The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
@monacharenEPPC
Glimmers Of Light In The Fight Against Authoritarianism

Glimmers Of Light In The Fight Against Authoritarianism

These are dark days for American lovers of liberty, so any glimmers of light are especially welcome.

Let's start with "Sandwich Man." The world knows him as the pink-shirted guy who shouted at federal agents patrolling the streets of Washington, D.C. After some aggressive language and pungent invitations to get lost, Sean C. Dunn then tossed a sandwich, hitting one of the officers (who seemed to be wearing body armor!) in the chest. Dunn ran (demonstrating impressive athleticism if I may say so). Weighed down by gear, the agents lumbered after him, eventually catching him a few blocks away and placing him under arrest. "I did it," he confessed. "I threw a sandwich." He was later released.

End of story? Not at all. Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, sent more than a dozen FBI and U.S. Marshals agents in full tactical gear to Dunn's house to arrest him again the next day. Pirro then starred in a video of her own, declaring, "Assault a law enforcement officer, and you'll be prosecuted. This guy thought it was funny — well, he doesn't think it's funny today, because we charged him with a felony." Attorney General Pam Bondi chimed in to say that she had just learned that Dunn had been employed by the Department of Justice, but no longer. She fired him, she said, and charged him with a felony because he represented the "Deep State" they were fighting.

It was an absurd overcharge, lampooned as an "assault with a breadly weapon." A misdemeanor? Sure. You shouldn't throw things at people. But a felony, carrying a penalty of years in prison and thousands in fines? Please. Across Washington, D.C., posters and street art featuring the likeness of Sandwich Man proliferated — the flowering of popular protest. And then an interesting thing happened: The grand jury declined to return an indictment.

Grand juries hear evidence only from the prosecution, not from the defense, and the standard for bringing an indictment is only probable cause, not preponderance of the evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why they say a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich — but not, it seems, Sandwich Man.

Nor was this a lone example. Just a few days earlier, the Justice Department was obliged to reduce the charges against Sidney Lori Reid, who had been involved in a protest against federal agents attempting to transfer two people the government characterized as "gang members" into custody. Reid filmed them and placed her body between the officers and the men, resulting in some pushing and shoving in which an FBI officer's hand scraped against a brick wall, resulting in injury. The government charged Reid with forcibly "assaulting, impeding, or interfering with federal agents," a felony that could carry an eight-year sentence upon conviction. Three grand juries declined to indict.

These Washingtonians continued a long and venerable tradition of using the power of juries to stymie government overreach. In 1735, a jury declined to convict John Peter Zenger of seditious libel for criticizing the colonial governor, establishing a key precedent about press freedom. In the antebellum North, juries often refused to convict defendants who violated the Fugitive Slave Law, an expression of contempt for legislation that dishonored the nation.

Sandwich Man has allies in his resistance to injustice.

Lisa Cook is also supplying some welcome fight. Instead of retreating quietly after Trump attempted to fire her from the Federal Reserve Board, she declared her intention to sue on the grounds that Trump lacks the authority to fire her. "President Trump purported to fire me 'for cause' when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so. I will not resign. I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022."

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is mocking Trump, which may have no immediate payoff but raises the spirits of those in need of it.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL), less showy but not less effective than Newsom, delivered a forceful, intelligent and carefully reasoned repudiation of Trump's threat to deploy troops to Chicago. He began by saying, "If it sounds to you that I'm being alarmist, that's because I am ringing an alarm."

Pritzker made the point that crime is down, not up in Chicago and emphasized that Trump's approach neglects successful crime-fighting techniques. But more importantly, he excoriated Trump's threat as a transgression against American law, tradition and decency. He further urged all who might resist to do so peacefully, reminding them that the National Guard troops dragooned into this duty could very well be doing so unwillingly, subject to court martial if they disobeyed. It was the kind of message Americans need to be reminded of as Trump attempts to push us into civil conflict, which he could then use as cover for even more despotic power grabs.

Hats off to the good citizens of the District of Columbia and the others who are meeting this moment with signs of fight and the recognition of what we're facing.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her latest book is Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

RFK Jr Won't Make America Healthier -- But He Can Make Us Sicker

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was named as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Calley Means, a former Republican lobbyist, expressed a common misconception: "The public health expert class has given us a public health collapse. We are on the verge of, at best, a health crisis and, at worst, a societal collapse with 20% of GDP going to health expenditures. (We're) getting sicker, fatter, more depressed, more infertile for every dollar we spend."

The Trump movement has given snake oil salesmen new life because their conspiracy-mindedness fits seamlessly into the MAGA analysis of the world: You are not responsible for anything that has gone awry in your life. Sinister elites have betrayed you. They've shipped your job overseas, halved your neighbor's salary through bad trade deals, stolen elections and picked your pocket to fund forever wars. In that spirit, the notions that vaccines cause autism, that antidepressants cause school shootings, and that COVID-19 spares Jews and Asians seem to demand a fair hearing.

In the early days of Trump 2.0, even reasonable adults who should know better told reporters that it might be good to have Kennedy as our chief public health officer because, after all, we do have a serious problem with chronic health conditions like type 2 diabetes, heart disease and obesity.

But the reality is that most of what causes chronic medical conditions in America is almost entirely outside the remit of government. Obesity, lack of exercise, smoking, drinking and poor diet all contribute mightily to chronic poor health — and they are behaviors that are extremely difficult to change. By contrast, government is indispensable in certain crucial areas — prevention and treatment of infectious diseases, promoting research on new drugs, and funding scientific studies on best practices. In all of those, Kennedy is not only failing to do his job well; he is doing the exact opposite of what he should.

Please don't get me wrong: People get cancer and Parkinson's and ALS and lots of other ailments due to simple bad luck. But chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes, obesity and heart disease are closely linked to behavior. Even cancer rates can be affected by eating habits: consuming lots of fruits and vegetables has been shown to be protective against several forms of cancer. Again, this is not to blame people for their diseases or to suggest in any way that they don't deserve treatment and care. But as a matter of epidemiology, it's important to be clear-eyed about what we can control and what we can't.

People who are obese have a 28% higher risk of heart disease than do people of normal weight. Carrying excessive extra pounds also increases cancer rates, stillbirths, preeclampsia, strokes, arthritis, type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, infertility, gout and mental health challenges.

Sitting for most of every day also does not conduce to good health.

We Americans (and, to be fair, many people around the globe) do a lot of that. A British study found that adults who watch six or more hours of TV a day had twice the all-cause mortality of those who watched two hours or less.

Everyone knows that the best path to good health is eating healthy foods, getting a decent amount of exercise, avoiding cigarettes, drinking alcohol in small amounts (no more than one drink per day for women, two for men) and maintaining a healthy body weight. A study in the journal Circulation found that women who followed these recommendations lived an average of 14 years longer than those who did not, and men lived an extra 12. But take a guess at how many American adults actually follow all five of those recommendations? According to a University of Oregon analysis, only 2.7%.

So, yes, we are plagued by diabetes, heart disease, strokes and cancer. But it's not because we use food dyes, or because drug companies have conspired to keep us sick, or because Wi-Fi is frying our brains. The only way to grapple with these conditions is to change our behavior — and that's hard.

Meanwhile, what is not hard, or shouldn't be, is to hire a government that does the basics of public health, like empanel experts to advise on the composition of the yearly flu vaccine, or provide guidance on which vaccines are needed for children and at what ages, or fund research on vaccines to prevent future pandemics. On all of these fronts, Kennedy has done the opposite, disbanding advisory committees of academics and physicians, canceling funding for mRNA vaccine research, changing the recommendation for COVID vaccines for pregnant women and babies, and creating a panel stacked with frauds to "reexamine" the nonexistent link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Kennedy's crusade will not overcome our chronic disease problem. But it is very probable, if he is not stopped, that former plagues like measles will make a big comeback; that we will be far less prepared to cope with the next epidemic because we cut research on the miracle of mRNA technology; that rates of vaccine hesitancy will continue to rise; and that trust in government professionalism will be shattered.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Trump's White House Makeover Is Gaudy, Tasteless -- And Suits Him Well

Trump's White House Makeover Is Gaudy, Tasteless -- And Suits Him Well

On a sunny morning in May 1984, I reported for a job as first lady Nancy Reagan's speechwriter. I drove my Toyota Corolla up to the Ellipse, careful to display the special tag permitting me to park quite close to the East Wing, and ventured inside, past the line of visitors awaiting their guided tours and past the uniformed Secret Service (to whom I flashed another pass) into the offices of the first lady's chief of staff.

Americans who haven't visited the White House for a guided tour probably can't picture the East Wing. There's no TV show about it. It has no famous office to rival the Oval. There are relatively few photos of it in its current form.

As someone who worked there for six months (I moved to the West Wing after the 1984 election), allow me to sing its praises: The East Wing was built in 1902 as a visitors' entrance and then expanded in 1942 to house the first lady's offices. Its style echoes the West Wing in design and footprint, which gives the White House complex a rough symmetry. Like the West Wing, it's smaller than Hollywood imagines. It conveys stability and authority without ostentation. Unlike the West Wing, it's flooded with sunlight and, at least when Nancy Reagan held court, adorned with fresh flowers. The two-story structure melds seamlessly into the surrounding gardens. You can hardly see it from the street.

Now President Donald Trump has announced that he will "modernize" (which must mean demolish) the East Wing and replace it with a huge, gaudy ballroom. At 90,000 square feet, the ballroom will dwarf the West Wing and even the residence. Naturally it will be adorned in white and gold (to get a flavor, have a look at the way Trump has decorated the Oval Office). This permanent disfigurement will solve a problem that doesn't exist. When the president entertains more people than can comfortably fit in the East Room (about 200), tents are erected on the lawn complete with floors and walls. But Trump is dissatisfied with the historic building that was good enough for Lincoln and Eisenhower and Reagan. Ladies' high heels sink into the grass, he says, explaining why he has also paved over the Rose Garden.

But rather than rail against this desecration of a key national symbol, perhaps it's better to welcome it. The presidency will never be the same post-Trump, so why not the White House? Why not make concrete and visible the destruction of centuries-old norms and values?

This president has just elevated to a Court of Appeals a lawyer who presided over a purge of FBI agents who investigated Trump for January 6 and instructed his underlings at the Justice Department to "F—- the courts." He has opened a criminal investigation into former Special Counsel Jack Smith on the specious charge of violating the Hatch Act. His attorney general has opened a disciplinary investigation of Judge James Boasberg because Boasberg privately expressed concerns that the Trump administration might, to borrow a phrase, "F— the courts."

Trump has solicited the gift of a jet from a foreign potentate. He has prostituted his office to the highest bidder by floating meme coins. He has pardoned more than 1,500 rioters who attempted to steal the 2020 election for him. He has shaken down leading law firms, media companies and universities by threatening their livelihoods with government action. He has removed protection from recent immigrants, like Afghans, who risked their lives to ally with us. He has cut off humanitarian aid to millions of the world's poor without so much as a fig leaf by way of explanation. He has appointed conspiracy nuts and kooks to key government posts like the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Counterterrorism Center, and as Director of National Intelligence. He has deported innocent people to torture chambers in foreign countries.

And always and everywhere, he has annihilated truth, most recently by firing the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because her agency produced honest numbers rather than the ones the president preferred.

This presidency is a repudiation of the republican principles of our founding. Trump is a walking wrecking ball of law, tradition, civility, manners and morals. Many visitors to the nation's capital won't know or understand much of that damage. But starting now with the paving of the Rose Garden, and coming soon with the construction of a garish ballroom, they will see a physical representation of a low and shameful time. The once graceful executive mansion will be transformed into something tasteless and embarrassing. It will be both awful and fitting.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her latest book is Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Will The Epstein Scandal Force MAGA Rubes To Confront Reality?

Will The Epstein Scandal Force MAGA Rubes To Confront Reality?

The editors of the Wall Street Journal editorial page would very much like to see the Epstein matter resolved. Acknowledging that kooks who are actually in charge in Trump's Justice Department, they pine that perhaps "Ms. Bondi and Mr. Patel could call a news conference, provide context on the mentions of Mr. Trump, and explain why releasing raw files could do more harm than good."

The Journal editorial board is engaged in denial. Kash Patel and Pam Bondi cannot conceivably hold the kind of press conference the editors are fantasizing about because they, among others holding high government offices, are key propagators of the Epstein and other conspiracies. Conspiracies are their calling card. Only in the last few weeks has Trump become the victim of one.

FBI Director Kash Patel spread the fiction that the 2020 election was stolen by Italian satellites, claimed that Jan. 6 was an inside job, and proclaimed, "There's a lot of good to a lot of (Qanon.)" Attorney General Pam Bondi maintains that Trump won Pennsylvania in 2020; she was also one of a team of lawyers in Trump's first impeachment who circulated the idea that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered with the 2016 election, and she told the world in March that she had the Epstein files on her desk.

Even as the Epstein story was creating heartburn in the White House, Team Trump's response was to immediately turbocharge another conspiracy — that Barack Obama committed treason — to distract and feed the beast they have created.

The heart of the MAGA message is that Trump's opponents are not just wrong, but part of a vast conspiracy to commit pretty much the worst crime most people can imagine. As self-styled anti-censorship activist Mike Benz explained, belief in a widespread pedophile cult helped to birth the MAGA movement. "You trained us to go after this issue. We have been grown in a lab. Chemicals have been mixed together specifically to breed this particular type of person in the MAGA movement who would care about Jeffrey Epstein."

At this point, it's not even clear that those with access to the government's information can distinguish between their imaginings and actual facts. Bondi pulled hundreds of prosecutors and other Justice Department officials from work on other crimes to scour the Epstein files for the mother lode of revelations about a "client list" and the participation of major Democrats and Hollywood elites in Epstein's evil abuse.

To be clear, there is no question that Epstein committed terrible crimes, and his closeness to wealthy and powerful people is disturbing. But that's not what the MAGA forces conjured in their febrile imaginations. They had visions of a client list containing names like Chuck Schumer, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Nancy Pelosi, George Clooney and Hillary Clinton (as well as Bill, of course). A steady diet of slander and deception has led them to believe everyone in public life they disagree with on policy must be implicated in this repulsive conduct.

But after the weeks-long search, Justice Department investigators apparently found little more than what was already known, which led to furious finger-pointing. Bondi blamed Patel for withholding documents while FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino pouted that he was so worried about disappointing his mouth-breathing fans that he could not report to work. Then Bondi and Patel had the unenviable task of reporting to Trump that the most famous name their record searches yielded was his own — which is not surprising considering the 15-year Trump-Epstein friendship.

And so the MAGA revolution is eating its own.

Lest we get too excited and imagine that imminent revelations about Trump's participation in Epstein's crimes would spell his political downfall, let's recall that Trump was able to persuade Republicans in 2016 that he was best situated to take on the corruption in American politics because he had played the game himself.

There is no evidence that Trump is a pedophile. On the other hand, there is evidence that he took a very latitudinarian attitude toward Epstein's conduct, smirking about how they shared a love of beautiful women and that Epstein liked them on the "younger side."

Trump's later-concocted story about banning Epstein from Mar-A-Lago because he was a "creep" was an obvious post-hoc gloss. He and Epstein were close enough to jet back and forth between Palm Beach and New York together on Epstein's plane and to hold parties with "calendar girls" at which the two men were the only other guests. Does it seem in character for Trump to exclude someone for moral turpitude? No, their relationship ruptured because of a bitter competition over the auction of a Palm Beach estate ironically titled Maison de l'Amitie (House of Friendship).

The most cleansing outcome of this scandal would be for the MAGA faithful to be brought face-to-face with what lying, shameless lowlives the Trump crowd are. It would be a teachable moment if they were to see with their own eyes that the elaborate tales of pedophilia were all "boob bait for Bubba"; that it was all lies all the time. That, not pinning hopes of finding a smoking gun about Trump's behavior, is the very best reason to release as many of the files as possible.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her latest book is Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Smearing The Innocent, Trump Gets Caught In His Own Conspiracy Trap

Smearing The Innocent, Trump Gets Caught In His Own Conspiracy Trap

A new poll, on a matter that adamantly should not be decided by untutored public opinion, finds that 79 percent of Americans believe all of the documents relating to the Epstein case should be disclosed. A shocking result? Not quite. Ask Americans, who've been hearing wall-to-wall accusations about secret sex abuse cabals, celebrity client lists and government cover-ups whether they want to know the full story and — whaddaya know — they say yes.

They're wrong, and I'll come back to that. But first, there is someone who is less enthusiastic about disclosing all available records, and that person is President Donald Trump. Asked last April whether he would release whatever information the government has about a number of A-list conspiracy theories, Trump was unequivocal ... until it came to Epstein.

Q: Would you declassify the JFK files?

A: Yeah. I did a lot of it.

Q: Would you declassify the 9/11 files?

A: Yes.

Q: Would you declassify the Epstein files?

A: Yeah, yeah, I would.

Q: All right.

A: I guess I would. I think that less so because you don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there, because it's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world. But I think I would, or at least —

Q: You think that would restore trust, help restore trust?

A: I don't know about Epstein so much as I do the others, certainly about the way he died. ... But I'd go a long way toward that one. ...

On the matter of releasing the results of investigations, the man is right.

There's a reason we have a tradition in this country (formerly a nation of laws) that strongly discourages the government from releasing the results of investigations that do not result in a criminal charge — precisely because these investigations unearth unsubstantiated gossip, bad faith accusations and other potentially damaging information — and if there is no criminal procedure, the citizen will be denied an opportunity to rebut the charges. So Trump is correct that a responsible government should tread carefully before releasing the results of criminal investigations or other inquiries, taking care to redact names or other identifying information about innocent people.

Now let's come back to the world we actually inhabit. That's not Trump's motivation. Trump has done more than anyone to demolish the laws, traditions and basic decency that should govern in these matters. He has himself spewed the kind of incendiary accusations about people (of treason, of vote stealing, even of murder) that undermine faith in the system. Even on the topic of Epstein, Trump was happy to pile on with MAGA forces in stoking suspicion. In 2019, he retweeted a post suggesting that Bill Clinton might have been involved with Epstein. Asked to elaborate, he resorted to the "just asking questions" dodge: "So you have to ask: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? That's the question. If you find that out, you're going to know a lot."

He and the forces he unleashed have destroyed the norms and rules that protect innocent people from unjust accusations and flagrant incitement. He cannot hide behind those destroyed norms now. They're gone. MAGA influencers have stoked the Epstein conspiracy theories and countless other lies and calumnies with Trump's blessing for years. In 2023, Kash Patel confidently explained why the Biden administration hadn't released the Epstein files: "Simple, because of who's on that list." Talk show host Dan Bongino, now deputy director of the FBI, repeatedly demanded to know "what the hell they were hiding."

Epstein was an adjudicated pedophile. But that was just the springboard to suggest a far more comprehensive corruption deforming elites in America. MAGA foot soldiers like Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson and Benny Johnson piled on, encouraging their audiences to believe that Jeffrey Epstein was a deep state operative who ran a pedophile ring that serviced every liberal or Democrat MAGA despised.

Trump has never shown anything like concern for the innocent — just the opposite. If the innocent are in his way, he will mow them down without a backward glance. If you're a law-abiding, legal immigrant unjustly detained or even deported to a foreign prison by ICE, don't expect this president to pause for a moment. If you are a legal permanent resident wrongfully detained by immigration authorities for exercising your First Amendment right to speak, don't turn to this president for relief. If you've been defamed or targeted or even had a violent mob sent after you shouting "Hang Mike Pence," don't expect concern for your innocence to cross Trump's mind.

No, the only person whose privacy and reputation Trump has any concern about is Trump. And that's why his uncharacteristic reticence about releasing the Epstein files is suspicious. He was happy to encourage the most reckless speculation about a deep state pedophile conspiracy while he was running for office, but now that the worm has turned, he's suddenly concerned about "innocent" people being hurt. It is impossible to imagine that his reticence arises from anything other than self-interest. He seems to be running scared.

It's poetic justice.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her latest book is Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

American Constitution

Despite The Idiocy And Ignominy, I'm Still A Patriot

On the eve of our nation's 249th birthday, a Gallup poll finds that only 58 percent of Americans feel "extremely" or "very" proud of their country. This is a new low in the 25 years Gallup has been asking this question, and the reasons are not hard to divine. We are led by a monomaniacal vulgarian who endangers all we hold dear — all while enjoying lock-step fealty from the Republican Party.

We are clearly in a rough patch, but rather than despair, we can draw upon our rich history for inspiration.

First a disclaimer: America has been responsible for appalling savagery in the past 250 years. There is no sugar-coating our sins, but as Immanuel Kant said, "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made."

America is the greatest nation in the history of the world. And here are a few of the reasons.

We are the oldest democracy on the planet, having set the template for self-government and rule of law that has been such a gift to humankind. Our freedom, vast territory, culture and institutions give the freest possible rein to human creativity and flourishing.

We have been a haven for the oppressed for centuries. My grandparents fled the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires to find freedom and security here just as millions upon millions of others did. Search the history of almost any American and you will find ancestors, often quite recent, who uprooted themselves to partake of the bounty and freedom on offer here.

Most were not famous names, but boy, are there a lot of renowned refugees who found their way here: Albert Einstein, Vladimir Nabokov, Nikola Tesla, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Igor Stravinsky, Kurt Godel, Irving Berlin, Martina Navratilova, Andrew Carnegie, Sergey Brin, Oscar de la Renta, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Artur Rubinstein, Gloria Estefan, and Thomas Mann. The list is virtually endless.

They brought their talents to our shores and accomplished great things because this pulsing, energetic, inventive and risk-taking republic provided the platform for greatness, undergirded by political stability.

Are you grateful for air conditioning this July 4? Thank an American, Willis Carrier. Are you planning a road trip? You can enjoy any of 63 national parks because the United States invented the national park, starting with Yellowstone.

Let's hear it for airplanes, the telephone, the personal computer, the internet, recorded sound, the elevator, anesthesia, the cellphone, the polio vaccine and other medical marvels — all invented by Americans.

America has also given the world jazz, hip hop, stand-up comedy, Hollywood, community colleges, root beer, basketball, baseball, Broadway musicals, skyscrapers, public libraries, summer camp, and the ice cream cone. The United Nations is basically an American idea supported disproportionately over the years by American contributions. Ditto for the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Until recently, Americans could be proud of our humanitarian work in the world's poorest nations, to whom we were the most generous donor.

Over the years, the United States was the world's foremost first responder when other nations were struck by tsunamis, earthquakes, famines or aggression. In addition to the Marshall Plan, NATO, and PEPFAR, American might ensured that Berlin remained a free city when the Soviets imposed a blockade, supplied Israel with lifesaving munitions when Egypt and Syria launched a joint attack, defeated the aggressive Serbs and negotiated a Balkan peace, presided over the Camp David Accords, relieved a famine in Somalia, liberated Kuwait, saved the Yazidis from Mount Sinjar and much else. Though we fought a brutal war against imperial Japan and suffered terrible war crimes at their hands, our occupation was benign and fair. We transformed an enemy into a thriving democratic ally.

Our worst national stain also gave rise to our most inspiring mass movement: the civil rights struggle. We were challenged to live up to our stated creed, and though the resistance was bitter and ugly, the nation did respond and did heed our better angels. Forty-three years after Selma, we elected a Black president.

Populism, nativism, racism and, frankly, stupidity, are sprinkled liberally throughout our history. But they are subtexts, not the main story. We will transcend MAGA as we transcended the Know Nothings, the Confederacy, the anarchists, the McCarthyites and the Wallaceites (both Henry and George) — not to mention the abuses of the British Empire more than two centuries ago. On Independence Day, I will sincerely celebrate a nation that, despite its demagogues and fools, was capable of producing an Abraham Lincoln, a Franklin Roosevelt, a Frederick Douglass, a Wendell Willkie, a Martin Luther King Jr., a Learned Hand, a Dwight Eisenhower, and a Herbert Hoover (that's right, for saving millions from starvation after World War I).

Adam Smith said, "There's a great deal of ruin in a nation," and we've had too many recent occasions to rue that reality. But this week we need to remember the nobility of this nation. There's a great deal of that, too.


Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her latest book is Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Our Homegrown Extremists Are 'Christians' Radicalized By Trump

Our Homegrown Extremists Are 'Christians' Radicalized By Trump

The suspect in the Minnesota murders, Vance Luther Boelter, has been charged, for now, with second-degree murder. He allegedly killed two people, Melissa and Mark Hortman, in cold blood, and shot and wounded two others. According to Minnesota police, he showed up at the homes of at least two other people who were on his 45-person hit list (they were away).

What stands out about the descriptions of Boelter we've seen thus far is that everyone agreed he was "deeply religious." In other words, he's a religious extremist. He was also an ardent Trump fan. Those things are obviously related, but it's jarring to consider how much the world has flipped in just 10 years.

Ten years ago, people like Boelter were drawn to Donald Trump at least in part because he seemed to take Muslim religious extremism seriously. They were thrilled when he declared, after the December 2015 jihadist attack in San Bernardino, California, that the United States would shut down all Muslim immigration until we figure out "what the hell is going on."

In the years after 9/11, people became wary of Muslims who were suddenly devout, as this sometimes presaged a violent turn. Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and others became seriously religious before proceeding to terrorism.

We didn't feel that way about those who suddenly became devout Christians. Sure, centuries ago, Christians had committed atrocities in the Crusades and during the Inquisition, but that was all over. A more familiar tale was that of George W. Bush, who was able to kick his drinking problem after accepting Jesus as his savior; or Chuck Colson, of Watergate fame, who traded in his political dirty trickster identity to become a lay preacher and founder of the Prison Fellowship after his conversion.

But large parts of American Christianity have been going through some things in the decades since, with certain evangelicals in particular demonstrating a new coolness toward brotherly love. Or, if you read Kristin Kobes Du Mez, evangelical Christianity's ever-present undercurrents surfaced in the Trump era. Christianity Today editor Russell Moore has heard from pastors who've been reproached by parishioners for mentioning the beatitudes in their sermons. "Where are you getting this woke stuff about 'Blessed are the meek?'" they demand.

The problem is not coextensive with evangelicalism: Many evangelicals retain their faith unsullied by ugly politics, and the Catholic integralists are no less abhorrent than the Protestant MAGAs in their embrace of cruelty supposedly for God's sake. But evangelicalism seems to be suffering from politicization more than other denominations and movements, to the point that the public face of evangelicalism has altered.

Boelter seems to have slid into the slipstream of American Christians who are more ideological than spiritual. As Peter Wehner put it in a 2022 interview, whereas churches used to contend over doctrine or practice, things have changed to the point where "a spiritual outlook has been replaced by a core identity that's political."

Though not perceived as particularly strident by his friends, Boelter used the kind of language in a religious context that Trump has normalized in the political context. Speaking to a congregation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he described homosexual and transgender people as "confused," which isn't incendiary, but then he added that "the enemy has gotten so far into their mind and their soul." Enemy talk is contagious.

Boelter, of course, is not an innovator. Other American murderers and criminals were motivated by radicalized Christianity, and he joins a lengthening list of terrorists motivated by MAGA: James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car into a group of peaceful protesters in Charlottesville in 2017. David DePape attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer. Patrick Wood Crusius, a 21-year-old from Dallas, drove to El Paso to open fire on those he perceived to be immigrants shopping at a Walmart.

In his manifesto, Crusius cited the great replacement theory and said, "This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas." In Buffalo, a man opened fire on Black shoppers at a supermarket. He, too, cited the great replacement theory. Cody Balmer ignited a fire at Gov. Josh Shapiro's residence in April. More than a thousand people were convicted of storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and countless MAGA supporters have issued violent threats against their fellow Americans.

Trump himself was the victim of two assassination attempts. But his opponents did not minimize, justify or celebrate these attacks. Trump has signaled again and again that violence in his name or for causes he supports is welcome. People like Boelter have gotten the message. Unlike the Muslim extremists, fear of whom Trump was able to weaponize, the new religious zealots are neither Muslim nor "self-radicalized." They are Christian and radicalized by those who hold the presidency and both houses of Congress.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Trump's Immigration Crackdown Is Built On A Scaffolding Of Ugly Lies

Trump's Immigration Crackdown Is Built On A Scaffolding Of Ugly Lies

The White House lawn was festooned for the past week with mug shots of supposed illegal immigrant criminals the administration has arrested or deported. It formed a backdrop for "Border Czar" Tom Homan's threats from the briefing room warning that every illegal immigrant within our borders needs to register immediately with the Department of Homeland Security and carry documentation at all times. If they fail to comply, he advised, that itself will be treated as a criminal offense.

Homan is, to put it politely, winging it. This isn't Russia yet. The "czar" cannot simply declare something to be a crime. Congress decides what is and what is not a federal offense and Congress has decreed that merely being in the country without documentation is not a crime. An estimated 45 percent of undocumented aliens currently in the U.S. did not enter the country by sneaking across the border. They entered legally and overstayed.

At the 100-day mark, the administration is touting its immigration onslaught as both a policy and a political victory, and many commentators (and even many Democrats) are granting them that. But neither is true.

The showy mug shots on the lawn and Homan's snarling threats are a tell; the administration just hasn't been able to find those thousands of criminal aliens they claimed were rampaging throughout the nation. Like so many other themes Trump campaigned on, the plague of immigrant crime was a fiction.

This is not to suggest that there are no legitimate arguments against immigration. Trump could have made a case that immigration was placing an unfair burden on border states, that immigrants were driving down wages, that illegal entrants were "jumping the line" or that excessive percentages of foreign-born people erode a nation's identity. But that's not the case Trump made. He and his willing enablers in the GOP have always smeared immigrants as rapists, drug dealers and murderers.

Numerous records from law enforcement agencies confirm that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are less, not more, likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. Between 1980, when immigrants comprised 6.2 percent of the U.S. population, and 2022, when the percentage of immigrants had more than doubled to 13.9 percent, the crime rate declined. States with higher percentages of immigrants showed no greater incidence of crime than states with lower numbers according to data from the FBI and the Census Bureau. Alex Nowrasteh of the CATO Institute studied homicide convictions in Texas between 2013 and 2022 and found that legal immigrants were the least likely to be guilty, followed by illegal immigrants. Native-born Americans were the most often convicted of murder.

But demagogues need scapegoats and Trump relentlessly, grossly vilified immigrants as invaders, criminals, and threats to national security. Trump promised in his inaugural address that, "We will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came."

They are deporting thousands of people, but how many of them are dangerous? I wonder even about the mug shots on the White House lawn. How many of those are actually guilty? Three-quarters of the Venezuelan immigrants spirited off to the Salvadoran gulag had no criminal record, according to CBS News. That doesn't make them Boy Scouts necessarily, but this crowd lies incessantly, so we cannot trust their word.

Andry Hernandez Romero is a 31-year-old gay makeup artist. He has no criminal record, but he does have tattoos. He was bundled off to El Salvador without due process, where he is being held in a prison known for human rights abuses and in the hands of a regime that prides itself on its cruelty. Well, two regimes, really, if you count the United States.

ProPublica and the Texas Tribune report that fewer than 50 percent of those arrested between January 20 and February 2 have criminal convictions. During Trump 1.0, 60 percent of those the administration labeled as criminal aliens had committed only minor crimes like immigration offenses or traffic violations.

So the immigration crackdown can in no way be called a success. It has depressed tourism, made a mockery of the rule of law and tarnished our global reputation, and for what? Most of those removed were probably no threat to anyone, but they were working, paying taxes, caring for children and going to church. Sure, a few were doubtless criminals. But as one of the judges in the many legal challenges put it, "How can we know?"

As for the political win, where is it? The most vicious of Trump's supporters may delight in this theater of thuggishness, but most voters are dismayed or worse. Fifty-two percent say he has "gone too far" with deportations, while 53 percent disapprove of his handling of immigration generally. Majorities oppose sending undocumented immigrants "suspected of being members of a criminal group" to El Salvador without a hearing.

Border apprehensions are way down. If that were all, Trump's immigration policies would probably receive broad approval. Instead, Trump's shameful, reckless and lawless approach is creating a long overdue backlash. At some point, newly disabused voters may be ready to learn that Trump's claims about other topics — tariffs, NATO, vaccines, DOGE cuts — were also lies.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Donald Trump Has A Family Policy -- Now Stop Laughing!

Donald Trump Has A Family Policy -- Now Stop Laughing!

The animating beliefs of this administration range from dangerously wrong to head-spinningly crazy. Tariffs are in the first tranche, along with the myth that NATO has been ripping off the United States for decades, that immigrants commit more crimes than native-born Americans and that "He who saves his country commits no crime" (just to name four). The beliefs that vaccines cause autism, that fluoridated water is a public health threat, that threatening allies and neighbors enhances national security, and that taxing foreign holders of Treasuries would be a good way to solve the (nonexistent) problem of trade deficits belong in the second tranche.

The Trump administration marries insane ideas to gross, bullying tactics. But even when this administration stumbles upon an idea that is not deranged, illegal or immoral, it has the capacity to do great harm. I'm thinking of the reported plans to encourage marriage and motherhood. The administration is considering proposals to award mothers $5,000 "baby bonuses," to reserve 30 percent of Fulbright scholarships to parents, to reduce the costs of IVF (not clear how) and to fund programs to educate women about ovulation cycles (I kid you not).

I've been promoting marriage for decades, not as part of a religious agenda but as the result of studying the social science literature demonstrating that marriage makes adults happier than non-marriage and that stable, two-parent homes are the very best environment for raising children, building thriving neighborhoods and reducing crime, homelessness and substance abuse.

The Trump administration cannot adopt this message without turning it rancid. If you hope to persuade people, you must start by showing good faith — that your intentions for them are good. This crowd has displayed open contempt for women — at least those women who vote for the other party or otherwise assert their individuality. In light of the president's apparent requirement that any nominee for a major cabinet role have at least one serious accusation of sexual misconduct, the vice president's sneers about "childless cat ladies" seem mild. Matt Gaetz, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Pete Hegseth, and Linda McMahon all trailed accusations that would have been disqualifying in any other administration. (Only Gaetz was undone.)

But then, the thrice-married, adulterous president himself has been found legally liable for sexual assault in the E. Jean Carroll case and has been accused of similar behavior half a dozen or more times by other women. What that may mean is that Trump must convince himself and others that accusations of sexual misconduct are always and everywhere "fake news." Also, he just doesn't give a damn. Trump has endorsed and campaigned with sexual predators ranging from Roy Moore to Herschel Walker, and one of his first acts as president in the second term was to effectuate the release of Andrew and Tristan Tate from custody in Romania on rape and human trafficking charges. (So they can effectuate releases from foreign countries.)

The Trump crowd's approach to fertility is not the joy of parenthood or the warmth of close families. It's more like the "great replacement" theory made flesh. As Elon Musk admits, he wants a "legion" of offspring "before the apocalypse" and is creating a harem to achieve it. He has been married but is also father to at least 14 children by four different women and willing to outsource his semen upon request. "No romance or anything," he explained to one baby mama, "just sperm."

It's remarkable to consider that Musk is a pin-up for the GOP these days. I well remember the party of "family values." Musk is the most famous progenitor of illegitimacy in the world. (William Bennett, call your office.)

The Trump crowd worries about America's declining fertility rate and yet treats immigration as a mortal threat.

You don't convince women in a free country to have more babies for the sake of the fatherland. If you want to encourage family formation and increase the birth rate, you can't treat women as breeder mares. It helps to model good behavior. That includes being good husbands who don't cheat on their wives, good fathers who actually live with their kids, and good parents who don't commit or condone adultery.

Baby bonuses have been tried in other countries with poor results. Hungary, Singapore, South Korea, and Russia have all adopted policies to support families that are far more generous than what the Trump administration is considering, but the results have been disappointing.

There are many things governments can do to ease the burden on parents — tax credits, parental leave and banning smartphones in schools, among other ideas — but policymakers should keep their expectations in check about the effect these initiatives will have on fertility. If they just make family life easier and better, that's a good start. But frankly, we'd all be better off if the Trump people stay far away from family policy, lest they besmirch it.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

We May No Longer Be Safe In Our Own Country

We May No Longer Be Safe In Our Own Country

In a couple of months, I am planning a business trip to Europe. I don't scare easy, but despite the fact that I'm an American citizen and have committed no crime, I am worried about what might happen when I attempt to come home.

Will Customs and Border Patrol agents pull me from the customs line as they did to Amir Makled? He's an American citizen, too, a lawyer born and raised in Detroit who was returning from a vacation in the Dominican Republic. But he happens to represent a pro-Palestinian student protester.

CBP detained Makled and demanded access to his phone. CBP can demand to examine your phone or laptop under authority to search for child pornography, drug smuggling, human smuggling and other suspected crimes. Last month, a French scientist was denied entry into the United States because border guards searched his phone and found texts critical of Trump.

The European Commission has just announced that it is issuing burner phones to officials traveling to the United States, a measure usually restricted to countries like China or Russia.

"Well," you may say, "that's a nuisance, not a true threat." That's probably right, not because they respect the Constitution or basic decency, but because if they're going to start arresting Trump critics, they have bigger fish to fry.

And yet, consider that Trump is now openly speculating on sending "home grown," U.S.-citizen criminals to the Salvadoran gulag. At his Oval Office meeting with strongman Nayib Bukele, while beaming at Bukele's refusal to return the wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Trump mused about expanding El Salvador's prisons to include American citizens, saying that some of our criminals are just as bad as immigrants and that "I'm all for it."

There are too many layers of outrage here to unpack, but let's just note that even agreeing to send accused (not convicted) illegal aliens to Salvadoran custody violates basic rights. By one estimate, 90% of those deported to El Salvador had no criminal records. Prisoners are held in inhumane conditions, stacked on metal bunks with no bedding 23 1/2 hours per day, subject to torture and summary executions.

Let's also take note of Trump's expansive concept of criminality. Last week, Trump targeted two former officials from his first term, Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor.

Krebs, as director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, committed the unpardonable sin of affirming that there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election. In a flagrantly Orwellian order, Trump declared that Krebs "falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen."

He then directed the attorney general and other officials to scour the record to see if they can find instances of misconduct. This not only violates the semi-sacred separation between the White House and the Justice Department; it is reminiscent of Joseph Stalin's hatchetman Lavrentiy Beria's dictum: "Show me the man and I will find the crime."

Trump's order on Miles Taylor — who as chief of staff of the Department of Homeland Security penned the "anonymous" New York Times piece in the first Trump administration, went even further, accusing Taylor of sowing "chaos and distrust in government" and closing with an accusation of treason.

The prosecutorial power of the state is vast. Even without a conviction, a criminal investigation can upend a person's life and potentially bankrupt them with legal costs. In the Anglo-American tradition, the danger of overweening state power is cabined in many ways: the requirement of a grand jury, the presumption of innocence, the right to trial by jury, the ban on star chambers and many other protections. But these all rest ultimately on the public's sense of what's right.

Back to the airport example. Let's assume that someone in the Trump administration decides to harass me. They could say that I had spread the "false and baseless" claim that the 2020 election was not stolen and therefore sowed "chaos and distrust in government." Or they could allege that I have terrorist ties, as they said about Rumeysa Ozturk, the Turkish grad student who was hustled off the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts. What then?

Republican members of Congress, if asked about my detention, would say that "We have to trust the president's instincts." The Wall Street Journal editorial page would say that this is not ideal because just think of what Democrats might do with this power. And the right-wing media would dredge up every critical word I've ever written about Trump to show that, after all, I had it coming.

Would I be able to consult a lawyer? Fortunately, I'm married to one. But I wouldn't be able to count on legal advice from many of the big firms who are doffing their caps to the president.

I love to travel, but I love to return home even more. The sight of the Stars and Stripes at the airport never fails to move me as I proudly line up in the American passport holders lane. The flag meant home — but it also meant decency and ironclad adherence to the law.

Meant.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

The Cowardice Of Conservative And Business Elites Led Straight To This Disaster

The Cowardice Of Conservative And Business Elites Led Straight To This Disaster

A Wall Street Journal editorial described President Donald Trump's tariffs as the "dumbest trade war in history." It's important not to overrate intelligence, even in leaders. Judgment and maturity may be more crucial. But Trump is no ordinary dunce. He displays a stubborn stupidity that threatens to plunge the world into chaos and potentially into depression.

It should go without saying that our constitutional system was never meant to be so vulnerable to the whims and fantasies of one man. Nothing as critical as the entire world trading system or the maintenance of the NATO alliance should be decided by which side of the bed the emperor woke up on today, but due to the cowardice and cupidity of the GOP and others, we've gradually lost our antibodies to strongman rule and find ourselves bowing before a power-drunk man/child.

His peculiar blind spots and obsessions now threaten everyone. All of those supposedly worldly-wise Wall Street types who either supported or did not oppose Trump's return to power deserve some of the blame today. One thinks of Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, who has a long history opposing tariffs but was becalmed to the point where he told a Davos audience in January that tariffs are a good "economic weapon" and that critics should "get over it."

This kind of insouciance in the face of a severe economic threat is breathtaking. Even if Wall Street executives and others who chose to believe that Trump was preferable to Kamala Harris were indifferent to the civil liberties implications of a Trump second term and uninterested in public health and the administration of justice, you'd think they'd be interested in their own bottom lines. You would think they might have noticed that one of Trump's only long-term convictions was that America had been victimized by world trade and that tariffs would solve all of our problems.

Trump has an obsession with trade. He always has, and his views are wrong historically, economically and even morally. At his Rose Garden declaration of "Liberation Day" he repeated his oft-stated view that the U.S. has been "looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far" for 50 years and more. Long-term trade deficits, he declared, are a "national emergency" that "threaten our way of life."

In vain did a procession of first-term advisers attempt to disabuse Trump of his absurd views about trade. They patiently explained that it is Americans, not foreigners, who pay tariffs. He was deaf to this. They noted that trade deficits are not a measure of wealth, far less who is "winning" or "losing." If we buy coffee from Costa Rica and they buy nothing from us (which isn't true, but just as an illustration), in no sense has Costa Rica taken advantage of, far less "raped," America. We gave them dollars and they gave us coffee in return.

That is called commerce, and nearly every exchange between a willing buyer and willing seller yields two winners, not one. Besides, as those first-term Trump advisers also tried to convey, those Costa Rican businessmen then take those dollars and buy American assets.

The global trading system the United States shepherded into existence in the post-World War II era has been a boon to people around the globe, and no one has benefitted more than the people of the United States. We've run trade deficits with many nations for many reasons. Sometimes that's a reflection of savings versus investment rates in other countries (think Germany). Sometimes it's a reflection of relative wealth (Vietnamese consumers can't afford to purchase as many American products as Americans can afford to purchase of Vietnamese products).

But in any case, it doesn't really matter because countries that run big trade deficits can be super wealthy. The United States has run trade deficits since the late 1970s and has also been the richest nation on the globe during those years. In fact, even during Trump's first term, which he has widely proclaimed to have been the greatest economy in the history of the universe, we ran consistent trade deficits. In fact, the trade deficit increased during the first Trump administration from $481 billion in 2016 to $679 billion in 2020.

In a saner world, Trump's delusions would not guide U.S. policy. They'd be checked by his own advisers, the Congress and the public. But here we are.

This is not the first time in history that a leader's misconceptions have been implemented on a broad scale, but you have to reach into the history of dictatorial regimes to find parallels. In the Soviet Union in the 1930s, the ideas of agronomist Trofim Lysenko gained acceptance not because they were true but because Stalin wanted them to be true. Lysenko promised a new golden age with dramatically improved crop yields that would transform even Siberia into a paradise of orchards and gardens. This was touted by Stalin as the "new biology" and ruthlessly enforced. Naysayers were arrested and executed. The result was repeated famines in the USSR and in China, where Mao also embraced the fallacy. Millions of men, women and children starved to death because a leader was able to impose his fantasies on a whole society.

Global trade is an engine of prosperity, and one man's stupidity now threatens billions.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

RFK JR. Trump Lutnick

What Happens When The U.S. Government Reports 'Alternative Facts'?

Much has been written about the Trump team's assault on civil society, universities, public health, the judiciary and our global alliances, and rightly so — but there is one danger that deserves more attention because our ability to thwart this attempted revolution, this upending of our constitutional system, depends upon truth itself.

We have seen one institution after another buckle before President Donald Trump's onslaught. If Congress is conquered, and Big Tech won't oppose him, and Big Media is bending the knee, and Big Law is folding, and universities are crumpling, and the judiciary is a question mark, who is left? Only the voters.

But what if the voters don't have a grasp on reality? What if the inflation rate rises to 9%, bird flu is ravaging farms across the Midwest, unemployment is rising, the economy is shrinking, measles is killing hundreds of children, crime is rising — but the government has suppressed or falsified the data that would reveal those conditions? We face the prospect that many government statistics will be manipulated by Trumpists.

The demolition work has already begun. The Labor Department has dismissed a committee of economists, academics and business leaders who advised the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Commerce Department has disbanded the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee — an arm of the Bureau of Economic Analysis — which seeks, or rather sought, to help the government provide accurate statistics on many aspects of the economy.

The move came on the heels of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick telling Fox News that he plans to alter the way GDP is calculated. "You know the Commerce Department runs the statistics of GDP. Governments historically have messed with GDP. They count government spending as part of GDP. So I'm going to separate those two and make it transparent."

Yes, some governments (think China) do sometimes misrepresent economic statistics. But our government has been pretty clean in this regard — until now. Keep in mind also that any first-year economics student could tell you how to break down GDP into government spending, consumption, investment and net exports — all statistics that are, for now, easily accessible thanks to the government.

This is yet another way the Trump administration is undermining America's global standing. As Tara Sinclair, a professor at George Washington University's Center for Economic Research, told NPR, "If the data were manipulated, even in a small way, that will affect the credibility of our entire statistical system. And that's going to have global financial implications, because people around the world rely on the quality of U.S. economic data to make decisions."

Advisory panels do more than offer expertise; they provide insurance against the politicization of government statistics. Without neutral outsiders looking over the shoulders of government decision-makers, it becomes easier to fudge or hide data. That brings us to the Census Bureau, the agency that determines who lives where and how many votes each district is entitled to, among many other things. It just dismissed five outside advisory panels.

Simultaneously, the administration is curtailing public access to climate-change data compiled by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. You say the Earth is warming — well, we have data that say the opposite. It's "alternative facts," but this time, it's not just Kellyanne Conway riffing with reporters — it comes bearing a government imprimatur.

It would be easier to count grains of sand on a beach than to keep track of the lies emanating from this administration, but manipulating official government studies and statistics is a step beyond anything we've seen and a profound threat.

Consider the secretary of health and human services, who has spent his entire career denying reality about infectious diseases, vaccines, and other matters. Nominating and confirming (looking at you, Sen. Dr. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana) such a dangerous crank for a key public health post was an antisocial act.

Even if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. never did anything but repeat the falsehoods about vaccines that have marked his career, it was a certainty that people would look to him for guidance and be harmed. Sure enough, last week, in the midst of the measles outbreak in Texas, a number of unvaccinated people who contracted measles were admitted to hospitals with vitamin A toxicity.

Under Kennedy, HHS is taking lying to new extremes. Though multiple studies, including one featuring half a million Danish children, have discredited the notion that there is a link between vaccines and autism, Kennedy has authorized a new study to search for a "link." This is beyond mendacious. The original study suggesting a connection was found to have been a hoax years ago, and again, no reputable research since has found any association between vaccines and autism. Autism diagnoses are rising due to awareness, not vaccines, as any person not suffering from oppositional defiant disorder can figure out.

Kennedy has chosen David Geier to conduct this sham "study." Geier is not a physician (though he was sanctioned by the state of Maryland for practicing medicine without a license), and he's a proponent of the vaccines-cause-autism deceit. But few will remember this when he produces a government-sponsored "study" showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

The Trump administration is doing more than attempting to seize unconstitutional power for an unaccountable executive. It is seeking to destroy truth itself, the last tool of the opposition.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


Mahmoud Khalil

I Reject Mahmoud Khalil's Politics -- But His Rights Must Be Respected

Mahmoud Khalil could have been cooked up in a lab to offend — no, worse — to disgust me. And yet, despite temptation, I cannot endorse what the Trump administration is doing to him.

Based upon the postings of his group, Columbia University Apartheid Divest, Khalil, who was born in Syria, seems to hold grotesque opinions. CUAD, a leader of the anti-Israel protests on Columbia's campus, has cheered the October 7 pogrom that killed and maimed more than 1,200 Israelis, writing, "The act of Palestinian resistance on October 7, known as the Al-Aqsa Flood, breached Israeli security and made significant military advances," adding that it was "a day that will go down in history." Not a word of condemnation for the deaths of innocents, the mass rapes, the immolation of whole families, nor the kidnappings.

CUAD has lavished praise on other terrorists and enemies of the United States and Israel, like Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah, leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah respectively, which gives you a flavor of the movement. And while some members of the organization at first distanced themselves from a student, Khymani James, who posted an Instagram video telling university officials that "Zionists don't deserve to live," and "Be grateful that I'm not just going out and murdering Zionists," CUAD's leadership later thought better of it and issued an apology to James and to all individuals involved in the movement for Palestinian liberation it "alienated" by "compromising our values and tailoring our actions and narrative to the mainstream media." In case there was any doubt, the letter also clarified that the group supports "liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance."

In addition to celebrating the suffering and deaths of Israelis, CUAD has supported acts of domestic terrorism in the United States, praising Casey Goonan, an arsonist who carried out attacks on a federal building and the University of California in 2024.

"CUAD stands in full support of Casey Goonan and all of our comrades who have bravely undertaken the call to escalate for Palestine," the group announced in a statement.

If I were vested with plenary authority to decide who could come to the United States, I would turn away someone like Mahmoud Khalil, who not only participates in but leads an organization that cheers terroristic violence. But no one in America has that plenary authority; we have laws and procedures, and under those laws, Khalil became a legal permanent resident. As such he enjoys most of the rights of a citizen.

As law professor Steve Vladeck has outlined, there are certain rare instances in which a green card-holder can be subject to deportation, as when "an alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States." But the law goes on to specify that aliens should not be deported for opinions or actions that "would be lawful within the United States" unless "the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien's (continued presence) would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest."

Perhaps our Gumby secretary of state would so certify, but that is an abuse of authority and a step toward tyranny. Khalil's views are execrable, but he has committed no crime, and the government has made no showing that his continued presence in the country compromises a "compelling" foreign policy interest. He is being targeted because he's obnoxious and on the left. As Jonathan Chait notes, claims of fighting antisemitism ring a bit hollow from an administration that just intervened to free the Tate brothers, hired a deputy press secretary at the DOD with a history of antisemitic posts, and is led by a man who dined with Ye and Nick Fuentes.

No, this is a salvo in a corrupt plan to punish speech Trump dislikes. Taking a law-abiding legal permanent resident into custody for speech crimes is un-American. Nor is it the only attack on fundamental liberties perpetrated in the past couple of weeks. Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie is another frontal assault. The risible EO attempts to punish the firm for representing "failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton" and hiring the political consultancy Fusion GPS, among other supposed offenses. The order instructs federal agencies to terminate contracts with firm clients and to forbid all employees of Perkins Coie to enter federal buildings.

Or consider the exiling of the Associated Press for declining to abide by Trump's embarrassingly juvenile ukase about the "Gulf of America." Trump has also targeted another law firm, Covington and Burling, for representing Jack Smith. These flagrant assaults on American liberties are coming thick and fast and deserve our attention and alarm.

I won't defend Mahmoud Khalil's despicable views, but I will defend his rights. Though he supports movements and individuals who deny rights to those they oppose, we are not like him.

We live in a country governed by law — or at least, we are supposed to. If Khalil is to be deprived of his liberty, it can only be through due process of law. We defend his rights because if his are not secure, neither are ours.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Where Would Trump Be Without His Spineless Enablers?

Where Would Trump Be Without His Spineless Enablers?

It's amazing how men who prided themselves on strength and toughness will submit to a gangster.

In 2022, after Russian tanks rolled across an international border into Ukraine and missiles pierced the quiet of cities like Kharkiv and Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky earned worldwide acclaim for his courage and heroism. No one was more pro-Ukrainian than Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who exulted in an arrest warrant the Russians had issued against him:

"I will wear the arrest warrant issued by Putin's corrupt and immoral government as a Badge of Honor."

Last Friday, after mad king Donald and his scheming viceroy, JD Vance, performed a tag-team ambush on Zelensky in the Oval Office, Graham sounded a different note. "Somebody asked me if I was embarrassed about President Trump. I have never been more proud of the president. I was very proud of JD Vance for standing up for our country."

Disgusting. A politician whose identity was forged as a hawk and staunch defender of liberty and democracy now praises the most powerful man in the world for sandbagging the beleaguered leader of a bleeding ally, a victim of aggression? That's standing up for America?

Ditto Marco Rubio, that gelding who has likewise transformed himself from a champion of freedom into an obedient toady to the man whose project is to destroy the Western alliance.

We live in an upside-down world where the far greater man, Zelenskyy, is being hounded to apologize to the gangster who behaved abominably.

Consider that even before the Oval Office debacle, Trump and his team had been grossly disrespectful and abusive toward Zelensky and Ukraine. Trump called him a "dictator" (though he declined to say as much about Putin). Trump then repeated Putin's propaganda that Ukraine, not Russia, had started the war. Vance told a European audience that he feared "the threat from within" far more than Russia or China. And then Trump proposed a "deal" that amounted to extortion, demanding the right to mine rare earth elements (which Trump called "raw earths") on Ukrainian soil in return for ... nothing. It was a shakedown. As Trump unguardedly admitted when he lost his temper, he regards Ukraine as a target for extortion because they "don't have any cards."

It was the most shameful moment in American history in at least a century, and a special shame attaches to the explainer class of analysts who, without even the excuse of fearing voters, perform pirouettes on their principles.

Marc Thiessen used his perch as a Washington Post columnist to excoriate not Trump for this blatant betrayal of 80 years of American world leadership but Zelensky.

As recently as June 2023, Thiessen had seen his role differently — that of guide to help MAGA types remain on the side of Ukraine. He outlined an "America First Case for Supporting Ukraine." But now, when the leader has pivoted, so has Thiessen. "The blowup was Zelensky's fault," he wrote. Thiessen excoriated Zelensky for resisting a deal without security. "He summarily dismissed Trump's idea of an immediate ceasefire — something that is extremely important to Trump, who is committed to stopping the killing — because he said Putin had already broken ceasefires 25 times."

But that's a key stumbling block, isn't it? Trump is demanding a ceasefire without security guarantees for Ukraine, which is an open invitation to Putin to sign the deal and then regroup and attack again as he has done repeatedly. Thiessen was quick to accuse Zelensky of disrespect but didn't notice the key part of an exchange he himself highlighted. When Zelensky noted that Putin had broken previous agreements, Trump interrupted to say, "He never broke to me. He never broke to me." Putin's agreement was not with Trump. But Trump's narcissism, solipsism and moral obtuseness were painfully obvious in that exchange.

Thiessen further scolded Zelensky for contradicting Trump in front of "the entire world." Well, it was Trump's decision to invite the cameras, not Zelensky's. As he boasted afterward, it was "great television." Thiessen was referring to a moment when Trump was repeating Russian disinformation about how all of Ukraine's cities have been destroyed. Zelensky was the soul of restraint saying, "No, no, you have to come, Mr. President, you have to come and to look."

Trump is as deaf to such appeals as he was indifferent to the photos of starving Ukrainian POWs Zelensky had brought along. Throughout the latter part of the meeting, when it became heated, Trump's favoritism toward Putin showed through. He scowled when Zelensky called Putin a war criminal, and when a member of the press asked whether Trump saw himself as "in the middle" between the warring parties or "on Ukraine's side," Trump said he was not on Ukraine's side and went on to scold Zelensky for his harsh words about Putin.

"It's wonderful to speak badly about somebody else," he noted sarcastically, "but I want to get it solved." Later, he said about Zelensky, "You see the hatred he's got for Putin. It's very tough for me to make a deal."

Trump is a soulless sociopath. This is not news. But without the Vances, Rubios, and Thiessens of the world, he would not be quite the danger to the Atlantic alliance, peace and security that he is.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


Under Trump Regime, America Is Wide Open For Corruption

Under Trump Regime, America Is Wide Open For Corruption

Is America open for corruption now? Unabashedly? Nakedly? Are we tossing aside not just our hard-won victories over infectious diseases but also the more than hundred-year battle against fraud, bribery and graft?

Honest, clean government doesn't follow automatically from democracy. Before civil service reform, the wealthy or well-connected were able to line their pockets by bribing public officials. The Credit Mobilier scandal, which featured bribes to a dozen congressmen paid in the 1860s by railroad executives, was just one example of a widespread plague.

But just as we were able to defeat smallpox, measles and diphtheria with sensible public health initiatives, Americans were able to beat back public corruption. Reformers, calling themselves Mugwumps and Progressives, animated by opposition to the spoils system, passed laws demanding transparency, requiring a nonpartisan civil service, and paying salaries to public servants so that they would no longer have to rely on a percentage of fees or taxes collected.

And what do you know, it worked! American public administration became much more efficient, the nation became a better place in which to conduct business, and — one almost blushes to extol this in our era — there was a net increase in justice and fairness.

Public corruption is never completely vanquished of course. Look no further than former Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez's gold bars and hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in his bedroom. (He claimed not to trust banks.) Clean government requires constant vigilance from the police, prosecutors and the courts. It requires a consensus in society that this is crucial, and journalists on the lookout for tales of venality and malversation. There are also tons of civil society groups dedicated to this. They're known affectionately as "goo-goos" for "good government guys." They do more than guard against corruption; they're also committed to good policy and implementation. And all of that helps to make the United States a first world nation.

Or it did.

In his first month back in the White House, Donald Trump is yanking the rug out from under open, honest government and signaling a complete reversal to a time of rank corruption. There may be no historical analogue to the level of corruption Trump is inaugurating.

One reversal is even conveniently labeled. Trump has issued an executive order to Attorney General Pam Bondi to cease enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which forbids American companies from paying bribes abroad. Correspondingly, he has shut down the units in the FBI, State Department and the Department of Homeland Security that were thwarting foreign influence operations in American elections.

Trump has fired 17 inspectors general from federal agencies. Those IGs provide independent oversight and serve to unmask government abuses. If the DOGE project were even remotely sincere, Trump would be adding and empowering more IGs, not firing them. No, the presence of truly independent watchdogs is a threat to the Trumpist project, which is permitting agencies to be used to reward friends and punish foes.

That reward/punish metric was the operating principle in the case of New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Toss out the principle of blind justice (so antique) and bring on the distortion of the prosecutorial power for nakedly political ends. Pause the Adams prosecution in return for assistance in rounding up illegal immigrants, but leave the sword dangling over the mayor's head (the government asked that the criminal case be dismissed "without prejudice," meaning that it could be reopened at a later date) to compel total obedience.

The Office of Special Counsel was created in the post-Watergate era to oversee whistleblower complaints, prevent prohibited personnel practices and enforce the Hatch Act, among other duties. (Despite the similar name, it is entirely separate from special counsels, like Jack Smith, who are appointed by the Justice Department.) Trump attempted to fire the current special counsel, Hampton Dellinger, but his firing has been stayed by a court, for now. The director of the public integrity section of the Justice Department was not so fortunate. He was reassigned, and three "anti-kleptocracy" units crucial to targeting the assets of foreign corrupt actors in several countries were shut down.

It is all friends/enemies now. Trump just ended a database on police misconduct. Police misconduct, after all, may be useful in the coming months and years.

Trump extended his personal reach to Brazil, where fellow coup plotter Jair Bolsonaro is on trial for siccing a mob on his own capital. Trump's company is suing the judge in the case, accusing him of illegally censoring right-wing voices. The unmistakable signal: We like coup plotters as long as they're Trump pals. A fortiori the Jan. 6 insurrectionists Trump pardoned en masse. Not so much as a nod toward making individual evaluations.

Trump pardoned Rod Blagojevich, withdrew felony charges against Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry (R-NE) and had the DOJ attempt to drop criminal charges against Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN).

And it's hard to know where even to begin to describe the walking conflict of interest that is Elon Musk, who, with no transparency, is reportedly terminating all manner of government agencies and offices, including many that touch on his business interests.

Trump's America no longer fights the old foes of good government. It has hung a giant neon sign on our door proclaiming Open for Corruption.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


Do Trump Voters Understand What They Have Inflicted On America And The World?

Do Trump Voters Understand What They Have Inflicted On America And The World?

As I watched election returns on the evening of November 5, 2024, I was struck by the sense that Americans had missed the memo. Across the nation, in blue states as well as red, county after county showed a marked rightward shift. It was so seemingly normal. What do you do when groceries are much more expensive than four years ago, the border is flooded with immigrants? You vote for the other guy.

It has been only four weeks since Trump took the oath of office, and I wonder whether casual voters or even those who truly despised Joe Biden have taken onboard what they've done. The American republic is barreling toward a constitutional crisis as the president attempts to rule as an autocrat ("He who saves his country does not violate any law," he claimed), a heedless billionaire smashes through people's lives and complex systems he doesn't understand with sadistic glee, the Justice Department descends into corrupt bargains antithetical to the ethical standards upheld for two centuries, a Putin/Assad apologist sits atop our intelligence agencies, a conspiracy theorist/anti-vaccine fool directs our health agencies, and the United States is in the process of reversing 80 years of world leadership.

Let's focus on the global about-face, because however grievous the other depredations, they are, at least in theory, reversible. Abandoning world leadership is not.

Violating the understanding that Vladimir Putin's naked aggression made him a pariah among decent nations (he is an indicted war criminal), Trump engaged in a 90-minute phone call with him (over Volodymyr Zelensky's head), invited the dictator to visit the United States and suggested that Russia be asked to rejoin the G7. All of these marks of favor were offered in exchange for Putin doing what? Promising to withdraw troops? Returning the kidnapped Ukrainian children? Agreeing to cease targeting hospitals and power plants? No. For chatting on the phone with the world's most credulous narcissist.

Next, the out-of-his-depth weekend TV host-turned secretary of defense offered two unilateral concessions to Putin by declaring that "The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement" and that no U.S. troops would be part of any security guarantee to Ukraine.

Isolating Ukraine from Europe and keeping it out of NATO has been Russia's aim for 30 years. While NATO membership was not offered, it was never entirely rebuffed either — until now. Though Pete Hegseth attempted to walk back his comments in the face of criticism, the damage was done. Before a single water glass was filled at the negotiating table, the United States conceded some of Russia's main aims. Besides, much worse damage was right around the corner, emanating from the vice president.

JD Vance delivered the most shameful address by an American leader to a European audience in living memory. Vance did not mention Russia's continuing aggression against Ukraine at all. Instead, he presumed to lecture America's allies on their supposed failure to uphold our shared values. How so? By restricting speech too harshly and — the truly soul-crushing part — being too intolerant of neo-Nazis. In sync with co-president Elon Musk, who has blessed the AfD as the only hope for Germany, Vance scolded the Germans for being unwilling to enter into coalition with a party that wants a "180-degree turnaround in the politics of remembrance" about the Holocaust, plans to deport all Muslims from Germany, and believes Germans should be proud of their soldiers from both world wars.

Not only is it morally bankrupt to ignore the fascistic aggression of Russia; it is galling to watch an American leader who supported the attempted violent overthrow of our 2020 election and who has called for the president to defy the Supreme Court and rule as an autocrat to presume to speak as a small-d democrat. European diplomats exiting the meeting told the Financial Times that "America itself is now a threat to Europe."

All of that was a prelude to Trump's total betrayal of Ukraine — and with it, America's global role. In a screed that mixed Kremlin talking points (Zelensky is a "dictator") with Trumpian grotesqueries (alleging that Ukraine, not Russia, started the war, that Zelensky was a "modestly successful comedian" who hoodwinked Biden into spending $350 billion on defending Ukraine when the true figure is $183 billion that Republicans and Democrats approved), Trump has surrendered Ukraine to its tormentors without so much as a backward glance. On the contrary, he's bursting with self-congratulation for this "negotiation to end the war with Russia" which "all admit only TRUMP ... can do."

What the world knows, and will not unlearn, is that the United States cannot be trusted. Faith in America, and in basic American decency and goodwill, has kept the peace for generations, but that is over. Nations that refrained from getting nuclear weapons because they were secure under the American umbrella will rush to get bombs. Nations that resisted China's bullying will make their accommodations. The Taiwanese can kiss their independence and their freedom goodbye. Formerly close allies will not share intelligence about impending terrorist threats.

That is what Americans did on November 5. Voters were thinking about high costs. Perhaps they are beginning to see what a price we will all pay for that election.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Demolition Of USAID By Trump And Musk Is A Scandalous Waste

Demolition Of USAID By Trump And Musk Is A Scandalous Waste

A "special government employee," wealthy beyond the dreams of Croesus, chose as his first target the poorest and most vulnerable people on Earth. On Sunday evening, Elon Musk and his peach-fuzz goons locked employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development out of their email accounts, shut down the agency website, announced that nearly everyone would be fired and crowed that USAID had been fed into a "wood chipper." President Onlooker muttered approvingly that the agency had it coming because it was dominated by "radical left lunatics." Musk called them criminals.

USAID is a duly constituted government agency created by Congress and the president. By law, it can be shut down only by Congress and the president. The attempt to close it by the whim of a ketamine-popping oligarch is flagrantly illegal, and will eventually, one assumes, be reversed by the courts. But that could take months (and there's a sting in the tail, which I'll come to in a minute).

Meanwhile, Americans who work for the agency, most of them overseas, have been thrown into chaos, and the people who benefit from the assistance have been left in the lurch. Until last week, USAID was the largest distributor of humanitarian assistance on Earth. Today, by abruptly pulling the plug, the world's greatest humanitarian country has become one of its least, raising a huge middle finger to those facing hunger, disease, war and oppression.

Silicon Valley types like to move fast and break things. I guess that's fine if the only thing you break is your own bank account, but applying that spirit to foreign assistance (again, without a shred of legal authority) means breaking human beings. And it means criminal waste. Wasn't Musk supposed to be seeking to limit waste?

According to a source with knowledge of foreign assistance activities at the Department of State and USAID, there are currently more than 475,000 metric tons of American food commodities (purchased from American farmers in Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa) that have already been ordered and are now at risk of becoming spoiled on railroad sidings or ports. Another 29,000 metric tons, valued at $30 million, are reportedly sitting in a Texas warehouse and cannot be shipped to needy people.

Most of the 10,000 people who work for USAID have no idea if they will ever see another paycheck. Those in conflict zones like Ukraine are unsure whether they retain diplomatic status. They've been told to come home, but they have no guidance about how or whether the government will pay for their transportation. They've been locked out of their phones and their computers and feel anxious and isolated.

Like any agency or, frankly, any human organization, USAID has faults. Some of its programs could be streamlined, one employee told me, but "we respond to earthquakes and wars — don't smash everything because 2% have problems!"

Most USAID employees could make much better salaries in the private sector but feel called to help the most vulnerable people in the world. They accept long separations from their families and endure uncomfortable and often dangerous postings in places that Silicon Valley types don't frequent. They stand ready, with bags packed, to receive a midnight call.

"When there was an Ebola outbreak in 2013," one USAID employee told me, "doctors with USAID rushed to Uganda to stop the spread. They put their own lives at risk. No one knows about it because they succeeded and Ebola never spread to the [United States]. So much of what we do is unseen, but that doesn't make it unimportant."

Now they are afraid to speak freely. They sound more like dissidents in places like China or Russia than like Americans. They fear they are being monitored and targeted for God-only-knows what kind of accusation or retribution.

Foreign aid never polls well. Many Americans imagine that we spend 25 percent of our budget supporting humanitarian needs in far-flung places. When asked how much would be about right, they suggest about 10 percent. The true figure is less than one percent. Though our presence — and our bags of grain labeled prominently with the words "From the American People" — is felt in scores of nations around the globe.

Even if they were preaching gender ideology with every shot of penicillin (and they're not), it would still be worth doing. We should give to the poor both for its own sake — it is basic morality, after all — and for the reputation and standing of the United States.

Now for the sting in the tail. The courts will take up Musk's attack on American benevolence in due course, and while one cannot predict with certainty how they will rule, it's a reasonably safe bet that they will find that the Trump/Musk demolition project was illegal. It remains an open question whether Trump will obey the court. If he does, we still have a republic. If not, we've turned the page.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.