Meanwhile, here on the Homefront, we are conducting an actual renovation. Yesterday, we removed the 80-year-old chimney. Well, my brother, who has become our resident contractor, removed the 80-year-old chimney while the rest of us assisted by vacuuming out 80 years of soot. Here is something I learned about soot: It doesn’t respect boundaries.

You can vacuum it, contain it, and stand nearby holding the hose with the determined expression of a person who believes she is participating in a controlled operation. None of that matters, soot will still appear on every surface in the house, including surfaces that were not previously aware a chimney existed.

Subscribe now

I spent the morning armed with Lysol, mops, foaming bleach, Magic Erasers, and the raw determination of a woman whose baby needs unrestricted crawling privileges. I scrubbed on my hands and knees until every surface at least mildly resembled something clean. The floors had to be done because Mister Boy cannot be expected to suspend his important crawling business merely because the family decided to release the ghosts of eight decades of woodstoves into the atmosphere.

By the end, the insides of our noses were black, the house looked as though it had survived a small industrial revolution, and every muscle in my body had submitted a written complaint. But the chimney is gone, the roof is patched, and the first obstacle in our attic renovation has been removed.

Forward we go, with as much momentum as we can muster. If there’s one thing I can say about this family, it’s that we aren’t afraid to do the work required to improve our situation. We assess the problem, gather the tools, call my brother, make an astonishing mess, and then clean it up. This isn’t a philosophy currently shared by the federal government.

Newly released court records show that the Department of Homeland Security conducted a sweeping surveillance operation targeting progressive organizations, labor unions, and people protesting the administration’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota. The operation was called “Operation Puppet Master,” because apparently somebody at Homeland Security rejected “Operation We Are Absolutely the Bad Guys in This Movie” for being too subtle.

Federal agents infiltrated meetings held in churches, schools, and parks. They monitored communications, tracked license plates, and collected information about at least 18 organizations, including the AFL-CIO, SEIU, the Communications Workers of America, and the Sunrise Movement.

These weren’t clandestine paramilitary gatherings in underground bunkers. They were political meetings, protest-planning sessions, community gatherings, and training events attended by people exercising rights that the Constitution supposedly protects even when the president finds their opinions irritating. The surveillance grew out of the administration’s massive immigration operation in the Minneapolis and St. Paul area, where approximately 3,000 federal officers were deployed and protests erupted after two people were fatally shot.

Fifteen protesters were eventually indicted on allegations that they conspired to impede immigration enforcement. Those defendants will have their cases decided through the legal system. That doesn’t explain why federal agents compiled intelligence on major labor unions and advocacy organizations, attended lawful meetings undercover, and treated political opposition as something requiring a national security operation.

There is a difference between investigating a specific crime and mapping a political movement. That difference is democracy. The administration doesn’t seem especially interested in maintaining it. Political dissent is being treated as evidence of conspiracy, while the federal government’s power is being redirected toward identifying, monitoring, and intimidating people who oppose the president’s agenda.

It’s difficult to look at an operation like this and conclude that public safety was the only objective. When agents begin infiltrating union meetings and tracking the plates of people who attend protests, the message extends far beyond the people named in an investigation. The message is for everyone watching. We know where you meet, who you organize with, and we may be watching you, too. That’s not law enforcement maintaining public order; it’s state power teaching citizens to fear political participation.

While Homeland Security was locating the nation’s church-basement radicals and suspicious union members, the department was also struggling to locate enough personnel to operate the enormous fleet of airplanes it had just purchased.

DHS spent $464 million on ten aircraft through a no-bid contract that was justified as an urgent requirement for the administration’s deportation campaign. Seven were passenger jets capable of carrying roughly 200 people. According to reporting based on government records, those planes spent months parked at an airport in Louisiana, in part because DHS didn’t have sufficient staff to operate them. Nothing says “urgent national emergency” like spending nearly half a billion dollars on airplanes and then leaving them in long-term parking.

The purchase also included luxury aircraft. Two Gulfstream jets, which cost nearly $200 million together, were assigned to FBI Director Kash Patel and border czar Tom Homan. Another plane came equipped with televisions, a kitchen, a bar, a shower, and a queen-sized bed.

It was supposedly purchased to assist with deportations, although the presence of a luxury bedroom raises questions about how far deportation policy has traveled from cruelty and arrived at all-inclusive resort service for cabinet officials.

The chairman of the company that sold the planes had previously donated to a political committee supporting former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Federal contracting rules normally require competitive bidding, but the administration classified the purchase as urgent. DHS has not publicly identified the catastrophic injury that would have occurred if officials had been forced to compare prices before buying the flying bedroom.

Senators Patty Murray and Chris Murphy have asked the Homeland Security inspector general to investigate. They want contracts, flight logs, legal justifications, and an explanation for why money provided for immigration enforcement appears to have helped create an in-house private aviation service for administration officials. The same department that found the manpower to infiltrate political meetings couldn’t find the manpower to fly the planes it insisted it desperately needed. Priorities are revealing that way.

Then there’s the ballroom. Trump is asking the Supreme Court to allow construction to continue on his $400 million, 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom after an appeals court ruled that a project of this magnitude required congressional approval.

The original East Wing has already been demolished. Construction is reportedly 65 percent complete. The administration is now arguing that stopping aboveground work threatens national security because the ballroom sits above a planned underground security complex. The bunker may be related to national security. The ballroom above it is related to Trump wanting a ballroom. These are different things, even if someone places them on top of each other.

Trump has described the privately financed project as a gift to the American people, which is an interesting way to characterize demolishing part of their house without permission and replacing it with the world’s most constitutionally disputed event venue. Most gifts don’t require an emergency Supreme Court application.

The administration’s argument is essentially that the ballroom is already mostly built, therefore the courts should allow it to be finished. That isn’t a defense of presidential authority. It’s what a child says after being caught halfway through painting the dog.

The larger issue isn’t just architecture, though, it’s ownership. Trump behaves as though the White House belongs to him, federal aircraft belong to his officials, law enforcement belongs to his political agenda, and the Supreme Court exists to issue retroactive permission whenever somebody notices.

It is the same philosophy running through all three stories. Public institutions are treated as private possessions. Laws are obstacles, oversight is harassment, and dissent is suspicious. Taxpayer money is available for luxury aircraft, private travel, and monumental construction, while the people footing the bill are monitored for assembling in a church basement with protest signs.

Yesterday, my family removed an obsolete structure from our house. We did the work, absorbed the cost, cleaned every filthy surface, and patched the hole we created. The Trump administration is operating in reverse. It’s restoring obsolete ideas, creating new holes, and leaving the soot for everyone else. Still, forward we go. Some of us understand that improving a home, a family, or a country requires effort. It requires accountability and cleaning up the mess instead of declaring the mess a matter of national security and asking the Supreme Court to keep everyone away from the mop.

Subscribe now

P.S. Our subscription rates for new paid subscribers will increase on 08/15/2026. Upgrade before then to lock in our current price of $7/month or $70/year. Existing paid subscribers will keep their current rate. Learn more here:

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed reports about conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln had been “completely misrepresented,” while also insisting that the United States can sustain its naval blockade of Iran “indefinitely.”

That response landed badly. The Lincoln has been at sea for more than 260 days, and reporting from sailors and their families has described food and supply problems, deteriorating mental health and incidents involving sailors attempting or threatening to go overboard. Hegseth did not address those allegations individually. Instead, he said the Pentagon gives every ship and crew everything it can and praised sailors for enduring “austere conditions” with fewer port calls.

Democratic lawmakers were considerably less diplomatic. Sen. Ruben Gallego, who says he has been communicating with the wife of a sailor and has seen messages describing conditions aboard the ship, responded to Hegseth with a sentence admirably free of senatorial syntax: “Stop lying and fix the problem.” Sen. Mark Kelly, the former Navy pilot, said he had spoken with the grandmother of a Lincoln electrician who has reportedly lost 20 to 25 pounds and is struggling with depression.

The Navy is sending the USS George Washington toward the Middle East to relieve the Lincoln. Officials say the rotation was pre-planned, so it should not be treated as evidence that the worst accounts aboard the Lincoln are accurate or that the Navy suddenly changed course because of the controversy. But it does underline the awkwardness of Hegseth’s “indefinitely” boast: keeping one carrier on station eventually requires another carrier, another crew and another set of strategic tradeoffs. The George Washington’s move could leave the Pacific without a U.S. carrier for an unknown period.

For Hegseth, then, the problem is no longer simply hostile coverage. He is dismissing reporting as distorted while lawmakers say they are hearing directly from military families describing the same underlying strain. “Completely misrepresented” is a much harder line to sustain when the people supposedly being misrepresented are sending Congress the receipts.

Carriers are not the only finite resource entering the conversation. This morning, the Pentagon announced framework agreements with Boeing and RTX intended to boost production of components for SM-3 Block IIA and SM-3 Block IB missile interceptors, the ship-launched weapons underpinning the Aegis ballistic-missile defense system. The move follows the Pentagon’s call earlier this week for industry to accelerate weapons production to replenish stocks after five months of war. The White House disputes reports that U.S. munitions inventories have reached dangerously low levels. What does not appear to be in dispute is that Washington now considers replenishment urgent enough to start expanding production capacity.

Which brings us back to “indefinitely.”

There is an important distinction between having the military capability to continue something and being able to continue it without significant opportunity costs. An indefinite blockade requires ships, crews, maintenance cycles, interceptors, logistics and replacement forces. A carrier committed to one theater is unavailable somewhere else; a high-end interceptor expended has to be replaced; and extended deployments eventually exact a human cost in retention, readiness and military families.

Former Naval Lieutenant Commander Julie Roland put the underlying question well in a MS NOW discussion of the Lincoln: if there is a worthwhile reason to ask American service members to endure these conditions, the government has an obligation to explain that reason clearly to them, their families, Congress and the public. Mission readiness, she argued, cannot sensibly be separated from taking care of the people expected to carry out the mission.

The original sell was not that preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon was the only objective and gasoline prices did not matter. The bargain was more coherent than that: Americans might have to tolerate a period of higher prices and economic disruption while Washington eliminated Iran’s nuclear threat and broke its ability to hold global energy markets hostage. Short-term pain was supposed to purchase a defined strategic resolution, with cheaper and more secure energy on the other side.

Five-plus months later, there is no resolution on the other side.

The Strait of Hormuz remains severely disrupted. Iran continues to reject Trump’s assertion that Washington has “total control” of it and says ships cannot pass without Iranian authorization. Commodity traffic remains a fraction of its prewar level. The U.S. and Iran are still deadlocked as the current memorandum-of-understanding deadline approaches, while Hegseth says the blockade can be maintained indefinitely.

It is worth remembering that this particular crisis did not exist before Trump attacked Iran. Hormuz was open, oil was moving and Washington was not scrambling to keep a war-induced energy shock from reaching American gas pumps. The administration is now treating restoration of something the war itself disrupted as one of the objectives of continuing the war.

Vice President JD Vance is now describing keeping oil and gasoline prices stable for Americans as Washington’s first objective, followed by preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Al Jazeera correspondent Mike Hanna characterized that as a reversal of the administration’s previous emphasis. “Reversal” may be stronger than the evidence yet warrants; reordered emphasis is not necessarily a formally changed war aim. But the change in tense matters.

Cheap gas has moved from the promised payoff after the strategy succeeds to a problem the administration has to solve while the strategy remains unresolved.

The government is now trying simultaneously to maintain military pressure on Iran, restore the energy flows disrupted by that pressure, prevent the resulting shock from reaching American gas pumps, replenish munitions, sustain an exhausted naval force and persuade voters that all of this remains a successful application of “peace through strength.”

Peace is thus far scheduled for a later update.

The economic constraint is becoming impossible to treat as incidental. July inflation came in at 3.4 percent, down slightly from June, with core inflation at 2.5 percent. But the path of gasoline prices tells the larger story: prices surged past $4.56 a gallon as the war intensified through the spring, fell as a ceasefire briefly held, then climbed again once fighting resumed in July. Even after that summer dip, gasoline remains 24.6 percent more expensive than a year ago, and energy costs overall are up 14.7 percent, the clearest sign that this war has permanently repriced the American gas pump, ceasefire or not. Markets are now being forced to price not merely a war but the possibility of an open-ended confrontation around the most important oil transit corridor on Earth.

This continues to support what we have been calling the market-stability veto. Washington may have enormous military latitude, but its freedom of action contracts rapidly when strategic choices threaten the global oil supply, domestic inflation and ultimately the American voter standing underneath the giant glowing numbers at a gas station.

We have seen this constraint before. Vance reportedly pressed Zelenskyy to ease attacks threatening the Caspian Pipeline Consortium because Washington wanted to protect oil flows even at the expense of Ukraine’s pressure campaign against Russia.

The pattern is now hard to miss: Ukraine wants to squeeze Russian revenues; Washington wants the oil flowing. The United States wants to squeeze Iran; Washington still wants the oil flowing. Military strategy keeps encountering the same immovable object: the global energy market gets a vote.

This is where Hegseth’s Panama performance becomes more than colorful footage.

Standing in the jungle with troops behind him, Hegseth explicitly told “our friends in the press” that what they were looking at was the restored “warrior ethos.” It does not happen in Congress or in Pentagon corridors, he said; it happens with Americans doing difficult things in difficult places. He called them “the real 1%.”

The rhetoric only grew more muscular from there. Hegseth celebrated the new coalition slogan “we do bad things to bad people,” talked about bringing violence against drug cartels and proposed taking the “kill chain” refined over 25 years of counterterrorism operations and applying it to networks in the Western Hemisphere. He mocked the previous SOUTHCOM agenda as preoccupied with gender, climate and diversity and compared it to “USAID with some guns.” At the end, he thanked reporters for coming all the way into the jungle because their presence made the troops a “demonstration” of what America produces.

Hegseth understands television.

What makes the Lincoln controversy damaging is that it presents another image of the same military. One is designed for the cameras: toughness, lethality, warriors in the jungle, bad things happening to bad people. The other comes through messages home: sailors losing weight, families unable to get answers, people wondering when they will return, mental-health problems and a man telling his wife he does not know whether he can finish.

Hegseth enthusiastically places military sacrifice in front of reporters when sacrifice looks like strength. When sacrifice looks like exhaustion, the resulting reporting is “completely misrepresented.”

“We can do this indefinitely” is not actually an answer to “why should we?”

If the bargain was temporary sacrifice for a durable outcome, what happens when the temporary part disappears?

The Guardian this morning described the Iran conflict as a deeply unpopular war with “no end in sight.”

Schrödinger’s War is won whenever Washington discusses American power and still ongoing whenever Washington discusses what that power must do next. Washington says Iran’s capabilities have been devastated, yet an indefinite blockade is necessary. America controls Hormuz, yet normal shipping has not returned. The economic burden was temporary, yet keeping gasoline prices down is now itself a principal objective. The military is stronger than ever, yet another carrier must cross from the Pacific and weapons production must accelerate to replenish what has been consumed.

The war is finished and must therefore continue indefinitely.

Maybe the United States can sustain all of that for a very long time.

The more important question is the one coming from the people actually being asked to sustain it:

Toward what end?

Share

This isn’t simply a faster feed for people desperate to know what Donald Trump thinks about windmills. Trump regularly uses Truth Social to announce tariffs, military operations, personnel decisions, and other government actions capable of moving financial markets. When information can shift billions of dollars, receiving it even slightly sooner creates an enormous potential advantage.

The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation have filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the arrangement allows official government information to be sold through a private company financially tied to the president. The complaint also challenges an exclusivity agreement that can delay the broader distribution of certain posts for as long as six hours.

Trump Media says this is standard industry practice, which might be a reasonable defense if Trump were selling early access to gardening tips or an exclusive video of himself trying to assemble an IKEA nightstand. He is not, he’s the president of the United States, and his company is charging people for faster access to information about what the United States government is doing.

At our house, last night was wonderfully ordinary. We finally got to tend the plants, and it was such a relief to return to something resembling normalcy. Our oldest is back from his trip, which means my daughter officially has her favorite playmate again. The reunion has restored the natural order of the household, or at least the version of order that involves more noise, more laughter, and someone inevitably yelling that the other person touched something first.

Subscribe now

School shopping has begun, so it is time for supplies, backpacks, and paying far too much for jeans the children will wear for approximately ten minutes before their legs grow another four inches overnight. Somewhere, a denim executive is watching America’s children grow and purchasing another vacation home.

My indoor plants are coming into their own. They’re growing, sprouting, and generally enjoying life. Only a few remain to be potted, which means I’m approaching the brief and mythical moment when every plant has a home and I can pretend I won’t acquire another one.

Ezra is learning about the world, and watching it happen is one of the most beautiful things I have ever experienced. Lately, when he takes a bath, he has been conducting experiments with the drain plug. He puts it in, watches the water fill up a little, slaps the surface as hard as he can, then pulls the plug back out and watches in amazement as the water disappears. His face says it all.

“BEHOLD! I have summoned the waters! Now I shall remove the plug and... GOOD GRAVY, THEY HAVE ESCAPED!”

It’s adorable, but it’s also cause and effect in its purest form. Ezra may currently be the only person in America studying how a system works before deciding he should be in charge of it. That’s a day in the life of an everyday American. We tend the plants, welcome our children home, buy the school supplies, marvel at the baby discovering plumbing, and try to build lives filled with growth, curiosity, and love.

Meanwhile, the president has discovered that if he puts a plug in the flow of public information, he may be able to charge rich people to stand closer to the drain. The Truth API lawsuit is about more than one ridiculous subscription service. It’s about whether the president can turn access to the presidency into a private product. It’s about whether investors, financial firms, foreign interests, or anyone else with $100,000 to spare should receive government information before journalists and the American public. Public information belongs to the public. It shouldn’t come with tiers, upgrades, early-access privileges, or a complimentary tote bag for oligarchs.

While the administration explores new ways to sell access to power, the Department of Homeland Security is exploring new ways to hide the exercise of it. DHS is planning to spend up to $20 million on specialized gloves capable of delivering electric shocks through direct contact with a person’s skin. The gloves are intended for ICE agents and officers, with delivery planned by March 2027.

The manufacturer describes them as a low-visibility tool for forcing compliance. They resemble ordinary protective gloves and can deliver up to 380 volts, causing pain and disrupting coordinated movement. The manufacturer’s instructions warn against using them on children, pregnant people, elderly people, people with disabilities, or anyone at elevated medical risk. They also warn against shocking someone for longer than 15 seconds. Those warnings are comforting in the same way it’s comforting when a haunted amusement park ride displays a sign reading, “Please don’t operate if the demons appear agitated.”

These aren’t conventional weapons that witnesses can immediately identify. An agent can activate the shock with a switch, inflict pain through direct contact, and do so in a way that may not be obvious to a camera or bystander. That lack of visibility isn’t an incidental feature.

ICE is responsible for civil immigration enforcement. The agency isn’t storming enemy trenches. It is detaining people, transporting people, conducting raids, and interacting with families. Giving its personnel a difficult-to-detect device designed to deliver pain is just pain with plausible deniability.

The American government is contemplating spending $20 million on electric gloves while ordinary families are spending a small inheritance on folders, pencils, and jeans their children will outgrow by Labor Day. There is always money for force; care, however, must submit additional documentation.

Today, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published its final rule prohibiting federal Medicaid funding for designated gender-affirming treatments for people under 18 and federal CHIP funding for those under 19, the rule takes effect October 13. Young people already receiving hormone therapy may receive up to six additional months of federally supported coverage during a transition period.

States may continue paying for the care using state-only funding, and families with private insurance or enough personal wealth may retain other options. That means the rule is not an equal prohibition; it’s a financial barrier aimed directly at low-income children and their families.

Approximately 11,000 individuals and organizations submitted timely comments on the proposed rule. More than 90 percent opposed it. The administration listened to the public and then proceeded as though it had been conducting a survey about which font to ignore them in.

The final rule itself repeatedly uses the ideological phrase “sex-rejecting procedures” in place of the medical terminology used by patients, providers, and major medical organizations. That language tells us this isn’t merely a funding decision, it’s an effort to use federal power to define a vulnerable group of young people as a political problem and then punish the families least able to fight back.

Families with money may find another provider, another insurer, or another state. Families relying on Medicaid and CHIP will be handed a six-month clock and told that the government has decided it knows their children better than their doctors do.

That’s the pattern running through today’s news. People with money can purchase faster access to presidential announcements. Government agents may receive gloves that allow them to inflict pain with less public visibility. Low-income families may lose access to medical care because the administration has turned their children into ideological targets.

At home, we understand that living things need care. Plants need water, light, room for their roots, and someone willing to notice when they’re struggling. Children need safety, curiosity, patience, and the freedom to grow into themselves.

Government shouldn’t be more complicated than that. It should protect the people with the least power, make public information available to the public, and ensure that authority is visible enough to be held accountable.

Government isn’t a subscription service, public power isn’t a private product, and cruelty isn’t health care.

Subscribe now

P.S. Our subscription rates for new paid subscribers will increase on 08/15/2026. Upgrade before then to lock in our current price of $7/month or $70/year. Existing paid subscribers will keep their current rate. Learn more here:

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

Jonathan Reiner, the cardiologist who treated Dick Cheney for 27 years, has published an unusually pointed list of questions about Donald Trump’s health. He says explicitly that he is not Trump’s physician and has reviewed only information made public. His argument is that what the public can see does not always fit comfortably with the reassuring summaries coming from the White House.

Why did Trump’s recent physical involve 22 consultants? What explains the bruising on both hands and the reported aspirin dose? Why was leg swelling described as chronic when an earlier examination reportedly documented none? What is behind the episodes of apparent daytime sleepiness? Why was advanced heart and abdominal imaging performed? Have medications been omitted from the public record? And why has Trump repeatedly taken the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, a basic screening test rather than a sophisticated neurological examination?

Reiner’s larger point is one that will outlast Trump: the United States has no formal system requiring a president to demonstrate physical or cognitive fitness for office. The annual presidential physical is a custom, and history offers abundant evidence that presidential customs are only as useful as the people observing them.

The White House could answer most of Reiner’s questions fairly easily. So far, it hasn’t.

Karoline Leavitt will leave the White House press secretary’s job at the end of August, saying she wants more time with her young children after the birth of her second child. Trump says she will remain one of his top outside advisers and an influential Republican voice during the midterm campaign.

Her timing is also mildly inconvenient for me. I’ve been working on a video about Trump’s remarkable talent for attracting people of questionable character into his orbit, and Leavitt had already earned a place among the honorees. She has defended the indefensible with much gusto.

Reaction to her departure was predictably tribal. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum praised Leavitt as “a fearless voice for the President’s agenda and a true professional,” while Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick declared her “the most successful Press Secretary in history.”

Democrats were rather less bereaved. Adam Schiff wrote that Leavitt was leaving the White House to spend a little more time “with the truth.” Satirist Andy Borowitz dispensed with the euphemism altogether, headlining his reaction: “Karoline Leavitt Leaving White House to Spend More Time Lying to Her Family.”

Subtlety did not feature prominently in the farewell tributes.

Simon Marks focused first on the contradiction inside Trump’s own announcement: Leavitt is supposedly leaving to spend more time with her family, yet Trump simultaneously says she will be one of his “top outside advisors” and an “influential voice” in the Republican midterm campaign. Marks suggested that GOP prospects may be looking “so dicey” that Trump has decided he needs her talents more urgently on the campaign trail than behind the White House podium.

Marks nevertheless gave Leavitt credit for being “an unbelievably effective communicator” for Trump. His assessment of how she used those skills was considerably less complimentary. He accused her of having “lied relentlessly” from the podium and argued that her most important legacy was transforming the White House press operation, pushing established journalists aside while, in his words, replacing many of them with “propagandists.” The result, Marks said, is that Leavitt “changed the nature of the press operation at the White House in ways that previously were completely unthinkable.”

James O’Brien supplied the shorter résumé. After listening to Marks describe the gap between Trump’s public claims and events on the ground, O’Brien wondered whether the woman charged with trying to “sanitize the madness and present it to the press as something that is sane” had simply “had enough.”

We’ll see. Trump says she isn’t going very far.

The broader Iran-war pressures we’ve covered this week, disrupted shipping, oil-market strain and Washington’s increasingly visible concern about energy prices, remain very much in place. So does the human strain of sustaining the war. Yesterday we looked at the extraordinary conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Simon Marks returned to the story this morning, and nothing has become more reassuring overnight.

The carrier has now spent more than 250 consecutive days at sea. Families have described dwindling food, severe strain and rapidly deteriorating mental health among sailors, including reports that crew members have had to be restrained from going overboard.

The Pentagon plans to send the Theodore Roosevelt as relief, but Marks noted that the replacement carrier was still in San Diego and therefore weeks away. His larger point is the uncomfortable one: while Trump and Pete Hegseth publicly project limitless American military capacity, the people physically sustaining that projection are showing signs of exhaustion.

A serving British naval officer listening to the program said the thought of 250-plus days at sea “sends shivers down my spine” and called it an abrogation of leadership responsibility.

His closing observation was simpler: loyalty is a two-way street.

ICE has produced enough disturbing stories this week that they are beginning to look less like isolated episodes and more like a question about the institution itself.

In Falls Church, Virginia, U.S. citizen Carolina Molina recorded a masked ICE agent pointing a gun through her open car window after agents boxed in her vehicle. DHS says Molina attempted to harm officers by “weaponizing her vehicle.” The cellphone and dashcam footage described by the Washington Post does not show her trying to strike them.

Molina said afterward that the encounter felt like “a Renée Good situation,” invoking the Minneapolis mother killed by an ICE officer in January after federal officials similarly accused her of using her vehicle as a weapon.

The phrase is becoming sufficiently familiar that it deserves scrutiny whenever the government deploys it.

The wider picture is worse. TIME reports that more than 30 people have died in ICE custody since October and that the mortality rate reached a 22-year high. A JAMA analysis found the rate climbing from 13 deaths per 100,000 person-years in fiscal 2023 to 47.5 last year and then 88.9 during the opening months of the current fiscal year. DHS insists there has been “NO spike in deaths,” emphasizing instead the percentage of the total detained population that dies in custody.

That detained population has itself expanded from roughly 40,000 people before Trump returned to office to more than 68,000 by February. Medical and legal experts interviewed by TIME link the rising mortality rate to rapid expansion, overcrowding, weakened oversight, and potentially delayed medical treatment.
Parady La’s death offers a grim illustration. ICE’s own report says he was found distressed, stuporous, vomiting and with abnormal vital signs. Later that day he was found unresponsive and pulseless. Months later, his family still does not know what happened between those two events or what treatment he received.

ICE has reduced the information it releases about detainee deaths and stopped publicly reporting deaths occurring shortly after release from custody.

More power, more detainees, more deaths, and less information.

As if this needed a more dystopian ending, DHS is considering spending as much as $20 million on electrically charged gloves for ICE officers.

The Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter, inevitably, GLOVE, can deliver rapid electrical pulses through an officer’s hand to exposed skin. The manufacturer says the devices do not cause injury and that each activation is electronically recorded. A jail official already using them describes the purpose more plainly: “pain deterrence,” producing what he calls an “instant complier.”

The manufacturer’s own guidance recommends avoiding their use on pregnant women, young children, elderly people, and people with severe disabilities.

The ACLU’s concern is particularly important. Unlike firing a Taser, an officer administering an electrical shock through an apparently ordinary gloved hand could be extremely difficult for witnesses or cameras to detect.

Simon Marks called the proposal “Dr. Evil stuff.”

A serious question underneath the joke is increasingly unavoidable: ICE’s personnel, detention capacity, money, and coercive tools are expanding very quickly. Are restraints expanding with them?

After presidential health questions, an exhausted aircraft carrier, ICE detention deaths and electric gloves, we arrive at perhaps the most unexpected threat to American national security:

British brass bands.

The Commerce Department is preparing a 25 percent tariff on products made primarily from copper and zinc on national-security grounds. That potentially includes British trumpets, trombones, tubas and French horns.

Paxman Musical Instruments has been making French horns in Britain for more than a century and relies heavily on the American market. Its sales manager, Steve Flower, confessed himself slightly puzzled by the security threat posed by his products.

He wasn’t entirely dismissive. A French horn might conceivably be dangerous in the hands of a six-year-old. Beyond that, he struggled.

One imagines the Pentagon is already developing countermeasures.

And that is Thursday morning.

Share

A federal judge has once again blocked Trump’s attempt to impose national election rules through executive order, ruling that the president does not have the authority to create a federal list of eligible voters and direct the Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to the people whose names appear on it.

“The executive branch has no authority to regulate elections,” U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote.

This is one of those sentences that ought to be so obvious it would never need to appear in a federal ruling. The executive branch has no authority to regulate elections. The president can’t seize a power merely because Congress refused to give it to him and Donald Trump isn’t the national supervisor of envelopes.

Still, his administration has been pressing the courts to let it change election procedures ahead of the November midterms. The order came after legislation supported by Trump stalled in Congress, which apparently caused the administration to mistake legislative failure for presidential permission.

Subscribe now

When Congress doesn’t pass a bill, that means the bill didn’t pass. It doesn’t mean the president gets to crawl into the machinery of government through a side door and declare himself Congress. Perhaps he misunderstood the procedure. He has recently demonstrated a fondness for unconventional exits.

Last month, after attending the NATO summit in Turkey, Trump publicly boarded Air Force One while reporters watched. Then, following intelligence about a credible Iranian plot to fire a missile at his aircraft, he reportedly slipped off the plane inside an airport catering truck and boarded a different government jet.

Members of the press and much of his staff remained aboard Air Force One, believing the president was still traveling with them. The threat was serious, protecting the president was necessary, and the decision to conceal his movements was understandable. It is nevertheless difficult to ignore the image of the president of the United States disappearing inside a catering truck while everyone else continues flying aboard the decoy.

It may be the perfect symbol for this administration. The country is told to remain seated, keep the window shades closed, and trust that the person in charge is still aboard. Meanwhile, he has quietly escaped with the snacks.

Here on the Homefront, today is a new day. The water is fixed, and I won’t have to think about plumbing again for the foreseeable future. Fingers crossed, anyway. I am reluctant to say this too confidently because pipes can hear arrogance, and I’ve learned that plumbing waits for optimism before revealing the next wet surprise. For now, though, I can get back to tending plants and building beautiful things.

My husband is overjoyed to return to tractoring. He has mountains of dirt to drive back and forth, a task he approaches with the quiet spiritual devotion of a man who has been reunited with his true calling. Some people meditate, others journal, my husband climbs onto a tractor, moves dirt from one location to another, studies the result, and decides the dirt should perhaps be moved again.

Then there’s Ezra, my sweetest Ezra, he’s enjoying life on the Homefront. He’s learning, exploring, and getting to know all his people. Odin is his favorite. I would like to say I accept this with dignity, but I do provide food, comfort, transportation, medical advocacy, and nearly every service available through the domestic branch of government, while Odin mainly exists nearby looking interesting. Still, Ezra has chosen, and democracy requires us to respect the will of the baby.

My daughter is bored because her older brother is away on a trip, leaving her without her preferred playmate. This is both heartbreaking and frustrating because she now expects me to fill the vacancy while I work, care for a baby, manage the house, and attempt to preserve a few scraps of time for projects of my own. She has apparently appointed me acting older brother without holding a confirmation hearing.

Still, things on the Homefront are happy. We are building a life with what we have, changing what needs to be changed, and learning every day. That last part isn’t something I can say about the current president. In a functioning household, discovering that something is broken creates an obligation to repair it. You don’t solve a plumbing problem by claiming authority over the water, firing the sink, and ordering the mail carrier to certify that the leak never happened.

In Trump’s government, every obstacle becomes evidence that he needs more power. Congress won’t pass the election law he wants, so he tries to impose it himself. Environmental protections stand between contractors and a national park, so the protections are waived. State laws require large financial institutions to return interest earned on homeowners’ money, so federal regulators declare that the state laws should no longer apply. The law is treated not as a boundary, but as an administrative inconvenience.

In Big Bend National Park, heavy equipment has arrived for preliminary work connected to a $1.72 billion border infrastructure project. The plan includes 17 miles of vehicle barriers and work involving as many as 205 miles of patrol roads or detection technology across one of the most extraordinary landscapes in the country.

Big Bend is not an empty patch of dirt waiting for the government to discover a use for it. It is more than 1,250 square miles of desert, mountains, river corridors, wildlife habitat, archaeological history, and irreplaceable public land along the Rio Grande.

To accelerate the project, the Department of Homeland Security waived environmental and procurement protections, including requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the law governing the National Park Service itself.

The administration has discovered a very efficient method of complying with the law: announce that the law no longer applies. This is roughly equivalent to handling a home renovation by waiving gravity, electrical codes, structural engineering, and the concept of load-bearing walls. It would certainly make the project move faster. For a little while.

Contractors say the machinery currently operating in the park is conducting soil assessments ahead of full construction. Customs and Border Protection says it intends to preserve access and coordinate with the National Park Service. Conservationists, residents, and local businesses are warning that the roads and barriers could cause permanent damage to the park’s landscape and ecosystems.

The government would like the public to trust that everything will be handled carefully after it has deliberately removed the laws requiring careful handling. That isn’t oversight, it’s more like a catering truck parked beside the plane.

While contractors prepare to cut through Big Bend, the Trump administration is also attempting to override state laws that protect homeowners from having their own money used for free. Most homeowners with mortgages pay a little extra each month into escrow accounts. That money is held by the lender until property taxes and insurance bills come due. While it sits there, it earns interest.

Oregon and several other states require lenders to return that interest to homeowners because the money belongs to the homeowners. This is generally how ownership works. The federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued new rules exempting national banks and federal savings associations from those state requirements. Oregon, California, New York, and seven other states have now sued, arguing that the agency exceeded its authority and violated limits imposed by Congress under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Oregon officials estimate that the state’s law returns an average of $200 to $300 per year to mortgage holders who receive the interest. That may not sound significant to the people redesigning the White House, but it’s groceries, electricity, school clothes, prescription copays, or part of an emergency repair for a family already trying to keep up with the cost of owning a home.

There are approximately 703,000 mortgage holders in Oregon. Not all would necessarily be affected because the federal rules apply to certain federally regulated institutions, but many homeowners could lose money they currently receive under state law. The money wouldn’t disappear, it would simply remain with the banks.

This is the quiet machinery of power, the part that rarely receives the attention given to executive orders, troop deployments, or whatever unusual vehicle the president is hiding inside this week. A federal agency changes a rule, a few hundred dollars stops appearing in a homeowner’s account, and a national bank keeps the interest earned on money it didn’t own.

Multiply that by thousands of households, and a small administrative change becomes a significant transfer of wealth. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield suggested the administration may have assumed homeowners wouldn’t notice because most people barely examine their monthly mortgage statements.

He may be right, ordinary Americans are busy. We are repairing plumbing, raising children, tending gardens, caring for babies, working, paying bills, moving mountains of dirt, and trying to build something beautiful before another institution finds a creative way to charge us for the privilege. We don’t have an army of attorneys reviewing every federal regulation that might reach into our homes. That’s why laws and checks and balances exist. That’s why public agencies are supposed to serve the public instead of searching for overlooked pockets from which money can be extracted.

Oregon’s lawsuit is now the state’s 74th legal challenge against the Trump administration. Seventy-four lawsuits should be an extraordinary number. Under this administration, it has become another measure of how often states must go to court to remind the federal government that power has limits.

And with that, the pattern connecting all these stories emerges. Trump tried to change election rules without Congress, and a judge stopped him. Homeland Security waived legal protections to push a massive construction project through a national park. Federal banking regulators attempted to override state consumer protections so large financial institutions could keep interest earned on homeowners’ money. In each case, the people in power encountered a law protecting something they wanted to control and in each case, their response was to search for a way around it.

The administration isn’t governing as though elections, public lands, and household finances belong to the people. It’s governing as though they’re simply obstacles to be cleared, waived, preempted, or quietly removed from the passenger list.

There’s a reason the image of Trump disappearing into a catering truck feels so fitting. He was protected while reporters and staff continued aboard the plane they believed carried the president. The people outside the truck were expected to keep moving, remain calm, and accept that someone else had information they didn’t.

That’s the arrangement this administration seems to want for the entire country. Keep your shades closed, don’t ask who is aboard, don’t inspect the voter list too carefully, don’t worry about the bulldozers, and don’t look for the interest on your own money. Everything is under control, the president has simply stepped away for refreshments.

Back on the Homefront, we will keep doing what ordinary people have always done. We will repair what breaks, tend what grows, protect what belongs to the next generation, and build with care because we intend to live inside what we create.

Subscribe now

P.S. Our subscription rates for new paid subscribers will increase on 08/15/2026. Upgrade before then to lock in our current price of $7/month or $70/year. Existing paid subscribers will keep their current rate. Learn more here:

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

Trump said yesterday that the United States has “total control” of Hormuz, adding that if Iran challenges that control, “they get blown away.” Iran, inconveniently, continues to behave as though it did not receive the memo. Tehran says the strait will remain closed until Washington accepts its conditions, while shipping data cited by Al Jazeera showed only eight vessels passing through on Tuesday. Before the war, roughly 130 to 140 ships crossed each day.
So perhaps “owns” is doing more work than usual.

The more useful description of the Iran war this morning is that the military superpower still has vastly greater destructive capacity, but Iran has proved substantially more adaptable and durable than the administration expected.

The New York Times reports that Iran has steadily altered its tactics as the war has continued, using combinations of drones and missiles, maneuvering weapons and attacks from multiple directions to complicate U.S. air defenses. During five days of attacks on American bases in Jordan last month, Iran repeatedly forced U.S. forces to expend Patriot interceptors until one missile broke through on July 17, killing three American soldiers and wounding more than 100 people.

The arithmetic behind that contest is unpleasant. The Pentagon has reportedly fired more than 1,500 Patriot interceptors during the war and has fewer than 1,700 remaining, while the United States produced only about 600 during all of 2025. On one especially intense day, American forces reportedly fired around 50 Patriots, each costing roughly $4 million.

Iran appears to have learned from Russia’s war against Ukraine. The Times reports that Iranian forces studied Russia’s practice of mixing ballistic and cruise missiles with drones to overwhelm or distract Ukrainian defenses, then adapted versions of those tactics against the United States. Iran has also recovered missile-launch infrastructure that American and Israeli officials believed had been devastated early in the war. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared on April 8 that Iran’s missile program was “functionally destroyed” and “almost completely ineffective.” Iran subsequently dug out damaged underground sites, resumed firing and helped bring shipping through Hormuz nearly to a halt.

One lesson of the last several years may be that declaring an enemy’s military capability destroyed works considerably better if the enemy agrees.

Ukraine has presented Russia with a related problem. It has repeatedly compensated for inferior conventional mass by finding cheaper, harder-to-defend ways of imposing costs on Russian infrastructure, logistics, and energy revenue. Now the two wars are colliding in an unexpected place: the price of oil.

The Financial Times reports that Vice President JD Vance asked Volodymyr Zelenskyy on July 31 to halt Ukrainian attacks on tankers using the Caspian Pipeline Consortium terminal at the Russian port of Novorossiysk. Washington had become alarmed that Ukraine’s campaign was disrupting Kazakh oil exports, destabilizing global markets and affecting American companies.

Chevron owns half of Kazakhstan’s giant Tengiz oilfield. ExxonMobil owns another quarter. Both have interests in the CPC system carrying Kazakh crude through Russia to the Black Sea.

Ukraine reportedly agreed not to attack CPC infrastructure or non-Russian vessels unless those ships were sanctioned by Kyiv or carrying Russian cargo, and attacks on tankers near the terminal stopped afterward. A U.S. official confirmed to the FT that Washington had warned Ukraine against targeting non-Russian vessels and CPC infrastructure.

There is also an awkward piece of leverage in the background. A person familiar with Ukraine’s position told the FT that Kyiv agreed to the request while seeking U.S. approval to manufacture Patriot interceptor missiles and hoping to acquire several hundred before winter. Zelenskyy reportedly told Vance during the same July 31 call that Patriots and air defense were Ukraine’s highest priority.

Nobody has produced evidence of an explicit bargain, as in, stop hitting these tankers and we’ll give you Patriots, and it would be irresponsible to pretend otherwise. But alliances do not require handwritten quid pro quos to contain leverage. Ukraine needs American air-defense support to protect its cities from Russian missiles. Washington wanted Ukraine to stop doing something that was hurting oil flows and American commercial interests. Ukraine stopped.

The administration’s behavior toward Iran itself makes this interesting. Earlier in the conflict, when disruption in Hormuz sent oil prices soaring, Washington temporarily relaxed its own sanctions regime to allow Iranian crude already at sea to reach the market. The administration later broadened that relief during the ceasefire process before reversing course when the arrangement deteriorated. Put another way, the United States has now demonstrated willingness to soften economic pressure on an adversary when oil markets become sufficiently stressed and to constrain an ally’s military campaign when that campaign creates similar pressure.

The recurring principle looks less like “maximum pressure” than a market-stability veto: when strategic objectives collide with oil prices, inflation or major American balance sheets, strategy bends. That may be economically rational, but it reveals the real hierarchy of priorities. War aims are what governments say they want; the costs they refuse to bear show how badly they want them.

This morning we have a very direct measurement of those costs.

U.S. inflation eased slightly in July, according to the latest consumer price data, with headline CPI falling to 3.4 percent from 3.5 percent in June and core inflation declining from 2.6 percent to 2.5 percent. That sounds reassuring until you look at the path that produced it.

Gasoline prices rose above $4.50 a gallon in May as the Iran war disrupted energy markets, helping push overall inflation to a three-year high of 4.2 percent. Prices subsequently fell below $3.80 during the relative lull in June and early July, contributing to this morning’s better inflation reading. Then the war heated up again. Gasoline climbed back above $4 late in July, meaning August’s numbers may begin reflecting the renewed disruption.

The Federal Reserve is therefore being handed one of those delightful policy combinations central bankers treasure: inflation that is cooling but still elevated, energy prices driven by a war with no obvious endpoint, tariffs adding their own pressure and financial markets wondering whether Fed Chair Kevin Warsh will eventually have to raise rates after holding steady at his first two meetings.

The International Energy Agency is not offering much comfort. It has lowered its oil-supply outlook again and now expects global supply to fall by 4.3 million barrels a day this year, about 4 percent, citing the continuing failure to restore normal traffic through Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb. That is a larger reduction than the IEA forecast only a month ago. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has meanwhile raised its average 2026 Brent forecast to $86.81 a barrel.
This is how Iran’s adaptability becomes an American domestic-policy problem. Tehran does not have to defeat the U.S. military. It can impose costs through shipping disruption, interceptor depletion, attacks across a wider geography and the persistent possibility of damage to Gulf energy infrastructure. Those costs travel from battlefield to tanker to pump to CPI, and from there into Fed policy and American politics.

Iran has found a transmission mechanism between asymmetric warfare and the U.S. cost of living.

That helps explain why the diplomatic machinery is working so frantically this morning. Pakistan says it is trying to bring Washington and Tehran back to the negotiating table before the 60-day memorandum-of-understanding window expires Sunday. Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi has been in Tehran, while Oman and Qatar are also involved in efforts surrounding Hormuz.

The underlying agreement is itself a small monument to constructive ambiguity. The June 17 MoU established a ceasefire and a 60-day period for negotiations, but the two sides remain divided over what its language actually means. Iran interprets the Hormuz provision as recognizing Iranian authority to manage passage through the strait; Washington rejects that interpretation. Other provisions involve sanctions waivers for Iranian oil and making frozen Iranian assets available.

So the diplomatic clock is approaching zero just as the financial cost of failure becomes harder to ignore.

The conflict continues spreading around the edges: renewed Houthi strikes near Bab al-Mandeb, drone attacks in Iraq’s Erbil province, and a Lebanese army complaint that Israeli strikes are blocking its ceasefire deployment, none of it contained, all of it adjacent to the main event.

There is another story this morning about how power is exercised when the people making the decisions are insulated from the risk.

We learned earlier this week that Trump was secretly removed from Air Force One in Ankara last month after officials concluded there was a credible Iranian threat against the plane, spirited away to a smaller military aircraft while the 747 continued on to Britain. Peter Baker’s follow-up in The New York Times supplies the part of the story that deserves more attention: Air Force One did not fly empty. It carried Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Stephen Miller, Steven Cheung, other staff, military personnel and journalists, many apparently not told that the threat level around the plane they were sitting in had just changed. They were simply instructed to keep their window shades closed while Trump traveled separately, then was quietly returned to the 747 so he could emerge in Britain as though he’d been aboard all along.

The aircraft and its passengers didn’t just facilitate the misdirection. They became it.

There’s a legitimate case that the Secret Service can’t broadcast a live protective operation to a planeload of people mid-execution, and former security officials make that case forcefully. But that argument covers keeping secret which plane the president is on. It doesn’t obviously cover leaving everyone else on the original aircraft without telling them the threat picture had changed. Officials and reporters who’ve flown into Iraq or Afghanistan knew where they were going. The people on Air Force One in Ankara didn’t know what they were flying into, because it had just changed underneath them.

The comparison to history is not flattering. When Bill Clinton switched planes in Pakistan in 2000, aides floated using the press plane as an unwitting decoy; Clinton’s team objected, devised a different plan, informed at least one pool reporter in advance, and disclosed the operation once Clinton was safe.

The Trump White House disclosed nothing until reporters uncovered the operation themselves.

Trump said yesterday that the decision was “up to the Secret Service” and argued that the smaller plane he used may actually have faced more danger. The Times notes the obvious logical difficulty: if officials believed the alternate aircraft presented greater risk, it is not immediately clear why removing the president from Air Force One enhanced his security in the first place. The White House has also not explained whether additional protective measures were provided to the aircraft carrying the decoys.

Of course, a president deserves extraordinary protection. But who decided that everyone else could absorb a threat serious enough that the president himself could not, and what obligation did the government have to tell those people once secrecy was no longer operationally necessary?

More detailed reporting is coming on a broader accountability theme: the administration is simultaneously testing how far executive privilege can shield communications with outside advisers, how far presidential authority can reach into election administration, and how effectively federal funding can be used to force state policy changes. Courts are already pushing back on some of those efforts, while others are likely to become the next round of litigation over executive power and oversight.

That same question, who advises, who benefits and who gets scrutinized, also hangs over Pete Hegseth’s newly reconstituted Defense Policy Board.

The Guardian reports that board members Marc Andreessen and Blake Masters have financial or governance connections to companies linked to 1789 Capital, the venture fund where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner. Andreessen Horowitz has co-invested alongside 1789 in defense companies including Anduril, Hadrian and SpaceX, while Masters has held board roles connected to 1789-backed investment vehicles.

The Defense Policy Board advises the Pentagon on strategy and defense technology. Companies within this broader investment ecosystem have received substantial federal contracts and financing.

None of that, by itself, proves wrongdoing. People with deep experience in defense technology will inevitably have industry relationships, and connections are not kickbacks. But the reason conflict-of-interest scrutiny exists is precisely because government should not require the public to determine whether an adviser’s policy judgment and financial ecosystem just happen to be moving in the same direction.

The broader accountability theme today is therefore not especially subtle. The president’s security apparatus can secretly transfer a known risk to staff and journalists without telling them. The Justice Department is testing how far it can extend privilege over the president’s conversations. Federal funding is being wielded to accomplish, indirectly, policy outcomes Washington cannot simply order states to adopt. And when another attempted expansion of executive authority ran into the judiciary this week, a federal judge was unimpressed.

Back in the war that is supposed to demonstrate overwhelming American power, Iran remains dug in, Hormuz remains largely shut, Patriot stocks are being consumed, oil supplies are tightening, gasoline remains expensive, and Pakistan is trying to arrange negotiations before Sunday.

Power is often advertised in absolutes: maximum pressure, total control, overwhelming force, executive authority.

Reality sends invoices. Iran and Ukraine have both proved adept at discovering where those invoices become uncomfortable. Courts are testing where presidential authority runs out. Journalists are asking who was expected to assume a mortal risk without being informed. And financial markets increasingly demonstrate that they possess something remarkably similar to a veto over the strategic purity of American foreign policy.

Washington can choose its objectives. The balance sheet clearly gets a vote.

Share

The order would make routine immunization harder, slower, and more confusing. It encourages separate appointments, pushes states to reconsider school vaccination requirements, and calls for the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to be replaced with three individual shots that are not currently available in the United States. It doesn’t protect children, it creates more opportunities for them to remain unvaccinated and exposed to diseases we once worked very hard to make rare.

Here’s what makes the order so grotesque. Parents spend enormous amounts of time, money, energy, and sleep trying to protect their children. We repair what’s broken, listen to people who understand things we don’t, we tolerate inconvenience, expense, and the occasional humiliating defeat at the hands of physics because our children deserve systems that are safer than the ones we inherited.

Which brings me to the pipes, we have water. It took until 11 o’clock last night, but after days of plumbing chaos, cuts, scrapes, tears, budgeting, exhaustion, ballerina sass, endless diapers, and several moments when everyone involved briefly considered abandoning civilization, we finally have water.

Subscribe now

Not merely some water, either, we replaced the entire water line, from where it enters the property to every faucet, drain, and hose. It cost far too much money, but my husband and my brother came through and made it cost at least slightly less than the small royal ransom it could have been. Last night, I stood in a hot shower much longer than I usually do, basking in the extraordinary luxury of turning a handle and having clean water emerge from the wall. I felt ridiculously lucky.

Ezra and I woke before the rest of the house this morning and made waffles. He drank his bottle in his playpen while I tidied the house, swept the floors, and mopped away the final evidence that our home had briefly become an active plumbing excavation site. The plants are happy now that they have finally gotten a drink. My husband is relieved, although still experiencing waves of panic over the amount of his sacred dirt budget that was ambushed by water lines.

We are also still planning the attic renovation. I remain firm in my position that physics knows nothing and the ceiling will simply move out of people’s way. He remains firm in his position that physics is a science we must trust. Marriage is about compromise, which presumably means physics will need to meet me halfway.

My daughter is less sassy today, carrying only her usual medically insignificant dose of sass. I am battling a migraine and see Excedrin and a nap in my near future, but the water works, the children are fed, the plants are hydrated, and the Homefront is happy.

We did it. Our family endured a miserable, expensive, exhausting project because the result would make this home safer and better for our children. We spent money we wanted to use elsewhere, lost sleep, learned things we never intended to know, trusted people with expertise, and accepted that physics exists even when it was being deeply inconvenient.

All for the chance to give our children a better future. That’s why the vaccine order feels like such a profound betrayal. While ordinary families are stretching their budgets and exhausting themselves to repair what’s broken, the Trump administration is deliberately breaking something that already works.

It calls this new policy the “Gold Standard,” because apparently adjectives are now a substitute for evidence. It creates a smaller list of vaccines recommended for every child, moves several others into high-risk or “shared clinical decision-making” categories, urges states to reconsider their school vaccination requirements, and directs the attorney general to support certain legal challenges involving state vaccine laws.

It also says the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine should eventually be replaced with three separate single-disease shots once those products become available in the United States. The order further declares that, “to the maximum extent feasible,” childhood immunizations should be administered during separate medical visits.

For a parent, that means more appointments, more time away from work, more transportation, more copays, more scheduling battles, and more opportunities for a child to miss a dose. It means stretching the vaccination process across longer periods during which children remain unnecessarily vulnerable. Trump presented this as parental choice. In practice, it is parental obstacle course.

He also repeated the lie that vaccines may cause autism, despite acknowledging that he had no evidence the combined MMR vaccine is dangerous. He claimed children receive 72 injections, a number that doesn’t reflect the routine vaccination schedule unless someone begins counting optional and annual vaccinations in the most creative manner available.

This isn’t a disagreement between two equally credible scientific theories. The vaccine-autism myth began with a 1998 paper involving only 12 children. The paper was eventually retracted, and its lead author, Andrew Wakefield, was found to have acted dishonestly and irresponsibly and was barred from practicing medicine in the United Kingdom.

That should have been the end of it. Instead, scientists were forced to spend decades studying a claim born from fraudulent work because frightened parents understandably wanted certainty. Those studies delivered it. A 2014 meta-analysis examined data involving more than 1.2 million children and found no relationship between vaccines, the MMR vaccine, thimerosal, and autism. A later nationwide Danish study followed 657,461 children and again found that the MMR vaccine did not increase the risk of autism, trigger autism in susceptible children, or produce clusters of autism diagnoses after vaccination.

Not one study, not one country, and not one conveniently selected group of children. Millions of children, multiple research methods, and the same conclusion. *Vaccines do not cause autism. *Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition, not a toxin deposited into children by pediatricians. The increase in identified cases reflects, among other factors, broader diagnostic criteria, better recognition, increased screening, and greater awareness of how autism presents across different populations.

Continuing to blame vaccines isn’t merely scientifically illiterate, it’s cruel to autistic people. It treats their existence as such a terrifying outcome that parents should risk measles, meningitis, paralysis, liver cancer, brain damage, and death to avoid it. That isn’t concern for children, it’s ableism wearing a lab coat stolen from the costume department.

The diseases prevented by childhood vaccines are not whimsical characters from an old medical textbook. Measles can cause pneumonia, brain inflammation, permanent hearing or vision loss, and death. It’s so contagious that roughly 95 percent community immunity is needed to prevent outbreaks.

Mumps can cause meningitis, encephalitis, hearing loss, and painful inflammation of the testicles or ovaries. Rubella during pregnancy can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, and congenital rubella syndrome, leaving babies with heart defects, cataracts, hearing loss, and developmental disabilities.

Polio can cause permanent paralysis. Haemophilus influenzae type B once caused thousands of cases of meningitis and other severe infections in American children every year. Rotavirus can cause extreme dehydration in infants. Hepatitis B can become a chronic infection that leads to cirrhosis and liver cancer decades later.

We stopped regularly seeing these horrors because vaccines worked and that success created its own vulnerability. Many parents have never watched a child struggle to breathe with measles pneumonia. They’ve never seen an iron lung or known a pregnant woman terrified that rubella might have permanently injured her baby. Vaccines made those experiences rare enough that professional fabulists could begin pretending the diseases were never dangerous.

They were dangerous, they still are dangerous, and they are waiting. Measles doesn’t care whether a parent arrived at vaccine refusal through Facebook, a podcast, a presidential executive order, or a man selling supplements from a converted garage. It only cares whether enough unprotected bodies are available.

The administration’s fixation on separating the MMR vaccine is especially senseless. The combined vaccine has been used since 1971. There is no evidence that splitting it into three products would make children safer. There is considerable reason to believe that multiplying the appointments would leave more children incompletely vaccinated.

The order doesn’t instantly erase every state requirement, but it directs federal agencies to advance the new recommendations, encourages states to revisit their laws, and gives the Justice Department a role in supporting challenges. It places the authority of the presidency behind a conspiracy theory that has already helped measles return. This is how preventable disease comes back. Not because science suddenly failed, but because powerful people taught the public to distrust success.

The same pattern appears in the administration’s treatment of unaccompanied migrant children. After allowing a longstanding contract with a network of nearly 100 experienced legal-aid providers to expire, the administration announced plans for a sole-source agreement worth up to $150 million with Burke Law Group, a small Houston firm with ties to the administration and little immigration experience.

Associated Press reporting found that only two of the firm’s 25 lawyers listed immigration experience. The firm could now be responsible for helping thousands of children navigate a legal system where the government is actively trying to deport them.

These are children appearing in court without parents, many unable to speak English and some too young to understand what deportation means. Their cases may determine whether they are reunited with family, returned to danger, or permitted to remain in the United States.

Naturally, the administration concluded that this delicate work should be handed to whichever lightly experienced, politically connected firm happened to be standing nearest the money cannon.

Four human-rights organizations also sued the administration Tuesday over Trump’s sanctions against people who cooperate with the International Criminal Court. The American Friends Service Committee, Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, and Open Society Institute argue that the sanctions violate constitutional protections for speech and association while unlawfully obstructing investigations into genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

The administration has sanctioned ICC judges, prosecutors, a United Nations special rapporteur, and three Palestinian human-rights organizations. According to Human Rights Watch, sanctioned people and groups can lose access to banking, technology services, financial transactions, and professional collaboration. Americans who violate the restrictions can face enormous fines and prison time.

The sanctions have already prevented organizations from representing victims, submitting legal arguments, documenting alleged abuses, and working with Palestinian human-rights groups. The administration calls this protection from an overreaching international court. A more honest description would be threatening anyone who helps investigate powerful people.

While the government busies itself reviving disease and intimidating human-rights workers, the physical world continues submitting evidence of its own. July 2026 was the hottest month ever recorded in the contiguous United States during 132 years of recordkeeping. The national average was 76.9 degrees, which was 3.3 degrees above the twentieth-century average.

The overnight heat was particularly extraordinary. Average minimum temperatures reached 64.2 degrees, the highest ever recorded. Nearly half of the contiguous United States was experiencing drought by early August, with drought expanding or intensifying across parts of the Northwest. Federal forecasters say significant wildfire potential is above normal across our region this month.

The plants and I are fortunate, our water is back. A great many communities can’t repair what’s coming with two determined men, a pile of plumbing supplies, and a household budget experiencing a nervous breakdown.

There is one small piece of good news. A bipartisan federal disaster tax-relief bill championed by Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden passed the Senate by unanimous consent after already clearing the House. It now awaits Trump’s signature.

The bill would make qualifying disaster-recovery settlements tax-free, including portions covering legal fees, living expenses, lost wages, injury, death, and emotional distress. It would also help survivors deduct uninsured property losses and would apply to wildfire survivors dating back to 2016.

Sen. Ted Cruz attempted to stall the bill through a procedural maneuver and declined to explain why, perhaps because “I wanted wildfire survivors to pay taxes on compensation for the destruction of their homes” lacks the easy charm of a standard campaign slogan. The bill survived anyway. Which is at least some proof that government can still reduce suffering when lawmakers briefly remember that citizens are people rather than abstractions, enemies, or billing opportunities.

My family spent the last several days tearing apart our property to build something better beneath it. We trusted expertise, endured the cost, and finally, finished the job. Now clean water travels through new lines to every faucet, hose, and future bedroom physics eventually permits us to build.

That is what stewardship looks like. You inherit something imperfect, you repair what is failing, and you leave it safer for the children who come after you. The Trump administration has chosen the opposite path. It inherited a vaccination system that saved millions of lives and decided to pull it apart based on a lie.

We fixed our pipes, they’re reopening the sewer.

Subscribe now

P.S. Our subscription rates for new paid subscribers will increase on 08/15/2026. Upgrade before then to lock in our current price of $7/month or $70/year. Existing paid subscribers will keep their current rate. Learn more here:

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

A quick reminder before inflation catches up with us: our subscription prices will increase for new paid subscribers on August 15.

Until then, free subscribers can upgrade at our current rates and keep that price going forward:

• $7/month instead of $9

• $70/year instead of $90

• $210/year for Founding Members instead of $300

If you’ve been considering becoming a paid subscriber, this is the best time to do it. Upgrade by Friday, August 14, and you’ll lock in the lower rate before the increase takes effect.

Your support helps us continue producing independent, pro-democracy journalism while expanding our coverage of sustainability, climate justice, power, politics, and the issues shaping ordinary lives.

If this work matters to you, and supporting it is within your means, we would be deeply grateful to have you with us.

Upgrade now to lock in your current rate.

Already a paid subscriber? You don’t need to do anything. Your existing price is already locked in, and you have our enormous gratitude.

Thank you for reading, sharing, commenting, correcting our typos, and helping us prove that independent journalism can still have a community behind it.

With gratitude,

Mary and Shanley

Subscribe now

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

Protecting the president from a credible threat sometimes requires deception. It is harder to explain why the deception continued after the immediate danger had passed.

The decoy aircraft carrying the press eventually used the “AF1” call sign despite Trump not being aboard. After arriving in Britain, Trump appeared before cameras descending from that aircraft, and the White House subsequently said he had landed “aboard the former Air Force One.”

That is the real story here. Concealing a president’s location from a potential assassin is prudent. Allowing the press and public to believe a false account of his movements, and maintaining that account once he was safely on the ground, is something else entirely. Air Force One now comes with a smoke machine.

The Guardian reports that Hegseth’s newly reconstituted Defense Policy Board includes Marc Andreessen and Blake Masters, two men with significant connections to the same defense-tech investment ecosystem in which Donald Trump Jr.’s venture fund, 1789 Capital, has become an increasingly enthusiastic participant.

Andreessen Horowitz, better known as a16z, co-invests with 1789 Capital in companies including Anduril, Hadrian and SpaceX. Masters, meanwhile, sits on the boards of three investment vehicles associated with 1789 co-founder Omeed Malik. The Defense Policy Board does not award contracts itself, but it exists to advise Pentagon leadership on strategy, force structure, national security and, relevantly these days, the rapidly expanding defense-technology sector.

And these aren’t artisanal drone startups hoping someday to sell six quadcopters to the Parks Department.

Anduril has received enormous Pentagon business. Hadrian has landed Navy and Army agreements tied to advanced defense manufacturing. SpaceX has accumulated billions in government contracts and is deeply embedded in military launch, satellite and communications programs.

None of this proves that Andreessen or Masters has improperly directed a contract, nor does it prove that Donald Trump Jr. has benefited from any specific Pentagon decision. But conflicts of interest do not become uninteresting merely because nobody has yet produced the email marked SUBJECT: SECRET FAMILY SELF-DEALING PLAN - PLEASE DELETE AFTER READING.

The concern is structural: people advising the Pentagon on the future of defense technology are connected financially or institutionally to investors and companies positioned to profit handsomely from precisely that future.

1789 Capital itself has undergone quite a transformation. After Trump Jr. joined as a partner, the fund’s reported assets under management surged from roughly $150 million in 2024 to billions, with a substantial share reportedly coming from overseas investors.

Again, none of that is proof of wrongdoing. It is, however, a very good reason to keep the receipts.

Which brings us north. Far north. Greenland north.

Greenland’s government confirmed that Greenland Energy, a Texas company, landed drilling equipment in Jameson Land without the required approvals and issued a strong warning that future logistics need advance clearance. Worth noting going in: Greenland stopped issuing new oil licenses in 2021 after decades of unsuccessful exploration, although the older Jameson Land licenses remain valid.

The company’s chairman, Larry Swets, has reported access to Trump’s circle, the basis for the “Trump-linked” headlines. Be precise about what that means: there’s no disclosed Trump or Trump-family financial stake here. This is influence-by-proximity, not investment, a real distinction after the Pentagon item above.

The supporting cast still earns scrutiny. Dr. Phil is producing a documentary on the venture. A Navy veteran tied to Trump’s Golden Dome initiative sits on the board. And per corporate filings, Greenland Energy isn’t drilling acreage it’s held for years; it’s financing exploration in exchange for a majority stake in rights previously held by a British company, 80 Mile.

There’s no evidence Trump ordered any of this, and Greenland Energy denies any annexation link. But two days after the government’s rebuke, Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself looming over Greenland captioned “Hello, Greenland!” Perhaps coincidence has become an unusually ambitious screenwriter.

Watch what happens next: whether Washington gets involved if permits are refused, and whether anyone starts invoking American strategic interests on the company’s behalf.

Briefly, an update on yesterday’s vaccine story: STAT reports the administration’s new “Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations” were developed via presidential advisers and comparisons to other countries’ schedules, bypassing the usual public evidence-review process. The White House didn’t answer STAT’s questions about who advised Trump or why.

If the new recommendations are better, show the work. Science is unusually accommodating that way.

After a morning filled with secret airplanes, investment networks, unapproved drilling equipment, and public-health policy being reconstructed somewhere behind the White House curtains, we want to end somewhere very different.

Yesterday came the sad news that Jackie, the beloved bald eagle of Big Bear whose life has been followed by people around the world, died at the Ojai Raptor Center, where she had been receiving care. She was only 13.

For years, people watched Jackie and her partner Shadow through snowstorms and nesting seasons, through fragile eggs, disappointments, triumphs, and finally the raising of their young. Shadow is now continuing alone, providing for their last fledglings together.

Jackie’s death lands only six months after that of Sandy Steers, the Friends of Big Bear Valley executive director who launched the eagle livestream in 2015 and spent years introducing Jackie and Shadow to the world. Steers died on February 11 after a recurrence of cancer she had first survived some thirty years earlier. It was Steers who watched the eagles settle into Big Bear, recognized how much there was to learn from them, and thought the rest of us might want to watch too.

Marz and I devoted much of our moonbeam vigil last night to Jackie and Sandy.

There are creatures we never touch and never truly know, yet somehow come to occupy a small permanent place in our lives simply because we have been privileged to watch them live theirs. Sandy Steers understood that better than almost anyone, and gave that gift to millions of strangers.

It is a small comfort to imagine them together, now, forever.

Share

I can’t stop thinking that if Shadow could have been beside her during those final weeks, perhaps she might have found the strength to hold on. I know love can’t cure every wound, but theirs was the kind of bond that made you believe it might try. They weathered storms together, mourned together and returned to one another again and again. Perhaps that’s why losing her hurts so much. Somewhere in Big Bear, Shadow remains beneath the same wide sky, waiting for a mate who will never fly home.

Jackie and Shadow brought an extraordinary amount of kindness into this world, not simply because of the tenderness they showed one another, but because of the tenderness they awakened in us. They inspired elementary school students, including fifth-graders, to fight for the land surrounding their home. Those children wrote letters, held bake sales, sold lemonade, folded bald eagle origami and walked through their community carrying signs because two wild birds had taught them that loving something means trying to protect it. Their small acts became part of something much larger. More people paid attention, more people cared and an entire movement gathered around the belief that Jackie and Shadow’s home was worth saving. Eventually, $10 million was raised and nearly 63 acres of their habitat were protected from development.

That is what Jackie leaves behind. She leaves Shadow, her eaglets and a nest that will never feel quite the same. She also leaves children who discovered their voices, adults who remembered how deeply they could care and a piece of wild land that will remain wild because millions of people fell in love with two eagles. Jackie never knew that she had started a movement of kindness and care. She never knew that fifth-graders were fighting for her home or that people across the world were carrying her family inside their hearts. She simply lived, loved and endured, and somehow that was enough to make the human world gentler.

This morning, the nest remains, Shadow remains and the sky above Big Bear is still wide, but it feels immeasurably emptier without her in it. Fly free, beautiful Jackie. You were wild, you were deeply loved and the kindness you inspired will live far beyond the forest that knew you first.

Turning from Jackie to the day’s political news feels almost cruel, but perhaps that is exactly why her story belongs here. Jackie reminds us that care isn’t passive, it notices what is vulnerable, understands that power carries responsibility and brings people together to protect something larger than themselves. A group of fifth-graders understood that, the Trump administration, on the other hand, has found a new way to use power not to protect communities, but to pressure them into obedience.

The Justice Department is offering nearly $300 million to two to four cities willing to become national models for Trump’s preferred version of public safety. The money can fund police officers, prosecutors, surveillance technology, drones, detention facilities, treatment programs and other services. That’s the attractive fixture in the showroom, the plumbing behind the wall is considerably uglier.

Subscribe now

Cities seeking the money must cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, adopt administration-approved policies on homelessness and secure support across their local governments. They must also agree that they may be required to reimburse the federal government for future law enforcement interventions if violent crime or “public disorder” increases.

In other words, the federal government may give a city money to adopt Trump’s policing model, decide later that the city is insufficiently orderly, send in federal forces and hand the bill back to the residents. It’s less a public-safety grant than a municipal obedience contract with a very expensive cancellation policy.

After spending nearly 72 hours dealing with a broken water line, I have become unusually sensitive to systems that appear fixed at the point of delivery while something important continues pouring away somewhere out of sight.

We’re making progress, everything is hooked up, and there are no leaks that we can see. The water is running, and everyone has taken a shower, which is fortunate because I don’t know how much longer I could have continued hugging my family under the previous sanitary conditions.

For one glorious moment, we believed we had won. Then we realized the water is continuously running somewhere. We don’t know where, there are no visible leaks, nothing is spraying dramatically from the ceiling, and no mysterious indoor pond has appeared. Yet the pump keeps running, apparently sending water into another dimension where it may be enjoying a peaceful life without us.

So today, my husband, my brother, who has been recruited as acting plumber, and I are heading back into the world of pipes, pressure tanks and domestic despair. We will inspect the system, admit what we don’t know, test possible explanations and keep working until we find the problem. This is generally how responsible adults handle a crisis. Trump, on the other hand, appears to believe that when a system is losing something valuable, the answer is to increase the pressure and punish anyone who points toward the leak.

Washington, D.C., provides the finished demonstration model. What began last summer as a supposedly temporary National Guard deployment has now been extended through January 20, 2029, or until Trump decides to end it. The Defense Department estimates that keeping an average of 2,500 Guard members in the capital through fiscal year 2029 will cost roughly $1.4 billion. A temporary emergency has quietly acquired a four-year lease.

The troops have supported law enforcement operations, patrolled public spaces, removed snow and performed beautification work. The administration presents this as proof that its approach works. Local officials and residents see something else: soldiers placed on city streets by a president who directly controls the D.C. National Guard, in a city whose residents still have no voting representation in Congress. The Model Cities Initiative now invites other communities to apply for their own version, provided everyone in local government agrees and nobody becomes disorderly afterward.

If the administration truly wanted to help cities reduce violence, it could fund locally designed programs based on evidence and community needs. Instead, it has attached federal money to immigration cooperation, homelessness policy and ideological conformity. Public safety is being used as the faucet, political obedience is the pipe. My daughter is conducting her own, much smaller experiment with authority.

We have been so consumed by the water emergency and the ordinary nonsense of daily life that she has not received the parental attention she needs. She has responded by telling me no with remarkable confidence and looking directly into my eyes while doing precisely what I have just asked her not to do. It’s a battle of wills, and part of me wants to let her win. She’s a firecracker, strong-willed, loving and brilliant in every possible way; I never want to extinguish that strength.

Unfortunately for both of us, I remain legally and morally responsible for the safety of the household and its inhabitants, which means I occasionally have to remind her that being powerful doesn’t make her the emergency commander.

The beautiful thing about my daughter is that I can explain this with love. She has the emotional intelligence to understand that rules aren’t punishments, authority carries obligations and I want what’s best for her. We can reconnect, repair the problem and adapt. Trump, on the other hand, has apparently reached the age when direct eye contact while doing exactly what he was told not to do becomes a governing philosophy.

That philosophy is now reaching into military families. An Associated Press investigation found that immigration authorities have detained more than 50 spouses and parents of active-duty service members since Trump returned to office. At least six have been deported, and at least eight immediate family members remained in federal custody when the investigation was published.

Democratic senators have opened an investigation into whether the Department of Homeland Security, Defense Department and Department of Veterans Affairs coordinated these actions and what they are doing to military readiness. The administration’s answer is that military service doesn’t automatically grant legal status to relatives. That may be technically true, but it avoids the actual question. The government is asking service members to deploy abroad while forcing some of them to fight at home to keep their spouses and parents from being deported.

Trump has also created a Military Spouse Commission, because this administration enjoys establishing ceremonial support systems for people its operational systems are actively terrorizing.

The damage isn’t confined to American cities or military homes. Iran is refusing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz without major concessions from the United States, including sanctions relief, compensation for war damage, access to frozen assets, the lifting of the blockade on Iranian ports and the withdrawal of American forces. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil normally passes through the strait. Every additional day of uncertainty puts pressure on energy markets, shipping costs and household budgets.

The war was sold as strength, it has instead given Iran leverage over one of the most important arteries in the global economy. Trump turned the valve, broke the line and is now furious that the water didn’t flow in the direction he promised.

Here in Oregon, water has an even more immediate meaning. More than 2.3 million acres have burned across the state this wildfire season, surpassing the previous record of just under 2.1 million acres set in 2024. The Northwest remains the most active fire region in the country, with dozens of large fires still burning across Oregon and Washington. For those of us living among trees, this isn’t a distant statistic. Every acre represents habitat, soil, water, homes, livelihoods and living systems that may take generations to recover.

Just when we thought our water line was fixed, another ugly problem reared its head to remind us that relief is fleeting and there will always be more to repair. The difference is that my husband, my brother and I will work together. We will look for the hidden failure, we’ll change our approach when the evidence tells us we were wrong, and we’ll learn something, fix what we can and try not to flood the property in the process.

My daughter will test the boundaries, I will hold them with love, and she will adapt, because strength and accountability can live inside the same person. Trump, on the other hand, keeps turning up the pressure, declaring the system repaired and demanding applause while the country listens to the pump run. The water is going somewhere. Our job is to keep looking until we know who opened the valve, who is benefiting from the flow and who is being left to drown.

Subscribe now

P.S. Our subscription rates for new paid subscribers will increase on 08/15/2026. Upgrade before then to lock in our current price of $7/month or $70/year. Existing paid subscribers will keep their current rate. Learn more here:

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

Also, somebody touched the Reflecting Pool.

Trump’s public schedule is relatively light today. The most conspicuous official event is the swearing-in of Todd Blanche, his former personal criminal-defense lawyer, confirmed as attorney general over the weekend by a 50–49 Senate vote. But Trump’s Truth Social feed spent Sunday evening bouncing from golf and horse racing to personnel announcements, Iran’s collapsing currency and, with the solemn urgency usually reserved for an incoming ballistic missile, another “ALERT” concerning the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

The United States is fighting a war that has distorted global energy flows, placed an international maritime chokepoint in jeopardy, consumed enormous quantities of sophisticated weaponry, and pushed allies to reconsider assumptions about American military capacity. Trump’s attention, meanwhile, can still be captured with laser-like intensity by peeling pool coating.

There is satire available here, but the satire keeps colliding with actual policy.

Trump’s big international message as the week begins is that Washington is now “low-keying it” with Iran. After reportedly being close to another major military offensive only a week ago, he told Axios that the United States is “only semi-negotiating” and is instead watching Iran struggle with inflation and a shortage of money. Axios reports that an arrangement governing traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has already been negotiated among Iran, Oman and the United States but remains pending after Tehran introduced additional demands.

“Only semi-negotiating” is a splendid contribution to the diplomatic lexicon, roughly in the family of being semi-pregnant. There is now a state between negotiating and not negotiating in which the parties negotiate an agreement, exchange conditions through intermediaries and haggle over implementation while maintaining that nothing so vulgar as negotiation is occurring.

The political purpose of the language is clearer than the semantic purpose. Trump needs the retreat from another bombing campaign to look like dominance rather than restraint. He is not waiting because the military option has become costly or because Iran has demonstrated leverage over Hormuz. He is waiting because Iran is broke. Hence Sunday night’s emphatic Truth Social graphic: IRAN HAS NO MONEY.

If a deal eventually appears, the victory speech is already written. Whatever Tehran actually extracts at the negotiating table: sanctions relief, changes to the blockade, a role in managing Hormuz, or simply an American decision not to resume large-scale bombing, will be edited out of the story. Trump’s version will be much simpler: Iran was broke, he waited, and they folded.

Tehran is preparing an entirely different movie using the same footage.

Iran’s latest demands include sanctions relief, access to frozen funds, compensation for war damage, an end to the naval blockade, and broader military concessions. Publicly, it looks like Tehran has responded to months of war by handing Washington a surrender document and inviting the United States to sign its own name at the bottom. But H.A. Hellyer of RUSI made an important point in a France 24 interview: most of these demands have antecedents in an earlier memorandum to which the Americans had already agreed. He also argues Iran brought a much more experienced negotiating team and is now using Hormuz to demand the highest possible price before relinquishing its leverage.

Hellyer actually calls the current package something close to a capitulation document, but he does not think Iran expects Washington to accept every item. His reading is bargaining maximalism rather than diplomatic suicide: start with everything, concede what must be conceded, and discover how much America will pay to make Hormuz cease being a daily problem.

Trump’s cheerful description of Iran’s economic misery runs into the physical geography of the Persian Gulf. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been suggesting that Iran’s use of Hormuz as a chokepoint will ultimately defeat itself, as Gulf exporters build enough pipeline capacity that Hormuz becomes merely another body of water.

Sal Mercogliano, whose day job involves actually paying attention to ships, is unimpressed. The UK Maritime Trade Operations data he cites shows AIS-detected transit running roughly 90 percent below the pre-conflict baseline, with commercial vessels abandoning or altering planned transits in response to attacks. Yet oil is still emerging from the Gulf, which may sound like vindication for Bessent until one examines how. Mercogliano cites TankerTrackers identifying a fleet of at least 56 tankers operating in “digital darkness,” conducting ship-to-ship transfers in the Gulf of Oman under US military protection before returning for another load.

If a maritime chokepoint requires military protection, transponders switched off, offshore cargo transfers and a small naval-operational bureaucracy to keep the oil moving, declaring that chokepoint “irrelevant” feels a little like declaring a bank robbery irrelevant because the armored car successfully escaped.

Hellyer arrives at almost the same conclusion from the diplomatic side. Gulf states will unquestionably accelerate alternative routes through Saudi Arabia, the Red Sea and Fujairah. But his wording is considerably more sober than Bessent’s: Hormuz cannot be replaced completely; its importance can be substantially diminished.

Iran’s weaponization of Hormuz may eventually reduce Iran’s leverage over Hormuz, because everybody else will spend fortunes designing that vulnerability out of their economies. But if your adversaries spend fortunes redesigning the regional energy system because you demonstrated you could choke it, it is difficult to argue your leverage was imaginary.

The same adaptation is now visible on the military side.

Trump’s public theory of the conflict is an attrition story in which only Iran is being attrited. Tehran has inflation, Tehran lacks money, therefore time belongs to Washington. Attrition has two columns in the ledger, and the United States has expended large numbers of expensive, difficult-to-replace weapons during the Iran war. Defense analysts emphasize that the larger strategic danger is not America’s ability to keep fighting Iran today, but what remains available for the next high-end conflict afterward.

Peter Apps, in an LBC discussion, made an important distinction that gets lost whenever the argument collapses into “America is running out of missiles.” The United States remains overwhelmingly militarily powerful. The problem is that some weapons being consumed in Iran are precisely the scarce, long-lead-time weapons planners would also want available for defending Europe or fighting a Pacific war. Iran therefore has an attrition theory of its own: it doesn’t have to defeat the US military conventionally, only make it repeatedly spend sophisticated interceptors on cheaper threats, forcing Washington to ask after each exchange how many it wants to reserve for Taiwan, or Europe, or whatever comes next.

Iran can print more rials. The United States cannot print a PAC-3. Someone has to build it.

Hellyer’s France 24 interview supplies another uncomfortable component: in his assessment, the administration entered the Iran war from a poor strategic position, expected the regime to prove more brittle than it did, and failed to adequately anticipate what Tehran would do with Hormuz. He believes Washington has now moved, incompletely, toward recognizing that additional bombardment will not automatically produce Iranian capitulation.

Trump’s “low-keying it” rhetoric now looks less like a new strategic insight than the branding operation that follows a strategic discovery. “We have decided that economic pressure is superior” sounds much nicer than “we tried the other thing and discovered some problems.”

Hellyer also emphasizes an actor who disappears from Washington-versus-Tehran storytelling: the Gulf Arab states, who are not interested in remaining supporting characters in a months-long contest to discover whether Iranian economic endurance expires before American patience does.

Everybody is adapting to constraints. Washington is issuing press releases about how unconstrained it is.

Which brings us, inevitably, back to the Reflecting Pool.

The Department of Justice did not merely quietly lose interest in David Hearn. Prosecutors moved to abandon their felony vandalism case after obtaining information that, in their own account, showed the widespread damage was associated with a flawed, rushed installation and significantly undermined the evidence on which Hearn had been indicted. The judge has dismissed the case but has not yet finally determined whether that dismissal should be with prejudice, which would prevent the government from bringing the same prosecution again.

Trump nevertheless returned to the case Sunday night, again accusing Hearn of vandalism while now acknowledging there had been at least some contractor error.

Three other people were also prosecuted over the pool and subsequently had their charges dropped. Justin Carreno’s attorney says Carreno lost two jobs as a consequence of the arrest. So Trump’s “ALERT” is not just an elderly man arguing with a pool liner. His own Justice Department formally backed away from the vandalism theory after the evidence changed. A court is still considering how completely to close the door against another prosecution. People who encountered pieces of failing coating have already been arrested and suffered real consequences. And the president is once again using his platform to insist the original accusation was right after all.

Trump is trying to relitigate in the court of public opinion what his prosecutors could no longer sustain in the actual one.

The institutional timing is exquisite. Today Trump is due to ceremonially install Todd Blanche as attorney general, elevating his former personal defense lawyer to permanent command of the Justice Department. Trump also announced this weekend that another longtime legal ally, Will Scharf, will become White House counsel on September 1.

And hovering over that increasingly personalized legal architecture is the president demanding that everyone please take another look at the guy near his pool.

The disparity of scale is just so Trumpian. The Strait of Hormuz is functioning through extraordinary military and commercial improvisation. Iran is trying to convert maritime disruption into sanctions relief and strategic concessions. Gulf economies are considering infrastructure changes that could take years and cost fortunes. European planners are asking what American munitions depletion means for their own defense. American negotiators are hunting for an arrangement Tehran and Washington can each describe as the other side’s surrender.

The president is conducting CSI: Reflecting Pool.

Trump’s rhetoric is about mastery: Iran is broke, American stockpiles are fine, Hormuz can be made irrelevant, and Washington can afford to wait. The reality is finite missile inventories, improvised shipping routes, limited pipeline capacity, sanctions bargaining, and allies already adapting to a world in which American power has costs and limits.

Trump still has leverage; Iran’s economy is under severe pressure and Tehran plainly wants to cash in its Hormuz advantage while it lasts. But this is not simply a matter of waiting for the other side to collapse.

The president’s preferred story is simple: Iran is broke, America is strong, and eventually it all works out.

Somewhere between that story and reality is a very important piece of blue paint.

Share

When it was time for the county fair, my daughter’s great-grandma and great-grandpa came because they knew how much it would mean to her. Pa has ALS, and every outing requires an amount of effort most of us will never completely understand, but he got into his electric wheelchair and endured 104-degree weather just to be there, to make her feel included, and to see her smile.

When our water line broke, my husband immediately began working his tush off, digging into our front yard and trying to restore one of those modern conveniences you don’t fully appreciate until you turn the faucet and the faucet offers nothing but a mocking little cough. My brother came to help late in the evening, even though he had already lived an entire day of his own and almost certainly had better things to do than stand beside a trench discussing pipes. He came anyway.

Later, when my daughter decided she didn’t want to stay at the campsite because she missed us, the same great-grandma made the hour-and-a-half drive to bring her home late at night. Then she brought our son home the following day because we were still dealing with the broken water line and the increasingly ambitious trench occupying our front yard.

Subscribe now

There were so many opportunities this week to mistake the chaos for the only part of our story, but what a disservice that would be. The real story was the people who kept showing up inside the chaos. It was my husband refusing to stop until the problem was solved, my brother arriving after dark, Pa crossing a county fair beneath a 104-degree sun, and Grandma driving Oregon roads late at night because a little girl wanted her parents. It was one person after another deciding that someone they loved needed them, and then doing whatever was required to get there. Sometimes hardship reveals the cracks beneath our feet, but sometimes it also reveals just how many hands are waiting to reach for us when the ground gives way.

Just a few months ago, we were facing the possibility of losing this place. I walked through these rooms trying not to think about everything our family might have to leave behind, from the memories already living here to the dreams we hadn’t yet managed to build. Now we have the privilege of digging a 36-inch-deep trench across the front yard to replace a broken water line.

Homeownership, as it turns out, is the breathtaking realization of a lifelong dream, followed occasionally by two days without a shower and several intense conversations about underground plumbing. Fingers crossed, I may get to shower today.

Yet even standing beside that trench, tired, dirty, and increasingly aware of my own aroma, I cannot help feeling grateful. The ground being torn apart is ours to repair, the home temporarily without water is still our home, and the people arriving with tools and open hands are the same people who helped remind us, when everything felt impossible, that we would never have to face any of it alone.

Somewhere in the middle of all that noise, my husband and I also planted the mystical rock garden. It’s the first real piece of the fairy garden we have been dreaming about for so long, back when it existed only in our imaginations and in increasingly elaborate conversations that may have sounded like municipal planning meetings for a population of very small magical residents.

We placed the column rocks we brought home from a local quarry, stones formed millions of years before we arrived with our shovels, our children, and our unreasonable confidence that we could turn a patch of Oregon ground into something enchanted. Slowly, an idea that had lived only inside our minds began to cast a shadow in the real world. A few months ago, I couldn’t bear to think about that garden because it belonged to a future I was afraid our family would never have. This week, we stood together and placed its first plants into the earth.

At the same time, another future that once felt impossibly far away has finally started moving toward us. Ezra is next in line for his MRI. They are supposed to call tomorrow to confirm the scheduling, and after all these months, we may finally get some answers about the mark on his back. I don’t know what the scan will show, and hope doesn’t require me to pretend I’m not afraid. I’m his mother, which means my imagination can produce seventeen catastrophic possibilities before breakfast and still have time to revise them before lunch. Still, we are moving forward.

Only a few months ago, we didn’t know whether we would be able to remain in our home, and we couldn’t get the testing that might tell us what was happening with our little boy. Now the house is ours, the first plants of our fairy garden are in the ground, and Ezra is finally at the front of a line that once seemed endless.

None of this happened because we wished hard enough or because the universe suddenly decided to become reasonable. It happened because people helped us, doctors kept fighting, friends, family, readers, and people who had never met us stepped forward and refused to let us face everything alone. Maybe hope isn’t passive at all, but the profoundly un-passive act of remembering to fight for one another.

Hope digs trenches and answers late-night phone calls, it climbs into an electric wheelchair beneath an unforgiving sun because a little girl is waiting, it drives an hour and a half through the dark, arrives carrying tools, writes another letter to the insurance company, and stands beside frightened people until they can see the future again. That may be why this story from Greece affected me so deeply.

It is, unquestionably, a story born from tragedy. The land burned, families fled, and lives were lost. Nothing about that should be softened into a fairy tale merely because something beautiful also emerged from the smoke. Yet hardship has a way of calling the best people out of the woodwork.

When the fires came, ordinary people remembered to fight for lives that couldn’t save themselves. They entered dangerous places, gathered frightened animals into their arms, turned a stadium into a shelter, and reached through wire crates to comfort creatures who couldn’t understand why their world was burning.

Sometimes hope carries a shovel through your front yard, sometimes it drives through the night because a child wants to come home, and sometimes, hope enters the smoke carrying an animal crate.

At the end of July, wildfires began tearing through western Attica, Greece, burning across mountains, forests, and coastal communities west of Athens. The flames moved on multiple fronts, driven by extreme heat and powerful winds that could change direction without warning. Homes were destroyed, evacuation orders were issued, and people were forced to leave with little time to gather what they loved. In that kind of emergency, not every animal can be reached.

Some pets panic and hide, some dogs are chained in yards, farm animals can’t be placed in the back seat of a car, no matter how firmly one asks them to cooperate, and strays may have no person coming for them at all. As families fled the fire, hundreds of animals were left somewhere between the advancing flames and an evacuation system built primarily for human beings.

So volunteers went looking for them. The nonprofit Dogs’ Voice worked with veterinarians, municipalities, emergency responders, and smaller animal-welfare groups to enter threatened areas and bring animals out. They searched through smoke, brutal heat, and shifting winds, knowing that the fire could turn toward them at any moment. By August 5, rescuers said they had saved more than 280 animals, most of them dogs.

The rescued animals were taken to emergency centers in Vilia and Megara. An indoor court at the Megara Olympians Municipal Stadium became a temporary shelter, its floor filling with wire crates, bowls of water, bags of food, medicine, frightened animals, and exhausted volunteers.

In one photograph, a volunteer sits beside a crate and holds a rescued dog’s paw. That small gesture has stayed with me. The world outside that stadium was still burning. Homes had been lost, forests had been scorched, and there were animals the rescuers had not been able to reach. There was no way to explain any of that to a terrified dog trembling inside a wire crate.

There was only a hand reaching through the bars. Perhaps that is one of the purest forms hope can take. It can’t undo the fire, promise a happy ending, or guarantee that everything lost will be restored. It can only say, in the language available to it, you are not alone now.

Among the rescued animals was a mixed-breed puppy named Sasa, who waited in a collapsible cage with a rubber ball and a metal bowl. Even after the immediate danger had passed, rescuers couldn’t simply return her home. They first had to determine where she belonged, whether her family was searching for her, and whether the place she had come from was still standing.

Volunteers and local officials began comparing the rescued animals with missing-pet notices while others searched for foster homes. The rescue didn’t end when the animals reached the stadium because salvation, inconveniently, tends to involve paperwork, logistics, medicine, transportation, and a great many people asking whether anyone has seen the owner of a floppy-eared puppy. There is real grief within this story, and I don’t want to polish it away.

The rescuers know there were animals they couldn’t save, they know some were left behind, and they can only hope those animals found a way to escape. The wildfire still destroyed homes and habitat. Hundreds of rescues do not erase the lives that were lost or the families who returned to find their communities changed. That is precisely why what these volunteers did matters, they went because there were lives they could save, and those lives were worth the danger, the exhaustion, and the heartbreak.

We often speak about hope as if it were a feeling we must summon before we can act, but I’m beginning to think we have it backward. Perhaps hope is what appears after someone decides to act without any guarantee that the ending will be kind.

It’s the volunteer entering an evacuation zone with an empty crate, the veterinarian waiting inside a gymnasium, and the stranger holding a frightened paw while the sky is full of smoke. It’s the doctor who keeps arguing that a little boy deserves answers, the community that helps a family remain in the home where their children have grown, and two exhausted parents standing in the dirt, placing ancient stones and plants into the first corner of a garden they were once afraid they would never get to build.

Our mystical rock garden can’t stop a wildfire or tell me what Ezra’s MRI will show. It’s not proof that hardship has ended, because life has already demonstrated a deep and frankly unnecessary commitment to plot twists. That said, it is proof that a future can disappear from view without disappearing entirely. It can wait beneath the fear, the uncertainty, all the noise and broken water lines, until enough hands come together to help uncover it again.

This week, hundreds of animals are alive because people entered the smoke, our little boy is finally next in line for answers, and in a quiet piece of Oregon ground, my husband and I planted the first real roots of a dream we nearly lost.

Hope didn’t make any of these stories painless, but it carried them forward. Sometimes that’s the miracle, not that nothing burns, breaks, or frightens us, but that even then, someone reaches through the bars, someone brings the tools, someone stays beside us, and together we begin building what comes next.

Subscribe now

P.S. Our subscription rates for new paid subscribers will increase on 08/15/2026. Upgrade before then to lock in our current price of $7/month or $70/year. Existing paid subscribers will keep their current rate. Learn more here:

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

That is increasingly the uncomfortable question lurking beneath the diplomacy around the Strait of Hormuz. Five months after Donald Trump went to war promising something much closer to capitulation than compromise, “a little excursion”, Tehran is no longer merely talking about surviving. It is naming its price.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has laid out six conditions for reopening Hormuz: an end to threats against Iran, a permanent halt to military action against Iran and its regional allies, withdrawal of US forces participating in the blockade, compensation for damage inflicted during the war, sanctions relief and the release of frozen Iranian assets.

The compensation demand deserves to be pulled out of the list and examined under bright lights. Restitution. Reparations, if one is feeling politically adventurous.

Abas Aslani, a senior researcher at Iran’s Center for Middle East Strategic Studies, described the logic to Al Jazeera with admirable clarity: Tehran is effectively presenting Washington with an “invoice.” The purpose is not merely to recover what Iran says it lost, but to make future attacks expensive enough that an American president thinks twice before trying the same thing again.

This is where the eventual choice of nouns becomes almost as important as the amount of money involved. Washington will not want to announce that it is paying “reparations” to a government it spent months insisting was on the verge of defeat. “Release of frozen assets” sounds much nicer. A “claims settlement mechanism” is practically soothing. “Reconstruction assistance” could probably get its own logo.

Money is stubbornly fungible, and Iran’s political objective is obvious enough: if it can tie reopening one of the world’s most important shipping routes to some form of financial redress, Tehran gets to tell its own population and the region that the United States bombed Iran, failed to force surrender, and then had to put something on the table to make the crisis go away.

Iran, meanwhile, is making sure nobody gets ahead of themselves and calls this a negotiation. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says there are currently no direct talks with the United States, only messages passing through intermediaries, with “efforts underway to create grounds for negotiations.”

Rather less triumphant than the sort of “they want a deal” messaging coming out of Washington.

Aaron David Miller, the former US Middle East negotiator, put the stakes much more starkly in an interview two days ago, and he is hardly alone among foreign-policy observers outside Washington in reaching for the language of strategic defeat.

“The United States is on the verge of really suffering a significant, would I call it a strategic defeat? Maybe,” Miller said. The danger, in his telling, is that Washington may ultimately have to “acquiesce in Iran’s leverage and control, if not its sovereignty, over who or what gets through the Strait of Hormuz.”

That is an extraordinary place to arrive after beginning a war on the assumption that overwhelming American military superiority would force Tehran to bend.

Miller’s broader framework has aged remarkably well over forty-eight hours. Iran cannot match the United States or Israel “missile for missile,” he noted. Instead, “what they’ve done is escalate horizontally,” identifying the Gulf states and the Strait of Hormuz as weak points and turning them into sources of leverage.

Tehran appears to believe time is on its side. “They are prepared to suffer a degree of pain,” Miller said. “I think their pain threshold is much higher than the Trump administration’s.”

The United States retains overwhelming destructive power, but Iran does not need to match it weapon for weapon, only to make the costs of using that power intolerable elsewhere: threaten Gulf energy infrastructure, constrain navigation through Hormuz, increase pressure on global oil markets and make America’s regional partners increasingly desperate for Washington not to start another round. Pain threshold may be the most important asymmetry in the war now.

Miller’s assessment was blunt: if Trump follows through on threats against Iranian infrastructure, “the Iranians would respond in kind,” and “I don’t think we’ve seen yet the kind of damage they could do to Gulf oil facilities.”

That brings us to the increasingly awkward question of what exactly remains available when the president decides it is time for another round of maximum pressure.

The United States has been burning through weapons at a rate that “maximum” increasingly describes rather well.

The New York Times reports that the Iran campaign has depleted critical American stockpiles, pulled weapons and military assets out of Europe and Asia, and created concerns inside the military and intelligence communities about the resulting erosion of US firepower elsewhere.

According to people briefed on the inventory cited by the Times, the United States has used more than 1,500 Patriot interceptors during the Iran war, while the remaining US inventory stands at fewer than 1,700. Replacing those used missiles could take more than two years, even with accelerated production.

Patriots sitting in the Middle East are Patriots not sitting somewhere else. The Times reports that Indo-Pacific Command became an important source of munitions for the Iran campaign, with Tomahawks and other long-range weapons transferred from stocks intended for a potential conflict with China. Advanced interceptors have been moved from South Korea and elsewhere in Asia, while high-end naval assets and surveillance capabilities have also shifted toward the Middle East.

Russia and China, one imagines, have located pencils.

Both governments are closely tracking American inventories and replenishment rates. Analysts quoted by the Times warn that the longer the Iran war continues, the larger and more visible the resulting window of vulnerability becomes.

The strategic problem is that adversaries are obtaining real-world data about consumption rates, manufacturing bottlenecks, redeployment patterns and the difficulty Washington faces sustaining simultaneous high-end contingencies.

The United States is conducting a demonstration of its war-fighting capacity. Unfortunately, it is also demonstrating the refill time.

Now we land, inevitably, on Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth built his Pentagon persona on one word: lethality. “Maximum lethality,” to be precise, the rebrand that came with ending DEI programs, restoring “warrior ethos,” and a physical-standards push built around testosterone testing and toughness as doctrine.

So it is worth sitting with what happened, according to two people familiar with the exchange who spoke to the Washington Post, when a major accountability test of the war arrived.

Confronted by Trump at Camp David over why he had allegedly been misled about severe munitions shortages, the secretary of maximum lethality reportedly did not own it.

He pointed to his deputy.

Stephen Feinberg, according to the Post’s sources as summarized by Newsweek, was blamed both for the shortages themselves and for failing to keep Trump adequately informed.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who says she was present at Camp David, called the account “100% fake news” and insisted that it “literally never happened.” The Pentagon likewise says Hegseth misled nobody and did not blame Feinberg. Trump has publicly declared that the United States possesses “massive amounts” of munitions and has praised Hegseth’s leadership.

Maybe the reported exchange did not happen, but a Pentagon built around masculine bravado facing a major accountability moment of the war, and immediately generating sourced reporting that its leader tried to hand responsibility to a subordinate, is the kind of detail that requires no embellishment.

Mr. Maximum Lethality has spent months selling toughness, testosterone and accountability. When the ammunition cupboard became the subject, the reported response was less warrior ethos than: ask my deputy.

Republican senators are beginning to criticize Hegseth publicly. Thom Tillis says the defense secretary has lost his confidence. Susan Collins has called the removal of senior military leaders deeply troubling. Other Republicans are warning that patience with an unresolved war is running thin.

On Sunday Benjamin Netanyahu supplied another complication. The Israeli prime minister has now explicitly rejected the 15-point Gaza plan backed by Trump’s Board of Peace, despite Trump having announced the arrangement last month as a major breakthrough.

The plan envisioned Hamas surrendering its weapons in stages while Israel gradually withdrew from territory it still occupies in Gaza. Netanyahu’s answer is effectively to reverse the sequencing: no Israeli withdrawal until Hamas is already disarmed.

“I want to be clear here, Israel is ruling out the 15-point plan,” Netanyahu said, according to the Israeli government’s account reported by the New York Times.

It is a rare and very public rejection by one of Washington’s closest partners of an agreement the American president had already placed in his diplomatic trophy cabinet.

Al Jazeera’s latest reporting says Hamas, for its part, maintains that it remains committed to the roadmap agreed with mediators in Cairo and wants the United States and other guarantors to pressure Netanyahu to adhere to it.

Former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas told Al Jazeera that Netanyahu appears to believe defying Trump is “risk free,” arguing that the Israeli prime minister needs a “forever war” as elections approach.

There is an uncomfortable symmetry developing.

On Iran, Trump has repeatedly presented deals or imminent deals as evidence that American pressure is succeeding, only for the underlying disputes to reappear.

On Gaza, he announced another breakthrough, only for Netanyahu to publicly reject the framework days later.

I’m not suggesting Iran and Israel are equivalent actors or that the negotiations are interchangeable. The common thread is Trump’s increasingly visible difficulty converting presidential declarations into durable behavior by the people supposedly being pressured.

Which returns us to the Guardian’s rather merciless description of the Iran war as Trump’s own Groundhog Day.

By its count, Trump has cycled through the same threat-and-retreat maneuver seven times since the war began: announce devastating consequences, suggest Iran has hours or days to capitulate, pull back as negotiations appear, declare progress, discover that the fundamental dispute remains unresolved, and begin again.

Andrew Neil offered an alternative count, joking that Trump has now brought peace to the Iran war eight times and wondering what more a man must do to earn the Nobel Peace Prize.

It is an excellent joke because the rhythm is now recognizable.

The underlying pattern is considerably less funny. Every turn through the cycle burns more actual missiles and reveals a little more about American political and military constraints. Iran learns where Washington hesitates. Russia and China gain additional data about US readiness and replenishment. Gulf states acquire another reason to hedge against being dragged into the next escalation. And now Netanyahu has demonstrated that even one of Trump’s closest regional partners believes there may be little immediate price for rejecting one of his signature agreements.

Groundhog Day traditionally ends when the protagonist learns something.

Washington may want to get on that, because Iran is attaching an invoice to the next morning.

Share

The problem isn’t necessarily that Blanche represented Trump, lawyers represent unpopular, accused, and even dangerous people every day. The justice system depends on their willingness to do so. The problem is that Blanche’s professional responsibility was to protect Donald Trump’s private interests. He will now oversee the Justice Department, federal prosecutors, and the FBI, institutions whose responsibility is supposed to be protecting the public interest. The Senate has taken a relationship built around defending one man and converted it into federal authority over the people who can investigate his administration, prosecute his allies, and pursue those he considers enemies.

A president is entitled to have a personal attorney, he isn’t supposed to turn that attorney into the people’s attorney. Trump has spent years demanding that public institutions behave as extensions of his private will. Elections should produce the result he wants, prosecutors should pursue the people he dislikes, congress should approve his decisions, courts should validate them, and government officials should demonstrate loyalty not to the Constitution, the law, or the public, but to him.

Blanche’s confirmation isn’t simply another controversial appointment. It’s another section of government being deliberately rerouted so that authority flows toward Trump and accountability flows away from him.

Subscribe now

Yesterday, our water line burst on the same day my husband was having the best day of his life moving dirt around the property. The universe apparently saw a man experiencing unregulated joy and decided corrective action was necessary.

We spent the afternoon and much of the evening trying to replace the line. I spent far too long in the hardware store attempting to translate the ancient Latin used to describe PVC pipe fittings. My husband spent far too long digging holes in search of water lines installed by someone with no apparent understanding of direction, efficiency, or the basic premise that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

There were S turns, Y curves, mysterious detours, and sections of pipe wandering across the property as if they had been given a destination but no map. Every new hole revealed another question, and every answer required another fitting.

Meanwhile, our daughter and oldest son had gone camping with their grandparents. Our daughter decided she didn’t want to stay, so Grandma drove her home late last night. This morning, we had to explain that while we understand and empathize with her feelings, we cannot travel backward through time and reverse the decision. She’s now busy being sad and living with the consequences of her choice, which is a difficult but necessary part of childhood. It would also be a useful addition to the federal curriculum.

So here we are, fixing water lines, absorbing the big emotions of little people, preparing for the arrival of a replacement refrigerator, and parenting a tiny baby. Standing in the mud and tracing a pipe that had been twisted into every possible direction except the sensible one, it was difficult not to see the larger metaphor. Our water system had been made irrational through years of questionable decisions and neglect. The federal government is being made irrational on purpose.

Blanche’s confirmation is the clearest example. The person once responsible for shielding Trump from federal authority now controls a large portion of that authority. There used to be at least a ceremonial distinction between the president’s lawyer and the people’s lawyer. The Senate has removed the unnecessary extra pipe and connected them directly. That consolidation of loyalty and power is the dominant story, but it’s hardly the only place where the administration is attempting to reroute government around the public.

The economy lost 23,000 jobs in July, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. May and June were also revised downward by a combined 103,000 jobs. What had originally been reported as 186,000 new jobs across those two months became 83,000 after the government located more accurate numbers. The unemployment rate remained relatively low at 4.1 percent, but the underlying report wasn’t reassuring. Local government education lost 50,000 jobs, retail lost 19,000, and health care continued adding jobs, but more slowly than it had during the previous year.

The administration can continue announcing that the economy is strong. The economy, however, has it’s own opinions. While the labor market weakens, Trump is still fighting for the constitutional right to build himself a $400 million ballroom.

On Friday, a federal appeals court upheld an order halting construction of the planned 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom while litigation continues, according to The Guardian. The historic East Wing was demolished last year to make room for the project, which the administration began without congressional authorization.

The appeals court ruled 2 to 1 that the president couldn’t continue without Congress. The judges reminded Trump that every president is a “temporary tenant, not the owner” of the White House. This seems obvious, but we’ve reached the point at which federal judges must explain property boundaries to the president of the United States.

The ruling has been paused for two weeks so the administration can appeal to the Supreme Court. Limited underground work considered necessary for national security may continue, but the hospitality portion remains blocked. Trump called the decision unjust and claimed the delay jeopardized people working at the White House. Evidently, the republic is now one unfinished dance floor away from catastrophe.

Congress, meanwhile, is considering giving Trump even more economic authority. The Senate passed a sweeping Russia sanctions package Friday by a vote of 86 to 11, according to the Associated Press. The legislation targets Vladimir Putin, senior Russian officials, financial institutions, energy projects, and the aging fleet of reflagged oil tankers Russia uses to evade existing sanctions.

It would also give the president authority to impose tariffs as high as 100 percent on goods from major purchasers of Russian oil and natural gas, including China and India. The bill includes exemptions and allows the president to waive sanctions in the national interest.

The goal is legitimate. Russia continues using energy revenue to finance its war against Ukraine, and sanctions intended to restrict that funding are long overdue. The problem is that Congress proposes to accomplish this by handing Donald Trump another enormous container of tariff authority after the country has spent months discovering what happens when Donald Trump receives an enormous container of tariff authority.

The bill still requires House approval. If enacted, it could damage Russia’s energy trade. It could also raise prices for Americans if importers pass the cost of those tariffs to consumers. Congress has correctly identified the broken pipe; whether its selected the right fitting remains an open question.

We already know what happens when Trump attempts to govern the economy through tariffs. According to Reuters, his administration has refunded approximately $100 billion of the roughly $166 billion collected through tariffs that the Supreme Court later struck down.

The money is being returned to approved importers that paid the tariffs directly. Consumers who absorbed some of those costs through higher prices are not included in the federal refund process. This completes an extraordinary economic circle.

Trump imposed tariffs while insisting foreign countries would pay them, American importers paid them, and many passed at least part of the expense to customers. The Supreme Court then ruled that the administration lacked the authority to impose those tariffs under the emergency law it had used. The government is now returning the money to importers, while the people who paid more for appliances, clothing, electronics, and other goods receive the enriching knowledge that somewhere, a corporate accounting department is having a wonderful quarter.

The administration created the expense, Americans absorbed the cost, the courts stopped the policy, and then the refunds flowed toward the entities that charged more for the goods. It’s the federal version of flooding the kitchen, reimbursing the hardware store, and asking the family to celebrate the repair.

At home, our daughter is learning that decisions have consequences. She made a choice, regretted it, and discovered that love and empathy don’t include access to a time machine. Washington operates differently. Officials make choices, impose costs, demolish buildings, weaken institutions, and then search for someone else to absorb the consequences. If the result is painful, they rename it, if it’s illegal, they appeal, and if the money must be returned, they make certain it flows upward.

A broken water line is frustrating, but at least the repair process is honest. You locate the leak, you trace the pipe, you admit that the existing route makes no sense, you remove the broken section and try to build something that carries what people need in a reasonably straight line.

The republic has sprung another leak, the trouble is that the people in charge keep insisting the flood is part of the design.

Subscribe now

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

First, the United States is now a “minerals superpower.” Mines are reopening faster than at any time since the 1950s, tariffs have transformed the country, and more than $20 trillion is supposedly pouring into America, a number Trump said no country in history has come close to matching. He also informed his audience that the government’s stake in Intel had produced $82 billion in profit. “Do I get credit for that? No,” Trump complained. “Did anybody say great job?” Then came the necessary clarification: “It’s for the country. It’s not for me.” A few seconds later, $82 billion had become “about 80 billion,” with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick enlisted to certify that it was “pretty close to 80.” Friday’s Trump contains multitudes, and also multiple sets of arithmetic.

The mining announcement then took its customary scenic route, because no infrastructure milestone in this administration is permitted to end where it began. A discussion of rare-earth magnets in Minnesota prompted “Minnesota. Whoa. What the hell happened to Minnesota?”, followed almost immediately by Trump’s assessment that “the governor is totally corrupt” and, for good measure, incompetent too. Somewhere in there, mining schools got a real and fairly notable $100 million commitment, ten times what they had asked for. Trump explained the largesse in his own way: “I’m not doing that because I’m a nice person. I’m doing that because it’s great for the country.” The sort of policy substance that used to be the headline now arrives as an appetizer between riffs. A few minutes later, visibly eager to wrap, he asked the assembled dignitaries to keep their remarks short because “we have a war to prosecute.” Nobody in the room asked which one.

There was also gold. Presented with a solid-gold replica of a deep-sea mineral nodule, the commander-in-chief immediately perked up: “Where’s the gold? Come on. Bring it over. I want the gold.” He inspected it, pronounced it satisfyingly heavy, and concluded, with the clarity of a man who has found his true north, that “the gold is more fun.”

Then came coal. It must always be called “clean, beautiful coal,” Trump explained, recalling that Doug Burgum had once made the mistake of simply saying coal. Trump corrected him, after which Burgum apparently overlearned the lesson: “He mentioned coal about 40 times and he kept saying ‘clean, beautiful.’ I said, ‘Okay, that’s enough. That’s enough.’” China, meanwhile, is smart because it builds coal plants, while the wind turbines it supposedly sells the rest of the world but wisely declines to use itself “never work.” “They sell us wind turbines, but they don’t use too many of them,” Trump said. “It’s because they’re smart.” A claim that will be news to the country that installs more wind capacity than anywhere else on Earth. With that, “we’re back in the mining business,” and the tour of American energy policy by free association drew to a close.

Trump also sat down with Punchbowl News.

There, the president explained that American elections are rigged, that Republicans should abolish the Senate filibuster, and that failure to do so carries unusually high stakes: “If the Senate doesn’t get smart, I may be the last Republican president.” Democrats, he predicted, would eliminate the filibuster the moment they’re back in power, admit new states, seat new senators, and eventually expand the Supreme Court to, naturally, inevitably, 23 justices. He did not pause to note that he was, in the same breath, requesting the very filibuster termination he warned would be catastrophic in the other party’s hands.

The approaching midterms are a concern, although not, in Trump’s telling, because voters are unhappy with Donald Trump. His diagnosis is more precise: Republican voters are angry at Republicans. “They’re angry at Republicans, but they’re not angry at me.” The larger problem is whether the enormous Trump electorate bothers to show up when Trump himself is not on the ballot. “If I don’t run, will those people go out and vote?” he wondered, before conceding, “That’s the one thing I can’t tell.” He has been asking pollsters and Nevada crowds variations of the same question ever since, apparently in the hope that repetition might produce an answer he prefers. Or, as Trump himself put it while explaining his continued campaign travel: “Wait a minute. You don’t understand. I won. I’m not campaigning.”

On Iran and gasoline, the reassurance was similarly calming. Gas prices, Trump said, would only rise “if we have to do another hit.” Otherwise, apparently, down they go, a promise that treats another round of airstrikes on Iran as a rounding error in a commuter’s fuel budget, delivered in roughly the same conversational register as a weather forecast.

There is, however, a rather larger problem with “another hit.” Trump’s own chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Dan Caine, has reportedly been warning senior administration officials that the aerial campaign “won’t be enough to make Iran capitulate” and that further escalation could backfire. Caine’s public formulation was more decorous: “Air power’s got limits.”

Former deputy director of national intelligence Beth Sanner supplied the translation: “There is no military solution alone to this problem.” She described the military approach as having reached “a dead end.” So at almost precisely the moment Trump is talking breezily about “another hit,” his top general is reportedly looking for an off-ramp from a war the military itself no longer appears to believe can be won from the air.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent supplied what may have been the most consequential admission of the week. After weeks of assurances that an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz was imminent, Bessent abruptly changed the horizon altogether. “The strait is never going back to the way it was,” he said, predicting that over the next two years most of the energy now passing through Hormuz will instead be rerouted through underground pipelines until the waterway becomes “just another body of water.” In other words, the administration’s emerging solution to Iran’s new leverage over one of the world’s most important shipping lanes appears to be not so much to reverse it as to spend the next several years building around it.

That is not merely a geopolitical inconvenience. Simon Marks noted that accounting giant EY has warned that a prolonged closure could push British inflation to 6.4 percent by Christmas and leave the UK economy shrinking by 0.2 percent next year rather than growing. His reaction was appropriately understated: if you were running Britain’s Treasury, “you’d have your hair on fire over this.” And Bessent’s proposed answer, build enough underground pipelines over the next two years to make Hormuz irrelevant, struck Marks as fanciful on its own timetable: “You’re not going to build those underground pipelines in two years. There’s no chance of that.”

At the end of the day, America is experiencing a “golden age.” The economy is doing so spectacularly that Trump said his economic polling should be “150 percent, not 100 percent.”

So there you have Friday according to Donald Trump: America is richer than any country has ever been, coal is beautiful, wind is a disaster, elections are rigged, MAGA is furious but not with him, Democrats may end Republican presidencies forever unless he ends the filibuster first, Iran may require another “hit,” and the government has apparently made both $80 billion and $82 billion on Intel, simultaneously, from the same stake.

Also: he wanted the gold.

For Dessert: What the Rest of the World Heard

Strip away the gold and the coal, and Friday’s real story is one that American coverage keeps almost saying and foreign commentary keeps saying outright: the words themselves have stopped functioning as information.

Simon Marks, closing out his weekly recap the same week, put it more bluntly than most American outlets are willing to: Trump was “unable to stipulate to or even recognize reality,” a week defined not by any single lie but by his flat refusal to hold two versions of an event, the reflecting pool’s actual contractor, his own past praise of that contractor, in the same story at once. It is the same failure mode on display Friday: two profit figures on the same Intel stake, offered seconds apart, neither one flagged as replacing the other. An inability or unwillingness to notice the contradiction, yet delivered with the same confidence either way.

Professor Ali Ansari, discussing the Iran standoff on the same day, offered the sharper diagnosis: Trump’s repeated threats have become “a burglar alarm going off all the time. You begin to ignore it.” That’s the throughline connecting the gas-price aside to the wider Hormuz story Al Jazeera has been tracking hour by hour this week, IRGC officials now saying reopening the strait is conditional on the US “fully accepting Iran’s conditions,” Iraq reporting a 75 percent drop in oil exports through the waterway, traffic down 96 percent year-over-year by IMF PortWatch’s count. “If we have to do another hit” is not a hypothetical anymore so much as a threat that has already been made, repeatedly, and increasingly resembles Ansari’s alarm: audible, constant, and no longer trusted to mean what it says.

There’s a version of Friday that’s just funny, the gold, the coal, the arithmetic. There’s a version underneath it, the one former State Department official Marlin Hardinger gestured at this week when he warned that America’s credibility as a “good faith ally” had suffered, as Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan signed a mutual-defense pact of their own. Both versions are true at once. Increasingly, that is the whole point.

Share

Yesterday, I didn’t publish because I was busy keeping a promise to one of mine. My daughter spent our county fair in the hospital, so we promised we would find the nearest and soonest fair and take her there. Yesterday was the day, and she was ecstatic. Her older brother rode every ride with her and never let her feel alone. Ezra played happily in his cart, then stood at the back so he could watch the world pass while we pushed him along.

Their father became the hydration station, which meant nobody was permitted to forget the existence of water for more than approximately two minutes. It was 104 degrees, and I was reminded that I am a coastal girl at heart. My natural habitat includes fog, drizzle, and the reasonable expectation that the air won’t try to cook me.

Still, the smiles were worth it. That’s what you do for the people you love. You tolerate the heat, spend too much money on overpriced fried food, become a water whisperer, ride the rides with children who aren’t tall enough to ride alone, and you sell your soul to a churro vendor in exchange for a child’s smile.

That’s ordinary American life. We worry, we have fun, we explore, and we organize ourselves around the needs of the smallest people among us. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is trying to dismantle Head Start while insisting it’s merely setting the program free.

Subscribe now

My oldest son and my daughter both attended Head Start. I don’t have to imagine whether it works, I watched it work. Head Start wasn’t simply a room where children remained alive until their parents returned. It gave them structure, education, health support, social development, and adults trained to notice when something was wrong. It helped our family, just as it has helped millions of families since the program began.

According to The Associated Press, the current Head Start rulebook requires low staff-to-child ratios, research-backed curricula, medical and dental screenings, developmental assessments, protections from lead exposure, and family support services. Staff members help parents set goals, locate resources, continue their education, and find stability.

The administration’s proposal would erase many of those requirements and allow state licensing rules to replace federal Head Start standards on class sizes, staffing, education, background checks, transportation, and other essential operations.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called Head Start “a program that works for the most vulnerable of the poorest kids in our society.”

Then his department proposed removing many of the things that make it work. Apparently, reverence is when you compliment a structure immediately before removing its load-bearing walls. HHS claims the changes could save $2.2 billion and preserve or create as many as 236,000 enrollment slots. The Associated Press reported that some of those savings would come from cutting staff and allowing class sizes to grow. This is being sold as efficiency, it’s actually austerity wearing a cheerful lanyard.

An analysis cited by The Associated Press found that approximately 80 percent of Head Start students could end up with worse staff-to-child ratios under state licensing standards. In Mississippi, for example, Head Start currently allows one teacher to care for four 2-year-olds. State rules permit one adult to supervise as many as 12. Anyone who believes one adult caring for 12 toddlers represents freedom has never attempted to keep one toddler clothed in a public place.

The administration says programs could choose to retain the current protections. Well of course they could, they could also choose to grow a money tree in the playground and use it to pay the teachers whose positions are being treated as excess overhead. A standard that disappears when money gets tight isn’t a standard, it’s a suggestion dropped in a gold box.

The proposal would also eliminate deadlines for health and developmental screenings, detailed requirements for preventing lead exposure, and rules directing Head Start programs to provide comprehensive family support. Children may still receive those services if individual programs can afford them, individual states require them, and local administrators decide to preserve them.

The federal government isn’t protecting children by making protection optional, no matter how they want to spin it, and this contempt for care doesn’t stop at the classroom door. The Associated Press reported that Trump signed two new executive actions aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, only weeks after the Supreme Court rejected his previous attempt. One targets so-called birth tourism, while the other seeks to deny automatic citizenship to certain categories of children born on American soil. The Constitution says birthright citizenship is a guarantee, Trump continues treating it like a coupon whose terms he can revise with a Sharpie.

The Associated Press also found that immigration authorities have detained at least 52 parents and spouses of active-duty service members since Trump returned to office. At least six have been deported, one left the country voluntarily, and at least eight remained in federal custody when the investigation was published.

For decades, military families generally received special consideration while seeking legal status. Military recruiters have even advertised immigration protections as a benefit of enlistment. Now the government can recruit someone by promising to help protect their family, send that person to serve the country, and detain the family while they’re gone. Patriotism, apparently, is sacred until somebody asks the government to honor the brochure.

These stories belong together because they reveal the same governing instinct. Head Start protections become burdens, citizenship becomes conditional, and military families become enforcement targets. Every promise is negotiable, and every safeguard is treated as an obstacle standing between the administration and the next act of cruelty.

Families understand what this government doesn’t. Children need more than an available chair. They need adults who can see them, teach them, protect them, check their health, notice their struggles, and make sure they’re not left alone. We already know how to do this. We do it at county fairs in 104-degree heat, we pass the water, we push the cart, and we ride beside the child who isn’t tall enough to ride alone. The government is supposed to be what we built to do those things together. Care isn’t waste, protection isn’t red tape, and belonging isn’t a favor. A government worthy of its people would make that care stronger. Trump is trying to make it optional.

Subscribe now

P.S. Our subscription rates for new paid subscribers will increase on 08/15/2026. Upgrade before then to lock in our current price of $7/month or $70/year. Existing paid subscribers will keep their current rate. Learn more here:

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

The Trump administration is being haunted by these distinctions across an extraordinary range of fronts. At home, old constitutional and civil-rights protections are being challenged, narrowed or dismantled in the name of executive authority and local control. Abroad, the United States is trying to reshape Gaza while fighting a widening war with Iran. On an American aircraft carrier, sailors and Marines are reportedly exhausted after months at sea with no clearly articulated end state. Back home, the economy is showing signs of strain from tariffs, war-driven energy costs and weakening employment. The accumulating evidence looks increasingly like enormous power being exercised without anything resembling mastery over the consequences.

Yesterday we spent considerable time on birthright citizenship, so there is little reason to reconstruct that argument here. The important thing this morning is that the fight belongs to a much larger question we are going to keep encountering: what happens when protections Americans have long treated as settled become dependent upon the willingness of institutions to defend them?

In Louisiana, Bossier Parish Schools and the federal government have agreed to end 61 years of court-supervised desegregation monitoring. Attorney General Liz Murrill hailed the move as an overdue restoration of local authority, arguing that decades-old consent decrees are costly, ineffective and intrusive. But the decision also belongs to a subject we have returned to repeatedly: fundamental rights, and the institutions required to make them real.

There is nothing inherently wrong with ending a decades-old federal decree once its work is genuinely complete. But “local control” carries some historical baggage when the subject is school segregation in Louisiana. The harder question is the familiar one: when may government safely remove a safeguard created because ordinary political processes once failed to protect a fundamental right?

That deserves its own essay. So does Yasmin’s detention.

According to her fiancé, ICE agents detained her at the Houston airport without initially explaining why, despite her having no criminal record and, he says, following the legal process in her pending immigration case. The interview turns heartbreaking when he describes both his ability to fight for her, lawyers, money, congressional help, and the families around him who have none of those advantages.

“They don’t have the means,” he says. “And that’s sad.”

That statement takes us directly back to one of our recurring questions about fundamental rights: a right that exists on paper but requires money, access, and extraordinary persistence to enforce is a very different thing from a right that ordinary people can actually exercise.

We will come back to both stories.

Now, Gaza. Donald Trump created something called the Board of Peace to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza, which sounds reassuring in much the same way that naming a subdivision “Whispering Pines” reassures you that somebody, somewhere, once saw a tree.

The Guardian reports that the board’s first prospective construction contract in Gaza is for a 150-person military outpost intended to house Moroccan troops taking part in an international stabilization force.

Not apartments, sewer systems, schools, or hospitals. Not permanent housing for people who have spent months living in makeshift camps. A military base.

To be precise, the contract reportedly has not yet been finalized, and supporters of the plan have a reasonable argument: if an international force is going to provide security during a transition, those troops need somewhere to operate. But sequencing communicates priorities.

And after months of grandiose talk about rebuilding Gaza, complete with futuristic renderings of waterfront towers and a gleaming “New Gaza” the first physical expression of that vision appears to be accommodations for foreign soldiers.

The penthouse comes later. The governing framework is being shaped by an international board chaired by Trump and involving Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff.

The Palestinians themselves remain curiously peripheral to the grand exercise in restoring Palestine. It reminds me of the great rural-development pitch familiar to places like Coos County. Outside investors arrive with diagrams and consultants and announce that prosperity is imminent. There will be jobs. There will be infrastructure. Your streets will someday be paved with gold. Your children will attend schools constructed entirely of Italian marble. Please disregard the tax abatements and sign here.

At least that sales pitch traditionally contains a promise to the people who already live there. The Palestinians are not even getting much of that.

They are being shown visions of a rebuilt homeland while other people decide its security structure, political administration, reconstruction priorities and physical layout. It is difficult to discuss that honestly without eventually arriving at the word sovereignty.

Who governs Gaza? There is something grimly appropriate about erecting barracks before answering who actually owns the house.

Trump continues insisting the Iran war will end soon. On Friday he told reporters he expected it to conclude “pretty soon,” adding that he did not believe Iran could “go much longer.”

Perhaps.

But “pretty soon” has become one of those wonderfully elastic units of geopolitical measurement, somewhere between “two weeks” and “infrastructure week.”

The actual picture is considerably messier, and considerably more expensive than advertised.

The Washington Post reported this week that Trump’s frustration boiled over at Camp David, where he confronted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over missile shortages so severe they’re now constraining US options against Iran. Trump had believed the problem was fixed. It was not. Hegseth’s response was to blame his own deputy, Stephen Feinberg, for failing to keep the president informed — an answer that manages to be both an admission and an evasion in the same sentence. This is also the same Hegseth who, five months ago, was among the loudest voices assuring Trump the war would be quick and relatively easy.

The numbers explain the temper. In the war’s first month alone, US forces fired more than 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles, over 1,000 Patriot and THAAD interceptors, and more than 1,300 Army tactical ballistic missiles. ATACMS reserves — the same munitions Ukraine has spent three years begging allies for — are now reportedly exhausted. CNN separately reported this week that the US has burned through roughly 80 percent of its THAAD interceptor stock and half its Patriot interceptors. Replacement hardware takes up to two years to manufacture. There is no near-term fix, only a queue.

This is where the phrase “losing the war” needs some precision, because it is doing at least two different jobs at once.

Strategically, the verdict is arriving from surprising quarters. The New York Times reported that America’s own allies now describe the war as headed toward “strategic defeat” not because Iran won any particular battle, but because six months of military superiority have not produced a nuclear rollback, a changed government, or a secured Strait of Hormuz. The IAEA’s own assessment is that the strikes delayed Iran’s weapons-grade uranium capability by months, not years. Iran, battered but unbroken, is now the party effectively dictating Hormuz terms to Oman, terms Washington will likely have little choice but to accept and later describe as its own idea.

Tactically, the honest answer is not “the US keeps losing engagements.” It’s that engagement-by-engagement success has stopped being the meaningful measure. A military can win every individual exchange and still be losing the war of attrition underneath it, spending million-dollar interceptors against threats that cost a fraction as much to launch, the same mismatch that has ground down Ukraine’s air defenses for three years, except Ukraine didn’t choose its war. Somebody in the Pentagon appears to have understood this distinction going in: the expensive precision munitions were reportedly meant to open a corridor for cheaper follow-on strikes, not to carry the entire campaign. Instead they carried the entire campaign, and now the campaign is running out of inventory to spend.

A war does not have to be lost on the battlefield to be lost. Sometimes it is lost in the supply depot, one exhausted stockpile at a time, while the man who ordered it keeps promising reporters that it will be over “pretty soon.”

That exhaustion is not confined to budget spreadsheets. It has reached the families of American service members.

The USS Abraham Lincoln left San Diego in November, stopped briefly in Guam in December, and did not see another port until Oman in early July. Nine months at sea. Five of them in continuous combat operations. Sailors and Marines are reportedly working 12- to 14-hour days with few or no days off, describing food shortages, broken toilets, no hot water, and weeks without laundry. Lines an hour or two long at the ship store often end in discovering there’s no toothpaste, deodorant, or soap left to buy.

None of this means sailors expected a cruise. They know what they signed up for. What worries their families is narrower and more specific: fatigue on a flight deck is not an abstraction. Aircraft launch and land beside moving bombs and fuel lines in a space with no margin for a tired hand or a slow reaction. Logistics becomes operations. Operations become tactics. Tactics become an accident report.

One military mother put the entire war in a single question: “What are we completing? What have we completed?”

That is not pacifism. It’s strategy, asked plainly by someone with more standing to ask it than anyone in the Pentagon.

Representative Jason Crow, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, argues the administration went to war without a real plan for rotating carriers and crews through the region. Whatever one makes of Crow as a messenger, the operational facts are hard to dismiss: a carrier nine months deployed, extended twice, is not a war plan working as intended.

A military doesn’t have to run out of aircraft to become less effective. Sometimes it just runs out of rested people.

And while America is paying those costs abroad, the bill is beginning to arrive at home.

Friday’s employment report was ugly.

Employers cut 23,000 jobs in July, and the government revised May and June downward by a combined 103,000; the labor market had already been weaker than Americans were told at the time. Wage growth slowed. The labor force shrank by more than a quarter-million people. One month doesn’t make a recession, and there are real signs of resilience: unemployment holds at 4.1 percent, private employers still added 30,000 jobs, and construction grew. Markets, with their customary enthusiasm for bad news that might delay a rate hike, actually rose.

But the direction is getting harder to wave away, and the causes are not mysterious. The New York Times reports businesses are absorbing renewed tariff costs alongside higher expenses tied to the war in the Middle East. Gasoline is roughly 35 percent more expensive than before the Iran war began. The 10-year Treasury yield has climbed sharply as investors price in inflation risk.

Which leaves the Federal Reserve facing the one combination central bankers dread most, weakening employment and persistent inflation, with no clean tool for either. Raise rates and hiring weakens further. Hold rates and inflation embeds deeper. There is no button labeled MAKE ECONOMY GOOD, whatever presidential candidates of both parties seem to believe.

Some of this inflation was a choice. Tariffs raise costs. War disrupts energy supplies. Energy costs ripple through everything else. Then the Fed is handed the job of taming the resulting inflation by making borrowing more expensive, roughly the logic of setting the kitchen on fire and then complaining the fire department got the carpet wet.

Trump recently called this “the greatest economy we’ve ever had, by far.” History has been known to enjoy a surprise. But a month of vanishing jobs, downgraded prior gains, elevated energy costs, and a central bank cornered between inflation and a weakening labor market is an odd moment to hang the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner.

This brings us back to the larger story connecting all of this.

The administration’s political vocabulary is saturated with the language of strength: taking control, restoring sovereignty, securing the border, ending federal interference, crushing Iran, rebuilding Gaza, bringing peace and making America wealthy again. These are all, in one form or another, statements about power, assertions that sufficient force, authority or will can bend events toward the desired result.

Politics eventually has to answer a second question:

Then what happened?

Birthright citizenship tests whether executive power can redefine a constitutional guarantee.

Louisiana tests whether removing federal oversight means an old injustice has been permanently corrected or merely that the referee has left the field.

Yasmin’s detention tests what due process means when the government can move faster than an individual’s ability to challenge it.

Gaza tests whether reconstruction without meaningful Palestinian political agency can honestly be called self-determination.

Iran tests whether overwhelming military capability can produce a desired political outcome.

The Abraham Lincoln tests how long that capability can be sustained when the human beings operating it are exhausted.

And the jobs report tests how long Americans will accept the domestic costs of tariffs and war while being told those policies are making them richer and safer.

None of these stories proves that catastrophe is inevitable. But taken together, they share a single, unfashionable lesson: power can compel, punish, and destroy, but it cannot guarantee that the world responds the way its wielder intended. That requires something power alone has never supplied. Judgment. The willingness to know, before you spend a life, what you are spending it for.

W.H. Auden wrote an epitaph once, for the tomb of an unknown soldier, that has outlived every war it was written about:

To save your world, you asked this man to die.
Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?

Families with sons and daughters on the USS Abraham Lincoln are asking that question now, while their loved ones are still alive to hear the answer, if anyone in Washington ever gives one.

Washington has yet to offer one.

Share

That “nobody” excludes Barbara, the Honduran asylum seeker whose pseudonym gives Trump v. Barbara its name; Sarah, the infant daughter of a Taiwanese student-visa holder; and the Supreme Court itself. Miller announced a constitutional theory the Court had just buried and complimented it on its health.

The Citizenship Clause says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens.

Repudiating Dred Scott and securing citizenship for formerly enslaved people was a central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. Historical impetus is not textual limitation.

Arguments like Miller’s conduct a peculiar kind of originalist séance. They summon the authors of an old law, identify the crisis immediately before them, and declare that crisis the limit of everything their words can ever mean. Historical figures cease to be fallible legislators responding to the problems of their time and become prophets whose unexpressed intentions govern circumstances they never imagined.

The Reconstruction framers were not omniscient, and their authority does not come from being omniscient. It comes from the language that was debated, ratified, and placed in the Constitution. They could have limited citizenship to the children of former slaves. Instead, they wrote “all persons.” A constitutional provision adopted in response to one injustice is not a single-use coupon, nor does the framers’ inability to imagine Stephen Miller’s “baby mills” silently amend the words they chose.

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held in 1898 that the Amendment constitutionalized the longstanding common-law rule of citizenship by birth. With narrow exceptions, most notably the children of diplomats and those born during hostile occupation, a person born on American soil is subject to American law and therefore a citizen.

The Trump administration tried to reopen that question, arguing that children whose parents were unlawfully or temporarily present were not fully subject to US jurisdiction. On June 30, the Supreme Court answered in Trump v. Barbara. The administration lost the case 6–3: five justices rejected its position on constitutional grounds, while Justice Kavanaugh supplied a sixth vote on statutory grounds. The majority held that temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants remain subject to American law while here, and their US-born children are citizens.

The Court observed that the restrictionist theory had commanded only the dissent in Wong Kim Ark and “is not the law.” That is almost certainly the “very unfortunate decision” Trump complained about today.

There are originalists who hold Miller’s position. Several justices substantially agreed with it. Which is precisely why his insistence that nobody seriously contests him is so brazen. The dispute was real, fully litigated, and decided against the administration. Miller’s version of consensus means everyone except the people who won.

His response to that defeat was revealing. Hours after the decision, Miller appeared on Jesse Watters’s Fox News program and warned that a tourist arriving late in pregnancy could soon become “the mother of a lifetime American citizen.”

Watters asked the obvious question: “Are we banning foreign pregnant women?”

Miller did not say no. He replied that the government must reconsider whom it admits even temporarily and said there were many things it would now have to examine more closely. When Jesse Watters gives you an opportunity to reassure the public that you are not contemplating a pregnancy ban and you decline it, the omission is doing rather a lot of prenatal labor.

Subtlety being unavailable at the drafting office, on the day of the decision, Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee introduced H.R. 9562, which he named the “Anchors Away Act.”

The bill would attempt to narrow statutory birthright citizenship to children with at least one parent who is a citizen, permanent resident, or lawful member of the armed forces. It would also make any pregnant nonimmigrant inadmissible if she is not married to a US citizen, with an exception for legitimate medical treatment related to childbirth.

Ogles’s press release describes the provision as targeting certain pregnant travelers whose primary purpose is securing citizenship. The actual bill is less coy. Pregnancy plus the wrong immigration and marital status is enough.

Miller’s Fox appearance was not one stray extremist riff escaping into the television studio. The pregnancy-ban idea had already been translated into legislation. Today’s executive orders are another prong of the same project.

The first order, titled “Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” purports to identify additional categories outside the birthright-citizenship rule. It reaches beyond traditional exceptions to include broadly defined “alien enemies,” multiple classes of foreign-government employees, and children whose parents participated in commercial arrangements intended to secure citizenship, including some surrogacy arrangements.

Miller has a gift for taking a narrow exception, feeding it ominous nouns, and waiting for it to block the doorway.

The second order, “Ending Birth Tourism,” invokes §215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It directs officials to deny or revoke visas, prevent entry, remove participants, impose permanent bars, and pursue people or organizations that facilitate the prohibited travel.

The machinery did not appear from nowhere. Since January 2020, a State Department rule has instructed consular officers to deny B visas when they have reason to believe the applicant’s primary purpose is giving birth in the United States to obtain citizenship for the child. The regulation creates a rebuttable presumption: if an officer believes an applicant will give birth during her stay, she must satisfy that officer that citizenship is not her principal objective.

Today’s order expands that approach beyond consular visa adjudication to entry, revocation, removal, permanent exclusion, and alleged facilitators.

The two orders perform different legal functions. The citizenship order stretches the exceptions, while the visa order prevents people from reaching the rule. Together they pursue through immigration administration what the Court refused to permit as a direct presidential redefinition of citizenship.

A failed constitutional rewrite is broken into routine-looking acts of classification, visa adjudication, fraud prevention, and national-security enforcement. By the time the pieces are reassembled, the administration hopes the result will resemble ordinary housekeeping rather than an end run around a Supreme Court decision. Its a form of laundered legitimacy.

The enforcement problem, however, exposes what the antiseptic language conceals. Pregnancy is not a status stamped in a passport, and reproductive intent is not visible in a customs declaration. How will an officer decide that a traveler is pregnant, that she might give birth during her stay, and that citizenship is her real motive?

Officials can ask questions, examine itineraries and medical records, or infer from appearance and circumstance. A traveler can conceal a pregnancy; an officer can mistake someone for being pregnant; early pregnancy may not be visible at all. Anything more definitive moves quickly toward medical testing.

A policy that makes pregnancy a basis for exclusion must either create a system for determining pregnancy or grant officials broad discretion to guess. Neither is a minor administrative detail. The inevitable pool of suspicion extends beyond proven birth-tourism operators to women whom border personnel believe might be pregnant.

“Cracking down on birth tourism” shades into reproductive surveillance. Once admission depends on what the government believes is happening inside a woman’s body, and what it imagines she intends to do with that body, the border officer has acquired an obstetrics portfolio.

The political sales pitch is an updated version of the old “anchor baby” canard: the fiction that an immigrant gives birth in America and is immediately rewarded with legal status for the entire family. In reality, a citizen child cannot petition for a parent until age 21, and a petition begins an immigration process; it does not retroactively erase violations or automatically produce lawful status.

“Anchor baby” has become impolite in respectable company, so the same story now arrives in business attire. The immigrant family becomes an organized fraud ring. Citizenship becomes a commodity being purchased. A possible petition two decades in the future becomes a “permanent foothold.” The citizen child becomes something improperly manufactured.

Miller described the practice today as trying to “mint an American citizen.” The metaphor does the work. A child is no longer a person to whom the Constitution applies but counterfeit currency produced by scheming foreigners.

Visa fraud is real. Businesses that coach clients to lie to consular officers can be investigated and prosecuted. The government may regulate admission and require visitors to tell the truth about why they are coming. None of that establishes that the citizenship of a baby born here is itself fraudulent. The adult may deceive a consular officer, but the newborn does not thereby falsify the Fourteenth Amendment.

That distinction is what Miller’s rhetoric is designed to dissolve. First the parent is transformed into a fraudster, an enemy, or an operator. Then the parent’s alleged wrongdoing is transferred to the child. Finally, the child’s constitutional citizenship is treated as the proceeds of a crime.

The administration supplies the ominous nouns; the agencies supply the procedural verbs; and somewhere between “deny,” “revoke,” “classify,” and “enforce,” a constitutional guarantee is made to look like a loophole being closed. It is a laundering operation.

The old slur has not disappeared; Ogles built his bill’s title around it, but Miller’s official vocabulary gives the same story a blazer and a security clearance. The new version comes with an executive order, a statutory citation, a proposed pregnancy ban, and Stephen Miller solemnly assuring us that nobody disagrees.

Same canard. Better stationery.

A note on vocabulary

Readers of our Roy Cohn piece will recognize the pattern. “Communist” has had a busy summer, Ted Cruz alone has called Zohran Mamdani a “full-on communist,” part of a “toxic, toxic stew” of communism, and warned of a “communist takeover of the Democrat Party,” while other Republicans have gone as far as invoking the Communist Control Act to try to strip Mamdani’s citizenship outright. Now “anchor baby” is having its own revival, laundered into “birth tourism” and “minting citizens.” Neither word is new. Neither is being deployed because it’s persuasive on the merits, both arrive pre-loaded with decades of fear, which is precisely why no one bothers explaining what they mean anymore. Be watching for what comes next.

Share

Trump’s 75-minute Las Vegas production moved from patriotic music through a solemn tribute to a murdered police officer, then opened the fire hose: the greatest economy, the strongest border, the highest exports, the largest investment boom, the greatest military in history, all delivered with the confidence of audited accounts and the provenance of cocktail-napkin arithmetic. He complained the press had fixated on his one primary-endorsement loss instead of his 28 wins, then spent several minutes discussing the loss himself, a reliable feature of his method: accuse the press of amplifying an inconvenient subject, then personally attach a public-address system to it.

Numbers arrived faster than they could be examined. Opinions became measurements, setbacks became victories, and any institution that might object was discredited in advance. The polls were fake; the reporting was fake; the critics were enemies. America’s “golden age” had arrived, and it ran through the familiar sequence: powerful, wealthy, healthy, strong, proud, safe, and great again.

The venue told its own story. Red Rock Casino Resort is a Fertitta family property with deep Republican ties, and Trump was introduced by UFC president Dana White after a slate of Nevada Republicans, Gov. Joe Lombardo among them, warmed up the room. Officially, this was economic messaging: a pitch for “No Tax on Tips” aimed at Nevada’s tip-dependent service workforce, three months out from the midterms. In practice, it was a rally in all but name, staged for a friendly crowd with his approval rating sitting below 39 percent, a number he dismissed on stage as fake before the numbers even started.

The next three months will likely be an assault on the shared factual record. Trump can produce a claim in ten seconds; determining whether it is false, misleading, unsupported, outdated or merely nonsensical can occupy several reporters and an afternoon. By the time the correction is published, he has generated a dozen replacements. The correction will be longer, duller and less emotionally satisfying than the original, and his audience has already been told that the act of checking him proves the checker is corrupt. It is a propaganda perpetual-motion machine, except the fuel is everyone else’s time.

Trump’s Truth Social feed supplied the visual aids. In one post, he insisted the United States possesses “massive amounts” of munitions and promised that the people who leaked contrary assessments were being hunted down, with long prison sentences to follow. No charges or legal process were mentioned, and no distinction was offered between revealing classified information and embarrassing the president. The important message was simpler: the arsenal is full because the president says so, and anyone describing an empty shelf may soon receive a guided tour of the justice system.

Elsewhere, Trump attacked filmmaker Michael Moore as a lifelong loser, labeled Michigan Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed a communist who hates Jews and Israel, and shared an “Only Trump” image featuring a golden equestrian monument. The account now operates simultaneously as presidential bulletin, campaign headquarters, fan club, grievance archive and casino marquee.

The day before, Trump had posted the synthetic military history. An AI image placing himself between Generals George Patton and Douglas MacArthur, wearing a uniform he never wore and decorations he never earned, while the two actual commanders appeared with fewer stars. Critics called it false valor, but one reply identified the deeper offense: Trump is manufacturing an image of supreme military leadership while the real Iran war he promised would be brief drags on, the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, munitions claims are contested and his administration threatens those who contradict its account.

Not every allegation in a social-media reply should be accepted without verification. The central contrast requires little interpretation. In the fictional battlefield, Trump is the most decorated man in the frame; in the real one, military officers, allies, and civilians must live with the consequences of his judgment. Authentic service becomes scenery for synthetic greatness. AI supplies the heroic photograph history declined to take, conferring all the grandeur of command while eliminating the tedious requirements of service, sacrifice and strategic success.

MS NOW offered a useful contrast Wednesday night by doing something radical: treating public opinion as information rather than insubordination.

The network cited a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted July 29–August 3, in which the cost of living remained voters’ leading concern and 70 percent of Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of both the cost of living and inflation specifically, his approval on those two issues sitting at 23 and 22 percent, well below his already-weak 35 percent overall approval. Democrats held an 8-point lead over Republicans on the cost of living, 35 to 27, the first time in nearly a decade that Americans have picked Democrats over Republicans as better economic stewards. Another 28 percent did not know, a considerable bloc of people apparently waiting to see whether either party might eventually present an idea instead of a commemorative mug.

Trump’s answer in Las Vegas was that the economy is the greatest America has ever had and the contrary polls are fake. This may be emotionally satisfying, but it has a technical weakness: voters purchase groceries. They make rent payments. They fill gas tanks, price inhalers, renew insurance and watch the total at checkout perform feats of vertical ambition not yet celebrated in a presidential speech.

Michigan Representative Debbie Dingell described returning home and speaking with constituents at Kroger, where they show her what groceries cost. They talk about gasoline, the expense of commuting in a state built around the automobile, and the mother who did not know how she would afford her child’s inhaler. These stories do not by themselves constitute a complete economic dataset. They do explain why declaring the economy perfect is not the same as making people feel economically secure. The price displayed at Kroger remains stubbornly unmoved by the president’s approval of it.

The “more Americans are working than ever before” boast illustrates the problem neatly. In a growing country, the raw number of employed people will regularly reach new highs. The useful questions concern employment relative to population, labor-force participation, wages, working hours and what those wages can buy. Trump takes the largest available numerator, removes the denominator and awards himself a trophy. It is less economic analysis than statistical taxidermy: the number is technically recognizable, but something important has been removed from the living organism.

Three other techniques were on display in Las Vegas, and they are worth naming because they will recur for the next hundred days.

The first is outright fabrication dressed as an audited figure. Trump’s claim of $19.2 trillion in new investment, “five times greater than any country in history,” has no supporting basis. Even the White House’s own promotional tally, itself widely criticized as inflated, has topped out around $9.7 to $10.7 trillion, and independent analysis found more than $2.5 trillion of that total isn’t investment at all, with roughly $3.5 trillion resting on vague sovereign pledges, some announced before Trump returned to office. The number does not describe the world. It describes the speech.

The second is the durable statistic that survives its own debunking. Trump’s claim that 11,888 murderers entered the country illegally has been checked and rechecked by outlets across the political spectrum, which found no evidence supporting it as stated; the figure appears to conflate people on ICE’s non-detained docket, some convicted decades ago and under prior administrations, with recent illegal border crossings under Biden. The number itself has shifted over time, sanded down from over 13,000 in earlier tellings without explanation. It survives not because it withstands scrutiny but because it is repeated faster than the scrutiny can travel.

A third technique, quieter than the other two, showed up in Trump’s boast that Nevada has lifted nearly 100,000 residents off food stamps. The number is roughly accurate. The causation is inverted. Nevada’s SNAP enrollment has fallen by more than 70,000 people in the past year, but state health officials attribute the decline to new work-requirement and documentation rules under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, not to Nevadans finding jobs and no longer needing assistance. Some of those removed remain eligible by income; they simply could not clear the new paperwork in time. A drop in caseloads is being sold as a triumph of prosperity when the state’s own administrators describe it as an artifact of process.

The electoral news carried a similar warning: Missouri and Kansas voters both rejected Republican-backed measures designed to make their own past decisions harder to defend at the ballot box, a fitting rebuke on a night otherwise built for narratives no one voted on.

Michigan Democrats, meanwhile, began the familiar and often ungainly process of reassembling after a bruising Senate primary won by El-Sayed. His former rivals signaled support, state leaders planned unity events, and Dingell emphasized affordability as the issue capable of bridging the party’s ideological divisions. Unity after a primary is not guaranteed, and photographs of politicians standing together should never be confused with voters actually following them. But Republicans hoping Democratic combat would continue indefinitely received an early indication that their opponents understand November is a different contest.

The most revealing electoral moment may have come from a Trump judicial nominee asked who won four recent presidential elections. Barack Obama, the nominee replied, “was sworn into” office. Trump won in the Electoral College. Joe Biden “was certified” by Congress. The nominee could describe the constitutional and ceremonial debris surrounding the result but seemed unable to pronounce the dangerously direct verb won. It was a virtuoso exercise in standing immediately beside the truth without making eye contact.

This is why the coming information fight cannot be reduced to a running tally of fibs. The administration is not merely asserting preferred facts. It is training officials, candidates and supporters to treat plain acknowledgments of reality as betrayals. A judge who cannot say who won an election is not displaying caution. The evasion is the credential.

The distance between Trump’s declared victories and material conditions becomes more consequential beyond the campaign trail, where slogans encounter shipping lanes, missiles and governments with interests of their own.

Anne Applebaum’s most useful observation about the Iran war was also her simplest: “I don’t believe anything that comes out of the White House.” She was not transferring credibility to Tehran. Iran’s authoritarian regime is an accomplished manufacturer of deception in its own right. Her point was that neither belligerent can be trusted to describe the war, the negotiations or even its own objectives with enough honesty for outsiders to know what is actually happening.

That leaves everyone else operating inside a fog deliberately produced by both governments. Washington announces imminent breakthroughs that dissolve, threatens attacks that are canceled and declares victories whose terms remain mysterious. Tehran issues its own self-serving accounts of negotiations and battlefield success. Independent Pentagon access has been restricted, embedded American reporting is absent, and even basic claims about casualties, munitions and proposed agreements are difficult to verify. The responsible conclusion is to suspend judgment until evidence exists.

Allies cannot coordinate around promises they do not trust. Markets cannot price risks hidden behind dueling press releases. Citizens cannot evaluate a war whose objectives change with the president’s mood, and military planners cannot speak plainly if unwelcome assessments may be branded treason. Historians will eventually inherit an official record assembled from Truth Social posts, Iranian communiqués and announcements that expired before the evening news.

Nor is credibility the only casualty. Neither government has displayed judgment that allies should feel comfortable borrowing. Tehran has learned that it can create enormous pressure through escalation; Trump has repeatedly treated escalation, reversal and self-congratulation as consecutive stages of the same policy. A deal may emerge, or another promised deal may evaporate. Until something verifiable occurs, the safest assumption is that both sides are narrating the outcome they want—and that the rest of the world must plan around what they do, not what they declare.

The final stretch before the midterms will be rife with mistruths, some outright false, others misleading uses of real numbers, unsupported assertions, or opinions dressed in a lab coat and introduced as data. Calling everything a lie would reproduce the carelessness we’re examining, so our standard has to be sharper than his: we’ll concentrate on claims that carry consequences; war, elections, public safety, economic policy, the use of government power, and group repeated falsehoods into their larger narratives rather than treating each iteration as a new discovery. When Trump says the economy is the greatest ever, the answer isn’t an adjective duel; it’s evidence about prices, wages, participation and household security. When he says the war is nearly won, we’ll look at shipping traffic, casualties, alliances, and the terms actually under negotiation. When he says an election was corrupt, we’ll ask for evidence before the claim gets a day of oxygen.

We’ll also say so when uncertainty is the honest answer. “Unverifiable” doesn’t mean false, and “official” doesn’t mean verified. Applebaum’s refusal to manufacture certainty out of an information blackout is worth imitating, since replacing the administration’s confident fiction with our own confident speculation serves no one. Not every provocation earns equal weight: the AI general matters because it reveals the cult of synthetic greatness, but it doesn’t outrank threats against leakers, efforts to disable elections, or decisions that prolong a war. Trump’s feed will serve a daily buffet of ornamental outrages built to commandeer the news cycle. We’re not obliged to eat everything on the table.

Trump can produce falsehoods faster than any newsroom can investigate them, and we won’t pretend otherwise or turn this roundup into a sanitation department for his account. The task is to identify the deceptions that move votes, conceal consequences, or prevent the public from understanding what its government is doing, and to give readers the evidence to recognize them tomorrow, wearing a slightly different hat. The flood is the strategy. Attention is the finite resource. We intend to spend ours on the truth that matters.

Share

That curiosity was part of what made me good at my job as a Healthcare Quality Analyst and Compliance Officer. For five years, I learned never to stop with the explanation printed at the top of a healthcare policy. I kept digging until I understood who assumed the risk, who received the money, and what happened to the patient after the cheerful announcement ended.

Healthcare documents have a particular gift for making enormous human consequences sound like administrative housekeeping. The language is calm, the chart is blue, and the word “stability” appears often enough that you begin to wonder what’s currently on fire.

So, when I first read that the Trump administration was ending a subsidy for Medicare prescription plans, the explanation seemed almost reasonable. The program was temporary, it cost billions of dollars, and Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said it’d become an unnecessary bailout for insurance companies.

Perhaps it was, but you know me well enough by now to know that I needed to see the receipts. Fine, I thought, let us look at the bailout. The program being eliminated is called the Part D Premium Stabilization Demonstration. The Biden administration created it after the Inflation Reduction Act redesigned Medicare’s prescription drug benefit.

Subscribe now

That redesign gave beneficiaries real protections. Before 2025, Medicare Part D had no firm annual limit on what a person could spend out of pocket. The law established a $2,000 limit in 2025, increased it to $2,100 in 2026, and will set it at $2,400 in 2027. It also capped insulin costs, made recommended vaccines free, and allowed Medicare to negotiate prices for certain expensive drugs.

The law reduced the amount patients could be forced to pay, but it didn’t cure the American pharmaceutical industry of its commitment to charging whatever the market, the government, and the human pancreas can bear. A larger share of catastrophic drug spending shifted from beneficiaries and the federal government onto the private insurers operating Part D plans.

The insurers responded by raising their bids, because insurance companies remain deeply committed to the principle that risk is best shared with everyone except themselves. CMS created the stabilization program to keep those increases from reaching beneficiaries all at once. In 2026, it reduced the average stand-alone Part D premium by an estimated $16 per month. The program cost approximately $6.2 billion in 2025 and $3.6 billion in 2026, for a two-year total of $9.8 billion. That’s real money, and questioning whether the government should continue spending it is fair, but what really matters is what the money accomplished and what happens when it disappears.

The Government Accountability Office found that without the program, beneficiaries who remained in their existing stand-alone drug plans between 2024 and 2025 would have seen their monthly premiums nearly double on average. Thirty-seven percent would’ve faced increases exceeding $40 per month. CMS officials expected enough disruption to cause widespread plan switching and potentially interfere with people’s access to medication.

The money went to private insurers, which is why Oz can call it a bailout, but its measurable purpose was to prevent those costs from landing immediately on beneficiaries. Ending the payment doesn’t make the underlying expense vanish; it simply allows the expense to continue traveling until it reaches somebody with less negotiating power. Usually, that person has a mailbox, a fixed income, and a prescription they can’t politely decline.

The administration says Part D insurers have now gained enough experience with the redesigned benefit to operate without additional support. Perhaps they have, two years should be plenty of time for an insurance company to locate every available exit, exception, tier, formulary adjustment, and human wallet.

If the administration were removing federal support from private insurers as a matter of principle, the argument would at least be consistent. The problem appeared when I followed the money into the next room. For 2027, CMS has finalized more than $13 billion in additional federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans. That represents a 2.48 percent policy increase over 2026, or an estimated 4.98 percent increase after anticipated changes in risk scores associated with population changes and coding practices.

The administration is therefore eliminating a Part D program that cost $3.6 billion in 2026 while increasing Medicare Advantage payments by more than $13 billion in 2027. This is where the supposed savings begin behaving strangely.

The 2027 cost of continuing the Part D demonstration was never finalized, so we can’t calculate an exact net figure. If the program had remained near its 2026 cost, ending it would have saved approximately $3.6 billion while the Medicare Advantage increase added more than $13 billion. Across those two decisions, the government would still spend roughly $9.4 billion more.

That isn’t an audited net savings estimate because the programs are different and the third-year Part D cost was never established. It’s simply a comparison of the direction and scale of two decisions made by the same administration. Essentially, the government has removed three dollars from one pocket, placed thirteen dollars in the other, and begun accepting congratulations for traveling lighter.

The Medicare Advantage increase isn’t identical to the Part D stabilization program. Medicare Advantage payments support comprehensive hospital, physician, and prescription coverage, while the Part D demonstration provided temporary assistance to stand-alone drug plans. Some of the Medicare Advantage increase reflects updated healthcare costs and utilization.

That distinction is important, but it doesn’t make the comparison irrelevant. Both policies direct public money to private insurance companies, and both are defended as necessary to preserve stable, affordable coverage. One is being described as a wasteful bailout, while the other is being presented as responsible stewardship. The comparison became even harder to ignore when I looked at CMS’s original proposal.

In January, CMS proposed increasing Medicare Advantage payments by only 0.09 percent, or approximately $700 million. By April, the final increase had grown to more than $13 billion. Some of that change came from updated information about healthcare costs, but CMS also declined to implement its proposed risk-adjustment model fully, preserving significantly more money for Medicare Advantage insurers.

The administration didn’t merely inherit a $13 billion increase from the heavens. It moved from proposing $700 million to approving more than $13 billion, a difference of approximately $12.3 billion. Once we put those decisions beside each other, the important question is no longer whether the administration supports federal payments to private insurers. Clearly, it does. The more useful question is which part of Medicare those payments are helping people choose.

Stand-alone Part D plans are primarily used by beneficiaries who have Original Medicare, often paired with a Medigap policy. Medicare Advantage allows a private insurer to administer a beneficiary’s Medicare coverage through its own network, cost-sharing rules, formulary, and authorization processes.

Many Medicare Advantage plans advertise very low or zero-dollar premiums because insurers can use federal payments and rebates to reduce what beneficiaries see on the front end. That can make the plans genuinely attractive, particularly to people already struggling to afford separate premiums for Medigap and prescription coverage.

Now imagine opening a letter that says your stand-alone drug premium is increasing. Later that afternoon, another envelope arrives promising prescription coverage, dental care, eyeglasses, a gym membership, and possibly a renewed sense of purpose for almost nothing per month. The decision may feel voluntary, but the government has helped determine the prices printed on both pieces of paper. That’s what I mean by privatization by friction. Original Medicare doesn’t need to be abolished if remaining in it gradually becomes more expensive and complicated while the privately administered alternative receives more money and better advertising.

The trade isn’t always obvious from the glossy brochure. Medicare Advantage plans may use narrower provider networks, require prior authorization, divide medications into different formulary tiers, and impose substantial annual out-of-pocket limits. If someone drops a Medigap policy to join Medicare Advantage, federal law doesn’t always guarantee that they can obtain the same supplemental coverage again later. Outside particular protected circumstances, an insurer may deny the application or charge more because of the person’s health history.

That’s serious anywhere, but the idea of endless Medicare Advantage choice becomes almost tenderly absurd where I live. Here in Coos County, Oregon, the bustling marketplace of general Medicare Advantage plans for 2026 consists of exactly one option, excluding Special Needs Plans. There are no zero-premium general Medicare Advantage plans available here.

Our solitary plan is a three-star Wellcare HMO-POS plan that costs $35 per month in addition to the Part B premium. It includes a $615 prescription deductible and a $7,900 in-network annual out-of-pocket limit. One plan is not a competitive marketplace. It’s an insurance company putting on a fake mustache and asking whether we would like to compare it with the other gentleman.

This is the part national discussions about healthcare choice tend to miss. Shopping requires more than a website and a row of brightly colored buttons. It requires participating doctors, accessible specialists, functioning hospitals, reasonable travel distances, and a network extending to wherever a human body might inconveniently require care.

In a rural community, access isn’t an abstract policy measurement. It’s whether the specialist exists, whether the clinic is accepting patients, whether the insurer recognizes the provider, and whether someone can drive several hours while sick.

I used to encounter the distance between access on paper and access in real life as part of my work. A provider directory can be technically full while containing a doctor who retired, a clinic that isn’t accepting patients, and a specialist located far enough away that the appointment should come with a hotel voucher. The spreadsheet says the providers exist, and the person holding the insurance card still can’t get care. Both facts can occupy the same system without causing it any emotional distress.

Oz says more than 90 percent of Medicare beneficiaries will continue to have access to drug coverage costing less than $10 per month. That sounds reassuring until we sit with the wording. He is not saying that 90 percent will keep their current coverage for less than $10. He is not saying the least expensive available plan will cover their particular medications, place them on affordable tiers, include their preferred pharmacy, or offer a manageable deductible.

He is saying a low-cost option will exist.

That difference between nominal access and meaningful access is where people get lost. A plan can be available without being usable, just as a physician can appear in a directory without being reachable and a prescription can technically be covered while remaining financially out of reach. None of this requires us to imagine CMS officials plotting Medicare privatization beneath a flickering light. The incentives are sitting in public documents, behaving with the subtlety of a raccoon in a trash can.

The administration is removing assistance from the stand-alone drug plans used by people in Original Medicare. It is substantially increasing payments to Medicare Advantage plans. It’s telling beneficiaries facing higher prescription premiums that inexpensive alternatives remain available. Oz has previously advocated expanding Medicare Advantage into the foundation of a much broader privately administered healthcare system.

If one door becomes more expensive while the government sends billions of additional dollars through the other door, people will predictably move toward the second one. The administration can call that movement consumer preference, but it still helped build the hallway.

This isn’t proof of a secret scheme, and it doesn’t mean every Medicare Advantage plan is bad or that every person enrolled in one has made the wrong decision. For some beneficiaries, Medicare Advantage may be the most affordable or practical option available. The problem is calling the resulting enrollment shift a triumph of choice while the government is actively tilting the floor.

The more I looked at these policies, the less they resembled a serious effort to reduce federal spending. What emerged instead was a decision about which version of Medicare the government intends to make easier to afford.

One pathway preserves Original Medicare and allows beneficiaries to purchase separate prescription coverage. The other places public Medicare dollars under private management, where insurance companies control networks, formularies, authorizations, and the difference between what the government pays and what a person’s care costs. The administration is withdrawing support from the first pathway while increasing payments to the second. It can call one payment a bailout and the other an investment, but the labels don’t change the direction of the money.

They don’t have to order seniors into Medicare Advantage. They only have to make Original Medicare more difficult to keep, make the private alternative appear cheaper, and describe the direction people slide as freedom.

Subscribe now

P.S. Our subscription rates for new paid subscribers will increase on 08/15/2026. Upgrade before then to lock in our current price of $7/month or $70/year. Existing paid subscribers will keep their current rate. Learn more here:

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend