Nowhere is Trump’s penchant for self-owns more evident than in his determination to blow up alliances. Long ago, Trump alienated progressive leaders in Europe (e.g. Spain, UK, France), and now has become toxic to ones on the far rightwing. Politico reports that far-right French leader Marine Le Pen warned her party “to keep our distance” from Trump. Ouch. Not even the neo-Nazi AfD party in Germany wants to get too close to him, observing that Vice President JD Vance’s visit “hung like millstones around [the former Hungarian leader’s] neck.”

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, once Trump’s biggest supporter in the EU, had enough when Trump attacked Pope Leo. “I find President Trump’s words towards the Holy Father unacceptable,” she said in unusually harsh terms. “The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, and it is right and normal for him to call for peace and to condemn every form of war.” Given that her voters abhor Trump and he has diminished the value of the U.S. as an ally (by launching tariffs, abandoning Ukraine, and cozying up to Russia), her move after losing a recent referendum makes perfect political sense.

The deterioration in U.S. standing with the public in democratic countries, which in turn affects leaders’ decision-making, is breathtaking. When Politico pollsters asked if China or the U.S. was a more reliable partner, “57 percent of Canadians, 40 percent of Germans, and 42 percent of Britons said China — a sharp decline in America’s perceived trustworthiness,” Robert Kagan wrote recently. “In the past, America’s alliance relationships have survived waves of public disapproval because governments knew that whatever errors the United States made and however unpopular Washington might be, it remained fully committed to defending the order that protected them.” Well, not anymore.

And here is where China makes its move. When Trump snapped back at Meloni, declaring, “She’s the one who’s unacceptable,” China was quick to rush forward. At a meeting in China on economic and trade cooperation, Minister Wang Wentao told Italy’s delegation: “China is willing to work with Italy to further tap into the potential for cooperation.” He added, “Italy is expected to play a constructive role in promoting the healthy and stable development of China-European Union economic and trade relations.”

Time and again, China has shown finesse in capitalizing on Trump’s compulsion to offend and attack allies. Trump’s moves to bludgeon trading partners with tariffs and leave them to bear the brunt of a reckless, counterproductive war with Iran (then threatening NATO when Europeans refused to back him) opened the door for China to present itself as a model of stability in a world of Trumpian chaos.

The Iran war certainly intensified the shift in power and influence away from the U.S. Trump’s decision to move assets to the Middle East furthered China’s strategic objectives, ceding (at least temporarily) the U.S.’s ability to project force and offer protection for its allies. China did not lift a finger to push U.S. forces out of the Indo-Pacific.

Subscribe now

As Andrew P. Miller and Michael Clark explained, Trump’s adventurism in Venezuela and Iran have served “to deplete U.S. resources, tank the United States’ reputation, and raise fuel prices,” as well as force the U.S. to reposition personnel and material away from Asia. “With the U.S. military bogged down in the Middle East, China has a freer hand in East Asia,” they wrote. “China can present itself as a responsible peacemaker … [after] the United States has injured its reputation by acting unpredictably, betraying its allies, and starting a war that has done serious damage to the global economy.”

China’s position, if anything, will only improve after (and if) the fighting stops in the Middle East. China no doubt will eagerly offer to participate, if not lead, reconstruction in the region. Trump has given it a golden opportunity to make itself a more attractive partner than the United States, which caused the wreckage. Given resentment toward the U.S. over casualties and physical destruction, its deceptive promises (Regime change! Gulf allies will be fine!), and virulent anti-Muslim language, Middle East leaders may be quite receptive to China’s overtures.

Consider China’s advantage (facilitated by Trump anti-green energy derangement) in clean energy. Its ability to sell EV’s and solar panels throughout the Middle East, Asia, and Africa is now unmatched. “It’s not hard to imagine policymakers from across the developing world looking at examples like these and concluding that betting on Beijing isn’t actually the riskier option,” Bloomberg reports. Given Trump’s hostility to green energy and his bewildering international conduct, if “the only options are dependence on predictably mercantilist Beijing and on an erratic, self-centered and disruptive U.S., the choice is obvious.”

If there were any doubt as to the fallout from Trump’s war, diplomatic cables show the damage the war has done to U.S. relations with Muslim countries such as Azerbaijan, Bahrain, and Indonesia, Politico reports. “Some of the cables describe anti-U.S. sentiment that is having an immediate impact, while others raise concerns that relationships could be in danger if the war continues much longer.”)

In sum, Trump has never understood that U.S. power and prestige rely on our long-standing alliances, technological prowess, attractiveness as a destination for the best and the brightest, and moral stature. Whether isolating the U.S. from European allies, waging a reckless war, burning through U.S. munitions, ceding China the lead in green energy, undercutting our university scientific research system, chasing away immigrants, or destroying our moral authority (hence, our standing to pressure China on human rights), Trump has unilaterally disarmed the U.S. By jettisoning our inherent strengths, Trump boosts China, which never had those advantages.

When historians look back on this period to understand how the U.S. lost global preeminence to China, the question will not be “Who lost China?” but “Who lost superpower status to China?” We will pay the price for decades for an ignorant, mentally unwell U.S. president’s sabotage of America’s distinctive assets, stupidly abetted by cowardly Republicans.

After 16 years of Viktor Orbán’s despotic rule, Hungarians turned out in overwhelming numbers to deliver a landslide victory to Péter Magyar (whose name literally means “Hungarian”) and his center-right Tisza Party. The victory was so large Viktor Orbán could not dispute the results. The new majority is large enough to enact constitutional reforms.

Credit goes to the youthful Magyar (forty-five years old), who came from the ranks of Orbán’s Fidesz Party. (Note to file: Democracy advocates need defectors.) On his path to victory, he weathered a public/political feud with his ex-wife (whom he taped acknowledging the Orbán regime’s corruption), a failed “honey trap” plot, and every election trick in the book (from gerrymandering to propaganda from state-controlled media to hacking and wiretapping to threats on his life).

Orbán had considerable advantages. As scholar Anne Applebaum pointed out, with control of the “judiciary, bureaucracy, and universities, as well as a group of oligarchic companies that in turn controlled a good chunk of the economy… Orbán used his control of the state to build an extraordinary web of international illiberal and far-right supporters, and funding mechanisms to support some of them.” They did not help. Indeed, Orbán may have been harmed by his coziness with Trump and with Russia. (Hungarians on election night chanted “Russians, go home!” )

Magyar’s campaign was a model of tenacity and street smarts. Rather than create a new party, he revived a moribund one. He “toured Hungary relentlessly for two years, visiting hundreds of cities, towns and villages in an effort to win over some of Orbán’s rural support,” the Associated Press explained. “He appeared before thousands of supporters on Saturday on University Square in Debrecen, Hungary’s second-largest city and traditionally a Fidesz stronghold.”

Magyar focused incessantly on Orbán’s corruption, the economic penalties Hungary incurred because of EU sanctions, restoration of democracy, and national reunification. Pledging renewal and reconciliation, he remained vague on some issues (e.g., LGBTQ+ rights, Ukraine). “As a former member of Fidesz himself, he was able to speak with extra conviction about Fidesz’s corruption,” Applebaum noted. “He portrayed himself as a part of the European, democratic, law-abiding center-right. He waved a lot of Hungarian flags, as did his supporters.”

In his victory speech, Magyar offered a message that should inform democratic movements worldwide. “From now on, we will no longer be a country without consequences,” he declared. He promised that “those who have robbed the country will be held accountable.” And to Orbán’s supporters, he extended his hand: “I promise you that I will also be your prime minister, and I will work to heal wounds and help us accept each other, even if we represent different views.”

Subscribe now

The massive turnout (an estimated 77.8%!), shattered records, reflecting both economic pain (the highest unemployment in a decade, growth that lagged other Eastern European countries, and a decrepit healthcare system) but also many young adults’ excitement. (The youth vote is critical in dislodging autocrats. The New York Times noted that Generation Z movements “have toppled governments in Bulgaria, Madagascar and Nepal over the past year.”)

It would be a mistake for democracy defenders in other countries to run a carbon copy of Magyar’s campaign. In the U.S., for example, a conservative from Republican ranks is unlikely to galvanize the wide array of groups in the resistance. Issues that in Hungary can be put to one side (e.g., LGBTQ+ rights) are an essential part of the message supporting America’s pluralistic democracy and commitment to self-determination.

However, there are lessons that can carry over to the U.S. context:

• Corruption and economic issues are inextricably linked. A despot and his cronies take from ordinary people to fatten their own wallets.

• Patriotism and unity are powerful emotions. Casting the autocrat as the one who divided the country, brought disgrace on it, and divided fellow citizens can be extremely effective.

• Broad coalitions are essential. Though certain issues are dealbreakers (e.g., reform, democracy), constituencies need not agree on everything. Purity tests are for losers.

• Democracy defenders can win even if the playing field is badly tilted in favor of the reigning regime. Dogged effort, coalition building, and massive enthusiasm (converted into record turnout) can overcome considerable obstacles.

• Upending an entrenched autocrat takes resilience and patience. Errors, legislative losses, and scandals inevitably occur — but tenacious dedication to democracy can weather temporary setbacks.

• Optimism and joy are essential to a pro-democracy movement, serving as a powerful counterweight to the atmosphere of fear and the dystopian imagery despots cultivate.

• Democracy defenders must do the hard work to win. There is no substitute for active participation, organization, and voting en masse. People must dedicate time, money, and energy if they want to oust an autocrat.

Share

The outpouring of joy evident on election night in the streets and squares of Hungary reflected ordinary people’s abiding love of freedom and democracy. When roused and inspired (and pushed to their limit by a corrupt regime), they overcame fear and isolation to join fellow citizens in a noble cause.

The undaunted, unrelenting, and unafraid Magyar and the people of Hungary he inspired deserve our thanks and praise. They powerfully demonstrated what is possible when ordinary people take ownership of their country and their democracy. If we want to oust our own autocrat, Americans must muster the same doggedness, commitment, patriotism, sound judgment, and courage Hungarians displayed.

If Trump was calculating that his blockade would pressure Iran to capitulate to his demands, he again misread Iran. As Max Boot explained, “Iran is a dictatorship that has shown it can withstand years of harsh sanctions and brutally repress popular protests when they arise. The United States is a democracy where the rising price of gasoline is raising inflation and sabotaging the Republican Party’s chances in the upcoming midterm election.” Boot asks the same questions Iran must be pondering: “[H]ow long can Trump keep exacerbating the energy crisis before being forced to execute a U-turn?”

Our allies once more take the brunt of Trump’s unilateral schemes, first in going to war and now on this double blockade. “For Gulf states, the damage is shaping up to be the worst in decades — sparking major economic contractions and shattering their reputation as havens for business and tourism,” the Wall Street Journal reported. Europe’s economic growth is grinding to a halt while energy prices skyrocket. Meanwhile, the IMF warns that the war and blockade(s) will fuel inflation, curtail growth, and risk global recession.

Given the damage to some 80 oil facilities, experts predict it may take two years to restore product completely. Unsurprisingly, the Saudis are already squawking about the double blockade, warning that Iran might retaliate by closing the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, cutting off “a Red Sea chokepoint crucial for the kingdom’s remaining oil exports.” Trump has ignored their pleas to end his blockade.

Subscribe now

This latest debacle underscores a familiar pattern:

Trump never understood that Iran has the will, experience, and capacity to retaliate when threatened. He ran roughshod over weak advisers. A quagmire ensued, whereupon he deepened Iran’s resolve with genocidal threats. Then, seeking a deal any informed presidents would recognize required immense complexity, detail, and technical saavy, he sent in three know-nothings (Vice President JD Vance, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner), who were ill-equipped to evaluate whether Iran was offering meaningful concessions, taking innocuous positions, or retrenching.

The U.S. side did not understand this was a negotiation, not a time for ultimatums, which Iran (with control of the Strait of Hormuz) would never accept, as outside experts have explained. Unrealistic demands about Iran’s nuclear program with “no face-saving for the Iranian side” inevitably failed.

Likewise, the U.S. made wholly unrealistic demands on the Strait, once more failing to appreciate Iran has the upper hand. “A simple return to the era of free navigation before the war is not in the cards if Iran’s leaders get their way,” Sasan Karimi, the former Iranian deputy vice president for strategy told the New York Times. And yet U.S. negotiations “demand[ed] shared management of the strait.” As we anticipated, the Iranians would never give up what Trump couldn’t win in wartime. “If anything, Iran likely believes that with the strait closed, time is on its side because it can withstand economic pressure better than the rest of the world can,” Nate Swanson observes.

Even in pre-war talks, U.S. negotiators were badly outmatched. Unlike President Obama’s JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal) negotiators, Trump did not send seasoned negotiators and technical experts. One Iranian and one European diplomat from those JCPOA negotiations explained Trump’s folly:

The American team was built around personal and political proximity to Trump rather than subject-matter expertise, and the results reflected it. When that expertise is absent from the table, the consequences are predictable: concessions are misread as provocations, normal diplomatic pacing is interpreted as bad faith, and technical realities that any specialist would recognize are treated as suspicious or incomprehensible.

During talks before the war, for instance, U.S. negotiators interpreted Iran’s refusal to accept an offer of U.S.-supplied nuclear fuel as evidence that Tehran was not serious about a deal … But any negotiator familiar with the history of U.S.-Iranian relations would have understood that this was a long-standing, benign position.

In addition, the Americans failed to recognize Iran’s offer to suspend enrichment (albeit for only 5 years) as a basis for further bargaining; they made frivolous objections because they misunderstood the nature of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Sending the same ignoramuses back to negotiate a ceasefire (with the totally inexperienced Vance) was a recipe for failure. Trump could never, and will never, admit he chose unprepared negotiators.

Share

In sum, an impulsive, ignorant president without heavyweight advisers plunged into a disastrous war, which resulted in ineptly managed negotiations — followed by another impulsive blunder (double blockade!).

Trump’s staggering incompetence and arrogance have resulted in another predictable outcome — twice. He refuses to consult with allies before making inane moves (perhaps he avoids telling them because he fears their critique). Trump thereby loses critical expertise that could prevent fatal errors. Once he leaps into the abyss, allies who got left in the dark naturally refuse to help. Trump did this in launching the war, and again in concocting his double blockade. The Europeans refused to participate in the double-blockade; the Saudis want it ended. The Europeans went so far as to advance a plan — excluding the U.S, Israel, and Iran — to free up the Strait after the war ends. Trump again has left us isolated.

The pattern is familiar: Operating from his “gut,” Trump never learns, never solicits help, and hence, never refrains from international debacles (e.g., trade wars, threatening Greenland, war with Iran). When bullying fails, he is flummoxed and furious.

Recall that Trump was a failed businessman, who merely played a canny real estate mogul on TV. Alas, in the real world there are no editors to wipe away his errors and make sense of his babbling. Frightfully, the real-world disasters he will leave in his wake will inevitably be much more consequential than bankrupt casinos.

As Peter Baker of the New York Times acknowledged (more please!), the buzz about Trump’s mental stability has heated up of late:

A series of disjointed, hard-to-follow and sometimes-profane statements capped by his “a whole civilization will die tonight” threat to wipe Iran off the map last week and his head-spinning attack on the “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” pope on Sunday night have left many with the impression of a deranged autocrat mad with power.

Mr. Trump seems even less restrained and more incoherent at times. He uses more profanity, speaks longer and regularly makes comments rooted in fantasy rather than fact.

Pope Leo responded as one would expect of a religious leader. On Monday, Pope Leo said, “The message of the church, the message of the gospel — blessed are the peacemakers. I do not look at my role as being political.” He continued: “I don’t want to get into a debate with him. I don’t think the message of the gospel is meant to be abused in the way that some people are doing.” Legacy media’s insistence on treating this like a game (the two are “feuding”!) reveals their own superficiality, lack of insight into Pope Leo, and aversion to taking Trump’s mental defects seriously.

Subscribe now

Nevertheless, Pope Leo is as much a problem for Trump as Pope John Paul II was for communist Poland. When a native son (Leo of America, John Paul II of Poland) expresses affection for and understanding of his countrymen in their native language during a time of the oppressive rule, the Pope can form an emotional bond that rises above politics. His message of faith, peace, and love reaches far beyond Catholic churches and compels people to focus on matters and values more profound and compelling than partisanship. A Pope in tune with his flock who promotes a values-based worldview can illuminate an autocrat’s smallness, meanness, and desperation.

As Catholics recall nearly fifty years later, Pope John Paul II’s visit to Poland in June 1979 helped ignite a movement that would upend the communist regime. The Pope’s visit attracted 11 million people (of a total 36M at the time) and “helped many Poles understand that they were not alone in their rejection of the regime.” Put differently, John Paul II helped Poles reconnect with their historic, religious, and patriotic roots, helping them to recognize communism as a foreign, transitory, and corrosive force. A year later, Solidarity formed in the Lenin Shipyards in Gdansk to spearhead the anti-communist political movement.

The Polish example reminds us that autocrats resort to bullying, violence, and fear because they cannot obtain people’s affection. Through personal experience with a despotic regime, regular people (whether in Poland in the 1980s or Hungary and the U.S. today) eventually recognize the regime as exploitive, corrupt, and cruel.

Once unleashed, these forces can level tyrants who previously cultivated the aura of invincibility. Historian Anne Applebaum writes:

Orbán’s loss brings to an end the assumption of inevitability that has pervaded the MAGA movement, as well as the belief—also present in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric—that illiberal parties are somehow destined not just to win but to hold power forever, because they have the support of the “real” people. As it turns out, history doesn’t work like that. “Real” people grow tired of their rulers. Old ideas become stale. Younger people question orthodoxy. Illiberalism leads to corruption. And if Orbán can lose, then his Russian and American admirers can lose too.

Popular movements grounded in stirring positive emotions such as patriotism, love, and faith accelerate the demise of secular autocrats who appear small, desperate, and superficial in comparison to religious figures. When despots insult the faithful, matters go from bad to worse.

Share

The now-infamous Trump-as-Jesus image triggered an instantaneous blowback from many in his white Christian base, compelling him to take it down and confirming this was not some genius strategy. He wouldn’t, however, apologize to the Vatican, showing where Catholics stand in the MAGA hierarchy. (Only the most willing dupes bought his lame excuse that he thought the image portrayed him as a doctor.) Rightwing commentators decried Trump’s image as “blasphemy”, while regular Truth Social users also condemned Trump’s sacrilegious image.

The White House assumes angered Christians will soon forget the latest outrage, but at least for a moment, some MAGA Republicans (especially Catholics) can recognize Trump is an unhinged narcissist exploiting their religious beliefs. Perhaps rightwing Christians will become permanently disaffected from Trump or stay home in November or even disengage from politics entirely.

The democracy movement is not a religious community, although faith motivates many in their opposition to ICE, racism, and neglect of the poor. Nevertheless, the pro-democracy movement can and should stay grounded in positive ideals — patriotism, decency, fairness, and empathy. Whether those values emanate from religious faith or humanistic values, once people rediscover a sense of obligation to something higher than themselves, they are more likely to lose fear of the regime, forge a community with other inspired democracy defenders, challenge authority, and view vulgar, crazed leaders as weak and transitory figures.

Democracy advocates should unabashedly denounce Trump in moral terms. Launching a war of choice and threatening genocide is evil. Taking away healthcare and food from the poor to enrich billionaires is wrong. Deporting grandmothers and children is cruel.

When the argument becomes right vs. wrong rather than right vs. left, an amoral, corrupt autocrat is cooked. A wide coalition that can unite around simple propositions (e.g., freedom, decency, fairness, peace, truth) can bring down a communist Polish regime, a fascist Hungarian autocrat, or a mad king who rages at the Pope.

The Iran war, more than any other Trump screw-up, perfectly illustrated the central truth at the heart of his presidential bluster: “The emperor has no clothes.” With the announcement of the half-baked ceasefire, the entire world could see that Trump, who fancies himself a great dealmaker (whom critics call a conman) and a winner, turns out to be an easy mark and a loser.

Trump came oh so close to grasping the extent of his humiliation in his Truth Social post: “The Iranians don’t seem to realize they have no cards, other than a short term extortion of the World by using International Waterways.” (One is tempted to respond: ‘Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?’)

“Short term extortion” is a preposterous phrase to camouflage “indefinite and overwhelming leverage.” Trump’s ostensible purpose for the war (other than fantasy regime change) was to reduce Iran’s ability to project power in the regime. Now Iran can project power internationally with a chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz — while also maintaining its stockpile of enriched uranium and retaining “thousands of ballistic missiles in its arsenal that it could use by retrieving launchers from underground storage areas.”

Transporting us from tragedy to farce, Trump announced that the Iranians would not get away with blockading the Strait of Hormuz — HE would do it! As ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Mark Warner (D-VA) said dryly on CNN’s “State of the Union”: “How blockading the strait gets it open suddenly — I don’t get that logic.” Neither does anyone else, Senator.

Trump still does not understand — or will not admit — that if Iran refused to release the Strait of Hormuz when it was getting pummeled by U.S. and Israeli air power, it is unfathomable that it will give up control during a negotiation in which Trump is desperate to avoid resumption of fighting. (Watching inflation soar and consumer confidence tank no doubt makes him more frantic than ever to “end” the war for good.) And indeed, the marathon negotiating session over the weekend came to … nothing.

Why should Iran give up its most valuable bargaining chip? Iran surely grasps that Trump does not have the stomach for a mammoth military exercise to free the strait. If the Iranians had any doubt, Trump reassured them that he did not care if a deal was reached, since the United States had “already won.” (Translation: He will walk away with the strait in Iran’s hands.)

How did Iran wind up with all the cards (in Trump lingo, “short term extortion”)? Simple: Trump was “played,” as the New York Times illustrated in its account of how Trump plunged recklessly into a disastrous war. Unlike his predecessors, Trump got snowed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As former secretary of state John Kerry explained to Jen Psaki:

Kerry: I was part of any number of conversations with Netanyahu.

Psaki: Pitching the U.S. strike Iran?

Kerry: Yes, he wanted us to strike. He came to President Obama. He made a presentation to ask to strike. President Obama refused. President Biden refused. President Bush refused.

The only thing Trump refused was to appreciate or listen to aides who warned that Netanyahu was peddling the “farcical” (CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s description) notion that bombing Iran could expedite regime change. Whether you prefer Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s evaluation (“Bullshit”) or Chairman of the Joints Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation (“They oversell, and their plans are not always well-developed”), Trump’s addled brain could not process that the Iranian regime’s survival — coupled with its predictable seizure of the Strait of Hormuz and success in refurbishing missiles to hit Israel and the Gulf States — would leave Iran more dangerous. Narcissism coupled with utter ignorance of history, military strategy, and the Iranian mindset set up Trump (eager to repeat his success in knocking out Nicolás Maduro and in avoiding a robust Iranian response during the 12-day war) as an eager mark for Netanyahu’s farcical sales pitch.

Subscribe now

In some cosmic karma, Netanyahu is also receiving blowback at home for failing to deliver on his “farcical” scheme. Israeli polling shows his party is sinking in advance of this year’s elections, substantial majorities disapprove of the nothing-burger ceasefire that gives Iran overwhelming leverage, and “a majority of respondents were unconvinced that Israel and the U.S. had won the war.” To boot, Netanyahu has earned the enmity of 60 percent of the American people, is getting squeezed to end his Lebanon campaign, and faces the same Iranian regime, now more determined than ever to build a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu is paying the price for getting “high on his own supply.”

At any rate, Netanyahu is not the only leader adept at selling Trump a bill of goods. The world has seen that Trump has long been under the spell of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As far back as 2018, Putin persuaded Trump to believe him, not our own intelligence community, about election interference. Since then, Putin has assumed the role of ventriloquist, Trump the dummy (pun intended).

As Rex Huppke put it, the ex-KGB agent routinely fleeces “an easily glazed sucker who fancies himself a genius.” After the disastrous Alaska summit last year, where Putin utterly dominated Trump, Trump revealed his astounding gullibility. A hot mic captured his remark to French President Emmanuel Macron, that Putin “wants to make a deal for me.” Even Trump sheepishly admitted that sounded “crazy.”) “Trump, as always, [was] mistaking manipulation for respect. In the place of logic, he has “unquenchable narcissism,” Huppke observed. Trump is putty in the hands of cagey manipulators such as Putin or Netanyahu. Trump has continued to parrot Russia’s anti-Ukraine propaganda.

As maddening as Netanyahu’s aggressive sales pitch and Putin’s nonstop manipulation may be, other presidents have adeptly rebuffed savvy operators. Only Trump has consistently displayed jaw-dropping gullibility. He alone is responsible for repeatedly endangering our national security.

So no one should buy into Trump’s absurd “short term extortion” formulation. What happened here is simple: Trump handed Iran the rope to strangle the world’s economy. Trump is now so deluded as to claim victory without a deal to free up the Strait of Hormuz. (Instead, he’ll double blockade the strait — that’ll show ‘em!) Iran’s extortion scheme is not a short-term problem — and neither is Trump.

Orbán’s defeat capped a week of failure for Vance and Trump, a sign of Trump’s own diminishing power that may end in a midterm defeat as humiliating as Orbán’s. Trump, despite his bluster, looks smaller and more isolated than ever.

As a full-fledged narcissist, Trump expects complete subservience — no matter how badly he treats others. He, therefore, must have been shocked when NATO countries did not rush to aid his disastrous war of choice against Iran. More recently, the White House was likely flabbergasted when its effort to strong-arm Pope Leo (!) triggered another Vatican tongue-lashing, which was leaked. Never in the post-World War II era have so many world leaders shown open contempt for a U.S. president.

What did he expect from NATO?

Bruised from criticism over his disastrous war and the loss of a critical international waterway, Trump pivoted to threatening to exit NATO. He is miffed that many European allies, who were caught by surprise by Trump’s illegal, ill-conceived war, spoke out against it. Although Germany, the UK, and France allowed the United States to use (at least partially) their airspace or bases, Spain did not. Trump’s demand that Europeans send minesweepers to the Strait of Hormuz was met with stone-cold silence. (NATO is obviously a defensive alliance; NATO invoked Article V after 9/11 because we were attacked. Member states had no obligation to join Trump’s harebrained war of aggression.)

Share

Trump had no reason to anticipate unconditional support from European allies whom he never consulted, especially after he abandoned defense of Europe (i.e., sabotaging Ukraine’s defense), levied tariffs on them, smeared them for precipitating “civilizational decline” with lax immigration laws, threatened to invade Denmark’s territory of Greenland, and meddled (unsuccessfully) in German and Hungarian elections on behalf of fascists. Really, what did he expect? In his narcissistic brain, he no doubt assumed that bullying would deliver total obedience.

Although Trump rants about pulling out of NATO (which he cannot legally do, if that mattered to him), seasoned national security experts do not expect him to make good on his threat, although he may reduce troop numbers in certain countries. (Those troops benefit our defense, so Trump’s fervor for revenge again punishes the United States.)

As the New York Times reported: “In the president’s latest outburst, some analysts also see a familiar inclination to attack a weaker party, especially given Mr. Trump’s inability to compel Iran to surrender after five weeks of bombardment.”

Trump’s post-war temper tantrum only underscores how much clout Trump has lost and how badly he has degraded our most vital alliances. NATO hangs by a thread; our Gulf allies grumble that they now face, thanks to Trump, a more aggrieved Iran, which is bolstered by control of the Strait of Hormuz and which still possesses enriched uranium and missile capacity. Robert Kagan wrote that he sees this as a preview of our shrunken stature and influence: “Nations that once bandwagoned with the United States will now remain aloof or align against it—not because they want to, but because the United States leaves them no choice, because it will neither protect them nor refrain from exploiting them.”

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other aggressors know Trump has undermined U.S. power and alliances. They will design their expansionist schemes accordingly (be it China’s designs on Taiwan or Russia’s on Europe).

The pope has the last word

Like a scene from a bad mob movie, Pentagon officials in January reportedly leaned on the Vatican to get on board with Trump’s war. According to a news report, at an extraordinary meeting Pentagon officials told the representatives of the Holy See: “The United States has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side.”

Christopher Hale, a Vatican expert, confirmed the report, explaining that Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby implicitly threatened Vatican Ambassador Cardinal Christophe Pierre by invoking “the Avignon Papacy, the period when the French Crown used military force to bend the bishop of Rome to its will.” (Nice church you have, shame anything might happen to it.)

Share

Vice President JD Vance, who once arrogantly lectured the Vatican — incorrectly — on theology, first claimed not to recognize Pierre’s name, but then promised to look into it. (It should make his tour for his new book, flaunting his Catholic bona fides, interesting.)

The Trump regime furiously denied the report; the Vatican played it down. Nevertheless, the pope on Friday left no doubt where the Vatican stands, writing on his X account:

Absurd and inhuman violence is spreading ferociously through the sacred places of the Christian East, profaned by the blasphemy of war and the brutality of business, with no regard for people’s lives, which are considered at most collateral damage of self-interest. ….

God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs. Military action will not create space for freedom or times of #Peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples.

On Saturday, Pope Leo reiterated his condemnation of the “delusion of omnipotence.” He seemed to be admonishing Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth when he declared, “Even the holy Name of God, the God of life, is being dragged into discourses of death.” (By Sunday night, Trump was accusing the pope of being soft on crime. No, really. Trump cannot resist displaying evidence of his unwell mind.)

The Pentagon stunt revealing narcissistic dreams of domination and thuggish arrogance toward the leader of over 1.4 billion Catholics reveals the depth of the Trump regime’s depravity and the unbridled hypocrisy of MAGA cult, which claim to champion religious freedom (as long as it’s their faith) against Godless liberals. It reveals Trump for what he truly is: a hateful man playing Mafia boss.

America alone

While Trump’s anti-NATO rhetoric emphasizes his destruction of our most valuable alliance, the Vatican episode displays the degree to which Trump (who threatens genocide), Hegseth (who glorifies death, gamifies war, and wages his own crusade), and the rest of the MAGA apparatchiks have sacrificed America’s moral standing at the altar of Trump deification.

Though more ephemeral than military or economic power, moral authority is an essential part of American strength that has sustained the United States as a resilient superpower. As former Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last year, we made a choice after WWII to adopt a vision of “enlightened self-interest, the notion that the success of others is actually to our benefit.” It worked insofar as America “got new markets for our products” and “found new partners to deal with challenges that we were not capable really effectively of dealing with alone.” With all the U.S.’s faults, this smart strategy gave us, as Blinken recalled, “80 extraordinary years of progress.”

Unfortunately, in casting aside enlightened self-interest in favor of survival of the meanest, Trump sacrifices the foundation of our superpower stature. As Kagan wrote, “No one will cooperate with the United States by choice, only by coercion. Without allies, the United States will have to depend on clients that it controls, such as Venezuela, or weaker powers that it can bully.”

In a dangerously unstable world, we will find out how America fares without voluntary alliances of mutual benefit and the power of moral suasion.

Democrats who make the case that Trump has irreversibly revealed his unfitness to lead do the country and our democracy a service. If nothing else, they highlight the utter irresponsibility of Trump’s lap-dogs in Congress in leaving him in control of the armed forces, including nuclear weapons.

“Donald Trump has blown past every requirement to be removed from office. And it’s getting worse,” said Rep. John Larson (D-CT), who filed articles of impeachment this week. “He’s becoming more unstable by the day. His profane and sacrilegious Easter Sunday and subsequent threats, including ‘a whole civilization will die’ and ‘open the Strait…or you’ll be living in hell’ not only foreshadow war crimes, but put our security at risk.”

While Larson urged Vice President JD Vance and Trump’s Cabinet to act, he is not banking on that. He vowed “to help build a clear and undeniable record of Donald Trump’s corruption, high crimes, and violations of the Constitution, so that when the moment comes, whether in this Congress or the next, we are prepared to act decisively and uphold the rule of law.”

He is hardly alone. Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) also said she would file articles of impeachment. Beyond that, Axios counted at least 85 Democrats (mostly House members) who spoke out on Tuesday to urge he be removed via the 25^th Amendment or impeachment.

The reason for impeachment did not vanish with the ceasefire (about which Trump is wildly lying), as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) explained:

The President has threatened a genocide against the Iranian people, and is continuing to leverage that threat.

He has launched a massive war of enormous risk and of catastrophic consequence without reason, rationale, nor Congressional authorization — which is as clear a violation of the Constitution as any. Each day this goes on, the risk and criminality of these actions escalate for our nation and the world.

Moreover, this administration’s self-enrichment, insider trading, and pure corruption off this chaos — from cryptocurrencies to predictive trading markets to bribe “settlements” — has placed the Trump administration’s pursuit of personal wealth squarely against the wellbeing of our nation and its people.

All of these incidents, and plenty more, have clearly driven our country past the threshold for impeachment or invocation of the 25th amendment. We cannot risk the world nor the wellbeing of our nation any longer. None of these considerations should be partisan, but shared in good faith by Americans of all backgrounds who care for the safety and stability of the United States.

AOC makes a critical point: While Trump plainly violated the Constitution in launching and conducting the war, the risk is enormous that he will do even worse as time passes. (That’s an entirely reasonable conclusion, whether you believe he has dementia or simply conclude with age, he is less able to cope when the walls close in). This would be a prophylactic impeachment necessary to remove a ticking time bomb (excuse the metaphor) that could go off at any time.

Subscribe now

After the ceasefire’s announcement, other House Democrats echoed AOC’s call for impeachment. “Temporary ceasefire or not, Trump already committed an impeachable offense,” Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) tweeted. “Congress needs to get back to work and remove him from office before he does more damage to our country and the world.” Likewise, Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) tweeted: “Just because a President announces he’s agreed to a two week ceasefire moments before he threatened to commit war crimes, does not mean he is suddenly fit to serve.”

Why raise impeachment if it is not attainable now? For one thing, Democrats need to be on record warning the country that Trump’s continued occupancy of the Oval Office endangers all Americans. In ignoring unmistakable signs of his mental, emotional, and moral infirmity, Republicans assume full responsibility for all debacles that one can reasonably anticipate for the remainder of his term (e.g., further wars and war crimes, increasingly extreme incitement against judges).

Without reference to previous corruption and wrongdoing, to impeach solely based on how he has handled Iran provides at least four separate and wholly sufficient grounds for impeachment:

1.) Violation of the Constitution in taking the country to war without congressional consent;

2.) Violation of international law (and thereby U.S. law via the Supremacy Clause) in threatening genocide;

3.) Unforgivable malfeasance in ignoring all warnings about the risk of Iran’s retaliation and capture of the Strait of Hormuz; and

4.) Stunning capitulation that endangers our national security and ignores his obligations as commander-in-chief.

Somehow, he actually celebrates handing Iran — a brutal regime, sworn enemy of the United States, and international scofflaw he has identified as “evil” — the Strait of Hormuz, without restrictions on Iran’s uranium enrichment or missile programs, and without support for regional proxies. Then, he either misrepresents or doesn’t understand what he gave away.

Major General (Ret.) Paul Eaton argues that unconstitutionally cutting out Congress was the genesis of the horrors that followed. “A congressional debate would have forced this administration to articulate a strategy, define objectives, and present metrics for success — the basic elements of any military campaign,” he argues.

Eaton, like numerous experts (“Iran has survived this war battered but sounding triumphant, and it has good reason to be”) well-versed in the Middle East and this “strategic fiasco”, concludes: “This was a net loss for the United States.” Indeed, this is an egregious, entirely predictable, and wholly avoidable loss that will put us at a significant economic and geopolitical disadvantage for years to come.

In sum, the undaunted, unwavering, and uncompromising patriots who warned in advance of the dangers of this unconstitutional folly and continue to advocate for Trump’s removal deserve our thanks and praise. This is a debacle of historic proportions; let Republicans defend keeping a madman in office for another 2 ½+ years.

We salute them, and encourage others to join the “Get him out of there!” chorus.

“Although the United States has agreed to a two-week suspension of strikes against Iran, Tehran continues to exercise de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz,” Commander, JAGC (ret.) Mark Nevitt writes for Just Security.

Iran’s Foreign Minister has declared that vessels seeking to transit the Strait must coordinate directly with Iranian armed forces, subject to unspecified ‘technical limitations’—a posture that amounts to a unilateral assertion of sovereign authority over one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints.

Trump has handed over an international waterway to the Iranians, who will now charge (at least) $2M per vessel. (Blocking an international waterway and charging a toll violates international law, by the way.) Trump, unbelievably, contemplates this “joint venture” — a “beautiful thing” — with Iran. (If that is not evidence of mental defect, I’m not sure what is.)

As Nevitt points out, we have given Iran the ability to blackmail the entire world, holding the Strait of Hormuz as the ultimate bargaining chip. The current energy shock may therefore become a permanent chokehold on our economy. Just imagine if Barack Obama had left the Strait of Hormuz in Iranian hands and allowed it to recoup financial losses by charging the rest of the world for the privilege of transit.

Trump’s failure does not end there. He has placed no restriction on Iran’s stash of enriched uranium, no limits on its missile program, and no barrier to its continued support for terrorist groups. If the aim of the war was regime change or even to end Iran’s ability to project power in the region, the war has been a colossal failure at a high cost (13 American deaths, thousands of Iranians dead, billions spent, damage to our Gulf allies). We have facilitated the transition to a leader at least as dogmatic as the last and extended Iran’s influence (from the region to the international energy market). “They will control and toll the Strait for the first time. They keep their nuclear program. They keep their missiles. What a disaster,” tweeted Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT).

Subscribe now

Honest analysts describe this as a strategic defeat. Munk School of Global Affairs founding director Janice Stein told CBS News, “This is frankly a huge strategic defeat, no matter what follows, because Iran is functionally in control of the Strait of Hormuz.”

Likewise, longtime Middle East diplomat Aaron David Miller tells me that this defeat is “a significant strategic failure in a poorly planned war of choice.” The list of Iranian gains is stunning: “The regime survives controlling highly enriched uranium” and retains “residual capacity to attack Gulf states and control/influence over the Strait.” Miller notes that in granting Iran its 10-point wish list for purposes of a ceasefire, Trump has conceded this as a floor for further negotiations. No amount of spin, self-delusion, or lies “can change those realities quickly, easily, or likely at all,” he observes.

From Israel’s point of view, this is also a defeat. “[The Iranian] regime retains its buried stockpile of highly enriched uranium,” writes David Horovitz of The Times of Israel. “It may, if anything, be more inclined to attempt a breakout to the bomb, with a heightened determination to destroy Israel and to achieve broader invulnerability to future attack.” Likewise, the ceasefire is silent on the Iranian missile program, which showed remarkable success in piercing Israel’s defense and leaves Iran more confident than ever of its ability to wreak havoc based on its demonstrated resilience during the war.

Trump is not the sole author of this calamity. Congressional Republicans who refused to approve a War Powers Act resolution, conducted no public oversight hearings of high-level national security officials during the war, remained mute as Trump threatened genocide, and are now making excuses for an objectively terrible deal have shown themselves to be feckless, useless lackeys. If the American people want a Congress that will stop unnecessary, reckless wars and avoid threats of genocide, they must boot out Republicans.

Share

Where do Democrats go from here?

For starters, Democrats must continue to make the case emphatically that Trump is an unstable, unfit, and mentally unwell. While the 25^th Amendment is not a real possibility right now, they can, by raising and focusing on the issue, highlight Republicans’ utter irresponsibility in failing to control a madman. (Democrats should also preserve all options after the midterms to pursue impeachment of Trump and/or Hegseth.) With a mentally unfit leader, the country — more than ever — needs grown-ups in Congress willing to rein him in.

In addition, Democrats must insist on oversight hearings, calling Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine to explain what planning took place, what the goals of this war were, how the ceasefire advances those goals, and why giving up the Strait of Hormuz should be seen as anything other than a humiliating defeat. We also need a full accounting of the cost of the war, including the potentially long-lasting energy shock.

Beyond that, a thorough examination of the utterly dysfunctional Pentagon (including subpoenas of recently fired and retired officers) must be undertaken. Giving the Pentagon an enormous increase should be off the table in funding, so long as Hegseth runs amok and gobs of money are spent for no recognizable benefit.

Finally, as Congress did after 9/11, Democrats — once back in control of one or both Houses — should impanel an independent commission of former secretaries of state and defense, national security advisers, CIA directors, and senior military, as well as retired Senate and House chairmen of relevant committees. This expert body can provide a top-to-bottom analysis of this entire fiasco and make recommendations for, among other things, a revision of the War Powers Act. (The system should be turned around, that is, to suspend troop deployment and funding after 30 days unless Congress votes to authorize a military action/war.)

In sum, at a mammoth cost, the U.S. has suffered a humiliating strategic defeat. This is also a massive failure of the entire Republican Party, which must be held accountable at the polls for abdicating its duties. It will then be up to Democrats to chart a path to recover from this nightmare.

It is no small matter that Trump has adopted the rhetoric of religious apocalypse — something one might associate with a fundamentalist Islamic state — which once was the lone domain of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who claims the war has been conducted on behalf of Jesus. With no hint of self-awareness, Hegseth recently declared, “We’re fighting religious fanatics who seek a nuclear capability in order for some religious Armageddon. But from my perspective, I mean, obviously I’m a man of faith who encourages our troops to lean into their faith, rely on God.”

While Hegseth has been written off as a crank and imbecile (albeit one who once tainted our uniformed military ranks), this brand of religious fervor becomes deadly serious when uttered by the commander-in-chief, who possesses access to nuclear weapons. And since Easter, when he delivered the holy message of: “Time is running out — 48 hours before all Hell will reign down on them. Glory be to GOD!”, Trump has continually resorted to violent religious rhetoric to justify mass murder, mimicking the tone of theologically deranged terrorists.

On Tuesday, Pope Leo wrote: “Today as we all know there was this threat against all the people of Iran. This is truly unacceptable.” Archbishop Paul S. Coakley echoed: “The threat of destroying a whole civilization and the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure cannot be morally justified.” Both condemned Trump’s religious justification for monstrous threats. While they must protect the sanctity of the Church, we must rescue our secular government.

How, then, did we reach the mortifying intersection of White Christian Nationalism (which rejects separation of church and state, casting the United States as a Christian nation), Trump’s personal pathological narcissism, and fascist warmongering (which repudiates democracy and rule of law at home and international law around the globe)? Multiple failures of our civil society and political system played a part.

This is what comes from a cadre of white, Christian evangelical leaders who have adopted nationalism rather than faith as their touchstone. MAGA leaders in collars and robes have treated Trump as a messiah figure, scorned the separation of church and state, and adopted the defense of Western civilization as a mantra and justification for cruel and exclusionary policies.

As PBS reported, Trump’s base includes white, Christian evangelists who “have been influenced by their own version of Armageddon and the end of the world…Some evangelicals espouse prophecies in which warfare involving Israel is key to bringing about the return of Jesus.” A cadre of Christian Zionists cheered the onset of war, which they see as an opportunity to advance their theology, fulfilling their prophetic vision of a triumphant Israel, a prelude to Armageddon. They can believe what they want; they should not be allowed to capture government and wield its power for their fringe sectarian purposes.

Subscribe now

Too many political leaders (both secular and followers of other faiths) allowed themselves to be cowed when MAGA cultists whined that they were victims of anti-religious bias. Power-hungry political leaders masquerading as religious adherents received far too much leeway to intrude into government policy, procedures, and personnel. It is long past the time to take this part of the MAGA movement head-on as antithetical to the Constitution and American pluralism.

This is what comes from legacy media ignoring Trump’s obvious mental and physical decline. They have studiously refused to recognize his mental unwellness, preferring to label it part of his “personality.” Without any factual basis or medical foundation, Jake Tapper declared on C-SPAN, “I think some of the questions about President Trump’s behavior have more to do with personality than with cognitive decline.”

In clinging to journalistic ground rules inappropriate to this president, the media have habituated the public to utterly abnormal conduct. Margaret Sullivan, former public editor for the New York Times, reaffirmed the problem: “The press, because of its own conventions and time-honored practices, normalizes him, and thus fails to get across the extreme nature of this president’s behavior. Ten years of sane washing have had their effect. He remains in power, reelected, undeterred.” And, ultimately, issuing threats to commit genocide.

This is what comes from the bastardization of outlets like the Washington Post and CBS News. They have been turned into cheering sections for Trump, avoiding unflinching scrutiny and running interference (e.g., zapping a 60 Minutes investigation of CECOT) for his authoritarian, cruel, and unhinged conduct. They and other legacy outlets continue to yuck it up with Trump at self-serving celebrations of themselves.

This is what comes from an entire political party abdicating its constitutional functions — from oversight to power of the purse to the power to declare war. After years of pretending not to hear Trump’s rants or excusing them as “Trump being Trump,” cowardly Republicans paved the way for Trump to plunge us into war and issue threats of genocide. Republican senators voting to confirm entirely unfit Cabinet secretaries and then refusing to remove them when they violated the law (Signalgate) and broke international law (extrajudicial killings) have played a critical role in democratic destruction. They must be replaced en masse for failure to do their jobs.

This is what comes from the highest ranks of the military agreeing to conduct murder on the high seas. In violation of U.S. and international law, they broke new ground in the Caribbean Sea, even making excuses for killing shipwreck survivors. Trump no doubt concluded that he had cowed military brass to such a degree that they would comply with any order, even one that amounted to genocide.

This is what comes from a Supreme Court that has treated Trump as a king. Absolving him of criminal liability and indulging ever-expanding executive power while scolding lower court judges who have attempted to rein him in have helped create a monster, one who now threatens them and the rest of our constitutional system.

It is not hard to see how we got to where we are. The temptation now will be to rationalize this brush with disaster, even for Republicans to cheer Trump’s “negotiating prowess” or “restraint.” That would be a grotesque error. Dodging one calamity but ignoring the underlying pathology and serial failures that brought us to this point will ensure we have other such incidents.

We must not forget that Trump’s threats in and of themselves are war crimes, grounds for impeachment, and a flashing siren that all the enablers, rationalizers, and opportunists who have refused to blow the whistle on a deranged president need to snap out of it. Trump is a threat not “only” to democracy, but to our national security and survival, and the peace and stability of the planet.

It is time to constrain and ultimately remove him before we destroy an entire civilization — our own.

However vulgar, unhinged, and divorced from reality Trump’s prior statements and social media posts have been, we have reached a new level of crisis.

“No other recent American president has talked so openly about committing potential war crimes, legal experts, historians and former U.S. officials say,” the New York Times reported. “The U.S. is party to ‘a series of agreements, including the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the Nuremberg Principles and the United Nations Charter” that prohibit intentional attacks on civilians, so Trump’s explicit threats violate not only international law but, under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. law.

Margaret Donovan, a former captain in the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps, and Rachel VanLandingham, Lt. Col., USAF (Ret.), wrote for Just Security: “Iranian power plants and other critical civilian infrastructure are protected from attacks by the law of war the United States helped craft after World War II.” They note that a target “can lose its protection only if it is used for military purposes by the enemy and its destruction ‘offers a definite military advantage’” and only if careful analysis determines that the military advantage outweighs the civilian harm.

Plainly, indiscriminate destruction or threatened destruction of infrastructure (including civilian power plants) does not meet that criterion. But, as Donovan and VanLandingham pointed out, indiscriminate bombardment or threatened bombardment of civilians to obtain military advantage almost certainly meets the definition of terrorism under the Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I Art. 51(2), which reads: “Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited,” and the DOD Law of War Manual, § 5.2.2: “Measures of intimidation or terrorism against the civilian population are prohibited, including acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.”

Trump’s threatened conduct is indistinguishable from the war crimes (e.g., obliterating a country, striking civilian power plants) for which we have robustly condemned Russia in its aggressive war against Ukraine. And in the case of Iran, there is little to be gained militarily by using these targets, as the Wall Street Journal reports: “Destroying large plants would require a substantial bombing campaign, and Iran’s energy grid would likely still be able to compensate by redistributing power around its network. Many military sites also have backup generators or alternative supply systems.” This not only underscores the lack of legal justification for Trump’s threatened civilian strikes, but it also removes any semblance of tactical or military rationale. From all appearances, Trump is threatening to commit war crimes because he is frustrated and has no clue what to do.

Practically, Trump’s apocalyptic language may well lead ordinary Iranians to dig in further, as they conclude their government and land are facing destruction by a madman. (Bombing civilians, we know from history, rarely produces military advantage — as the ultimately ineffective London Blitz demonstrated.) Trump’s own rhetoric makes it far easier for Iranian leadership to convince the populace that sacrifice is needed.

Subscribe now

Ordering obvious war crimes also puts at risk everyone in the U.S. military chain of command who participates in such blatantly illegal orders. Trump might eventually pardon someone such as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, but everyone involved in the operation may be held accountable for crimes for which there is no statute of limitations.

Every officer in the chain of command is now faced with a grave choice: Follow their oaths and reject patently illegal orders or plunge the United States, Iran, and the world into a war of cataclysmic proportions.

As Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said, “This is a really perilous moment. If he is prepared to give an order to strike thousands of bridges and power plants, which will result in thousands of innocent Iranians dying, everybody in that chain of command has to think hard about whether they want to be part of the execution of that order.” They may be the last trip-wire in a situation where the political guardrails are absent (congressional Republicans are mute and on recess; Secretary of State Marco Rubio evidently lacks the spine; and Vice President JD Vance is campaigning for Viktor Orbán in Hungary).

Globally, Trump’s threats accelerate the deterioration of the U.S.’s moral standing while heightening the revulsion of our allies. Conducting operations that go well beyond legitimate military targets, which could kill thousands, would dwarf any past international law violations from prior wars, such as Iraq or Vietnam. Long after Trump is gone, the stain on our reputation will remain, hobbling our ability to deter such conduct by other nations and giving our enemies a green light to commit their own war crimes.

Whether he carries out his threat or pulls back from the brink, this is a defining moment that will require a response commensurate with the danger Trump poses. The international community must condemn even the threat of genocide at the United Nations (while a U.N. Security Council resolution would be vetoed, the General Assembly could issue a condemnation). Other nations could announce boycotts of the World Cup and/or Olympics held in the United States and cancel high-profile events and visits that afford Trump positive PR. Trump’s enablers must understand that he is making the U.S. an international pariah.

Domestically, the legacy media must consistently and forcefully confront him, his Cabinet, and Republicans about the gravity of this action and his mental stability. They can no longer avoid addressing Trump’s grave mental defects.

Congress must begin to do its job. Options include aggressive oversight (e.g., putting Hegseth or top military brass under oath to explain this monstrous plan), censure, and yes, impeachment. (As many Democrats have suggested, we are well into 25^th Amendment territory, but Vice President JD Vance hardly seems a candidate for such decency or heroics.) And, obviously, the Trump regime’s request for money to continue the war should be emphatically rejected.

Those with influence — from the military to members of Congress to the media to Trump Cabinet members — need to understand there will be a day of reckoning. When moral, if not legal, accountability is meted out, they will have to answer the questions so many enablers of fascist regimes have confronted:

How could you do nothing?

The stakes could not be higher.

Epitomizing the contrast between the U.S. military’s technical brilliance, on one hand, and Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s strategic malpractice, on the other hand, U.S. forces were able to complete a daring rescue mission of the remaining airman missing for 36 hours after a fighter jet was shot down on Friday. A second plane was also shot down, although the pilot managed to return to Kuwaiti airspace and ejected. Two Black Hawk helicopters attempting to rescue the airmen from the first incident were also struck.

As the Wall Street Journal put it, “Trump’s repeated declarations that the war is nearly over are colliding with the gritty battlefield reality.” Moreover, he and his juvenile, misogynistic, dim-witted defense secretary have consistently exaggerated and distorted “air superiority,” suggesting U.S. planes are untouchable. While our aircraft were uncontested in Iraq and Afghanistan wars, “the air campaign the U.S. is now carrying out is far more challenging…due to Tehran’s longstanding investment in air defenses and the duration of the conflict.”

Hence, the gap between Trump’s hyperbolic chest-thumping and the grim reality of the quagmire he has put us in. Beyond that, his mental and moral depravity, if not insanity, was on full display in his obscene Truth Social threats to commit war crimes: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”

In his incoherent remarks from the White House last week, Trump insisted, “They have no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated. We are unstoppable as a military force.” He previously declared, “They don’t have any spotters, they don’t have anti-aircraft, they don’t have radar, and their leaders have all been killed at every level.”

Over a month ago, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth proclaimed, “I hope all the folks watching understand what uncontested airspace and complete control means.” He lectured the press that we would enjoy “uncontested airspace.” He prattled on:

It means we will fly all day, all night, day and night, finding, fixing and finishing the missiles and defense industrial base of the Iranian military, finding and fixing their leaders and their military leaders, flying over Tehran, flying over Iran, flying over their capital, flying over the IRGC. . .Iran will be able to do nothing about it.

A week later, he announced, “Iran has no air defenses.” On March 24, he again announced that “we literally have planes flying over Tehran and other parts of their country; they can’t do a thing about it.” On March 31, the New York Times reported, “The United States has achieved such unchallenged control of Iran’s skies that it is flying B-52 bombers directly over Iranian territory for the first time since the war began, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing.”

Subscribe now

In short, we must be skeptical when “the administration’s claims about its military dominance in the skies have been absolutist, with phrases like ‘complete control’ and ‘uncontested airspace,’ even casting Iran as not even having the weaponry necessary to respond,” as CNN reports. Instead, we should view such hyperbole as “merely the latest example of Trump and those around him apparently exaggerating military success.” (As Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings explained to me, general control of airspace or even domination of airspace does not amount to “air immaculateness,” which the Trump regime seems to have implied.)

Thanks in part to his fixation on Hegseth’s adrenaline-pumping videos showing U.S. forces blowing stuff up, Trump mistakes tactical success for “victory” as he jettisons the goals he originally offered for this unnecessary war (e.g. regime change, removing all uranium) and seizes on immaterial developments (e.g. destroying Iran’s navy does not prevent Iran’s holding the Strait of Hormuz). Meanwhile, Iran ratchets up the pressure by recycling and quickly repairing its missiles, undercutting Trump’s declarations of victory.

Not even our intelligence community buys what Trump says. “The Pentagon and White House this week claimed to have made substantial progress against Iran,” the New York Times reports. “But American intelligence agencies have cast doubt on how close the United States is to destroying Iran’s missile capability, a key goal in the war.” It turns out: “While U.S. intelligence agencies have not estimated the number of remaining launchers with high confidence, Iran retains the ability to use its remaining arsenal of ballistic missiles and missile launchers to attack Israel and other countries in the region.” In other words, Trump, Hegseth, and whoever was cheerleading for the war (looking at you, South Carolina war-mongering Sen. Lindsey Graham) utterly miscalculated how Iran would respond to an existential threat.

It is hard to quibble with Mohammad Javad Zarif, a career Iranian official, when he argues that Iran “has maintained continuity of leadership even as its top officials have been assassinated, and it has repeatedly hit back at its aggressors even as they strike at its military, civilian, and industrial facilities.” Likewise, his conclusion — “The Americans and the Israelis who started the conflict with delusions of forcing capitulation thus find themselves in a quagmire without an exit strategy” — bears a greater resemblance to reality than the chest-thumping and deranged threats we hear from Trump. At the very least, we can infer this represents the current Iranian leadership’s assessment of the war.

The legacy media’s taking at face value Trump’s declarations that the U.S. has achieved “total and complete control over the skies” amounts to stenography. Frightfully, Trump lacks any semblance of control even over himself. (If anything, Iran understates the depth of the problem in declaring he is on “the brink of madness.”) We need less sane washing, more explanation of Iran’s surprising resilience/determination to wait us out, and increased attention to Trump’s serious mental deterioration, emotional unraveling, and incapacity to make rational decisions.

We and our allies remain vulnerable to Iran’s easily refurbished missiles and drones — and at the mercy of a president whose chances of removal under the 25^th Amendment have betting markets buzzing.

Bondi’s legacy will include the DOJ’s lost independence and credibility; ruined reputation in federal courts; failed, unconstitutional efforts to bully states to turn over unredacted voter files; refusal to enforce a host of white-collar criminal laws; partisan firings of prosecutors who fulfilled their obligations to prosecute Jan. 6 insurrectionists; loss of thousands of qualified attorneys whose institutional memory and experience are irreplaceable (resulting in staff shortages, which, among other things, threaten national security); and absurd, unreasonable, and unprofessional Office of Legal Counsel opinions justifying Trump’s whims and abuses of executive power (e.g., declaring the presidential records act unconstitutional, justifying extrajudicial killings on the high seas, authorizing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s kidnapping).

It will take decades to undo the damage she has wrought. To recover, the department will need to devise new mechanisms to insulate it from partisan corruption. At the very least, the next Democratic AG must complete a top-to-bottom review of DOJ’s misdeeds, ethical violations, and lawlessness, and then pursue accountability (e.g. professional sanctions, prosecution for perjury) for miscreants.

As Trump ponders Bondi’s replacement, we should remember Republicans’ votes to confirm her amid a blizzard of red flags amounted to a green light for Trump’s reign of corruption, revenge, and lawlessness. Senate Republicans who voted for her will have to answer for their votes, many as early as this year when they face the voters (e.g., Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, John Cornyn of Texas, Jon Husted of Ohio, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, Dan Sullivan of Alaska).

Subscribe now

When it comes to her successor, Trump assuredly will only nominate an election denier fully committed to his agenda of retribution, illegality, contempt (figuratively and literally) of federal courts, and crass partisanship. By definition, then, Trump’s nominee will be grossly unfit for the office. Voting to confirm someone willing to do Trump’s malicious bidding would violate any senator’s oath.

Nevertheless, it is important for Democrats to highlight how disreputable the nominee truly is — both to hold the Republicans who vote to confirm responsible and to set the stage for subsequent accountability for this nominee. (Did he lie under oath? Did he reveal the illicit motives of prosecutions?)

Questions for the nominee should include:

• Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act requiring disclosure of all files and waiving an array of privileges. Has the department followed the law? Will you follow the law? What do you say to the survivors about failing to release all files? Should people who lied about their association with Jeffrey Epstein hold public office?

• Trump insisted his political enemies such as James Comey and Letitia James be prosecuted. Their cases have been thrown out. Is it a violation of law and/or your oath to pursue prosecutions because the president wants revenge for perceived wrongs? Will you insist on pursuing these cases?

• What about the investigation of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, for whom the department admits it has no evidence of criminality? And the frivolous case against Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA)?

• The president is suing the Justice Department for millions for prosecutions that were terminated only because he was re-elected. Will you commit to appointing a special counsel to handle these so as to minimize the appearance of self-dealing? What would be the legal basis for awarding any damages for cases that could still result in convictions?

• Every court has ruled against Bondi’s demand for state voting files. A court has already struck down one executive order seeking to supplant states’ election operations. Where does the Constitution place the power to regulate elections? Where is there any role/power for the president in running elections?

• Trump said: “I said, ‘Look, you know, we have a thing called a war,’ or as they would rather say, a military operation. It’s for legal reasons.’… ‘I say ‘military’ because as a military operation, I don’t need any approvals. As a war, you’re supposed to get approval from Congress. Something like that.’” How do you justify such subterfuge? Given that we have lost thirteen lives, had hundreds injured, launched thousands of punishing strikes for more than five weeks on Iran, killed more than 1,500 Iranians, and would expect Iran to treat downed airmen under the laws of war, how is this anything but a “war”?

• The National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7) on Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence purports to designate “Antifa” a “domestic terrorist organization.” The crimes listed as “Antifa” are a list of discrete incidents for which no evidence of coordination exists. What evidence is there that Antifa is a coherent, organized entity? What authority does the president have to designate any domestic group a terrorist threat?

• In directing that a broad array of groups espousing certain political speech association (“anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; …extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality”) doesn’t NSPM-7 violate the First Amendment? Would an order designating “election deniers” be constitutional?

• Who won the 2020 election? What specific evidence do you have to the contrary?

• In dozens of instances, courts found department lawyers misrepresented facts and/or evaded court orders. Why is this tolerated? Will these lawyers be disciplined?

• Is an exchange of money or investment in the president’s businesses for a pardon prohibited?

• A Twitter post said prospective lawyers must support the president’s agenda. Is this a valid requirement or a violation of law?

• The president has repeatedly insulted and threatened federal judges. Is this appropriate? Will you do the same? What is your reaction to Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement that such language has “got to stop”?

• Grand juries refused to indict six lawmakers who made a video telling military personnel to follow the law, Chicago residents charged in the ICE crackdown, the sandwich thrower in D.C., Tish James (twice), and many others. Given this unprecedented failure, shouldn’t we conclude DOJ’s bringing spurious cases? What discipline is proper for prosecutors who abuse discretion?

Share

We should be under no illusion that the requisite number of Republicans will block Trump’s nominee. However, Democrats should use the hearing to educate the public about the DOJ’s depravity, expose the spinelessness of senators voting to confirm, gather evidence to use later to exact accountability for the nominee or others (e.g., bar complaints, perjury charges), and remind federal courts this DOJ does not deserve the presumption of regularity.

Republicans must not escape responsibility for the next AG’s unethical and illegal actions.

On Wednesday, Trump delivered a rambling, breathless, low-energy “speech” to the nation that bore a strong similarity to his social media posts. He claimed Iran had been “decimated,” despite its continued strikes in the region. Trump insisted we have completed all our objectives — except the war will go on for a few more weeks. (He again threatened to commit war crimes by hitting Iran’s power plants.) The Strait of Hormuz will “open up naturally,” he proclaimed. (How? Don’t ask!) It is not clear what the point of this address was or whom he could possibly have persuaded. During the speech, the price of oil rose and the markets fell.

Imagine if Barack Obama, without congressional consent, had initiated a war that resulted in 13 American deaths and hundreds of injuries, caused massive civilian deaths (including two horrific strikes on civilians, primarily children), pushed gas to $4 per gallon, and induced counterstrikes on Israel and Gulf states (including oil and natural gas facilities). Consider the hue and cry if Obama had left Iran in control of the Strait of Hormuz and failed to force Iran to give up its enriched uranium, ballistic missile program, or support for regional terrorism.

And yet that is where Trump may put us. His feckless and irresponsible secretary of defense acknowledged on Tuesday that Iran retains the ability to launch missiles and drones. (Pete Hegseth is mystified that the MAGA base, which was told Trump opposed regime-change wars, is upset.) He also insisted regime change has already occurred, a sign of how far the Trump team is prepared to delude itself to get out of the quagmire.

Trump on Tuesday threw a revealing temper tantrum on his Truth Social platform:

All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil.

That confirmed the jaw-dropping report that Trump was prepared to run for the exits with the Strait of Hormuz in Iranian hands. And sure enough, on Wednesday Trump showed no interest in trying to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

“For a war ostensibly designed to reduce Iran’s military capabilities and ability to threaten the region, it would seem an extraordinary outcome to have a result of the war be a situation in which Iran could now export oil freely, but our allies would have to pay fees to Iran for the privilege of doing so,” Brookings Institution’s Philip Gordon told me. “And Iran would remain in a position to close the strait again at any time, imposing high costs on Americans as well as exporters not just of oil and gas but of fertilizer, helium, etc. All this would have a sustained impact on world gas and food prices and overall inflation.”

Trump’s unilateral war has already inflicted immense damage on the Gulf states. In addition to damage to oil tankers and facilities, the war “could plunge four million more people across the Arab world into poverty and shave off up to 6 percent of the region’s economic output during that time, according to projections by the United Nations Development Program,” the New York Times reported. This would affect not only Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria but also “tip more countries, including Iraq, Jordan and Egypt, into severe economic crises,” the Times wrote. (Egypt, already in economic distress, has been “reliant on investments from oil-producing Gulf countries whose energy production has come under attack during the war.”)

In addition, the war has already kneecapped NATO, which Trump is threatening to leave. Italy and Spain have denied the United States the use of its bases and airspace, a natural reaction to Trump’s bullying and insults and his refusal to coordinate before launching his ill-conceived war. (Trump also lashed out at France, apparently thinking that France had denied use of its bases; it withheld only the use of its aircraft.) Britain has insisted that U.S. planes from its bases are used only “to conduct only operations that protect British and allied interests across the Middle East.” This is what a world without friends looks like.

As historian Robert Kagan explained:

Whenever and however America’s war with Iran ends, it has both exposed and exacerbated the dangers of our new, fractured, multipolar reality—driving deeper wedges between the United States and former friends and allies; strengthening the hands of the expansionist great powers, Russia and China; accelerating global political and economic chaos; and leaving the United States weaker and more isolated than at any time since the 1930s.

We have saddled allies with an energy shock, thrown into question our NATO Article V commitment, and bizarrely elevated the Middle East (where Trump promised not to start open-ended wars) over real priorities such as Russia and China. (Kagan noted that inexplicably the Middle East “seems to be the only priority, apparently worth any price, including the introduction of ground forces and even the destruction of the American alliance system.”)

In short, because we no longer offer and cannot expect cooperation and assistance from other democracies, we will be forced to rely on threats and bullying (which become less effective as Trump reinforces his TACO image) to round up support. China and Russia relish the collapse of the U.S. system of alliances that has maintained our superpower status.

In sum, Trump may wind up losing this war and subjecting the United States and the rest of the world to an open-ended, devastating oil shock. (As Gordon put it, “Trump has a history of being willing — and to his supporters often able — to sell anything, but it would be hard to sell an outcome of this war that left control over the strait in Iran’s hands as anything other than a major strategic defeat for the United States.”) That would be bad enough. However, the war has reinforced Trump’s determination to discard our historic advantages (e.g., alliances, a free-trade system, U.S. credibility, and moral stature).

No other president could possibly have done this much damage in such a short time. The United States stands alone — more despised and less respected than we have ever been in the modern era.

Trump is sinking in approval in every public poll, with the University of Massachusetts Amherst poll reporting a new low of 33 percent approval. He is suffering from a crack-up in his base and rapidly losing young voters, Hispanics, and the “manosphere.” (About the latter, Elaine Godfrey writes that “the disillusioned young men and independents who voted for Trump in 2024 … can’t be expected to get out and vote for the GOP.”)

Discrete blunders (e.g., tariffs/affordability, the Iran war, the Epstein pedophile scandal, mass deportations, gas prices) might explain millions of voters’ disillusionment. But looked at with historical perspective, this sort of decay, characteristic of late-stage autocracy, flows directly from its defining features: corruption, cronyism, isolation from reliable information, and unalloyed faith in propaganda.

Each played a part in the predictable quagmire in Iran and the corresponding nosedive in Trump’s poll numbers. His head-spinning corruption (e.g. reaping billions for him and his family from Middle East regimes) and cronyism (e.g., installing fan-boy incompetents such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, sending ignoramuses Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff to negotiate) set him up for failure. Tip: A corrupt leader surrounded by cronies can be played.

Making matters worse, Trump might be the least informed person in America, in part because all he consumes is a steady junk food diet of dramatic video footage, slobbering right-wing media coverage, and political sycophants’ cringeworthy flattery. (Looking at you, Speaker Mike Johnson!) The self-created information vacuum leaves him without reliable data about the state of the war, the sides’ relative weapons capacity, the Iranians’ leverage and objectives, and the impossibility of certain maneuvers (e.g., sending in troops to ferry out enriched uranium).

In the realm of state propaganda, Trump’s communication, even for him, has been terribly frantic and contradictory. He has become so accustomed to his cult’s uncritical acceptance of his lies (e.g., the “Sir” stories, fake history, incoherent blather “sane washed” by legacy media) that he is no doubt rattled when his bluster, threats, and transparent dissembling have no impact on the Iranians. Tip: Intoxication by your own lies is a serious handicap — as is deluding yourself into believing that implacable foreign enemies buy your nonsense.

Subscribe now

Put differently, autocracies are inherently brittle and susceptible to pressure because they eliminate the very things necessary to survive, such as reality-based decision-making, advisers picked on merit, a healthy flow of information, and the ability to discern spin from reality. (This sounds eerily similar to Russia’s Ukraine debacle, driven in large part by the “inefficiency, corruption, and brutality” of Vladimir Putin’s regime.)

The term for the point when autocracy goes haywire — autocratic backfire — “occurs when narcissistic leaders have insulated themselves from criticism by surrounding themselves with sycophants and loyalists,” Ruth Ben Ghiat explains. At that point, “[n]o one will tell them the truth, and religious collaborators tell them they are in office by divine will…so they also end up believing their own propaganda about their invincibility, genius instincts, and infallibility.” They therefore are likely to make “decisions on the basis of erroneous beliefs or personal ideological obsessions.” No wonder the result is often military or economic calamities and bone-headed “policies and projects championed by the ruler out of hubris and megalomania and implemented to disastrous effect.”

If Trump’s regime is brittle and subject to self-destruction, what about the Resistance? In polling, election results, and mass organizing events such as the No Kings protests, a vibrant grassroots movement has demonstrated surprising resilience, strength, and adaptability over 15 months.

Social movements scholar Dr. Liz Corrigan explains that mass events with huge turnout of people “who share some similarity of grievance against state actions” are critical to building a movement. Large numbers gathered without imposed ideological litmus tests encourage others to join. ‘Safety in numbers’ is real. “At protests, folks are registering voters, organizing volunteers, building databases for further actions, debating various courses of action, and creating relationships,” Corrigan observes. “It is literally how people build skills for solidarity actions as they are forced into more immediate confrontation with the state.”

Unlike autocrats, mass movements can adapt to new circumstances and embrace moments that can galvanize millions. The larger the number of activists, the more sources of information and ideas can be tapped to inform the movement. We saw the Resistance initially focus on direct opposition to DOGE with the “Hands off!” protest. Then it embraced the anti-corruption message that included the Epstein-Trump scandal (highlighting the Epstein elites’ avoidance of accountability). And most recently, ICE and the Iran War have supercharged the movement.

Mass movements — unlike inflexible, know-it-all autocrats — also can experiment with different models. Through trial and error, the movement can test new organizing methods (e.g., the Jimmy Kimmel boycott) and figure out ways to draw in different parts of the electorate.

Perhaps most powerfully of all, while autocrats operate through violence, bullying, threats, censorship, and weaponization of the justice system, a successful mass movement is built on hope, solidarity, and, yes, love. It turns out mass movements suffused with joy, love, and mutual support have triumphed time and again over brutal and menacing regimes, whether in Turkey, Chile, or in the American Civil Rights Movement (anchored in its quest for a “Beloved community”). In the current context, we see the whimsical costumed characters, an ever-expanding array of witty signs, the near-total absence of any violence, widespread impromptu community-organized aid for immigrants, and consistent expressions of joy and a deep, abiding love of neighbors, country, and democracy.

Certainly, victory over MAGA authoritarianism, brutality, and racism is far from inevitable. However, the Resistance can take solace that signs of Trump’s crackup are multiplying, the predictable result of erratic decisions from an isolated narcissist surrounded by yes-men. Trump’s version of autocratic backfire also reflects the growth of the Resistance movement, one large and flexible enough to sweep in millions of Americans, innovate over time, and propound a positive, uplifting message.

In sum, Trump’s profound weaknesses and the Resistance’s considerable strengths should give democracy defenders confidence to translate protest into organization and to redouble efforts to prevail in November, no matter what futile MAGA voter suppression tactics are deployed.

Now, we learn that Markwayne Mullin, Noem’s successor, wants “to get the department off the front page of the news.” The new mantra for a mass deportation policy that routinely violates human rights, engages in racial profiling, and kills people is “lower profile.”

The Atlantic reports, “[Immigration Czar Tom] Homan’s tactical shift would give ICE a lower profile while aiming to make it easier for local jurisdictions and their police departments to cooperate on immigration enforcement.” The Wall Street Journal reports on more profile adjustment: “ICE leadership isn’t moving forward, for now, with high-profile operations like the ones it previously conducted in big blue cities like Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Minneapolis.” Again, Mullin assured the Senate, “My goal in six months is that we’re not the lead story every day.” More profile lowering!

“Mass deportations” are verboten. “Cooperation” is in. Flashy SWAT operations are no good; “small workplace raids” are fine. Angry villain Stephen Miller is tucked away; Mullin, the face of the “softer approach” (not only on immigration but on FEMA), is front and center. What’s next — ads with Care Bears and rainbows instead of White supremacist imagery and scary shock troops?

Before you get lulled into complacency, understand that the Trump regime is not altering its policy one iota. “Although Mullin gives Trump a different face at DHS, his arrival doesn’t change the administration’s overarching goal—enshrined into law last July by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—to remove 1 million people a year from the United States,” The Atlantic reports.

One Republican let on that the regime flunkies “[j]ust have to message it a little bit better,” Politico reported. “White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the administration’s immigration enforcement isn’t changing, and that the president’s ‘highest priority has always been the deportation of illegal alien criminals who endanger American communities.’” But we know the vast number of people detained are not violent criminals. So: nicer words, the same undiluted xenophobia.

The new approach is just as cruel as the old approach. The Times of San Diego reports:

Trump is deporting about four times as many moms of U.S. citizen children per day as Biden did.

Immigration authorities are arresting more of these moms in the first place, but that doesn’t account for all of the surge in deportations. If arrested, they are seldom allowed to return home to their families anymore. About 30% of such arrests under Biden resulted in a deportation. Under Trump, almost 60% resulted in a deportation.

Compared with the Biden administration, Trump officials are detaining many more parents with only minor criminal histories or none at all. Under Trump, more than half of the detained fathers of American citizen kids, and about three-quarters of the mothers, had no criminal convictions in the United States except for traffic- or immigration-related offenses.

In a similar vein, the regime has not slowed its campaign of trickery and deception that turns lawfully present immigrants into undocumented and deportable targets. In 2025 alone, Trump’s Orwellian policies, such as stripping immigrants of Temporary Protected Status, created more than 1.5M undocumented immigrants. The Trump regime has gone after DACA recipients while DHS ambushes unwary immigrants at court and at scheduled immigration interviews.

Subscribe now

Moreover, as ProPublica documented, U.S. citizens have been snared as well. “Americans have even been kicked, dragged and detained for days by immigration agents…. [M]ore than 170 U.S. citizens have been detained by immigration agents for some amount of time. That included Americans who have been handcuffed, held at gunpoint or simply prevented from leaving their location.”

Even in Minneapolis, ICE’s menacing presence has not ended. Just a day before No Kings 3, Minnesota Public Radio reported that “the enforcement tone has shifted away from some of the more spectacular arrests and public confrontations to a smaller-scale, more targeted and less visible presence. Although, in the end, they said they’re seeing the same outcome: Immigrants in Minnesota are still being arrested, detained for substantial amounts of time and deported.” The regime might claim ICE’s deployment is down to 150 but “a motion filed in federal court Friday by U.S. Department of Justice attorneys reported that almost 500 agents remain in the state.” Moreover, a recent decision by the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals made it more difficult for immigrants who have been swept up to challenge their detention.

Finally, under substandard conditions, detainees continue to die. “The number of immigrants in ICE custody has nearly doubled in the last 14 months, and the detention centers have been strained by the surge,” the New York Times reports. As a result, facilities (many run by for-profit companies) have become “places where disease and illness are rampant and detainees are often denied sufficient food, clean drinking water, medications and medical care.” In lawsuits, detainees, doctors, and lawyers have documented those in custody “constantly feeling hungry, delirious and ill from rotten food, and lacking access to medication and medical care.” As a result, many experience “deteriorating mental and physical health.” Since Trump took office, 46 have died.

Put differently, ICE has scaled down measures that traumatize entire cities and create widespread backlash, but for those affected immigrants, as well as their families and loved ones, not much has changed.

Share

By the way, we must not ignore the extent and lasting impact of the community trauma. A UC San Diego’s U.S. Immigration Policy Center study, for example, found that during the surge, of those who had contact with ICE or CBP, “22.9% in Minneapolis and 13.9% in St. Paul said they were physically assaulted. Another 25.7% in Minneapolis and 17.7% in St. Paul said pepper spray, tear gas or another chemical agent was used against them.” In addition, majorities in both cities say their trust in law enforcement has declined, nearly half are less likely to seek law enforcement assistance, “35.7% in Minneapolis and 20.5% in St. Paul missed work because of the operation,” over half of parents in Minneapolis and 45 percent in St. Paul kept their child home out of enforcement fears, while 39.9 percent in Minneapolis and 30.6 percent of people in St. Paul skipped medical treatment because of enforcement fears.

The Trump regime deserves no credit for a supposed “softer” or “lower profile” approach. Until the number of non-violent criminals drops dramatically, substandard detention facilities are closed, racial profiling ends, mass detention stops, children and parents are free from the horror of detention and separation, U.S. citizens are not victimized, and the regime discontinues “gotcha” games designed to entrap people, the only thing that will have changed is the level of hypocrisy. MAGA simply is putting a happy face on the same inhumane, reckless, and counterproductive mass deportation policy.

Democrats must continue to deny ICE and CBP any more money until real, substantive policy changes are made — lest they feed the Trump propaganda machine and further enable immigrants’ suffering.

The “deadline” for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz or face destruction of its power plants works like Donald Trump’s “concept of a plan” on healthcare: it’s always two weeks away. Trump surprised no one with his decision Friday to extend the deadline (the second such postponement) until April 6. When that date arrives, Trump almost certainly will punt again. His ever-moving deadline strategy (on healthcare, tariffs, war, etc.) has become his predictable fallback when a pressure tactic (e.g., threats to bomb Iranian power plants or impose tariffs) proves impossible, too expensive, or just pointless.

The New York Times reported that the excuse Trump gave this time was “what he claimed was progress in talks to end the war.” There is no evidence that “talks,” direct or otherwise, have progressed. Savvy observers, including traders on U.S. markets, which reached new lows, rolled their eyes. Trump’s declaration that Iran is “begging” for a deal had all the telltale signs of projection. Trump’s deployment of ground troops — without congressional authorization or public support — suggests “talks” are not progressing much, if at all.

The Iranians understand Trump much better than anyone in the Trump regime (devoid of any Iranian experts) understands them. For decades, Iran has prepared meticulously for what to do if a U.S. president was daft enough to attack: Batten down the hatches, close the Strait of Hormuz, and fire away at Israel and the Gulf allies. Only an ignorant narcissist like Trump could be so willfully blind and ignorant enough to imagine he could wipe out an Iranian regime — ensconced for 47 years in regional warfare — with a few weeks of bombing.

Now, the Iranians can see that Trump is desperate to end the war quickly. (They know enough that Trump’s lie that he “doesn’t care” if a deal is reached actually means he ‘really, really wants a deal.’ The Iranians are watching U.S. financial markets, oil prices, and even Trump’s approval polls. They follow U.S. media reports on rumbling discontent in the MAGA movement. They therefore reasonably can conclude that Trump can be snookered into a deal remarkably accommodating to Iran.

Subscribe now

Moreover, the Iranians may be in a stronger position than they would have been under prior U.S. presidents, thanks to asymmetric warfare (e.g., drones, cheaper missiles) that can readily inflict damage, depleting the defenses of more expensive interceptors.

Evidence abounds that Israel and the U.S. are swiftly depleting their supply of interceptors. It’s a matter of math: Iranian drones can be quickly and cheaply replaced; their opponents’ defenses are extremely expensive and limited in number. Israel has already begun to ration interceptors, leading to more direct hits on Israeli towns. On the U.S. side, the “military has fired more than 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles in four weeks of war with Iran, burning through the precision weapons at a rate that has alarmed some Pentagon officials and prompted internal discussions about how to make more available,” The Washington Post reports. The U.S. military is scrambling to find Tomahawks from other hot spots. This is what happens when impulsive, ignorant men — intoxicated with blowing things up — utterly bungle a war. “The dilemma has laid bare broader concerns in both the Pentagon and Congress about the Trump administration’s war in Iran, its shifting explanations for why the conflict is necessary, and the risks a shortage could pose to the United States as it balances the potential for future conflict in other parts of the world.”

In addition, Israel is coming up against manpower limitations. The Jerusalem Post reports:

The IDF could soon collapse if there is no solution to the shortage of manpower, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir warned in remarks during a security cabinet meeting held on Wednesday.

“I am raising 10 red flags before the IDF collapses into itself,” Zamir said during the cabinet meeting…. IDF sources also told the Post that there is tremendous concern due to the severe manpower shortage, especially amid the ongoing war.

After 2 ½ years of wars on multiple fronts and the Haredi conscription issue unresolved (i.e., approximately 66,000 ultra-religious men claim exemption from service), the IDF’s chief of staff’s warning spurred opposition parties to accuse Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of ignoring a looming disaster (a reference to the October 7 debacle) that could amount to “a major security crisis in the country.”

Thus, Trump is under the gun to end his misbegotten war — not only to stave off public anger over gas prices, but to stop the ticking clock counting down to the point at which Iran can penetrate defenses and inflict substantial damage and casualties on depleted U.S. and Israeli forces and munitions. In other words, time is on Iran’s side.

Share

In addition to the limitation on the U.S. and Israel’s ability to wage war indefinitely, another factor may convince the Iranians to hold out for a very favorable deal: Trump’s ability to convince himself that an embarrassing failure is actually a roaring success. Self-delusion makes him an easy target for a lopsided deal when he hungers for the war’s end.

Trump’s predilection for self-deception may enable Iran to pull off a diplomatic coup that offers him empty, unenforceable promises (e.g., Iran won’t export terrorism, Iran won’t build a bomb) in exchange for very tangible benefits (e.g., no Israeli or Gulf attack, lifting of sanctions). Trump will trumpet Iran’s empty words (e.g., it has always denied it was building a bomb) without acknowledging that the war achieved very little at a huge cost.

Certainly, Iran has incentives to end the war. Its devastating domestic damage greatly worsens its pre-existing infrastructure problems (like insufficient water to sustain the population). The regime remains, but it is shaken and diminished. And although widespread domestic discontent may have gone to ground during the fighting, it remains a potent threat. Iran, therefore, cannot be entirely intransigent; it too wants to move on (if only to rebuild and sprint to the development of a bomb).

In sum, Trump did not get regime change or an unconditional surrender. His lack of strategy gave Iran advantages (e.g., control of the Strait of Hormuz, asymmetric missile/drone capacity) that neither he nor his yes men anticipated. He therefore flails about, desperately trying to end this debacle without total humiliation. Thanks to the considerable leverage Trump’s blunders have given them, the Iranians surely expect to avoid Trump’s most draconian demands. They want the war to end, but not at any price.

If only the U.S. had competent negotiators and a sane president, a deal might be reached soon. We don’t. Tragically, more lives will be lost, billions more spent before the war’s end.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who has enabled Donald Trump’s quest for authoritarian power through his outrageous immunity opinion and ongoing abuse of the emergency docket, is very disturbed about attacks on lower court judges (“it’s got to stop”). It would certainly be helpful if he identified Trump as the chief instigator of attacks on these federal judges and, further, if he stopped summarily reversing — without explanation — the diligent work of lower court judges.

Meanwhile, courageous lower federal judges every day tenaciously enforce the rule of law against Trump’s jaw-dropping cruelty, lawlessness, and arbitrariness that victimize the most vulnerable people, especially immigrants. (Meanwhile, judges fearlessly call out government lawyers for presenting misleading information and evading court orders, and blast the regime for capricious decisions.)

This week, for example, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Stearns for the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order barring implementation of the regime’s new Detention Refugee Policy, which mandated the arrest and detention of refugees who had not applied for permanent residency within one year. These people had been vetted and were legally permitted to enter the country. The policy would have impacted those needing time to complete their applications and medical exams, as well as about 100,000 refugees with pending applications. In other words, by dragging their feet in processing applications, Trump’s minions could convert lawfully present refugees into undocumented immigrants subject to deportation. The court nixed this Kafkaesque gambit.

“Before this year, refugees were expected to apply for their green card starting at the one-year mark, and used to get their applications denied if they submitted them too early,” Axios reported. The new policy declared that they had to be “returned” to DHS custody. However, these refugees had never been in custody, so the policy made no sense and lacked statutory authority.

“The challenged policy was set to disrupt longstanding federal guidance, including a 2010 Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy confirming that a refugee’s failure to apply for adjustment of status is not a lawful basis for detention,” explained Democracy Forward, which, along with the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), represented six refugees, the Jewish Family Service of Western Massachusetts, and the International Institute of New England. “The court found that the plaintiffs face clear harm, noting that the threat of unlawful detention is quintessential, irreparable harm. The court further recognized that the policy would disrupt the core missions of the organizational plaintiffs.”

Subscribe now

In another case, U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins for the District of Columbia “ordered the Trump administration to bring back a woman abruptly deported to Mexico last month despite her active protections under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program,” Politico reported. “Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez arrived in the United States in 1998 as an undocumented 15-year-old. She was granted DACA protection in 2013 and lives in Sacramento with a 22-year-old U.S. citizen daughter.”

The facts are outrageous, but all too common under the Trump regime: Estrada Juarez and her daughter appeared at a hearing to obtain lawful permanent residency, whereupon “federal immigration officers denied her application, informed her that she was the subject of a decades-old removal order, and detained her.” She was deported the next morning. The outlandish facts drew widespread outrage from, among others, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA).

Coggins held:

Petitioner was removed in flagrant violation of the regulatory protections afforded to her under DACA, and in violation of the Constitutional protections afforded to her under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

She granted her demand for a temporary restraining order and ordered the Trump regime to “facilitate her immediate return to the United States.”

Coggins excoriated the government’s cockeyed argument for denying a habeas petition, namely that the deported DACA recipient did not face an “extreme circumstance,” because within the roughly 20 hours between detention and removal, she “did not succeed in contacting and retaining counsel who could then prepare and file an emergency request for stay of her removal, and an immigration judge did not grant such an emergency stay request.”

Coggins had no patience for this nonsense: “Essentially, Respondents argue that the government is immune from liability from any claim for violation of a noncitizen’s right to due process in removal proceedings so long as that right is violated quickly. Respondents, unsurprisingly, do not cite any authority supporting this proposition.” Coggins therefore held that the petitioner had “demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that her removal presents an extreme circumstance warranting continued habeas jurisdiction despite her removal to Mexico.”

Coggins went on to find that Estrada Juarez had a due process interest in protecting her DACA status (which the Supreme Court has recognized is not just “a passive non-enforcement policy… [but] a program for conferring affirmative relief”). Coggins also rejected the Trump regime’s specious claim that Estrada Juarez had not suffered irreparable harm because — get this — she had already been deported and was out of custody; therefore, the government insisted, “there is no irreparable harm that will occur in the absence of a restraining order.”

Rejecting this circular reasoning, Coggins recited the litany of harms Estrada Juarez and her daughter suffered. She then held:

True to form (and without regard for Roberts’ call to stop vilifying judges), a DHS spokesperson denounced “yet another ruling from a Biden-appointed activist judge,” and falsely stated that DACA residents do not have “any form of legal status in this country.”

Share

The Trump regime in these two cases (and hundreds more) has demonstrated its determination to concoct circumstances to entrap otherwise law-abiding, productive residents. The regime’s heartless determination to expel as many non-whites as possible, and the Justice Department lawyers’ willingness to defend these monstrous actions, should enrage and embarrass decent Americans.

These cases highlight the indispensable role of independent, nonpartisan federal judges whose obligation is to the Constitution. They consistently have refused to tolerate the mental gymnastics Trump’s legal goons deploy against the most vulnerable people. (One can only marvel at the judges’ ability to maintain their composure and contain their contempt for the government lawyers’ drivel.) Lower federal court judges’ undaunted and uncompromising defense of the rule of law and of simple human decency deserves our praise and our gratitude. For many Americans, these judges are the final line of defense against authoritarian abuse. No wonder Trump loathes them.

Trump personally has lost the country. Overall, his approval is at a measly 36 percent (with only 28 percent from independents). The pollsters found that:

Just 35% of Americans rate President Donald Trump’s handling of immigration favorably, compared with 61% who rate his actions unfavorably; nearly half (48%) of Americans hold very unfavorable views of his handling of immigration. In March 2025, 48% of Americans approved of the job Donald Trump was doing on immigration.

Since March of 2025, all groups’ approval has slid, with Republicans falling from 90 percent to 78 percent; Democrats, from 13 percent to 5 percent; and independents from 48 percent to 29 percent. The poll is no outlier. Reuters reported Trump’s overall approval dropped to 36 percent; meanwhile, just “35% of Americans approve of the U.S. strikes on Iran, down from 37% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted last week. Some 61% disapproved of the strikes, compared to 59% last week.”

ICE is also held in low repute. Just 33 percent hold favorable views of ICE, “down 6 points from 39% in September 2025.” It’s not just Democrats who feel as much: “Favorable views of ICE officers have declined across all partisans, with significant drops among Republicans, from 78% to 63%, among independents, from 34% to 26%, and among Democrats, from 10% to 6%,” PRRI reports. The reaction among Hispanics of various religious denominations is also telling: “Hispanic Catholics (79%) are 33 percentage points more likely than white Catholics to hold an unfavorable view of Trump’s handling of immigration. Notably, three-quarters of Hispanic Protestants (74%), a group that supported Trump in the 2024 election, also disapprove of Trump’s handling of immigration.”

The specifics get worse for MAGA: 57 percent think ICE surges make communities less safe; only 36 percent (just 29 percent of independents) favor increased funding for ICE; 61 percent (67 percent of independents) oppose agents wearing masks; and 61 percent (63 percent of independents) think immigrants regardless of status should have the right to challenge deportation in court. Republicans, on some issues by large margins, are on the other side of other Americans. (Trump certainly knows his base.)

However, there is bipartisan support in two areas:

Most Americans (72%), including majorities of both Democrats (90%) and Republicans (55%), agree that “We should provide refuge for people who come to the U.S. if they are in serious danger in their home country.”

Most Americans (81%), including majorities of Democrats (93%) and Republicans (65%) oppose “allowing the U.S. government to collect personal data and build a database of Americans who protest government actions.”

All of this suggests Republicans’ reputation for being “tough on immigration” has become (outside the MAGA cult) “scary, chaotic, cruel, and ineffective on immigration.” That suggests Democrats should not be shy about stepping into the leadership vacuum on a number of fronts.

Subscribe now

First, Democrats should be clear that for weeks Democrats have been supporting the deal Trump vaguely came around to on Tuesday, namely, funding the rest of DHS while leaving ICE to be negotiated separately. The public needs to understand that Trump has not only made a mess of our immigration enforcement system, he has also screwed up air travel (and FEMA in the process). Trump’s utter inability to operate competently and Republicans’ refusal to stand up to him (i.e., waiting for him to realize the Democrats were right all along) explain the chaos and dysfunction of the federal government. Trump cannot govern; Republicans will not govern. The public suffers as a result.

Second, while few regret Kristi Noem’s exit, her replacement as DHS secretary, Markwayne Mullin, will likely be just as bad. Throughout, Stephen Miller remains the architect of the monstrous deportation scheme.

Nevertheless, we hear: “[W]hether they voted for him or not, senators from across the ideological spectrum suggested that they had been encouraged by a characteristic that has been notably lacking in most of President Trump’s other cabinet choices: Mr. Mullin is someone they know well and believe they can work with,” as the New York Times intoned. Good grief. Democrats falling over themselves to applaud the “character” of an election denier with “anger” issues (as Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky observed) beggars belief.

Whatever Mullin says he will do (e.g., obtain judicial warrants, bar arrests at sensitive locations, cooperate with state murder investigation, implement “the training, use-of-force and detention facility standards that were in place under the Biden administration”) is meaningless unless codified and accompanied by a private right of action for individuals to sue if their rights are violated. Moreover, Democrats must emphatically oppose mass arrest and inhumane detention of nonviolent undocumented immigrants. Democrats should not tolerate the regime’s familiar stratagem of changing its rhetoric but not its policies.

As we learned in Noem’s disastrous final hearings, DHS is awash in money, spends it extravagantly on self-promotion, and appears to operate without basic conflict-of-interest controls. Democrats certainly should demand a “waste, fraud, and abuse” audit before giving it another dime.

Third, Democrats must adamantly oppose any effort to sneak into reconciliation portions of the SAVE Act voter suppression bill. Reconciliation is for tax and spending measures, not major policy changes (let alone voting rights suppression). Threatening states with financial punishment (as appears to be the game plan) if they do not disenfranchise millions of Americans is as unconstitutional and unacceptable as directly mandating those tactics. (As they did with the big ugly bill, Democrats will need to mount a full-court press in the “Byrd bath” process when the parliamentarian rules on extraneous measures.)

Share

In sum, Trump and Republicans are in a political death spiral with disastrous midterms looming. Democrats should clearly and strenuously define their position: Reopen the non-ICE functions of DHS, demand tough and enforceable reforms to rein in ICE, drain the DHS swamp, reject Trump’s Jim Crow election maneuver, and advance their own immigration reform bill (or reintroduce the same bipartisan bill Trump nixed because he wanted to keep the wedge issue alive in the 2024 election) that secures the border, deports dangerous criminals, and processes asylum claims efficiently — without terrorizing communities, killing people, and wreaking havoc on the economy. To win in November, Democrats, confident that Americans are with them on a humane, sensible immigration policy, must maintain that policy and political advantage on an issue Republicans used to own.

Through Trump’s Iran War, shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, futile effort to pass a Jim Crow-style voter suppression act (the so-called SAVE Act), and inflation-aggravating tariff scheme, Republicans are discovering they are tied at the hip with Trump. Refusing to deviate from his dictates, they will bear the brunt of his serial failures.

Whether the Iran War ends this month or months from now, Republicans cannot escape responsibility for the massive expenditure of taxpayer dollars, loss of life, rise in energy costs, regional instability, and damage to alliances Trump has wrought. Congressional Republicans refused to invoke the War Powers Act — or even to conduct meaningful oversight hearings — and applauded a senseless, unconstitutional war. Now they seem prepared to rubber-stamp a preposterous demand for $200B more in war spending. Republicans will have no place to hide come November when voters come looking for politicians to blame.

The latest CBS/You Gov poll has nothing but horrendous news for the Iran war cheerleaders: 90 percent say the war will make gas prices higher in the short term, 58 percent over the long term; 63 percent predict it will weaken the economy (a plurality assume we will be in a recession); a plurality of 49 percent think the war makes us less safe; and 57 percent say the war is going badly. Some 62 percent disapprove of how Trump is handling the war. Perhaps Republicans should have fulfilled their constitutional obligations rather than contenting themselves with sitting on the sidelines.

Meanwhile, Trump’s web of lies about immigrants and voting fraud have entangled him and Republicans in a political knot. Trump’s lie about mass voting fraud drove him to insist on the unpassable voter suppression SAVE Act. He then made that a precondition for any deal to resume DHS funding. Even to Republicans, this made no sense.

When Senator John Thune (R-SD) initially recommended that Trump agree to Democrats’ proposal to pass a DHS funding bill that would pay for TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard (leaving ICE funding for later negotiations), Trump rebuffed him. By Monday night, however, Trump was considering a deal to do just that, namely to fund the rest of DHS and handle funding for ICE in reconciliation.

Subscribe now

What happened between his refusal to relent on funding and his capitulation? Trump trotted out another senseless and entirely performative maneuver: deploying ICE to airports. ICE agents, untrained for any TSA duties, stood around with virtually nothing to do (reminding one of the National Guard deployed to D.C., who largely loiter around metro stations). This underscores Republicans’ responsibility for bollixing up air travel, Trump’s feebleness in resolving messes of his own making, and the dangerous transformation of ICE into a roving street militia Trump deploys to intimidate and harass Americans.

All the ICE/airport stunt accomplished was to trigger a robust blowback from Democrats and civil society groups, demonstrating once again Trump’s talent in supercharging the Resistance. Deploring Trump’s use of ICE as his “personal dystopian police force,” Public Citizen observed: “The confluence of authoritarian overreach of this moment is striking.” The ACLU likewise condemned using ICE at airports “despite their lack of training for airport security and interactions, and their clear track record of abusing their power, including through using excessive force against citizens and immigrants alike.” (Unsurprisingly, this venture, the ACLU noted, was the first time a president “sent armed ICE agents to airports to replace trained security agents and instill fear in families and other travelers.”)

Trump’s compounding calamities have fractured Republicans internally. Cultists demand perfect fidelity to Trump on the war abroad and bullying at home; others fret that a war betrays their America First ideology and the SAVE Act is a legislative cul-de-sac that now compounds the DHS shutdown disaster. (MAGA provocateur Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has become a chief enabler of Trump’s destructive schemes, “sparking a wave of mostly private animosity from GOP colleagues who believe his plan to push through legislation overhauling how federal elections are conducted is ill-conceived and potentially harmful to the party’s chances in the midterms,” Politico reports.)

Republicans fret privately that the Trump reign of chaos, coupled with the highly unpopular war, spells doom for them in November. One is tempted to ask about the private Republican hand-wringing:

Some dim-witted MAGA Republicans remain true believers and actually think Trump’s antics will pay off. Others know Trump is nuts and recognize the party is headed for disaster, but lack the courage to say so. They are banking that they will survive the blue wave coming in November to fight another day. Their lack of patriotism may be galling, but their self-preservation strategy looks increasingly daft.

The damage Trump and his flunkies have inflicted on our democracy will reverberate for years to come. American families may take years to recover from the economic hits. It is a small consolation that MAGA lawmakers and right-wing media stooges, who have chosen the route of cowardly compliance over constitutional duty and self-serving propaganda over truth-telling, will shoulder much of the blame. History in the long run and voters in the near term will hold Republicans fully accountable for the blunders they countenanced.

The notion that Donald Trump could depart from the highway to forever-war simply by spotting the next exit is misleading at best, dangerously naïve at worst. It is not as if Trump is speeding along the 405 freeway on the Westside of Los Angeles, deciding if he should take the Wilshire Blvd. off-ramp or wait for Santa Monica Blvd. The current situation is more akin to going over Niagara Falls in a barrel he chose to get into. The “exit” was there before Trump got in. Put differently, we need to stop using a metaphor that implies Trump is still in control of the war’s timeline. He’s not.

In the space of 24 hours, Trump went from threatening to knock out Iran’s power plants to insisting that the U.S. was engaged in “constructive” talks with Iran. He therefore put the “destroy the power plants” on hold for 5 days. While Trump may have simply lied (as is his way) about talks to excuse delaying an ill-conceived major escalation, his latest announcement underscores just how frantic he is to get out of this debacle.

However, Trump cannot simply “leave” now that he is sick of the collapsing polls, public ridicule, rotten press coverage, absurdly high oil prices, aggrieved allies, and whiny MAGA isolationists. Nate Swanson, a former career State Department official, writes for Public Affairs:

He cannot unilaterally stop Tehran from attacking U.S. assets or the Gulf states. Iran would rather fight a protracted war with the United States now than repeated wars with Israel in the coming years. Even if the United States unilaterally withdraws from the fight, if a future Iran-Israel conflict looks inevitable, Iran will likely continue targeting U.S. interests in the region as well as the Gulf states and energy infrastructure.

This is precisely why Trump now says he is negotiating an end to the war. Plainly, this is not an unconditional surrender but a negotiated end to a conflict Trump cannot win. The Iranian regime’s ability to survive has demonstrated the folly of assuming Iran would simply give up. As Swanson notes, “Despite catastrophic damage to the Iranian navy and other branches of the military, periodic drone attacks on tankers attempting to traverse the Strait of Hormuz are probably enough to keep traffic snarled in a shipping channel responsible for a fifth of global oil supply.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s idiotic boasts about what we have blown up smacks of Vietnam “body counts.” Sure, the numbers tally up, but it is ultimately an irrelevant metric. The numbers that depict the status of the war far more accurately are the price of a barrel of oil, the level of our munitions reserve and Israel’s interceptors, the daily price of engagement, and the cost and time it will take to repair the Gulf states’ oil capacity — not to mention Trump’s poll numbers.

Iran now is in a position, with a stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz and lobbing drones at Gulf oil facilities, to actually impose demands. (In properly negotiated peace talks, each side gets something.) The more Trump wants out, the more elaborate Tehran’s “asks” may be.

As an initial matter, any agreement may be difficult because Trump is utterly untrustworthy. (He seems to have negotiated in bad faith while planning a military action to obliterate the Iranian regime.) Nevertheless, in any deal (presumably brokered by the Gulf states), Iran is likely to demand that the U.S., Israel, and Gulf states refrain from future attacks so long as it abides by certain conditions (e.g., cessation or limits on uranium enrichment) and lifting of sanctions. Trump already suspended certain sanctions (!), perhaps the most bizarre move in a war in which he has declared he wants the enemy obliterated. In any event, Iran will almost certainly want more sanctions relief.

Subscribe now

The Wall Street Journal reported: “Demands voiced by Iranian leaders in recent days as conditions for ending the war include massive reparations from the U.S. and its allies and the expulsion of American military forces from the region.” But that is not all. Iran wants to turn the Strait of Hormuz “into an Iranian toll booth controlling one-third of the world’s shipborne crude oil.” Any capitulation of that magnitude would cast Trump as the vanquished, not the vanquisher. Nevertheless, it speaks volumes that Iran considers its position strong enough to advance such an outlandish demand.

However, even a return to the status quo without concessions to Iran (the fighting ends, Iran does not impede the Strait, the Iranian regime survives with the capacity to eventually rebuild its missile and nuclear programs) would fall far short of Trump’s elaborate goals. But how could this be!? We have destroyed their military, crippled their missile production, turned Tehran into rubble, and more. Well, it turns out that none of that “ends” the war or obtains what Trump and Israel want (either regime change or a regime never capable of rebuilding its nuclear and missile programs).

As Thomas Wright points out, “[G]iven that Tehran may feel better positioned for a protracted war, it would likely hold out for guarantees that America would not attack again and an easing of sanctions. In other words, Trump would likely get a worse deal than he could have gotten before the attack.”

Think about that: with at least 13 Americans dead, disruption of the global economy, and immense damage to our Gulf allies, we wind up in a worse place than we were before the war. (And since we are making comparisons, we would be infinitely worse off than we would be had we kept the JCPOA, complete with inspectors in place.) Iran will be temporarily hobbled, but it can rebuild, more determined than ever to get the bomb to deter future wars. This is why you do not start a war of choice with Iran, which is announced and perceived as an existential threat to the regime, especially without public and congressional support.

In short, Trump’s desperate advisers may be looking for a clean getaway, but Trump has sped past any smooth off-ramps. The end to this colossally stupid, unnecessary war will need to include expenditure of more blood and treasure or a pathetic negotiated peace (which Trump will lie about to make himself feel better) — most likely both. Trump can either get to a negotiated deal quickly to curtail further death and destruction, or drag out the war, brag about more explosions, and spend more money and lives, only to reach the same (or worse) negotiated deal later.