crooked” and that the major media are “crooked” — in which case he’s seriously and dangerously mentally ill, and the 25th Amendment needs to be invoked to get him out of office.

Take your pick. Either way, he has to be removed from office. And soon.

Share

Friends,

I’ve been watching JD Vance as carefully as anyone can track a snake in the grass, which is to say, with some difficulty. He has seemed uncomfortable with Trump’s grandiose foreign ambitions, especially Trump’s failed war in Iran, but I’ve seen no evidence that JD has spoken out against any of it even inside Trump’s ego-echo chamber.

JD hasn’t carved out a regressive policy specialty for himself, as have some other of Trump’s despicable underlings such as Stephen Miller, Russell Vought, and Harmeet Dhillon.

Nor has JD become much of a spokesperson for Trump. He rarely appears on television or even on social media. Nor has he been visible on Capitol Hill. He hasn’t cinched any deal in Congress.

JD seems to appear when and where a vice president is supposed to, but then disappears again into the daily effluence of Trump.

But there’s one particular area where JD seems to stand out (I was tempted to write “excel,” but it’s impossible to excel at something as execrable as JD’s specialty.) He is the regime’s strangest bigot.

Among all the bigots in the Trump regime — and there are many — JD’s bigotry stands out for a particular lunacy, combining magic realism with a unique ultra-wackiness.

We saw glimmers of this during the 2024 campaign when JD, then a U.S. senator from Ohio, insisted that the pets of upright Americans residing in Springfield, Ohio, were being “abducted and eaten” by Haitian immigrants “who shouldn’t be in this country.”

Despite being informed by city officials that Haitian immigrants were not in fact eating pets, Vance doubled down. He was sure Haitians were eating people’s pets. The publicity surrounding JD’s bizarre claims led to threats against Springfield’s Haitian community.

Not to let a disgusting lie about a minority group go unexploited, Trump amplified Vance’s pet-eating claim during his presidential debate with Kamala Harris.

Finally confronted by irrefutable evidence that Haitian immigrants were not eating pets in Springfield, Vance admitted publicly that he was speaking, shall we say, metaphorically: “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” he told CNN.

Hello?

Now, JD is back.

“Henry Nowak died the same way a civilization dies: abandoned, handcuffed by authorities who neither trusted nor cared for him, and accused of hate crimes he did not commit,” JD declared on X last week. Nowak would still be alive “if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it.”

If you’ve followed this sad story, you know that an 18-year-old British student named Henry Nowak was fatally stabbed in the British city of Southampton in December by Vickrum Digwa, who falsely claimed Nowak had racially abused him and that Digwa had acted in self-defense. After the truth came out, Digwa was jailed for life on June 1, with a minimum term of 21 years.

That, in turn, prompted JD’s jeremiad against “mass invasion of migrants.”

But inconveniently for JD, Digwa was born and raised in Britain. Which puts JD’s blaming Nowak’s death on a “mass invasion of migrants” roughly on par with his claims about the eating habits of Haitian-Americans in Springfield.

This hasn’t stopped JD, of course, who’s using the Nowak murder to bolster his narrative of Britain as a “once powerful nation” whose elites are now welcoming “migrants” who “despise the West.”

JD has become a mouthpiece inside the Trump regime for assailing what JD repeatedly terms the “decline of Western civilization,” especially in Europe. It’s part of the Trump regime’s increasingly shrill critique of Europe. Trump’s most recent National Security Strategy promises to push “Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.”

In a sense, then, JD has stepped into the bigoted shoes of Viktor Orbán; Nigel Farage, the leader of the right-wing populist Reform UK party; and other resurgent European white Christian nationalists.

But there’s something more to this. JD wants to be the leader of the world’s anti-democracy movement.

Recall that JD would never have become a senator from Ohio in 2022 were it not for the billionaire tech financier Peter Thiel, who staked $15 million on JD’s election — a major portion of all the funds that went into JD’s Senate race.

Thiel knew what he was buying. Before running for the Senate, JD had worked for Thiel’s California venture capital firm and was part of Thiel’s libertarian community of rich crypto bros, tech executives, back-to-the-landers, and disaffected far-right intellectuals.

Because Thiel had been a major funder of Trump’s 2016 presidential run, he had significant influence with Trump when urging him to pick JD for his vice president.

Thiel was such a strong sponsor of JD because Thiel saw in his protege a future leader of a political movement to turn the U.S. away from democracy. “For Peter,” said one of the people familiar with his thinking, “Vance is a generational bet.”

Thiel is a self-styled libertarian who once wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

Hello? Freedom is incompatible with democracy only if you view democracy as a potential constraint on your wealth and power.

That’s the point. Thiel and JD — along with Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, tech entrepreneur David Sacks, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, Palantir adviser Jacob Helberg, Sequoia Capital’s Doug Leone, blogger Curtis Yarvin, and others in the anti-democracy movement — believe that the only way true libertarians can win in the U.S. is for a Caesar-like figure to wrest power from the U.S. establishment and install a monarchical regime, run like a startup.

Yarvin — who’s something of a thinker behind this movement — has written that real political power in the United States is held by a liberal amalgam of universities and the mainstream press, whose commitment to equality and justice is eroding social order.

In Yarvin’s view, democratic governments should be replaced with sovereign joint-stock corporations whose major “shareholders” select an executive with total power, who serves at their pleasure. Yarvin refers to the city-state of Singapore as an example of a successful authoritarian regime.

How to achieve Yarvin’s vision? The first step, as JD offered in a 2021 podcast, is to replace “every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state … with our people. And when the courts stop you, stand before the country, and say” — as did Andrew Jackson — that “the chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”

The next step, apparently, is to foment so much division and bigotry inside the U.S. and within every other major Western nation that people come to view those on the other side of the political divide as the source of everything that’s wrong with their lives. That way, they won’t look upward to see Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and the other billionaire robber barons, plutocrats, and oligarchs of this second Gilded Age grabbing most of the wealth and power for themselves.

And average people will trade in democracy for strongman autocracy.

Behind JD’s bloopers about Haitian-Americans and British “migrants” is a deadly serious plan to unite the far-rights of America and Europe and rid much of the world of democracy. If JD ever becomes president, he’s intent on finishing the job.

Share