Archives for category: Trump

Now here is another Trump promise that should keep us up at night: He has said that RFK Jr. will have a large role in his administration, overseeing the appointees in the areas that interest him: public health and food.

Melody Schreiber writes in The New Republic:

In June 2019, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. visited Samoa with his anti-vaccine organization, Children’s Health Defense, meeting with local anti-vaxxers and government officials at a time when the country’s measles vaccine was under attack. Prominent anti-vax voices, including CHD, blamed the vaccine for two infant deaths the prior year, even after the true reason was discovered. Amid the swirling misinformation, vaccine rates plummeted from 60–70 percent to 31 percent.

A few months after RFK Jr.’s visit, measles swept through the freshly vulnerable Pacific island nation, killing 83 Samoans—mostly children. Kennedy doubled down, writing to the Samoan prime minister to questionwhether a “defective vaccine” was responsible for the outbreak. Even two years later, in 2021, Kennedy called a Samoan anti-vaxxer who had reportedly discouraged people from getting vaccinated during the 2019 crisis a “medical freedom hero.” Kennedy has also insisted for years, against all available scientific evidence, that vaccines cause autism, blaming them for a “holocaust” in the United States.

This week, Kennedy told supporters that if Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wins, he has promised Kennedy “control of the public health agencies,” including the Department of Health and Human Services. Trump transition co-chair Howard Lutnik later denied that Kennedy would have a job with HHS—although, at the same time, he said Kennedy had convinced him to pull vaccines from the market. Trump himself, at his Madison Square Garden rally on Sunday, seemed to lend credence to the idea of Kennedy leading on health: “I’m gonna let him go wild on health. I’m gonna let him go wild on the food. I’m gonna let him go wild on medicines,” Trump said. Trump also said on a three-hour podcast episode with Joe Rogan last week that he’s told Kennedy, “Focus on health, focus—you can do whatever you want.” It’s not clear whether such a promise would have been made in exchange for Kennedy’s political endorsement, which would be illegal.

But if Kennedy were to be put in charge of HHS, he would be leading the executive department that oversees the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health, among others. In the meantime, Kennedy is an honorary co-chair on the Trump transition team, and claims to be “deeply involved in helping to choose the people who can run FDA, NIH, and CDC.”

In his own speech at Madison Square Garden, Kennedy took aim at Democrats, saying they were once “the party that wanted to protect public health, and women’s sports”—a bizarre pairing that highlights his recent pivot to attacking trans athletes and gender-affirming care. Kennedy, who ran as a Democratic and then independent presidential candidate before throwing his support behind Trump, is also spreading misinformation on chronic health issues such as obesity, diabetes, drug overdoses, and autism; on Tuesday, for example, he said diabetes could be “cured with good food.” In his Sunday speech, Kennedy characterized Trump as a president who would “protect our children … and women’s sports,” as well as “end the corruption at the federal agencies—at FDA, at NIH, at CDC, and at the CIA”—a constellation of bodies rarely joined together, which he implied are conducting surveillance upon and acting against the interests of the American people.

“This unbridled assault on science and scientists, it’s highly destabilizing for the country,” Baylor College of Medicine dean Peter Hotez, author of The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science, told me earlier this year, a few months after Kennedy announced his run. But it’s not just Kennedy—Trump and other Republicans in Congress are also leading the charge to undermine expertise and further erode public trust in the government, he said. “This is what authoritarianism is all about,” Hotez said, lamenting “the collateral damage that it’s going to do to our democracy” and pointing to the ways Stalin portrayed scientists as public enemies during the Great Purge.

Hotez sees the false claims about vaccines causing autism, which first started gaining momentum in the late 1990s, as phase one of the assault on science. When that was thoroughly debunked, anti-science activists began aligning themselves “around the banner of health freedom, medical freedom,” getting a major boost with the Covid-19 pandemic, Hotez said. “Now we’re seeing the next phase, which is not only targeting the science but targeting the scientists and portraying them as public enemies. That is both scary and worrisome.”

The past five years have seen a “substantial” drop of trust in public health and scientists, especially among Republicans, Robert Blendon, Harvard University professor emeritus of political analysis and health policy, told me. At the same time, the anti-vaccine movement—which previously was not tied to politics—swung wildly to the right. “Republicans have become incredibly distrustful of vaccines,” Blendon said. “The Republican Party after the [start of] Covid has become very anti–public health.” They lashed out against what they perceived to be government overreach, which made them receptive to questions about the safety and effectiveness of the Covid vaccines—and, soon, other vaccines as well, Blendon said. “This led to a tipping point with this enormous resentment among particularly Republican audiences that the government went way too far.”

Trump’s own short-lived support for vaccines during the measles outbreak in 2019 and Covid in 2020 seems to have been a blip; he has spouted anti-vax views since at least 2007. Although Operation Warp Speed produced highly effective Covid vaccines in record time, one of the Trump administration’s only accomplishments of the pandemic, “the Republicans don’t want to claim it,” Trump said in September. At least 17 times, Trump has pledged to defund schools mandating vaccines. While his campaign says this vow applies to Covid vaccines only, Trump doesn’t make any distinctions in his speeches, opening up the possibility of all childhood vaccines being banned—though it’s not clear how he would carry out this plan. (No states requireCovid vaccines for school attendance.)

It’s hard to notice something that is invisible, but it is indeed obvious that there has been no discussion of education in the Presidential campaign.

It’s not as if education is unimportant: education is a path to a better life and to a better society. It is the road to progress.

The differences between the two candidates are like night and day. Trump supports dismantling public education and giving out vouchers. Harris is committed to funding schools and universities.

Project 2025 displays Trump’s goals: to eliminate the Department of Education, to turn the programs it funds (Title 1, IDEA for students with disabilities) and turn them into unrestricted block grants to states, which allows states to siphon off their funding for other purposes. At the same time that the Trump apparat wants to kill the Ed Department, it wants (contradictorily) to impose mandates on schools to stop the teaching of so-called critical race theory, to censor books, and to impose rightwing ideology on the nation’s schools.

It’s too bad that the future of education never came up in either of the high-profile debates. The American people should know that Kamala Harris wants to strengthen America’s schools, colleges, and universities, and that Donald Trump wants to destroy them.

Randi Weingarten wrote an excellent article in Newsweek about the plans of each candidate.

If you can’t open it, try this link.

The Washington Post identified the top individual donors to politics in this campaign.

The 50 biggest donors this cycle have collectively donated over $2.5 billion into political committees and other groups competing in the election, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission data.

These megadonors skew Republican, though they affiliate with Democrats and third parties as well.

Donations by top 50 individuals and organizations to committees that are mostly …

Republican-leaning–$1.6B

Democrat-leaning–$752.3M

Supportive of both parties–$214M

Cryptocurrency and realtor groups were the only donors to both major parties

The vast majority of money from top donors has gone to super PACs, which can accept unlimited sums from individuals and often work closely with campaigns despite rules against coordinating their advertising.

Top individual donors

From billionaire investors to shipping magnates, here’s who they are and their top donations.

************************

Timothy Mellon REPUBLICAN

Railroad magnate and heir

Total large donations: $197M

Top donor: $197M

Top donations

$150M

Supports Donald Trump’s presidential campaign 

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN INC.

AMERICAN VALUES 2024

$25M

Supports Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign 

CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND

$15M

Supports Republican House candidates

The reclusive Wyoming-based businessman is the scion of former Treasury secretary and banking tycoon Andrew Mellon.

*************************

Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein –REPUBLICAN

Shipping magnates

Total large donations: $139M

Top donations

RESTORATION PAC

$76.2M

Opposes Senate campaign of Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 

CLUB FOR GROWTH ACTION

$19M

Right-leaning super PAC

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN INC.

$10M

Supports Donald Trump’s presidential campaign 

The couple founded Uline, a Wisconsin-based shipping and packaging materials company. They give to causes outside the GOP’s mainstream, helping to push the party further to the right.

*************************

Miriam Adelson –REPUBLICAN

Physician and widow of businessman and casino owner Sheldon Adelson

Total large donations: $136M

Top donations

PRESERVE AMERICA PAC

$100M

Supports Donald Trump’s presidential campaign 

SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND

$15M

Supports Republican Senate candidates 

CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND

$9M

Supports Republican House candidates

Adelson, a doctor who has focused on addiction, is the widow of businessman Sheldon Adelson and the majority shareholder of Las Vegas Sands.

***********************

Elon Musk–REPUBLICAN

Billionaire technology executive

Total large donations: $132.2M

Top donations

AMERICA PAC

$118.6M

Supports Donald Trump’s presidential campaign 

SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND

$10M

Supports Republican Senate candidates 

THE SENTINEL ACTION FUND

$2.3M

Supports Republican Senate candidates 

Musk, one of the world’s richest men, founded electric car company Tesla. After endorsing Trump on X this summer, he has posted extensively on the platform, which he owns, in support of the former president.

***************************

Kenneth Griffin–REPUBLICAN

Hedge fund manager

Total large donations: $103.7M

Top donations

SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND

$30M

Supports Republican Senate candidates 

CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND

$17M

Supports Republican House candidates

KEYSTONE RENEWAL PAC

$15M

Supports Senate campaign for Republican Dave McCormick (Pa.)

The billionaire is founder and CEO of the hedge fund Citadel.

**************************

Jeff & Janine Yass–REPUBLICAN

Financier and education advocate

Total large donations: $96.2M

Top donations

CLUB FOR GROWTH ACTION

$35M

Right-leaning super PAC

PROTECT FREEDOM POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

$19M

Conservative PAC funded by Jeff Yass’s company

CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND

$10M

Supports Republican House candidates

Jeff is co-founder of the Pennsylvania-based investment company Susquehanna International Group. His wife, Janine, founded a charter school and is an advocate for school choice. [Both Jeff and Janine are major funders of charter schools and vouchers. Jeff Yass gave Texas Governor Greg Abbott to promote voucher legislation.]

**************************

Paul Singer –REPUBLICAN

Hedge fund manager and activist investor

Total large donations: $63.4M

Top donations

SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND

$27M

Supports Republican Senate candidates 

CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND

$14.5M

Supports Republican House candidates

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN INC.

$5M

Supports Donald Trump’s presidential campaign 

The billionaire is founder and co-CEO of Elliott Management.

**********************

Michael Bloomberg–DEMOCRAT

Former mayor of New York City

Total large donations: $47.4M

TOP DONATIONS

FF PAC

$19M

Supports Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign 

HMP

$10M

Supports Democratic House candidates

EVERYTOWN-DEMAND A SEAT PAC

$7M

Supports pro gun-control candidates

Bloomberg is co-founder of the financial software and media company that bears his name. He served as mayor of New York for three terms and ran for president in 2020.

**********************

Stephen & Christine Schwarzman–REPUBLICAN

Investor and philanthropist

Total large donations: $40M

Top donations

SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND

$9M

Supports Republican Senate Candidates

MORE JOBS, LESS GOVERNMENT

$8M

Supports Senate campaign for Republican Tim Sheehy (Mont.)

GLCF, Inc.

$4.5M

Supports Senate campaign for Republican Mike Rogers (Mich.)

Republican Stephen Schwarzman is the CEO of private equity firm Blackstone. The couple are major philanthropists.

***********************

Dustin Moskovitz–DEMOCRAT

Facebook co-founder

Total large donations: $38.9M

Top donations

FF PAC

$38M

Supports Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign 

The technology entrepreneur became a billionaire after co-founding Facebook. He has given millions to support Democratic presidential candidates since 2016.

Sarah Longwell is publisher of The Bulwark, executive director of Republican Voters Against Trump, and host of “The Focus Group” podcast.

In this article, she appeals to fellow Republicans to stand up and speak out about Trump. I hope her article is read by George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and Lamar Alexander. They know how dangerous Trump is. They know he is destroying the Republican Party.

She writes:

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR FORMER Trump administration officials, Republican electeds (and former electeds), business leaders, and conservative writers and pundits who recognize Donald Trump for the threat he is. Actually, it’s a question for anyone on the right who knows what Trump’s re-election could mean for the country, for liberal democracy, and for the world—and, who, in the face of this threat, has decided to maintain either a posture of silence or both-sides-are-bad neutrality.

My question is this: 

How are you going to feel if Trump wins on Tuesday by an extremely narrow margin?

I suspect you’ll spend the next four years holding your breath. 

Because if Donald Trump does a tenth of what he has promised—pulls the United States out of NATO, abandons Ukraine and sides with Vladimir Putin, puts RFK Jr. and Elon Musk in charge of serious parts of the American government, rounds up 15 million undocumented immigrants into camps and deports them, seeks political retribution against those who opposed his candidacy—I suspect you’ll come to regret your silence when you could have made a difference. 

I can see you holding up your hands to show us how clean they are. Saying, “But I said Donald Trump was a threat! I said I wouldn’t vote for him! What more do you want from me?”

And I get that. I do. The problem is that this moment demands more from all of us. 

It demands clarity. And it demands your leadership. 

Over the course of your career you’ve asked people to trust you. Either by voting for you, or listening to your advice, or relying on your judgment and analysis. 

So why is it suddenly a bridge too far for you to tell everyone what you really believe?

I understand that this moment is hard. Trump could win. Even if he doesn’t win, coming off the sidelines could alienate you from career networks, business opportunities, or even friends and family.

But being a leader means standing up and telling the truth even when it’s hard, or costly, or scary. Especially when it’s hard, or costly, or scary.

It’s still not too late. Every day, more people are speaking out—people with reputations, and reservations, but whose consciences won’t let them sit this one out. 

You shouldn’t sit this one out, either. You should not decide, after a career in leadership, that this time you’d rather just be a spectator. 

Maybe you think that adding your voice wouldn’t matter to voters. After all, so few things seem to move the needle. Well, I’m here to tell you that it matters. It all matters. Every little bit. You do not know who’s listening as the moment approaches to cast their vote. You do not know who you might persuade at the eleventh hour. And you do not know what the margin will be. If this election is decided by 9,000 votes in Pennsylvania—which is absolutely a real thing that could happen—then every single input could be the tipping point.

We’re almost there. Stay with us! The Bulwark is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribed

I can’t see the future. I don’t know if your endorsement would be the difference maker. Just like I don’t know what price you would pay for speaking out more clearly. 

What I do know is this: If you abdicate the obligations of leadership in this moment and the thing you fear comes to pass, you will regret having stood down when the country needed you to stand up. You will regret it for all of your days. 


MAYBE YOU ARE A RETIRED FOUR-STAR GENERAL, or cabinet secretary, or someone who took a job as a political appointee in the Trump administration and saw things that shocked your conscience. And maybe you’ve told reporters about what you saw, or written about it in a book. That’s not enough because books have a relatively small reach, and your words are mediated through paper. What’s needed is for you to look voters in the eye and give them a direct warning about what a second Trump term might mean. Especially now that you won’t be on the inside to try to protect the country from him. 

Maybe you’re a former Republican president or presidential nominee. Maybe you were once the leader of the party Donald Trump has destroyed. I am sorry, but the unpleasant fact is that you cannot preserve your influence for some future GOP. This is actually the last moment in which you have a chance to influence it. Your party, every bit as much as your country, needs you. Right now.

Maybe you’ve led venerable conservative publications. You’ve acted as a thought leader. Someone shaping our political culture. But today you want to keep your hands clean by writing in Edmund Burke on your ballot or some other nonsense protest candidate—as a sign that youkept your purity. I understand this impulse. But it’s wrong. You know that if yours was the single deciding vote, you’d vote for Harris. So just say so. This isn’t an academic exercise, and it’s not about you. 

Maybe you’re a billionaire to whom this country has given everything. Your wealth insulates you from the consequences of the worst-case Trump scenarios. And yet, you see Trump’s transactional nature, his willingness to provide favor if you provide obedience, and instead of standing up to Trump, you cower. This might seem like wisdom, but it’s not actual safety. There will be more demands. The only way to actually protect your business is for the rule of law to be victorious and democracy to be stable.

Subscribed


FOR MONTHS, YOUR COUNTRYMEN have been waiting for you to tell them the full, unvarnished truth about the danger you believe Donald Trump presents. To tell everyday Americans the same words you say in green rooms, at dinners, and in off-the-record conversations. You haven’t gotten there yet, but you still can. Before you make your final decision, think about Liz Cheney’s warning that some day Donald Trump will be gone, but the choices we make today will be with us forever. 

Choose honor. It’s the choice you’ve made again and again in your professional lives. It would be a sin to stop choosing it because of a mountebank like Donald Trump.

I want to tell you about some Republicans who are already putting themselves on the line for democracy. They don’t have security details, or staff, or budgets. They’re just regular people who voted for Trump before, but refuse to support him again. They joined Republican Voters Against Trump to get the word out to their friends and neighbors. A few of them have lost jobs. Some of them have lost family. All of them have lost friends. None of them regrets it.

Share

They’ve put their faces on billboards across the country. They’ve appeared in millions of dollars’ worth of paid ads running in their own communities. They’ve taken part in text campaigns, spoken to the media, knocked on doors, and traveled to swing states in the hopes of making a difference.

If Kyle from Alabama, or Jackie from Michigan, or Robert from Pennsylvania, or Jim from Wyomingcan speak out, then so can the generals, politicians, and thought leaders.


THE REASON I BELIEVE THAT every little bit counts is because conservative-leaning voters say that to me all the time.

In Republican focus groups, one thing I hear again and again is that voters are open to hearing from the leaders who served under Trump, who were in the room with him. The messenger is as important as the message, and these people are ready to believe the words of a lifelong Republican or flag officer much more readily than they’ll believe a Democrat telling them the same things.

So if you’re one of the small number of people who can make a difference in this moment, the question is: What are you going to do?

Courage is contagious. And I have one last piece of advice: No one ever regrets doing the right thing. 

You won’t regret it, either. So stand up and join us. It’s our last chance.

After Jeff Bezos, billionaire owner of The Washington Post, stopped publication of the editorial board’s endorsement of Kamala Harris, digital subscribers revolted. According to a report in The Post, at least 250,000 canceled their subscriptions.

Past and present journalists at the newspaper urged readers not to cancel. Loss of revenue means future layoffs.

Even with the cancellation of the endorsement, the Post remains the most forthright and persistent critic of Trump and his racism, misogyny, xenophobia, as well as his all-around unfitness for office.

Those who look for a future with a stable, functioning two-party system–post-MAGA–should resubscribe.

Bring out the fainting couches! Biden made a comment that offended the Republican Party! Biden says he was calling the comedian who insulted Puerto Ricans “garbage,” they say he meant that every Trump supporter was “garbage.” Republicans did not accept his prompt clarification. It all depended on an apostrophe (supporters vs. supporter’s).

But the Lincoln Project helpfully assembled the many times that Trump has called other people “garbage.” He calls Kamala “low IQ,” “garbage,” and “scum.” He has also called her and other Democrats “radical left, Socialists, Marxists, fascists, and Communists.

Watch this Lincoln Project video!

We expect him to scrape the gutter for his insults.

James Fallows is a veteran journalist with an illustrious history as a writer and editor. In addition, he was chief speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter. In this article in his blog, he interviews himself about the election and wonders why Trump is not appealing to anyone other than his rabid base. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris is getting endorsements from Republicans who want to stop Trump from returning to the White House, the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Fellows writes on his Substack blog “Breaking the News”:

Do we know what is going to happen?

No.


Oh, come on.

Last week I quoted the famed Democratic strategist, James Carville, and the famed Republican, Stuart Stevens, on the reasons both of them were confident that Kamala Harris would win. 

For myself, I think that if what has been a hair’s-breadth race might “break” at the last minute, it would break in Harris’s favor. To put it in political-operative terms: Donald Trump might have solidified his base but reached his ceiling. Kamala Harris, by contrast, might not yet have “closed the deal,” as the pundit cliché goes, but still have potential for extra last-minute support.

If so, that would mean that polls had yet again missed the fury of many female voters, as happened before the midterms two years ago. They could also have missed the unease and disgust of Republican and centrist voters about everything associated with Donald Trump. The reasons would start with January 6 and the Dobbs decision and go on from there. 

I hope that is the “surprise” in store for us. But I don’t know.


And is Donald Trump even trying to win the vote any more? Or is he just thinking about winning the count?

That’s the darkest fear: That Trump has given up even trying to draw newcomers into a majority-rule “big tent.” The fear is that he has skipped his sights past November 5 and is concentrating on what comes next. Intimidation, threats of violence, election-day victory claims, post-election lawsuits that reach an obeisant Supreme Court. That would be the logic behind revving up “Stop the Steal!” rhetoric now, to condition his followers to think a loss must have been rigged.

Only twice in the past few months did Trump strike me as running a “general election” campaign, aimed at more than the MAGA base. Significantly, both were while the vulnerable Joe Biden was still in the race. One was the opening 30 minutes of Trump’s fateful debate with Biden, when Trump was patient and relatively polite as he watched Biden dig himself into a deep hole. The other was the opening 30 minutes of his acceptance speech at the GOP convention in Milwaukee, when he more or less stuck to the “president of all the people” prepared text. 

In each case, when those 30 minutes were up, Trump could no longer resist and let loose with insults and lies. But since that time, and after Kamala Harris’s debut as nominee, from Trump it’s been all grievance and lies, all the time. His rallies are all the same. Except for off-the-cuff economic promises—no taxes on anything, stiff tariffs on everything—they seem almost scientifically calculated to drive away anyone not already in his thrall.

From Trump himself, we assume this is not calculation but pure impulse. On that point everyone who knows him seems to agree. But for the party as a whole? Can they really be so calm as they watch their standard bearer rant and offend? Or are they acting so calm because they know that November 5 is just the beginning, and that far more disciplined strategists will get to work, on terrain they’ve already mapped out?

I mentioned my hope for a last-minute break in the votes. This is my corresponding fear: About the reserve army for the post-November 5 battle, which ranges from the Proud Boys to the majority on the Supreme Court.


Oh, come on (again). And was this latest Trump rally actually that bad?

Yes. It was.

Obviously you want to be careful with Nazi comparisons. Nothing in the modern Western world matches what Hitler’s Third Reich became, from industrialized mass slaughter to all-frontiers invasions and world war.

But Hitler started someplace. And while the United States in the 2020s could hardly be more different from Weimar Germany after World War I—the strongest and richest nation in the world, versus one defeated and bankrupted—the rhetoric and references between Donald Trump’s current appeals and those of the nascent Nazis are strikingly similar. Listen to the Madison Square Garden rally three nights ago. And compare it with the rhetoric of the 1934 Nuremberg rally shown in Triumph of the Will. Vermin. Poisoning our blood. Bad genes. The enemy within. Round them up and send them out. Floating island of garbage. It’s a closer parallel than you’ll find with any other major US party rally since World War II.

Jonathan V. Last writes at The Bulwark, the always interesting gathering spot for Never Trumpers. He wrote that he has been stewing about the intervention of Jeff Bezos, billionaire owner of The Washington Post, to stop the editorial board from endorsing Kamala. after Bezos locked the editorial, three of the 10-member editorial board stepped down.

He wrote:

ON FRIDAY, after the Washington Post’s publisher announced that the paper was suddenly abandoning the practice of the editorial page endorsing presidential candidates, news leaked that—on the very same day—Donald Trump met with executives from Blue Origin.

Blue Origin, of course, is the rocket company owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post.

What we witnessed on Friday was not a case of censorship or a failure of the media. It had nothing to do with journalism or the Washington Post. It was something much, much more consequential. It was about oligarchy, the rule of law, and the failure of the democratic order.

This was neither a coincidence nor a case of Bezos and Trump being caught doing something they wished to keep hidden. The entire point of the exercise, at least for Trump, was that it be public.

When Bezos decreed that the newspaper he owned could not endorse Trump’s opponent, it was a transparent act of submission borne of an intuitive understanding of the differences between the candidates.

Bezos understood that if he antagonized Kamala Harris and Harris became president, he would face no consequences. A Harris administration would not target his businesses because the Harris administration would—like all presidential administrations not headed by Trump—adhere to the rule of law.

Bezos likewise understood that the inverse was not true. If he continued to antagonize Trump and Trump became president, his businesses very much would be targeted.

So bending the knee to Trump was the smart play. All upside, no downside.

What Trump understood was that Bezos’s submission would be of limited use if it was kept quiet. Because the point of dominating Bezos wasn’t just to dominate Bezos. It was to send a message to every other businessman, entrepreneur, and corporation in America: that these are the rules of the game. If you are nice to Trump, the government will be nice to you. If you criticize Trump, the government will be used against you.

Which is why Trump met with Blue Origin on the same day that Bezos yielded. It was a demonstration—a very public demonstration.

But as bad as that sounds, it isn’t the worst part.

The worst part is the underlying failures that made this arrangement possible.


My friend Kristofer Harrison is a Russia expert who runs the Dekleptocracy Project. This morning he emailed,

America’s oligarch moment makes us more like 1990s Russia than we want to believe. Political scientists can and will debate what comes first: oligarchs or flaccid politicians. 1990s Russia had that in spades. So do we. That combination corroded the rule of law there, and it’s doing so here.

Russian democracy died because their institutions and politicians were not strong enough to enforce the law. Sound familiar? I could identify half a dozen laws that Elon Musk has already broken without enforcement. Bezos censored the Post because he knows that nobody will enforce the law and keep Trump from seeking political retribution. And on and on. The corrosive effect on the rule of law is cumulative.

The Bezos surrender is our warning bell about entering early-stage 1990s Russia. No legal system is able to survive when it there’s a class not subject to it because politicians are too cowardly to enforce the law.

And that’s the foundational point. The Bezos surrender isn’t just a demonstration. It’s a consequence. It’s a signal that the rule of law has already eroded to such a point that even a person as powerful as Jeff Bezos no longer believes it can protect him.

So he has sought shelter in the embrace of the strongman.

Bezos made his decision because he calculated that Trump has already won—not the election, but his struggle to break the rule of law.


Yesterday, Timothy Snyder issued a call to Americans to not obey in advance. He is correct, of course. We should continue to resist fascism as best we can. The stakes have not changed.

If Trump wins? Well, I suppose we’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.

What should change is our understanding of where our democracy currently sits on the continuum. We are not teetering at the precipice of a slide into autocracy. We are already partway down the slope. And that’s even if Harris wins.

But Bezos and Trump have just taught America’s remaining small-d democratic leaders: The time for normal politics, where you try to win bipartisan majorities by focusing on “kitchen-table” issues is past. The task in front of us will require aggressive, systemic changes if we are to escape terminal decline.

The hour is later than we think.

“Garbage” is the word of the week.

A comedian at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally described Puerto Rico as an “island of garbage,” presumably referring to the people because Puerto Rico is a very beautiful island.

Puerto Rican leaders were deservedly outraged. All sorts of people criticized Trump’s campaign for allowing such a vicious comment. The comedian’s script was reviewed before it was put on the teleprompter.

When President Biden denounced the comment, he created a media firestorm by seeming to suggest that Trump’s supporters were also garbage. Google Garbage, Biden, Trump–it’s the story of the week.

Biden said: “The only garbage I see floating out there is his [supporters/supporter’s]–his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American.”

The White House put out a transcript with the apostrophe, to prove that he was speaking about the comedian–one person–but the damage was done. Republicans leapt to the attack, thrilled that they could change the subject from the MSG hatefest.

The Trump campaign and Trump himself treated the comment as comparable to Hillary Clinton calling his supporters “deplorables.”

Trump yesterday pulled a stunt where he dressed up as a garbage man (like pretending to be a worker at MacDonald’s for 15 minutes). Trump said he did it to honor Biden and Harris and call attention to the terrible defamation of his supporters.

Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC last night produced video of Trump at a rally calling Kamala and all those around her “scum” and “garbage.” No outrage. No firestorm. No media frenzy. O’Donnell said archly that Trump’s insults are so commonplace that they are not newsworthy.

Only days ago, Trump referred to the U.S. as “a garbage can for the world.”

ABC News reported:

Former President Donald Trump escalated his anti-immigrant rhetoric at a rally in battleground Arizona on Thursday, calling the United States a “garbage can for the world.”

“We’re a dumping ground. We’re like a — we’re like a garbage can for the world. That’s what, that’s what’s happened to us. We’re like a garbage can,” Trump said at a rally in Tempe, Arizona, on Thursday.

Trump made the comments as he criticized the Biden-Harris administration for its handling of the border, a key voter issue — especially in Arizona, a border state and swing state that President Joe Biden flipped to edge out Trump by 0.3 percentage points in 2020. Trump also made the comments with less than two weeks until Election Day — and as the former president and Vice President Kamala Harris duke it out in what’s expected to be a close contest.

Trump has said that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” that they are rapists and murderers, that they are the refuse of prisons and mental institutions from their native lands.

Hitler used the term “blood poisoning” in his manifesto “Mein Kampf,” where he criticized immigration and the mixing of races. He wrote, “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning.”

That’s ridiculous. We are a polyglot nation.

Trump says things like this about other people almost daily, and he is occasionally called out. But we are so accustomed to his rants that they lack the originality to unleash a firestorm of criticism. He gets away with it.

But he, the master of trash talk, now lectures Bidennand reacts with shock.

The New York Times reported on Trump’s rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin yesterday, where he laid out the Trump Paternalism Doctrine.

He said he would protect women “whether they like it or not.”

Like he “protected” women by stripping away their reproductive rights?

Like he “protected” the women who accused him of sexual assault?

Women want to make their own decisions.

The story in the Times by Nicholas Nehamas and Erica L. Green pulled no punches, offered no “both sides”:

Former President Donald J. Trump said at a rally on Wednesday that he would protect American women “whether the women like it or not” — remarks that he cast as paternal but only served as reminders to many of his critics of his history of misogynistic statements and a civil court case that found him liable for sexual abuse…

Ms. Harris quickly sought to respond, writing on X: “Donald Trump thinks he should get to make decisions about what you do with your body. Whether you like it or not.” Her campaign posted a series of videos on social media emphasizing Mr. Trump’s remarks. And it sent out a news release that blared: “In Wisconsin, Trump reminds women how little he values their choices…

Over the course of the campaign, Mr. Trump and his allies have made a series of misogynistic, sexualized attacks against Ms. Harris. In August, Mr. Trump used his social media website to amplify a crude remarkabout her that falsely suggested she had traded sexual favors to help her political career. On Sunday, at his Madison Square Garden rally, one speaker referred to Ms. Harris as having “pimp handlers.” And a super PAC financed by his ally Elon Musk released an ad that called her a “C word,” although the ad eventually revealed that the word was “communist,” rather than the slur for women.

Mr. Trump has been accused by roughly two dozen women of sexual misconduct. In 2016, the “Access Hollywood” tape caught him boasting about grabbing women by the genitals, remarks he later dismissed as “locker room banter.” The writer E. Jean Carroll said he raped her in the dressing room of a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. In civil proceedings, Mr. Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming Ms. Carroll, and ordered to pay hefty fines. Mr. Trump is appealing the case.