When It Comes to Undermining America, We Have a Winner

July 15, 2025
Credit...Aleksey Kondratyev for The New York Times

By Thomas B. Edsall
Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on politics, demographics and inequality.

Capitalizing on Democrats’ weakness, President Trump is winning his battle to undermine democracy in this country.

But he has not won the war.

A host of factors could blunt his aggression: recession, debt, corruption, inflation, epidemics, the Epstein files, anger over cuts in Medicaid and food stamps, to name just a few. Much of what Trump has done could be undone if a Democrat is elected president in 2028.

But for federal workers, medical and scientific researchers, lawyers in politically active firms, prominent critics of Trump — thousands of whom have felt the sting of arbitrary firings, vanished paychecks and retracted grants, criminal inquiries and threatened bankruptcies — the 2028 election may prove too late to repair the damage.

And that’s before we even begin to talk about the anti-immigration crackdown.

Trump’s assaults are aimed at targets large and small, some based on personal resentments, others guided by a more coherent ideological agenda.

The brutality of Trump’s anti-democratic policies is part of a larger goal, a reflection of an administration determined to transfer trillions of dollars to the wealthy by imposing immense costs on the poor and the working class in lost access to medical care and food support, an administration that treats hungry children with the same disdain that it treats core principles of democracy.

Trump has succeeded in devastating due-process protections for universities, immigrants and law firms. He has cowed the Supreme Court, which has largely failed to block his violations of the Constitution. He has bypassed Congress, ruling by executive order and emergency declaration. He is using the regulatory power of government to force the media to make humiliating concessions. He has ordered criminal investigations of political adversaries. He has fired innumerable government employees who pursued past investigations — and on and on.

He has moved with determination toward the destabilization of American democracy.

“Our institutions are not acting as if American democracy is under threat,” Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, contended in an email. It has become routine, Moynihan wrote: 

for Trump to fire people in independent agencies or civil servants, or to impound funds and even close agencies. All of these things were widely assumed to be illegal. While the courts are not making definitive rulings on such powers, they are allowing Trump to exercise them. Maybe they will clip Trump’s wings later, but in the meantime enormous damage will be done and undoing that damage will be extraordinarily difficult. For example, ending U.S.A.I.D. without congressional action is illegal, but it is happening, and millions will die as a result.

Many Democrats and liberals have been banking on economic forces to press Trump to back down, but the administration is not paying the price many on the left and center expected to emerge in response to his tariffs and the immense expansion of the national debt resulting from his “One Big Beautiful Bill.”
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

Instead, the economy remains strong: Unemployment is at 4.1 percent; the stock market has reached record highs; the rate of inflation increased by a modest 0.1 percent from April to May for an annual 2.4 percent rate.

“I am worried Trump is seemingly wearing down the opposition,” Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth, wrote by email in response to my queries about Trump’s successes and failures. “His political position is objectively weaker — he’s a lame duck who is more unpopular than he was at this point in his first term — but he’s using the powers of the presidency more effectively in pursuit of his authoritarian goals.”

Editors’ Picks
‘I Noticed a Building Handyman Washing Down the Sidewalk’
On Colorado’s Wild Prairies, the Rest of the World Disappears
A Handshake in Orbit 50 Years Ago Transformed the Space Race



Trump, Nyhan argued, is pushing the boundaries of his institutional powers in ways that are less likely to catalyze opposition, especially as they become more familiar. I am most concerned about the direction of the Supreme Court. The lower courts have held up well in challenging the administration, but the nationwide injunction decision (among others) suggests that SCOTUS is becoming a key enabler.

Supreme Ct Expands Pres Power Allowing Trump to Dismantle Dept of Educ.

The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court yesterday granted a stay on a lower court’s order that the Trump administration could not gut the Department of Education while the issue is in the courts.The order by the court was unsigned and gave no reasoning, as is typical in such emergency applications. No vote count was given, which is usual for emergency orders. The majority thus throws the weight of the Supreme Court behind the ability of the Trump administration to get rid of departments established by Congress—a power the Supreme Court denied when President Richard M. Nixon tried it in 1973.

The Trump administration has announced plans to fire more than 1,300 workers, a move that would effectively gut the department, which manages federal loans for college, tracks student achievement and enforces civil rights laws in schools.

The Education Department began the year with more than 4,000 employees. The administration also fired some probationary workers and offered employees the ability to resign. Altogether, after the terminations, the Education Department will have a work force of about half the size it did before Mr. Trump returned to office.

The move by the justices represents an expansion of presidential power, allowing Mr. Trump to dismantle the inner workings of a government department created by Congress without legislators’ input. The firings will hobble much of the department’s work, supporters argued in court filings. Particularly hard hit was the department’s Office for Civil Rights, which had seven of its 12 offices shuttered.

It comes after a decision by the justices last week that cleared the way for the Trump administration to move forward with cutting thousands of jobs across a number of federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, State and Treasury.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, joined by the court’s other two liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The three argued that Mr. Trump had overstepped his authority with his “unilateral efforts to eliminate a cabinet-level agency established by Congress nearly half a century ago.”

“Only Congress has the power to abolish the department,” Justice Sotomayor wrote in her 19-page dissent.The court’s decision, she wrote, would have severe consequences for the country’s students by unleashing “untold harm, delaying or denying educational opportunities and leaving students to suffer from discrimination, sexual assault and other civil rights violations without the federal resources Congress intended.”

‘I Noticed a Building Handyman Washing Down the Sidewalk’
On Colorado’s Wild Prairies, the Rest of the World Disappears
A Handshake in Orbit 50 Years Ago Transformed the Space Rac

The order is technically temporary, in effect only while courts continue to consider the legality of Mr. Trump’s move. In practice, fired workers whom a Boston judge had ordered be reinstated are now again subject to removal from their jobs.

This is a major expansion of presidential power, permitting the president to disregard laws Congress has passed, despite the Constitution’s clear assignment of lawmaking power to Congress alone.

President Donald J. Trump has vowed to eliminate the Department of Education because he claims it pushes “woke” ideology on America’s schoolchildren and that its employees “hate our children.” Running for office, he promised to “return” education to the states. In fact, the Education Department has never set curriculum; it disburses funds for high-poverty schools and educating students with disabilities. It’s also in charge of prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and sex in schools that get federal funding.

Trump’s secretary of education, professional wrestling promoter Linda McMahon, supports Trump’s plan to dismantle the department. In March the department announced it would lay off 1,378 employees—about half the department. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia sued to stop the layoffs, and Massachusetts federal judge Myong Joun ordered the department to reinstate the fired workers. The Supreme Court has now put that order on hold, permitting the layoffs to go forward.

Another Trump power grab is before Congress today as the Senate considers what are called “rescissions.” These are a request from the White House for Congress to approve $9.4 billion in cuts it has made in spending that Congress approved. By law, the president cannot decide not to spend money Congress has appropriated, although officials in the Trump administration did so as soon as they took office. Passing this rescission package would put Congress’s stamp of approval on those cuts, even though they change what Congress originally agreed to.

Those cuts include ending federal support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps to fund National Public Radio (NPR), the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), and local stations. The Trump administration says NPR and PBS “fuel…partisanship and left-wing propaganda.”

Congress must approve the request by Friday, or the monies will be spent as the laws originally established. The House has already passed the package, but senators are unhappy that the White House has not actually specified what will be cut. Senators will be talking to the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought—a key architect of Project 2025—today in a closed-door session in hopes of getting more information.

In June, Vought told CNN that this package is just “the first of many rescissions bills” and that if Congress won’t pass them, the administration will hold back funds under what’s called “impoundment,” although Congress explicitly outlawed that process in the 1974 Impoundment Control Act.

In D.C. no one is really in charge exc Trump—which means that on most days, and regarding many issues, no one is in charge.”

A week ago, Jason Zengerle of the New York Times suggested that the real power in the Oval Office is deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller, who is driving the administration’s focus on attacking immigrants. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem defers to Miller, a Trump advisor told Zengerle. Attorney General Pam Bondi is focused on appearing on the Fox News Channel and so has essentially given Miller control over the Department of Justice. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles is “producing a reality TV show every day” and doesn’t care about policy.

On the same day Zengerle was writing about domestic policy decisions, Tom Nichols of The Atlantic was making a similar observation about international policy. He notes that Trump has only a fleeting interest in foreign policy, abandoning issues he thinks are losing ones for others to handle. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth keeps talking about “lethality” and trans people but doesn’t seem to know policy at all. Secretary of State Marco Rubio—who is also the national security advisor—appears to have little power in the White House.

Apparently, Nichols writes, American defense policy is in the hands of Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary of defense for policy, who made the decision to withhold weapons from Ukraine and who ordered a review of the U.S. defense pact with the United Kingdom and Australia in an attempt to put pressure on Australia to spend more on defense.

“In this administration,” Nichols writes, “the principals are either incompetent or detached from most of the policy making, and so decisions are being made at lower levels without much guidance from above.” This is a common system in authoritarian regimes, Nichols notes, “where the top levels of government tackle the one or two big things the leader wants done and everything else tumbles down to other functionaries, who can then drive certain issues according to their own preferences (which seems to be what Colby is doing), or who will do just enough to stay under the boss’s radar and out of trouble (which seems to be what most other Trump appointees are doing). In such a system, no one is really in charge except Trump—which means that on most days, and regarding many issues, no one is in charge.”

It’s No Bluff: The Tariff Rate Is Soaring Under Trump

The president has earned a reputation for bluffing on tariffs. But he has steadily and dramatically raised U.S. tariffs, transforming global trade.

President Trump argues that low tariffs have left the country at a disadvantage in the past, allowing Americans to import cheap products that put U.S. factories out of business and left the country dependent on foreign nations.Credit...Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times

By Ana Swanson


President Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs have prompted investors to bet that he will “always chicken out” and given businesses and foreign leaders hope that the leader of the world’s largest economy will ultimately back down from his threats if they prove too economically disruptive.

Events of the past week have cast serious doubt on that bet. As Mr. Trump renews trade threats against more than two dozen trading partners, he is once again proving his fondness for tariffs, and embracing import taxes in a way that no other president has since the Great Depression.

A self-described “tariff man,” Mr. Trump has continually extolled the virtues of heavily taxing imports as a way to raise revenue and cajole factories to relocate to the United States. While the president may ultimately give way on some of his most recent threats, he has still steadily and dramatically raised tariffs to levels not seen in a century.

Over the past week, Mr. Trump has threatened 25 trading partners with punishing levies on Aug. 1 unless they sign trade deals that Mr. Trump finds acceptable. The list of countries he plans to raise tariffs on include some of America’s biggest sources of imports, including the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, South Korea and Thailand. Those countries had been in active talks with the United States about resolving Mr. Trump’s concerns in an effort to avoid tariffs.

Several may still reach deals to avert some of the levies, including India, the European Union, Taiwan and Japan.

But even if some deals are reached, American tariffs on trading partners are still likely to rise significantly. That was the case with the two trade agreement frameworks that the Trump administration has so far announced, with Britain and Vietnam, both of which leave double-digit tariffs in place.

On social media on Monday morning, the president wrote that the United States “has been ripped off on TRADE (and MILITARY!), by friend and foe, alike, for DECADES.”

Since Mr. Trump came into office in January, the average effective U.S. tariff rate has soared to 16.6 percent from 2.5 percent, according to tracking by the Budget Lab at Yale University, a nonpartisan research center. That’s a dramatic increase compared with the president’s first term, when it rose to 2.5 percent from 1.5 percent, primarily as a result of Mr. Trump’s trade war with China.

If all the tariffs that the president is now threatening on trading partners go into effect on Aug. 1, that average tariff rate would rise to 20.6 percent, the highest since 1910. According to the Yale Budget Lab’s calculations, that would also top the level of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which worsened the Great Depression.

Editors’ Picks
Catherine, Princess of Wales, Dresses for a New (Life) Stage
‘I Noticed a Building Handyman Washing Down the Sidewalk’
On Colorado’s Wild Prairies, the Rest of the World Disappears



“What happened in his first term is not nearly in the ballpark of what is happening now,” said Ernie Tedeschi, the lab’s director of economics.

Image
Mr. Trump announcing sweeping new tariffs at the White House in April.Credit...Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times


Some Trump advisers had projected a flurry of deals by July 9, after Mr. Trump imposed steep global tariffs in April but then quickly paused them for 90 days to carry out trade talks. Despite the efforts of foreign countries and his trade advisers to negotiate deals, few have emerged.

Mr. Trump’s advisers have portrayed the lack of agreements as a negotiating tactic. Speaking on ABC Sunday morning, Kevin Hassett, the director of the U.S. National Economic Council, said that the president had seen “some sketches of deals” negotiated by his advisers, but that he thinks they “need to be better.”
Want to stay updated on what’s happening in East Asia, Northern Europe and South America? Sign up for Your Places: Global Update, and we’ll send our latest coverage to your inbox.

“These tariffs are real if the president doesn’t get a deal that he thinks is good enough,” Mr. Hassett said. “But, you know, conversations are ongoing, and we’ll see where the dust settles.”

But foreign governments are puzzled about what, exactly Mr. Trump wants, given that the negotiations have not produced the kind of deal he finds acceptable. The administration also appears to lack the time or bandwidth to make deals with more than a handful of the trading partners Mr. Trump is now threatening. As a result, there is a growing sense that what the president actually wants are tariffs that would block foreign products from the United States, rather than deals that could boost trade and open markets.

Besides the tariffs it is threatening on foreign nations, the administration appears set to roll out a variety of levies on critical sectors like semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, airplanes, lumber and other products, with some tariffs potentially coming later this month.

Mark Diplacido, who served at the Office of the United States Trade Representative during the first Trump administration, said that the current administration’s posture was that “they are fully comfortable letting these rates and these letters kick in.”

“The implication at this point is it’s time to make your final pitch, and if we’re not happy with this, we’re ready to let these go into effect,” said Mr. Diplacido, now a policy adviser at American Compass, a conservative think tank.

Kelly Ann Shaw, a partner at Akin Gump and a former Trump administration official, said that attitude was likely to translate into higher tariffs overall. It was clear that tariffs were “one of the pillars of the second Trump administration’s economic policy,” she said. For most foreign products, tariffs appeared to be settling somewhere between 10 and 25 percent.

“At least for the rest of the Trump administration, and likely beyond, we’ll see some of those tariff rates go up pretty significantly than where they were on Jan. 19 of 2025,” the day before the president’s inauguration, Ms. Shaw said.

One remaining factor that could significantly lower Mr. Trump's tariffs are the challenges that are now proceeding through the legal system. Federal courts have called into question the legal authority that Mr. Trump has used to threaten his global tariffs, and they are expected to rule on that question this fall.

Mr. Trump’s advisers have said that they have other legal channels to impose tariffs if the courts rule against them, but those methods were not likely to give the Trump administration as much scope and flexibility as it currently has asserted.

The president and many on his team argue that low tariffs have left the country at a disadvantage in past decades, allowing Americans to import cheap products that put U.S. factories out of business and left the country dependent on foreign suppliers. While some open-market Republicans and business owners privately oppose tariffs, they have been reluctant to speak out publicly against a president who often seeks retribution for his critics.

A White House official, who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said that the administration did not view high tariffs and trade deals as mutually exclusive, and that it had purposely crafted trade deals, for example with Britain, that had left high tariffs in place.

Mr. Diplacido said that one reason the administration had put high tariffs on many trading partners globally was related to China. In the first term, the Trump administration imposed hefty tariffs on Chinese exports. But while the U.S. trade deficit with China fell, trade deficits with many other partners started to grow. The United States began importing more products from factories in Mexico, Vietnam and elsewhere that were either run by Chinese companies or used lots of Chinese inputs and raw materials.

Mr. Diplacido said that China was “the biggest offender,” but that “targeting them directly wasn’t enough to bring down the overall U.S. trade deficit, so this wider global approach has been necessary to address that problem.”

“Until third markets are willing to coordinate to rebalance trade globally,” he added, “I think that additional pressure and the higher tariffs are going to be necessary to get the overall U.S. trade deficit down, which I think is the principal goal.”

Expanding tariffs from China to the entire world also significantly increases the burden for U.S. importers. But in the United States, the full economic effect of tariffs has yet to be felt. While economic data shows that tariffs have begun to push up prices for some goods, overall consumer price inflation has remained muted.

Economists caution that tariffs have only been in place for a short time, and more noticeable price increases could be on their way in the coming months. Mr. Tedeschi said it was “wrong” to say there was no evidence of negative economic effects, pointing to a significant rise in recent prices for appliances, electronics, furniture, used cars and auto parts, categories of goods for which prices typically fall year-to-year overall, he said.

“It takes time for tariffs to work their way through the economy,” Mr. Tedeschi said.

But Mr. Trump and his advisers have seized on recent data to argue that tariffs have little effect on prices. The lack of broad price increases so far also appears to be encouraging the president to double down on his policies.

Mr. Hassett said Sunday that consumer inflation was low and that Mr. Trump’s predictions that foreign suppliers would bear the cost of tariffs had been borne out.

“I think that that’s probably affecting his negotiating position because we’ve got all this empirical evidence that his position has been proven correct in the data,” he said.

Ana Swanson covers trade and international economics for The Times and is based in Washington. She has been a journalist for more than a decade.

MAGA fury over Justice Department Claiming Jeffrey Epstein did not keep an “incriminating ‘client list.’”

MAGA fury over the Justice Department’s statement that accused sex trafficker of young girls Jeffrey Epstein, who died in his prison cell in 2019, did not keep an “incriminating ‘client list.’” It also said it would not release additional evidence the department’s investigators have accumulated, evidence that includes photographs and more than 10,000 videos.

MAGA influencers, egged on by media figures like Dan Bongino, insisted that the Justice Department under Biden was hiding information about Epstein’s clients to cover up for Democratic leaders they insisted it would implicate. In February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi told the Fox News Channel that the list was sitting on her desk awaiting review. Now, though, the department has done a 180.

MAGA is furious. Bongino, who fed the frenzy, is now the deputy director of the FBI, and reports say he has turned on Bondi over the change, threatening to quit. Philip Rotner at The Bulwark makes the astute observation that wording of the announcement from Department of Justice is “deliberately opaque”—as many of their obfuscating documents are—and leaves open the possibility that there is, in fact, incriminating evidence, just not in the form of a specific document with the words “INCRIMINATING ‘CLIENT LIST’” at its top.

Bondi is a ferocious Trump loyalist, and for all that MAGA is pinning the blame for the cover-up on her, she is almost certainly following Trump’s instructions. While MAGA focused on the idea that the people on an Epstein client list would be Democrats, in fact the person most closely associated with Epstein in popular culture was Trump himself. The two men were photographed and filmed together a number of times. In 2002, according to New York magazine, Trump said: “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy…. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

Last night, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the top-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said he will "be asking Chairman [Jim] Jordan [R-OH] to call for a hearing where we subpoena the Attorney General and Dan Bongino and [FBI Director] Kash Patel to come in and tell us everything that we know" about the Jeffrey Epstein files, “because this thing is really spinning out of control at this point and there’s one way to put it to rest, which is to come clean, as President Trump promised he would during the campaign.”

Just before 10:00 this morning, Trump lashed out in what seemed to be an attempt to regain control of the narrative, hitting as many MAGA talking points as he could with an attack on comedian and talk show host Rosie O’Donnell, who has relocated from her native U.S.—she was born in New York—to Ireland out of concern for her family in Trump's America. “Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

The president’s suggestion that he has the power to revoke the citizenship of a natural-born American—he does not—escalates his authoritarian claims. It comes after a federal judge on Thursday barred the administration from denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, giving the administration time to appeal.

For years now, Trump and his loyalists have claimed Epstein was murdered to protect the rich and powerful men who were preying on children. This theory dovetailed with the QAnon conspiracy theory that Trump was combating a secret ring of cannibalistic child molesters who included Democratic politicians, government officials, film stars, and businessmen. MAGA influencers, including Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, pushed the Epstein theories, and MAGA followers believed them, hoping to bring down Democratic politicians like the Clintons.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) called for Americans to vote for Trump in 2024 because “Americans deserve to know why Epstein didn’t kill himself.”

The announcement that the DOJ would not provide further information and that Epstein had died by suicide set off a firestorm among MAGA. Far-right influencer Jack Posobiec wrote: “We were all told more was coming. That answers were out there and would be provided.”

On Tuesday, when a reporter asked about Epstein during a press opportunity at a cabinet meeting, Trump responded: “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy’s been talked about for years. Are people still talking about this guy? This creep? That is unbelievable.”

Trump’s attempt to turn attention away from the story only drew attention to it.On June 5, after a falling-out with Trump, billionaire Elon Musk posted on social media: “Time to drop the really big bomb: [Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!” He followed that post up with another saying: “Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.” He later deleted the posts and said they had gone too far.

After Trump tried to downplay the story last week, it gained momentum. MAGA influencers began to call for Bondi to be fired, and Bongino began to talk of resigning from the FBI over Bondi’s memo and handling of the issue.

Tucker Carlson was furious. “The whole thing that this tape shows that he didn’t kill himself is, like, a joke, but worse than that, it’s a joke that we all get,” he said. “I feel like we’re at a dangerous point now.”

Alex Jones said the Trump administration was now “part of the cover-up.” On X, Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote, “RELEASE THE EPSTEIN CLIENT LIST!!!!”

Laura Loomer
A lot of people who work for President Trump are pissed with Blondi. They know she Fkd up. Now it’s a matter of what happens next. She is an embarrassment to Donald Trump and his administration and we need to protect Trump from people who want to DRAG HIM DOWN. Blondi needs to be fired.

Then, at 5:21 Saturday evening, Eastern Daylight Time, Trump posted a long, incoherent screed on social media. In it, he defended Attorney General Pam Bondi—who is, of course, doing his bidding concerning the files—and tried to bring MAGA together again, warning that “selfish people” were trying to hurt his “PERFECT administration” by focusing on Epstein. In apparent contradiction to the story Bondi had told, he suggested the Epstein files existed, but then nonsensically said they were “written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration, who conned the World with the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, 51 ‘Intelligence’ Agents, ‘THE LAPTOP FROM HELL,’ and more? They created the Epstein Files, just like they created the FAKE Hillary Clinton/Christopher Steele Dossier that they used on me, and now my so-called “friends” are playing right into their hands. Why didn’t these Radical Left Lunatics release the Epstein Files? If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn’t they use it? They haven’t even given up on the John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr. Files,” he wrote.

“The Left is imploding! Kash Patel, and the FBI, must be focused on investigating Voter Fraud, Political Corruption, ActBlue, The Rigged and Stolen Election of 2020, and arresting Thugs and Criminals, instead of spending month after month looking at nothing but the same old, Radical Left inspired Documents on Jeffrey Epstein. LET PAM BONDI DO HER JOB—SHE’S GREAT! The 2020 Election was Rigged and Stolen, and they tried to do the same thing in 2024—That’s what she is looking into as AG, and much more.

“One year ago our Country was DEAD, now it’s the ‘HOTTEST’ Country anywhere in the World. Let’s keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

For the first time ever, Trump got ratioed on his own platform, meaning that there were more comments on his post than likes or shares, showing disapproval of his message. According to Jordan King of Newsweek, by 10:45 this morning (Eastern Time) it had more than 36,000 replies but only 11,000 reposts and 32,000 likes.

Trump sounds panicked, not only over the Epstein issue itself, but also because he cannot control the narrative his followers are embracing.

Over the weekend, attendees at a conference held by the right-wing Turning Point USA booed the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein case. MAGA influencers kept up the drumbeat; Matt Walsh called the administration’s about-face on releasing information “obvious bullsh*t.” Natalie Allison of the Washington Post reported that even the Fox News Channel warned this morning that “[t]here has to be some explanation” and that questions about the way the administration is handling the Epstein files were “very valid.”

Musk, who controls the X social media platform preferred by the right wing, is amplifying the story. After Trump’s Saturday post, Musk wrote to his 222 million followers: “Seriously. He said ‘Epstein’ half a dozen times while telling everyone to stop talking about Epstein. Just release the files as promised.”

Mike Flynn, who served as Trump’s first national security advisor until forced to resign for lying about his contact with Russian operatives, posted on social media: “[President Trump] please understand the EPSTEIN AFFAIR is not going away. If the administration doesn’t address the massive number of unanswered questions about Epstein, especially the ABUSE OF CHILDREN BY ELITES (it is very clear that abuse occurred), then moving forward on so many other monumental challenges our nation is facing becomes much harder.”

Flynn concluded: “We cannot allow pedophiles to get away. I don’t personally care who they are or what elite or powerful position they hold. They must be exposed and held accountable!!!”

-----------------

This afternoon, Dhruv Mehrotra of Wired noted that the video from a camera near Epstein’s prison cell that the Department of Justice released as “raw” footage had approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds cut out of it.

Journalist Garrett M. Graff, a former editor of Politico, commented: “Okay, I am not generally a conspiracist, but c’mon DOJ, you are making it really hard to believe that you’re releasing the real full evidence on Epstein….”

When Silence Speaks Volumes. Something important about the second Trump era.

A New York Times investigative reporter explains how a problem he encountered while reporting reveals something important about the second Trump era.
Credit...Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times


Trump’s retribution campaigns have been more sophisticated and more wide-ranging in his second term.

By Michael S. Schmidt
July 11, 2025


This week, my colleague Eileen Sullivan and I reported that the Secret Service took the extraordinary step in May of surveilling the former F.B.I. director James Comey, a day after he posted a photo that President Trump’s allies claimed contained an assassination threat.

The story raised questions about whether Comey was tailed not because he was a legitimate threat but as part of a retribution campaign Trump has promised to wage against those he sees as his enemies.

To nail down the story, we had to do one of the most challenging tasks we face as reporters: pry loose details from the inside of a federal investigation.

But there was also something unexpectedly difficult about that story, compared with similar stories I’ve reported over 20 years at The New York Times. Some of the people we’ve previously called on to provide outside expertise refused to speak with us this time.

Tonight, I’m going to take you behind the scenes of our reporting, and explain why the speed bump we hit may be a sign of something more significant.

A chill in Washington

When we write a story like this, we reach out to experts who can put what we are writing about in context. Drawing on their work experience or academic expertise, they can help us — and our readers — understand whether and why an incident we are covering is unusual, or which laws might apply to it.

These individuals are often more than willing to share what they know. Being publicly identified as an expert can bolster someone’s professional standing.

But in this case, people we had quoted previously about important matters related to Trump, refused to speak with me about Comey.

This appeared to be the latest development in what my colleague Elisabeth Bumiller described in March as “a chill spreading over political debate in Washington and beyond.” It reflects a growing reluctance to speak publicly that my colleagues and I have noticed this year from voters, federal employees and many others.

Editors’ Picks
Move Over, Mario. This Cow Is Nintendo’s New Star.
On Colorado’s Wild Prairies, the Rest of the World Disappears
Parents and Graduate Students Have New Loan Limits. Who Will Fill the Gap?



It’s not the kind of thing that would usually make headlines because, after all, we’re talking about people not talking. But it’s worth remarking upon as we watch the culture in Washington change before our eyes.

An escalating campaign of retribution

I’ve spent much of the past eight and a half years covering Trump’s retribution campaigns. During his first term, he tried, both privately and publicly, to pressure the Justice Department, the F.B.I. and the I.R.S. to investigate his enemies. He sometimes succeeded.

In Trump’s second term, those efforts have been more sophisticated and more wide-ranging. He has pulled security details from or opened investigations into former officials he does not like, while turning the powers of the federal government against institutions that were once seen as above the fray, like universities and law firms.

The administration’s attacks on Harvard University and the law firm Paul, Weiss have sent a lasting message to professors and lawyers wanting to criticize the administration: Your school could be stripped of critical federal funding or your firm could be hit with a potentially crippling executive order that would make it really difficult to represent your clients. On top of that, Trump’s supporters have trolled and, at times, harassed or even swatted those who have opposed the president.

The reluctance that we’ve seen suggests that even people not yet within the administration’s direct sightlines are becoming worried about speaking freely.

New fears

One of my first calls was to a well-respected former federal prosecutor who works at a large law firm and has been quoted about matters related to Trump before. I hoped he would be able to tell me whether or not it was unusual for the Secret Service to deploy invasive surveillance tactics on someone like Comey. He told me that he was interested in commenting for our article. But shortly thereafter, he called to say that his firm did not want him to be quoted on the sensitive topic of Comey.

Speaking to me later on the condition of anonymity, he said that it was not worth the potential hassle to his law firm for him to opine on something related to Trump. The climate now, he said, is very different from what it was during Trump’s first term, or when Trump was out of office and facing four indictments.

The next legal expert I consulted ultimately refused to be quoted, too.

Finally, I reached Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, who argued that the surveillance of Comey was deeply unusual.

Today, she told me that she thought it was worth saying so.

“As a former U.S. attorney, I feel a duty to speak out about violations of D.O.J. norms. As a professor, I have the freedom to speak candidly in a way that perhaps lawyers in law firms or private companies cannot,” McQuade said.

It can be hard to show the tangible effects of a vengeful government, particularly because concerns about retribution often spur people not to do something they normally would. But the quiet in Washington is noticeable, and meaningful. Silence, particularly around something fairly innocuous like explaining the law, reflects a level of fear that feels new.

This is not something that I saw during the first Trump administration, when much of the country seemed to be lining up to take on Trump or opine about what he was doing.

In a small way, the entire experience showed how things have changed.

U.S.drops 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs)—Twelve of Them—on Iran

Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American

Last night, exactly a week after his military parade fizzled and more than five million Americans turned out to protest his administration, President Donald J. Trump announced that the U.S. had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites: Fordo, Natanz, and Esfahan. He assured the American people that the strikes “were a spectacular military success” and that “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.” “Iran,” he said, “must now make peace.”

For the first time in history, the United States dropped its 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs)—twelve of them—on another country.

It was a triumphant moment for the president, but as reporter James Fallows noted, the bombing of Iran would never seem as “successful” as it did when Trump could still say the nuclear sites were obliterated and Iran and its allies had not yet made a move.

Today administration officials began to walk back Trump’s boast. The Wall Street Journal reported that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine said it was “way too early” to assess the amount of damage. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi said that “no one, no one, neither us, nobody else, could be able to tell you how much it has been damaged.”

Tonight David E. Sanger of the New York Times reported that there is evidence to suggest that Iran had moved both uranium and equipment from the Fordo site before the strikes.

In last night’s speech to the nation, Trump appeared to reach out to the evangelical wing of MAGA that wanted the U.S. to intervene on Israel’s side in its fight against Iran. Trump said: “And I want to just thank everybody and in particular, God, I want to just say we love you, God, and we love our great military, protect them. God bless the Middle East. God bless Israel, and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you.”

But while the evangelicals in MAGA liked Trump’s bombing of Iran, the isolationist “America First” wing had staunchly opposed it and are adamant that they don’t want to see U.S. involvement in another foreign war. So today, administration officials were on the Sunday talk shows promising that Trump was interested only in stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions, not in regime change. On ABC’s This Week, Vice President J.D. Vance said explicitly: “We don’t want to achieve regime change.” On X, poster after poster, using the same script, tried to bring America Firsters behind the attack on Iran by posting some version of “If you are upset that Trump took out Obama’s nuclear facilities in Iran, you were never MAGA.”

On ABC’s This Week, Representative Jim Himes (D-CT) said: “It's way too early to tell what the actual effect on the nuclear program is, and of course, it's way too early to tell how this plays out, right? I mean, we’ve seen this movie before. Every conflict in the Middle East has its Senator Tom Cottons who promise us mushroom clouds. In the Iraq war it was Condoleezza Rice promising us a mushroom cloud. And initially—and this is true of every one of these wars in Libya, in Iraq, and Afghanistan—initially, things looked pretty good. Saddam Hussein is gone. Muammar Qaddafi is gone. The Afghan Taliban are gone. And then, over time, we start to learn what the cost is. Four thousand, four hundred Americans dead in Iraq. The Taliban back in power. So bottom line, the president has taken a massive, massive gamble here.”

There are already questions about why Trump felt obliged to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites right now. In March, Trump’s director of national intelligence, who oversees all U.S. intelligence, told Congress that the intelligence community assessed that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. The U.S. and Iran have been negotiating over Iran’s nuclear program since April, and when Israel attacked Iran on June 12, a sixth round of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran was scheduled to begin just two days later, in Oman.

After Trump announced the strikes, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) posted: “I was briefed on the intelligence last week. Iran posed no imminent threat of attack to the United States. Iran was not close to building a deliverable nuclear weapon. The negotiations Israel scuttled with their strikes held the potential for success.” He added: “We know—for certain—there is a diplomatic path to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The Obama agreement was working. And as late as a week ago, Iran was back at the table again. Which makes this attack—with all its enormous risks—so reckless.”

On Friday a reporter asked Trump, “What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community had said they have no evidence that they are at this point.” Trump answered: “Well then, my intelligence community is wrong.” He added: “Who in the intelligence community said that?” The reporter responded: “Your director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.” Trump answered: “She’s wrong.”

At the end of May, Courtney Kube, Carol E. Lee, Gordon Lubold, Dan De Luce, and Elyse Perlmutter-Gumbiner of NBC News reported that Gabbard was considering turning the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) into a video that looked like a broadcast from the Fox News Channel to try to capture Trump’s attention. At the time, he had taken only 14 PDBs, or fewer than one a week (in the same number of days, President Joe Biden took 90). One person with direct knowledge of the discussions said: “The problem with Trump is that he doesn’t read.”

On June 17, Katie Bo Lillis and Zachary Cohen of CNN noted that while U.S. intelligence says Iran was years away from developing a nuclear weapon, Israel has insisted Iran was on the brink of one. A week ago, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Fox News Channel: “The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear, was absolutely clear that they were working, in a secret plan to weaponize the uranium. They were marching very quickly.”

What will happen next is anyone’s guess. Iran’s parliament says it will close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil travels, sending oil prices upward, but that decision can be overruled by the country’s Supreme National Security Council. Iran’s foreign minister announced today he was on his way to Moscow for urgent talks with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev wrote this afternoon that “A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.”

The Department of Homeland Security has warned that “[t]he ongoing Iran conflict is causing a heightened threat environment in the United States.” It linked those threats to the antisemitism the Trump administration has used as justification for cracking down on civil liberties in the United States.

One pattern is clear from yesterday’s events: Trump’s determination to act without check by the Constitution.

Democrats as well as some Republicans are concerned about Trump’s unilateral decision to insert the United States into a war. The Constitution gives to Congress alone the power to declare war, but Congress has not actually done so since 1942, permitting significant power to flow to the president. In the 1973 War Powers Resolution, Congress limited the president’s power as commander in chief to times when Congress has declared war, Congress has passed a law giving the president that power, or there is “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

That same resolution also says: “The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” If an emergency appears to require military action without congressional input, the president must brief the Gang of Eight—both party leaders in each chamber of Congress, and both party leaders of each chambers’ intelligence committee—within 48 hours.

Democrats and some Republicans maintain that while no one wants Iran to have nuclear capabilities, the strikes on Iran were not an emergency and the president had no right to involve the U.S. in a war unilaterally. Administration officials’ insistence that the attack was a one-shot deal is designed to undercut the idea that the U.S. is at war.

“The war in Iraq was also started under false pretenses. It’s clear that President Trump has been outmaneuvered by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who opposed the JCPOA negotiated by President Obama and has long favored drawing America into a war against Iran. The United States has rightly supported Israel’s defense, but it should not have joined Netanyahu in waging this war of choice. Instead of living up to his claim that he’d bring all wars to an end, Trump is yet again betraying Americans by embroiling the United States directly in this conflict.”

Representative Sean Casten (D-IL) posted on social media: “​​This is not about the merits of Iran’s nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense. I’m not saying we have the votes to impeach,” he added. “I’m saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval and if [Speaker Mike] Johnson [R-LA] doesn’t grow a spine and learn to be a real boy tomorrow we have a BFing problem that puts our very Republic at risk.”

Trump’s Courageous and Correct Decision

June 22, 2025, 2:29 p.m. ET

Credit...Pool photo by Carlos Barria

By Bret Stephens

For decades, a succession of American presidents pledged that they were willing to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But it was President Trump who, by bombing three of Iran’s key nuclear sites on Sunday morning, was willing to demonstrate that those pledges were not hollow and that Tehran could not simply tunnel its way to a bomb because no country other than Israel dared confront it.

That’s a courageous and correct decision that deserves respect, no matter how one feels about this president and the rest of his policies. Politically, the easier course would have been to delay a strike to appease his party’s isolationist voices, whose views about the Middle East (and antipathies toward the Jewish state) increasingly resemble those of the progressive left. In the meantime, Trump could have continued to outsource the dirty work of hitting Iran’s nuclear capabilities to Israel, hoping that it could at least buy the West some diplomatic leverage and breathing room.

Trump chose otherwise, despite obvious risks. Those include Iranian strikes on U.S. military assets and diplomatic facilities in the region and terrorist attacks against American targets worldwide, possibly through proxies and possibly over a long period. One grim model is the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which was carried out by Muammar el-Qaddafi’s regime most likely in retaliation for President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 bombing of Libya. In the Lockerbie atrocity, 270 people lost their lives.

But one set of risks must be weighed against another, and there are few greater risks to American security than a nuclear Iran.

The regime is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is ideologically committed to the annihilation of Israel and is currently attacking it with indiscriminate missile fire on civilian targets. It is an ally of North Korea, China and Russia — and supplies many of the drones Russia uses to attack Ukraine. It is developing and fielding thousands of ballistic missiles of increasingly greater reach. Its acquisition of a bomb would set off an arms race in the Middle East. And it has sought to assassinate American citizens on American soil. If all this is not intolerable, what is?

Critics fault the administration for its refusal to seek congressional authorization for attacking Iran. But there’s a long, bipartisan history of American presidents taking swift military action to stop a perceived threat without asking Congress’s permission, including George H.W. Bush’s invasion of Panama in 1989 and Bill Clinton’s four-day bombing campaign against Iraq in 1998.

Critics of the strike also point to an American intelligence estimate from this year that claimed Iran’s leaders had not yet decided to build a bomb. But that was a judgment about intent, which can be fickle. Trump’s responsibility was to deny Iran’s leaders the capabilities that would have allowed them to change their minds at will, to devastating effect. Amid uncertainty, the president acted before it was too late. It is the essence of statesmanship.

We’ll find out in the coming days and weeks how Iran will react. In his White House address, Trump noted that there are many other targets in Iran that the United States could easily destroy if Iran doesn’t agree to dismantle its nuclear program once and for all. Iran may disregard that warning, but if it does, it is choosing further destruction for the sake of a nuclear fantasy. As in 1988, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini chose to end the Iran-Iraq war for the sake of regime survival — he said it was like “drinking from a chalice of poison” — my guess is that the current supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, will stand down and seek a negotiated settlement. In my column last week, I suggested the outlines of a potential deal, in which the United States could promise Iran relief from economic sanctions in exchange for its complete nuclear disarmament and an end to its support for foreign proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis.

Whether or not that happens, Iran’s hopes of acquiring a nuclear weapon have probably been seriously degraded. And adversaries everywhere, including in Moscow and Beijing, must now know that they are not dealing with a paper tiger in the White House. The world is safer for it.

Editors’ Picks
A Way for People With Low Credit Scores to Raise Them
A Traveler Waits in the Stars for Those Willing to Learn How to Look
A Beginner’s Guide to Trail Running


Bret Stephens is an Opinion columnist for The Times, writing about foreign policy, domestic politics and cultural issues.

AMERICA BOMBS IRAN NUCLEAR SITE AT FORDO

At the White House. Pool photo by Carlos Barria

by Lauren Jackson and Evan Gorelick

Last night, the U.S. entered the war with Iran.

President Trump upended decades of diplomacy when he sent American warplanes and submarines to strike three of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including Fordo, its top-secret site buried deep inside a mountain. The bombs fell at about 2:30 a.m. local time.

In an address from the White House, Trump said the goal of the strikes was to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon. He claimed the facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated,” but the extent of the damage is not yet clear.

Trump also called for the war to end. “Iran, the bully of the Mideast, must now make peace,” he said. He threatened “far greater” attacks if it did not.

Still, the war continues: Iran said today that it wasn’t open to diplomacy right now. It launched missiles into Israel early this morning, wounding at least 16. Israel responded with its own strikes on Iran. More than 40,000 American troops are stationed in the region, and the U.S. is expecting retaliation. (See American bases that Iran could strike.)

The U.S. attack was an “extraordinary turn for a military that was supposed to be moving on from two decades of forever wars in the Middle East,” our colleagues Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt and Julian Barnes wrote.

Below, we explain the strikes and what could happen next.
What were the targets?

The New York Times


America targeted three Iranian sites, including the buried facility at Fordo, the crown jewel in the country’s nuclear program. The U.S. is the only country believed to have bombs big enough to reach it. Israel has been asking Trump to strike the site since its offensive began. Now he has.

Here’s what we know about each target:

Fordo: Iran built this site — where centrifuges concentrate uranium to a form used in nuclear weapons — inside a mountain to shield it from attacks. The U.S. military concluded that one “bunker-buster” bomb would not destroy it. So six B-2 bombers dropped a dozen of these 30,000-pound weapons, a U.S. official said. The attack was the first time the military had used the weapon in combat. See how the powerful bombs work.

Natanz: This is the largest uranium enrichment site in Iran. Its centrifuge halls are also buried deep underground, but experts say this site is less secretive and less heavily fortified. Israel struck the site recently with warplanes; the U.S. struck it with cruise missiles launched from submarines.

Isfahan: The U.S. also hit a site that holds Iran’s largest nuclear fuel stockpiles near the ancient city of Isfahan. Israel hit parts of the facility last week but avoided the fuel.

Why did the U.S. strike?

The U.S. says it is joining Israel in its war to keep Iran from creating a nuclear bomb.

Trump pledged as a presidential candidate to keep America out of “stupid endless wars.” But he also vowed to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Israel and Iran, sworn enemies for decades, have been striking each other for more than a week. Israelis launched a surprise assault that targeted Iranian infrastructure, including nuclear installations, and military leaders. Israel wanted U.S. help, but Trump was noncommittal.

When Israel began its attacks, the U.S. secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said, “We are not involved in strikes against Iran.” Trump said that he would decide “within the next two weeks” whether to help. He took two days.

What’s next?

It’s not clear. But experts at The Times, including our Cairo bureau chief Vivian Yee, outlined a few scenarios:

Iran could retaliate: The U.S. has troops on bases and warships across the Middle East. Iran might attack them. It might also create havoc in international shipping: It could move to shut the Strait of Hormuz, a critical transit hub for the world’s oil and natural gas. All the options carry risks for Iran’s clerical rulers. Read more about their dilemma.

Iran could negotiate: The strikes could give the U.S. leverage in its negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear capacity. They may also force Iran to the table. Still, the prospects for a diplomatic solution don’t seem promising, our colleague Michael Shear writes.

The war could get messier: Iran’s allied militias in the region, including the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah, although weakened by Israeli bombing, in Lebanon and armed groups in Iraq, have not fully joined the fight.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog said it had not detected any increase in off-site radiation levels at the nuclear sites the U.S. attacked. Read the latest news.

Benjamin Netanyahu said that the U.S. strikes had been carried out “in full coordination” between the American and Israeli militaries.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been in a bunker, with limited communication, to protect him from possible assassination.

Responses

Israel: The Israeli foreign minister said that Trump “wrote his name tonight in golden letters in the history books.” Netanyahu also praised the attack.

Iran: The Iranian foreign minister said that the attacks would have “everlasting consequences.”
United Nations: António Guterres, the head of the U.N., called the U.S. attacks a “dangerous escalation” and “a direct threat to international peace and security.”

Republicans, including Mike Johnson and John Thune, rallied behind Trump, calling the strikes a necessary check on Iran’s nuclear efforts. Democrats condemned the attack as unconstitutional and warned that it could drag the U.S. into a long war.

Trump claims he will make a decision "in 2 wks" whether to bomb Iran or continue negotiations.

Just a week ago, the Trump administration was preparing for a sixth round of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, scheduled to be held in Oman on June 15.

Today, Trump issued a statement through White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, falling back on his usual tactic of promising something “in two weeks.” “Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.”

In 2018, President Donald J. Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated in 2015 by President Barack Obama, under which the U.S., China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom lifted economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for limits to Iran’s nuclear program. With the U.S. withdrawal, the agreement fell apart.

Trump launched a “maximum pressure campaign” of stronger sanctions to pressure Iran to renegotiate the JCPOA, which lasted throughout his first term. Back in office, Trump relaunched that campaign in February 2025. Then, in March 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told Congress that the assessment of the Intelligence Community was that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.

In the same month, Trump said on the Fox News Channel that he had written a letter to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, urging the Iranians to negotiate “because if we have to go in militarily it’s going to be a terrible thing for them.” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Iran would not “enter any direct negotiations with the U.S. so long as they continue their maximum pressure policy and their threats.”

But Iran’s allied militant actors Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon have been badly hurt by Israeli strikes since Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and Iran’s major ally in the Middle East, Bashar al-Assad of Syria, fell in December 2024. Discussions began in April of this year, and negotiators met for five rounds by the end of May.

Israel was not included in the negotiations, and on Thursday, June 12, it launched strikes against nuclear and military targets in Iran. The strikes killed a number of nuclear scientists and senior military personnel. Iran retaliated, and the countries have been in conflict ever since.

After the strikes, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also became the acting national security advisor after Trump fired his first national security advisor for inviting a journalist onto a Signal chat about a military strike against the Houthis, issued a statement distancing the U.S. from Israel’s attack on Iran. “Tonight,” he said, “Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.”

But by early Friday morning, Trump appeared to be trying to take credit for the strikes and demanded that Iran make a deal. The next day—Saturday, June 14—was the day of No Kings protests in which at least 2% of the U.S. population turned out to oppose his presidency, as well as the sparsely attended military parade in Washington, D.C., an embarrassing contrast for the president.

The U.S. possesses a 30,000-pound bomb that would perhaps be able to penetrate Iran’s underground nuclear sites, which are fortified against attack. According to Alex Horton, Maham Javaid, and Warren P. Strobel, the “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” (MOP) can penetrate the ground up to at least 200 feet. The U.S. B-2 Spirit stealth bomber is the only Air Force aircraft that can deploy the heavy MOP.

On June 16, while at the G7 meeting in Canada, Trump posted that Iran “should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign.” He continued: “What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” More than 9 million people live in Tehran, with more than 16 million in the metropolitan area.

Then Trump abruptly left the G7 and on the trip home told reporters on Air Force One that he didn’t care what Gabbard said, and thought Iran was close to achieving nuclear capabilities. When France’s president Emmanuel Macron suggested Trump left to work on a ceasefire, Trump posted: “Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong. Stay tuned!” Later that day, he posted that “[w]e”—a word suggesting U.S. involvement—“now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” and he credited U.S. weaponry with that dominance.

About a half-hour later, he posted: “We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there—We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin.”

As Trump’s “Stay tuned!” suggested, his hints that he could bring the U.S. into the conflict monopolized the news. It has pushed the No Kings Day protests and the military parade to the background, putting Trump back on the front page.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo interpreted Trump’s shift to back Israel as a typical Trump branding opportunity: “Israel has got a product ready to go to market and they’ve offered Trump the opportunity to slap the Trump name on it.” In the short term, that product offers a quick way to get rid of the Iranian nuclear program, which has long been a U.S. goal.

But Trump’s flirting with joining a Middle East war has badly split his supporters. Led by Steve Bannon, the isolationist wing is strongly opposed to intervention and suggests that the U.S. will once again be stuck in an endless war.

In contrast, the evangelical MAGA wing sees support for Israel as central to the return of Jesus Christ to Earth in the end times. Earlier this month the U.S. ambassador to Israel, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, said the U.S. was abandoning its longstanding support for a Palestinian state. Huckabee is a strong supporter of the expansion of Israel’s settlements. After the Israeli strikes, Huckabee messaged Trump to urge him to listen to the voice of God. In an apparent reference to Truman’s decision to drop a nuclear weapon on Japan at the end of World War II, Huckabee told Trump: “No President in my lifetime has been in a position like yours. Not since Harry Truman in 1945.”

At the unveiling of two 88-foot-tall (30.5 meters) flagpoles at the White House yesterday, Trump told reporters who asked what he planned to do about Iran: “I mean, you don’t know that I’m going to even do it. You don’t know. I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.” He added, “Nothing’s finished until it’s finished. You know, war is very complex. A lot of bad things can happen. A lot of turns are made.”

He told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins: “I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven’t made a final—I like to make the final decision one second before it’s due, you know, because things change.”

Meanwhile, in a hearing yesterday at the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) pointed out to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that the $1 billion mission he led against the Houthis—who do not have a navy—has not restored the ability of U.S.-flagged commercial vessels to go through the Red Sea. Instead, it cost the U.S. two F18 Hornets, which cost $60 million apiece, and seven Reaper drones that cost another $200 million. Duckworth accused Hegseth of “blowing through money” and said: “Your failures…since you've taken office, have been staggering. You sent classified operational information over Signal to chest thump in front of your wife, who, by the way, has no security clearance, risking service member lives in the process…. You’ve created such a hostile command environment that no one wants to serve as your chief of staff or work with you in other senior lead [Department of Defense] leadership roles.”

“But what we should all be talking about more than all of this,” she added, “is that you have an unjustified, un-American misuse of the military in American cities, pulling resources and attention away from core missions to the detriment of the country, the war fighters, and, yes, the war fighting that you claim to love.”

Warren P. Strobel, Alex Horton, and Abigail Hauslohner of the Washington Post reported yesterday that Hegseth and Gabbard have been sidelined in discussions of whether the U.S. will get involved in the conflict. The White House is also operating without a full complement of professional staffers at the National Security Council, since Rubio fired many of them when he took over from Waltz, apparently with the goal of replacing the think-tank mentality of past NSCs with a group that would simply implement the president’s ideas.

Talking Points Memo’s Marshall noted Tuesday that “there is really, literally no one in the inner discussion of U.S. foreign policy today who has any level of foreign policy or military crisis experience at all.”

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing back on the idea that Trump can unilaterally decide to take the United States into a war. On Monday, Democratic senator Tim Kaine of Virginia introduced a measure to reassert Congress’s power over the authority to make war. The Constitution explicitly gives that authority to Congress, not the president, but presidents have chipped away at that power for decades. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced another measure to bar the use of federal funds for military force without authorization by Congress.

Trump’s deploys Marines to LA to respond to protests

Today President Donald J. Trump made it clear that the provocations he and his administration are escalating in Los Angeles and now elsewhere are using the issue of immigration to suppress dissent entirely.

In the Oval Office today, Trump said of the military parade scheduled for this Saturday: “If there’s any protester wants to come out, they will be met with very big force…. For those people that want to protest, they’re going to be met with very big force.”

His statement comes after the administration instituted aggressive immigration sweeps in Los Angeles during which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) met the few hundred protesters with violence.

Then, over the protests of both Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass and California governor Gavin Newsom, Trump federalized 4,000 members of California’s National Guard and ordered 700 Marines to Los Angeles. He and his advisors have repeatedly threatened to arrest anyone who does not cooperate with ICE, including Mayor Bass and Governor Newsom.

Trump has said he based his decision to federalize the National Guard on his insistence that Los Angeles is staggering under violent riots, but in fact the protests are largely peaceful and local officials maintain they can handle the situation.

Still, Trump described Los Angeles as “invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals,” and said “violent insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents to try and stop our deportation operations.” Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem called Los Angeles a “city of criminals,” and other MAGA lawmakers have gotten into the act. Will Sommer of The Bulwark pointed out today that MAGA influencers are also pushing for more crackdowns and more cruelty in a feedback loop as they and White House officials push each other toward more and more cruelty toward immigrants.

But the narrative that L.A. is under siege is hard to make stick. Protesters have been filming the bands playing and people dancing at the protests, which remain small. They have also filmed the ICE agents shooting less-lethal bullets at individuals, including an Australian journalist who was speaking to a camera when she was shot from behind. The complaint against SEIU leader David Huerta, who has been charged with conspiring to impede an officer, says that he walked and sat on a public sidewalk in such a way that he blocked an ICE van before an officer pushed him to the ground and arrested him.

Economist Paul Krugman notes that “Los Angeles right now is probably as safe as it has ever been,” and Newsom has been meeting the claims of MAGA politicians that the city is a hellscape with actual statistics showing that California is safer than their own states. He reminded Oklahoma senator Markwayne Mullin that Oklahoma’s murder rate is 40% higher than California’s and, after Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville called for Newsom to be arrested, retorted: “Alabama has 3X the homicide rate of California. Its murder rate is ranked third in the entire country. Stick to football, bro.”

As Maria Sacchetti of the Washington Post noted today, California recently became the fourth largest economy in the world. It has the highest number of immigrants in the country—although many have moved in the past few years to more affordable states—and unemployment numbers are close to the national average.

But Trump has always managed his public affairs by projecting dominance in a fake world; his political instincts for keeping attention on himself have been compared to the kayfabe of professional wrestling.

This afternoon he upped the ante again. In a speech at the Army base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Trump delivered a fiercely partisan speech that sounded like it was written by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. In front of a crowd of enlisted personnel who journalist Jane Coaston reported had been carefully selected to be Trump supporters and “to be fit and not look fat,” Trump claimed the U.S. was under a “foreign invasion” because of “stupid people or radical Left people or sick people.” He goaded the personnel into booing Newsom and Bass.

Since the days of George Washington, the American armed forces have been strictly nonpartisan, declaring their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution itself rather than to any leader.

Simon Rosenberg of Hopium Chronicles noted that Trump is “turning the world’s powerful military away from its focus on Russia and China toward a new enemy—the American people themselves.” He mused: “I’ve been saying that I felt Trump’s dramatic escalation in recent days was driven in part by Musk’s emasculation of him last week. I also wonder whether it’s being driven by Zelensky’s profound humiliation of Putin, and Putin lashing out at Trump for not delivering Ukraine to him.”

Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times reported today that right-wing bots, trolls, conspiracy theorists, and MAGA influencers are flooding social media with messages designed to attack immigrants and Democrats and defend Trump. Many of those accounts are linked to Russia and Russian disinformation.

It certainly feels as if administration officials are going for broke in ways that benefit Russia. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard today released a video warning that the world is close to a nuclear war caused by a political elite that expects it can survive one in special bunkers. Gabbard has a history of parroting Russian propaganda, and famously, Russian president Vladimir Putin has used the threat of nuclear war to press his demands against Ukraine.

A YouGov poll out today shows that only 34% of American adults approve of Trump’s deployment of Marines to the Los Angeles area to respond to protests over the enforcement of immigration laws while 47% do not approve. Only 38% of American adults approve of Trump’s deployment of National Guard soldiers to L.A., while 45% disapprove. A strong majority—56%—of Americans think state and local officials should take the lead in responding to the L.A. protests, while only 25% think the federal government should.

Strikingly, 50% of adults disapprove of the administration's handling of deportations, while only 39% approve.

Those numbers were gathered before Pentagon comptroller Bryn MacDonnell told the House Defense Appropriations Committee today that the Pentagon estimates the cost of federalizing the National Guard and deploying the Marines to Los Angeles at $134 million.

Today the Department of Justice announced it was indicting Representative LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) on three counts of “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers” after a May 19 event in front of a Newark, New Jersey, ICE detention center. McIver was at the detention center with others as part of her oversight responsibilities, and a video shows her being jostled with a crowd that includes an ICE officer, but no one breaks stride. McIver called the charges “a brazen attempt at political intimidation.”

Tonight Governor Newsom delivered a prime-time address about the events of the past few days. He outlined the story of the ICE raids and Trump’s escalation of conflict. He urged protesters to exercise their First Amendment rights peacefully and warned that anyone participating in violence would be held accountable.

Then the governor launched into a wholesale condemnation of the Trump regime. He warned that “[i]f some of us can be snatched off the streets without a warrant, based only on suspicion or skin color, then none of us are safe. Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves. But they do not stop there.”

Newsom called Trump out for firing the government watchdogs that could hold him accountable for fraud, and for declaring war “on culture, on history, on science, on knowledge itself. Databases quite literally are vanishing. He’s delegitimizing news organizations and he’s assaulting the First Amendment…. [H]e’s dictating what universities themselves can teach. He’s targeting law firms and the judicial branch that are the foundations of an orderly and civil society. He’s calling for a sitting governor to be arrested for no other reason than…, in his own words, ‘for getting elected.’”

“[T]his isn’t just about protests here in Los Angeles,” Newsom said. “When Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard, he made that order apply to every state in this nation. This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next.”

“Democracy is under assault right before our eyes,” Newsom said. “This moment we have feared has arrived. He’s taking a wrecking ball…to our founding fathers’ historic project: three coequal branches of independent government.”

Newsom urged Americans to stand up for the country. “I know many of you are feeling deep anxiety, stress, and fear,” he said. “But I want you to know that you are the antidote to that fear and that anxiety. What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty, your silence, to be complicit in this moment,” Newsom said.

“Do not give in to him.”

Musk Hints At a Truce, Trump Not So Willing

Last night, billionaire Elon Musk indicated he would be willing to paper over his fight with President Donald J. Trump, perhaps remembering, as Paresh Dave of Wired noted, that his companies stand to lose $48 billion over the next ten years if they lose their government contracts.

Trump spent this morning calling news anchors and telling them he’s not bothered by the fight. According to Nikki McCann Ramirez of Rolling Stone, Trump today called CNN’s Dana Bash, the Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl, and CBS News’ Robert Costa to claim he’s “not even thinking about Elon,” before bashing him as “the man who has lost his mind.”

Yesterday, Lauren Goode of Wired reported that big tech investors and executives were trying to walk a fine line between the two men, trying not to take a stand for or against either. J.V. Last of The Bulwark noted that no one was more hesitant to take a side than Vice President J.D. Vance, who wants to keep the favor of his Silicon Valley patrons but also needs Trump’s backing. At 10:28 last night, after Musk was already retreating, Vance posted on social media: “President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads. I’m proud to stand beside him.” As Last notes, this was a pretty weak statement, and “Trump is smart enough to understand that this is a confession.”

“Do not doubt, don’t second guess, and do not challenge the President of the United States Donald Trump,” House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) warned Republican lawmakers. “He is the leader of the party. He’s the most consequential political figure of our time.”

After Russian officials said they were prepared to offer Musk political asylum, Musk spent the day posting or reposting material that boosted his businesses and complaints about Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” This evening, he announced: “A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80% in the middle!”

How the fallout from this fight will affect the country remains unclear.

Russia Strikes Ukraine in Retaliation for Covert Drone Operation & Other News

 

Russia Strikes Ukraine in Retaliation for Covert Drone Operation - At least three were killed and 49 injured in a missile-and-drone attack that focused on Kyiv, days after a daring assault on Moscow’s bomber fleet.

• Trump administration is seeking to weaken Sen. Lindsey Graham’s Russia-sanctions bill. The White House wants flexibility in applying sanctions to aid Russia ties. Graham’s bill has bipartisan support, though he has said he plans to make at least some changes to the bill.

• The Supreme Court made it easier for workers to sue for reverse discrimination.  The court’s unanimous decision Thursday revives a lawsuit brought by Marlean Ames, who alleged the Ohio state agency where she works denied her a promotion, and then demoted her, because she is heterosexual.

  Trump's new travel ban is expected to be harder to fight in court than the previous version. In its Wednesday proclamation, the Trump administration provided specific rationales, saying several of the countries have unacceptably high temporary-visa overstay rates, necessitating a ban on more of their nationals entering the U.S.

  A judge blocked Trump’s ban on foreign students at Harvard. The federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Homeland Security Department that prevents it from “implementing, instituting, maintaining, enforcing, or giving force or effect” to a proclamation Trump issued late Wednesday that prevented foreign nationals from entering the U.S. to study at Harvard University. Israel has been collaborating with a Palestinian militia in Gaza as part of a broader effort to fight Hamas in the enclave. Trump and Xi Jinping spoke on the phone. Trump called it a “very positive” conversation, and the U.S. and China agreed to hold more trade talks. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, said he wanted to expand access to “experimental,” unproven medical treatments like stem-cell and chelation therapies. But he conceded that the industry was rife with fraud.