President Donald Trump has the United States stuck in a conflict with Iran, unable to win significant concessions and unwilling to back down in the face of obvious failure. It’s possible the two sides could strike a deal, but if so, the resulting agreement is unlikely to be favorable to the U.S. and could leave Iran in a stronger position than before the war. This problem is of Trump’s own making: In spending years demonstrating that he has no credibility, he has by extension trashed America’s credibility as well.

Credibility gives words power. For words to change others’ behavior, listeners have to believe them. Promises don’t work if the recipients think you’ll break them; threats don’t work if the targets think you won’t follow through.

Domestically, if someone breaks a contract, a counterparty can seek recourse in court and the government will enforce the results. That makes the contract more credible, which makes people more willing to enter into deals. But internationally, all countries have is their word, physical capabilities and patterns of behavior. Trump’s behavior has convinced the world that he cannot be trusted. His word is worthless.

Nowhere is that clearer than in relations between the U.S. and Iran. Trump has…

Read the full article for free at MS.NOW here: https://www.ms.now/opinion/iran-war-strait-hormuz-diplomacy-trump

After threatening to destroy Iranian civilian bridges and power plants, and declaring “a whole civilization will die tonight,” U.S. president Donald Trump backed down, accepting a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire on Iran’s terms. Both sides reportedly agreed to a two-week halt in fighting to allow negotiations, using Iran’s 10-point list of demands as a framework.

Trump launched the war with absolutist goals, talking of regime change, demanding “unconditional surrender,” and saying he would pick Iran’s next leader. When it was clear the regime survived U.S. and Israeli assassinations of top leaders and could exert leverage by blocking shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, Trump escalated bombing, threatened ground invasion, and communicated a list of 15 demands that included Iran forfeiting its nuclear program and immediately reopening the strait. When that went nowhere, he bombed more, destroyed a civilian bridge—likely a war crime—and made genocidal threats. Then he folded.

Negotiations could…

Read the whole article for free in Liberal Currents here: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/trump-surrenders-to-iran/

President Donald Trump reportedly told aides he is willing to end the Iran war while Iran still controls of the Strait of Hormuz, said a closed strait blocking energy shipments is other countries’ problem and told interviewers the strait will “automatically open” when the United States leaves, which will not be “too much longer” because “it’s a total obliteration.”

Stock markets leapt up on the news. But the strait is America’s problem, whether Trump wants it to be or not, and Iran gets a say in how this goes.

The oil and natural gas markets…

Read the full article for free at MSNOW here: https://www.ms.now/opinion/trump-strait-hormuz-iran-war-problem

Before American financial markets opened on Monday, March 23, nearly a month into the U.S-Israeli war on Iran, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. and Iran have had “very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East,” and therefore the U.S. would refrain from attacking Iranian power plants as he had threatened last week. Iranian state media portrayed that as the U.S. backing down in the face of Iran’s warnings, and speaker of Iran’s parliament Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf said no negotiations had taken place, claiming that Trump was lying “to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the U.S. and Israel are trapped.”

All sides in this conflict have incentives to lie and spin—psychological warfare, signaling resolve, posturing for domestic audiences, shaping outsiders’ opinions, establishing negotiating positions, etc.—so no one should take either at their word. Outside observers can’t know if any talks really took place, and if so, what happened in them. Pakistan reportedly offered to mediate, and sent Iran a 15-point plan from the U.S. Iran has rejected that offer, according to state media, and it continues blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the choke point at the end of the Persian Gulf through which about 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas usually flows. Missiles are still flying, global energy shortages are worsening, and the U.S. is sending about 2,000 soldiers from the Army’s 82nd Airborne to the Middle East, adding to the 4,500 Marines already in route.

On the competing claims about progress or lack thereof, it looks like Qalibaf’s statement is more accurate, especially the part about Trump manipulating markets. Economic damage is accumulating, and fewer Americans supported the war at the start than any post-WWII U.S. conflict. Gas prices have risen about a dollar per gallon since before the war began at the end of February, creating political liabilities for the president as his party faces a challenging Congressional election this November.

It also looks like there’s been some massive insider trading. 15 minutes before Trump’s announcement, trading in oil and S&P futures spiked to an unusually high volume, with $580 million betting on an oil price decline alone. Then the market opened, oil plunged, stock indices rose, and someone made a fortune.

But is Qalibaf right about the second part, that the U.S. and Israel are trapped? Do America’s leaders want the fighting to stop more than Iran’s? If so, Iran would now be more in control of the war than the militarily superior countries that started it.

Trump could…

Read the full thing for free in Liberal Currents: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/what-if-iran-doesnt-want-the-war-to-end-yet/

The Iran war is exposing President Donald Trump’s unfitness for national leadership. The lie-filled bluster and escalation he relied on to succeed in business and domestic politics aren’t working, and the situation is out of his control. The world is interconnected and other people get a say, including oil companies and energy markets. But Trump never understood that, and since he has no other moves, he’s kept doubling down despite no plausible path to victory, making things worse.

With Venezuela, Trump said he attacked to take oil, equating his personal rapaciousness with national interest. After U.S. special operations forces ousted Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, Trump found the rest of the Venezuelan regime more pliable, including now-interim President Delcy Rodriguez, and told U.S. energy companies to go get Venezuela’s oil.

Except those companies didn’t want it. Which shouldn’t have been a surprise. Venezuela’s oil deposits are dirty, needing considerable refinement, and drilling isn’t profitable unless oil is priced higher than it was at the time. The infrastructure is poor, and U.S. companies would have to spend billions developing it. And the security situation was volatile after the U.S. military overthrew the national leader. Oil is flammable, and platforms would be a target if an insurgency develops.

But apparently it was a surprise to the White House. Trump berated energy executives, but that didn’t work. They won’t throw away money just because he told them to.

With the Iran war, Trump is trying…

Read the whole article for free at MS.NOW here: https://www.ms.now/opinion/trump-iran-war-strait-hormuz-failing-business

Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz in response to the U.S.-Israeli attack means widespread economic disruption. There is reliance on energy through all aspects of the economy. There are also additional oil effects—things like uses for metallurgy processes, for example, different byproducts used for agriculture—and oil is a global commodity, meaning that it is produced in many different places. The United States both imports and exports; it refines products, it drills crude oil, and all of this is on a day-to-day supply chain. So when things get disrupted, there’s a little slack in the system, but really not much, and then the prices go up. A 20 percent supply decline is incredibly disruptive—it means that there is simply not enough oil to go around.

This was the explicit thing that we saw coming. And by “we,” I mean the broad national security community. It is very likely that people inside the military and the national security establishment told this to the White House—whether Trump himself heard it, or didn’t listen, or others tried to tell him, who knows. But this was the exact reason why we said: yes, confront Iran, but in smarter ways, as opposed to this one thing. This is their big leverage—don’t play into it. And now the U.S. has, and it’s not going to clear up soon.

The paragraphs above are an excerpt from a podcast interview on the Iran war, Trump, and the many big implications that I recorded this week with Greg Sargent. You can hear the whole thing for free by searching on various podcast apps for The Daily Blast podcast from the New Republic, or by following this link. Or you can read the transcript here.

“If the U.S. ends up withdrawing” from the Iran nuclear deal, I wrote in March 2017, “it sets the Middle East on a path to two possible futures: (1) A nuclear Iran. (2) War. Both are much worse than the status quo.” Nine years later, America launched a war on Iran.

I knew those were the only two options because nuclear technology is decades old, and the only way to really prevent a country from getting it is if they choose not to. Iran borders nuclear-armed Pakistan, and has a long-running adversarial relationship with nuclear-armed Israel and America—plus the Iranians saw the U.S. negotiate with North Korea, which has nukes, while attacking Iraq, which didn’t—so they have reason to want a bomb. Sabotage, cyberattacks, killing nuclear scientists, and limited military action could set back Iran’s nuclear development, while paradoxically increasing its incentive to establish a deterrent. The only lasting way to prevent Iran from going nuclear was convincing this regime to give it up, or forcibly replace them with a regime that will.

The 2015 nuclear deal, more formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), restricted Iran’s nuclear activities. It was the painstakingly negotiated, highly detailed result of over a decade of diplomacy. The international community, backed by UN Security Council resolutions, sanctioned Iran for years, offering history’s tightest nuclear deal as an alternative. Iran eventually agreed, and the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China, and the E.U. all signed. Three years later, Iran was following it—but Trump broke it anyway, saying that “maximum pressure” would get a “better deal.”

It predictably didn’t. Iran was under less pressure than before JCPOA, since most of the world didn’t reimpose sanctions when the U.S. broke an agreement they wanted to keep.

Trump reneging on the Iran nuclear deal closed off the diplomatic path…

Read the full article for free at Liberal Currents: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/international-relations-is-not-a-morality-play-what-to-expect-from-the-war-with-iran/

On Donald Trump’s orders, the U.S. military has massed around Iran, the largest build-up in the Middle East since invading Iraq in 2003. America’s intentions aren’t clear—regime change? damage? coerced negotiations?—as there’s been virtually no public explanation or debate. A bluff to generate leverage and preparation for a real attack look the same until someone starts shooting or backs down.

Trump expressed support for recent Iranian protests and promised “help is on its way,” then did nothing as government forces massacred thousands of people and reasserted control. In a long State of the Union address, he spent little time on Iran, declaring that Iran “will never have a nuclear weapon,” and saying “we’re in negotiations with them, they want to make a deal,” without offering specifics.

U.S. officials have held talks with Iranian representatives, but they’ve gone nowhere, surprising the White House. The New York Times reports, “as American warships and fighter jets mass off its shores, Iran has refused to concede to President Trump’s demands on its nuclear program and weapons — a stance that has bewildered U.S. officials.” Trump envoy Steve Witkoff expressed a similar confusion: Trump is “curious as to why they haven’t... I don’t want to use the word ‘capitulated,’ but why they haven’t capitulated.”

This confusion is unsurprising from people who approach the world as narcissistic, risk-averse bullies.

Trump and Co. seem genuinely surprised when the smaller side doesn’t give in to threats, even though it keeps happening. He recently declared that America would own Greenland, proceeding as if Denmark would hand it over since the U.S. is more powerful. They refused, Trump made more threats, but Denmark and allies deployed troops as a signal of commitment, and Trump backed down. At least for now.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Trump called it “genius.” That reflected his long-running Russia sympathy, yes, but also indicated he expected it to work. “Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump gushed in an interview.

Trump appears genuinely confused that Ukraine didn’t capitulate. After becoming president again, he has tried to end the war by reducing support for Ukraine and berating the Ukrainians to accept the supposed inevitability of Russian victory. It hasn’t worked.

Asked about Ukrainian President Zelensky saying it’s unfair to demand concessions from Ukraine but not Russia, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt snapped that Trump “doesn’t think it’s fair thousands of Ukrainians are losing their lives.” As if Russia aggressively invading means Ukraine should bow down — a remarkable claim from the leaders of a country and political party fond of Revolutionary War slogans such as “give me liberty or give me death” and “don’t tread on me.”

Trump has shown a willingness to use force—including without proper Congressional authorization, against U.S. and international law—but only when it’s short, low risk, with little-to-no follow through.

He bombed Iranian nuclear sites for a few days last year, but only after Israel had been bombing for a week, taking down Iranian air defenses. Then Trump lied that Iran’s nuclear program was “completely and fully obliterated.”

He’s bombed small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, shooting at people who can’t shoot back. That’s killed at least 148 people, none of whom posed a national security threat, and hasn’t reduced drug trafficking either.

By contrast, the Houthis shot back, and Trump backed down. The Yemen-based, Iran-backed group fired on international shipping in the Red Sea and shot rockets into Israel, claiming solidarity with Palestinians in the Gaza war. Promising to stop it with force, Trump began bombing Yemen in March 2025, declaring that he’d hold Iran responsible for “every shot fired by the Houthis” and they’d face “dire” consequences. The U.S. dropped about $1 billion worth of bombs on Yemen, damaging some targets, killing some people, and losing two fighter jets—which fell into the sea in separate incidents, possibly from their carrier turning quickly to avoid Houthi fire—but failed to end Houthi attacks.

Then in early May, Trump stopped the strikes, claiming he forced the Houthis to make a deal. The group kept attacking Israel, and two months later fired on Red Sea shipping again. In response, Trump did nothing, acting as if it didn’t happen.

That recalls when the U.S. killed Iranian general Qassam Soleimani in Trump’s first term. The impetus was attacks by Iran-backed militias in Iraq, Trump officials claimed killing Soleimani stopped it, but everyone below Soleimani moved up a spot and Iranian support for proxies continued. Militia attacks in Iraq did too, Trump just didn’t talk about it.

Something similar happened in Venezuela. U.S. special forces removed president Nicolas Maduro, but left the rest of the regime intact. There’s minimal follow through, no apparent advancement of U.S. national interests, nor improvement for the Venezuelan people.

Iran poses a bigger version of that problem. Threats won’t make the regime give up its nuclear or missile programs, bombing can’t end them, and removing top leaders probably won’t change things. It’s a bureaucracy full of ideologues, not a personalist dictatorship. You can’t bomb knowledge, and Iran already rebuilt some of the capacity Israel and America damaged last year.

This is a failure of Trump’s own making. The U.S. had a deal curbing Iran’s nuclear program, but Trump scrapped it in 2018, letting Iran out of restrictions in exchange for nothing while promising that “maximum pressure” would get Iran to accept a “better deal.” It didn’t work, and Iran ramped uranium enrichment back up. Iranian officials who argued that the U.S. can’t be trusted got a big “told you so.”

That makes it even harder for Tehran to make a deal, since they cannot trust that American pressure will ease in response. They saw Trump back down from confronting the Houthis, but respond like a stereotypical bully to domestic and international institutions that give in, treating concessions as a sign of a soft target and demanding more.

Iran won’t capitulate under threat, forfeiting major national interests because Trump told them to. His track record suggests he doesn’t have the stomach or strategic foresight for protracted conflict, and will back down if things get difficult, which makes Iranian leaders think they can weather an assault. And they have strong domestic political incentives to resist, fearing that weakness against foreign pressure could fracture the regime or encourage domestic opponents.

That leaves the U.S. choosing between another round of limited bombing that accomplishes little, a bigger campaign to collapse the regime with no apparent plan for what comes after, backing down in embarrassing fashion, or an empty “deal” Trump can lie about that, at best, kicks the can down the road and makes the problem even harder to solve.

Donald Trump will not be able to steal this November’s midterm elections. He and his allies will keep trying to manipulate the midterms in their favor, which Democrats, pro-democracy activists, and all Americans who care about our constitutional system should keep working to counter. But he won’t succeed: No matter how much Team Trump disregards norms and laws, there’s no mechanism for taking over state elections, reversing losses, or preventing newly elected members of Congress from sitting, especially if Republicans lose by substantial margins. Vigilance is warranted, but excessive fear plays into the authoritarians’ hands.

This is not a call for complacency. Backsliding from democracy into authoritarianism is greased by people saying Calm down, it’ll be fine, the institutions will handle it, he doesn’t mean it, someone will stop him. I’m not doing that.¹

But I think it’s important to right-size worries. To focus on what could realistically happen rather than lose time and expend attention and resources worrying about what can’t.

Authoritarianism is…

Read the full article for free at the Bulwark here:

The Bulwark

Trump Can’t Steal the Midterms

DONALD TRUMP WILL NOT BE ABLE to steal this November’s midterm elections. He and his allies will keep trying to manipulate the midterms in their favor, which Democrats, pro-democracy activists, and all Americans who care about our constitutional system should keep working to counter. But he won’t succeed: No matter h…

Read more

2 months ago · 103 likes · Nicholas Grossman

Armed federal forces of ICE and Border Patrol—below referred to collectively as “ICE,” since they’re working in concert and much of the public doesn’t distinguish between them—invaded Minnesota, acting like secret police and repressive paramilitaries rather than law enforcement, killing two innocent people, Renée Good and Alex Pretti. The officers have been met by an outpouring of nonviolent resistance, including thousands of regular Minnesotans spotting, following, warning others about, and verbally denouncing the invaders.

By relentlessly documenting ICE abuses—in subzero temperatures, taking on risk of arrest, assault, and death—Minnesota’s ICE-watchers, along with supportive demonstrations from hundreds of clergy and others, have gotten the horrors into more information streams. More people are paying attention, undermining Trump regime lies, and shifting public stances. On its own that won’t reverse America’s democratic backsliding, but it’s a significant step, and shows how the Trump regime is faltering.

Read the full article for free in Liberal Currents: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/nonpolitical-media-has-been-flooded-with-reactions-to-alex-prettis-murder/

U.S. President Donald Trump has been demanding control of Greenland, which is part of Denmark, a U.S. treaty ally. The people of Greenland and Denmark have adamantly refused, with support from various European countries, and Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on Europe if they don’t capitulate.

On January 18, Trump sent a letter about this to the prime minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre. It’s so full of lies, and such a good illustration of the current U.S. government’s approach to the world, that it’s worth going through point by point.

Here is the full text of the letter (in italics below) with my comments interspersed (in regular text).

Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided to not give me the Nobel Peace Prize

As Norway has repeatedly explained, the government does not decide who gets the prize. And Norway has no say in who controls Greenland.

for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS

Total bullshit, and not worth our time to debunk each lie. The “eight” includes Congo-Rwanda, where fighting continues, India-Pakistan, who say they reached their current status themselves, and Iran, which Trump bombed to little effect. The weird “PLUS” at the end is probably leveling up the lie, similar to how the number of wars he falsely claimed to have stopped was seven at first, then grew to eight.

I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but now can think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.

So absurd it’d be laughable if it weren’t deadly serious. In the first year of his second term, Trump ordered the U.S. military to launch attacks in Venezuela, Nigeria, Yemen, the Caribbean, eastern Pacific, Somalia, Syria, and Iran. His illegal tariffs have undermined the global trading order that has helped keep the world relatively stable—a lesson from the 20th century, since the collapse of trade in the Great Depression contributed to World War II—and his threats to U.S. treaty allies have weakened the United States.

Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China

Of course Denmark would have trouble protecting its land on its own if a larger country attacked. But it doesn’t need to. Denmark and its security partners in NATO, the most powerful alliance in history, protect Greenland together, along with the rest of the North Atlantic. Besides, Russia and especially China are not threatening Greenland. America is.

Everyone can see Trump doesn’t care about protecting land from Russia. Ukraine is under Russian attack, but rather than working to counter Russia’s aggression, Trump has been trying to get Ukraine to surrender.

The main beneficiaries of Trump undermining the Western alliance, America’s trade relationships, and the U.S.-led world order are China and Russia. Taking advantage of America’s new hostility, China recently cut a deal with Europe to allow more sales of Chinese electric vehicles, and another deal with Canada, a broader agreement that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney hailed as “a new strategic partnership.”

Russia’s aggression under Vladimir Putin means few countries are interested in a deal with Russia, but Putin has long dreamed of ending NATO, and probably can’t believe his luck. On Russian state TV, commentators celebrated Trump’s Greenland threats for “delivering a catastrophic blow to NATO” that is “truly tremendous for Russia.”

and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also.

There are written documents, namely the Greenland Home Rule Arrangement of 1979 and the Self-Government Act of 2009, reflecting the will of the people of Denmark and Greenland. But yes, the reason it’s Denmark and not Sweden, Portugal, the U.K., or another country traces back to who landed boats centuries ago.

Many will note the hypocrisy of a white American president saying that boats landing hundreds of years ago is not a basis for current ownership. But Trump’s stance is consistent with a worldview that rejects sovereignty, rights, law, and related concepts, where there’s no such thing as legitimate claims to land, and ownership is exclusively a question of force.

I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding

An up-is-down, reality-inverting lie. Trump has singlehandedly weakened the alliance, creating more friction inside NATO than ever before, potentially destroying it.

Trump apologists might note that European countries have increased defense spending, which has long been a bipartisan American goal. Except the big increases came in 2014, when Russia took Crimea from Ukraine, and 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion. It was a response to external threat, not American persuasion, and Trump was not president either time.

To the extent he’s gotten Europe to spend more on security, it’s been by convincing them that the U.S. might not honor its treaty commitments, making Europeans feel less secure, and reduce their cooperation with the United States. But the reason American leaders wanted Europe to spend more on defense was to strengthen NATO as a whole, not weaken it.

and now, NATO should do something for the United States

NATO does valuable things for the United States every single day, including intelligence sharing and defense coordination to better address shared challenges. Various members allow U.S. military bases, which America uses to facilitate operations in the Atlantic, the Middle East, and elsewhere. That includes Greenland, where the U.S. military has had a base since the 1950s.

Starting with Dwight Eisenhower, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander has always been a U.S. military officer. Other NATO members have at times placed their forces under at least partial U.S. command, a historical rarity that increases American power.

The only time countries have acted on Article 5 of the NATO charter—”an attack on one is an attack on all”—was in response to the September 11th attacks in the United States, increasing counterterrorism cooperation and sending troops to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Not incidentally, the country that took more casualties per capita than any other U.S. partner in Afghanistan was Denmark. They didn’t deploy because they were attacked, but because America asked for help.

The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT.

Another thing that’s the opposite of true. The United States already had military access to Greenland. Trump’s threats have made the world, and America, less secure.

Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden, and other European countries have sent some troops to Greenland in an attempt to demonstrate their commitment and deter the United States. They aren’t big deployments, but they still take up time, attention, and military assets that could be used to counter Russia or any other external threat. Instead, NATO members have to spend those resources countering NATO’s strongest country.

To the extent there are real security issues involving Greenland, they concern the Arctic, which will become increasingly accessible as the world warms, opening up shipping lanes and resource deposits. Except the Trump administration’s official stance is that climate change is a hoax, so that’s another lie.

Russia has the most land above the Arctic circle and the longest coastline. Everyone else with territory in the Arctic is in NATO: Canada, the Scandinavian countries, and the U.S. via Alaska. The best way, by far, for the United States to advance American interests in the Arctic is partnering with NATO allies, not cutting off U.S. access by antagonizing them. As I wrote a year ago when Trump first started threatening Greenland, Canada, and others, “allies are assets, you idiots.”

Some call Trump’s threats against an ally “insane” or “mad king” behavior—and it is by traditional American values—but it fits an aspiring autocrat who called Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “savvy” and “genius,” an anti-democracy narcissist who sees wealth and glory for himself as a paramount national interest, a liar who frequently screwed over business partners, a convicted criminal who thinks it’s unfair if laws apply to him, and a rapist who likes taking things without consent.

None of that was remotely hidden when Americans decided to elect him a second time.

The United States military captured Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, and while many reactions focus on Maduro himself, that’s mostly beside the point. His government is repressive and illegitimate, having stolen Venezuela’s most recent election in 2024, but there are numerous bad governments in the world. The most important question before forcibly removing a foreign head of state is if it will make things better. On every stated and possible U.S. goal, this will more likely make things worse.

Botching Post-Maduro Venezuela

It’s unclear that removing Maduro means the regime will actually change. A state is a lot more than one person, and the rest of the Venezuelan government appears intact. The general who has led the armed forces since 2014 and deepened the Maduro regime’s control, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López, is still there. So is the powerful Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, who helped Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, thwart an attempted 2002 coup and subsequently consolidate power. Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, has been sworn in as president, and U.S. President Donald Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke to her and “she’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary.” But Rodríguez has publicly denounced the U.S. attack, and even if that’s for show and she supports U.S. efforts—Rodríguez has been under sanctions by the U.S., so that’s a big “if”—it’s hard to see how she could successfully do what the U.S. wants without setting off a civil conflict with Cabello, Padrino, and others.

Trump announced that the U.S. will “run the country,” except there’s no apparent plan to do that…

Read the full thing at The Unpopulist for free here:

The UnPopulist

Trump Is Ensuring That His Venezuela Attack Has No Upside for Anyone

The United States military captured Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, and while many reactions focus on Maduro himself, that’s mostly beside the point. His government is repressive and illegitimate, having stolen Venezuela’s most recent election in 2024, but there are nu…

Read more

4 months ago · 14 likes · 1 comment · Nicholas Grossman

Visiting family in Maryland for the holidays, my wife and I decided to take our kids into Washington DC for a few hours to see some monuments. Before moving to the midwest for work, we lived in DC for five years—in Adams Morgan, if you’re curious—and the trip down memory lane was nice, but when we got to the National Mall, it was weird. I saw signs of, and couldn’t avoid thoughts about, the second Trump administration shifting the United States away from democracy in the direction of personalist dictatorship.

We went to the Lincoln Memorial, and my 4th grader recognized the steps as the spot Martin Luther King Jr. delivered “I Have a Dream.” I couldn’t help but think of Trump, self-styled “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth, and other officials taking steps to resegregate the government, and the Stephen Miller-led deportation campaign cracking down on many non-criminals without even attempting due process. America’s leaders are judging people not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin.

Walking inside the secular temple to America’s other greatest orator, we saw carved into the walls Lincoln’s most famous speeches. I’ve read these words many times, but they took on new meaning, sad yet determined in a way that felt current, not only historic.

There’s the Gettysburg Address:

We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

And the second inaugural:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in… to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Breaking the tension the way only kids can, my 1st grader asked if Lincoln really was as big as the statue.

We walked past some kitted-up National Guard troops, standing in a clump doing nothing, deployed by the president based on lies to assert authoritarian power. The 1st grader asked if they were from a war, and after acknowledging that he was right about the uniform, I said no and mumbled something about how they shouldn’t be here, then changed the subject.

We went past the Korean War memorial, including photos honoring American troops for helping rescue refugees, something the Trump administration despises. Next was the World War II memorial and its unifying, antifascist imagery.

From the Washington Monument, near where I stood with 1.8 million freezing people for Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, my family looked at the Capitol, the first time I saw the building in person since the January 6 attack. The appearance is the same, but it felt different, the site of an insurrection I now teach about in my course on terrorism and insurgency.

The night before I moved out of DC in 2013, I walked around the Capitol, admiring its physical and symbolic beauty. Now I know details of the grounds and entrances like Civil War reenactors know the fields of Gettysburg.

We turned and walked past the White House—”looks like the pictures,” said my 4th grader—and I was glad that, from our angle, we couldn’t see the construction site where the East Wing used to be. Trump illegally tore that down for a tacky ballroom, which the administration assures everyone is being built with money from corporations, not taxpayers, as if being funded by bribes makes it better.

At this point, the kids were getting tired, and we circled back to the car, walking past the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment of the Humanities, which Trump is devastating with illegal cuts. Our route out of town took us by the Kennedy Center—which Trump renamed after himself, also in violation of the law—with its weirdly awkward new lettering saying “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”

Seeing all this in person bothered me more than I expected.

But despite all that, I’m feeling pretty optimistic heading into 2026. It all depends on your perspective. In normal liberal democracy terms, the United States is in bad shape. But in consolidated authoritarianism terms, we’re doing pretty well.

I flipped that mental switch after the 2024 election, evaluating America by how fast it was backsliding. For the first few months of Trump’s second term, things went downhill fast. The regime grabbed more power, Republicans enabled it, Democrats reeled from their electoral loss, and some societal leaders, most prominently tech billionaires, rushed to embrace the new corrupt order.

But as the year progressed, signs emerged that the regime missed its chance to permanently end American democracy. The near future will be tough, but I’m taking solace in these three things:

1—This Could Have Been Popular
In 2024, Trump had his best electoral showing ever, winning the popular vote for the first time after running as a convicted criminal opposed to rule-of-law democracy, with his most explicitly white nationalist campaign yet. In office, he’s corrupted federal law enforcement, usurped Congress’s power of the purse, shifted foreign policy in Russia’s favor, broken a lot of laws, and sent ICE to violate rights. And the American public could’ve been into it.

But they’re not. Obviously some are, but far from a majority. Trump’s approval rating has declined, and he’s underwater on just about every issue. Big “No Kings” protests and Democratic victories in the 2025 elections showed that Trump’s 2024 win was specific to that year’s circumstances—inflation, a global anti-incumbent wave, etc.—not a lasting societal shift.

As frustrating as this may be for people who follow politics and take it seriously, millions of Americans voted for Donald Trump believing that he wouldn’t do the things he kept saying he’d do. That wasn’t a majority of his supporters, but still a significant, election-swinging subset. Now that they’ve seen it in practice—now that they’ve touched the stove—they don’t like it.

2—We Could Have Had Smarter Fascists
Popular support gives would-be dictators room to operate, but the Trump regime’s haphazardness and corruption has done the opposite. The smart move would’ve been throwing economic benefits at the public, especially supporters, while consolidating institutional power behind the scenes.

Instead, Trump and Co. have raised prices with tariffs, raised unemployment with illegal firings and macroeconomic uncertainty, harmed tourism with harassment of foreigners, and undermined healthcare for millions of Americans in ways that are unignorable and likely to get worse. They’ve been so blatant with lawbreaking that they’ve gotten numerous rebukes in court, sometimes even in front of judges inclined towards deference. And their culture-warring has been so heavy-handed that it’s prompted backlash.

For example, the regime and its allies went on a bout of censorship after the killing of Charlie Kirk, and did get some people fired or suspended for speech, but faltered in their public push to get comedian Jimmy Kimmel off the air. More recently, artists have been canceling Kennedy Center performances, and Trump-installed director Ric Grenell has been sputtering about suing them, prompting more to cancel.

3—Limited Capacity
In ways large and small, the United States has seen serious democratic backsliding. But while the Trump regime’s desire for authoritarian dominance is bottomless, its capacity is not. They’ve reduced their own law enforcement and prosecutorial capabilities with political purges and pursuit of personal vengeance. Even as they damage the U.S. Constitutional system, they show their limited ability to assert undemocratic control.

One example is ICE and Border Patrol. They’re hurting people—including legal residents and citizens—violating rights, and imposing a climate of fear in their “mass deportation” campaign. But notice how they pop up in one city at a time, then mostly leave? And how they’ve been frustrated by concerned communities following them with whistles?

Combined, ICE and Border Patrol have maybe 50,000 active officers. Despite low standards and increased funding, they’ve struggled to recruit more. In the United States, there are many jobs for competent people interested in law enforcement, and there aren’t that many Americans who want to brutalize nannies at the playground, daylaborers in a parking lot, or parents at school drop-off.

By comparison, the Nazi SS had about 250,000 members in 1939, before Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland. Unemployment in 1930s Germany cracked 25%, and more than a third of young men were out of work. Even with Trump’s economic damage, unemployment in the U.S. currently sits at 4.6%, a post-pandemic high, but nowhere close to the Great Depression. 2020s America doesn’t have the bitter legacy of World War I, and interwar Germany didn’t have video games or social media.

The fact that I’m making serious comparisons to Nazi Germany highlights how bad things have gotten. And it also shows how much worse they could be. It’s important to keep both of those in mind at once, not growing complacent, nor excessively despairing.

America is in bad shape, as I couldn’t avoid thinking about while walking the National Mall, and will probably get worse. But after this difficult year it looks like the regime doesn’t have it. A lot of America is resisting, and there’s a good chance we eventually get out of this, albeit not without more pain.

A note to Arc Digital readers:

I write to be read, and greatly appreciate all of you who engage with my articles, and especially those who share them, online and off. And because I want as many people reading as possible, I avoid putting things behind a paywall or otherwise restricting content to paying members.

But this, as you can imagine, is not a good way to get paying subscribers. The standard practice is to make about half of the articles members-only, but I don’t want to do that, preferring to keep things I write for Arc and elsewhere available to all.

So if you’ve gotten something out of my writing, please consider tossing some coins in my jar by upgrading to a paid subscription if you are in position to do so. That gives you the ability to leave comments, which I always read and often respond to, but primarily, it will keep nearly everything I write free to read.

Happy New Year. I’d say something like “here’s to a better 2026,” but as you can tell from this article, I’m not sure if that’s in the cards. So here’s to staying sane in 2026, in no small part from solidarity with each other.

Regards,
Nick

The United States military bombed Nigeria on Christmas, reportedly targeting ISIS militants. President Donald Trump claimed the U.S. struck terrorists “who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries.”

Nigeria has been plagued by sectarian violence, but that violence hasn’t primarily targeted Christians — and certainly not at historically unprecedented levels. America’s logic here isn’t clear, but the strikes appear driven more by Trump putting on a show for his evangelical base than trying to reduce violence in Nigeria or even advance U.S. national interests.

It’s the first time…

Read the rest for free at MS.NOW here: https://www.ms.now/opinion/nigeria-strikes-isis-trump-military-evangelicals-christians

Marco Rubio is the only American other than Henry Kissinger to serve as secretary of state and national security advisor at the same time, but he was mostly absent from high-stakes diplomacy over Ukraine.

Trump envoy Steve Witkoff negotiated the recent, Russia-friendly 28-point plan to end the war, and its main advocate in the White House was Vice President JD Vance. Working to help Russia win aligns with Vance’s far-right worldview, and with Trump an aging president who has never prioritized policy, the VP’s views will remain influential.

Trump officials reportedly timed this effort to a domestic corruption scandal in Ukraine, thinking it would force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to swallow unfavorable terms. But instead of sending Rubio or another State Department official, the Trump administration had U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, Vance’s friend and classmate at Yale Law, deliver the plan to Ukraine as an ultimatum.

It didn’t work. When the details came out, European countries were appalled, and with their support, Ukraine responded with a reasonable counteroffer that Russia unsurprisingly rejected because Putin seeks conquest, not peace. Rubio reportedly scrambled to say it was a Russian wishlist the U.S. was factoring in, not an American proposal, before getting roped back in and saying it was a U.S. plan after all. Evidence emerged that Witkoff basically repackaged a Russia-written plan, evencoaching the Russians on how to talk to Trump and undermine upcoming U.S. meetings with Zelensky, and the effort fell apart.

But Vance will likely keep searching for ways to get Ukraine to surrender because…

Read the rest for free at MS.NOW here: https://www.ms.now/opinion/jd-vance-ukraine-russia-putin-zelensky-peace-plan

It’s unclear if Trump administration officials genuinely think they could get Ukraine and Europe to surrender to the Russia-friendly deal they have proposed to end Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression. But after a year of leaning harder on Ukraine than Russia, it was unlikely the Trump administration would conduct a real pressure campaign against Moscow.

Instead, U.S. and Russian officials worked out a 28-point plan that calls on Ukraine to cede large swaths of territory — including some areas that Russia does not currently occupy — and permanently reduces Ukraine’s military capacity. Putin would merely agree to stop attacking and keep Russian troops out of a small demilitarized zone in areas Ukrainian forces withdraw from. Other rewards for Russian aggression include readmittance to the Group of Eight and an economic deal with the U.S.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described the proposal as “an extremely difficult choice. Either the loss of dignity” — surrender to Russia — “or the risk of losing a key partner,” the United States. But with support from Europe, Ukraine will presumably reject at least parts of the proposal as nonstarters.

By talking directly to Russia without participation from Ukraine or its European backers, the Trump administration…

Read the rest for free at MS NOW here: https://www.ms.now/opinion/trump-ukraine-russia-peace-plan-putin-win

The United States and Russia worked out a 28-point plan to end the Ukraine war, without including Ukraine or Europe in the talks. The deal is very friendly to Russia, framing the conflict in ways that align with Russian propaganda. The U.S. is expected to pressure Ukraine to accept it, but they probably won’t since the deal includes multiple provisions Ukraine previously labeled nonstarters.

I went through the agreement point by point, with deal provisions in bold, and my quick reactions in italics below each.

1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.
This is the biggest “concession” Russia makes, a (passive voice) acknowledgement that Ukraine is a sovereign state, in contrast to nearly four years of Russian leaders saying Ukraine is not a real country and trying to subjugate it.

2. A comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.
What ambiguities? I could make some guesses, but the agreement doesn’t say. And why would Ukraine and Europe need to promise non-aggression against Russia? The only aggression this century came from Russia. This reads like “Russia’s many post-Cold War grievances and conspiracy theories deserve validation.”

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries and NATO will not expand further.
This treats European countries entering into a voluntary defensive alliance with each other as equivalent to Russia launching a brutal war of conquest against Ukraine, pretending that both are “aggression.”

4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.
How can the United States mediate a dialogue between Russia and NATO when the U.S. is NATO’s biggest member? In the Kremlin’s dreams, the transatlantic alliance is no more, and the Ukraine war is the great powers of America and Russia settling spheres of influence, like 19th century empires. In Trump, they got an American president to adopt a version of that frame, breaking with previous U.S. leaders of either party.

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.
From whom? Made reliable by what?

6. The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel.
More specific than most provisions in the deal — which indicates which parts Putin and Trump value most — this would reduce Ukraine’s current military capacity, leaving it more open for a future Russian attack. The agreement calls for no restrictions on Russia’s armed forces.

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.
One of Russia’s big asks is that Moscow gets a veto over Ukraine’s international relationships. The deal calls for enshrining an aspect of that in Ukraine’s constitution.

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.
So there’s no security guarantee, or at least not one with the tripwires that would make it credible.

9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.
Gee, wow, Poland can station its own fighter jets on its own territory, and can give permission to international partners to station there as well. Thanks for the permission, Moscow, but it’s not up to you.

10. The US guarantee:
-The US will receive compensation for the guarantee;
-If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee;
-If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked;
-If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.
The only details about the supposed U.S. security “guarantee” are that the U.S. gets compensation — so it’s more like a protection racket than a security guarantee, and therefore less credible — and things that would end the guarantee, some of which look like potential excuses for reneging in the future. A “decisive coordinated military response” against Russia is not remotely credible. Does anyone seriously believe Trump will bomb Russia if Russia attacks Ukraine again? Or that any U.S. president would? Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden clearly supported Ukraine against Russia, but opposed American or allied forces entering the conflict.

11. Ukraine is eligible for EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while this issue is being considered.
Gee, wow, thanks Moscow and Washington, the Europeans have your permission to determine membership in their own organization.

12. A powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to:
-The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centers, and artificial intelligence.
-The United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernize, and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.
-Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernization of cities and residential areas.
-Infrastructure development.
-Extraction of minerals and natural resources.
-The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.
Reconstruction aid would be good. But it’s notable how much the proposal seems to serve American economic interests as defined by Trump and his wealthy backers. The U.S. partially takes over Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, outsiders get access to Ukraine’s minerals, and there’s specific mention of data centers and AI.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:
-The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis.
-The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centres, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.
-Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.
The economic benefits to Russia in the deal are larger than the benefits to Ukraine. Russia gets rewarded for its aggression with instant readmittance to the G8, which kicked Russia out in 2014 after Russia aggressively took Crimea from Ukraine. And Russia gets a cooperation deal with the United States. Once again, data centers and AI get specific mention.

14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:
-$100bn (£76bn) in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine;
-The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100bn (£76bn) to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.
Again, reconstruction is good, but the most noteworthy detail is that the U.S. must profit from reconstruction. Europe, excluded from the talks, is expected to contribute money, some of which will go to U.S. profits.

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement.
More U.S.-Russia cooperation treating Eastern Europe as their imperial sphere of influence. The agreement does not envision any security working group that includes Ukraine or Europe.

16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and violations of European sovereignty are already illegal under treaties Russia has signed (namely the UN Charter). And Putin’s Russia is not a rule of law society with checks and balances, so writing a non-aggression promise into Russian domestic law means little, especially since the Kremlin often lies that it is a victim of aggression.

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.
Sure, fine. Extending U.S.-Russia arms control treaties would be good. But this is another provision treating a supposed Russia-Ukraine peace deal as merely part of broader U.S.-Russia diplomacy.

18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Already guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine gave up inherited Soviet nukes in exchange for promises that Russia, the U.S., and U.K. would all respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia did not.

19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the IAEA, and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine - 50:50.
Ukraine loses control of a nuclear power plant in a part of Ukraine that even this Russia-friendly deal acknowledges as Ukrainian. Russia gets half the electricity it produces.

20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programs in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice:
-Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.
-Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.
-All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.
Seems positive at first glance, but to anyone who knows the situation, this part is very Russia friendly. Kremlin lies about persecution of “Russian speakers” in Ukraine was one of its original excuses for invasion. And the Russian government often calls people it doesn’t like “Nazis,” including Ukrainian president Zelensky and various Ukrainian leaders. More than anything, this provision is validation of Russian propaganda, and a potential future excuse for Russia to break the deal.

21. Territories:
-Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognised as de facto Russian, including by the United States.
-Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.
-Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions.
-Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone.
Incredibly pro-Russia. Ukraine must concede territory Russia currently occupies and some territory Russia has been unable to take. Areas of Ukraine that the Ukrainian military withdraws from shall be considered part of Russia, but officially demilitarized under the agreement. That DMZ could be considered a concession from Russia, but only if one starts from the premise that eastern Ukraine is Moscow’s, so keeping troops out of part of it is giving something up.

22. After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.
Russia must pinky promise not to attack Ukraine a third time. Plus there’s another warning that security guarantees for Ukraine could evaporate, implying that Russia faced some sort of aggression, which is a lie.

23. Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnieper [Dnipro] River for commercial activities, and agreements will be reached on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea.
Gee, wow, Ukraine can use a river in Ukraine for commercial activity, and can use international waters for international shipping. Thanks for the permission, Moscow.

24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve outstanding issues:
-All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an ‘all for all’ basis.
-All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.
-A family reunification program will be implemented.
-Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.
Would be nice, if there were any reason to be confident Russia will follow through. All the language is in future tense, indicating a vision that’s subject to negotiation, including potentially bad faith.

25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.
Ukraine has had to suspend elections while under invasion, so holding a vote would be good, but it’s up to Ukraine, not to the U.S. or Russia. Given that one of Russia’s war aims was ousting the Zelensky government, a quick vote in Ukraine could help accomplish that, while giving Russia an opportunity to manipulate the election similar to its efforts in Georgia, Moldova, and elsewhere.

26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.
Russia is absolved of its many war crimes, and the International Criminal Court indictment of Vladimir Putin will disappear.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations.
So the whole thing is monitored and guaranteed by Donald Trump personally? Does that mean it ends after Trump leaves office? Even before that, he has a long record of what I’ll generously call inconsistency regarding international agreements, so this makes the deal less credible rather than more. There’s a similar provision in the recent Gaza deal, both of which seem aimed more at glorifying Trump than at implementing the hard parts of the agreements, which both mostly leave TBD.

28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.
They probably won’t do that. Then what?

By going into a government shutdown rather than validating President Donald Trump’s lawbreaking with a vote for his budget even as the White House openly ignores parts of existing budgets, Democrats were finally acting like a real opposition. With large No Kings protests followed by resounding Democratic victories in state and local elections, it looked like the public approved. Then eight Democratic senators decided to fold, giving Republicans the votes to move forward in exchange for little more than Republicans saying they’ll hold a separate vote on healthcare that Democrats will presumably lose. That appeasement displays a dangerous misunderstanding of the moment, as if America still has a healthy rule-of-law democracy.

The Democratic Party is the one available vehicle for countering Trump’s authoritarian takeover. Pro-democracy Americans desperately need a real opposition, one that adopts a mindset more suited to the democratic backsliding we find ourselves in.

The normal democracy mindset says Democrats shouldn’t fight unless they have a clear path to a policy win. But that’s not possible, since the White House, with Congressional Republicans’ support, already claims the blatantly illegal power of rescission, usurping Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse.

Republicans control every part of the federal government, so why isn’t it their responsibility to govern? Why is it the minority’s responsibility to save Republicans from themselves, let alone in exchange for virtually nothing?

If Democrats kept holding out, they could have succeeded if:

1. Trump folds, credibly committing to follow budget laws. (Very unlikely, probably impossible.)

2. Republicans make tangible policy concessions, such as on healthcare, establishing a point of leverage Democrats could use if Trump reneges.

3. Republicans pass a budget themselves, using a simple Senate majority to change filibuster rules as they have multiple times before, which would give them full ownership of any ensuing problems, and signal to the public that Democrats oppose those problems. Plus it’d make it easier for Democrats to pass a new Voting Rights Act or Supreme Court reform if they ever regain power.

Instead of holding out for any of those, the Appeasement Eight—and by extension the whole Democratic caucus, since minority whip Dick Durbin is one of the eight voting to fold, and minority leader Chuck Schumer made no apparent effort to stop them—gave Republicans bipartisan cover, and established another point of leverage Trump has over Congressional Democrats. It arguably rendered the entire shutdown pointless, all pain for no gain.

That pain was real. Many federal employees—air traffic controllers, military members, park rangers, etc.—were missing or about to miss paychecks, and Americans were losing out on their services. The FAA grounded about 10% of flights at major airports, creating travel delays. Billions of dollars in SNAP food assistance payments were held up, raising serious risks of millions going hungry.

In a normal democracy it’d make sense to prioritize reducing that harm in the short term. But America doesn’t have one anymore.

Case in point: The law already requires the government to deliver SNAP benefits in a shutdown, drawing down a fund marked for that purpose. The White House refused, then defied direct court orders to distribute the funds, and was taking the case to the Supreme Court.

In a rapidly backsliding democracy, harm is happening no matter what. Therefore, preventing authoritarian consolidation is the most harm-reducing move.

The Democrats decided not to make Trump’s lawbreaking and rights violations their main pitch to the public, instead emphasizing healthcare premiums. And it appeared to be working. More of the public held Republicans responsible for the shutdown, and Trump’s net approval rating declined. Around 75% of Americans wanted Obamacare subsidies extended, including nearly half of MAGA voters. Among that 75%, Americans blamed Trump and the GOP for jeopardizing health insurance by an overwhelming 53 points.

In theory, Democrats could fight again when the stop-gap spending bill runs out next year, but they’d do so from a weaker position, having shown Trump that just a few days of disrupting air travel can get them to quit for nothing. And Democrats waited until after the 2025 election to fold, suggesting they knew it would bother voters, dampening enthusiasm.

But as a purely electoral question, folding on the shutdown probably isn’t a big deal. Republicans will get the damage to health insurance markets they want, Trump will continue breaking laws and violating rights, the economy will likely keep declining due to Trump’s tariffs and corruption, and Americans are more likely to take it out on the party in charge when they vote in Congressional elections next year.

But thinking that the next election is all that matters is part of the problem, more of that outdated normal democracy mindset. Even if Democrats win at least one house of Congress, it’ll be after another year of Trump degrading checks and balances, rendering it a weakened institution. They should be defending it now as best they can, instead of facilitating Trump’s destruction.

The main divide in the Democratic Party today is not between liberals and leftists, or moderates and progressives. Big wins last week for moderate former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger in Virginia and democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani in New York City shows the party has room for all of them, and is stronger for it. The main Democratic divide is between those who recognize Trump’s growing authoritarianism and want to fight it, and those who want to weakly acquiesce.

One of the Appeasement Eight, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, explained that some Republican senators told her they’d work with Democrats after the government reopens, and the White House did too, “so now we’ll see if they’re really going to work with us.”

They won’t. Believing a vague promise from proven liars is willfully naive, like Charlie Brown telling himself Lucy won’t move the football again.

Another appeaser, Sen. Angus King, explained his decision with, “Standing up to Donald Trump didn’t work.”

Well sure, when you prematurely fold rather than see a fight through, you fail. And why should Trump opponents vote for anyone who thinks standing up to Trump isn’t worth doing?

The 2025 elections and the No Kings protests show that the public is with the fighters. So pro-democracy Americans should use 2026 to primary any Democrat from the Don’t Fight caucus and demand new Congressional leadership ahead of the bigger fight in 2028, when there’s a risk the Trump regime has consolidated enough authoritarian power that elections are not free and fair.

The 2025 elections went very well for Democrats, and pro-democracy Americans more broadly. Each state and local race had its own dynamics, but the overall picture is a repudiation of Donald Trump’s presidency. The popular energy displayed in large No Kings protests last month translated into votes.

In just about every possible way, the election undermined media narratives that treat Trump and the Republicans’ narrow 2024 win as a sweeping referendum on U.S. culture. In that narrative, the American people, boosted by a deeply conservative generation of young men, rose up to reject diversity, immigration, and racial and gender equality.

It was always absurdly overdetermined, acting like Trump’s 2024 popular vote plurality of 49.8% was a large majority, and underrating the fluky factors of inflation and a global anti-incumbency wave in the aftermath of COVID. But endless repetition got various people—especially some influential elites in business, media, law, and academia—to believe the narrative and act as if it’s true, thereby making it closer to real. 2025 election results show it isn’t.

Virginia Republican gubernatorial nominee Winsome Earle-Sears was among the candidates who ran hard on anti-trans stances, taking out multiple hate-stoking ads. It flopped. Democratic candidate Abigail Spanberger won by nearly 15 points, and every county in Virginia shifted blue by at least four points, with some as high as 16.

And it wasn’t due to low turnout. In the comparable 2021 election, one year after Biden and the Democrats won nationally, Republican Glenn Youngkin won Virginia’s gubernatorial election by two points, with about 1.66 million votes. With some votes left to count, Spanberger’s total is already over 1.9 million.

Trump-endorsed New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo and his supporters ran hard on bigotry—saying Muslim Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani would cheer another 9/11, putting out AI-generated ads of Black and Latino criminals for Mamdani, etc.—as well as anti-communist fearmongering. It flopped. New York saw the highest turnout for a mayoral election since the 1960s, and Mamdani got more than 50% in a three-candidate race. He won over a million votes, more than the entire population of South Dakota or Delaware.

New Jersey governor was a closely watched contest, since Kamala Harris beat Trump there last year by less than 6 points, and Democrats were trying to hold the governorship for a third term in a row. It was a blowout, with Democrat Mikie Sherrill winning by about 13 points.

Swing state Georgia, which went for Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024, elected Democrats to statewide office for the first time since 2011. Alicia Johnson and Peter Hubbard defeated Republican incumbents to win seats on the state’s Public Services Commission by running on the high cost of energy.

In light of 2025 results, votes in the previous election look more like 2024-specific choices than signs of a lasting cultural change. While pundits rushed to proclaim a “vibe shift”—in particular asserting that young men and Latinos moving towards Trump was due to a lasting conservatism formulated in negative reaction to an excessively woke left—the results just one year later show the opposite.

Young men voted for Democratic candidates by large margins. Spanberger will be Virginia’s first woman governor, and according to exit polls, won 18-29 year old men, 57 to 42. Similarly, in New Jersey, Sherrill won them 56 to 44. Mamdani, the most left-wing high-profile Democrat, got 68% of young men.

And all three Democrats got over 80% of young women.

Counties in New Jersey and Virginia with high Latino populations swung hard towards Democrats, with many shifting more than 10 points compared to 2024. Spanberger and Sherrill both won over 65% of Latino voters, with huge margins among women and solid majorities among men. Mamdani won Latinos by seven points, interestingly doing better with men than women.

These results wreck the argument from some prominent centrist commentators, such as Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias, that Democrats should react to 2024 by accepting that they lost the culture and need to compromise on core values to win again. Be more anti-immigrant, be more anti-trans, be more positive towards anti-democracy bigots like Charlie Kirk. Not as much as Republicans, but move in that direction, since that’s supposedly where the American people are.

Nope. It was always bad advice, not just immoral but bad strategy too. Few voters who prioritize bigotry want the diet version, and trying to appease them alienates parts of the Democratic coalition. Yesterday’s vote shows that the path to defeating Trumpism is not accommodating it, but opposing it with the values of freedom, equality, and affordability.

Institutional Power

America still has a corrupt, lawbreaking, rights-violating, Constitution-disdaining fascist in the White House, and his enablers still control Congress. So there’s a long way to go. But pro-democracy Americans strengthened their position by gaining or retaining institutional power.

Virginia had a Trump-sycophantic governor in Republican Glenn Youngkin. Now it has a national security-minded Democrat in former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger, plus a sizable majority in both houses of the state legislature. Anti-Trump leaders in a state that borders Washington DC and contains a lot of federal workers is an asset.

New York City had a corrupt mayor in Trump’s pocket, since current leader Eric Adams had been caught taking bribes from Turkey, and Trump had the Justice Department drop the charges in exchange for Adams backing the president’s anti-immigrant push. Now America’s biggest city will have an openly defiant mayor who celebrates pluralism, displayed talent at online and in-person communication, and clearly gets under Trump’s skin.

Voters in swing state Pennsylvania retained three rule-of-law supreme court judges, defeating a deep-pocketed Republican push opposed to voting rights and abortion. Pennsylvania has been a focus of Trumpist lies, conspiracy theories, and bad faith election lawsuits, and Republicans unsubtly aimed to install judges who’d go along with that in the next congressional and especially presidential election. Voters didn’t let them.

California passed Proposition 50, allowing the state to gerrymander as a counter to the aggressive Republican gerrymanders in Texas and other red states. And here’s where things get especially interesting.

In normal circumstances, gerrymandering is bad for democracy, letting politicians give disproportionate power to “their” voters while effectively disenfranchising others, often racial minorities. But in America’s current circumstances, letting Trump and the Republicans manipulate their way to consolidated authoritarianism would be much worse.

Enabled by a Supreme Court majority hostile to the Voting Rights Act and its goal of racial equality, and prompted by Trump’s demands, Republican-controlled states are moving to redraw Congressional districts to try to win themselves a disproportionate number of seats in 2026, thereby retaining the House of Representatives. With Prop 50, California voters gave the state permission to retaliate, likely balancing out Texas’ artificial Republican gains with artificial Democratic gains.

Except there’s a big wrinkle. Gerrymandering can gain seats by spreading your party’s vote across more districts, but that dilutes your vote in each one you win. Imagine your party wins one district by 11 points, and loses a neighboring district by 1, for a combined vote of +10. With the same turnout, gerrymandering can turn that into two districts you win by 5. But not if your overall vote share goes down.

Republicans are redistricting based on 2024 numbers, and the inaccurate belief that Trump’s win revealed a growing right-wing majority. If next year’s midterms see turnout similar to this year’s off-cycle elections—a reasonable expectation, since the economy and Trump’s authoritarian abuses will probably keep getting worse, and his cult of personality has never turned out voters when he’s not on the ballot—then Republican gerrymanders may end up creating more competitive House districts rather than more safely red ones.

Overall, things will get worse before they get better. Trump and the Republicans will likely dial harder into authoritarianism, media control, and attempted election manipulation, seeking ways to retain power in the face of a popular backlash. But as the 2025 elections showed, that backlash is large and formidable—a popular front that ranges from democratic socialists to neoconservatives, with a lot of energized liberals and others in between.

It’s enough people power to, in time, pull America back from the authoritarian brink.

October 18 saw one of the largest protests in US history, with about seven million people across 2,700 locations expressing opposition to President Donald Trump’s authoritarian abuses under the label No Kings. In the aftermath, some have asked what, if anything, the protests accomplished. For anyone wondering about or encountering that question—in anything from genuine inquiry to sneering dismissal—this article offers an answer.

The political emergency of the United States backsliding from democracy into fascism isn’t over, of course. But who thought it would be? I doubt many No Kings protestors decided to attend while thinking “this will fix everything on its own, by the end of the week the country will be in great shape, I’ll never have to do anything else.”

Gaining control of governmental institutions requires elections, but a lot of the fight against authoritarianism is happening in civil society. With that in mind, here are seven things Saturday’s No Kings protests accomplished:

1–Tons of Americans Think Something is Wrong

The Trump regime’s efforts to control civil society depend on fear. They sue media companies, withhold university funding, send masked ICE officers to violate rights, and pump out an endless stream of propaganda. But they don’t have the capacity to impose their will on all American society. To make up the difference, they project an aura of popularity, domination, and inevitability. It’s false, but some buy it, and obey in anticipation, making the regime’s totalitarian desires closer to real.

Massive protests punctured that image. Millions of Americans showed they aren’t afraid, or if they are, that they won’t be intimidated. Trump may fantasize about shooting protestors, but soldiers didn’t try to put the demonstrations down with force, indicating he isn’t confident enough in his undemocratic power to order it. And counterprotests were nearly nonexistent.

The slogan “No Kings” is easy to grasp and aligns the opposition with America’s founding principles. Specific messages and demands vary, but that doesn’t really matter. The main message is unambiguous: Tons of Americans are not okay with what’s happening.

About two million more attended these protests than the first No Kings in June, showing that the opposition has momentum. We the People aren’t with Trump.

And the news broke through, reaching less engaged Americans. A YouGov poll found that a whopping 33% of the country either participated in the protests or know someone who did. No Kings was a topic, positive or negative, in all major information streams. People heard about it.

2–Opposition Solidarity

Authoritarian propaganda and abuses of power weigh on people. It can feel like “everyone” is okay with it, and “no one” cares. Or close.

That’s why being around so many others who object feels affirming. Big cities, small towns, red states, blue states — anti-Trump Americans showed up everywhere. If you have a problem with all this, you’re very far from alone.

I bet the protests made a lot of people feel a little better, which means something. Authoritarians want you to despair, and check out. The contrasting show of popular opposition is energizing.

3–Organizing

People met each other at protests, including some getting politically active for the first time, making connections that could blossom. The effect could be more pronounced in redder areas of the country where pro-democracy Americans might not personally know many who share their views.

For politics at the ground level, the unusually large protests presented an opportunity. Various organizers moved through crowds, getting signatures, passing out pamphlets, and seeking new members.

If just 1% of protest attendees signed up for something, and only a quarter of them follow through, that’d still be more than 15,000 new members, a banner day for organizing.

4–Entirely Peaceful

In advance of the protests, Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and various MAGA figures denounced No Kings as violent antifa, pro-Hamas, anti-American radical leftist terrorists. The demonstrations were obviously not that—with tons of regular people, goofy inflatable costumes, and American flags—making Trump and Co. appear weak and ridiculous. Hardcore MAGA won’t care, of course, but some outside their bubble will notice.

The New York and San Diego police departments were among those that announced zero protest-related arrests. That not only speaks to the peaceful nature of the protests, it shows where big city police forces stand. They could have tried to sell Trump’s narrative by generating some disorderly conduct arrests. Instead, they undermined his message by publicizing the absence of violence.

5–Rattled Trump and MAGA

Saturday’s peaceful mass protest is one of the rare times reality overwhelmed Trump’s lies. MAGA largely dropped the fearmongering about violence, scrambling to find something else to say. A White House spokesperson tried telling reporters “who cares.” The president showed that he’s among those who cares, insisting he can invoke the Insurrection Act if he wants to, and shared an AI video of himself wearing a crown, flying a plane that drops poop on a crowd of protestors in a US city.

That looks like flailing, like media manipulators who lost control of the narrative and are having a negative emotional reaction. A video of the president as a king shitting on Americans might appeal to online trolls, but it got mainstream attention, and I doubt it played well outside the far right internet bubble.

6–Make Societal Elites Think Twice

Some leaders in business, media, higher education, and other parts of civil society reacted to the 2024 election like it was a binding referendum on American culture. As the Atlantic’s Adam Serwer argues, America’s elites have been surrendering, even as much of the public has not, easing Trump’s path into authoritarianism.

But elites can be pushed in the other direction too. A good example is when Trump and MAGA tried to get late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel off the air. Facing a consumer and artist backlash, parent company Disney quickly reversed course, putting Kimmel back on, defying the demand for censorship.

The massive No Kings turnout sends a louder version of that message. For societal leaders trying to sense which way the winds are blowing, the protests countered pro-Trump (or at least pro-acquiescence) pressure coming from their social circles and information streams.

7–Strengthen the Spine of Elected Democrats

Similarly, the protests’ size and geographic diversity displayed an energy Democrats will want to ride. No Kings shows that calls for opposition instead of appeasement aren’t just from activists and online political junkies, but from millions of regular voters too. That will strengthen elected Democrats’ spines for the fights to come.

In the short term, No Kings likely increased Democrats’ confidence, steeling them against bailing out Trump and the Republican Congressional majorities in the current government shutdown.

These seven impacts won’t transform the country on their own. But if you think none of it matters, you don’t understand the situation we’re in. U.S. Constitutional democracy is broken, and politics has reverted to a deeper, less ordered power struggle. Trump and MAGA end when a critical mass of the country opposes them. No one knows where that tipping point is, but it all adds up.

In a year with many losses for pro-democracy Americans, No Kings was a win.