Month: July 2025

Yesterday was a busy day for dealmaking for Trump. Columbia agreed to pay $200 million and subject itself to oversight from an independent body over issues involving antisemitism. In exchange, it will get most of its grants back.

You can understand why Columbia views this as a reasonable business decision; after all, it gets more money than it loses, and there will be no direct federal oversight of its admissions or hiring practices. But what in the agreement stops Trump from doing it again? Is there something in the document that prevents Trump from turning the screws on Columbia in the future if the university does something to piss him off?

TBD.

As usual, details are vague regarding the deal, which leads to the following questions:

1. It seems reasonably clear that Trump has won better terms for American cars and agricultural products in Japan. That is a traditional goal in trade negotiations, and the result is welcome. But what, exactly, are the terms of that access, and will it be enough to matter? Will the Japanese actually buy American cars and rice if given the opportunity, or will they continue to prefer domestic products? We won’t know the answers to those questions, in all likelihood, for years to come.
2. Trump undoubtedly views the 15 percent tariff on Japanese goods as a victory because tariffs are, in his eyes, desirable in and of themselves. If your tariff is higher than someone else’s, you “won.” But the tariff will be a tax on American importers. Who will actually pay it? Will it result in higher prices, lower profits, or both? Thus far, the new tariffs have mostly been eaten by businesses, but that could change at any moment, and probably will.
3. We are told that “Japan” will be investing $550 billion in the American economy, at the discretion of Donald Trump. Who, exactly, in Japan will be writing these checks, and when? What limits are being put on Trump’s ability to direct the investments? What are the legal consequences if the investments are not made?

It is the last series of questions that create the most heartburn. At first glance, this looks like the creation of a huge sovereign wealth fund, to be spent totally at Trump’s discretion, with no oversight from Congress. The implications of that, given Trump’s character and motivations, are too obvious and frightening to merit further discussion at this time.

Ross Douthat argues that the Epstein mess proves that MAGA has an existence outside of Trump and puts limits on him. He’s right; reactionaries were present in the GOP long before Trump came on the scene, as Pat Buchanan could tell you. But where does MAGA go when Trump finally leaves?

As I see it, there are several possibilities:

1. MILITARIZED MAGA: Jack up the defense budget, eviscerate the welfare state to pay for it, and shoot anyone who complains. MOST LIKELY PROPONENT: Tom Cotton.
2. ECONOMIC POPULIST MAGA: Increase taxes on the wealthy, cut them for poor workers, and protect the welfare state. MOST LIKELY PROPONENT: Josh Hawley.
3. GODLY SOCIETY MAGA: Keep going with the tariffs and deportations, limit America’s obligations overseas, and take stronger steps to increase the native population. MOST LIKELY PROPONENT: J.D. Vance.
4. CULTURE WAR MAGA: The business of America is to fight wokeness wherever it can be found. MOST LIKELY PROPONENT: Ron DeSantis.
5. NEW CONFEDERACY MAGA: Reduce the power of the federal government and let the red states do whatever they want to oppress anyone who isn’t a straight white Christian. MOST LIKELY PROPONENT: Greg Abbott.

The battle for the soul of MAGA will probably take place starting in 2027, and will be fascinating in the same way as car crashes and natural disasters.

During the primaries, I argued that DeSantis would destroy liberal democracy from within with his methodical and single-minded pursuit of culture war victories, while Trump would burn it down with his capriciousness and desire for retribution. How did that turn out?

Trump has pursued the DeSantis agenda as energetically as his own. We have the worst of both worlds.

SCENARIO 1: Trump 2.0 is viewed as a success by a majority of the population. The economy is strong, and America is at peace. THE NOMINEE IS: A young, charismatic progressive with an ambitious agenda to remake America. The Democrats are going to lose the election in any event, so why not swing for the fences?

SCENARIO 2: Trump 2.0 is almost universally viewed as a failure. The economy is in the dumps. Any reasonably plausible nominee could win. THE NOMINEE IS: The same young, charismatic progressive. America is too far gone in this scenario for moderate remedial measures, and Trump has opened the gates to radical change with his contempt for liberal democratic norms.

SCENARIO 3: Trump is polling around 40 percent. The Democrats are likely to win, but who knows? THE NOMINEE IS: A moderate governor who promises to return us to normalcy with incremental and pragmatic change within the McConnell version of the Constitution. In other words, a younger and more energetic version of Biden in 2020.

The wild card here is whether the DOJ and the FBI will attempt to intervene in order to keep the GOP in power. The blue team needs to be prepared for that possibility.

Trump was struggling to find a response to the Epstein mess that would satisfy the base. Things looked a bit perilous. Then the WSJ ran a piece connecting his younger self to Epstein. This put Trump back on more comfortable ground; he called the article fake news, and the base rallied around him. Crisis averted.

Trump is suing Murdoch and the WSJ for a gazillion dollars. He should be calling Murdoch and thanking him for throwing him a lifeline.

Peak hurricane season will arrive next month. Our president is a climate change denier who is doing his best to wreck FEMA and the various federal agencies responsible for forecasting and tracking storms. The most likely landing spots for hurricanes are red states with governors who also deny climate change. What could go wrong?

Things will be very different this year in one respect. For the past four years, red state officials and voters could blame Biden for any shortcomings in the government’s response to extreme storms. Who will get the blame this year? Will it be Trump or the reactionary governors?

If you thought that the Trump racial agenda was simply to replace affirmative action with “merit,” his attempts to coerce NFL and MLB team owners to bring back racist team names should persuade you otherwise.

At least Hegseth tries to pretend that he isn’t using the names of loser Confederate generals again. No one actually believes him, but at least he’s making the effort.

Conventional wisdom tells us that Jeffries and Schumer are doing a poor job of mobilizing public opinion against the Trump agenda. Is the allegation fair?

Jeffries and Schumer, like Pelosi before them, are neither prominent ideologues nor dynamic public figures. They were elected to their respective positions because they are good at maintaining party unity and rounding up votes. Those skills have great value when the Democrats are in the majority–less so when the Republicans run the place.

The Democrats’ agenda will be expressed purely as a reaction to Trump until after the midterms. Once the primaries start, that will change; in the end, the Democrats will have a positive program and a duly elected leader again.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, Jeffrey Epstein blues.

You have to be aware of them; it’s all over the news.

The story just won’t go away, and now I’ve got to choose.

Should I come clean, or just deny? Either way, I lose.

____________________

Bondi put me in this bind by hyping up the case.

I’d of done it differently if I were in her place.

The story was of use to me when I was in a race,

Now that I’m the president, it’s making me lose face.

_______________

I’ve got the blues.

The Laura Loomer blues.

The loonies won’t get off my back

For that, there’s no excuse.

The story just keeps grinding on;

It just won’t go away.

For once in my exalted life

I don’t know what to say.

There is no known reason to believe this, but conspiracy theorists don’t traffic in facts, so assume for purposes of argument that Trump’s name shows up on an Epstein client list. Would MAGA care?

You can divide the MAGA movement into extremists who believe that Trump was sent by God to expose the corruption of the left-leaning elite and more mainstream types who follow him in spite of his personal shortcomings because they hate the same people he does. The latter group is perfectly aware of Trump’s record and simply does not care as long as he delivers the goods for them. Hypothetical facts establishing a closer tie between Trump and Epstein would make no difference whatsoever to them. As for the extremists, they would find this information uncomfortable, but they would find a way to spin it that would preserve the narrative. For example, they could say that Trump was only trying to get close to Epstein in order to expose him and his coastal elite henchmen at a later date.

In short, the answer to the question is yes–we have reached peak Epstein, barring some new incredible public relations blunder by Trump or his underlings.

The right-wing Christian podcaster Allie Beth Stuckey doesn’t really object to empathy; she just thinks it is used for the wrong purposes to benefit the wrong people. In the case of abortion, for example, she thinks we should focus our feeling on the fetus, not the struggling woman. Transgender people are abominations in the eyes of God; regardless of their personal plight, we should be trying to stamp them out, not relieve their pain. In the case of illegal immigration, her concern is for the handful of victims of crimes committed by the immigrants, not the myriad of problems created by mass deportations. And black people should just get over it and stop blaming their troubles on guiltless white people.

When asked about clear acts of cruelty supported by the Christian right, Stuckey will admit they exist in the abstract, but glide over them and return to her talking points. After all, those people are her friends, and there is no point in calling them out.

The bottom line here is that Stuckey is a reactionary who believes that straight white Christians are the real victims in American society and that everyone else is at best deluded and at worst positively evil. That’s what she really means by “toxic empathy”

The author of an article in Politico argues that there are three possible reasons why Trump is battling the base over Epstein. Option 1 is that he knew perfectly well from the beginning that there was no client list or conspiracy, but he used the story for his political benefit, and he doesn’t want to admit that he lied; Option 2 is that the records will show that he had a closer relationship with Epstein than he wants to concede; Option 3 is that Trump, Bondi, Patel, and the rest genuinely believed in the conspiracy, now know there wasn’t one, and refuse to admit they were wrong, because backing down would be a sign of weakness. That analysis is probably correct.

Given Trump’s history, I would bet the ranch on #1. When he makes outrageous base-pleasing statements that don’t go over well, he usually mitigates the damage by saying he was joking. Maybe he should try that again.

A few weeks ago, Bibi sent a letter nominating Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. I’m sure a testimonial from a man most of the world considers a war criminal will be enough to push him over the line.

What, exactly, has Trump done to deserve the prize? Is he worthy because he only bombed Iran once? Because he tried unsuccessfully to get a ceasefire in Gaza? Because he waffles about sending weapons to Ukraine? Because he might be willing to trade Taiwan for economic concessions? Because he only threatens to engage in military operations in Mexico and Panama?

The analogy isn’t perfect, but when I heard about the letter, I imagined Mussolini nominating Hitler for the prize because he agreed at Munich not to swallow Czechoslovakia in one gulp. Trump, to his credit, isn’t a warmonger, but he certainly isn’t a force for peace and stability, either.

Ross Douthat has an interview with a hard right evangelical Christian podcaster named Allie Beth Stuckey in today’s NYT. Most of the interview revolved around her views on culture war issues; I have not yet decided how, if at all, to respond to them. As a sort of throw-away, however, she argued that white people should not be blamed for what happened to black people 200, or even 50, years ago. That is a typical response to questions about systemic racism by reactionaries. Is it the correct way to analyze the problem?

No. Here are two facts about racism that cannot be disputed:

1. Black people were subjected to both de jure and de facto racism from the beginning of colonization until, at the very earliest, the middle of the 1960s.
2. Black people have less wealth, lower incomes, shorter life spans, poorer housing, and less education than white people on average as of the day I am writing this.

Individual “blame” is not really the issue. Here are the pertinent questions:

1. Do you agree that #2 above is the result of #1? If not, how do you explain the discrepancy?
2. If your answer to the first question is yes, do you think this is a problem that government is required to address, or do you believe average conditions are irrelevant, because America is a nation built purely on individuals, not groups?
3. If you think the discrepancies should be addressed by government, what is the best way to deal with them?

The hard right never gets to #3. To the center and the left, it is the only issue that is reasonably debatable.