Unless I am free to do what I do better than anyone else, bring this Institution back, physically, financially, and artistically, I have no interest in continuing what could only be a hopeless journey into ‘NEVER NEVER LAND.’

Essentially taking his ball and going home, he declared he would “make all necessary arrangements with Congress to allow a full and complete transfer of this Institution, giving them the responsibility for its Operation, Maintenance, and Management.” (In a weekend of hissy fits, he also angrily canceled his Freedom 250 concert after a long list of musicians cancelled. Sad!)

The Kennedy Center ruling wouldn’t be the first time Trump essentially threw in the towel after an adverse court decision. His DOJ lackeys have decided against appealing some of Trump’s myriad legal losses (although when DOJ tried to back down from suing law firms, Trump jumped in to stop the retreat). That said, the Kennedy Center was something in which Trump was personally invested. His lack of interest in appealing such a rebuke is unusual for him, the sort of fit of pique you see from cranky seniors.

This incident would be striking enough, but Trump also walked away from his $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” slush fund. (The Wall Street Journal’s reporting last week suggested Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche “hadn’t anticipated the level of backlash the fund has generated among Repzublican lawmakers.” If true, this confirms Blanche is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.)

As soon as the slush-fund-for-insurrectionists deal was announced, Republicans (for once, finding a Trump outrage they could not swallow) and Democrats condemned the deal, halting progress on the Department of Homeland Security funding bill. By late last week, two courts stepped in to disrupt what was arguably the single most corrupt gambit in presidential history. Former Vice President Mike Pence, in tune with many U.S. senators, including the “Wounded Bear Caucus,” weighed in as well on Sunday’s Face the Nation: “The idea of creating a fund that could compensate people who assaulted police officers and vandalized the Capitol that day is totally unacceptable. My hope is the administration will drop it, drop the idea entirely.”

By early this week, at least the slush fund portion of the “settlement” was dead, although Blanche refused to put it in writing. However, the part of the noxious scheme agreeing to release Trump and his family from all liability for audits underway remained in place, despite real concerns about its legality and even potential criminal liability for those who brokered the deal.

Democrats intend to force votes during reconciliation on this corrupt bargain, perhaps leading to yet another humiliating defeat for Trump. Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami, who reopened Trump’s taxes case in response to the ethics issues raised by 35 former judges, may still want to examine this part of the deal. We will see if, in the face of congressional opposition and a possible embarrassing court inquiry probing the legality of the bargain, Trump again walks away.

Share

The Kennedy Center and slush fund fiascos are not the only Trump ego/vengeance projects that have stalled out. Trump’s pet projects (e.g., the ballroom, his face on a $250 bill, the eyesore arch, his golf course takeover, revenge prosecutions) have all gotten bogged down, many in losing court fights. Republicans went so far as to take funding from the ballroom out of the DHS funding bill. (If not pre-midterms, then once the Democrats win majorities in one or both houses, funds for many of these gambits will disappear.)

As with his self-glorification antics, Trump is not getting his way very often these days when it comes to big policy matters. He got himself trapped between making a cruddy Iran deal that would expose him to humiliation and scorn (from his own party) or resuming a war for which he lacks public and congressional support (and for which he may lack funds and munitions). When Iran broke off talks on Monday, he sounded relieved. Like a petulant teenager, he says such talks “bored” him. Perhaps he simply loathed having his failure in the daily headlines.

The House vote passing the War Powers Act resolution delivered another stinging vote of no confidence on Trump. (The measure will go back to the Senate now.) At this point, he may, as many predicted, walk away from the war and leave it to others to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Again. Trump may find abandoning the war in a huff preferable to dragging out his ordeal. To him, that’s better than getting mocked for reaching a deal worse than the JCPOA at a much higher cost.

With his domestic agenda in no better shape (the reconciliation bill has been in disarray, as have defense appropriations) it is easy to forget that all this losing is happening while Trump still has the majority in both houses. For a president we keep hearing has his “grip” on the party, he does not appear inclined to even get his domestic allies to do very much.

Trump’s temper tantrums undoubtedly will multiply if he loses control of either house. Without doormats in Congress, Trump will not have much to do after the midterms other than rail at the media, his opponents, judges, and ungrateful voters. As frustrated, huffy, and aggrieved as he is already, he may soon look back upon this time as his regime’s glory days. No more rubber stamps for vanity projects, tax cuts for the rich, or lavish spending on Immigration and Customs Enforcement shock troops and concentration camps.

Moreover, Trump would have more than gridlock to fear if Democrats wind up in power in either house. Trump and his underlings will face investigations, whistleblower complaints, subpoenas, and possible impeachment proceedings. Nominees who lied to Congress may face criminal referrals. Pentagon brass may be called to testify, lose Senate approval for promotions, and face potential military discipline over alleged war crimes. We should expect that if the midterms go poorly for Republicans, Trump suppliants in the Cabinet who beclowned themselves with fawning and oversized shoes may stampede out the door trying to avoid subpoenas.

Democrats should make certain Trump and his regime flunkies know exactly what to expect. Democratic leadership should announce they will appropriate no funds for vanity projects (and charge him for demolishing the East Wing), put a moratorium on Trump-named public structures, pass stringent rules barring stock trades for all three branches, claw back illegal emoluments, and set up a joint investigative committee to probe corruption and lawlessness both by the regime and those who curried favor. (We might even hear legal scholars’ testimony that his alleged insider trading could not possibly be considered a core executive function for which the Supreme Court has extended criminal immunity.)

It’s a good thing Trump is getting practice now in the art of taking his ball and going home. It is about to get more excruciating. In a gusher of political karma, the pathological narcissist in chief will be looking at repeated defeats (followed by humiliating U-turns), public snubs, and growing irrelevance — in other words, a two-year “hopeless journey into NEVER NEVER LAND.”

Trump-endorsed Hinson, who just acknowledged that the Iran war is a drag on Republicans, is no longer considered a slam dunk, even in a state where Republicans outnumber Democrats in party registration by over 8 points. As The Daily Beast reported, “Iowa constituents have been hit particularly hard by Trump’s war, which has claimed the lives of six Army Reserve soldiers from the Des Moines-based 103rd Sustainment Command who were killed in an Iranian strike on a facility in Kuwait.”

With Iowa’s farm economy in extreme distress, “Iowa Democrats see an opening, especially as one of the states where recent special elections have seen notable shifts towards Democrats even as voters have soured on the national party’s brand,” NPR reported.

Disastrous MAGA policies have handed Democrats a compelling batch of campaign issues. First and foremost, the rural healthcare system is collapsing, creating a health and economic disaster accelerated by Republicans’ draconian Medicaid cuts. Turek’s personal health struggles and reliance as a child on Medicaid make him particularly effective on the issue.

High tariffs, another self-destructive Trump gambit, cut off Iowans’ access to critical overseas markets, spread economic distress, and may lead to more farm bankruptcies. Trump’s trade war with China has crushed soybean farming in Iowa (the No. 2 state for soybeans after Illinois.) As Bloomberg News reported, “US-China flows were halted for months and some Chinese buyers turned to South American producers.” Exports plunged from $12.6 billion in 2024 under President Biden to just $3.1B billion in 2025 under Trump, improving only marginally this year.

Trump’s Iran war debacle compounded that economic shock. “Trump’s war with Iran and the restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz — a key shipping lane in the Middle East — has also sent fertilizer prices surging just as planting season is beginning,” Bloomberg noted. Fertilizer prices are expected to jump by about a third, to the highest level since Russia launched the Ukraine war. Adding to their economic woes, Iowans now pay (on average) $4.65 per gallon for diesel, up from $2.73 last year.

Turek, a 4-time Paralympic Games basketball player who was born with spina bifida, was savvy enough to capitalize on this assortment of affordability issues during the primary campaign. Claiming prairie populist Sen. Tom Harkin as his political inspiration and mentor, he refused to be categorized as a left-winger. He advocated for “a living wage, affordable housing, healthcare and public education — all while rooting out corruption.” Pointing to his record in winning a Republican-leaning state (rather than vowing to take down Democratic leadership, as his opponent Wahls did), he has argued, “This is not a red state. This is a common-sense state that has masqueraded as more red than we are.”

Subscribe now

Iowa’s problems did not spring up overnight. Under one-party GOP governance, Iowa’s economy is in decline. With the state ranking 46^th in growth, younger, better-educated people are fleeing the state. “In 2008, 47% of Iowa’s college students planned to stay in the state after graduation. That dropped to 41% in 2024,” Iowa Public Radio reported recently. “That’s a big concern in a state where many businesses are already seeing a worker shortage.”

An Iowa think tank, the Common Sense Institute Iowa, explained, “Iowa’s economy [loses] an estimated $4.5 million in total gross nominal earnings over the working life of each out-migrating, college-educated Iowan age 25-29.” Moreover, the cost of out-migration amounts to “an astounding $6.1 billion in lost gross domestic product (GDP) over the working life of those who leave.”

Something is not working for average people, and those who remain in Iowa face a gloomy forecast unless something changes dramatically. Turek has put the state’s long- and short-term economic woes in the context of a political system rigged by the oligarchy’s growing power and wealth. Arguing that it is “nearly impossible” for young people to find careers, he describes scenes of desolation, as if “a vacuum has come through and just sucked it out of there, just because we have policies in place that have only benefited billionaires and multinational corporations.” His answer to this problem? Elect leaders “who are going to actually fight for the middle class and fight for our workers, and fight for small businesses and for rural communities.”

Turek makes the case that Hinson and the policies she has supported have contributed to the burdens weighing down average people. “Ashley Hinson is Joni [“Well we are all going to die”] Ernst 2.0, arguably worse,” he said. “She is someone who voted for the Big, Beautiful Bill ... just to give tax breaks to billionaires.” He adds: “She’s also someone who has voted four times in favor of the Trump tariffs, which has led us to lead the nation in farm foreclosures. It’s absolute ‘farmageddon’ for our farmers. She’s not looking out for Iowans or the middle class.”

Share

That might remind you of Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico’s populist message: “The biggest divide in politics is not right vs. left, but top vs. bottom.” That is no coincidence. In both Iowa and Texas, Democrats have found a receptive audience for the classic Democratic message that they will stand up for the little guy and gal against the rich and powerful, who rig the system in their favor at ordinary Americans’ expense.

Turek and Talarico will test the proposition that Democrats with an effective message centered on the economy and corruption can win in the heartland. We would experience a sea change in national politics if articulate, compelling Democratic candidates break through with a populist message in states Trump won comfortably in 2024.

If Democrats prevail, they should recognize that victories like these would never have been possible without Trump’s grotesque corruption, war on average workers, and utter indifference to rural Americans’ pain. And it will be rubber stamps — such as Hinson — who will pay the price for sycophancy in service of a president concerned only about himself.

Dear Contrarian Friends:

Many of you have asked about my absence from Coffee With the Contrarians. You may have noticed I have been experiencing hoarseness and vocal strain. As much as I hate to miss one of my favorite parts of The Contrarian, I will use my voice very sparingly over the short term so that I can return later this summer at full strength for CWC’s and interviews. And of course, my “voice” will be on the page in daily columns, as it is below.

Thank you for your concern and for your ongoing support for The Contrarian!

Jen

‘Perfect’ for whom?

Donald Trump, feeling blowback from Republican Party hawks who have grasped that the Iran war has been a disaster that delivered on none of his promises, insists he would only make a “perfect” deal to end the fighting. His comment that he is not thinking about Americans’ finances, he insists, was the “perfect” statement. And he likewise proclaimed his health, after his third “annual” exam in 13 months, to be “perfect.” It just might be that Trump’s “perfect” means something other than its actual definition: “being entirely without fault or defect.”

The Iran deal under review is, predictably, perfectly awful for the United States’ strategic interests, which might explain why Trump is dragging his feet on deciding to accept it. As foreign policy guru Dan Drezner put it, “It only took three months for Trump and his policy principals to realize that all of the assumptions it had made going into the conflict were wrong.” Those faulty assumptions include the expectation that the Iranian regime would crumble, the Strait of Hormuz would remain open, the world economy and energy markets would be unaffected, and Iran’s cheap drones would be no match for our exorbitantly expensive missiles. (A perfect score — 0 for 4! — for the Iranians.)

Trump thought he would get an “unconditional surrender.” But the war’s biggest cheerleaders, as the New York Times reported, are “especially exasperated,” fearing that Trump is about to “relieve pressure on Iran in order to reopen the strait without winning firm Iranian commitments to surrender its nuclear material and stop enriching uranium.”

Having seized the Strait of Hormuz, “Tehran has shown it can effectively close it in the future,” Jonathan Lemire and Nancy A. Youssef wrote for The Atlantic. “At a minimum, the regime has a greater understanding of the economic weapon it wields.” Trump seems to have given up on the demand that Iran ship its enriched materials out of the country and permanently forgo enrichment. (And neither the subject of Iran’s missiles nor its support for terrorist groups seems to come up.) Meanwhile, Iran is poised to get back $17.5B in frozen assets and maybe gain a $300B “investment fund,” dwarfing the puny $1.7B in “pallets of cash” Iran received in conjunction with the JCPOA (a deal that actually constrained its nuclear program with tough inspection measures).

While the deal represents an embarrassing humiliation for Trump, his options are limited. Take the crummy deal, or restart a hugely unpopular war (one which Republicans may even block) that would lead to more casualties (especially if we send in land forces), further erode our scant supply of munitions, and, in all likelihood, produce another inconclusive result. That likely explains why he is dragging this out interminably, continuing to fiddle with a deal to make it “tougher,” in a vain attempt to conceal his strategic debacle. And, as he invariably does, he chose to blame the… Democrats!? … when it is Republican Iran hawks who are fit to be tied.

As for Trump’s “perfect” statement of indifference to the number one issue on the minds of voters, Trump might have made a Kinsley gaffe when he let on that he does not think about Americans’ finances (and, to boot, does not care about the midterms). Democrats think this is the perfect soundbite for the midterm campaign, prompting them to line up to take their swings at the president. Democratic politicians who have argued that Trump “doesn’t care if you can afford groceries or gas” (Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker), “does not care about the economic pain he is causing Americans” (New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker) and just “doesn’t give a damn” (Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries) have been vindicated.

Subscribe now

Trump seems determined to prove he cares nothing about Americans’ hardships. While they struggle with soaring gas prices, he is fixated on gold plating horse statues (you cannot make up this stuff), repainting the Mall’s historic reflecting pool to resemble a local YMCA lap pool, turning the White House into a sort of Six Flags amusement park for his cheesy UFC fight event, putting his mug on a $250 bill (roughly what it soon may cost to fill up your tank), and constructing what veterans have called an “appalling” arch blocking the view from Arlington National Cemetery. Each garish tribute to his own fragile ego advertises that he is in this only for himself. The humiliating snubs (first the Kennedy Center, then Freedom 250) and resulting meltdowns reinforce his image as a petulant toddler. (Getting stood up by musical has-beens and having to “headline” his own event is about as pathetic as throwing your own birthday party/military parade, which then no one attends.)

Finally, Trump’s “perfect” health claim is fast becoming a punchline for a nap-prone president with discolored hands, swollen ankles, declining self-control, and consistently slurred, incoherent speech. Margaret Sullivan channels the attitude of most Americans (who think he is not mentally or physically competent):

Given what’s obvious to the naked eye, and what’s logical given his advanced age, the Trump White House owes the American public — and the world — quite a bit more than the usual bombast and bragging.

What tests did he take? What were the results?

Does he have some sort of condition (as former vice-president Dick Cheney’s cardiologist, Dr Jonathan Reiner, suggested recently on CNN) like “severe daytime somnolence” that is causing him to fall asleep during the day? Does that relate in some way to possible dementia, as Reiner suggested it might?

The release late Friday night of a cursory, suspect medical report did little to convince either medical professionals or skeptical Americans that he is in peak physical condition.

Trump’s laughable claims of perfection have become a “tell” that he is covering for a humiliating disaster. Let’s face it: the Iran deal is perfectly awful, his indifference to Americans’ economic plight is perfect fodder for Democrats, and his obviously rotten health is the perfect argument for requiring presidents to release all their mental and physical health records.

No surprise, then, that Republicans fear the perfect storm in November will sweep them out of power.

“The American people” overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump’s performance because they know they are not getting “paradise,” let alone “extraordinary paradise.” (Is there such a thing as mediocre paradise?) Trump’s overall approval has dropped in many polls to the mid-30’s. On inflation, Trump’s polling is the worst of any president ever. Trump’s results are truly “extraordinary” because he has managed to create broad consensus in a sharply divided country that his performance, especially on the economy, is horrible.

Trump’s dismal poll numbers, if they follow the deteriorating economic environment, may get even worse. “A measure of inflation closely watched by the Federal Reserve accelerated in April to a three-year high, reinforcing the central bank’s budding support to consider raising interest rates if price pressures do not ease,” the New York Times reported last week. “The Personal Consumption Expenditures index rose 3.8 percent from the same time last year. It was the fastest annual pace since May 2023, when the Fed was in the midst of raising rates to tame a burst of inflation that had emerged in the wake of the pandemic.” With numbers like that, not even Trump “sock puppet” Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh is going to push through rate cuts anytime soon.

Trump says the economy is “hot.” Maybe a hot mess. “The U.S. economy grew more slowly during the first three months of the year,” the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. “Gross domestic product, a broad measure of the goods and services produced across the U.S., rose at a 1.6% seasonally and inflation-adjusted annual rate in January through March, the Commerce Department said Thursday.”

Americans accurately perceive that they are falling behind. Simply put, inflation is outpacing wages. “From April 2025 to April 2026, real average hourly earnings decreased 0.3 percent, seasonally adjusted,” the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last month. This amounts to genuine hardship for many American families, as a new Brookings Institution study just reported. Since many families cannot readily control significant parts of their budget (e.g., housing, childcare), “closing that gap between essentials and income has meant skipped meals, increased debt and delayed medical care.”

Subscribe now

Two data points illustrate Americans’ struggle to make ends meet.

First, with wages lagging inflation, Americans are increasingly relying on credit card debt. “In the first quarter of this year, the percentage of credit-card balances that were at least 90 days delinquent rose to 13.12%, according to data released in May by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,” the Wall Street Journal reported. “That’s the highest level in 15 years, and the most since the period following the 2008 financial crisis.” With families stretched to the breaking point, future household purchases will need to decline to manage families’ debt load.

Second, the University of Michigan’s survey of consumer sentiment plunged to the lowest level since 1978. As Market Watch explained:

Sentiment was worse in May than at any point during the 2020-21 coronavirus pandemic. It was also worse than at any point during the financial crisis of 2008-09. And it was even worse than at any point during the tumultuous period of 1980-82, when the U.S. suffered two recessions, 11% inflation and 18% mortgage rates.

Moreover, economic pain is not felt evenly. The New York Fed reports that inflation has hit lower- and middle-class families — who spend a greater share on essentials like food and housing — hardest. As a result, food insecurity, aggravated by cuts to SNAP, has increased. “Households have struggled with the expiration of pandemic-era [food] aid … [R]ecently, President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ tightened the work requirements for SNAP benefits.” The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently found that in 12 states, 700,000 fewer children are receiving SNAP food; “nearly half of the 1.6-million-person decline among people of all ages in those states.” The MAGA agenda’s war on families has taken its toll:

The new law’s cost shift has led states to take steps that are making it harder for eligible people to receive SNAP, including families with children. Losing SNAP also makes it harder for low-income children to qualify for other food assistance, such as WIC and free school meals — jeopardizing the short- and long-term health, education, and economic benefits of nutrition programs for our children and society.

Share

All this may seem like “paradise” to Stephen Miller and Trump’s other lickspittles, but Americans who are falling behind, burning through savings, relying on credit card debt, and deciding whether to skip meals or a doctor’s visit likely perceive this as amounting to economic hell.

Some people certainly do think Trump has delivered “paradise.” The Jan. 6 violent insurrections, already pardoned, are thrilled about Trump’s $1.8B taxpayer-financed slush fund (although two federal judges have stepped in to block the outrageous scheme). Vulcan Elements, in which Donald Trump Jr. invested, got a sweetheart $620M loan after intervention by Peter Navarro. (This would make Hunter Biden blush.) And Trump has been a godsend for private prisons that make a fortune exploiting ICE detainees and for no-bid contractors who get to work on Trump’s vanity projects.

In addition, Trump’s reign must seem like paradise to the additional 10,000 White South African “refugees” who benefit from the immigration cap raised exclusively for them. (Since October, the Trump regime has allowed in thousands of Afrikaners but only 3 nonwhite Afghan refugees — a minuscule share of those who risked their lives to aid U.S. troops.)

Trump regime certainly has delivered paradise for the hodgepodge of donors, supporters, and hangers-on ranging from crypto kings to convicted fraudsters to Middle East sheiks to Big Oil. Collectively, they have reaped rewards including: “Cabinet and executive branch positions, ambassadorships, pardons and commutations, dropped investigations or enforcement actions, corporate-friendly policies and perks, and even foreign policy actions.”

Finally, the MAGA era has been heaven on earth for sundry sexual abusers: men identified in the Epstein files who remain shielded from accountability, hordes of accused harassers, and sex predator Adam Dean Hoffman, who got out of jail with a slap on the wrist, thanks to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

In short, the “American people” who think Trump is delivering paradise are the super-rich (who have gotten richer with more tax cuts); pardoned (and rewarded!) felons; white supremacists (who welcomed thousands of Afrikaners, received affirmed action for mediocrities and incompetents, and gained power from MAGA justices’ rollback of voting rights); presidential relatives and cronies; decrepit autocrats; and incompetent media lackeys.

Meanwhile, ordinary Americans are worse off under Trump’s corrupt authoritarian rule. Fortunately, they will have the chance in November to let Trump and Republicans know this is not their idea of paradise.

“The majority-Black district held for 34 years by South Carolina Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn will survive intact, for now, after Republican state lawmakers rejected a plan to redraw congressional maps,” NPR reported. Clyburn responded: “A critical number of Republicans did not believe in putting a man over the law. Today, members of the South Carolina State Senate stood up for the constitutional principles that they say they believe in.”

Some Republican lawmakers (unlike the partisan hacks on the Supreme Court) refused to confuse voters by imposing a new map in an election for which early voting was already underway. Others had personal relationships with Clyburn, who has been a giant in the State and delivered billions in federal funding for his constituents. And self-interest certainly played a role as well: By packing Black voters into Clyburn’s district, the others remain solidly Republican.

Credit goes to Clyburn, who refused to go into retirement quietly. By insisting on running for re-election, he saved Democrats, at least for one election, a seat that Republicans would otherwise have snatched before the midterms.

Regardless of the reason Republicans backed down, no one should underestimate the significance of Republicans’ failure to remove the only Black congressman from a state infamous for leading secession from the Union in 1860. Jace Woodrum, Executive Director of the ACLU of South Carolina, in a written statement, asserted:

Don’t let anyone tell you that our political fate is set in stone. Remember that showing up and fighting for democracy still matters. South Carolinians from all walks of life showed up to give testimony, to call and write to our lawmakers, to lift our voices in protest, and finally to cast ballots in record-breaking numbers on the first day of primary voting. There are powerful people who want you to believe that showing up doesn’t matter. But we the people still hold the power, and representative democracy is still standing. After we made our voices heard, lawmakers from both political parties finally saw that the rush to redistrict hurts voters — and they did the right thing.

MAGA politicians are counting on voters’ despondency and cynicism to make the reimposition of Jim Crow as pain-free for Republicans as possible. But Democrats’ refusal to concede and determination to build momentum, using key events and political battles to drive organization and turnout, will aid both their fight to flip the House in November and their long-term mission to restore democracy.

Subscribe now

On the same day as the victory in South Carolina, the Congressional Black Caucus released a letter urging corporate America “to defend our nation’s democratic principles and publicly reaffirm its commitment to voting rights and equal representation amid growing attacks on fair representation and Black political and economic power in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais.”

Citing a letter to Congress from 200 corporations issued 5 years ago demanding reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the CBC called on corporations once more, to publicly condemn “efforts to dilute Black voting strength and dismantle the protections of the Voting Rights Act” and to engage with civil rights groups. They urged corporations to attend “a national convening alongside civil rights leaders, advocates, and movement organizations to discuss the urgent defense of voting rights and Black political power in America.”

Only a whole-of-society push (in state government, the business community, electoral politics, etc.) with a broad coalition across the political spectrum can defend voting rights and recover pluralistic democracy. Despite the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision, the courts can still afford some protection.

A three-judge federal district panel in Alabama considered Allen v. Milligan in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Callais decision, which held that intentional discrimination could still be grounds for striking down a map. The panel (with two Trump-appointed judges and one Clinton-appointee) held that even under the MAGA majority’s latest opinion, a congressional map with only a single Black congressional district could not stand:

[W]e cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination. And under the unusual circumstances of this case, we conclude that a limited order requiring the Secretary to continue using this Court’s race-blind map will not disrupt Alabama’s elections (all candidates ran under the race-blind map until fifteen days ago, and all voters remain districted under the race-blind map in electoral computer systems). We do not lightly intrude in state affairs, but our previous review of the undisputed evidence left us in no doubt that Alabama’s legislatively enacted plan (the “2023 Plan”) intentionally discriminated based on race in violation of the Constitution. Our re-examination in light of Callais yields the same conclusion.

The panel reiterated that there was no evidence of partisan gerrymandering (blessed by Callais). This was intentional, undisguised racial discrimination.

Alabama immediately appealed. We should not be surprised if the MAGA Supreme Court majority, having opened the door a sliver to permit certain VRA claims (for intentional discrimination), slams it shut in Alabama voters’ faces. Nevertheless, in that event, the 3-judge panel would at least have smoked out the MAGA hacks who all but struck down the VRA in its entirety. We will find out if the MAGA justices (as many voting rights advocates believe) are determined to defend any Republican-friendly map, no matter how blatantly discriminatory.

Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of LDF, who argued Callais at the Supreme Court, reacted to the three-judge panel’s opinion: “Our teams have been working nonstop around the clock since the Callais decision to defend the maps in Alabama. This is a critical victory [and] affirmation that Black voters deserve fair maps.”

Victories in South Carolina and Alabama are the direct result of undaunted, unflagging, and unapologetic activists, civil rights lawyers, elected leaders, and organizations laboring to defend voting rights. In the case of Alabama, credit goes to the two conscientious Trump-appointed judges who insisted that the law still guaranteed two Black-majority districts.

The fight to undo Callais’ noxious legacy and secure voting rights will take years. However, this was inarguably a positive week, thanks to dogged voting rights activists who refuse to accept it as the final word on our 250-year experiment in multi-racial democracy.

Not one to look beyond immediate gratification, Trump likely could not pass up the thrill of at least seeming to manipulate his base to do his bidding, regardless of the results in the general election. He nevertheless procrastinated until the campaign’s closing days, when Paxton’s lead was already secure (and the risk of Trump’s embarrassment low).

Paxton has been Democrats’ dream opponent. “Since he became a state official more than ten years ago, he’s fended off criminal indictments, whistleblower allegations and an impeachment by the Texas House,” Houston Public Media recounted. “He was acquitted in the Texas Senate. His estranged wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, filed for divorce last summer on ‘biblical grounds.’” And that does not even include his Herculean efforts to invalidate the Affordable Care Act and overturn the 2020 election; zealous litigation to criminalize abortion; frivolous attempt to criminally investigate Beto O’Rourke; unrelenting attacks on immigrant nonprofit groups; alleged racist enforcement of voting laws; and an absurd plea deal sentencing former Waco Attorney Adam Hoffman “to 60 days in county jail for his sexual abuse of a minor over the course of several years.”

While the hardcore MAGA primary voters embraced Paxton, one can imagine millions of right-leaning independents and Republicans may be turned off by such a character. How many of those voters will flip in the general election to Democratic nominee state senator James Talarico, or just stay home?

Paxton’s win certainly puts Texas in play for Democrats, as G. Elliott Morris explains, thanks to “a potentially very weak Republican nominee in Paxton (scandal-ridden, polling 2-3 points behind Cornyn in head-to-heads against Talarico), a Democratic recruit who plays well with independents and suburban voters, eye-popping primary turnout numbers, a diversifying Democratic electorate, a continued Latino swing back toward Democrats in special elections, and Trump’s poor numbers in the state.”

Trump does not apparently care that taking down a Republican who would be more electable in November could deprive himself of a Senate majority. As he explained when backing Paxton, who he claimed “was also very loyal to your favorite President, ME,” over Republican stalwart Cornyn (“VERY disloyal to me”), it is all about him.

Ever since Trump endorsed Paxton, Senate Republicans have been hopping mad, but could they have been surprised? As Politico reported recently:

Republicans are coming to grips with a president who less than six months out from the midterms is focused on racking up a body count of lawmakers who have crossed him, asserting his control over his party and burnishing his legacy — putting the GOP legislative agenda and the survival of its majorities at risk.

They should have figured this out months, if not years, ago: Trump cares not one wit about their careers or agenda. Trump’s handling of the Epstein files or his anti-immigrant overreach (which forfeited Republicans’ advantage on their strongest issue) might have been clues.

Subscribe now

Paxton very likely would have won the primary comfortably without Trump’s help. But having endorsed Paxton, Trump will not be able to hide from the fierce backlash if, as many Republicans fear, Paxton loses in November.

A Paxton primary victory aided and abetted by a wholly self-absorbed president would give Texas Democrats their first statewide win since 1994 (and the first elected U.S. senator since 1988) and deliver what could be the seat determining which party holds the majority. Moreover, a Talarico win would unleash sheer panic in Republican ranks.

The potential that Texas — Republicans’ richest electoral treasure trove and its ideological home base since George HW Bush — could slip through their fingers would be a fitting comeuppance for a party that has jettisoned every principle, parroted every Trump inanity, and twisted itself in knots struggling to cling to power.

Between now and November, Paxton’s nomination may well torment Republicans. In addition to unleashing another senator more willing to buck Trump for his remaining months in office, Paxton’s nomination means Republicans will have to fork out tens of millions of dollar trying to save a seat that would ordinarily be, at the very worst, “likely” Republican.

“National Republicans are growing increasingly worried that having Paxton as the nominee will force them to spend massively to hold onto the seat, sucking away resources from other top battlegrounds,” Politico reported. “Some among the GOP donor class say that if Paxton prevails the general election will be Trump’s problem to deal with, and think he will need to deploy MAGA Inc.’s $300 million war chest.” Even if Trump is willing to spend his own money (and why not hang onto it for another coup or his post-presidency?), MAGA Inc. millions spent on Paxton won’t be available for other races. No wonder Senate Republicans are seething.

In addition, down ballot Republicans in Texas will rightfully worry that Paxton will depress turnout and/or make it impossible for them to distance themselves from the most wackadoodle elements in the party. Paxton’s nomination compounds the difficulty Texas Republicans will have in holding on to re-redistricted seats whose lines were drawn with the (faulty) assumption that Hispanics would stick with the party.

Even worse, just as Republican nominee for the Senate Rep. Todd Akins (R-MO) became the poster boy for extremism and hostility to women in 2012, Paxton may well become the national avatar for MAGA craziness and scandal in 2026. What better example of dysfunction and grotesque corruption could Democrats ask for in making the case that we need a Senate to check (not accelerate) Trump’s mayhem and graft? (If things are bad now, imagine a MAGA controlled Senate with the likes of Paxton calling the shots.)

Certainly, if Democrats are to win this very Republican state, they will have to spend and organize as they have not done in Texas for decades. They must intensify outreach to Black and Hispanic voters. Still, while this remains an uphill fight for Democrats, few could have imagined a year ago that we would be discussing just how fragile is Republicans’ hold on Texas.

Republicans’ newest midterm headache highlights the toxic political environment and self-destructive revenge mentality Trump has visited on his party. Losing the Texas Senate seat, and with it the Senate majority, would be karmic payback for a party that has never managed to stand up to him.

For his entire adult life, Trump has dissembled, exaggerated, and outright lied about everything from his wealth to his poll numbers to the economy to Covid to the 2020 election. Whether it is small, stupid lies (e.g., awards he never won) or cringeworthy stories about invented encounters (the infamous stories that begin: “With tears in his eyes, he came up to me. ‘Sir …’”), or jaw-dropping reversals of reality (blaming not Russia but Ukraine for the war), the pathological narcissist-in-chief creates his own reality, daring followers to question him and sneering at “fake news” that reveals his lies.

Sadly, he has largely succeeded with bluster and fabrication inside the cult of personality where loyalty is measured by eagerness to adopt the most idiotic falsehoods, only sycophants (and dullards) get hired, and the right-wing media runs interference for him 24/7.

But the lies and distortions and excuses only work up to a point. When reality becomes dire enough, Trump can no longer convince even his supporters to disbelieve their lying eyes. And that has been happening a lot lately.

Trump’s approval numbers overall, even among Republicans, are sinking. Reuters reported last week: “Donald Trump’s presidential approval rating fell to nearly its lowest level ​since he returned to the White House, hit by a drop in support among Republicans, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.” His overall approval plummeted to 35 percent, but most noteworthy is the reality that “Discontent is spreading within Trump’s party, with 21% of Republicans saying they now disapprove of the president’s performance, compared to 5% just after he took office ​in January 2025.” In addition, “Some 79% of Republicans in the poll said Trump was doing a good job, down from 82% earlier in the month and 91% at the ​start of his term.” In short, more Republicans refuse to buy his fabrications. They know prices are high; they know they cannot make ends meet. Most know the war is a disaster.

Subscribe now

Trump’s inability to bamboozle the public or foreign actors is most evident with regard to his Iran fiasco. Whatever video bombing footage he shows and whatever hyperbole he spouts, the public overwhelmingly believes it’s been a debacle. When he declares victory but previews a deal that signals capitulation, Republicans now raise a ruckus. (He responds by insulting them or introducing a non sequitur — e.g., Arab states’ adoption of the Abraham Accords.)

Trump has been even less successful in snowing the Iranians, who have learned his deadlines are phony, his threats are empty, and his premature declarations of a deal signal panic. Iran is not about to give him a deal to mask his strategic failure; they figured out months ago that the emperor has no clothes.

As the New York Times put it, “[T]he contours of a deal emerging this week to end the war reflected how Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign does not appear to have decisively shifted Iran’s stance on its nuclear program.” Frankly, Trump has not moved the Iranians one iota. As with the staged Gaza deal, Trump apparently is kicking down the road the critical demands (e.g. suspending enrichment) that may have to wait for subsequent negotiations (which could last forever). No wonder Republicans are melting down: The U.S.’s strategic defeat is too obvious to conceal.

Trump’s powers of prevarication don’t work these days with most Senate Republicans. He simply cannot convince them that a slush fund to pay off insurrectionists passes the smell test. Suddenly, Republicans who have been playing along with election denial are outraged: We can’t reward people who attacked police officers!

Most humiliating, Trump cannot convince voters he is the healthiest president ever. Too many trips to Walter Reed, too many episodes of falling asleep in public, too many pictures of discolored hands, and too many boasts about “acing” a cognitive exam have taken their toll. People don’t buy that the lumbering, speech-slurring, sleepy president is in tip-top shape.

Only 40 percent of Americans in a recent ABC-Washington Post poll think he has the “mental sharpness to serve as president, down from 47 percent last September,” the Washington Post reported. Only 44 percent (down 10 points) think he’s physically up for the job. Likewise, a YouGov poll from April found that “35% say Trump is suffering significant cognitive decline, while 13% say he’s suffering modest cognitive decline.”

Frankly, Trump’s proficiency at reshaping reality has been declining for some time. He has been spectacularly unsuccessful, even among Republicans, in convincing people there is nothing to see in the Epstein files. He had to put the kibosh on the phrase “mass deportation” and keep ICE out the headlines because Americans, by gosh, just wouldn’t buy that Renee Good and Alex Pretti were domestic terrorists and that grandmothers, toddlers, and manual labors are the “worst of the worst” who must be deported.

Share

What happened to the master con man? For one thing, as the former reality show star should know, people get bored. The same old Trump shtick gets tiresome; the public’s patience with his excuses wears thin. They have heard all the lies, all the Biden blame-shifting, all the “two weeks away” deadline-shifting. It’s stale.

In addition, Trump’s lack of impulse control has deprived him of any semblance of credibility or normality. Vulgar outbursts (e.g., insulting murdered Rob Reiner, threatening genocide) and loony visuals (portraying the Obamas as apes and himself as Jesus) confirm something is very wrong with him. It does not help him that the legacy media outlets have become more candid about his questionable sanity.

Finally, people may go along with Trump’s bluster and BS when things are going well; but once they cannot pay the grocery bills, average Americans tend to become indignant about politicians lying to their faces. And once they start losing elections, elected Republicans feel less compelled to indulge Trump’s lies.

Trump certainly still has a grip on hardcore cult members. Primary voters will dutifully follow his lead (as they did in trouncing Cornyn) to feed Trump’s ego and exact revenge on his enemies. However, his power to convince the public at large, including Republicans more generally, that prices are low, victory in Iran was complete, his mind has never been sharper, etc., is evaporating. As he grows more frustrated, his angry outbursts will likely multiply, his search for scapegoats will accelerate, and his willingness to burn down every institution and norm to deny his enemies victory will intensify.

None of these antics will soothe the gapping neediness at the core of his being, but as his panic sets in, he will make America more chaotic, violent, and corrupt.

First, the prosecution persecution of deported-then-retrieved-then-indicted Kilmar Abrego Garcia blew up in Blanche’s face. A federal court judge not only dismissed the case but hammered home key adverse evidence that Blanche supplied warranting Abrego Garcia’s release.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr., of the Middle District of Tennessee ruled on a record replete with damning facts that the government’s decision to reopen a closed case against Abrego Garcia for transporting undocumented immigrants stemming from a November 2022 traffic stop was an illegitimate, vindictive prosecution. In stinging language, Crenshaw invoked the revered Attorney General Robert H. Jackson’s famous warning that the worst abuse of power comes when a prosecutor “will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”

Crenshaw cited repeatedly the key piece of evidence: Blanche’s “unrebutted public statements tying the reopened investigation” to Abrego Garcia’s successful suit challenging his deportation to CECOT. Crenshaw wrote that the inference of vindictiveness was supported by the “reopening of the investigation, Blanche’s unrebutted statements, and [Blanche aide and associate deputy attorney general Aakash] Singh’s sustained oversight.” Judge Crenshaw emphasized, “Blanche’s statements tie Main Justice to the tainted investigation and confirm what motivated it.”

Judge Crenshaw found the Justice Department could “not explain the Government’s change in position to remove Abrego Garcia and not prosecute him to then prosecute and not remove him.” Crenshaw recounted:

[Blanche’s] public statements stand unrebutted. Blanche stated that the Executive Branch began “investigating” Abrego after a judge in Maryland “questioned” the Executive Branch’s decision to deport him. The Court previously found that Blanche’s “remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights,” and that Blanche “directly tie[d] [Homeland Security’s] investigation to Abrego’s Maryland suit.”

Blanche’s words directly confirm that the Executive Branch reopened the criminal investigation because the Judicial Branch required the Executive Branch to facilitate Abrego’s return from El Salvador.

Ouch. It’s one thing to lose a case critical to Trump. (Abrego Garcia infuriated the regime when he challenged Trump and Stephen Miller’s evil deportation scheme — and won!) It is quite another to lose it because you gave the defense critical evidence of vindictive motive. “Instead of investigating the November 2022 traffic stop to identify who was responsible for the human smuggling, Blanche started the investigation to implicate Abrego,” Judge Crenshaw wrote. “He did so to justify the Executive Branch’s decision to remove him to El Salvador.” Trump wanted a Roy Cohn attack dog, but in Blanche he has a loose-lipped bumbler.

Subscribe now

Trump’s primary use for DOJ these days is to harass his enemies under the guise of legitimate law enforcement. Blanche’s blunder makes him a poor choice for that task. Crenshaw’s order nailing Blanche for vindictive prosecution puts other judges on notice; in these concocted revenge cases, judges will be that much more skeptical and less inclined to extend the “presumption of regularity” to Blanche and his attorneys. Blanche sure does not seem the ideal attorney general to pursue Trump’s revenge cases.

If the Abrego Garcia case was a blunder for Blanche (in large part because it confirmed critics’ accusations against Trump’s vicious deportation scheme and lies about Abrego Garcia), then the anti-weaponization fund might turn out to be Blanche’s career ender with Trump. Blanche, in testimony before Congress and then in a heated, disastrous row with two dozen Republican senators, did nothing but infuriate lawmakers over Blanche’s demand that they approve Trump’s “payout pot for punks,” as Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) so colorfully put it. After two hours with Blanche, Republican Senators voiced their fury, taking turns bashing Blanche. The irate senators were unusually candid:

• Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sneered: “So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick.”

• Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson called the scheme a “galactic blunder.”

• Tillis appeared disgusted: “Under what circumstances would it ever make sense to provide restitution for people who were either pled guilty or were found guilty in a court of law? You want to talk about maybe providing restitution for people who weren’t found guilty? Fine, but if you do this, why not for the poor, mostly peaceful prospect protesters in Kenosha; in Portland?”

Share

Blanche not only failed to calm the storm; he wound up provoking usually docile senators and maring his own standing with the people who would have to confirm him if he were nominated for the job. (As a result of the blow-up, the Republicans had to flee D.C. and forgo a vote on the reconciliation bill.)

Even if Trump sticks with Blanche as his nominee, the rate at which Blanche is alienating Republican senators (and at which Trump is creating new defectors in the Republican Senate ranks) suggests Blanche might not make it through a confirmation fight.

Let’s hope that a lawyer who is this undisciplined, untrustworthy, and unethical does not get the AG job. If his prat-falls knock him out of consideration, we would be spared ever having to hear the phrase “Attorney General Blanche” — a phrase that a democracy struggling to hang on to the rule of law could certainly do without.

Memorial Day was not always another generic holiday. “Originally called Decoration Day, from the early tradition of decorating graves with flowers, wreaths and flags, Memorial Day is a day for remembrance of those who have died in service to our country,” PBS explained. “It was first widely observed on May 30, 1868, to commemorate the sacrifices of Civil War soldiers, by proclamation of Gen. John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, an organization of former Union sailors and soldiers.” The tradition of decorating graves of our military dead continues to the present. Arlington and other federal cemeteries, marked by headstones adorned with flags or wreaths, remain islands of solemnity in a country not given to self-reflection.

But Memorial Day is too important to be confined to the grounds of military cemeteries. We could use more venues, events, and traditions that encourage Americans to take time to appreciate the cost of war and the sacrifices of brave men and women who died fighting them. As we apparently edge toward a flimsy deal to end an unnecessary, illegal, unilateral war, Americans should consider how the Constitution’s granting of authority to Congress to declare war has been virtually ignored, enabling an unhinged president to launch a war of choice without properly understanding the risks, without public debate, and without congressional consultation.

Every other president has recognized that war must be the last resort after exercising all avenues and should be undertaken only for vital national interests. But not Trump. He launched a war against Iran that cost the lives of 13 Americans and wounded hundreds of others, killed thousands of civilians throughout the region, burned through billions of dollars, reduced Tehran and Beirut to rubble (and left residents in dire conditions), and saddled already struggling Americans with higher gas prices and an inflation surge. And for what?

We have failed to achieve Trump’s goals of eliminating Iran’s nuclear ambitions, according to news reports about negotiations closing in on a final deal. An agreement to talk about a deal that might suspend enrichment for some time is weak tea. (A deal akin to the JCPOA would be the best possible outcome, but it may be unattainable at this point). We did not permanently destroy Iran’s missile capacity or shrink its footprint in the region. To the contrary, Iran comes out with more leverage than it has ever had and the potential to reassert control of the Strait of Hormuz. (And if reports are accurate, Trump is prepared to release $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets, $23.3 billion more than released in conjunction with the JCPOA. Republicans excoriated President Barack Obama, claiming he was funding Iran’s nefarious activities.)

As historian Bob Kagan explained at a recent Brookings forum, the war is “pretty much a disaster” and has resulted in a “significant diminishing of American influence in the region, the enhancement obviously of Iran’s influence, and also Iran’s good allies who are China and Russia.” Had the Constitution as written been followed, there would have been ample time to flag the risks, rally public opinion, and force Trump to explain how he would avoid predictable calamities (e.g. closing of the Strait of Hormuz).

Only after the bombs stopped falling did Congress finally push back on Trump’s disastrous war. (Last week, the Senate voted to advance the War Powers Act; the war powers resolution then had to be pulled from the House floor to avoid another humiliating defeat for Trump.) The Framers would be shocked, no doubt, at the inversion of power they carefully crafted to prevent executive abuse.

Some serious commemoration to honor of our war dead would serve as a timely reminder that:

1. War should be a last resort; never undertaken lightly;

2. Executive power has grown in dangerous and unconstitutional ways; and

3. We have the power to correct the unconstitutional inflation of executive power that can easily result in disasters like the Iran War.

As to the latter, we could use a long overdue debate about the War Powers Act, which has become essentially useless. If Democrats win back the majority in one or both houses, they must work on revising the War Powers Act to provide real restraint on presidents and reassert Congress’s sole authority power to declare war.

Fortunately, Democrats do not need to start from scratch in considering War Powers Act reforms. Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced a well-crafted bill in 2021 to address several serious infirmities with the current statute. As Just Security explained at the time, the bill would have tightened up the definition of hostilities (which triggers the consultation obligations and starts the clock for Congress to halt military engagement) to include “any situation involving any use of lethal or potentially lethal force by or against United States forces.” It also would have shortened the 60-day time limit for the president to engage troops without congressional consent to 20 days.

Most critically, the bill would have enacted “an automatic funds cut-off” if Congress did not vote to continue military action. If Congress does nothing, military action would halt. Linked to the power of the purse, such a mechanism would “not require a vote, let alone a supermajority in both houses [to overcome a presidential veto], to take effect.” That’s a bill worth pulling out of the filing cabinet and reintroducing.

In sum, Americans should find time today to ponder the enormous sacrifice of our armed forces over 250 years and the dangerous expansion of presidential power that makes it far too easy for a president to take us to war on an ill-conceived whim.

I can think of no better way to honor our military men and women — living and dead — than to make it as hard as possible for a president to launch a harebrained war without the buy-in of voters and Congress.

It bears repeating that Trump’s overly cheery take that we are on the verge of a deal may be nothing more than Trump spin. (Axios reported the deal could take days to complete.) Negotiations could stall at any time, leaving the Strait of Hormuz closed and no agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.

The agreement reportedly under discussion would simply continue talks about Iran’s nuclear program. A final nuclear deal, if concluded, would require Iran to give up its stockpile of enriched material (or reduce the level of enrichment) and suspend enrichment for a fixed time (as under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). One imagines Iran will be happy to talk and talk and talk. The purported agreement, according to U.S. sources, would permit free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. That would simply be a return to the status quo.

But most galling for Republicans, Trump’s agreement reportedly would unfreeze $25 billion in Iranian assets, a significant achievement for the economically hobbled Iranian regime. Recall that Republicans and Trump personally excoriated President Barack Obama’s agreement to unfreeze a mere $1.7 billion in conjunction with the JCPOA, which they claim amounted to funding Iran’s nefarious activities.

War hawk Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) freaked out as details of the agreement dribbled out. “If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq,” Graham warned on X. “A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the Strait in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.” Graham was not done with his scathing review:

This combination of Iran being perceived as having the ability to terrorize the Strait in perpetuity and the ability the inflict massive damage to Gulf oil infrastructure is a major shift of the balance of power in the region and over time will be a nightmare for Israel.

Also, it makes one wonder why the war started to begin with if these perceptions are accurate.

He was not alone. “The rumored 60-day ceasefire — with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster. Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught,” tweeted Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman.

Share

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) chimed in as well, saying he was “deeply concerned” about the reported deal, the New York Times reported. “It would be a ‘disastrous mistake’ if an agreement resulted in Iran being able to enrich uranium, develop nuclear weapons, and have effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, he said.” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) on CNN observed, “It doesn’t make sense to me ... now we’re talking about a posture where we may accept nuclear material remaining in Iran?”

The deal under discussion would dispel any notion that the United States “won” the war. The Wall Street Journal was quick to conclude: “The agreement, if completed, wouldn’t achieve Trump’s main goal of preventing Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

If this deal holds, there will be no question that Trump’s war amounted to a major strategic failure. Maybe we get an agreement similar to the JCPOA, which would have been in place had Trump not exited the deal. (Getting back in war something you already had is nothing to cheer about.) The agreement would leave the regime (perhaps more radical than ever) in place, deny Israel any permanent end to the Iranian threat, reveal the limits of U.S. influence and power in the region, and, by default, afford China (as evidenced by Trump’s pathetic showing at the summit) increased stature and confidence. Preventing a restart of a war no one wanted and an end to the energy shock Trump provoked can hardly been called “wins.”

The entire episode underscores the utter fecklessness of the Republicans in Congress, who don’t exercise their constitutional authority or conduct even minimal oversight. The deaths and injuries to U.S. troops, the deaths of thousands in the region, the physical destruction in Iran and Lebanon, the damage to the Gulf states’ oil operations, the extensive depletion of U.S. munitions, the tens of billions in costs, and soaring energy costs (and broader inflation spike) have achieved no lasting, positive result for the United States or its allies in the region. At best, we would be back to an agreement akin to the JCPOA but with a much emboldened, more dangerous, and well-funded Iranian regime.

Whether this deal gets finalized or not, Congress must conduct extensive oversight to fully investigate the Trump regime’s malfeasance, incompetence, and lack of honesty. If war crimes were committed, the officials responsible need to be held accountable. And finally, Congress needs to pass legislation to prevent this and future presidents from unilaterally blundering into unnecessary, ill-advised and illegal wars in the future.

America’s claim to exceptionalism (built on its defense of a stable global order, generosity in humanitarian aid, and opposition to thugs) and its reputation for can-do optimism have been severely frayed under Trump. Across all political ideologies, Pew found: “Majorities of Black (66%), Hispanic (64%) and white adults (57%) say the country’s best years are behind us, as do 53% of Asian adults.” Frankly, their conclusion is not unreasonable. Unless we get off the MAGA freight train barreling toward irreversible decline and permanent chaos, America’s future will be bleak.

Given the betrayal by the U.S. and the threats from Russia and China, the EU deserves more recognition for upholding democratic values and at least partially filling the vacuum created by Trump’s retreat from reality.

As Matthias Matthijs and Nathalie Tocci write, Trump’s erratic, aggressive, and unhinged behavior “has jolted European leaders into working more effectively as a bloc and taking stronger action to shore up their own defense, trade, energy security, and democratic resilience.” The authors urge European leaders to build on the anti-Trump backlash to craft a pro-democracy agenda that includes proposals to “strengthen the rule of law, protect European borders while remaining open to regular immigration, continue to boost the continent’s defense, pursue greater energy security by transitioning from fossil fuels and diversifying their energy sources, and seek economic renewal through significantly higher investment and deeper single-market integration.”

This week, EU leaders managed to clear the way for a trade deal with the U.S. to accompany their own bilateral deals with other trading partners (e.g. Mexico, India). While Trump has abandoned the idea that we prosper when we support a free trade network, the EU has created its own parallel free trade agreements, leaving Trump to flail and America to lose markets.

Subscribe now

European powers’ most impressive accomplishment may be its consistent support for Ukraine. Unlike Trump, they have not abandoned Ukraine nor forced it toward capitulation. The EU’s steadiness has allowed Ukraine to gain ground and further batter Russia. Trump picked the losing side (Russia), while European powers stuck with Ukraine, which has established drone superiority and become arguably the most potent military force in Europe.

The contrast between the U.S. under Trump and European powers could not be more vivid. America may be in an authoritarian tailspin, but European countries, as historian Anne Applebaum recently noted, have adhered to “the rule of law, the separation of powers, judicial independence, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the idea that governments are accountable to citizens.” While Trump genuflects to Russia and China, runs roughshod over democratic institutions, and systematically destroys our international reputation, we can be relieved that those democratic attributes continue to flourish somewhere on the planet.

We should not be surprised that as Trump and his ilk have followed Putin’s model of deriding the EU and showing disdain for their liberal values. The endurance and success of democratic allies that Trump has abused no doubt rankles him. As Applebaum recalled: “At a speech in Munich last February, the American Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, declared that America and Europe are bound together not by values, not by a commitment to democracy, but by Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry—by blood, soil, DNA and the distant past, in other words, not the present or future.” Applebaum noted that Rubio, like Vladimir Putin, baselessly denigrated “modern Europe as a continent overwhelmed by migrants, crime, and decay.”

Vice President JD Vance joined the chorus and accused Europe of “civilizational suicide” by letting in too many immigrants. In words that thrill neo-Nazis (and echo the original ones), he insisted that you just can’t allow “culturally incompatible” immigrants come into an Aryan German country. (Does he know the U.S. became the world’s most powerful and prosperous nation after taking in 10. 4 million immigrants between 1861 and 1890, another 14.5M between 1900 and 1924, and 70M since 1965?)

MAGA disdain for Europe is remarkable, considering they claim to be saviors of “Western civilization,” the intellectual and cultural heritage of Europe. They fawn over cathedrals and cultural contributions, but are unremittingly hostile to Europe’s liberal political traditions being incorporated into our political DNA. MAGA cultists, not left-leaning Democrats, threaten to undermine the most significant achievements of Western civilization (e.g., respect for the individual, tolerance, rejection of absolute monarchy).

To be certain, the EU has its problems (e.g., productivity, the rise of antisemitism) but it must be doing something right if its violent crime rate is a fraction of the U.S., its people live longer, and 7 of the 10 happiest countries in the world are EU members.

Share

In short, the EU is punching above its weight. We should salute European leaders who have steered clear of Trump’s illegal war, defended Ukraine against bullies in the Kremlin and the White House, stood up for human rights (whether in Kyiv or Gaza), continued to advance clean energy, and refused to give AI and tech billionaires free rein to invade their people’s privacy and manipulate them through opaque algorithms.

European powers remind Americans that free people have agency to reject the siren call of nationalism, racism, isolationism, militarism, and authoritarianism. Refusing to capitulate to Trump’s demands or cower from his bullying, the EU has remained undaunted and courageous in upholding humane, democratic, tolerant, and fact-based government at home while supporting a rules-based order internationally.

We should be rooting (as the world rooted for Britain before the U.S. entered WWII) for the countries that bequeathed us Western civilization to prosper, innovate, and thrive. The EU cannot replace the U.S., but it deserves high praise for stepping into the breach when America lost its bearings.

In doing so, he cuts off an escape route for Republicans in general elections, making it virtually impossible for Republicans to create any daylight between themselves and Trump as the latter hits new polling lows each week. The primary results Tuesday and his decision to endorse MAGA scandal-plagued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hold several critical lessons as we move closer to the midterms.

It’s the MAGA voters

While it would be lovely to pretend that Trump voters have gone through some self-reflection, the number of Trump cultists in the Republican primary electorate is shockingly high. These voters dumped Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and, on Saturday, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) It would be a mistake to deny these voters agency; they want crazed, extreme leadership drenched in white supremacy.

These voters pose a significant problem for any segment of Republicans who want to turn the page after Trump leaves (or after the midterms). This group may understand that a lawless, conspiracy-minded cult is unfit to govern and unelectable nationwide, but MAGA loyalists will remain an albatross around their necks, vigorously opposing any normalization of the party.

Perhaps defeat in general elections will awaken MAGA voters, but we should be honest about the depth of the problem. The threat to democracy, sanity, and decency comes not from just Trump or elected Republicans — but from millions of voters. Since they appear to be utterly unreachable in the short term, democracy defenders must deliver a robust turnout of the rest of the electorate to swamp the hardened MAGA contingent.

Trump endangers Republicans in competitive races

By weeding out any normal Republicans (forcing dozens of retirements and primarying any Republicans with a smidgen of spine), Trump makes it impossible for the rest and the party as a whole to maintain any daylight between them and Trump.

In the near term, Trump’s insistence on pushing forward the most extreme, unhinged candidates and forcing the party to pursue a wholly unpopular agenda will drag down Republicans’ chance of victory in November’s general elections. It is one thing for Massie to lose in a deep red Kentucky district; it is quite another to put in play Texas with a nominee like Paxton. No wonder Senate Republicans are freaking out.

Democrats surely can make the case that it is not just Trump but all Republican electeds who are pro-war and utterly indifferent to Americans’ economic travails. If Americans are disgusted by egregious corruption, including a $1.8B slush fund (accessible even to felons who attacked our police), then they should hold Republicans — who refuse to criticize (let alone stop) the plundering, responsible. We face not only the most corrupt president in history, but the most corruption-friendly party in memory. (At least Tammany Hall delivered jobs and services to the masses.)

There should be no hiding for Republicans their complete subservience to a president whose poll numbers continue to dive. Trump wants no one in office not entirely supportive of him and all of his whims; Democrats should make sure the anti-Trump electorate understands this.

Subscribe now

Six for 2026

Democrats will have a field day running against Trump’s tariffs/price surge, the unnecessary and counterproductive war, corruption and cronyism — all of which Republicans enabled. However, Republicans’ jaw-dropping lack of accomplishments and obsession with things that are irrelevant to, or antagonistic to, ordinary Americans’ concerns (e.g. Jim Crow gerrymandering, ballrooms, billions more for the widely hated ICE) leave an opening for Democrats to construct a short, powerful agenda.

“Six for 2026” could include some basic objectives that go to the overarching issues of cost, corruption, and chaos:

• Investigate and end the massive corruption

• Reclaim tariff power and push for return of illegal tariff monies to consumers

• Reverse cuts to Medicaid and reissue Affordable Care Act subsidies

• Cut off offensive combat operations against Iran and conduct a full accounting of the decision and execution of the war

• Rein in ICE and return to a reasonable budgeting plan

• Agree to regulate and give residents a say in massive data centers (a growing bipartisan opposition to gargantuan facilities that drive up energy costs and create environmental hazards makes this a potent issue).

In sum, Trump is making the Republican Party crazier and less electable by the day. Whatever the results in November, the GOP contingent in the House and Senate will be more extreme and more beholden to their cult leader. The fringe in the Republican Party is unquestionably the mainstream.

Democrats therefore have the chance to assemble the widest coalition in recent history, underscore the depravity of the MAGA party, and present a sane alternative in step with the concerns of the overwhelming number of voters.

Representative Earl “Buddy” Carter, a Trump acolyte, gave up his secure House seat to run for the Georgia Senate seat. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who faces a runoff against MAGA wackadoodle and Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, may join him in the ranks of the unemployed — an outcome that became increasingly likely yesterday, after the scandal-ridden Paxton received Trump’s late endorsement — along with Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who finished a humiliating third in his primary. (In backing Rep. Julia Letlow, Donald Trump exacted revenge for Cassidy’s vote to impeach for the violent Jan. 6 insurrection.)

A batch of vulnerable incumbent House (e.g., Mike Lawler of New York, Jen Kiggins of Virginia) and Senate Republicans (e.g., Susan Collins of Maine, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Jon Husted of Ohio) may find that they, too — despite genuflecting to Donald Trump, ignoring their constitutional obligations, subjecting their constituents to untold hardship, and abandoning all common sense and decency — have nothing to show for their servility.

Some Republicans headed for defeat either in the primary or general election may have convinced themselves that they were serving the public good in slashing taxes for the rich while cutting healthcare for everyone else; tolerating an illegal, utterly counterproductive war; or letting abusive, lawless ICE agent go after hard working immigrants. (But not even such self-rationalizers, I suspect, can justify their record of turning a blind eye to Trump’s jaw-dropping corruption, persecution of political enemies, self-indulgent monuments, and the rest of the authoritarian excess funded by the taxpayers.)

However, for some lawmakers such as Cornyn (a previously establishment Republican who favored fiscal sobriety and getting tough on Russia) and Cassidy (a moderate, who backed the Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill, and this week voted to advance a war powers resolution), one can surmise that they knew much of what they were voting for (or refusing to vote against) violated principles they once espoused and/or ran afoul of the Constitution. One need only look at their pre-Trump careers and efforts to evade rather than justify Trump’s actions to conclude they knew he was a menace to the country and to our democracy.

The less cultist senators — especially Cassidy in his reprehensible vote to confirm RFK, Jr. (who has promulgated vaccine skepticism and other dangerous quackery) — surely grasped that the nominees they voted to confirm for Cabinet posts (e.g. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Kash Patel) were unfit and unprepared to hold powerful, critical jobs that require life or death decision-making. Do Cassidy, Cornyn, and others who may lose despite their self-debasement think it was worthwhile? Do they imagine they will be remembered for anything other than their cowardice and capitulation when America was most at risk?

In countenancing or actively promoting the devastation of USAID, evisceration of medical research and our national health system, savage cuts to Medicaid, extra-judicial killings, and an utterly unnecessary war, they have shared responsibility for the deaths of thousands of people (in the case of USAID, hundreds of thousands). They bear blame, as well, for the trauma and torture inflicted on deported immigrants, the breakup of immigrant families, the senseless deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, and the hunger experienced by seniors and children cut off from food assistance — none of which they lifted a finger to prevent, despite knowing the likely consequences of Trump’s cruel agenda. And, to the extent they once mouthed platitudes about the rule of law, they too played a role in the weaponization and corruption of the Department of Justice.

We may never know, absent death-bed confessions, what regrets they may have. But at least for those who wash out in the primaries there is time, if not to atone, then at least to curtail the death, suffering, and hardship they will leave in their wake.

Subscribe now

Republican losers in primaries do have a choice between now and January. (Even the general election losers have time in the lame duck session). They might sit down with Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who has undergone a partial liberation for Trump sycophancy after his decision not to run for re-election, although his refusal to vote for the War Powers Act or rein in ICE (let alone Trump’s corruption) hardly make him a profile in courage.

Cassidy and, if defeated, Cornyn might enter a pact with Tillis (along with libertarian Sen. Rand Paul on some issues) to ameliorate the worst of the harm the Republican senators have enabled. They could actually promote once dearly-held conservative principles to claw back the tariff power, pass the War Powers Act (as Cassidy has now proven he is prepared to support), short-circuit Trump’s ballroom and other gross monuments to himself, insist that aid to Ukraine and defense sales to Taiwan proceed, put the kibosh on the Trump clan’s disgusting corruption, and block confirmation of acting attorney general Todd Blanche — should he get nominated for the permanent job.

They could, in short, for just a few months live up to their oaths of office, rein in a tyrannical president, try to arrest America’s international decline, and end the orgy of ethics violations they have allowed to multiply. At the very least, they could stop pretending not to have seen Trump latest racist, insane babbling on Truth Social or witnessed his vile threats against critics who engage in activity protected by the First Amendment. (By the way, it would make for some handwringing, foot shuffling and brow furrowing for incumbents like Sullivan and “concerned” Collins, if their occasional CYA votes against Trump had the potential to carry the day with votes from other Republican defectors.)

We should not get our hopes up. To reverse course so dramatically would confirm their critics’ worst accusation, namely, that for the sake of preserving their own careers they refused to abide by the Constitution and work on behalf of what they knew were the interests of the country and their constituents. But on the theory that “the time is always right to do right,” they might try voting their conscious a try.

If nothing else, Carter’s and Cassidy’s political demise (and Cornyn’s potential defeat) should prompt a tiny bit of reflection among Republicans (whether facing defeat or retiring) who have gone along with Trump’s noxious agenda to get along. If they don’t even get to keep their jobs, were their final years in public life worth it? If they conclude they needlessly sold their souls, they might share their confession with voters, especially those who might reflect on the damage their votes for Trump have inflicted on others.

The DOJ’s statement of values includes this whopper: “We work each day to earn the public’s trust by following the facts and the law wherever they may lead, without prejudice or improper influence.” That no longer passes the straight-face test.

Trust? You people want me to trust you?! That was the tenor of a blistering opinion from U.S. District Court Judge Mary S. McElroy for the district of Rhode Island in quashing the Trump regime’s subpoena for documents relating to minors’ gender-affirming care. She did not buy DOJ lawyers’ argument that it needed such records for a “fraud” audit.

You can understand her frustration:

DOJ has proven unworthy of this trust at every point in this case. It has misrepresented and withheld information to both this Court and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the “Texas court”). It did so in an obvious effort to shield its recent investigative tactics—previously rejected by every other court to review them—from this Court’s review, in favor of a distant forum that DOJ deems friendly to its political positions. Its representatives have, under oath, misrepresented salient facts. It has misled the parties with whom it was negotiating in Rhode Island, who have now been placed in an untenable and unprecedented procedural position. And when its attorneys came to this Court to explain their conduct, the senior attorney—who was present at many of the events that took place in this case—sat silently by as his counterpart, a junior attorney who has been practicing law for approximately six months and had no relevant information, was forced to answer questions about DOJ’s blatant disregard for the proper course of negotiations.

In addition to all that, McElroy revealed that the entire theory of DOJ’s investigation was a ruse. The ostensible purpose of the subpoena — to facilitate the investigation of fraud in “off-label” prescriptions — makes no sense, McElroy pointed out, because “off-label prescribing by physicians is lawful.” She explained, “[I]t is therefore logically impossible to construct an aiding-and-abetting, facilitation, or conspiracy theory predicated on nothing more than the physician’s own lawful prescribing act.”

McElroy flatly declared DOJ had operated in bad faith, simply to harass patients. “The evidence of improper purpose here is in the DOJ’s own public record and detailed in the decisions of the seven other federal courts that have considered identical subpoenas,” she wrote. “The Administration has publicly characterized gender affirming care for minors as abuse, directed the DOJ to bring its practice to an end, and celebrated when hospitals curtailed such programs as a result of this subpoena campaign.”

Subscribe now

Bad faith. Untrustworthy. As we have written, this regime long ago forfeited the “presumption of regularity” normally extended to the government. McElroy agreed:

[T]he discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and DOJ’s tactics in this case is unsettling. The Court cannot help but share the sentiment that “[t]he presumption of regularity that has previously been extended to [DOJ] that it could be taken at its word — with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes — no longer holds.”

McElroy is no outlier. Scenes of exasperated judges berating unethical, sloppy, and/or blatantly deceptive DOJ conduct have played out around the country.

In a massive survey of 327 judges, “elite” lawyers, and law professors, Bright Line Watch and the Safeguarding Democracy Project found that: “Eight in ten legal experts report that federal officials fail to comply with court orders somewhat or very often, and nearly nine in ten say political appointees in the Trump DOJ mislead federal judges somewhat or very often.”

Juries have picked up on the department’s untrustworthiness as well, refusing to indict an unprecedented number of defendants (e.g., Letitia James, the sandwich thrower, anti-ICE protesters, military veterans serving in Congress). DOJ cannot persuade ordinary citizens to pursue Trump’s enemies even when no defense lawyer or defendant is present.

It does not help the department’s reputation when it flagrantly violates the Epstein Files Transparency Act by withholding documents. It does not “earn the public trust” when it tries to shield its lawyers from state bar disciplinary hearings.

It sure does not inspire trust when there are reasonable questions whether acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal lawyer, fully followed ethics officials’ direction to recuse himself from past representation of Trump. As CNN reported, he nevertheless selected conspiracy monger Joe diGenova, a former US attorney, to probe wild accusations of a plot “against Trump spanning from the 2017 Russian election interference probe to the aborted Special Counsel Jack Smith prosecutions,” including the investigation of Trump nemesis, former CIA director John Brennan. Blanche has not recused himself from the Brennan investigation.

One need look no further to confirm the rot at DOJ’s core than the nefarious deal involving DOJ, the IRS, and Trump to “settle” his $10B suit against the IRS for $1.7B. That eye-popping sum of taxpayer money would go to a slush fund under a Trump-controlled commission to “compensate” alleged victims of the Biden administration, including Jan. 6 criminals (whom Trump later pardoned). Good government groups have flagged the scheme as staggeringly corrupt, potentially running afoul of the Emoluments Clause, and exposing any IRS agents who agreed to drop audits to criminal liability.

So, let’s dispense with the notion that the weaponized, rogue department now run by Todd “I love you, sir” Blanche is even trying to earn “the public trust.” In two years, the department has trashed its sterling reputation built over decades.

When Trump leaves office, the new attorney general will need to conduct a thorough housecleaning (and make enumerable referrals for discipline to state bars) to root out Trump’s flunkies who misled courts, defied judges, worked to exact political revenge, and plundered the treasury. Otherwise, the DOJ will never recover the trust of the public, juries, or judges.

Carolyn Shapiro exposed the power grab:

Congress’ clear command in the 1982 VRA amendments that it was protecting minority voters from redistricting that had the effect of reducing their voting power relative to other voters should mean that a state’s desire to advantage one party over another is irrelevant to Section 2 liability. … [I]it essentially incorporates the law of unconstitutional intentional discrimination into Section 2 – precisely what Congress was trying to avoid. But Callais also all but holds that Congress’ power under the 15th Amendment is limited to restricting discriminatory intent, not discriminatory effects.

The Voting Rights Act antagonists did not have the nerve to strike down the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional. The VRA therefore remains nominally on the books but of virtually no value. (We will see how seriously the MAGA majority takes Callais’s assurance that intentional discrimination can still be prohibited; after all, that is precisely what the three-judge panel found in striking down Alabama’s map.) In sidelining Congress and claiming authority to dictate remedies needed to fulfill the promise of the 14^th and 15^th Amendments, the Callais majority sparked a massive movement in defense of voting rights, which was kicked off at Saturday’s All Roads Lead to the South protest.

The MAGA justices’ reactionary judicial activism is rooted in an insidious sleight of hand. Callais is just their latest willful misreading of the post-Civil War amendments, which never sought to outlaw the race-conscious remedies needed to guarantee the ex-enslaved full citizenship. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson documented in her pristine originalist interpretation, the canard of a “colorblind society” does not derive from the intent, legislative history, or text; it is an invention that comes from deliberately rewriting the 14^th and 15^th Amendments and the VRA in service of white Republican power.

Share

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. takes umbrage at the notion the court has become “political.” Gosh, where would people get that idea? Steve Vladeck explained:

[T]he Court inserted itself into the midterm cycle—and set off this race to the bottom—knowingly (if not deliberately), both in what it ruled in Callais and in its willingness to issue the judgment immediately. That latter development was an unmissable signal that it was not averse to having this exact kind of chaos unfold on the ground—a point Justice Jackson made explicitly in her dissent from last Monday’s order. In her words, “as always, the Court has a choice.” …

This, to me, is the key point: whatever one thinks of the ruling in Callais, the Court chose this chaos.. .. Worse than that, all of these developments rather fatally undermine what I’d always understood to be the animating purpose of the so-called “Purcell principle”—which makes sense only as a strong norm against federal judicial intervention in the middle of election cycles. The Court’s own interventions are now wreaking havoc—and a majority of the justices either don’t think it’s their fault, or don’t care that it is.

Having discarded any pretense of political neutrality or consistency, MAGA justices should prepare to reap the whirlwind. They should anticipate that a backlash against Jim Crow will seek to end judicial intrusion into partisan politics and policy matters (e.g., commandeering voting rights remedies, superseding administrative rules with nebulous doctrines such as the Major Questions doctrine) and to re-assert the authority of the elected branches of government.

Democrats should be candid and uncompromising about their plans. An unhinged court, beginning with Shelby County, has exceeded the Plessy court in cementing white supremacy. Proposals to expand seats on the court are not simply designed to match the number of federal circuits; imposing term limits is not merely intended to prevent infirmed justices from lingering on the court. Democrats are prepared to do these things and potentially curtail the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction because the court has become a rogue threat to democracy. That message was on display in a demonstration of grassroots political power on Saturday: Democracy belongs to the people, not to right-wing justices putting their thumbs on the scale for Republicans.

Dramatic reform measures would not be necessary if the MAGA justices had not willfully misinterpreted post-Civil War amendments or played fast and loose with the Purcell doctrine. Had MAGA justices not trashed stare decisis to achieve partisan aims, manipulated the shadow docket to disguise executive power grabs, and brazenly dispensed with any pretense of partisan neutrality, serious judicial reform would not be essential.

Saturday’s Day of Action gave us a preview of the fierce political backlash against Jim Crow that can check judicial tyranny. Democracy defenders must turn out in overwhelming numbers but also apply a litmus test for every candidate for federal office: Will you rein in partisan judicial hacks who made hash of separation of powers and endangered multi-racial democracy?

Share

Democrats will not have the opportunity to control Congress and the presidency until 2029. Nevertheless, they must start now to focus voters’ attention, as they did on Saturday, on MAGA justices’ quest to displace the voters’ elected representatives (i.e., overriding the VRA’s intent) in service of Jim Crow. MAGA justices delegitimized the Supreme Court; it’s up to the voters, through the elected branches, to end their foray into judicial imperialism that threatens multi-racial democracy.

Arrogant judicial partisans steeped in myths about the 14^th and 15^th Amendments have revealed their hostility to pluralistic democracy. If voters want their democracy back, they will have to elect a Congress and president willing to reassert popular sovereignty essential to our constitutional order. Judging from the democratic fervor on Saturday, voters appear up to the task.

“All Roads Lead to the South,” focused on Selma and Montgomery (two iconic sites in civil rights history), is a coordinated effort championed by Black Voters Matter and over 200 (!) civil rights and pro-democracy organizations (including #WinWithBlack Women, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the ACLU, Democracy Defenders Action, The Lawyers’ Committee, LULAC, The Brennan Center, SPLC, The Transformative Justice Coalition, and Fair Fight) as well as the broader No Kings Day coalition. A massive response to the re-imposition of Jim Crow, one-party rule (with Republicans racing to redrawn lines to eliminate batches of Black and Hispanic House members and dilute Black and Hispanic voting power) could not be more urgent.

Cliff Albright and LaTosha Brown, co-founders of Black Voters Matter Fund, are at the forefront of an unprecedented voting rights campaign to push back against “a coordinated effort to weaken Black political power.” It’s only appropriate to start in Alabama, which “has always been sacred ground in the fight for freedom,” they remind us.

In her recent, inspiring call to action, Brown did not mince words about the impact of Callais, one that rivals Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott in depriving non-white Americans the benefits of full citizenship. “This is a reshaping of the political landscape of this country,” she explained. “It will marginalize Black political representation not just in the South, but throughout the nation.”

If Republicans get their way, they could flip as many as “19 majority-minority congressional seats and 191 state legislative seats across the South” and replace 15 Black representatives with White Republicans, she noted. “We are looking at a level of racial revanchism not seen since the end of Reconstruction,” she said bluntly.

Leaders in the civil rights movement are not surprised at the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Rightwing extremists on the court, in taking a “blowtorch” to voting protection, as Janai Nelson, who brilliantly argued Callais on behalf of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, put it, ignited a furious scramble to disenfranchise millions of voters:

Within hours of the decision, Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, advanced a map that redrew 21 of its 28 congressional districts and signed it into law.

Thursday, Tennessee Republicans passed a new map that breaks up Memphis, a majority-Black city, into three different congressional districts, a deliberate effort to eliminate the state’s one Democratic-held seat. Alabama is poised to do the same. And the governor of Louisiana has postponed congressional primary elections that began with the mailing of absentee ballots on April 1.

White supremacists’ tactics have evolved, but their aim has not changed. “Enemies of that progress are clawing back the gains Black and Brown communities have made by whatever means necessary,” Nelson argued. “Instead of poll taxes and literacy tests, we have gerrymandered districts and a process of packing and cracking voters of color.” Whatever the method, “the goal is the same: dilute the power of Black and Brown voters. Shrink the electorate. Ensure the outcome before a single vote is cast.”

Years of civil rights organizing, litigating, educating voters, and developing sophisticated communications networks will now be tested, most immediately in the midterms but also over the long haul to build an enduring pluralistic democracy.

The response to Callais must be just as ferocious as the Supreme Court’s assault on voting rights. This is not simply an issue for the Congressional Black Caucus or the Democratic Party or one racial group. “This is an American crisis dressed up in colorblind language,” Brown reminded us. We do not have a true democracy when millions of Americans cannot elect representatives of their choice, or when a virtually all-white ruling class has a lock on office.

In the short run, Brown and other movement champions will organize massive voter registration drives, economic pressure campaigns against corporations that align themselves with White supremacy, and a voluminous communications effort to explain the stakes to all Americans. Engaging and turning out millions of new voters is the key to halting America’s descent into authoritarian, Jim Crow MAGA rule.

Subscribe now

Beyond November, Brown implores Americans to think big to meet the moment. “I am asking us to stop being incrementalists. Incrementalism assumes a system that operates in good faith. We do not have one.” Instead, she explained, “I am asking us to be the architects. The people who understand that we are building for a hundred years, not for one election or news cycle.”

She proposes, for example, “proportional representation with multimember districts and ranked choice voting, so that Black voters at 30% of a state’s population reliably elect 30% of its representatives.” In other words: “No districts to gerrymander. No maps for the Court to strike down.” Other proposals include election of the president by popular vote (via the National Popular Vote Compact), same day registration, a federal department dedicated to democracy protection, and Supreme Court reform. “We are the architects now, “ Brown reminds us. “Pick up the tools so that we become the founders of what is next to come.”

Callais is a calamity, but not one we must accept as the new normal. The MAGA court does not get to define American democracy. Their judicial abomination can and must be the impetus for Americans to seize control of their own future. As Janai Nelson put it: “It has always been the ordinary Americans who have bent the arc of this country toward justice — yes, on a bridge in Selma and at so many other places throughout history: a lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina; a shirtwaist factory in New York City; a bar in Greenwich Village.” She and other civil rights veteran know that “collective power — the power of the people — will always be greater than the people in power.” She implore us not to “let Louisiana v Callais be the end of the story, the final chapter in a short-lived saga of a fledgling multiracial democracy.” The only question is whether we have the will to use our collective power.

Brown, Nelson, and their civil rights coalition partners remain undaunted, unafraid, and undeterred despite MAGA justices and lawmakers’ quest to undo 60 years of progress in achieving pluralistic democracy. They understand that mass political action is the answer to judicial Jim Crow and a reactionary movement rooted in White supremacy.

We salute the civil rights activists and “architects,” and urge all of you to join the movement to bring about a “new birth of freedom” that delivers on the promise of pluralistic democracy.

Months ago, we suggested that Democrats had a good shot at winning the Senate majority thanks to Trump’s horrific polling numbers, widespread economic angst, and Republican incumbents’ inability to deliver anything but tax cuts for the rich, paid for by draconian cuts to healthcare and food assistance. Since then, we have learned that one in five people have lost coverage under the Affordable Health Care Act, scores of rural hospitals are being forced to close, and 3.5 million have lost SNAP benefits, raising the ranks of hungry children, seniors, and families.

So it’s no surprise that, as USA Today recently reported, Democrats’ chances of winning the majority are looking even brighter. With “strong candidate recruitment effort, coupled with significant fundraising and Trump’s declining popularity and his base’s infighting,” Republicans face a strong choice of losing majorities in both houses. Put differently, Trump’s sinking poll numbers and failed agenda are dragging Senate Republicans under.

Rather than trying to appeal to ordinary voters, Republicans have doubled down on Trump idolatry. To make matters worse for themselves, Republicans are banking on unappealing candidates — MAGA extremists, Trump’s rubber stamps, and do-nothing phony moderates. Meanwhile, Democrats have found star candidates well-suited to their states (e.g., Roy Cooper in North Carolina, Mary Peltola in Alaska, James Tallarico in Texas). As a result, recent polling shows Democratic candidates statistically tied or ahead in a batch of GOP-held states (Alaska, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas). States like Iowa, ordinarily not remotely competitive, are clearly in play.

Meanwhile, the Democratic-held Senate seats that were considered most vulnerable now look a whole lot more secure (e.g., New Hampshire, Georgia). Even Michigan, which Republicans identified as their most likely pick-up, sent a signal in the recent special elections that Republicans are in trouble. “Surging gas prices, an unpopular war in Iran, and tariffs that have hit the state’s auto industry hard have all contributed to concerns about a worsening political environment for Michigan Republicans,” the Associated Press reported. “[A] Democrat won a special election by almost 20 points in a state Senate district that Kamala Harris won by less than 1 point in 2024.”

Subscribe now

Looking at the Senate map, a single Democratic Senate seat, Michigan, is rated a toss-up by analysts such as Charlie Cook. Democrats have no seats leaning or likely to go Republican. By contrast, Republicans have 3 seats in immediate peril, toss-up, or leaning Democratic (Ohio, Maine, North Carolina), plus a historically safe seat that merely leans Republican (Alaska). That still leaves Democrats with pick-up opportunities in Iowa, Texas, and even Nebraska (where the official Democratic candidate will drop out, aiding independent Dan Osborn, who would caucus with Democrats and is a viable candidate against incumbent Republican Senator Pete Ricketts).

Nearly 5 months until Election Day is a lifetime in politics, but matters may get worse for Republicans for several reasons. For starters, contrary to Trump’s lies, inflation and gas prices in particular are soaring. The public rightfully blames Trump and his Republican doormats. In April, inflation soared to 3.8 percent, the highest in three years. There is no guarantee — and no indication — that it won’t go even higher before election day.

Second, a revived civil rights movement with massive organizing in response to Callais can certainly lift Black and Hispanic turnout not only in the South but throughout the country. We already saw a massive Hispanic turnout in Texas’s Democratic primary. If Black and Hispanic voters, many of whom have not consistently turned out in midterms, flock to the polls in November, they can boost Democrats in critical states (e.g., Michigan, Florida, Texas). The Callais backlash could well hand control of the Senate to Democrats.

Third, Senate Republicans refuse to change tactics, separate themselves from Trump (even on dreadful votes such as the $1B ballroom), or present an agenda that might appeal to working and middle-class voters. Democrats are chomping at the bit to hit incumbents like Dan Sullivan and Susan Collins, who like to pose as moderates, for passively allowing grotesque corruption and doing nothing to halt a radical, hugely unpopular agenda that ignores the key issue most important to voters: affordability.

Finally, Republicans’ negative attacks this cycle are particularly ineffective and downright moldy. They seem to assume the electorate cares about things Republicans have brushed aside, such as old social media posts. (Maine’s Graham Platner’s posts, written in the throes of his PTSD struggles, don’t hold a candle to Trump and other MAGA figures’ daily insane rantings). Republicans’ grab-bag of absurd smears fail to pass the straight-face test (e.g., painting Presbyterian seminarian Talarico as an anti-Christian lefty).

This is not to say that Democrats will have clear sailing. Republicans’ unceasing efforts to disrupt elections (e.g., purging voting rolls, requiring ballots to be returned and not just mailed on election day, redistricting in the midst of primary voting, or moving polling places with scant notification) will require Democrats to conduct massive voter education and deploy an aggressive litigation strategy. In addition, Democrats likely won’t be able to match Republicans’ massive haul of dark money (although all you need is enough money to wage effective races). The risk of either overconfidence or loss of interest is always a concern.

However, on balance, Senate Democrats will enjoy an ideal political environment (perhaps the best since 2006, when they picked up 6 seats) and the best recruits in years. They’re organizing, engaging, motivating, and turning out voters — reminding them that if they allow Trump and his MAGA white nationalists two more years of free rein, the country will be unrecognizable and perhaps unsalvageable.

And if voters needed any more motivation, they should remember that a Democratic Senate majority would bring (in addition to investigative and budget powers) an end to confirmation of atrocious judicial and executive nominees and give them the power to conduct effective, eye-opening impeachment trials (for either Trump or his cronies). That should be worth every dollar spent and hour devoted to ending Senate Republicans’ majority.

Trump insists Iran will “fold,” but there is zero evidence Iran is prepared to do so. It certainly has no incentive to do so as long as Trump, as he did once again on Monday, keeps desperately hyping the prospect of a deal. As he rambled, “You know, the mind changes ... these people, you make a deal, then the next day they send you a document that takes five days to get there, when it should have been there in 20 minutes.” He may be convinced his pronouncements box in Tehran; in reality, they’ve only convinced the Iranians that he is angst-ridden and frantic to make a deal. Trump rails at Iran for refusing to capitulate, bellowing that the ceasefire is on “life support,” but in reality, it is Trump’s pretense of victory that is in critical care.

Iran seems happy to present Trump with a binary choice: Either Trump folds, or he resumes hostilities, which have already proven incapable of dislodging the regime. Anyone who understands Iran’s recent history and its mindset after surviving a war against the U.S. should not be surprised.

As Hagaii Carmon wrote for the Times of Israel:

Regimes often survive conditions that outside analysts confidently describe as impossible. Populations absorb astonishing hardship for cultural, ideological, nationalistic, and survival reasons. Especially in authoritarian systems, economic misery alone does not automatically produce revolution.

While Iran cannot “defeat” the U.S. on the battlefield, it possesses “asymmetric leverage” — or rather, Trump gave Iran asymmetric leverage by starting a war without securing the Strait of Hormuz. “It can prolong instability, raise global energy prices, and create enough uncertainty to pressure Western governments already struggling with inflation and domestic political divisions,” Carmon explained. It “merely needs to convince Washington that full confrontation costs more than compromise.” So far, that strategy is paying off.

Trump’s trip to China may only deepen his predicament. The Independent reports that he arrives without having achieved any of his Iran war objectives, “humiliated by a weaker but dogged regime that survives in Tehran.”

Ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) recently observed: “We’re seeing at home significant gas prices, significant increases in grocery prices and in all sorts of prices for the American home.” He added, “[T]he American people are significantly concerned about this conflict with Iran. So that’s not a strong position to be in when you’re talking to an economic and a geopolitical rival.”

Reed is not the only one cringing at the prospect of the Chinese taking advantage of Trump. U.S. allies are anxious that Trump may get his pocket picked, as the New York Times reports:

In Asia, which has been hit hardest and fastest by oil shortages caused by the war and China’s tight control of oil-product exports, the mood is particularly grim. …

Many believe the summit carries more potential for harm than help. And Mr. Trump’s gut-driven approach to complex issues is the main source of anxiety.

For months, officials in Asia have worried that the president might be too eager to make a deal with Mr. Xi, ending weapons sales to Taiwan or agreeing to softened policy language that could make it easier for China to undermine the democratic island.

Trump’s visit comes after he voluntarily removed American forces from the region, and at a time when China has ramped up its presence around Taiwan and is expected to lean on Trump to curtail arms sales to Taiwan.

As the U.S. repeatedly demonstrates its fecklessness (e.g., failing to defeat Iran, ceding clean energy dominance to Beijing, tangling itself up in a multi-front tariff war struck down in court), China has shown it is prepared to engage badger U.S. companies with intrusive regulations, use its rare minerals as leverage, and even more heavily subsidize its own industries. Now, just like Iran, China feels no compulsion to make concessions to Trump.

One can easily imagine a downward spiral for the U.S. under a president who has frittered away America’s geopolitical advantages and who can be easily swayed by empty compliments and plenty of pomp. His weakness in Iran emboldens China, while China’s potential to dominate the summit will only increase Iran’s resolve.

“The whole world can see that just a few weeks of war with a second-rank power have reduced American weapons stocks to perilously low levels, with no quick remedy in sight,” Robert Kagan observed. “The questions this raises about America’s readiness for another major conflict may or may not prompt Xi Jinping to launch an attack on Taiwan, or Vladimir Putin to step up his aggression against Europe. But at the very least, America’s allies in East Asia and Europe must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.”

The China summit will offer one indication as to how badly Trump has stumbled, how worried our allies should be, and how far our enemies are willing to press their advantage.

Strongmen, as historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat explains, “are a subset of authoritarian who require total loyalty, bend democracy around [their] own needs, and use different forms of machismo to interact with their people and with other rulers.” To boost their image of omnipotence, Putin rides a horse shirtless; Trump depicts himself as Jesus. But what happens when such stunts no longer conceal that the strongmen are not all that strong?

These days, Putin does not project the aura of a strongman, as an anonymous Russian writer explains:

As recently as last spring, everything was “we” and “ours”. Mr Putin’s war on Ukraine may be reckless and failing, but it was shared. “We” were inside it, and it would be better for all of “us” if it ended sooner. Now they describe what is happening as “his” story, not “ours”. Not our project, not our agenda, not our war.

Ouch. When all the Great Leader can offer is “repression, intrusion, and censorship,” the populace drifts away. Putin’s May 9 parade (like Trump’s skimpy birthday party parade in 2025) was downright pitiful. With “no victories to celebrate” and drone strikes forcing Putin to ask for a ceasefire, the parade was “dramatically downgraded,” and the usual display of tanks eliminated, the Wall Street Journal reported.

No one can miss the parallels to Donald Trump. With an approval rating in the 30’s, overwhelming opposition to his war, his party facing a midterm defeat, and no domestic accomplishments, his Truth Social rants have become even more unhinged. He is a prisoner of his own anger, panic, and desperation. He has started throwing aides overboard as he frantically tries to dispel the stench of failure.

Moreover, both Trump and Putin now appear physically and mentally decrepit. “Putin is perceived today as an old grandpa, a grandpa unaware about the real state of affairs in people’s lives,” Alexander Baunov, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, told the Wall Street Journal. “He’s no longer seen as the protector. He’s no longer seen as Superman.” Well, at least Putin does not babble incoherently, fall asleep in public, or try to cover up his grossly discolored hands. Trump’s decline is so obvious that nearly 60 percent of US adults polled recognize that he is not mentally or physically fit to hold office.

Subscribe now

Interminable wars have accelerated both autocrats’ decline. Putin faces a slew of horrible news: a bollixed-up ground offensive, 35,000 casualties in a single month, and widespread recognition that “the sacrifices of those soldiers were entirely in vain [and] no major objectives were achieved.” (Putin’s boasts comparing himself to heroes of the “Great Patriotic War” began to ring hollow as the Ukraine war surpassed WWII’s duration with no victory in sight.) As the Wall Street Journal reported, Russians are now ready to acknowledge the war was “a bad idea.” Sound familiar?

Trump likewise struggles to paint himself as victorious in Iran. Just as Ukraine proved to be Putin’s kryptonite, Trump’s Iran debacle, rather than enhance his power, has revealed his feebleness, utter confusion, and desperation. Despite Trump’s laughable exaggerations of success, we know that Iran’s strikes were more effective against our facilities than Trump let on; U.S. destruction of Iranian weaponry was far more limited than advertised. Iran barely deigns to reply to his proposals.

Trump sure does not seem like a strongman. Widespread news reports reiterate that Trump failed at regime change, left intact 75 percent of Iran’s missile capacity, lost the Strait of Hormuz as an international waterway, flushed down the drain $25B (for starters) in immediate defense costs, and burdened Americans with sky-high gas prices. Voters refuse to ignore domestic hardship and overwhelmingly disapprove of the war.

Simply put, Trump is now a loser, responsible for a defeat of historic proportions. Robert Kagan writes:

It’s hard to think of a time when the United States suffered a total defeat in a conflict, a setback so decisive that the strategic loss could be neither repaired nor ignored….Far from demonstrating American prowess, as supporters of the war have repeatedly claimed, the conflict has revealed an America that is unreliable and incapable of finishing what it started.

It seems both Putin and Trump are experiencing what is called “autocratic backfire.” Ben Ghiat explains:

Autocratic backfire occurs when narcissistic leaders have insulated themselves from criticism by surrounding themselves with sycophants and loyalists. No one will tell them the truth, and religious collaborators tell them they are in office by divine will, and so they also end up believing their own propaganda about their invincibility, genius instincts, and infallibility. Then the stage is set for them to make momentous decisions on the basis of erroneous beliefs or personal ideological obsessions.

That seems an apt description of Trump’s present condition. As Ben-Ghiat notes, “Autocratic backfire often results in military or economic disasters, and authoritarian history is full of policies and projects championed by the ruler out of hubris and megalomania and implemented to disastrous effect.” He is saddled with an unwinnable war, one he was warned not to start. He picks stupid fights (with the Pope and Greenland, no less), resorts to ludicrous tactics to feel powerful (e.g., indicting James Comey for commenting on seashells), and fixates on invented accomplishments. (Inflation down! Settled 8 or more wars! Not even.)

So we should stop using “strongman” to describe either Trump or Putin. Their respective reign of terror, directed against their people, has only intensified. Though they remain in power, their situation is precarious. (Hungary’s former prime minister Viktor Orbán also went from strongman to disgraced loser in a single election.) The aura of failure hangs over them. Former followers disparage them. Their propaganda cannot withstand vivid evidence of failure. They seem old and decrepit.

Rather than “strongman,” terms such as “backfiring autocrat” or “unaware old grandpa” better describe Putin and Trump. Desperation makes them unpredictable and dangerous, but they can no longer bend reality to match their grandiose self-image, defy public opinion, or command international respect.

No wonder Trump keeps trying to cheer himself up with plans for vulgar monuments to himself. Goodness knows, if he doesn’t build them, no one else will.

In Louisiana v. Callais, the U.S. Supreme Court demolished 60 years of progress in voting rights, robbed Black and Hispanic communities of the power to elect representatives of their own choosing, and aimed to decimate the ranks of non-white U.S. House members, state legislators, and local officials. This is nothing short of an attempt to reimpose white supremacy.

Voting rights legal guru Rick Hasen wrote:

This decision will bleach the halls of Congress, state legislatures, and local bodies like city councils, by ending the protections of Section 2 of the act, which had provided a pathway to assure that voters of color would have some rudimentary fair representation. It’s the culmination of the life’s work of Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who have shown persistent resistance to the idea of the United States as a multiracial democracy, and a brazen willingness to reject Congress’ judgment that fair representation for minority voters sometimes requires race-conscious legislation…. It protects Alito’s core constituency: aggrieved white Republican voters.

As infuriating, partisan, and legally unsound as these rulings are, they are not the final word on either the midterms or the future of our multi-racial democracy.

Share

The Midterms

Even with the loss in Virginia, Democrats’ five-seat pick up in California should more than counteract the original Texas re-redistricting (where two of the five seats Republicans sought to steal may well go to Democrats). And despite the Virginia decision, Democrats may still pick up one to two more seats under Virginia’s old map. The net pickup for Republicans currently is less than ten before Democrats pursue their own redistricting in New York, Illinois, Colorado, and Maryland.

However, even with the advantage of, say, a dozen rigged seats, Republicans are unlikely to keep the House majority. Since 2024, Democrats have swung the electorate substantially in their direction, over-performing in comparison to Kamala Harris in 193 of 226 state legislative races, by 20 points in some cases. On average, Democrats are doing more than 10 points better than they did in 2024. (Brookings’ William A. Galston wrote: “In the six special elections for the House conducted in 2025-2026, the swing toward Democratic candidates averaged about 15 points, while the swing toward Democratic gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia averaged 14 points.”)

More than 20 Republican House seats were won by less than 10 points in 2024; 43 Republicans won by less than 15%. Given the electoral shift, Democrats’ list of targeted seats expands each week.

The New York Times reported that gerrymandering “tells only part of the story” about the midterms. While “Democrats could end up losing at least half a dozen safe seats, and possibly more,” depending on new maps drawn in Southern states, Republicans face gale-force “headwinds” thanks to Donald Trump’s atrocious approval numbers, his reviled Iran war, soaring gas and other consumer prices, snatching away healthcare coverage from millions, disaffection of Hispanic voters, and rampant corruption.

In short, gerrymandering, however outrageous, will not be enough to save Republicans if Democrats generate huge turnout, especially among those voters enraged that they have been stripped of voting power. (As Hungary demonstrated, a determined opposition can overcome a raft of unfair impediments imposed by a corrupt, unpopular regime.)

Democrats, independents, and disaffected Republicans know that the MAGA cult has no message — which is why MAGA lawmakers and courts must rig the election to cement white supremacy. That’s all they’ve got.

Democrats have their targets

The enormity of reversing 60 years of progress on voting rights necessitates a new era of intense organizing and public education — a new civil right movement to counter MAGA’s court-imposed Jim Crow. That effort kicks off with a grassroots National Day of Action on Saturday, May 16, in Alabama. Organizers declared, “The dismantling of the Voting Rights Act is a reminder that we have unfinished business. The fight is ours and we are going to finish it.” Scores of democracy groups, faith-based organizations, and civil rights organizations will rally to oppose Jim Crow redistricting and to support multi-racial democracy.

Share

The goal: Democrats must win, and win big, in 2026 and 2028. Senate seats, governorships, and other statewide offices cannot be gerrymandered. A massive registration and turnout-the-vote operation must expand deep into Republican areas, appealing to disgruntled independents and Republicans while firing up the base. Democrats will need a broad, inclusive electoral coalition to pursue bold reform. As former attorney general Eric Holder likes to say, progressives “need to be comfortable with acquiring power and using power.”

What then? If Democrats come out of the 2028 election with House and Senate majorities, and the presidency, they will have all the motivation and tools required to reverse the slide into Jim Crow, beginning with substantial reform of the discredited Supreme Court. The MAGA justices’ willful misreading of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution to concoct a “color blind” interpretation of voting rights (coupled with their monstrous expansion of executive power and abuse of the emergency docket) should unify democracy defenders on the urgency of Supreme Court reform through court expansion, term limits, revised appellate jurisdiction, and ethics reform.

Election law guru Rick Hasen argued:

The Supreme Court itself has shown itself to be the enemy of democracy. If and when Democrats retake control of the political branches, it will be incumbent on them not only to write new voting legislation protecting minority voters and all voters in the ability to participate fairly in elections that reflect the will of all the people. They will also have to consider reform of the Supreme Court itself.

With the election of aggressive Senate Democrats running in 2026 and 2028, Democrats should have little trouble carving out a filibuster exception, especially if they win by large margins that affirm voters’ rejection of MAGA assault on pluralistic democracy.

In addition to reforming the MAGA Supreme Court, a myriad of solid proposals for undoing the damage wrought by Callais include: state voting rights’ protections, a federal statute that requires nonpartisan redistricting, proportional representation, and a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote. Democrats should pursue an “all of the above” approach, not merely to regain but to expand diverse voters’ participation and power.

Though the tools to sustain multi-racial democracy may be different from those employed in the 1960s, Madeleine Greenberg of the Campaign Legal Center reminded us: “Every generation has faced attempts to restrict access to the ballot box, and every generation has pushed back.” If Democrats win elections decisively and fully exercise the power they obtain, they can fix what MAGA white supremacists have broken. Only then can we fulfill the promise of pluralistic democracy.