The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
@monacharenEPPC
JD Vance

When JD Vance Calls Abdul El-Sayed 'Evil,' He Should Look In A Mirror

In a year when Democrats have the wind at their backs and a shot at winning even in Texas, primary voters in Michigan have chosen a Senate candidate in Abdul El-Sayed who needlessly alienates many voters. But of all the Republican politicians to criticize El-Sayed, JD Vance may be the least well suited, because when it comes to tolerance for extremism and antisemitism, Vance and El-Sayed are almost equally matched players in a dangerous, illiberal game. It's a mark of how far our guardrails have fallen that leading American political figures are engaging in more or less open race/religion baiting — and each is in high dudgeon that the other is doing it.

El-Sayed has waded into extremist waters a number of times, most prominently when he seemed to downplay the horror of an attempted attack on a Michigan synagogue. On March 12, Ayman Ghazali drove a truck, filled with fireworks and gasoline, into Temple Israel in West Bloomfield. The truck caught fire after it crashed through the doors. At the time, more than 100 students and some 50 staff were inside the religious school. One security guard was struck and injured, and more than 60 police and firemen were treated for smoke inhalation. Ghazali committed suicide by shooting himself.

El-Sayed condemned the attack, but a few days later, noting that relatives of the attacker had died in an Israeli air strike in Lebanon, El-Sayed equivocated, saying, "Hurt people hurt people."

If you think that Israel's actions in Lebanon justify or excuse in any way an attack on Jewish children in Michigan, you are missing something fundamental about liberal values. Would El-Sayed say the same if a Jewish American whose relatives had been killed by Hamas on Oct. 7 attempted to bomb a Muslim school?

In contrast to the MAGA style of politics, El-Sayed has apologized. Speaking to Michigan's Jewish Democratic Caucus, he said, "My comments may have been misconstrued to justify something I did not mean to justify. To anyone who feels like my comments might have been hurtful, I'm really sorry. That was not my intention."

Is he apologizing for the fact that others "misconstrued" his remarks? That is pretty weak tea as apologies go, but it's better than Vance's record, which we'll come to soon.

El-Sayed has a history of associating himself and his campaign with people who clearly cross the line, and has not apologized for doing so. What prompted him to invite Hasan Piker to campaign with him? Piker is an encyclopedia of offenses and idiocies. He thinks communist China and Cuba are great role models, excused Hamas for raping Israeli women, and invited a Vietnamese refugee who recounted her suffering to "Suck my d—k, old lady."

He calls critics "rabid, ultra-Zionist pigs," and lately has lapsed into the more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger mode of warning American Jews that if they "keep putting this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone is going to come around and take action — not against the state of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews."

That last one, in addition to holding Jews responsible for how others perceive them, is an invitation to antisemitic violence notionally veiled in concern. How would Piker react if someone were to warn that if Muslim Americans didn't stop supporting the Palestinians, "someone is going to come around and take action"?

El-Sayed isn't responsible for everything his supporters say, but Piker is a hateful extremist whose support El-Sayed sought — and he isn't the only one. El-Sayed also campaigned with Amir Makled, a progressive who has a history of pro-Hezbollah posts, and who has recirculated antisemitic memes — ironically, from right-wing figures Marjorie Taylor Greene and Candace Owens. Makled reposted a message from Owens calling Israelis "demons" who "lie, cheat, murder, and blackmail." There's nothing to unite extremists of the left and right quite like some undiluted antisemitism.

People often ask whether all criticism of Israel can be tarred as antisemitism. The answer is: Of course not. Israel merits condemnation for its unjust actions, as any nation does, and anyone who attempts to paint all criticism as antisemitism is doing no favors to Jews or to the truth. But when someone seems obsessed about Israel's sins but unbothered by those of China, Sudan, Hamas, Russia, or countless others, or when someone invites or excuses violence against American Jews, that clearly crosses the line.

Would that there were a responsible opposition to the Michigan Democrats who could, with integrity, rebuke El-Sayed. Alas, we have JD Vance. "I realize that there's something about Abdul El-Sayed that is very, very evil and on the rise in the United States of America today," Vance said last week. He's one to talk.

The company Vance keeps includes Tucker Carlson, whose obsession with Israel and Jews has become pathological. Even after Carlson's softball interviews with white nationalist antisemite Nick Fuentes (who also feuds with Vance, but that's a topic for another day) and Holocaust denier Darryl Cooper, whom Carlson praised as "the best and most honest popular historian in the United States," Vance refused to distance himself from Carlson.

Given the opportunity to do so at a White House press briefing Thursday, he demurred: "I'm not going to play the game where I throw friends under the bus because I have political disagreements with them. I think that is a terrible place for the U.S. to go."

Vance sees "pas d'ennemis a droite." So in October, when a bunch of Republican operatives were discovered to have exchanged texts calling black people "monkeys" and "watermelon people" and pronouncing "I love Hitler!" Vance was forgiveness itself. Appearing on the Charlie Kirk podcast, Vance explained that:

"The reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys. They tell edgy, offensive jokes. That's what kids do. And I really don't want us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke, telling a very offensive, stupid joke, is cause to ruin their lives."

These "young boys" were in their 20s and 30s. Speaking of Kirk, after his assassination, Vance was unwilling to overlook youthful mistakes: "The First Amendment protects a lot of very ugly speech but if you celebrate ... Charlie Kirk's death, you should not be protected from being fired for being a disgusting person."

Some of the people whom the Trump/Vance administration targeted for punishment did not "celebrate" Kirk's murder but merely recalled that Kirk himself had offered to pay the lawyer who represented Paul Pelosi's attacker.

Even some on the right have pleaded with JD Vance to denounce the groypers and antisemites now proliferating in congressional offices and think tanks. Rod Dreher pinned his hopes on Vance to staunch the flow. Vance gave his answer at a Turning Point USA conference, when he denounced not antisemitism or bigotry but "endless, self-defeating purity tests."

Recall that among Vance's first official acts as vice president was a speech to the Munich Security Conference, where he lectured Germany. The mainstream parties had an informal "brandmauer" (firewall) agreement not to enter into coalition with the Alternative fur Deutschland, a party that is pro-Putin, anti-Ukraine, anti-Muslim, and had roots in the Nazi Party. It was quite a moment. The United States has long taken pride in having defeated the twin totalitarian menaces of the 20th century: fascism and communism. Yet here was an American vice president lecturing the Germans about freezing out the ideological descendants of the Nazis.

That endorsement of extremism and betrayal of our values was at least open and direct, but Vance is capable of more insidious incitement of hatred. It was Vance who circulated the atrocious lie about Haitian immigrants barbecuing people's pets. He has trafficked in false statistics about immigrants and crime, suggested that the high cost of housing was attributable to immigrants, and alleged recently that immigrants were responsible for the recent surge in antisemitism.

When he was criticized for the failed Memorandum of Understanding with Iran, which he had taken the lead in negotiating, Vance responded by alleging that "certain elements within the Israeli government" were running a "discreet, extremely well-funded" campaign to manipulate American public opinion against the agreement. He cited a Time magazine article as proof, but the article didn't support his contention at all; it was about an Israeli effort to push back against antisemitism among young, right-wing men. In any case, the charge of Jews secretly manipulating anything — the media, the banks, Hollywood, foreign policy — is classic antisemitism.

Vance's contribution to American politics is to leave a trail of suspicion and hatred in his wake like snail slime. He is the logical inheritor of the MAGA mantle.

The best that can be said about El-Sayed is that an unsatisfying apology is better than none at all and that he belongs to a party that still enforces some moral red lines. The fear is that if his style comes to dominate, that will cease to be true.

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

Be Ready: Trump And His Lackeys Will Try To Steal The 2026 Midterm Elections

Be Ready: Trump And His Lackeys Will Try To Steal The 2026 Midterm Elections

The Supreme Court gave us a start yesterday, with what looked, at first glance, like a win for Trump's efforts to suppress mail-in ballots. But, as Andrew Egger explained, that isn't quite what happened. In broad outline, the Court stayed a lower court injunction while the legality of Trump's attempted interference will be decided later. It was a temporary, procedural win for Trump, but not a permission slip.

Not yet, anyway. After the 2024 immunity ruling, you'd be ill-advised to assume anything about this Court. Until three years ago, it was axiomatic that the president was not above the law. The Roberts Court undermined that key principle. And here, too, it seems an open-and-shut case that the Constitution grants power over elections to the Congress and the states, not to the executive branch. But we'll see.

Still, the Court's little summer fright is a good reminder that early voting will begin in some places in as little as four weeks, and while the polls and projections look good for Democrats, this is not an ordinary election year. Trump is weakened and flailing, yes, but he remains determined to prevent a free and fair election in November if he possibly can. And he does not lack for lackeys.

The Supreme Court touched on just one of his efforts to subvert the election: his executive order directing the Postal Service to work with states to determine whether voters requesting mail-in ballots were citizens.

There have been other below-the-radar efforts to subvert election security. Since 2025, the Justice Department has demanded voter rolls from 48 states. Nearly all states are resisting, and the matter is in litigation. Recall that after immigration officers shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and feelings were running high, the administration didn't express regret or apologize. Nor did they announce an investigation.

Instead, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi sent Gov. Tim Walz a letter offering to suspend Operation Metro Surge if Minnesota agreed to end its sanctuary city policies and hand over its voter registration rolls and Medicaid and SNAP enrollees names and addresses. And here you thought the ICE raids were all about finding the "worst of the worst."

Christopher Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in Trump's first term, became a target of his wrath because he truthfully testified that the 2020 election was free and fair. In the second term, Trump has gutted the agency Krebs had helmed, denying to states and the federal government key tools to detect foreign election interference. Strange priority for someone who is so consumed with anger at the accusation that he benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In July, the president announced a major primetime address that would contain a "bombshell" and then rambled incoherently for what seemed like hours about an "unprecedented election security nightmare." It was China, he claimed, that had actually intervened in the 2020 election. The speech was immediately forgotten, but perhaps it ought not to be. Trump rarely gives primetime speeches. He may have been preparing the ground for some declaration to come.

Meanwhile, Trump instructed Republicans in red states to engage in naked, midcycle gerrymandering. There was no pretense that this was an effort to respond to Democratic gerrymandering. Several states with Democratic majorities like California and Virginia had recently taken steps to limit partisan gerrymandering. Regarding Texas, which was the first state to salute smartly and carry out Trump's wishes, Trump said: "Just a simple redrawing; we pick up five seats."

What else could be in store?

Trump has never ruled out using force to affect the election outcome. He attempted it with the Capitol mob in 2021, and even in the past year and a half, he has expressed regret that he didn't take Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's advice and use troops to confiscate every voting machine in the country in 2020. Asked in May whether he would consider using the National Guard or ICE to patrol polling places, he said, "I'd do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections."

n February of this year, he told talk show host (and former deputy director of the FBI) Dan Bongino that Republicans "should take over the voting in at least many — 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting." And in a meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump mused that we might pause our elections "if we happen to be in a war with somebody."

Trump's factotums have also signaled a certain insouciance about the possibility of sending armed officers to polling places. At his confirmation hearing, Todd Blanche asked: "Why is there an objection to sending ICE to polling stations? Illegals can't vote. It doesn't make any sense."

Feigned confusion to one side, Blanche knows exactly why sending ICE to polling places would be outrageous. After a two-year spree of arrests, manhandling, family separations, detentions, deportations and even executions of Hispanic-looking people and others, it would be completely understandable that Hispanic citizens might hesitate to exercise their right to vote if they feared being wrongly caught up in an ICE enforcement action. No fewer than 170 American citizens have been stopped, arrested and detained for days, sometimes in gruesome conditions. In fact, even non-Hispanic Americans would have reason to fear: Neither Renee Good nor Alex Pretti was Hispanic.

Despite their best efforts to hire poorly qualified recruits, ICE still lacks the numbers to perform any kind of nationwide patrol of polling places. There are roughly 95,000 polling places across the country, but at most, ICE might muster 10,000 to 15,000 officers. In key districts, though, that could make a difference. It's illegal under several statutes to "intimidate, threaten, or coerce" any person "for the purpose of interfering with their right to vote." But Trump might tell his minions to ignore the law, promising pardons later.

Finally, there is always the possibility that Trump may declare some sort of emergency and attempt to use his powers under the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard and deploy them to polling places to supplement ICE. They may calculate that this usurpation would be declared illegal later — but later would be fine if turnout in Democratic areas could be suppressed.

There's another possibility, too, that would require more coordination among Republicans willing to do anything for Trump — but we've seen that kind of destructive devotion before. If governors and secretaries of state in the right combination of states find reason-however flimsy or farcical — to avoid certifying November's vote by the time Congress convenes on Jan. 3, it's possible that the rump House that assembles could have a Republican "majority."

That "majority" could elect a speaker, and that speaker could thereafter delay seating rightfully elected Democrats even after their elections are certified, as Speaker Mike Johnson did for many weeks after a special election in 2025.

The GOP is the party that failed to certify Joe Biden's victory. Nothing should be considered inconceivable.

It's in our hands. Protect Democracy, the ACLU, the Brennan Center for Justice and many others are preparing for whatever may come. Protect Democracy offers guidance on your local elections with state-by-state rules. Know the law. Be prepared. Volunteer at a polling place. Take nothing for granted. There is no bottom with MAGA.

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 Only Promise Todd Blanche Can Honestly Make Is More Dishonesty

The Only Promise Todd Blanche Can Honestly Make Is More Dishonesty

Todd Blanche was Donald Trump's personal attorney, so it was natural that when he was elevated to attorney general, a journalist asked whether he would "pledge that the Justice Department will always act independently of the White House?"

The correct answer to such a question is obvious: The Justice Department and I are committed to the impartial administration of justice. We will always make prosecution decisions based solely upon the facts and the law after a fair evaluation of the evidence.

But Blanche said something a little different:

"No, I'm not going to pledge that. And no attorney general should ever pledge that. The president, I mean, if I were to pledge I will be independent of the White House, what that means is that if President Trump says, 'I want the Department of Justice to go after every violent criminal in this country,' which is what he has said, what you're saying to me is I should say, 'No, sir, I'm not going to do it.'"

What jumps out first about Blanche's answer is the blithe refusal even to mouth (however disingenuously) the expected platitude. This is the Trumpian way. They don't just break the rules behind closed doors; they shatter the rules in broad daylight. It's not enough, for example, that the Trump Justice Department is denying resources to the team that investigates and prosecutes foreign corrupt practices; Trump issued an executive order pausing all such prosecutions. So it's not news that Trump's new attorney general will fail to seek impartial justice, but the refusal to even feign regard for impartial justice is new.

The substance of Blanche's justification is also fatuous. Pledging to act independently of the White House doesn't mean acting in every instance in direct opposition to the president. That's absurd and it's not what independence requires. Nor could the president order the attorney general to "go after every violent criminal in this country," since more than 98% of violent crimes are state offenses, not federal ones, and in any case the combined forces of the state and federal governments don't have the resources to go after every violent criminal.

So much for deflection. The coffee-spitting moment came later, when Blanche was asked whether he would carry out an order that "crossed a legal or ethical line" and he proclaimed, "The president will never ask me to do something unethical or legal — or illegal. He never has. He never will."

Let's let the Freudian slip pass, but in fact the president had demanded that the Justice Department do something unethical that very week — namely, reconsider the decision to drop spurious vandalism charges against David Hearn. Jeanine Pirro's own motion to the court acknowledged that the original indictment was based upon false information provided by the Department of the Interior.

Nevertheless, Trump fumed that Pirro had "choked." This week, we learned that she was convening a special grand jury for some unknown purpose. If I were Hearn, I'd keep my lawyer close.

And that perversion of justice is only a ripple in the flood of plainly politicized acts and forbearances by this administration. This is a president who sent a DM to his attorney general demanding the prosecution of his political opponents. It's hard to think of how you could more comprehensively upend the idea of blind justice.

Trump's apologists do have a valid point when they note that the Manhattan district attorney's case against Trump in the Stormy Daniels case was also a form of lawfare. I said at the time that the case was flimsy and almost certainly would never have been brought if Trump were not the target. Trump's flagrant lawbreaking did present a quandary: How do you hold him responsible for his crimes without unintentionally validating the idea in the minds of his supporters that all justice is corruptly motivated?

There are no easy answers. Still, the Bragg prosecution was a local case, not the federal government seeking to punish a political foe. Ditto for the civil case Letitia James brought. At the federal level, Attorney General Merrick Garland was actually extremely reluctant to pursue federal charges against Trump despite the gravity of his conduct before and on January 6. It was only after Trump announced his reelection bid that Garland felt compelled to appoint a special prosecutor (precisely to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest).

Nor is it the case that President Joe Biden's administration used the Justice Department to settle political scores. To repeat, Garland was widely criticized for moving slowly against Trump's obvious lawbreaking in the Mar-a-Lago documents case as well as the January 6 insurrection. One can understand his hesitation.

One administration prosecuting another opens the possibility of a dangerous tit-for-tat, but whatever your view about the wisdom of going slow against Trump, it's preposterous to "whatabout" this. Under Garland's leadership, the department brought indictments against Rep. Henry Cuellar, Sen. Bob Menendez, Rep. T.J. Cox, Illinois Speaker Michael Madigan, Mayor Eric Adams (and we know how that turned out when Trump returned), Mayor Andrew Gillum, and Hunter Biden — all Democrats.

Trump's second-term Department of Justice, by contrast, has been a nonstop cavalcade of corruption, featuring blatantly political prosecutions, attempted prosecutions or investigations of Jerome Powell, Lisa Cook, Mark Kelly, Miles Taylor, Christopher Krebs, James Comey, "sandwich guy," Adam Schiff, Letitia James, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Alex Padilla, John Brennan, John Bolton, Sean Dunn, Ras Baraka, Jacob Frey, anti-ICE protesters in Minnesota including the widow of Renee Good, and many more.

Biden made poor decisions in pardoning his family at the end, but that was trivial compared with the mass pardons for the January 6 criminals, the pardons for cronies, donors, other corrupt public figures, the firings of any official who participated in the January 6 or Mar-a-Lago investigations, the kid-glove treatment for Ghislaine Maxwell, and of course, the putrid attempt to create a $1.7 billion slush fund for so-called victims of lawfare along with a get-out-of-jail-free card for Trump and his insatiable family regarding past tax evasion.

The aptly named Blanche (because he should, but doesn't, blush) was along for all of it. He personally visited Maxwell in prison and has yet to provide an explanation for that highly unusual visit, nor for her promotion to a more comfortable prison. He was at the Department of Justice as 3,400 lawyers resigned in protest rather than engage in the kinds of unethical and unprofessional conduct Pam Bondi and Blanche were demanding. He has defended with a straight face James Comey's indictment for threatening the president with an Instagram photo of seashells.

This ethical flexibility was enough to make even some Republican senators hesitate about confirming him. But in the end, all but Collins and Murkowski voted yes, presumably because they fear that if it's not Blanche it will be someone even worse. Thus does Trump extort his party — by threatening to get even dirtier.

But this tactic only succeeds because of learned helplessness by Republican office holders. In fact, when Trump gets pushback, he backs down. Ask Iran. Or consider the first utterly horrific attorney general candidate he proposed, Matt Gaetz. Enough Republicans balked that Trump withdrew his name. He didn't nominate someone even worse after that (admittedly a tall order). He went with Pam Bondi, a smidge less awful.

It seems the tactic of standing up to Trump is just crazy enough to work. But, no, the GOP has not learned that lesson. They've chosen spinelessness instead, and even after a decade of this, I still cannot understand why.

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


Which Dictator Does Trump Most Resemble? (Hint: He Was A Communist)

Which Dictator Does Trump Most Resemble? (Hint: He Was A Communist)

It was already one of the most clownish (if sinister) moments in the Trump administration — the Department of Justice actually brought criminal charges against former Olympic canoeist David Hearn for sabotaging the president's big, beautiful reflecting pool. It then dropped them for legal reasons that amounted to: "We screwed up."

But now we learn that Trump can't let it go. The Wall Street Journal reports that the White House is pressuring the DOJ to revisit the case. Wonder if Todd Blanche will "talk the president out of it." (Just kidding.)

This is Trump's America. Hearn was cycling around the D.C. monuments and stopped to examine the very-much-in-the-news green swamp. The next thing he knew, he was being charged with felony vandalism. Just pause there for a second. This is police-state stuff. Don't let the fact that it was a false accusation about a fake offense regarding a trivial matter distract you. On one level, it seems cartoonish, but Hearn and three others were charged with real crimes (three misdemeanors and one felony). They had to get lawyers. One lost his job after his arrest and was forced to move out of his home. All of this because the Dim Leader was embarrassed when his pet project went wrong.

Hearn reached his hand into the water, according to Trump's post, and transformed Trump's expensively renovated "American flag blue" pool into a green, slimy mess with pieces of lining floating to the surface. That's some hand. Or did he sneak in under cover of darkness with a huge knife and make a 300-yard gash on the bottom of the pool? Trump didn't say. He was in tantrum mode and remains there.

Vandals! They are making me look ridiculous. They must pay.

Every day that passes brings Trump closer to Captain Queeg of "The Caine Mutiny." Queeg ran over his own tow cable, had a nervous tick that involved ball bearings and was obsessed with his stash of strawberries, but he was at least able to command a ship, which is more than can be said of the president.

There are darker parallels, too. Failing leaders often seek scapegoats. Idi Amin blamed Asian immigrants for his nation's woes. The Ottomans blamed the Armenians for their poor showing in World War I. The focus on vandals, though, suggests no one more than Josef Stalin, who invented a whole category of crime, "wrecking," to deflect blame for his idiotic economic catastrophes. Trump is no Stalin — he's not as smart for one thing.

But he would surely have no moral qualms about Stalin if the old monster were around today. Trump would probably describe him as a "tough guy" who gets results. No trouble about trials, just execute suspected criminals. Trump has praised China and the Philippines for precisely this, and in the Caribbean is carrying out that vicious policy on suspected drug smugglers (or anyone in a boat). Trump would have admired Stalin's "strength."

Just as Trump's own incompetence caused the reflecting pool renovation to fail, Stalin's own policies — forced collectivization of agriculture, hyper-rapid industrialization and rigid five-year plans — caused whole industries and sectors to fail. Scapegoats were required. Thus began the "wrecking" trials. Were mines having explosions? Arrest the engineers! Were there high rates of industrial accidents? Arrest the "saboteurs"! It began in the Donbas region of what is now Ukraine, where Stalin's henchmen arrested 53 mine engineers and managers and charged them with conspiring with the exiled and expropriated former owners to wreck the Soviet economy.

Nikolai Krylenko, the prosecutor, accused them of "spoiling machinery, undermining the revolution's fuel supplies, inveigling the Soviet government into wasteful expenditures; preparations to destroy the coal industry as soon as war or intervention started." Seven got the death penalty. They were the first of hundreds of thousands (millions more would perish for other political crimes in the Gulag). Stalin used the trials to redirect public anger about hunger and shortages, but also to undermine and eventually eliminate his political rivals.

And while we're on the subject of Stalin, there's another aspect of late Trumpism that resembles the communist dystopia — the anti-science mania. Trump just issued an executive order on childhood vaccines that rivals Stalin's embrace of Lysenkoism. Trofim Lysenko was an agronomist who rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of his own theories — which happened to fit better into the Communist Party's concept of how the world works. He argued that acquired characteristics (like resistance to cold) could be inherited. If that were true, agricultural yields could be doubled or tripled or quadrupled in just a year or two. Lysenko framed his theories in communist jargon, denouncing Mendelian genetics as "bourgeois." American scientists who relied on fruit flies for research (due to their extremely short life spans) Lysenko denounced as "fly lovers and people haters."

Stalin, and later Mao, swallowed this lie whole and imposed it upon hundreds of millions of Russians and Chinese. Anyone can make a mistake, right? Except this politicization of science led to the worst famines in the 20th century, condemning tens of millions to slow starvation.

Trump's attacks on vaccines are very much in the same spirit, utterly divorced from reality and capable of causing great suffering (though not on the scale of Russian and Chinese famines).

We don't yet know how many more Americans will face the loss of their liberty due to the perversion of the Justice Department under Todd Blanche. We do not know how many children will die of completely avoidable diseases due to the state-imposed quackery of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Trump. But we do know that as Trump prepares to denounce the Democrats as communists in the lead-up to November, few resemble them as much as he.

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

Trump Makes People Laugh, But Not Because He's Witty (Or Even Funny)

Trump Makes People Laugh, But Not Because He's Witty (Or Even Funny)

In a display of Stockholm Syndrome, the White House Correspondents' Association invited Donald Trump to be the keynote speaker at their annual festival of self-appreciation. Because he is who he is, he did not take the opportunity to do the kind of gentle press ribbing that past presidents have engaged in, and he certainly declined to engage in the self-deprecating humor that charmed audiences in the old days. Instead, he delivered a string of puerile insults that would be beneath a fifth grader.

The tuxedo and ball gown-clad lads and ladies were forced to sit through meandering gibberish about the White House UFC fight, the weather forecast, the White House ballroom, why he hadn't attended the Correspondents' Association dinner in the past, and how "hot" America is now. Then he let loose with a string of gross insults:

"But I can exclusively reveal to you this evening that for the heaviest of the heavyweights, we will have Sloppy Chris Christie, one of the sloppiest human beings you'll ever meet. Fighting, I would say, I could mention the governor of Chicago (sic), but I'm going to mention instead Jerry Nadler. And they're fighting for a big piece of cheesecake, big fat piece of cheesecake."

But we had a contest for who had the lowest ratings and the lowest IQ on television. And that was actually Don Lemon, I think. When I said that he's the dumbest man on television, I said, 'When you say some things, you never make a comeback.'

"But this year, the association decided not to have a comedian. So they considered using Jimmy Kimmel. Jimmy Fallon. These guys, they're terrible. They're terrible. Stephen Colbert, these are people without talent. They get a lot. They have talent. You know who has talent? Their agent getting them the money they get. They have no talent. But they are not comedians. They're not funny people. They're angry people. They're sick people."

The president also noted that he "hated ... Adam 'Shifty' Schiff," calling him "a terrible person. He's a liar. And I called him Watermelon Head because he is the largest head I've ever seen with the smallest neck, pencil neck. How does that big, fat, ugly head stand on a little pencil neck?"

Why dwell on this? Because many people, even those who abhor Trump, say he's funny.

I confess I've never seen the evidence. People often laugh at transgression. It's not that they find it funny (though some may) but that laughter is often a reaction to surprise. I've noticed in meetings that when people use the f-bomb, others tend to smile, not because it's funny but because it's surprising in the circumstances (or at least it used to be before the f-word became the all-purpose placeholder in modern speech).So perhaps Trump's gross insults and vile jibes evoke a certain shock and therefore laughter? I don't know. Certainly, some of his fans enjoy the grossness and cruelty, but that ain't wit.

We have seen wit in politicians in the past, and one must wonder whether our age would even recognize the real thing.

Sen. Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who was crippled fighting in Italy during World War II, had a deadpan delivery. After he received just 607 votes in the 1980 New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, he said, "The day after New Hampshire, I went home and slept like a baby. Every two hours I woke up and cried." He coined the much-repeated line "The most dangerous place to be in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera."Others did self-deprecating humor with grace. George W. Bush performed an 11-minute routine alongside Steve Bridges, a hilarious Bush impersonator. Both poked fun at the president's malapropisms and poor pronunciation.

Several years later, Obama invited Keegan-Michael Key to be his "anger translator." While not quite as self-effacing as Bush's skit, it did poke fun at Obama's cerebral, detached, sometimes even robotic delivery.

Running against World War II hero Dwight Eisenhower cannot have been easy. But Democrat Adlai Stevenson brought a certain elan to the task. In a 1952 Fresno speech, he said, "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends ... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." On another occasion, when a supporter approached him and declared, "You are every thinking man's candidate," he replied, "Thank you madam, but I require a majority."

When Dick Tuck lost a California state senate primary, he called a press conference and deadpanned, "The people have spoken — the bastards." Rep. Mo Udall later borrowed that line and also quipped that "the only cure for presidential fever is embalming fluid."

New York Mayor Ed Koch offered a variation on Tuck's theme when he lost reelection in 1989: "The people have spoken ... and they must be punished."

GOP Sen. Alan Simpson, Wyoming's unfailing wag, once described the political parties this way: "We have two political parties in this country, the Stupid Party and the Evil Party. I belong to the Stupid Party." He also said, "Those who travel the high road of humility are not troubled by heavy traffic."

And the frequently droll Sen. John McCain, responding to a young man who asked whether he wasn't too old to run for president (the Arizona Republican was 63), quipped, "Thanks for the question you little jerk." That was tart but not cruel, because the point was that the question had hit a nerve.

I don't know about you, but I would give a lot for a politician of genuine wit right now.

Trump said the White House Correspondents' Association didn't hire a comedian this year. True, but they did invite a clown.

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

Is The DSA Actually Democratic? Or Are Its Candidates An Extremist Gift To MAGA?

Is The DSA Actually Democratic? Or Are Its Candidates An Extremist Gift To MAGA?

Should those of us who want to defeat the proto-fascists in charge of the Republican Party be worried about a few blue districts that have recently indulged their ids and voted for members of the Democratic Socialists of America? Yes. If their victories become a trend, it could sabotage the Democratic Party.

In a way, Democrats should be grateful to Trump. In the past 18 months, he has done all he can to alienate the swing voters who boosted him to victory in 2024. Young voters, black men and Hispanics are particularly disappointed. This is, or should be, a rare moment of hope for the opposition.

Yet it's almost as if a subset of Democratic primary voters rubbed their hands together and asked: "What can we do to improve the GOP's prospects? Let's vote for Democratic Socialist candidates like Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila Chevalier, Melat Kiros, and Janeese Lewis George!" The primary voters who chose those candidates have done Republicans a huge favor. Six months ago, Republicans had almost nothing to run on. Now, instead of attempting to explain high prices, a terrible war, an immigration crackdown that has shocked the conscience, and corruption beyond anything in American history, Republican candidates can and will put these DSA candidates in the front window as emblematic of the "communist" turn the Democrats are taking.

When one party has gone mad, it's understandable that some in the other party feel radicalized, too. But that's a trap. In the first place, the GOP's idiocy opens an opportunity to win back some of the moderates Democrats have recently lost. But by embracing ideas that are on the fringes of American public opinion, Democrats risk further alienating swing voters.

Democrats don't have the same luxury as Republicans to indulge extreme ideas because the baseline political environment is moderately conservative. Gallup found in January that 35 percent of Americans call themselves conservative, 33 percent moderate and 28 percent liberal. Most Democrats recognize this balance. A May New York Times/Siena poll found that 52 percent of Democrats and those who lean toward the Democrats believe the party should move to the center to win the next presidential election.

Finally, in addition to the ideological makeup of the electorate, the Electoral College gives a structural advantage to small states that tends to help the GOP. As a result, Democrats need to win 60 percent of moderates in order to win presidential elections.

That's the pragmatic case. The substantive argument could fill volumes, but let's address a few issues.

Responding to the flurry of victories by DSA candidates, some complacent souls ask, "What's so bad about socialism? It's working well in Sweden."

That's a common misconception. Sweden implemented semi-socialist policies in the 1960s featuring extremely high taxes, government ownership of key industries, extensive regulation of the economy, and generous welfare benefits. But growth slowed, wages stagnated, debt accumulated, and in the early 1990s, the country experienced a terrible financial crash. In the short term, it spent as much as four percent of GDP and even nationalized two banks to prevent a financial collapse and save its banking sector — but the long-term reforms that followed focused more on fiscal discipline.

Johan Norberg has written convincingly of Sweden's post-crisis turn away from government control of markets:

"Public spending was reduced, and fiscal rules that lowered debt were introduced. Taxes were cut and abolished entirely on wealth, gifts, and inheritances. Business sectors were deregulated, government-owned enterprises privatized, and social security reformed.

"Sweden also became a pioneer in privatizing welfare services, giving citizens the freedom to choose private providers, including for-profit businesses, of elder care, health care, preschool, and education. Most notably, Sweden introduced a national school voucher system. The private sector now provides around a fifth of all tax-funded welfare services."

While Sweden has a high tax-to-GDP ratio and a very high top individual tax rate, it has a very low corporate tax rate and an average individual tax burden below the mean for OECD countries.

The stories of the other Nordic countries are similar — with the exception of Norway, which is both more capitalistic than its American reputation would suggest and a petrostate. In general, the highly egalitarian countries of Northern Europe are not socialist, but free-market, capitalist countries with large safety nets underwritten by high taxes on the middle class. Like the United States, they tax income, but they also levy high value-added taxes on consumption, which hit the middle class harder than American sales taxes do.

If it were possible to fund a generous welfare state by taxing only the rich, someone would have figured out how to do so. But France tried a millionaires tax and soon repealed it, as did Austria and Denmark with similar measures. Sure, we could raise taxes on the rich, but it's simply wrong to imagine, as Bernie Sanders tirelessly insists, they have enough to carry the load themselves. Even confiscating all the wealth of America's 800 or so billionaires wouldn't be enough to fund a more generous safety net for more than a year or so.

Some naive souls say: "We have nothing to fear from Democratic Socialists of America. After all, the word 'democratic' is in their name." A word about names. There is a spectrum of left-wing parties and ideologies. There are socialists who believe in and abide by democratic norms. They sit in parliaments throughout the world. But those who didn't live through the Cold War may not be aware that communist countries had a habit of calling themselves democratic and socialist.

It was the unfree East Germany whose official name was the German Democratic Republic. West Germany, which was actually democratic, was the Federal Republic of Germany. The USSR, the ur-communist nation, was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. North Korea is formally the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Yugoslavia was the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and so on. The joke went around in those days that the easiest way to tell if a country was undemocratic was whether it had "democratic" in its name. Names can be deceiving.

The Democratic Socialists of America are not the Stasi or Juche zealots, but neither are they benign Nordic redistributionists. The DSA platform calls for abolishing the police and prison system; defunding the U.S. military entirely and closing all international military bases; ending sanctions on Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and other nations that have merely "acted independently of the United States"; replacing the presidency and Supreme Court with bodies chosen by Congress; instituting a 32-hour work week; canceling all student debt; and basically free everything: housing, healthcare, retirement and schooling. The DSA holds the United States and NATO responsible for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Israel responsible for October 7, and capitalism responsible for every sparrow that falls anywhere in the world.

The DSA's political leadership is divided between a menshevik faction that supports something that could be fairly described as democratic socialism, and a bolshevik faction that is avowedly communist — though itself split among Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists, and various other flavors. The structure of the DSA is as convoluted as any communist party's, but in toto, the communists seem to be dominating. And while their economic views are mockable, the implications of communist sympathies are dead serious.

Unlike socialists, communists do not believe in democracy. There has never been a communist country that delivered prosperity or freedom to its people. On the contrary, communism is an assault on human rights and human dignity. Communist regimes claim to take power from oligarchs or royalists or capital, but in fact they always and without exception take power from the people. They abolish not just free exchange of goods and services but free expression, religious observance, artistic freedom, the right to vote, the right to travel — and, by the way, the right of workers to organize. Past proletarian paradises had to erect walls and shoot people to keep them inside. In the words of George Orwell, "A boot stamping on a human face — forever."

The Democratic Party has a long history of misinterpreting or being blind to the abuses of communism. But from the founding of Americans for Democratic Action in 1947 by Eleanor Roosevelt, Reinhold Niebuhr, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and others, to the exclusion of communist-dominated unions from the CIO, to the marginalization of Henry Wallace, Democrats took decisive steps to keep the far left at bay. And while some Democrats in the post-Vietnam era took a "no enemies to the left" approach to foreign policy, they got over it when the Berlin Wall fell and the reality of the communist oppression became indisputable.

Today, only six percent of Democrats label themselves as socialists. Rachel Janfaza, who studies Generation Z and has interviewed hundreds of young voters, has yet to find a single one who identifies as a Democratic Socialist.

The vibes may be exciting, especially because New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani's smiling face disguises the authoritarianism of the movement that nurtured him, but if Democrats are going to win this year and in 2028, they must reject the DSA. If you're tempted by a Democratic Socialist this year, think of what use Republicans will make of these victories, and ask yourself whether you want to do favors for fascists.

If Trump's 'Triumphal Arch' Goes Up, The Wrecking Cranes Will Be Ready

If Trump's 'Triumphal Arch' Goes Up, The Wrecking Cranes Will Be Ready

If completed as planned, Donald Trump's triumphal arch outside Arlington National Cemetery will tower over the graceful Memorial Bridge, obstruct the view of the Lincoln Memorial from the cemetery (and vice versa) and offend anyone whose taste is north of Liberace.

But there's another aspect of this grotesquery that deserves some attention: Namely, what is the triumph Trump is celebrating?

The Arch of Titus in Rome celebrates the Roman victory over the Jews and the sacking of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Arch of Constantine honors Emperor Constantine's A.D. 315 victory in the Battle at the Milvian Bridge (before which Constantine supposedly saw a cross in the sky and therefore converted to Christianity). The Arc de Triomphe in Paris was commissioned by Napoleon to commemorate his victory over the combined armies of Austria and Russia at Austerlitz in 1805. Whatever your view of imperial campaigns, military historians regard Napoleon's victory there as one of history's greatest. Nelson's Column in London honors Horatio Nelson's defeat of the French and Spanish fleets at the Battle of Trafalgar. Nelson was mortally wounded, but his statue towers above the city he saved.

The United States has not traditionally gone in for victory monuments. We have a Washington Monument, but that's for the whole man, not the military victory. Same with the Lincoln Memorial, which stresses the terrible sacrifices the Civil War demanded. There is a moving memorial at Pearl Harbor that remembers our dead and tells the story of our recovery. The tone is solemn. You can find a World War II memorial in Washington, but it's a tribute to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and others who fought the war, not a gloating expression of chauvinism.

The Dewey Monument in San Francisco honors the commodore who defeated the Spanish in Manila Bay, but it's the exception that proves the rule. There is no victory arch for the Mexican-American War — though it was a crushing victory that doubled our territory. Americans felt queasy about celebrating it even in the 19th century. Ulysses Grant, who served in that war, recalled in his memoir: "I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico. I thought so at the time, when I was a youngster, only I had not moral courage enough to resign."

And the Vietnam Memorial is a mournful thing. A black granite trove of carved names, it memorializes the thousands of 15- to 62-year-olds who gave the last full measure of devotion to a nation that should never have gotten involved in that war with ground troops.

What victory is Trump memorializing? The great battle of Caracas that extracted a single man from his palace and left a repressive regime in place? Or is it the Iran War, clocking in at $132 billion so far, draining our munitions (that could have helped Ukraine) and leaving the regime in the hands of even more radical forces than before, a regime that now knows it has little to fear from the United States and has a powerful weapon in the Strait of Hormuz? A regime before which the Trump administration is dangling $300 billion of carrots for peace? When one side is offering reparations, who won?

The proposed Arc de Trump would dwarf the Arc de Triomphe in scale and destroy the geometry of the capital. The Memorial Bridge connects Arlington Cemetery and Robert E. Lee's former homestead to the Lincoln Memorial. It knits the former enemies back into one nation, but emphasizes that this is Lincoln's country now. His temple catches the sunlight.

After World War I, New York constructed a temporary Victory Arch of wood and plaster to welcome home the troops. There were plans to finish it in stone, but the funds never materialized and it was allowed to crumble. That would be a just fate for Trump's monstrosity — but then again, wrecking cranes would be more efficient.

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

Why Birthright Citizenship Is Central To American Democracy -- And Our Future

Why Birthright Citizenship Is Central To American Democracy -- And Our Future

Now that we've completed our celebration of America's 250th birthday, it's time to prepare for the 300th — the tricentennial. I will not live to see it, but I hope the nation will.

At least, I hope a certain kind of America will celebrate its 300th year — one that has regained its moral equilibrium and turned its back resoundingly on illiberalism in all its ugly forms. If the United States does not reverse its current retreat from the principles and traditions that ennobled it, if it becomes the kind of predatory, grubby and aggressive nation that Donald Trump champions, or if it becomes the socialist shambles that a growing number on the left envision, then it will not deserve to celebrate a tricentennial.

How do we find our footing in the face of these challenges to liberalism? Well, the Supreme Court just helped us. Though the court has done its share to deform our constitutional structure recently, it also gave us a gift for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration. That gift was the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara.

Yes, it would have been more bracing if the court's decision had been 9-0. But on the key concepts, the majority affirmed a principle that is foundational to our republic: equality. And by affirming that citizenship belongs to (nearly) every child born on American soil, the court also tipped the scales on another argument currently roiling our republic, namely whether we are a creedal nation or one of blood and soil.

That's not how this works. Once the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a matter, that's the final word. It takes it out of the hands of the elected legislatures. Remember all the hullabaloo about Roe v. Wade? You can look it up. The court could change its mind in future years (as it did in the Dobbs decision), or Congress and the states could amend the Constitution. But ordinary legislation? No.

By reaffirming birthright citizenship, the court upheld a pillar of equality in America. We are not guaranteed equality of outcomes, but we are all equal citizens. That is part of what the Revolutionary War achieved. It overturned centuries of deference, subordination and caste to create a new republic based on equality. While it's true that only land-owning white males were initially counted for voting, the ideas the revolution spawned made the extension of rights almost inevitable.

As the late historian Gordon Wood put it, "Equality was in fact the most radical and most powerful ideological force let loose in the Revolution. ... Once invoked, the idea of equality could not be stopped, and it tore through American society and culture with awesome power. It became what Herman Melville called 'the great God absolute! The centre and circumference of all democracy!'"

Before the revolution, students were instructed in how to bow to upperclassmen and professors, church pews were assigned "on the basis of family heads' age and social position," and land was inherited by primogeniture. Post-revolution, all of that changed. Handshaking, between men on equal footing, replaced bowing. Cap-doffing went out of fashion, and many other signifiers of rank and position were eliminated. The Constitution decreed that, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States," nor by any state.

Birthright citizenship is a constitutive part of this democratic philosophy.

Think about what the United States without birthright citizenship would look like. What is the bedrock upon which our citizenship would rest? Would it be race, religion, ethnic background, family history, wealth or some other criterion? JD Vance is already flirting with hierarchies of Americanness. He has referred often to the seven generations of his ancestors who are buried in Kentucky. "Now that's not just an idea, my friends," he insists, "that is a homeland."

Vance adds that he looks forward to resting there himself when his time comes, as will his children. But his children are the product of a marriage between himself and the daughter of recent immigrants. Her ancestors are buried in India. Is that their "homeland"? Are his children less American than he?

Abraham Lincoln would like a word. In a July 10, 1858 speech, he said:

"We have besides these men — descended by blood from our ancestors — among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe — German, Irish, French and Scandinavian — men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,' and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are (my emphasis). That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world."

The Stephen Millers and Tucker Carlsons of the world are not Lincolnites. They emphatically endorse exclusive citizenship. Last year, Carlson hosted a Blaze Media figure who touted the superiority of "Heritage Americans," i.e., those who can trace their ancestry back to the Civil War. America, the guest claimed, is not "a collection of abstract things agreed to in some social contract" but a particular ethnocultural group that possesses the "Anglo-Protestant spirit" and "a tie to history and to the land. If you change the people, you change the culture." Carlson agreed.

If we were to confine citizenship to those who can trace their ancestry back to the Civil War, we would disenfranchise tens of millions, including the families of Antonin Scalia, Frank Sinatra, Jonas Salk, Barack Obama and, yes, Donald Trump, not to mention Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Steve Jobs, Andrew Grove and so many others.

As Justice Horace Gray put it in the majority decision in Wong Kim Ark: "To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."

Does this spirit require that we open our borders to all comers? Obviously not. Does it mean we must tolerate "birth tourism"? That point — raised in oral argument by the government's lawyer, D. John Sauer — is less than compelling. Sauer claimed that birthright citizenship "has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States." But when pressed by Roberts about how big a problem this is, Sauer admitted that "no one knows for sure." OK, then.

Do immigrants know that once they have a child in the United States, that child is a U.S. citizen? Of course. But has this given rise to a flood of pregnant women at ports of entry? No. The Niskanen Institute examined the Center for Immigration Studies' widely cited estimate of 33,000 births to tourists per year and found it completely wrong. The CIS, to its credit, issued a retraction. Niskanen estimates that the true number may be closer to zero. But even the inflated CIS estimates would yield less than 1% of births, and there are border controls and other methods short of changing the Constitution (or other proposals peddled by MAGA influencers) that can reduce that number.

There is nothing novel about xenophobia in America, but it has always been outweighed by our dedication to the idea of America as a "shining city on a hill." That gets expressed in both our openness to immigrants and our unstinting grant of citizenship to those born here. The xenophobes object that birthright citizenship is rare in the world, which is true, though it's not true that we are alone in this policy. Several Latin American countries also grant birthright citizenship.

But that rare openness to newcomers is one reason why America has been so much more successful in assimilating immigrants than other nations. As Ronald Reagan said in 1989: "We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our ... strength from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation."

From the very beginning, we were a multiethnic, multireligious society, bound by place, yes, but much more by commitment to liberty and democracy — to the words and ideals spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution. Even in the earliest days of the republic, America was composed of the descendants of English, French, German, Scandinavian, African, Dutch, Scottish, Irish, Swedish, Finnish, Jewish, Swiss and Native Americans. At the time of the revolution, there were whole swaths of Pennsylvania in which only German was spoken. (Frankly, Benjamin Franklin was quite ungracious about it, though he later softened.)

Uniting disparate people into a cohesive whole is not natural. Look around the globe. Ethnic, racial and religious conflict is the way of the world. Our ability to transcend those differences is one of the triumphs of our republic. As we look ahead to that celebration 50 years from now, let us hope that Trump v. Barbara restores essential ballast to the hull of our storm-tossed ship of state.

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



Despite the claims of anti-immigrant fanatics, the legal basis of birthright citizenship has hardly been contested in American history. As Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion noted, the practice was embedded in common law and then codified in the 14th Amendment. Neither politicians nor legal scholars thought the amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was ambiguous. It excluded only the children of diplomats, children born to invading soldiers (thankfully not a big problem), and certain native tribes. The court affirmed that interpretation in its 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision.

Five of the six justices who voted to strike down Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship last week did so on constitutional grounds. Yet we live in an age of optional realities, so the president, perhaps not understanding how the Constitution works, posted that Republicans could "easily" reverse the Supreme Court's decision "through Legislation. ... No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!" Speaker Mike Johnson, who may understand how the Constitution works but is required by his Trump servitude to pretend otherwise, said that he was very disappointed in the ruling and that "we'll have to deal with it as Congress."

Rejecting MAGA's 'Patriotism Of Fools' -- And Loving America Despite Trump

Rejecting MAGA's 'Patriotism Of Fools' -- And Loving America Despite Trump

The approach of July 4 is making my heart hurt. Love of this country is deep-dyed in my soul, but pondering how or even whether to celebrate the semiquincentennial provokes a riot of mixed feelings.

The right — and not just the MAGA right — responds to any queasiness about this particular anniversary with knee-jerk vituperation. Matthew Hennessey, writing in the Wall Street Journal, offered a typical example of this Pavlovian response this week when he accused Robert De Niro of "hating America." What had the actor done to deserve this verdict? Well, he attempted to provide "counter-programming" to what Hennessey described as the "star-spangled UFC spectacle" on the White House lawn.

So, if De Niro and others found the transformation of the stately White House into a Vegas gladiatorial contest demeaning to our country, they are failing a test. I guess if you "star spangle" something, no matter how vulgar, and people fail to celebrate it, then they hate America? That is the Trumpian way. He routinely accuses his critics, judges who rule against him and even members of the Supreme Court of hating or attempting to destroy America. It's the patriotism of fools — slap Trump's face on whatever you want and label anyone who objects an America hater.

De Niro explained why love of country is sticking in some of our throats right now, and Hennessey quoted a couple passages that clearly triggered him:

"Because our country isn't so lovable right now. I hate to say it, but loving our country is starting to sound like an abused spouse saying they love their abuser. I can't love a country that starts stupid and inhumane wars, killing thousands of innocents and indirectly causing the deaths and suffering of millions more. I can't love a country that takes health care away from millions of people and uses that money to enrich their pals in the Trump-Epstein class. I can't love a country that sends out masked militias to shoot citizens in the streets, torture our neighbors and separate families."

He continued:

"I can't love a country that's led by a racist, misogynist, xenophobic tyrant. And let me just say it: I can't love a country that's led by Donald Trump and his sycophant Congress. For most of my life of course I did love my country. The United States of America welcomed my immigrant ancestors. It gave me, my family and my fellow citizens such rich opportunities and extraordinary freedoms. I want to love my country again. I want my country back."

I have no idea where De Niro stands on many political issues. I may disagree with him on some policy matters. But his despair about the current iteration of America resonates with me and with millions of other Americans. For Hennessey to decry De Niro's protest while implicitly celebrating the degrading spectacle the president put on for his birthday on the White House lawn is upside down. It is our very reverence for the country that makes us recoil from the tawdry circus Trump hosted.

I'll see De Niro's plaint and raise him. It's difficult to love America when we reelected a man who threatens our neighbors, fawns over dictators, attempts to overturn an election, terrorizes and tortures immigrants, trashes the Constitution, says the greatest threat to our country is the "enemy within," enjoys the murder of critics like Rob Reiner, pillages the treasury to enrich himself and his family, sics prosecutors on his critics while pardoning his allies, attempts to use government power to co-opt or silence the press, defunds lifesaving foreign aid while offering asylum only to white South Africans, commits multiple murders in the Caribbean, cannot complete an English sentence, and starts wars he cannot finish because he's a vainglorious idiot too enraptured by his own myths to take advice.

It is painful to look at our flag with mixed feelings, but how can we not when the MAGA crowd has so conspicuously appropriated it as their symbol? Ironic, isn't it, that the very people who used poles with American flags attached as spears against policemen at the Capitol on January 6 have the gall to drape themselves in it today? But they have, and we all know it. Displaying the flag now almost seems to require an explanation. Maybe a flag is needed underneath saying, "Pro-America, anti-MAGA." I loved the idea I heard recently for a T-shirt featuring the face of Pope Leo. The tagline would be "American. We Don't All Suck."

Here's where I depart from De Niro, though. We may despise what the Republican Party has done to America in the past decade and even mourn for what's been lost, but we can still love the country. It's like a dysfunctional relative. You may hate what they do, but you still love them and you'll never stop trying to help.

Even in the midst of this debacle, there remains much to love about America. Its gift to the world of the ideas in the Declaration of Independence is first on the ledger. Its physical beauty goes without saying. Consider also that right now, roughly 62% of American adults disapprove of Trump. Sixty-two percent of 270 million American adults is more than 167 million people — a population big enough that, if it were its own country, it would be the ninth biggest in the world. Fifty-nine percent of American adults believe he is a "potentially dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy." That's reality sinking in.

Despite the backsliding, we remain the nation with the greatest scope for free expression in the world. No other country protects free speech, religious freedom or free association as vigorously as the United States. That is under threat, but we are seeing that people now know it. A majority in a recent Public Religion Research Institute survey agreed with the statement, "Today we are in real danger of losing important democratic rights and freedoms we have had in this country." Whether they will act on that fear remains to be seen.

We remain one of the most charitable nations on Earth (Indonesia is No. 1, in case you were wondering).

Despite what the Trump administration has done, Americans overwhelmingly welcome and accept people of all backgrounds as full and equal citizens — and not because "elites" forced this upon us. We continue to prefer pluralism to sectarianism. A recent survey by the PRRI found that 77% of Americans want this to be a nation made up of people from all over the globe, while a mere 20% long for a nation (that never was) made up of only those of Western European origin. We don't want religious homogeneity, either; 64% prefer that America be a nation of people belonging to a variety of religious faiths, while only 34% want a nation primarily of Christians.

Our federal system serves as a bulwark against centralized power, and, very critically in our time, makes it difficult to steal elections. Besides, as the world's oldest continually functioning democracy, elections are deeply baked into our DNA. It's worth remembering what happened to Viktor Orban. When the people can vote — even if their leader has attempted to thwart democracy in hundreds of ways — the people still rule.

America has demonstrated a capacity for self-correction in the past. Suffrage was gradually expanded from white property owners to all white men and then to black men and finally women. Slavery was obliterated by the Civil War. The greed and peculation of the Gilded Age gave way to the progressive era. McCarthy's reckless bullying was rebuked by Congress. Nixon's crimes were followed by government reforms.

It's possible that we have crested as a nation and are now in permanent decline. As Shakespeare said, "There is a tide in the affairs of men/ Which, taken at the flood/ leads on to fortune/ Omitted, all the voyage of their life/ Is bound in shallows and in miseries."

Perhaps we're past it. But when you consider our strengths and our virtues, giving up on loving this country and working to steer it toward a better future would be a tragic dereliction.

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

Perps, Not Victims: The Big Lie At The Heart Of Trump's Slush Fund

Perps, Not Victims: The Big Lie At The Heart Of Trump's Slush Fund

The Orwellian 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' Trump has created — the legal equivalent of twirling the combination lock on Fort Knox and driving off with gold bars — purports to be righting a wrong. The bogus (and badly written) "settlement agreement," which is laughable as there was no true lawsuit, claims to be compensating those who were victims of the "sustained use of the levers of government power by Democrat elected officials." It goes on like that, accusing Democrats of "lawfare" and "weaponization."

Even more than usual with Trump, this foul fund represents a total inversion of reality. It's as if he's trying to create a handy shorthand for projection. Trump, after more than a year of subjecting his critics and opponents to wrongful prosecution, firing and other harassment, now insists that he and his allies have been the victims of lawfare and weaponization. It's upside down.

When asked whether convicted rioters from January 6 should be eligible for taxpayer dollars, Trump responded with his familiar drivel about how "horribly they've been treated," about how their lives had been destroyed, about their legal bills, and closed with, "And they were right!"

No, they were fed a damnable lie and acted upon it. Millions of other Americans were credulous enough to believe the lie, too, but they didn't fly to D.C. to erect gallows and hunt for Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence. That required a certain criminal disposition. Dozens of the insurrectionists had prior records of criminal violence, and scores have been rearrested since receiving Trump's January 2025 pardon. One "patriot," Andrew Paul Johnson, was arrested in October 2025 for sexually abusing two children (one was 11). Confident in the character of the president for whom he climbed through a broken window on Jan. 6, Johnson somehow came to believe he was owed $10 million as part of his pardon, and used that anticipated windfall to try to buy the silence of one of his victims.

In no way were the January 6 rioters victims of "lawfare" or politicized prosecution. They assaulted Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan Police officers, causing five deaths and at least 150 injuries, including concussions, traumatic brain injuries, cracked ribs, heart attacks, spinal damage, loss of an eye, stab wounds, taser burns, and other severe trauma.

For Trump, it wasn't enough that even the most violent received unconditional pardons. No, now he proposes to enrich them with taxpayer funds. Those deserving of punishment get rewarded. The victimizer becomes the victim. The criminal becomes the patriot.

Letitia James, New York's attorney general, was indicted on mortgage fraud charges just a couple weeks after Trump publicly called for her to be charged with something. (She had successfully sued him for civil fraud.) It should go without saying that presidents are never supposed to demand that individuals be charged with crimes, far less those against whom the president has a personal vendetta.

Needless to say, the evidence was extremely thin, but neither a judge nor jury got the opportunity to rule on that. After U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert apparently signaled that he wouldn't pervert justice by bringing the politically motivated sure loser of a case, Trump replaced him with the inexperienced, hapless Lindsey Halligan — but did so illegally. Case dismissed. Undaunted, the Justice Department then attempted two more times to bring charges against James but was thwarted by grand juries who refused to indict.

Halligan, during her illegal tenure as a federal prosecutor, also indicted former FBI Director James Comey on the dubious charge of lying to Congress. When that case too was thrown out due to Halligan's illegitimate appointment, the Justice Department returned to the well and indicted him for threatening the life of the president — by posting a photo of seashells. If eye-rolling were a crime, every judge in America would be guilty.

Jerome Powell, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, was subjected to a criminal investigation due to ... cost overruns during a building renovation. Any high schooler could tell you that the true reason for the investigation — and the accompanying stress, expense and distraction — was Powell's refusal to set interest rates to serve Trump's short-term political agenda. (See also Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who was fired when her agency reported accurate jobs numbers that displeased the president.)

Speaking of the Federal Reserve, let's not forget that Trump attempted to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook, again on charges of mortgage fraud (the projection is almost too obvious to point out — almost). She fought back, and her case is before the Supreme Court. A decision is expected by June.

Sometimes the lawfare goes the other way. Trump directed that all charges be dropped against former New York Mayor Eric Adams, though the prosecution had him dead to rights. One of the top prosecutors in the case resigned, alleging a direct quid pro quo between the decision to drop charges and Adams' newfound willingness to use city resources to support Trump's political agenda.

Trump has also used the withdrawal of security clearances as a form of weaponization of government. Leading law firms need those clearances to represent clients, as do any number of former government officials. Among those who were targeted: the firms of Covington and Burling, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Wilmer Hale. Among the individuals whose credentials were pulled were Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Mark Milley, James Clapper, and Sam Vinograd, among many others.

Trump has attempted to use the Federal Communications Commission to silence critics. It's Weaponization 101. When Jimmy Kimmel made a tasteless joke about Charlie Kirk's death, the FCC strong-armed ABC into firing him. Only a public backlash persuaded Disney (ABC's owner) to reverse course.

Kimmel came out fine, arguably stronger, from that brush with authoritarian government. Larry Bushart had a much tougher time. A 61-year-old former Tennessee law enforcement officer, Bushart posted a couple of Kirk-related items to social media, including reposting a quote from Trump after a school shooting, "We have to get over this." Bushart was arrested and held in jail for 37 days. Dozens of people were fired and several were prosecuted for saying the wrong things in the wake of Kirk's murder. The perpetrators of this lawfare were not Trump officials, but they were MAGA-adjacent and egged on by Vice President JD Vance.

The list of Trump critics or adversaries who've been investigated, indicted or fired in the past 18 months is staggering.

Who can forget "sandwich guy," who was charged with a felony for tossing a Subway sandwich at a National Guard member? Or the FBI officers fired for having participated in the search of Mar-a-Lago and other Trump cases? Or the widow of Renee Good, who was investigated after Good was shot and killed by ICE? Or Cassidy Hutchinson, the star witness in Trump's second impeachment, under investigation as of April 2026 by the Justice Department's Civil Rights division? There are hundreds more.

That is what lawfare and weaponization look like. Trump's fund is not just blazingly corrupt and unjust, it is also a massive exercise in gaslighting. Trump and his followers are not victims, they are perpetrators.

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

How Crooked Is Trump? His Grifting And Corruption Are Growing Every Day

How Crooked Is Trump? His Grifting And Corruption Are Growing Every Day

This is the Trump era, which means if you blink, you will miss another shattering example of unabashed corruption. I don't usually write about the same topic twice in a row, but the latest revelations of Trump's wanton, shameless profiteering from the White House cannot go unremarked. The term "drain the swamp" will go down in history as a bitter irony. The latest outrage against the public — and since I started typing this sentence, there have surely been more — concerns Trump's stock trades.

When I was being considered for a job in the Reagan White House, I had to reveal every cent I had ever earned from any job or investment (which was simple since I had no money), and everyone else who worked for the administration had to do the same. It was a pain, but I was happy to do it, knowing that I would be serving in an honest government.

High-ranking officials like cabinet secretaries with substantial portfolios put their assets in blind trusts during their public service. Blind, meaning the principal had no control. And though the ethics rules do not apply to the president, past presidents put their funds (with the exception of U.S. treasuries and mutual funds) into blind trusts anyway for appearances' sake.

The reason is obvious, but since this is a time of foggy ethics, let's spell it out: Government officials are in a position to steer policy and award government contracts in ways that benefit or harm private interests. By requiring blind trusts, we minimize the chance that a decision-maker is swayed by the opportunity for private gain. (Though opportunities to affect outcomes by individual members of Congress are more limited, Congress needs to reform its own practices on this score.)

Trump, naturally, defied this ethical norm outright. This week, we learned from NOTUS that he went on a share-buying spree in the first months of this year, purchasing stock in companies that were about to get lucrative contracts. On January 6, Trump purchased between $500,000 and $1,000,000 (financial disclosure forms require a range, not exact figures) in Nvidia stock. A week later, the Commerce Department announced permission for Nvidia to sell chips to China. He also purchased stock in AMD, another AI chip maker, right before they too were granted the right to sell in China.

Also in January, Trump purchased between $65,000 and $150,000 in shares of Palantir, days before that company secured a billion-dollar contract to provide services to the Department of Homeland Security. Trump bought shares in Axon, a taser manufacturing firm. Coincidentally, Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced a plan to spend $200 million over five years on new tasers.

A White House spokesman helpfully explained that "President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public ... President Trump's assets are in a trust managed by his children. There are no conflicts of interest." That is the definition of a conflict of interest. What do they take us for?

Remember the special forces guy who was caught betting on Polymarket before Nicolas Maduro's capture? This dishonest master sergeant participated in the operation and apparently used his inside knowledge to bet $30,000 on the timing of Maduro's fall, netting more than $400,000 because, lucky guess, he was right.

There were other suspicious bets placed on Polymarket just before major developments in the Iran war. Almost inexplicably well-timed bets were placed just before Israel's attack on Iran, before the United States started bombing, before a ceasefire was announced and at other key moments. Many accounts, some opened only hours before, made tidy sums. Who else in the Trump government may have made these bets? Did the president, ever grasping for lucre, take advantage of this ultimate form of insider trading?

It's worth noting that there was no "swamp," at least not in the way Trump claimed. There are huge inefficiencies in the federal government, along with redundancies, waste and overspending. But the main issue was never that the "swamp" denizens were siphoning off government funds for their private yachts. The chief corruption in Washington before Trump came along consisted of elected representatives unwilling to make tradeoffs between tax cuts and spending, thus creating ballooning deficits.

Old-school corruption was comparatively small-scale. In 2015, the United States scored 76 (where 100 is clean and zero is totally corrupt) on Transparency International's ratings, the 16th-least-corrupt nation in the world. Today, we are ranked 64th and dropping. There was corruption — no nation is without it — but Trump's constant howls about America being a "third world nation" were not remotely true before he came to dominate our politics. Yet under his maladministration, we are making rapid progress in that direction. He crows that the United States is "respected" in the world now. Does he really believe that people respect kleptocracies? We are becoming more loathed than respected.

he American Bar Association offered a partial list of the pay-to-play transactions in the first few months of Trump's second term. Coinbase contributed $1 million to Trump's inauguration fund, while its major investors, Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, together contributed another $6 million to the MAGA Inc. super PAC.

In the early days of Trump's second term, the SEC dropped an enforcement action against Coinbase. Other crypto players — Ripple, Robinhood and Gemini — apparently seeing how the game is played, also made large contributions to Trump's super PAC and were also rewarded by the SEC dropping charges. Ditto for Justin Sun, who purchased $75 million worth of World Liberty Financial tokens (putting money directly in the Trump family's pockets). Not only were criminal charges against Sun dropped, but he was invited to a private White House dinner for top purchasers of WLF tokens.

When it's too late to drop charges, pardons are for sale. A woman who donated $3.5 million to the MAGA super PAC was able to get a pardon for her father, who faced charges of bribing Puerto Rico's governor. A healthcare executive who attended a $1 million-a-plate fundraising dinner with Trump secured a pardon for her son, Paul Walczak, a nursing home owner who pleaded guilty to tax crimes. The pardon freed him from prison and also from the obligation to pay $4.4 million in restitution to his victims.

There are many others: Changpeng Zhao, Trevor Milton, Joseph Schwartz, Lawrence Duran, and David Gentile — thieves, fraudsters and swindlers all. A whole cottage industry has sprung up consisting of grifters taking fees for getting pardon petitions to Trump's desk. You may not have thought of Rod Blagojevich lately, but having received a pardon from Trump himself, he's now in the business of lobbying Trump on others' behalf. So are Keith Schiller, George Sorial, Jack Burkman, Jacob Wohl and Ches McDowell.

Which brings us to the putrid "deal" that is apparently in the works to "settle" Trump's lawsuits against the U.S. government. Recall that Trump brought a suit against the Department of Justice for the Mar-a-Lago search and the Russia investigation, and against the IRS for the unauthorized release of his tax returns (which wasn't the IRS's doing). His original ludicrous ask in the IRS suit was $10 billion (two-thirds of the IRS's annual budget) along with $230 million for the other inconveniences.

As the judge in the IRS case observed, Trump was sitting on both sides of the table, and thus there is no actual case, just an undisguised attempt to loot taxpayers. She asked for briefs on this question due by May 20. Rushing to beat the deadline in which sanity might prevail, the administration announced that a deal is in the works to avoid the court altogether and hand Trump $1.7 billion in taxpayer dollars for a gargantuan slush fund.

Under the terms of this deal with himself, Trump would agree to drop the $10 billion and $230 million suits in exchange for $1.7 billion to compensate anyone who claims to have been injured by what Trump considers the Biden administration's weaponization of the Justice Department.

It's just as grotesque as you imagine. Trump is reaching his grubby hands into the largest till in the world, the U.S. Treasury. Along with an apology from the IRS, the arrangement would also guarantee that the IRS would never audit any member of the Trump family ever again. As The Bulwark's Andrew Egger described it:

"The members of the commission overseeing disbursements (of the $1.7 billion) would serve at Trump's pleasure, and he'd be able to remove them without cause at any time. The commission would have no obligation to disclose its decision-making process for how to disburse the money.

"And then, of course, there's the unbearable rottenness of the purported settlement fund itself: the shamelessness of Trump keeping a backdoor way to profit from it personally, the utter absence of any oversight controls that would even allow him to plausibly argue that the money will be spent justly, and the completely topsy-turvy travesty of creating a slush fund for January 6ers and other MAGA villains in the first place."

The Trump administration already gifted $5 million to the family of Ashli Babbit. Michael Flynn and Carter Page received $1.25 million each. We can see where this is headed. The January 6 rioters, all pardoned, will now cash in, among others. Will it include those who've subsequently been convicted of other offenses including possession of child porn? That will probably depend upon whether they can make large purchases of Trump cryptocurrency.

The damage to our civic culture is incalculable. Nations with high levels of corruption suffer from a suite of pathologies from crime to inequality to low growth to unhappiness. And what can't be measured but is no less real is the deep sense of shame that living in a corrupt country engenders. The achievement of a well-run, honest government is something to be cherished. As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we are witnessing the trashing of a carefully constructed, hard-won system. The United Arab Emirates is no less corrupt than the United States. So is Uruguay. And that was before the latest orgy of plunder.

Each and every act of theft and corruption is bad in itself and damaging to our national project. It's something else, too — an offense against those who desperately need government help.

If Trump succeeds in looting $1.7 billion from the Treasury, consider what that money could have been spent on. In round numbers, that cash could:

— Fund vaccines for children in developing countries for 33 years.

— Fund PEPFAR for two and a half years.

— Restore funding cut by DOGE for medical research on deadly pathogens like hantavirus and Ebola.

— Restore Medicaid funds that were cut in the Big Beautiful Bill.

— Pay the salaries of 7,000 immigration judges for a year.

— Employ 40,000 home health care aids for one year.

— Buy replacements for some of the munitions Trump burned through in the feckless Iran war.

— Purchase 2,600 Stinger missiles or about 6,000 Javelin anti-tank missiles.

— Fund research to expand the use of mRNA vaccines (cut by RFK Jr.) which have shown promise against RSV, HIV and flu (in addition to the aforementioned Ebola).

— Fund studies or demonstration projects on mitigating the effects of climate change.

— Invest in biotechnology and defenses against future pandemics.

The list of worthy projects that would benefit the public, not just the kleptocrat in the White House, is nearly endless.

Trump's claim that he would "drain the swamp" is a cosmic joke. His administration is an ongoing shakedown of the American people.

Has The Worm Finally Turned On Trump's Staggering Personal Corruption?

Has The Worm Finally Turned On Trump's Staggering Personal Corruption?

Did you catch the story about Trump trying to raid the Treasury to the tune of $10 billion? It's the latest in a string of grasping, grubby assaults on public integrity that have marked the Trump regime. This is not just the most corrupt presidency in American history; it is among the most corrupt regimes on earth.

Trigger warning: The thefts and abuses below are eye-watering. I cite them not to enrage readers, but to offer a theory that we may, at long last, be passing out of the "LOL nothing matters" phase of this travesty. There is good reason to believe that, finally, Trump's unprecedented corruption is going to bite him in the ass.

The IRS farce, which began in Trump's first term, goes like this: There was an actual offense committed against Trump. Between 2018 and 2020, Charles Edward Littlejohn, who worked for Booz Allen Hamilton under contract with the IRS, leaked confidential tax information about a number of wealthy individuals, including Trump, to ProPublica and The New York Times. (Recall that Trump, after repeatedly vowing to disclose his tax returns, never did.) The Times subsequently revealed that Trump, then a putative billionaire, paid only $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017.

Littlejohn was discovered, fired, and prosecuted by the Justice Department under Joe Biden. At the conclusion of the trial, Judge Ana Reyes handed down the maximum sentence of five years in prison.

Fast forward to 2026. In January, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, whose department oversees the IRS, announced that it was terminating all contracts with Booz Allen Hamilton, totaling $21 million, for failure to safeguard taxpayer information. Three days later, Trump and his sons sued the IRS for the aforesaid $10 billion, alleging that the leak had caused them "reputational and financial harm" and "public embarrassment."

Hmm. The financial harm claim is risible — is the Trump family really arguing that, if not for this leak, they would have accumulated money even faster than they have over the past six years? As for embarrassment, it seems the Trumps bear the burden of proving they've ever felt such a thing in their lives.

Beyond that, there is the preposterous sum of $10 billion for this piddling "injury." It would amount to two-thirds of the IRS's annual budget and be about 1,000 times more than the largest payout in the history of the Federal Tort Claims Act. But that isn't the most eye-popping aspect of the case. No, that honor goes to the fact, highlighted by Judge Kathleen Williams in her order requiring a new hearing, that there are not two contending parties here.

Courts only have jurisdiction when there is a bona fide "case or controversy." In this case, Judge Williams observes, Trump is sitting on both sides of the table. He is the plaintiff, but he is also the superior of all the respondents and can fire any at will. She quoted Trump himself, who admitted that "I'm supposed to work out a settlement with myself." So it's not a lawsuit, it's a gargantuan shakedown of American taxpayers.

There is so much more. Remember the thousands of hours of vitriol he devoted to Hunter Biden's corruption? I can't sum up the contrast better than National Review's Andrew McCarthy did, in a series about Trump's stupendous grifting. McCarthy carefully documented how Trump and Steve Witkoff founded their crypto business, World Liberty Financial, just before Trump returned to the White House.

The Wall Street Journal reported that WLF then received, four days before the inauguration, a $500 million investment, amounting to a 49 percent share in the company, from Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed al Nahyan, aka the "spy Sheikh," the second-highest-ranking royal in Abu Dhabi and the Emirati national security advisor. Nothing remotely like this has happened before.

What did the UAE want in return for this largesse? During the Biden years, the UAE's ambitions to become an AI player had been thwarted. The administration declined to give the UAE access to high-end computer chips because the regime had close ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Hold that thought.

Speaking of China, one of the figures who helped midwife WLF with technical advice was the Chinese-born Binance founder Changpeng Zhao. Zhao had pleaded guilty to permitting his cryptocurrency exchange to be used by terrorists, cybercriminals, and child abusers. But he was very useful to WLF, helping to launch their first stablecoin, USD1. UAE-linked entities then purchased $2 billion of these. Trump pardoned Zhao in October 2025. He told 60 Minutes that "I don't know who he is," and then immediately contradicted himself by adding, "I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that. And I heard it was a Biden witch hunt."

Oh, and the UAE got the chips. So much for the supposedly "tough on China" Trump administration.

Andrew McCarthy, recalling the Republican outrage over Hunter Biden, put it this way: "You know what the difference is between the Biden family business and the Trump family business? You'd have to add two digits to the sum of Biden abuses of power, foreign entanglements, and [alleged] corruption ... to get near what Trump has raked in just from the UAE."

Qatar gave Trump a $400 million luxury jet. Just like that. No embarrassment, no extenuating circumstances, no nothing. Just the bottomless greed of an unleashed Midas (without the curse — for now).

To escape tariffs, Vietnam approved a $1.5 billion Trump Organization project to build a huge golf course near Hanoi. Mar-A-Lago increased its membership fee to $1 million, and the Bedminster club raised its initiation fee to $125,000. Paramount paid Trump $16 million in settlement of a suit over Kamala Harris' interview on 60 Minutes. ABC donated $15 million to the future Trump library in settlement of a case about George Stephanopoulos. Amazon put $28 million in Melania Trump's pocket for an unwatchable documentary. The Trump juniors have invested in drone companies and other firms that have received government contracts. Trump pals like Michael Flynn and Carter Page have received $1.25 million "restitution" payouts from the government, though Flynn pleaded guilty and Page's lawsuits have been dismissed twice.

The Trump family has increased its net worth by about $4 billion since January 2025, with the total now approaching $6.2 billion.

And this is just the financial corruption. The perversion of justice is perhaps even worse — prosecuting Trump's critics and pardoning his allies.

Why then do I say that we may be nearing a turning point? Any country that could passively accept the UAE gift, the Qatar plane and the January 6 pardons is beyond caring, no? We'll see. My theory is that two things must be present for people in a free republic to turn a blind eye to corruption: 1) Their personal bank accounts must be flush, and 2) they must believe that most of the corruption stories are just partisan attacks.

We have recent evidence from Hungary. Between 2010 and 2019, while the economy was (mostly) growing nicely, Hungarians were prepared to overlook Viktor Orban's subversion of the judiciary, capture of the media, and personal wealth aggrandizement. But when the economy went south in 2023, people became outraged about the corruption. Peter Magyar, especially because he had been a Fidez party insider at one time, was able to capitalize on that anger.

Alexei Navalny, though he could not win an election in Russia (because they're rigged), became a national sensation by documenting the palaces and other wealth that Putin and his cronies had obtained. Putin's trajectory was similar to Orban's. When he first gained power, the economy was strong due to high energy prices, allowing him to consolidate power. But when the economy soured, people became much more open to criticism about corruption, though sadly, they were in no position to remove Putin. Still, Navalny was enough of a threat that Putin had him consigned to a penal colony (where Putin's government later killed him).

The American economy was very strong in the 1990s, and though Bill Clinton behaved in an abominable fashion toward women, people were willing to overlook it. Similarly, voters in 2024 made a bargain: Though they knew Trump was corrupt, they bet that he would bring them the kind of economy they'd enjoyed in 2018. This isn't an admirable trait, but there is good reason to think it's the way many voters operate.

Trump has not delivered on the bargain. On the contrary, economic conditions are now worse than they were in 2024. Nor can Trump rely on partisanship to come to his rescue because it isn't the Democrats who are making the case about corruption, it's Trump himself and his allies.

It is Trump who attempted to use the attempted assassination at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner to make the case for his garish ballroom. It is Senate Republicans who are adding the insult of demanding taxpayers pay $1 billion for this monument to Trump's ego. It is Trump, not his opposition, who instructs voters that they should be happy with fewer dolls at Christmas. It is Trump who accepts gold bars from the Swiss delegation and adorns the Oval Office in a style that could be called neo-Saddam.

The corruption never mattered before, but when gas prices are near $5 a gallon, groceries have only gone up and the economy is skidding toward recession, the gold leaf becomes not an eccentricity but an indictment. The worm has turned.

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


Americans Reject Monarchy, But We Admire The King For Upholding Democracy

Americans Reject Monarchy, But We Admire The King For Upholding Democracy

I've always been both a small-r republican and an Anglophile, so I looked upon the British monarchy with at least a pinch of smug superiority. The Windsors are revered for nothing more than birth — not talent, nor accomplishments, nor virtue. It's all a throwback to an earlier stage of human development, when people were not mature enough for representative democracy.

I wasn't feeling smug as I watched King Charles III address Congress the other day. Quite the opposite. Though I remain a small-r republican, I couldn't help but be embarrassed at what we supposedly mature, self-governing Americans have wrought.

Seated behind Charles were the vice president and speaker of the House, among the highest officers of the land. But befitting our descent from mature self-government, they were both bedecked in the MAGA uniform — blue suits, white shirts and red ties. Everything about them — every word, every gesture and even their clothing — attests to their fealty to their liege lord. Ditto for more than half of the representatives and senators in attendance. While they didn't all wear the uniform (they weren't on camera), the Republicans in Congress have surrendered their self-respect and independent judgment to the man who would be king. They are far more subservient to Trump than any member of Parliament is to Charles.

Trump revels in the servility of his vassals. The White House tweeted a picture of the two men with the caption "two kings." Yes, this tweet is partly a troll to enrage the "libs," but frankly, it doesn't go far enough. Trump aspires not just to be a king but to be a god-emperor. Look around — the massive Trump banners defacing official buildings, the renaming of the Kennedy Center and U.S. Institute of Peace, the coins, the proposed triumphal arch, the Trump ballroom, the reflecting pool (which will now look like Mar-A-Lago north), the new passports, the Trump class battleships, the national park passes, to say nothing of sidelining Congress, disregarding court orders, making unilateral war, and attempting to criminally prosecute his critics — all of it flagrantly un-American. And this from the party that garlands itself in flags and showy patriotism.

King Charles had a tricky task. His government (did you notice the way he referred to Kier Starmer as "my" prime minister?) and our other European allies are both horrified and scared about what Trump is doing to the transatlantic relationship. They've been adopting different tactics — concessions, flattery, toughness — to deal with the unhinged president who has stooped even to threatening military action against a NATO ally. Are the British questioning the "special relationship" with the United States?

Oh, yeah. In contrast to King Charles' soothing words, the Financial Times reports that Britain's ambassador in Washington, Sir Christian Turner, told a visiting group of students in early February that the phrase "special relationship" was "quite nostalgic, quite backward looking" and that the only country that currently enjoys a special relationship with the United States is "probably Israel." He did add that "there is a deep affinity between us, particularly on defense and security," but the message was clear. Trump has strained, if not quite ruptured, relations.

The king's visit can thus be interpreted as one more effort by the spurned Europeans to keep Trump on their side. Starmer, aware of Trump's imperial pretensions, played the "King Charles" card. The pomp, the state visit, the photo ops, and the speech to a joint session of Congress are all in service of both flattering and taming the disordered president.

King Charles, despite his title, is not free to say what he thinks. And yet he managed, subtly, to convey his awareness of the threat Trump poses not just to the relationship with the United Kingdom but to the values on which the Euro-American relationship is based. Referring to the shared legal traditions of the United States and Great Britain, he said:

"The U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta is cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances."

The King also mentioned September 11, and reminded his audience that it was the first and only time that NATO invoked Article V. The allies came to our aid, not the reverse — a pointed rebuke to the president who has repeatedly disparaged Europeans' contributions to NATO and to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He then added, "Today, Mr. Speaker, that same, unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people."

The king's speech closed with an invocation of Abraham Lincoln (hard to top), and a prayer:

"I pray with all my heart that our alliance will continue to defend our shared values, with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth, and across the world, and that we ignore the clarion calls to become ever more inward-looking."

We all know who is issuing those clarion calls. One of the callers hosted the state dinner, and another was sitting over his right shoulder. The actual king has never looked better than in contrast to the American pretender to a throne.

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


Poison Podcasting: Why Democrats Should Avoid Hateful Hasan Piker

Poison Podcasting: Why Democrats Should Avoid Hateful Hasan Piker

Hasan Piker, the far-left streamer, is having a bit of a moment. Democrats are quarreling over whether he should be kept at arm's length.

What kind of opinionator is Piker? He said in 2019 that the United States "deserved 9/11." When someone challenged him online about his anti-Israel rants, Piker replied with vituperation: "You f——-g baying pig. You f——-g bloodthirsty violent pig dog." In the same clip, referring to Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Piker praised the Al Qaeda terrorist who disfigured him. "What the f—k is wrong with this dude? Didn't he go to war and like literally lose his eye because some mujahideen — a brave f——-g soldier — f——d his eye hole with their d—k?"

Frankly, that should be enough right there to exclude that person from polite society. Some of us knew in 2015 that Donald Trump was a sociopath. We knew because he said things that were cruel, crude and demeaning to other people. If the Republican Party and the country had drawn a line against him then, for mocking a handicapped reporter, making light of rape, disparaging the heroism of John McCain or vowing to commit war crimes, we would have spared ourselves the current debacle.Speaking of making light of rape, Piker did precisely that regarding the conduct of Hamas on October 7. "It doesn't matter if f——-g rapes happened on October 7," Piker said. "That doesn't change the dynamic for me."

He has repeatedly praised the Chinese Communist Party, claiming it's the country from which we have the most to learn. He justified Russia's annexation of Crimea: "I call it a part of Russian territory, b—-h. I call it Crimea River, a Russian river." His level of concern for the suffering that communist regimes have inflicted is summed up in his commentary regarding a Vietnamese woman who testified about what she endured: "F—k you, old lady. Shut the f—k up you stupid f——-g idiotic old lady. Suck my d—k, old lady. Goddam. F—k this refugee."So that's who we're talking about. Now to the matter of antisemitism.

There are two arguments advanced for why Democrats should campaign with Piker — as Abdul El-Sayed, candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan plans to do — and appear on his show. One is that he is reaching an angry audience that Democrats should want to tap. The other is that Piker has a fair point, that he's right to hate Israel and that it's time Democrats dropped their even-handedness.

My colleague Tim Miller made both of these points recently. Israel, he asserted, is a "malign influence in the world." And he went further, essentially endorsing an antisemitic trope: "If you had said a few months ago that 'Israel is going to drag America in a war that has nothing to do with us based on their influence over our political leaders,' that would have been called antisemitic and yet that is what happened."There are a few disheartening lapses here. The first is that Trump must own his own choices. Tim didn't patronize Trump in this way when he repeatedly bent over for Vladimir Putin, or when he did extraordinary favors for the Gulf states, or when he intervened repeatedly to prop up Viktor Orban. Why, in this case, is the fault for Trump's notorious suggestibility not on Trump?

Benjamin Netanyahu may have been successful in playing upon Trump's vanity, and damn him for that if you like, but the people who put such an emotionally unstable person in the White House deserve a far larger share of blame.

The second lapse is Tim's suggestion that the war with Iran "has nothing to do with us." I think this war is a disaster, but it's just not the case that the United States has nothing at stake here. To sum up 50 years in a few sentences: The Islamic Republic of Iran has been making asymmetric war on the United States since its inception. A thorough list of the hijackings, kidnappings, assassinations and other terrorist attacks against Americans and American interests can be found here.Finally, Tim makes the pragmatic point that many people, particularly young men, are angry about the war and looking for leaders who will channel their rage. For Democrats to blackball Piker, he argues, is political malpractice.

That's doubtful. Ignoring hateful people is a good policy. And if Democrats pander to the bigots and haters on the left, as Republicans have done with the bigots and haters on the right, there will be nothing left of the pro-democracy movement. It will be red shirts versus brown shirts, as in Weimar Germany.

Finally, Tim argues that Democrats will be helped electorally by appealing to angry constituencies such as those who tune into Piker. On the contrary, Democrats need to win over people who previously voted for Trump but are more moderate in outlook, as Tim has often argued in the past.

As Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who defeated her opponent in 2025 by 15 points, admonished a few years ago, the words "defund the police" had badly damaged Democratic candidates. She continued, "We need to not ever use the word 'socialist' or 'socialism' ever again. ... We lost good members because of that." As it happens, Piker is a fan of "defund the police."The public doesn't need persuading that the war was a huge mistake. They already believe that. Democrats need not flatter Piker or his audience in order to win elections. On the other hand, if they taint themselves with his hateful rhetoric and extremist views, they will be making a moral and strategic mistake.

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

Iran Hawks Must Confront The Catastrophic Failure Of Trump's Leadership

Iran Hawks Must Confront The Catastrophic Failure Of Trump's Leadership

I am an Iran hardliner. But I'm struggling to understand how other hardliners can be so credulous about President Donald Trump's leadership of this war. It's as if you were stranded by the side of the road and accepted a ride from an obviously drunk driver.

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal editorial board scolded those of us who were not cheerleading for this war: "There's remarkable pessimism in the media and political class about the U.S. bombing campaign against the terrorist regime in Iran. Five days into the war, you'd think from the coverage and commentary that the U.S. is losing."

In the weeks since, the Journal, along with other unreconstructed hawks, has worried that Trump may not "finish the job" and have chided doubters by reminding us of the many depredations perpetrated by Teheran.

But here's the problem with the hawks' posture: You cannot separate the war from the people directing it.

Trump fans believe he always has a plan — that if he threatens, cajoles, or pivots, it's a sign of his unique ability to keep others off balance. To me, it looks like he's the one who's off balance. How do they account for Trump's pronouncements early in this now monthlong war that it was "won in the first hour"? Do they recall Trump's proclamation on March 6 that he would accept only "unconditional surrender"? What about the demand, five days into the conflict, that Trump have a say in choosing Iran's next leader? Did all of that suggest the smooth unfurling of a master plan or clear evidence that he expected a quick and decisive toppling of the regime and was surprised by reality?

The Iran hawks stress that the regime is one of the most dangerous and repressive on the planet and note that the region and the world would be so much better off without the mullahs in charge. Yes. But: Where is the evidence that a bombing campaign led by an impulsive narcissist can achieve that goal? Was there a Plan B if the bombing failed to ignite a popular uprising? How confident can we really be that Iran will, in the long term, be less dangerous, less hostile to the United States and Israel, less likely to support terrorism, less brutal to its own people thanks to Trump's "excursion"?

One of Trump's throughlines is the belief that other leaders and specifically his predecessors have failed to achieve goals due to "stupidity" and lack of will. Enraptured by America's military might, he imagines that threatening it and using it are the skeleton keys to pick any lock. There are no complex challenges requiring subtlety and discretion. There is no understanding that not every problem can be solved through the application of force. He disdains expertise, preferring to surround himself with lickspittles who bring only good news.

And when reality intrudes, as it did when his 2017 inauguration crowds were smaller than Obama's, or the COVID pandemic was not less harmful than the flu, or he lost the 2020 election, he chooses to believe lies and to insist that everyone else assent to the lies as well. Lies are his pacifier. When such a toddler is calling the shots in a war, it's acutely dangerous.

What Trump should be learning (though he isn't) is that previous presidents refrained from attacking Iran not out of fecklessness but because they weighed the risks. Yes, Iran is a weaker nation militarily than the United States (or even Israel), but it happens to own the high ground above the Strait of Hormuz.

Days into the war, Trump crowed that Iran had "no navy." But even as Trump spoke, Iran was in the process of disabling the Strait of Hormuz through the use of drones and fastboats and threatening to mine it. Meanwhile, they are charging a hefty toll for the ships they allow to pass, a new revenue stream for the regime.

Because Trump pulled the trigger without securing political or popular support, without allies (save one) and without considering how much damage to the world economy Iran could inflict, he is highly vulnerable to economic pain, and the Iranians know it. That's their asymmetric advantage. As a military matter, it doesn't matter that they have no navy. They don't have to hit a single ship in the strait. Their threats are hitting the insurance companies, and that's enough.

A large share of the world's supply of not just oil and gas but also helium, fertilizer and other chemicals now relies largely on the Iranian regime. We teeter on the edge of a worldwide recession and widespread hunger. Yet we are being led in this war by a fantasist who does not assimilate reality. "Trump is getting a little bored with Iran," an administration official indicated last week. "Not that he regrets it or something — he's just bored and wants to move on."

It's impossible to say which is more alarming, Trump's inattention or his engagement.

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

Trump Rubio Wiles at Mar-a-Lago

Why Trump's Ego-Driven, Impetuous War Just May Leave Iran More Dangerous

Two weeks after the start of the Iran War, the picture is coming into focus. Why would a president who promised countless times not to start new wars have leapt into this conflict? As always in the age of Trump, it's necessary to separate the president's motives and mindset from the old ways we used to decide questions of war and peace, tariffs, sanctions, immigration, taxes and other matters. Before venturing into Trump's mind, let's consider the shape of the discussion.

Those who imagine that we are still operating in a normal world are making arguments in favor of military action as if we were engaged in a national debate. Where is the acknowledgment, they demand, of what a vicious regime the mullahs in Iran run? The Islamic Republic has been at war with us since 1979, they stress, and if you doubt their murderous intent, you're forgetting the 444 days our diplomats were held hostage, the attack on our Beirut embassy and on Marines stationed at the Beirut airport, the Khobar Towers bombing, and countless IEDs and other attacks by Iranian proxies during the Iraq War, to say nothing of their unofficial national slogan "Death to America/Death to Israel."

Iran's internal repression is nearly as brutal as its external support for terrorism, with women in particular bearing the brunt. The population loathes the regime, as we've witnessed many times, but most recently in January when they thronged the streets in their tens of thousands — only to be gunned down en masse.If we had a normal administration and a normal decision-making process, those factors would have been considered. We would have weighed the risks of war against the opportunity to strike a fatal blow to a terrible regime. The fact of Iran being a nasty piece of work is not dispositive on the matter of going to war. A poorly planned or executed war can make things worse.

Now we turn to the juvenile, facts-optional world of Trump, where the president commits the United States to war without planning, without consultation with allies, without congressional authorization and without a clue about how badly things could go.

Thrilled by U.S. firepower in last summer's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and giddy from the perceived success of removing Nicolas Maduro, Trump came to believe that the military was a magic wand that he could wave according to his whim. Of course he was aware of his vows to keep us out of wars, but wars are boots on the ground, not beautiful strikes from the skies. Disregarding warnings from wiser heads about the risks to the Strait of Hormuz, Trump dove in.

My best understanding of his motive harks back to the hostage crisis of 1979. Trump lives in the past more than most people, and due to his exceptional sensitivity to humiliation, I think he carries the shame of that episode in his heart. In a 1980 interview that is believed to be his first public statement on foreign policy, he said, "That this country sits back and allows a country such as Iran to hold our hostages, to my way of thinking, is a horror."

In addition to wounded pride, we must add vainglory. The Lindsey Graham/Binyamin Netanyahu tag team played upon Trump's lust for glory by convincing him that while Iran had been a thorn in our side for half a century and previous presidents had vowed not to permit it to become a nuclear power, no other president had the cojones to do the job.

Trump obviously thought he could achieve regime change with an air campaign alone. He invited the Iranian people in the early hours of the attacks to take back their country. Perhaps both he and Netanyahu misread the lesson of January, believing that the people would seize power. But the real lesson of January was that the regime would do anything, including massacring thousands of its own citizens, to maintain its grip on power. The brutality worked. Only the regime has guns. The demonstrations subsided.

Iran has inflicted pain on its people for decades and it is more than happy to intensify it now. They can bear shortages, blackouts, misery and death because they have no choice. All the mullahs have to do to "win" this conflict is survive. Meanwhile, an American public that was never consulted and certainly not convinced to undertake a risky war will be intolerant of even higher inflation or a recession. The advantage in a contest of wills goes to the mullahs.

The Iranian regime is one of the worst on the planet, and we must still hope for the sake of the Iranian people and the world that it does not survive. But this war is being conducted to heal psychic wounds and to boost the ego of our dangerous commander in chief, who is now obliged to plead for help opening the Strait of Hormuz from (former?) allies and enemies alike. If the Iranian regime survives, even in a weakened condition, it may be more dangerous than ever, having shown the world that it can withstand simultaneous assault from the "big and little Satans."

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

Protecting Trans Rights -- And Rethinking Gender Transition For Kids

Protecting Trans Rights -- And Rethinking Gender Transition For Kids

Within the past few weeks, two major medical groups, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the American Medical Association, have issued statements recommending against gender-affirming surgeries on minors. This is a break from the past few years, when all the relevant medical societies endorsed these treatments. It comes on the heels of the first verdict in favor of a detransitioned woman who underwent a double mastectomy at age 16.

As with nearly everything in modern life, this issue has been tainted by politics. The Trump administration, with its characteristic brutishness, has targeted trans people — firing trans service members from the military, forbidding Veterans Affairs hospitals from providing trans care, and more. The right's contempt for people in genuine distress is almost enough to make one embrace the full gender-affirming model.

But not quite, because this is about what's best for kids. As the statement by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons noted, it isn't just surgeries on those younger than 19 that they now discourage, but a whole panoply of gender-affirming care because there is good evidence that a "substantial portion of children with prepubertal onset gender dysphoria experience resolution or significant reduction of distress by the time they reach adulthood, absent medical or surgical intervention."

It's odd that so much ink has been spilled about the question of sports and the unfairness of natal boys potentially snagging prizes over deserving girls. That's unjust, but really, it's insignificant. The number of trans athletes is very small, and the harm, while real, hardly begins to match the damage that may be done to kids who are rushed into transitioning without proper evaluation.

As BBC journalist Hannah Barnes found in her examination of Britain's transgender program, 60 percent to 70 percent of the kids who presented at the clinic with gender distress would eventually grow up to be gay.

Most parents desperately love their kids and don't want them to suffer, so it's inexcusable that some clinicians were telling parents that unless they agreed to support their child's sexual transition, the child would be likely to commit suicide. The doctors sometimes said, "You can have a live girl or a dead boy" or vice versa. Chase Strangio, the ACLU lawyer who argued the U.S. v. Skrmetti transgender case before the Supreme Court, reluctantly acknowledged during oral argument that there is no evidence that gender-affirming care reduces suicide.

Parents have been disserved by a medical establishment that got carried away by a cultural fad and failed to protect children. Puberty blockers were advertised as a fully reversible intervention that would simply give children "time to think" before their bodies began the process of maturation. But in fact, between 96 percent and 98 percent of patients who started puberty blockers went on to cross-sex hormones (whose effects, like body hair, deepening of the voice, and development of an Adam's apple, are not reversible). Rather than a pause, it was a first step on the ladder. As the Cass Review in the U.K. stressed, the studies on these interventions are of poor quality and lack long-term data on how adults who transitioned as children are faring.

If a child proceeds from blockers to transition, one thing many natal males will lose is the capacity to achieve orgasm. Is a child able to understand the nature of that trade-off? Most boys and girls will also lose their fertility.

How many kids are being diagnosed as trans and put on the pathway to transition and lifelong medication, infertility and sexual anhedonia, when their real issue was discomfort with being gay, autism, a history of sexual abuse, depression or mere confusion after absorbing online content? The vast majority of children with gender dysphoria have other medical and psychological issues as well. Are they being carefully evaluated? Not always. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a leading practitioner of transgender medicine, rejected the idea of extensive psychological evaluation in 2018, explaining that "I don't send someone to a therapist when I'm going to start them on insulin."

Throughout history, there have always been a small number of people (mostly male) who feel that they are in the wrong body. But as a number of surveys have found recently, the share of young adults who are trans or nonbinary is dropping. The Cooperative Election Study, which included 60,000 respondents, found that in 2020, 8.6 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds identified as transgender. By 2024, that share had declined to 3.2 percent.

Most of the people who embrace gender identity do so to be inclusive and humane. The movement for trans rights seems like the struggle of gays to achieve true equality. In one sense, it is. Discrimination against trans adults needed to be stopped, and transgender people of all ages deserve respect. But as Europe, our own medical establishment and juries are coming to see, the trend to aggressively alter children's bodies and minds was too much too soon. That Americans are tapping the brakes now is a welcome corrective.

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