As a native Texan, I am beyond thrilled by the election results. It was a night for the history books. All the statewide offices were won by Democrats–Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, and “Railroad Commissioner” (who regulates the powerful oil and gas industry).

No Democrat had been elected to the U.S. Senate since 1988. No Democrat had won a statewide office since 1994. The gerrymander that Trump asked for and got was washed away in a tide of blue. Four of the five gerrymandered Congressional districts–designed to be safe Republican seats–were captured by Democrats. The races that were supposed to be close–for US Senate and for Governor–were total blowouts. The only unknown is whether one or both houses of the legislature remain in Republican hands.

Forrest Wilder of Texas Monthly has the story:

I’ve covered every election in Texas since 2006. Tuesday night’s results are, by far, the most shocking I’ve ever seen. For my whole adult life, the script has been more or less the same for Texas elections: Republicans win, Democrats lose. In recent years, the story has been about the GOP civil war: the far right winning and the Republican establishment retreating in defeat. The governance story was also predictable: Those in power did what they wanted and everyone else suffered what they must. That timeworn script was ripped up in just a few hours. 

A good night for Democrats was certainly indicated by the usual metrics—polling, prediction markets, reporting, and vibes. I thought Talarico would win by a few percentage points. But I’m not sure anyone was prepared for the alternative universe we’ve just entered. Texas went to bed as a red state—the red state. Wednesday morning, it will wake up as something very, very different. 

Republicans are on track to lose every statewide race. Governor Greg Abbott, a fundraising juggernaut who was on the verge of becoming the longest-serving governor? Trounced by state representative Gina Hinojosa. Ken Paxton, who seemed to possess some kind of superpower? Devastated by James Talarico, now an instant superstar and presidential contender. Mayes Middleton, who insisted on calling himself “MAGA” Mayes? Whupped by Dallas state senator Nathan Johnson, a virtual unknown. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, one of the most adept politicians in modern Texas history? Humiliated by Austin-based state representative Vikki Goodwin, who barely had a profile in her hometown. Openly racist edgelord Bo French? Beaten by Jon Rosenthal. Democrats seem to be on track to flip all four of the Texas Supreme Court seats up for grabs, dramatically changing the balance of power on Texas’s highest civil court. As of right now, it looks like Democrats may have a majority in the Texas House for the first time since 2002. In short, they won everywhere.  

Democrats ran up the score in the big urban counties. They flipped longtime red suburban counties, including Denton and Collin (Paxton’s home county) and Brazoria. They ran riot through heavily Hispanic areas that Trump had flipped in 2024. Just as one example, Starr County—96 percent Hispanic—went from voting for a Republican for the first time since 1892, when they gave Trump 57 percent of the vote, to giving Talarico more than 75 percent of the vote. Paxton and Abbott and the other statewide candidates begged for rural Texas to turn out. But even in rural counties, Democrats did better than they normally do. The red wall was breached quite handily. Shit, they even won Brazos County in the heart of Aggieland.

Trump ordered up an aggressive gerrymander, to try to give the GOP five more winnable seats. But the dummymander seems to have gone bust. They tried to stimulate the lizard brains of voters, fearmongering about Muslims. But that tack fell flat. The richest man in the world, Elon Musk, wasted an ocean of cash—at least $212 million—trying to salvage Paxton. Now, he’s talking about taking his data centers to space.

It seems like Texans went into the voting booth with a vengeance, voting against anyone with an R next to their names. Let’s not take anything away from the winners. Talarico was a very strong candidate—charismatic, disciplined, an excellent fundraiser who had few, if any, major errors. Hinojosa, too, surprised a lot of observers with her creative attacks on Abbott. She was vastly outspent, but managed to land blows on Abbott over data centers, private school vouchers, and the cloud of corruption that seems to be parked over the Governor’s Mansion. But it’s also probably the case that just about any Democrat would’ve won in this environment. Trump was deeply unpopular in Texas—his approval rating was underwater by about twenty percentage points. There was a blue tsunami that swept over much of the nation, and Texas was part of it.

And yet, there likely were Texas-specific factors, too. Paxton and Hinojosa ran on an anti-corruption platform. They told a story about Texas: that the ruling political class had sold the state out to billionaires. Facts were not hard to marshal to drive the message home. Abbott’s signature policy during his twelve years as governor was private-school vouchers, which seemed to have little popular support but was a pet project of various billionaires, including Pennsylvania’s Jeff Yass, who gave Abbott at least $12 million. And just in the closing days of his campaign, Texas Monthly reported that Abbott’s Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission had discussed selling Boca Chica State Park to Musk. There were the data centers that Abbott welcomed with open arms, and the 765-kV transmission lines. And what more can be said about Ken Paxton? Corrupt, unethical, swagless. In retrospect, the question is, how did this man stay in power for so long? 

It will take some time to adjust to the new reality. The basic set of assumptions that have been operative in Texas for decades are now called into question. One is tempted to say one-party rule is over. Yet, somehow we’ve entered a new era of one-party rule. Regardless of your political persuasion, did you ever expect to see Democrats winning races in Texas from top to bottom in 2026? The parlor question—”when will Texas turn blue?”—had long ago become a cliche, a sick joke. And yet here we are. 

Yes! Voters listened to Trump, who told them to pretend he was on the ballot. And they voted accordingly. Voters elected enough Democrats to hand control of the Senate and the House of Representatives to Democrats.

Voters voted against high prices on consumer goods like groceries and gasoline, against the brutality of ICE, against Trump’s vicious deportation of law-abiding immigrants, against corruption.

Exciting news:

Georgia elected Keisha Lance Bottoms, the first Black Governor of Georgia. And the first woman.

Dr. Annie Andrews won Lindsey Graham’s Senate seat in South Carolina, beating his sister, who was selected by Trump. Think of it: South Carolina elected a Democratic Senator!

Dr. Amy Acton defeated Vivek Ramaswamy for Governor of Ohio.

Susan Collins lost her Senate seat in Maine to Democrat Troy Jackson.

Iowa and Kansas elected Democratic senators. Kansas has not elected a Democratic Senator since 1932!

As I went to sleep at 3 a.m. this morning, the Mississippi Senate race was tied. With 97% of the vote counted, Democrat Scott Colom was leading the incumbent Cindy Hyde-Smith by 28 votes. Colom is Black; Hyde-Smith is a Confederate. Mississippi!

The voters imagined that Trump and his idiotic, malicious administration were on the ballot, and they responded by giving Democrats control of Congress.

For me, the biggest news of the night was the election in Texas. Democrats won the the two big prizes: James Talarico crushed Ken Paxton to win the Senate seat. Gina Hinojosa won a decisive victory over Greg Abbott for Governor. I am hoarse from cheering and screaming.

The three biggest losers were:

  1. Trump: he asked voters to make this election a referendum on him. They did. He lost.
  2. Elon Musk: Musk moved his SpaceX business to Texas because of Greg Abbbott’s low-tax, business-friendly policies. He escaped California’s high taxes and the possibility of a billionaire’s tax. he put almost $500 million into Republican PACs. The candidates who benefited most from his money were Ken Paxton, Greg Abbott, and Vivek Ramaswamy. All of them lost. Elon Musk wasted almost $500 million in his campaign gifts.
  3. The pollsters: They were right in predicting a blue wave. I followed only one state closely, and that was Texas. The pollsters consistently underrated both Talarico and Hinojosa. Not by a little but by a lot. In the polls, Talarico usually had a lead of 2-3 points, and some pollsters showed him losing to Paxton. Gina Hinojosa occasionally led Abbott by 2 points in the polls, but most polls showed her losing to Abbott. How wrong could they be? Talarico and Hinojosa won by huge margins–not 1 or 2%, but decisive margins.Not a single pollster predicted a complete blowout in Texas.

Last night was a seismic shift in American politics. Trump’s power crumbled. Democrats can investigate the crimes and corruption of the Trump administration. Trump can’t get another Supreme Court nominee through the Senate, unless he tries to shove one through before January 1.

It’s a new day.

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, says that the central issue in the midterm elections is whether to continue the enrichment of the richest or to bolster the well-being of the rest of the citizenry.,

He writes:

Friends,

America makes its choice November 3.

It’s not really a choice between two parties. After all, a record 45 percent of American voters now call themselves “independent” and don’t align with either party. And most of us who still describe ourselves as Republicans or Democrats don’t have much love for whichever party we’re registered with. 

Nor will it be a choice between the “left” and the “right,” as those terms have been used for the last half-century — representing preferences by the left for more and bigger social safety nets and by the right for lower taxes. These days, big business wants more government in the form of subsidies, bailouts, no-bid government contracts, and a giant military-technology state. 

The real choice is between ever more concentrated wealth and power at the top — in the billionaire class, tech bros, Wall Street, and the C-suites of giant corporations — versus more wealth and power in what used to be the American working middle class. 

That’s what the “affordability crisis” is all about. It also underlies America’s growing concern about corruption. 

For the last few weeks it’s looked as if America was about to choose the second path, for The People and against Big Money. 

But Big Money is now striking back. Elon Musk is pouring hundreds of millions into supporting Republican candidates, as are Big Crypto, AIPAC, AI, and Trump’s MAGA Inc. (and its related super PACs). 

“Dark money” — anonymous campaign donations flowing through so-called “nonprofits,” mostly from wealthy individuals and CEOs — is also dropping into the system. 

Democratic candidates are being outspent 2-to-1 by super PACs and megadonors. More than in any midterm since the Supreme Court’s shameful Citizens United decision, Big Money is going almost exclusively to the GOP. The Supreme Court has given Republicans an additional spending advantage by allowing super PACs to work in close cooperation with candidates.

Texas’s James Talarico hasn’t taken any corporate PAC money, for example, and has an army of volunteers going door to door for him and has accumulated one of the largest small-donor war chests of any candidate in this election cycle. But his opponent, Ken Paxton, is relying almost entirely on $158 million he’s got from Musk via a Republican super PAC.

This enormous gusher of Big Money for Republicans has no regulatory oversight because the Federal Election Commission has no quorum and therefore can’t function. 

At the state level, Big Money is attacking ballot measures to increase taxes on the super-rich — such as California’s Proposition 40, a one-time 5 percent tax on billionaires. Google multibillionaire Sergey Brin is sinking hundreds of millions into defeating it. Gavin Newsom also opposes it. But another California presidential hopeful, Ro Khanna, is pushing for it, to his great credit. (Note to California voters: Vote YES on 40 and NO on the poison pills, Props 41 and 42.)

This election is the clearest contest yet between Big Money and The People. Spending by super PACs and other megadonors in the current midterms is over 50 percent higher than in the 2022 midterms, in inflation-adjusted dollars. 

I wish I were more confident that The People will prevail. Democrats are doing well in the polls, but polling is flawed when it comes to the influence of Big Money. Many so-called “low-information” voters are more likely to be swayed by media advertising and less likely to respond to polls or tell pollsters truthfully how they intend to vote. 

When this is over, if the Democrats take back the House and at least come close to retaking control of the Senate, high on their agenda must be seeking to get Big Money out of our politics — via constitutional amendment or public financing of elections (matching small-dollar donations). And also going after the source of much of the Big Money by enacting a national wealth tax. 

In the meantime: stay calm, support good candidates, do whatever you can to get out the vote, and vote as soon as you can.

Timothy Snyder is one of the world’s leading historians of European history. He has been a staunch defender of Ukraine in its fight to survive the Russian invasion of 2022.

He explains in this post how wrong Trump is about Ukraine. Trump has abandoned our European allies and aligned the U.S. with the aggressor, Vladimir Putin.

Professor Snyder writes:

Donald Trump has just claimed that the United States had done “a lot” for Ukraine, but that Ukraine has done “nothing” for the United States. 

This is unjust in the highest degree. And not just untrue in the normal sense — it is a big lie, designed to bring about horror and chaos.

At the moment, the United States has agreed to purchase Russian diesel, which breaks its own laws as well as international sanctions agreements, and in effect places America on the Russian side of the war. It is also denying Ukraine access to Starlink services (which have been paid for), thereby making it much harder for Ukraine to defend its people against Russian attacks. The United States provides almost no military aid to Ukraine, and it has been the policy of the Trump administration to deny such aid. Europeans purchase American arms and deliver them to Ukraine, but even these contractual agreements are not being met by the American side. The most important weapons in question are Patriot interceptors, which Ukrainians need to defend themselves from Russian ballistic missiles. 

In other words, the Trump administration has acted to make Ukrainians more vulnerable to Russian attacks. In case there was any doubt about the general drift of this: The president of the United States has now repeatedly called for the president of Ukraine to leave office. And so the question is not how much the United States is doing for Ukraine. The question is why the United States is working to help the Russian aggressor right now.

But that might not even be the greatest injustice in Trump’s statement that “You know what, we’ve given a lot to Ukraine. They’ve given nothing to us.” Ukrainians have fought the largest war since 1945 for almost five years now. The war is longer than the First World War and longer than the American engagement in the Second World War. They suffer military and civilian casualties every day. Proportional to population, they have suffered losses on a scale Americans have never experienced, with the exception of the Civil War. They live through the equivalent of a 9/11 in Russian terror attacks every few weeks. 

And yet Ukrainians are defending themselves, and very effectively. In so doing they are also giving a great deal to us. Because they have been doing so for so long and so well, it is — sadly — all to easy to take for granted Ukrainian contributions to American and world security. So I will just enumerate a few of them here. 

Ukraine is defending the basic principle of international law, which is that states are sovereign and that one state should not seize territory from another by way of aggression. 

Ukraine is fulfilling the entire NATO mission, which is to defend Europe from Russian aggression. It is doing the job that NATO assigns to its thirty-two members, which include the United States and Canada. Ukraine is doing this job itself.

Ukraine is making a world war less likely. Russia has already brought to life the most worrying security concern on the scale of Europe, which is a Russian invasion of a European country. On the scale of the world, the greatest risk is Chinese aggression in Taiwan. By defending itself, Ukraine has demonstrated the difficulties in offensive operations, and made such a war less likely.

Kyiv, Lukianivka neighborhood, September 2026, TS

Ukraine is making a nuclear war less likely. Russia is a nuclear power. Ukraine is not. If Russia is allowed to defeat Ukraine, other middle powers will likely draw the conclusion that they need to build nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves. By holding back Russia, Ukraine is also holding back nuclear proliferation.

Ukraine is defending us all from oligarchy, from the rule of the very wealthy. Putin’s idea that Ukraine is not a real country is the example of an oligarchical fantasy, the kind of centibillionaire nonsense that can take lives and destroy the planet. By resisting Russian aggression, Ukraine is showing that democracy can defend itself.

Ukraine is providing an example of freedom. In Ukraine, even during conditions of war, civil society functions, and people speak their minds. Under Russian occupation, an entirely different mode of life prevails: women are raped; children are deported to Russia to be assimilated; local activists are murdered; young men are forced into the Russian army to die; total uniformity is imposed. 

And so what Trump says is wrong in the very broadest of senses. Ukraine is doing work for our security and for our liberty. Ukrainians have held off the worse and bought the rest of us time. 

And Trump’s claim is also wrong in the narrow sense. Ukraine has been providing battlefield intelligence to the United States from the beginning of the war. It has shared its experience of modern warfare with American institutions. It even sent — in these most trying of times inside Ukraine — hundreds of its own experienced air defense troops to the Near East to help protect Americans and their allies from Iranian drones. Imagine what those Ukrainian crews, separated from their embattled country to defend Americans, are thinking right now, as their contributions are denied, and as their own families are put in greater danger by US policy.

Trump’s statement is not only unjust. It is not only a lie. It is a big lie, whose purpose is not to describe the world but to change it, to blame the victim and assist the aggressor, to betray the ally and destroy the alliances, to create a world in which everyone must feel unsafe except the wealthy and powerful, a world in which all that matters are the personal feelings and personal dealings of a handful of oligarchs and dictators.

You gotta give Trump credit: He has figured out how to cash in on the Presidency. want a Presidential pardon? Make a large donation to the right person. Want a membership at Mar-a-Lago? They are available, for a price. Can’t afford a major contribution? Go to the Trump Store, where you can buy all sorts of Trump-branded stuff.

The level of corruption in the federal government is unprecedented. Pardons are sold; conflicts of interest are ignored. Trump’s net worth increased by more than $2.2 billion in his first years. His sons are investors in companies that land big defense contracts.

Now Trump is selling early access to posts on his social media site Truth Social. Since his posts can move the stock market up or down, this heads-up is valuable.

The Japan Times reported:

NEW YORK – Truth Social, the social media platform founded by U.S. President Donald Trump, has signed up news and data provider Bloomberg and two Wall Street firms for faster access to the president’s posts, which it sells for up to $100,000 a month, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.

The firms are Susquehanna International Group and Jump Trading, both high-frequency trading firms focused on algorithmic and automated strategies.

The service gives subscribers a timing advantage in access to Trump’s posts on Truth Social, which has the potential to create swings in financial markets and to give Wall Street traders an edge not available to everyday investors. 

The companies’ purchases of the Truth API service hasn’t been previously reported. An API is a programming interface that is used as a digital bridge that allows one system to connect to another.

Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG) announced its fastest-access product in July, and pitched it to trading firms and other financial institutions. The deals likely mark the first time a business tied to a sitting president has sold access to their statements, which some critics have called unethical.

While Truth Social’s pay-for-access plan ventures into untested legal territory, Intercept Media and the Freedom of the Press Foundation sued Trump in August, seeking to block the White House from posting official government announcements exclusively on Truth Social while the paid feed exists. The suit, which is ongoing, alleges that erecting a financial barrier to government information is potentially unconstitutional and favors wealthy Wall Street firms.

Bloomberg, Jump Trading and Susquehanna declined to comment.

In a statement, Trump Media said: “Truth Social offers an industry-standard API product for which there is significant demand across industries. We take customer confidentiality seriously. This reporting is based on misleading information being peddled by anonymous sources aimed at harming our company, customers and shareholders.”

The president’s family trust owns 41% of Trump Media, and Trump is the trust’s sole beneficiary.

Shares of the company have fallen more than 50% so far this year. The market value of Trump Media has been volatile since it went public; it closed at about $8 billion in its March 2024 debut, but is now worth about $1.8 billion. The company has lost about $1.76 billion since 2024, including noncash charges.

Margaret Sullivan is a super-journalist who previously served as ombudsman for The New York Times. She is dedicated to fearless truth-telling, and she gets very cross when journalists go wish-washy and presents”both sides” while ignoring facts, evidence and truth.

Sullivan writes a blog on Substack called “American Crisis: Can Journalism Save Democracy?” She has no paywall and invites readers to subscribe if they are able. This column was published on October 14. I missed it. It remains highly pertinent.

She writes:

The midterm elections are three weeks away, as I write this post, and I’ll remind you of what historian Timothy Snyder aptly said several weeks ago: “We are now two months from the American midterm elections, probably the most consequential since the eighteenth century. Given that the presidency is held by an oligarch who wishes to bring our republic to an end, a victory of the opposition is a prerequisite for the maintenance of the rule of law and anything resembling political democracy.”

Because they are so consequential, I’ve been pushing here, on American Crisis, for news coverage that concentrates less on the horserace and the polls and the prediction markets, and more on the importance of the midterms to our democracy.

Readers, there is precious little of that latter kind of coverage in mainstream media. That’s more than disappointing. Instead, there’s a broad range of stories that either a) really don’t get it and indulge in false equivalency; or b) make a few gestures at the importance of the elections but don’t shout the consequences from the rooftops.

Here’s a sampling of what I saw, with some grades. Let me know if you agree and if you think the coverage is better than I’m giving the media credit for. Please point out anything you found excellent and I’ll be happy to spread the word. 

First, an article and podcast rife with some of the worst sins of the current media era — false equivalence, sane-washing and soft-pedaling language. This was on the Times opinion site, titled “How Worried Should We Be About the Midterm Elections?” It’s led by Sarah Isgur, whose background includes posts in the first Trump administration, specifically the Justice Department, in conversation with NYU law professor Richard Pildes. (In the podcast itself, she refers to herself as a former Republican operative and Pildes expresses surprised interest in this. This was not exactly a state secret.) You can read the transcript here or listen to the conversation, but here’s the kind of thing you’ll run across; this from Isgur: “You have the left talking about voter suppression. You have the right talking about voter fraud.” 

To clear away the thick smoke of false equivalence, you need to go to the top reader comments, where there’s a lot more straight talk. (I love reader comments!) 

To wit: “I felt like I was going crazy listening to today’s podcast. Am I the only one who remembers Jan. 6? Hang Mike Pence?…You guys spend way too much of your energy (framing) mistrust of elections as some sort of both-sides issue when it is a matter of public record that a significant and dominant faction of the Republican Party tried to overturn the 2020 election. There is no Democratic equivalent.” Or this: “Should we be worried about midterm elections? No, we should be worried (about) Trump and Republicans cancelling them or disallowing the results.”

I give this podcast a generous D. 

At the other end of the spectrum, an A to a ProPublica piece that goes to the heart of what we SHOULD be worrying about related to the midterms. “Inside Trump’s Effort to ‘Take Over’ the Midterm Elections.” The reporting highlights are summarized at the beginning of the April piece, a device I appreciated. They are three: 

  • Safeguards Destroyed, about how Trump has systematically demolished the federal guardrails that prevented him from overturning the 2020 election.
  • Changing of Guard, about how career staff have been replaced by employees from the election denial movement.
  • Political Interference, about how once-fringe players have access to vast power within the voting systems. 

Everything about this is excellent. Check it out here.

And another A to the New York Times’s Theodore Schleifer, who revealed the detailsabout Elon Musk’s $276 million funding of midterm races, “trying to save Republicans’ Senate majority with some of the largest donations in American political history.” [Diane notes: Musk’s funding for Republicans is now close to $500 million.] And again, I can’t resist quoting the top comment: “This is exactly why Democrats should make repealing Citizens United one of their first priorities (because it) has effectively silenced the voices of the American electorate to the point that now only corporations have a seat at the table.”

Then, there’s a lot in between. This NBC News piece, described as “breaking down what matters most to voters before the 2026 elections,” is overall very good, though heavily dependent on a network poll. But the way Sahil Kapur explores and explains the data is direct, informative and in the public interest. I don’t love poll-based reporting but still: Solid B.

The Guardian (where I write a media and politics column) had a good piece interviewing voters across the political spectrum about what issues matter to them. I am a bit weary of hearing from people like the self-described Maga Republican voter, Sharon Anderson of Tennessee, who proclaims that while she would like to see the war with Iran end, “the person that’s able to end this conflict is in leadership today.” She means Trump, who she says has also caused America to be more respected on the world stage. But many of the answers, especially those from independents, are interesting and the piece is issues-oriented. I give it a B.

Similar in many ways is a Washington Post piece reported out of Youngstown, Ohio at a Trump rally by a fine reporter, Cat Zakrzewski, who observes that “entire sections of the Covelli Centre arena and upper levels sat mostly empty” and quotes local people saying they are disillusioned with Trump. (But, of course, not many sound like they’re ready to cross the aisle when voting; that, apparently, is a bridge too far.) 

I thought the piece was poorly served by its headline, “In Ohio, some Trump voters question whether he’s still fighting for them.” (Was he ever really fighting for the working people of Ohio? Again, from the comments: “Trump was never fighting for you, he just needed your votes, geniuses.”) I wish stories like this would ask people what it would take to get them to vote their disappointment. But overall, factoring in the bad headline, but appreciative of the on-the-scene reporting: B-minus. Read it here with a gift link.

Given Jay Rosen’s excellent guideline for better politics coverage — “not the odds, but the stakes” — I thought the name of a new podcast from Kara Swisher and Hillary Clinton was on target: “High Stakes.” It’ll be interesting to see what they do in the days ahead. Here’s what Clinton had to say in advance: “I don’t think the stakes for the country and the world could be any higher. If we don’t reverse this chaos and corruption and cruelty that is being visited upon us by this administration, we won’t recognize our country.” 

Please let me know what media coverage you are seeing that gets that point — and Timothy Snyder’s point — across in clear, direct terms

On October 22, a dozen Catholic bishops met with Trump in the Oval Office to discuss religious and social issues that they care about, including school choice, religious freedom, abortion, the harsh treatment of immigrants, and the role of the White House Faith Office, which organized the meeting.

After a 90-minute conversation, the bishops were asked to gather around Trump and bless him. They did, and the photo was used as campaign material to make it look like the Bishops were endorsing Trump just days before the mid-term elections.

Some of the Bishops later complained that their presence had been exploited politically. They were not there to endorse anyone but to discuss issues of concern.

Gustavo Arellano, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, composed a prayer that he wishes the Bishops had offered Trump.

He wrote:

Jesus said a lot about prayer in the New Testament. Pray for those who hate you. Pray privately, not publicly “as the hypocrites are,” and “use not vain repetitions.” Pray to not enter into temptation. Pray in humility.

He sure as hell didn’t say anything about praying while serving as a tyrant’s photo op, as a dozen Catholic bishops did last week in the Oval Office.
They stood around President Trump as he sat with his eyes closed and tiny hands clasped, a prayer stance about as convincing as when he holds a Bible. Denver Archbishop James Golka then laid his hand on Trump’s shoulder, thanked God for “the gift of this office and presidency” and asked the Holy Spirit to protect the U.S. “against any influence of evil.”

Too late!

A majority of Catholic voters chose Trump in 2024, but polls show that many of my brethren now regret that decision and want to repent. The backlash against the bishops was furious enough that four of them have since either apologized or insisted that they weren’t endorsing anyone.

One of the four, Bishop William Joensen of Des Moines, said he wished he had remembered Jesus’ warning to the apostles that “I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”

That’s great advice for voters in this election, Catholic or not. We can deliver a historic rebuke to a president who needs a rebuttal on the level of Saul of Tarsus. And part of that is praying for Trump’s soul — after all, in three of the four Gospels, Jesus proclaims that he was sent to heal the sick, not the healthy.

And who’s more ill right now than President Cheesecake Factory?

But we can’t follow the weak-salsa example of the bishops. We need to be like their Episcopal contemporary Mariann Budde, who told Trump and other members of his regime during an interfaith service the day after his 2025 inauguration: “In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy on the people in our country who are scared now.”

So I offer the following prayer with a rosary in one hand and my completed ballot in the other:

Lord, we thank you for this fragile gift of democracy, fought for by people greater than us, but which has been under peril for the past decade because of a Great Deceiver who allows Bibles to be sold in his name, image and likeness.

We thank you that despite his many attempts to divide and further sink us into a swamp of hate, our republic still stands and awaits another Great Awakening.

Please deliver us from the evil that is Trump, who’s in the same class as Pharaoh, Herod, Nebuchadnezzar and all the terrible rulers in the Old and New Testaments but especially Jeroboam, whose minting of two golden calves to draw the Israelites into idol worship seems holy compared with the globs of gilt that the president has splattered across the White House.

We pray that people turn from this false idol and follow your Son’s repeated admonitions in the Gospel to stand by the meek, the poor, the outcast and especially the foreigner, whom you instructed us in Leviticus “shall be unto you as one born among you.”

We ask you lift up the good candidates and curse the bad ones by making them lose and tossing them into the Gehenna that is Newsmax.

Grant voters the clarity to see that too many Republican leaders have blasphemed your name by claiming to be Christians yet staying quiet or openly supporting an administration that treats the Ten Commandments like a dry-erase board.

We ask for your blessing on all election workers persecuted by the Justice Department because of Trump’s false conspiracy of ballot rigging. We ask that you hit up your homeboy Allah and tell him to remind Trump’s Southern California Beelzebub, devout Muslim and First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, of the Quran’s teaching that those who “spread corruption in the land — it is they who will be condemned and will have the worst abode.”

Yahweh, open the heart of Vice President JD Vance, who rightfully stands by his Indian American non-Christian wife and their brown children while many in his own party loathe them, yet can’t find the same empathy for those he wants deported. Or at least convince him that lecturing Pope Leo XIV on Catholicism is like me giving batting tips to Shohei Ohtani.

May angels accompany Pope Leo’s mail-in ballot from the Vatican to the proper Chicago precinct so it doesn’t get sequestered in permanent limbo by the Justice Department.

May Jesus appear on the breakfast sandwiches of the conservative Catholic majority that lords over the U.S. Supreme Court, the way Christ once appeared on a flour tortilla.

I ask you, o King of Kings, to have mercy on those who fell under the spell of Trump despite knowing in their hearts of hearts they were wrong. On those who didn’t vote at all because they felt it wouldn’t matter. On those who could have done more to push back but didn’t, because they were afraid. Bless them with newfound courage to do what’s right.

Protect those whom Trump has wronged, which is basically everyone in this country except tech bros, foreign dictators and men with great asses.
Bring prudence to Democratic leaders if they do take over the House of Representatives and the Senate, and cure them of the folly that would be a third impeachment attempt.

Humble Gov. Gavin Newsom — just humble him already.

And I pray once again that you save Donald Trump. You are a god of miracles, so I still have faith that you can reach him, or at least render him as powerless as an orange match trying to stay lit as a blue wave comes crashing down on it.

Lord, in your name we pray. Amen.

A journalist in Texas wrote the following. He/she lives in Austin and requested anonymity to avoid reprisals. I have double-checked the information shared. It is accurate.

The journalist describes Governor Greg Abbott’s tactic to destroy public education: state takeovers. This allows the state to dismiss the locally elected school board and replace it with people loyal to Governor Abbott and State Superintendent Mike Morath, a non-educator picked by Abbott. After the state takeover, teachers leave, enrollment declines..public schools being to the state, not to the district.

The journalist wrote the following to me:

Texas public schools are under attack. And no Texas district is being attacked on as many fronts as Austin ISD.

 State policies and targeted investigations are taking a toll, pulling time, energy, and funds from the real work of supporting Austin’s students, teachers, and campus communities. The district is facing a long list of challenges, all created or exacerbated by many years of anti-public school policies from state leaders. Students and teachers feel the impact on campuses every day. Families are leaving the district. Budgets are becoming tighter each year. Charters and vouchers are siphoning students from public schools and concentrating need at many campuses. And despite this community’s deep belief in engaging education, teaching is increasingly focused on testing – the near-inevitable result of a punitive high-stakes testing environment.

 Austin is sometimes described as the blueberry in the tomato soup – the brightest blue community in what has long been a deeply red state. That makes the district a favorite target for state leaders, who routinely attack it to score political points.Students, teachers, families, and the city are suffering as those attacks weaken a district in that should be among the strongest urban districts in the country.

 The community shows up for Austin ISD schools, and people across the economic spectrum continue to choose Austin ISD schools, which educate a mix of students who are diverse in every way. About half come from families classified as having economic disadvantage and half do not. About half are Hispanic, almost a third are emergent bilingual, and nearly one in ten are immigrants from all over the world.

 Austin ISD’s school board looks a lot like the city itself – racially and economically diverse, highly educated, and politically progressive. All were elected with strong support from their local union and their local communities. All serve as volunteers in a role that demands many hours and invites public critique along with the joy. All have seen the impact of state policies on Texas public schools. Many are longtime public education advocates. And all have become far too familiar withthe power the Texas Education Agency holds over Texas districts.

 In Texas, state takeovers are becoming a go-to remedy. Houston ISD was the first big district to fall, in 2023. Then, last year, the pace escalated. A single school with five F ratings in a row can trigger a takeover. Four more districts are now under state control, including Fort Worth ISD – another of the state’s largest urban districts. When the 2026-27 school year began, some 250,000 Texas students walked into classrooms that are now under state control.

 It’s an unprecedented experiment, and an aggressive exercise of state power over local communities. Now Austin ISD – rated a B under the state’s narrow accountability system – is the latest Texas district at risk of state takeover. And that is just the biggest threat among many, many others.

 Here’s a short list of challenges Austin ISD is facing right now:

 

• Investigation of student walkouts

State leaders have targeted Austin ISD for a special investigation after students at many campuses walked out to protest ICE. In a community as diverse as Austin, issues involving immigration are felt deeply and personally. Their protests were part of a student movement across the state and the country in late January. Yet Governor Greg Abbot and Attorney General Ken Paxton have focused special attention on Austin ISD, with an investigation that still has not been completed. The Texas Education Agency has warned that walkouts could lead to a state takeover.

 

• Investigation of which bathroom a single student has used

Attorney General Paxton has also targeted Austin ISD for alleged violations of the state’s “bathroom bill,” which requires people at sites including public schools to use the bathroom that matches their sex at birth. The bill depends on people reporting districts for alleged violations – something that happened two times when someone complained about the bathroom a single transgender student was using at an Austin ISD high school, which was followed by a complaint at the district’s performing arts center. The law holds the district accountable, allowing fines of up to $5000 a day for documented violations. But the law also allows the full weight of the state to be weaponized against individual students – children in public schools.

 

• Funding crisis

For years, public education funding has failed to keep up with inflation or a long and growing list of mandates from the state. Texas consistently ranks in the bottom ten states in per-student funding. Yet schools must also pay for expensive security mandates, serve students who are emergent bilingual or who receive special education services despite funding that leaves immense gaps, and follow many other state demands that are neither optional nor funded. Across the state, dozens of schools have closed, class sizes are growing, programs and student supports are being cut, and teachers are quitting or taking second jobs. Texas offers no funding for many things it simply does not require, including school nurses and school librarians. Transportation is funded at a fraction of the actual cost to districts. In Austin ISD, the 2026-27 budget included about $205 million in deeply painful cuts. The district closed eleven campuses. They are selling property to help plug the holes. And still funding is not keeping up with costs. That crisis has been deepened by the passage of a $1 billion statewide voucher after many years of successful resistance by the Texas Legislature. Passage was only possible after the sitting governor primaried legislators who voted against vouchers, then had President Trump call lawmakers the morning of the vote. The cost is expected to double this year.

 

• State comptroller audit

At a campaign stop in El Paso in August, Governor Greg Abbott asked the Texas Comptroller to investigate the use of taxpayer money at up to four Texas school districts. The goal, according to the Governor, was to prevent funds from “being absorbed by central office growth, administrative bloat, consultants, and the web of noninstructional bureaucracy.” News reports say districts are being asked for data far beyond what an audit focused on the use of funds would require. The list includes lists of library books, demands for documents related to DEI, scrutiny of foreign workers, and information about Social Security numbers that advocates fear is an attempt to understand how many students may be undocumented.

 

• Investigation of Pride Week celebration

Austin ISD has a long history of celebrating Pride Week. Since 2014, that meant supporting activities that included flying Pride flags at district facilities, participating as a district in the community’s Pride Parade, offering age-appropriate activities focused on respect for other people, and supporting campuses that chose to host their own after-school events for families. Staff and families have often said that they have chosen the district because of AISD’s welcoming climate. And the district continued to celebrate Pride Week – along with Juneteenth, Cesar Chavez Day, and other important community celebrations – even after trustees received a death threat targeting the parade. Since 2024, AISD’s Pride Week celebrations have grown smaller and smaller, and less and less visible. In 2026, the district chose not to participate in the community’s parade, inviting PTA leaders to step into the district’s place. As a result, the parade shrank from dozens of people with district support to just a handful. And still, in April, the Texas Education Agency began an investigation into Austin ISD for Pride Week. That investigation was launched in response to a complaint not from within the community, but from a conservative member of the State Board of Education who represents a district in Fort Worth, about 200 miles away. On social media, he called for defunding the district and for a criminal investigation of the superintendent. He also shared concerns that if the practice is not stopped in Austin ISD, it will expand to other communities in the state.

 This is not normal, even in Texas, except for Austin ISD. Each investigation or audit takes precious resources that no Texas district has to spare. Time and funds are diverted from the work that matters most – of educating students, supporting teachers, and inspiring a lifelong love of learning that prepares Austin’s students for the futures they deserve. 

 It does not have to be this way. And it’s both painful and promising to imagine what might be if the State of Texas would offer support rather than sanctions, and if they would also simply get out of the district’s way.

 Austin ISD has a strong board with a broad mix of highly relevant experience. All nine members were endorsed by the district’s union, Education Austin, and all serve by working long hours without pay. Six members are former K-12 educators in Texas public schools – including five who taught in the district, one who worked as the district’s head of multilingual education, and several who are current or former professors in programs that teach future teachers. Another is an educational anthropologist who teaches at UT and ran programs for students in the district. Another is a journalist with a law degree and a long background in advocacy and family engagement. And another is a former foster child who was in the first graduating class of Austin ISD’s Ann Richards School for Young Women Leaders, ranked as one of the top public high schools in the country. Another worked as an accountant after a career as a teacher. Together, the board holds five masters’ degrees, one law degree, and two Ph.Ds. Another trustee is earning a doctorate now. They have hired a superintendent who is a graduate of the district and the son of a longtime teacher. He’s an unconventional choice – with an MBA, an engineering degree, and a career in construction and district operations – but he has also brought stability after a series of rapid superintendent turnovers. And he has worked with the board and community to navigate immensely challenging times.

 As they have tackled issue after issue, district leaders have also managed to do important and thoughtful work in many areas. The community approved a $2.4 billion bond and a crucial increase in the tax rate for operations with powerful support from district voters. The district has created systems to focus resources where they are needed most – essential but also not easy in a district with such a broad range of economic opportunity and economic need. They cleared a large backlog of special education evaluations that grew during the pandemic. They have sharply reduced the number of F-rated campuses and steadily grown the number of highly rated campuses – a measure that must be a focus no matter how flawed and opaque the state’s metrics are. And they are seeing impressive results from a grant-funded investment in early literacy.

 And still, Austin ISD risks being taken over by the state.

 The community’s worry about a takeover goes far beyond the loss of elected control. Their fears are also based in facts about what has happened since the state took control of Houston ISD. State leaders routinely call the takeover an unparalleled success, citing a higher rating for the district and near zero F rated schools. But the costs have been immense – of lost opportunity, financial cost, and damage to community and careers.

 Reports document practices that serve scores but sacrifice student learning – limiting access to 8th grade Algebra by systematically holding some students back, gaming college readiness measures in ways that are legal but offer little benefit, removing both libraries and librarians, and reducing teaching to timed and scripted lessons. Campuses have closed, enrollment has plummeted by more than 20,000 students, and teachers are fleeing. Hundreds of their replacements are uncertified. And the state-appointed leaders have eaten into the district’s fund balance by pulling hundreds of millions from reserves in ways that will be impossible to sustain.

 Good reporting and strategic advocacy are helping the whole story from Houston ISD reach more people. Our state owes deep thanks to Community Voices for Public Education for its advocacy from the beginning, the Commission on the Takeover of HISD for its new in-depth report, state and local education union leaders for advocating and organizing, elected trustees for becoming the resistance, and doctoral student Dan Dawer for work to examine the takeover through an academic lens.

 In Austin, a group called Keep Austin Schools Independent has formed to inform and organize our community. We are also lucky to have strong trustee candidates who are stepping up, not knowing what their role will be but knowing their voices will matter.

 Takeovers are looming for more Texas districts. 

 Education is on the ballot in Texas in a way it has never been before. And the results of the election could make things far better or far worse, not just here in Austin, but also for public schools across our state. Voters in the Democratic primaries chose proven public education supporters up and down the ballot. And for people who know that change is needed for Texas public schools, Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic nominee for Texas Governor, is carrying a whole state’s hopes. She’s the mom of children who chose Austin ISD schools, a former AISD school board president, and a Texas House member who served her community and fought for Texas students on the public education committee. Her office became a place of pilgrimage for public education advocates, who would visit their own representatives, then stop by her office, too.

 A huge amount is at stake – not only for Austin, but for public education statewide. Dozens of Texas districts are just one or two years away from potential takeover. Schools are struggling after years of underfunding. And increasingly, the state’s vision of education is focused on the narrow measure of standardized tests – despite clear evidence that families and educators want and need something more for the 5 million students of Texas

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a case from Colorado that poses a thorny challenge. Should Catholic preschools that receive public funds be allowed to exclude students from LGBT families?

Ann Schimke of Chalkbeat reports:

The families of 4-year-olds in Colorado’s state-funded preschool program can choose from dozens of religious preschools, alongside hundreds of other public and private options. 

But participating preschools have to agree not to discriminate, including on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

That was a problem for two Catholic preschools in the Denver suburbs. They said admitting gay or transgender children, or children with gay or transgender parents, would conflict with their Catholic beliefs on sex and gender. The parishes that ran the preschools sued, rather than agree to Colorado’s non-discrimination rules.

The dispute will soon be heard by the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court, the latest in a series of cases challenging traditional understandings of church-state separation. Oral arguments in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy are set for Nov. 3. The court’s decision could have implications well beyond Colorado. 

Between publicly funded preschool programsand state voucher programs, more public money than ever before is flowing to private religious schools. This case asks whether states can put conditions on that public money to ensure all students have access or whether doing so infringes on the First Amendment rights of religious schools.

On October 20, Trump offered two rewards.

One was $1 million for anyone who reported voter fraud that led to the arrest and conviction of the fraudsters. So far, no one has claimed the prize, but who knows? There is still time.

The other was a reward for anyone reporting fraud in government spending. That’s the one I wanted to blow the whistle on.

Here is an open-and-shut case of fraud.

In 2025, the private prison operator CoreCivic offered to see a huge prison complex to the state of Minnesota for $75 million. The state turned down the offer.

The same prison complex was purchased by Trump’s Department of Homeland Security a year later for $495 million.

The story was reported by The New York Times:

CoreCivic, a private prison company, approached the Minnesota Department of Corrections last year offering to sell a long-shuttered detention facility. The price: $75 million.

State officials passed. They didn’t have the funds to buy the Prairie Correctional Facility in western Minnesota, nor did they need a prison of its size or have the ability to staff it.

Last summer, to their astonishment, the 1,600-bed prison sold for more than $495 million. The buyer: the Department of Homeland Security.

Why is the federal government getting ripped off?

Clearly somebody at CoreCivic had a big payday.

I went online to learn how to report this fraud.

My report, I discovered, is not covered by the federal whistleblower program.

First of all, the departments covered by statute do not include the Department of Homeland Security. Even if they overpaid by more than $400 million, so what?

The Department of Justice will approve awards pursuant to the Fraud Rewards Program in its sole discretion and may decline to pay a reward as it deems appropriate. At this time, the $10,000 to $30,000 reward payments that are made pursuant to the Fraud Rewards Program will be limited to: (1) Federal health care offenses and related crimes involving health care benefit programs or fraud against patients or others in the health care industry; or (2) fraud on programs or benefits administered by the Department of Agriculture (e.g., the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), the Department of Labor (e.g., unemployment fraud), the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education (e.g., student aid fraud), the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Small Business Administration. The Fraud Rewards Program places a particular emphasis on submissions involving the following subject matter areas: hospice, home health care, day care, and special services fraud.

See? No DHS frauds are covered by the program.

Then, reading through the guidelines, I discovered that I am not eligible to report the fraud because it was published. My knowledge of the fraud comes not from inside information, but from reading about it in The New York Times.

Original Information: An individual must provide, in writing, original information, meaning:

  1. Information that is derived from the individual’s independent knowledge or independent analysis.
    1. Independent knowledge means factual information in the individual’s possession that is not derived from publicly available sources. The individual may gain independent knowledge from their experiences, communications, and observations in their business or social interactions.
    2. Independent analysis means the individual’s own analysis, whether done alone or in combination with others. Analysis means the individual’s examination and evaluation of information that may be publicly available, but which reveals information that is not generally known or available to the public.

In conclusion, I can’t report the fraud because I read about it in the newspaper and it was committed by the DHS.