As a reminder, we're now posting the questions on Friday night, and then the answers Saturday morning. The rough targets are 10:00 p.m. PT and 5:00 a.m. PT.
S.B. in Granby, MA, asks: What can you say to convince me that there will still be a free and fair election in 4 years, or even free and fair elections in 2 years? Gerrymandering seems like the tip of the iceberg. Clearly, the current administration will stop at nothing to secure power. I know states run elections, but too many states are in the bag for 47. The Right is determined to stop as many left and liberal votes as possible, and they are showing us that they have no qualms about breaking laws to carry out their agenda.
(V) & (Z) answer: It is true that certain political parties have been working to undermine the fairness of American elections for decades, if not generations. So, if you mean "free and fair election" in the sense of "an election with absolutely no elements that deprive some people of their franchise," well, that's not going to happen. However, it is also the case that you can count the number of 100% free and fair elections in American history on one hand, with all five fingers left over. Sometime the shenanigans are more profound, and sometimes they are less so, but they're always there in one way or another.
If what you mean, on the other hand, is that the elections will be canceled in 2 years, or in 4, that is not going to happen, for at least three reasons. The first is that, as you note, states run elections. There is no chance that blue states like California or New York or Illinois will forego elections. There is no chance that purple states like Virginia or North Carolina or Wisconsin will forego elections. There is little chance that red states like Utah or Montana or Ohio will forego elections—even in those places, people would rebel.
The second is that the election process unfolds over a very long time. If Donald Trump and/or his acolytes were to try to cut the process off at the start of the cycle (say, summer 2025 or summer 2027), then they would be laying their cards on the table, and people would rebel. If they were to wait until the ballots were cast to declare the results null and void, not only would people rebel, but there would be duly elected winners who would not go gentle into that good night, and who would be legally entitled to the offices they had won. Do you think the next president-elect is going to take a pass on power and immortality because Trump said so? Do you think the military and the federal bureaucracy will keep taking orders from someone whose term has reached its legal end?
The third is that presidents are not the only people elected during elections. All those other offices have to be filled, too. And if the elections are declared in abeyance, then the entire House and one-third of the Senate are no longer entitled to their seats, and no longer have any official basis for exercising their powers. There may be a few Jim Jordans and Tommy Tubervilles who are willing to cede their power to Il Trumpe, but there are not that many members like that, even on the GOP side of the aisle.
J.G. in Eugene, OR, asks: I read an article this week in Politico that gives four ways Donald Trump could stay in power beyond the end of his current term. This is a terrifying thought, but what do you think the chances are? I'm hoping for zero.
(V) & (Z) answer: We have absolutely no use for that article, and wish Politico and other sites would stop writing stupid crap like that, because all it does is stir the pot and make people anxious.
There is only one (mildly) plausible way that Donald Trump extends his time as president beyond January 20, 2029, and that is by trying to take advantage of the not-entirely-settled question of whether or not he can serve as VP once his 8 years as president are complete. It is at least possible that he could get elected as VP on a sham ticket, then have the president-elect resign, then re-assume the presidency.
However, just because something is possible does not mean it is likely, or even that it is particularly plausible. For this scam to work, the Supreme Court would have to sign off. And the voting public would have to re-elect that ticket, knowing full well it's a sham and an end-run around the Constitution. Oh, and Trump's running mate—say, J.D. Vance—would have to willingly give up the presidency, even after having been legally elected to the office. This is not the behavior of extremely ambitious people (see, for example, what Aaron Burr tried to do in 1800, and his claim on the presidency was many orders of magnitude shakier than Vance's would be).
We will note two other things. The first is that, in 4 years, Trump will be 4 years older, 4 years unhealthier, 4 years more tired, and 4 years more mentally degraded. He may well not be up for additional service, even if he and his acolytes wish it. The second is that, at the end of his term, there was all kinds of talk about whether or not he would actually leave office. And what did he do? After a lame attempt to block the certification of the results, he... left office.
T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, asks: Talking to some friends who are rightly concerned about what Donald Trump may do, I found myself concerned about paranoia. For instance, one friend posited that Trump may send Barack Obama to Guantanamo Bay. I do not find such thoughts useful. Could it happen? Yes. Will it happen? I find it extremely doubtful. But is it worth talking about before such an event occurs? I prefer to get angry at what Trump actually does, not what he says he will do or what one might speculate he will do. The question here is, when do legitimate concerns about what Trump might do verge into unproductive fear?
(V) & (Z) answer: There is a sizable volume of stuff that Trump will try to do, or has already tried to do (like freeze federal spending, conduct mass deportations, impose tariffs, etc.). There is an even more sizable volume of stuff that he'll talk about doing, but that isn't serious or isn't realistic (acquiring Greenland, cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget, replacing Obamacare). And there is a still-more-sizable-than-that volume of stuff that one can imagine he might do, if one is thinking creatively.
We think you have the right of it when you concern yourself exclusively with things in the first category. There is nothing anyone can do about things in the second and third categories, which are all-but-impossible for him to pull off, anyhow. Spending time and energy dwelling on unrealistic fears will just impose an emotional and psychic cost without actually achieving anything.
J.Y. in Salem, OR, asks: From what I have read and seen, many farmers don't believe that Donald Trump will actively launch raids against, and deport, the thousands of undocumented workers currently working in agriculture jobs. Head ICE Thug Tom Homan seems to have begun his purge in Chicago, with other major cities next. Given that the agriculture industry is mainly in red states and red areas of states, do you think there may be an unintended consequence of undocumented workers fleeing to red states (or areas) where they have less chance of being deported and more opportunities for work? Much to the chagrin of the MAGA cult, of course.
(V) & (Z) answer: It's certainly possible. Team Trump is very bad about thinking through the short-term implications of their choices. They are even worse about thinking through the long-term implications.
G.L. in Oviedo, FL, asks: Can there be any doubt now that Trump knew about Project 2025 and the people involved in it and that he is moving to enact it?
(V) & (Z) answer: There can be no doubt now, and there was no doubt before the election. We wrote many times that Trump's claims of ignorance were lies. The main drivers behind Project 2025 were his own flunkies, Stephen Miller and Russell Vought. He knew very well what they were up to, even if they didn't report back every week on their progess.
D.M.R. in Omaha, NE, asks: It is painfully obvious—to me, anyway—that the recent words and deeds of Donald Trump are not of his own doing. It simply does not pass the smell test.
Tell us, oh great one(s), visitor(s) from the East, seer(s), sage(s), soothsayer(s), who, specifically, (do you think) is behind the curtain pulling the strings and working the levers?
Of course the Interwebs are all abuzz with countless speculations, from the simple and arguably believable to the conspiratorial, to the patently absurd. I would like to hear an educated and informed opinion, please.(V) & (Z) answer: We are not willing to go so far as to say that Trump is just a puppet who is being propped up while others actually run the government. It's possible, but we really don't think the administration is there, yet. We are more than willing to say that Trump has allowed numerous people to establish power bases within his administration, and that he is a terribly ineffective manager who has no particular idea how to rein these people in. So, they are acting as powers unto themselves.
As to the people who have carved out fiefdoms, and are significantly driving policy, we don't think it's particularly secretive or mysterious, or that you have to get conspiratorial to figure it out. The staffing stuff, like pushing federal employees to resign "voluntarily," is coming from Elon Musk and the DOGEys. The budget stuff, like the spending freeze, is coming from Russell Vought, who is once and future leader of OMB and was also a key architect of Project 2025. The anti-immigrant stuff, like the deportations, is coming from Stephen Miller and Tom Homan.
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: This has become a hot topic of debate among my friends: What would be better (worse?) for America and the world? If Donald Trump continues as president or if J.D. Vance gets an unexpected promotion to the presidency?
(V) & (Z) answer: Vance is more competent than Trump, but he's also less easily manipulated. If he were to assume power, the influence of Elon Musk and Stephen Miller, in particular, would be significantly curtailed.
That said, Vance would immediately set his sights on being reelected. And he would conclude, probably rightly, that his only hope is to claim the MAGA mantle. So, we presume he would continue the policies of Trumpism, but with the aforementioned greater competence, and also with a much greater ability to work with Congress. To us, that suggests that for non-MAGA Americans, Vance would be worse than Trump.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: Lots of people are talking about how Convicted Fellon Serial Sex Abuser Trump may have broken the law with his firing of the inspectors general. The way the law is written seems like there is no discussion, he did break the law. However, the Supreme Court ruled that anything a president does that is related to their job as president is not illegal.
So, Congress can make any laws they want but a President can completely ignore them? It also calls into question the ability to impeach a president. If presidents cannot commit high crimes or misdemeanors, then there is no basis for impeachment. If I haven't misunderstood the situation then it is only a matter of time before he realizes that. So, what am I missing?(V) & (Z) answer: You are missing two things. The first is that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States protects Trump from being criminally prosecuted for his official actions. It does nothing to keep his actions from being challenged civilly. In other words, he cannot be put in prison for firing the inspectors general, but his decision can certainly be overturned by a federal judge or judges.
The other thing you're missing is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" and "crimes" are not the same thing. Indeed, as Gerald Ford once observed, "high crimes and misdemeanors means anything Congress wants it to mean." Even more importantly, an impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, even if the act that triggered it happens to be criminal. So, a prohibition on criminally prosecuting a president does nothing to protect that president from being impeached and/or convicted.
M.S. in Megève, France, asks: Of trans people serving in the U.S. armed forces you wrote:
This has been studied carefully, often by people who are not at all trans-friendly. And the conclusion has invariably been that trans soldiers do absolutely no harm to the armed forces, and do nothing to undermine "readiness and lethality," although the Trump XO will certainly claim otherwise. At the same time, trans Americans are a useful source of new recruits. Some very promising folks who are trans are interested in getting away from hostile environments, and perhaps with getting financial support for hormone treatments and/or transitioning. So, it's a win-win for both the armed forces and the recruits.I was hoping you would reference these studies, as literally 100% of my friends who are in the armed services disagree with this thesis. And these are not rednecks; most are officers in the USAF, many deployed in conflict zones. They say that when a solider changes gender it impacts the entire unit for up to 12 months, if not more, that it's not as benign as people who are not in the military believe, and that Hegseth's and Trump's positions aren't without (some) merit.
(V) & (Z) answer: We will start by noting that when the armed services were integrated in the 1950s, plenty of white soldiers said it could not be done, it would affect morale, it would ruin unit cohesion, etc. The same happened, later on, with gay soldiers and with women in combat roles. Perhaps these examples indicate that soldiers in the field are not the best judges. Or perhaps they indicate that soldiers have it within themselves to decide exactly how well, or not well, they will adapt to a particular change. All we know for sure is that Black soldiers and gay soldiers and women combat soldiers all worked out just fine.
In any event, the key study was conducted in 2015-16, by RAND, which was commissioned by the Department of Defense, and which regularly produces reports on defense-related issues. RAND's 112-page final report is here, in PDF form, or you can read a rundown of the main findings here. The report authors looked at other nations who had already allowed trans soldiers to serve, as well as the United States' experience with gay soldiers and with women combat soldiers, and found there was little to no impact on unit readiness or cohesion with the new additions. They also found that warnings about the costs of gender-affirming care were overblown, observing that the military spends more than ten times as much money on Viagra each year, and that nobody seems to be concerned about that.
There have since been numerous studies done by university-affiliated academics, and also funded by the DoD. The best-known of those is here; the authors found that there is broad support for trans soldiers among military personnel, and that vocal opponents of trans soldiers give a false impression of where personnel, on the whole, stand on the issue. Their numbers suggest that officers are more likely to be anti-trans than enlisted personnel, and that the branch that is most anti-trans is the Air Force. So, it is not altogether unsurprising that your Air Force officer friends are not trans-friendly.
Z.C. in Beverly Hills, CA, asks: Can you walk us through what would happen if Donald Trump decided he wanted to invade Canada and/or Greenland? Could anyone within the U.S. government stop him? Would Canada or Greenland have the military or political capacity to fight back? Or would Trump be able to move forward in the same manner as Vladimir Putin and Ukraine (3+ years and still going)?
(V) & (Z) answer: We can only guess here, but we suspect that if Trump were to give the order to invade Canada or Greenland, the generals at the Pentagon would push back and would slow-walk the order as best they could, until Congress could be informed as to the plan. One hopes Congress would scream bloody murder, and would put a stop to the matter, up to and including impeachment and removal, if necessary. We understand fully that Congressional Republicans are not generally willing to stand up to Trump, but that is because they are trying to protect their own hides. Looking the other way while Trump launched an unprovoked war would get them in even more trouble with voters than daring to defy the President, we think. Certainly that's true in any but the reddest districts and states.
If Trump was able to proceed with the invasion, the results would be disastrous. First, there would be massive resistance on the home front. Meanwhile, the other nations of the world would be furious. It is one thing to invade Iraq or Syria. It is another thing entirely to invade a Western democracy and member of NATO. We don't think that, say, the U.K. or Germany would challenge the U.S. militarily. However, they would hit the U.S. with heavy-duty trade sanctions, just like what happened with Russia. The U.S. economy would take a beating, with the disruptions of the COVID era looking quaint in comparison.
In short, an order to invade either wouldn't work, or would produce disastrous results that would wreck the Republican Party for years. If the Democrats are going to regain the trifecta quickly, this is the way it would happen.
S.N. in Sparks, NV, asks: Republicans in Congress have a reputation for not standing up to Trump and his minions. For example, we have learned that castrating hogs did not help Joni Ernst of Iowa grow... a spine. My question is: If Democratic legislators were subjected to the same kinds of pressure, would they show any more fortitude in standing up for what they believe to be right?
(V) & (Z) answer: Politicians, regardless of their party, love being in power and really want to keep their jobs. So, there are certainly a lot of Democratic officeholders who, if subject to the sort of pressure being applied to Republican officeholders, would vote against their consciences. That said, we think there are more Democrats who would stand on principle than there are Republicans who would stand on principle. Not only the progressive wing of the Party, but also some of the more centrist members who have nonetheless shown themselves to have pretty stiff spines, like Sens. Michael Bennet (CO), Tammy Duckworth (IL) and Adam Schiff (CA).
J.R. (U.S. citizen presently wandering about) in Pohang, South Korea, asks: You guys have addressed this before—the belief that the pendulum swings and that the current "MAGA" direction of the country will change for the better. But will it? Has the U.S. ever had the combination we have now (as I see it): (1) extremely effective right-wing propaganda; (2) a rejection of education and critical thinking skills and (3) a society that generally doesn't really believe in democracy, the Constitution, or the rule of law anymore? This grinding process looks like it has been going on for 50 years and is unlikely to change much in the future. This leads to a declining democracy and furthering autocracy. I am not looking for hope, as there is always hope, but I am looking for history that shows we are likely to emerge from these dark days.
(V) & (Z) answer: We will begin by pointing out that the number of people who could have voted last year, but did not, was 89,278,948. The number of people who voted for a candidate other than Donald Trump was 77,935,722. The number of people who voted for Trump was 77,302,580. Put another way, 31.6% of eligible voters cast their ballots for Trump, a smaller percentage than the non-Trump voters, and the non-voters. We think it's therefore a bit much to say that this is a society that "generally doesn't really believe in democracy, the Constitution, or the rule of law anymore."
And we will give you a specific year in which the pendulum swung in the opposite direction, and under near-identical circumstances. That year was... 2020. After 4 years of Donald Trump, American voters sent him packing, and by a nearly 5-point margin. We currently live in a "throw the bums out" era, and there is every reason to think that, in 2028, voters will choose to throw the bums out for the fourth time in a row.
If you want earlier examples, 2008 was a major rejection of the imperial/corrupt tendencies of the Bush administration, and 1976 was a major rejection of the imperial/corrupt tendencies of the Nixon administration (even if it was Gerald Ford who got to pay the piper). There are other examples outside the half-century window you propose, like the elections of 1860 and, before that, 1840. The U.S. democracy has proven resilient over the years, and there is reason to be optimistic that it will live up to the challenge again.
R.B in Seattle, WA, asks: We've all read many times now that the Democrats' best chance to extract some concessions from Donald Trump and the GOP will come in a few months, when the debt ceiling will have to be raised. But what if Donald Trump's government hits the ceiling and he simply orders the Secretary of the Treasury to ignore it and keep borrowing anyway? I have no expectation at all that the GOP-controlled Congress would do anything to stop that. Then what?
(V) & (Z) answer: That would be a short-term victory for Trump, and a long-term victory for the Democrats. For at least 30 years, the debt ceiling has been a cudgel used by right-wing budget hawks, who have leveraged the possibility of a default in order to force Democrats to cut spending on social programs. For this reason, Democrats have long wanted to get rid of the debt ceiling, which might not be constitutional anyhow.
If Trump ignores the debt ceiling, then it goes away for good, and, as a bonus, he gets to suffer any economic or political fallout. Should he actually do it, Democrats will publicly squawk very loudly, and then behind closed doors, they will toast each other with their café lattes made with sustainably sourced beans and organic unsweetened soy milk.
L.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: I have friends who proudly say they don't watch the news anymore because it's all so bad and they just want to tune it out. My opinion is that, because it's so bad, it's even more important for us to be well-informed and to be good citizens... but I don't know what a good citizen should do about this horror we are living through. So what should we be doing now, in this "brave new world"?
I've always been skeptical of the pleas to call/write/e-mail our congresspeople to express our support or opposition for specific issues. I live in a state that you identify as "barely Republican," and... all my congressional representatives are Republicans. I don't believe they are interested in my opinion, because I didn't vote for them and never will. I have the same skepticism about marching in the streets with homemade signs, and about signing petitions. Do any of these things matter or have any effect when everyone, especially elected officials, are deep in their partisan silos? I want to do SOMETHING THAT MATTERS but I have no idea what that is.
What is your advice?(V) & (Z) answer: If people need to tune out for now, for their mental health, then that is what they should do.
For those who don't want to do the head-in-the-sand routine, we would suggest the following. First, it is wise to remain informed about what's going on, so that when people start to pull their heads OUT of the sand, you can explain things to them intelligently. Second, look for opportunities to make yourself heard, even if they are limited right now. Consider getting involved with your local party committee, or with your local government. If there's a special election for the House that's a leaner, or even close to a leaner, donate some of your money or time. Or, donate some of your money or time to an activist group, like the ACLU. If you're in a purple state or district, do consider communicating with your elected officials when key votes come up. They can't know how you voted, and they do take note of the feedback they get from constituents.
Beyond that, accept that this is not the point in the cycle where opportunities to get involved are abundant. So, bide your time until spring of next year, when opportunities to get involved will suddenly be plentiful.
J.M. in Arvada, CO, asks: Are the first 7 days of this administration better, worse, or about what you expected? For me, it's worse. Not so much for what they're doing but because of the complete abdication of Congress in being their third of the government. I didn't expect the Congressional GOP to willingly cede so much power to the president. I also didn't expect the congressional Democrats to roll over and show their bellies to this extent. Can we assume Congress is going to be even more useless than usual the next two years?
(V) & (Z) answer: They are about what we expected. In 2017, Donald Trump came out of the gate like a bat out of hell. But most of it was a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. That is because he is much more interested in shock and awe than he is in actual, effective governance.
His Week 1 batting average is not much higher this time. Some efforts have already failed spectacularly. Others are already tied up in court. Still others are entirely unrealistic, and doomed to go down in flames. Do you really think DOGE will work out any better than, say, the long-promised Obamacare replacement? Or the roughly two dozen "infrastructure weeks"? And we haven't yet gotten around to the item we're going to write about how the $500 billion for AI might already be a dud.
And be cautious about reaching firm conclusions when it comes to Congress. The members—especially Republicans, but also many Democrats—do not benefit from challenging Trump openly. So, if and when they resist him, it will be mostly behind the scenes. Wait and see how many Trump-backed bills they actually pass. Wait and see if they actually allow Tulsi Gabbard to become DNI. Wait and see if they push back if and when he tries to do something truly outrageous. We are not saying that Congress won't roll over—it might. But we are saying that it's far too early to tell, and that we think they'll likely show more spine than seems to be the case right now.
K.F.K. in Cle Elum, WA, asks: I have been in several conversations recently about Bishop Mariann Budde's recent sermon at the National Cathedral. One friend, a non-Christian, was very underwhelmed and felt the sermon was not very inclusive and that "politics has no place in church in the U.S." This got me wondering why, in a country founded on the principle of freedom of religion, we would have a national cathedral aligned with the Episcopalian Church. Based on the timing of when the cathedral was endorsed by Congress, I am wondering if it was built in response to the rise of Marxism? Maybe the staff historian can explain this. And while I'm on the subject of the muddy waters between church and state, does the historian believe that "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in response to the cold war?
(V) & (Z) answer: The second question is easier, so we'll answer it first: "Under God" was absolutely added to the Pledge in order to emphasize a contrast with the godless Commies.
As to the first, the National Cathedral was first given that status in 1893, before anyone in the U.S. cared about fighting Marxism. In the end, some holidays are religious in nature. Some people, including some presidents, want important events (like their funerals) to be held in a religious structure. And so, the goal was to have a building that represents the United States and that has the stature to justify a national Christmas celebration, or a presidential funeral.
While it is true that the church is officially Episcopalian, it's about as non-doctrinaire as is possible, and has frequently played visitor to adherents of other faiths. For example, a Jewish congregation once met there for about a year while their temple was being renovated. The same happened with an Eastern Orthodox congregation. And the Cathedral hosts regular interfaith or non-denominational services. In short, given that the U.S. government does not have a religion, but some Americans do, we'd say the National Cathedral does a pretty good job of providing for a wide range of spiritual needs while doing as much as possible to honor the separation of church and state.
D.J.M. in Salmon Arm, BC, Canada, asks: Recently, you wrote about Mark Zuckerberg's ah... "gratuity" given to Donald Trump, and that "Supposedly, $22 million will go to Trump's presidential library."
What do you think TCF's presidential library will look like, and what will be included in its collections and services?(V) & (Z) answer: It is hard to imagine, especially since the library will likely be pretty different if Trump oversees its creation, than if he dies/becomes incoherent, and his family oversees it.
Certainly, Trump cares about glorifying Donald Trump, and a presidential library is a very good way to do that. However, he cares even more about money. So, if he is managing the process, we imagine two scenarios that would, in various ways, allow him to line his pockets. The first is what might be called the Ulysses S. Grant plan. When Grant served as president, there was no expectation that a presidential library would be created for former occupants of that office (and, in fact, the Grant Library didn't open until more than 100 years after he died). However, when Grant passed, there was much desire to commemorate his life and his role as co-savior of the Union. So, the Grant family took competing bids from various municipalities and states that wanted to build a memorial to him. New York City won, of course.
We could very definitely see Trump using a similar scheme, and opening the "honor" of hosting his presidential library up to the highest bidder. That bidder could build a shrine to him, on their dime, while Trump created the Donald J. Trump Library foundation, dumped all the settlements and other donations into the foundation, and then paid himself $5 million a year to serve as foundation director.
The other possibility is that Trump could purchase space for his library in... Trump Tower. Then, Trump the real estate mogul could sell a floor of the increasingly vacant Trump Tower to Trump the former president, presumably at a premium price.
Whatever happens, and whether it is Trump himself or his family who oversee the project, we foresee a highly celebratory presentation. It is true that all presidential libraries are somewhat celebratory, though they also attempt to maintain some semblance of balance. There is little chance that the Trump Library will be anything other that highly unbalanced. Which, on some level, is appropriate.
C.K. in Louisville, KY, asks: What, exactly, is an Executive Order?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is an instruction to the executive agencies on how they should implement the law and administration policy.
There is an obvious need for such instructions, since a lot of people work for the president, and they need to know what he wants done. Indeed, the need was considered so obvious that executive orders were long treated as something no different from letters, or meeting notes, or anything else. The first executive order to be formally numbered and filed was issued by Abraham Lincoln in 1862. You can see the XO that, at least officially, is Executive Order 1 right here.
There is a lot of gray area here, in that a president can write instructions that effectively nullify a law, or that stretch the law and/or the powers of the presidency to their breaking point. Lincoln, who was a shrewd operator, knew this well. Executive Order 95 was pretty radical, arguably more radical than anything Donald Trump has ever attempted, or ever will attempt. Undoubtedly, most readers know that particular order from Lincoln under its other name... the Emancipation Proclamation. By the terms of that document, issued in Lincoln's capacity as commander-in-chief, the Union Army was instructed to cease returning runaways, and to accept Black men into its ranks. The Sixteenth President knew he was pushing his luck with that one, and that it would only stick as long as the war was still underway. The Thirteenth Amendment, passed before the war ended, and ratified shortly thereafter, solved that problem for him.
So, there are certainly limits on what can be done via XOs, although presidents sometimes have to be reminded of those limits by one or more courts. Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, which he attempted to achieve by telling executive agencies not to give documentation to jus soli citizens, is all but certain to be struck down as illegal overreach, to take one example.
D.H. In Portland, OR, asks: Why are there so many gubernatorial races in 2026? Are there no Class I, II, and III, as in the Senate? Or is it because of the 4-year terms, these waves develop from time to time?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are currently no states that elect their governors for an odd number of years. That means that there is currently no ebb and flow, and the schedule is always the same.
There are two states that elect governors to 2-year terms, in even years. Those states are New Hampshire and Vermont.
There are two states that elect governors to 4-year terms, always in the year immediately after the presidential election. Those states are New Jersey and Virginia.
There are three states that elect governors to 4-year terms, always in the year immediately before the presidential election. Those states are Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi.
There are 9 states that elect governors to 4-year terms, in presidential election years. Those states are Delaware, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. Including the two 2-year states, that means 11 gubernatorial elections are held in presidential years.
There are 34 states that elect governors to 4-year terms, always in the midterm years, presumably to avoid overload on voters. Those states (all the rest), plus the two 2-year states, mean that there are 36 gubernatorial elections held in midterm years. That will be true in 2026, and again in 2030, and so forth.
R.M. in Pensacola, FL, asks: Since convicted felon Donald Trump descended his golden escalator nearly a decade ago, he has been, most likely, the unquestioned most powerful person in the country, and even recently, has become even more powerful as the events in recent weeks have played out.
However, looking back at American history, I'm curious to know who have been the most powerful people for the longest period of time. Past presidents come to mind (Grover Cleveland and FDR) as well as non-presidents (Henry Clay, Joseph Gurney Cannon and J. Edgar Hoover) are possibly others.
What enabled these people to get and maintain power for so long, and what caused their power to fade over time?(V) & (Z) answer: Most of the people you name had enormous power in their own fiefdom, but fairly limited power outside of that. Even a Speaker as powerful as Joe Cannon, or an FBI Director as powerful as J. Edgar Hoover, had a fairly limited ability to dictate national policy.
Also, it is true that Donald Trump has been a very powerful person for much of the last decade. However, he is not especially powerful, as far as modern presidents go. First, because he doesn't really understand how to use presidential power very well. Second, because he's had no real mandate, while also inspiring much resistance. Third, because he's frittered away much of America's soft power, particularly while he was actually in office.
Anyhow, here is our list of the five most powerful people in American history. In all cases, their power lasted for at least a decade, and it ended because they left office and/or died:
- John D. Rockefeller: Adjusted for inflation, he is the wealthiest American ever. And he controlled the nation's oil supply during the era of industrialization. He had considerably more impact on the lives of Americans than a Jeff Bezos or an Elon Musk, even if he never became directly involved in politics.
- Woodrow Wilson: He initiated a bunch of reforms, and then followed that by building and commanding the mightiest army the world had yet seen. In service of the American war effort, he also assumed powers that were borderline dictatorial, particularly when it came to stifling dissent.
- John C. Calhoun: As we note above, non-presidents are usually limited to their particular domain. However, Calhoun, in addition to being a senator, was also a VP. Even more important, he was the de facto leader of the slaveholding South for three decades. He decided when it was worth it to stick with the Union (the Missouri Compromise of 1820) and when the South should really start thinking about striking out on its own (the Nullification Crisis of the late 1820s, the Compromise of 1850). There is no single individual more responsible for the Civil War than he.
- Ronald Reagan: Reagan had one of the biggest mandates in U.S. history, and he led the country during a time when it was loaded to the gills with nuclear arms, and when it was effectively the only remaining superpower. No human being has ever had more potential to destroy the world, though of course he chose not to take advantage of that "opportunity."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt: Roosevelt had an even greater mandate than Reagan. He commanded a larger army than Wilson, and for a longer period of time. He was master of America's first nuclear arsenal (even if he died not knowing for sure if the bombs would work). And between the Great Depression and World War II, his presidency was one long crisis, which means he enjoyed extraordinary powers for the entire time. That's 12+ years of near-dictatorial influence, or 4+ years longer than anyone else has served as president, dictatorially or no.
In case you are wondering, the near misses are Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, George H.W. Bush, Andrew Jackson and Martin Luther King Jr.
C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: Assuming we keep our democracy after Donald Trump and the Republicans reshape our government, do you see any possibility of Trump being ranked higher than any previous president in all of history, by any historian?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, but only because the comparison between Trump and some of the other real stinkers is basically apples and oranges. In recent rankings, some scholars have already made clear that they think James Buchanan's or Andrew Johnson's apple is worse than Donald Trump's orange. So, one of those fellows might keep him out of the basement, depending on the survey.
We do not see any way he gets out of the bottom five. There are arguments, albeit longshot arguments, for how historians in 40-50 years might move Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford or George W. Bush to the top half. We can conceive of no argument for how Trump might make that leap.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: You wrote: "Herbert Hoover was a mediocre president." Really? Wasn't he responsible for the starving of millions of Americans during the Great Depression? I mean, he didn't support his fellow citizens during the Great Depression, did he? So I guess he was one of the worst presidents. Did he do some other things as president that outweigh his handling of the Great Depression?
(V) & (Z) answer: He was ideally suited to be caretaker president, like his predecessor Calvin Coolidge. So, Hoover did a pretty good job for his first couple of years in office, until the stock market crashed (October 1929) and the Great Depression took hold (late 1930).
During his portion of the Depression years, Hoover didn't do much (at least, as compared to FDR's New Deal), but he did do a few things, like establish the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. It wasn't enough, but it showed at least some imagination and some flexibility on the part of a man who grew up when "social welfare is not the business of the government" was dogma.
We understand "mediocre" to be effectively synonymous with "below average," and we think that's about where Hoover ranks. He's not bottom five, if only because those fellows were all so very bad. No, he's something more like #37 or #38.
C.C. in St. Paul, MN, asks: Given your knowledge of history, do you know when the vitriolic hatred of civil servants began? I'm a state government employee and I'm a hardworking, dedicated and productive worker and take great pride in doing the highest quality work I can. My only goal is to do right by the people I serve. And my productivity has only increased since I started working from home pre-pandemic. The people I work directly with are similar, with many of them very overworked.
(V) & (Z) answer: There are three phenomena here, we would say. First, people are often frustrated by what their government does. However, presidents and Cabinet secretaries and members of Congress are beyond reach. Local clerks and mail carriers and the like are within reach. So, the latter group become targets of bile that is actually meant for the former group.
Second, from the 1820s through the 1880s, government jobs were generally staffed by partisans of the faction that held the White House. So, if you were irritated with the Democrats while Andrew Jackson was in power, or with the Republicans while Rutherford B. Hayes was in power, it was not unreasonable to take the matter up with your local postmaster or customs inspector. However, this basically ceased to be true after the Pendleton Civil Service Act was passed in 1883.
Finally, starting with the Barry Goldwater faction in the 1950s and 1960s, and finding full flower with Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and 1980s, the Republican Party has put forth the notion that all government is bad, a trick, a scam, a waste of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Donald Trump's "deep state" claims are the same basic thing, just wrapped in slightly different clothes. So, if you are a devoted Reaganite or Trumper, then you might well feel that civil servants are the enemy, and should be treated as such.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: It's been a tough week, so I hope these fun questions are something of a palate cleanser: (1) Marvel or DC?; (2) Best superhero?; (3) Worst superhero?
Finally, a question that I really did get asked (semi-seriously) on the way to the end-of-the-day dinner at a faculty job interview: Star Wars or Star Trek? The answer I gave, after a bit of thought, was both the correct answer and the one they were looking for: Star Trek. Unfortunately, I still didn't get the job even though no plate licking occurred.(Z) answers: Only (Z) is in a position to answer here. First, while DC has the two heroes that would be taken first in a fictitious superhero draft (Superman and Batman), Marvel has a broader range of superheroes and has generally done more with them. So, Marvel. Second, the best superhero is Colossus, who is pretty hilarious. Third, the worst superhero is Aquaman, whose powers are kind of dumb, unless you are very hungry for sushi.
And if you think about it, the Star Wars vs. Star Trek comparison doesn't actually make much sense. Yes, they are both popular, are both sci-fi, and both have "star" in their names. However, Star Wars is a space opera, is substantially pessimistic and dystopian, and has no connection to Earth. Star Trek is a space western, is substantially optimistic and utopian, and purports to show the future of humanity. They're very different.
That said, if a choice must be made, then the choice here is Star Trek. It's produced something like 1,000 hours of entertainment, as opposed to something like 200 hours for Star Wars. That's as good a basis for choosing as any.
S.B. in Winslow, ME, asks: What do you consider to be the most influential novels in U.S. culture since 1900?
(V) & (Z) answer: Let us begin by noting that: (1) this is a judgment of impact, not of merit, and (2) the list of "great" novels and "impactful" novels only partly overlaps. Anyhow, here is a Top 10, in chronological order:
- The Wizard of Oz (1900): This book largely created the world of children's literature, and in turn helped make the U.S. and the world more literate. And then it became the foundation for a movie that changed the face of Hollywood.
- The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan (1905): The book inspired the movie The Birth of a Nation (1915). And then the book and movie both worked to affirm and reiterate stereotypes of Black people, and also to encourage the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan. Negative impact is still impact.
- The Jungle (1905): Muckrakers blurred the line between fact and faction, using real research as the basis for fictional narratives. What that means is that this book, though Upton Sinclair did real field research, is a novel. And it led directly to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which still (with updates) governs America's food supply.
- Riders of the Purple Sage (1912): This was Zane Grey's first Western novel, and the the book that really kicked off half a century of Western-themed books, TV shows and movies.
- The Grapes of Wrath (1939): In addition to winning a Nobel Prize for John Steinbeck, the book inspired much empathy for farm workers, and led both the state and federal governments to pass laws protecting those workers.
- Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949): An instruction manual on the signs of budding fascism. This may prove to be quite useful in the near term.
- Atlas Shrugged (1957): Most people roll their eyes as Ayn Rand's philosophizing. But for those who take it seriously, the book is life-changing. And a number of those folks have gone on to positions of authority and influence, among them former speaker Paul Ryan.
- To Kill a Mockingbird (1960): Like The Cosby Show would do a generation later, this book persuaded many Americans to examine their thinking on race.
- Catch-22 (1961): If there is any book that more fully set the tone for the anti-war years that would soon follow its publication, we don't know what book that might be.
- The Art of the Deal (1987): We recognize that this book would be placed in the self-help section, or the non-fiction section, of most bookstores. However, we are going to take the position that it is more fiction than fact, and that it served to create a character, the successful businessman named Donald Trump. That character became the basis for a reality TV show called The Apprentice, and then... well, we all know what happened from there.
We have no doubt that readers will have additional thoughts.
J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương, Vietnam, asks: My 7-year-old wants to be a geography teacher when he grows up. I don't know enough to tell him what geography is, other than maps, and how it's different from being a historian, and online searches don't seem to give me anything definitive. I know biogeography, but it seems like modern geography is different from that. Could you explain more what a geography teacher would teach, and how it's different from a history teacher?
(V) & (Z) answer: At UCLA, (Z)'s third roommate (junior year) enrolled in school as a geography major. He enjoyed looking at maps and learning the names of capitals, and was rather disappointed to discover that had little to do with the actual discipline.
There is much overlap between geography and other disciplines, and there are also different areas of focus within the discipline of geography. However, broadly speaking, geographers study how Earth's features and environments developed and changed over time and, crucially, how those natural features and environments have interacted with human cultures and societies. If you want a basic intro to what geographers do, then Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel: Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies is as good a choice as any.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Fu**.
46 years alive, 40 spent writing... per say.
Really?
I hate that I never received a decent education.(V) & (Z) answer: Mastery of vocabulary is much more instructive than mastery of spelling. Plenty of very sharp people just don't have the lobe that makes you a good speller. And anyone who looks askance of misspellings of somewhat obscure, and easily misspelled, terms is an a**hole. And note that was written by someone who is an excellent speller.
R.G. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: Long-time, daily reader here. I know that (V)/(Z) and (L) live a continent apart. Have you ever thought about going out on tour and interacting live with your audience? If so, would you ever schedule a stop in Canada?
(V) & (Z) answer: With the distance between us, our busy schedules, and the fact that our audience is pretty widely scattered, that seems like it would be a tall order. But we still intend to work on reader meet-ups very soon, and it's not impossible we might join in on some of those.
K.B. in Manhattan, NY, asks: The flood of news from D.C. is overwhelming, and the daily posts have remained long (without any lowering in standards).
How are you all doing? Truly hoping your coverage is not taking too much of a toll on each of you personally.(V) & (Z) answer: We are fine, thank you for asking. Perhaps writing this site is, ultimately, our therapy and/or coping strategy. That notion is not in our minds explicitly, but it's not impossible.
L.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: In reply to a recent question from another reader about why you don't share your blog via a site like Substack, you wrote: "Substack has platformed some very hateful people, and we don't need to be a part of that," and then you mentioned some other similar sites that you didn't object to. Some of my favorite opinion writers and other professionals are sharing their thoughts on Substack, including Heather Cox Richardson, Robert Reich and others. Could you say more about why you object to the site and what you think its management should do?
(V) & (Z) answer: Most obviously, the site has a lot of neo-Nazis, and Substack has been pretty resistant to doing something about it. Perhaps some things can be excused as free speech, but "no outright Nazis" seems a pretty reasonable and easy standard to enforce.
And if someone has built their audience, and perhaps their business, around Substack, then it might be difficult to shift to some other host. However, we do not have that problem, so if we did choose a platform like that, there's no need for us to use Substack.
D.G. in Shrewsbury, MA, asks: In response to the handling of future presidents' Electoral-Vote.com obits, when Convicted Felon Donald Trump dies, may we sing a chorus of "Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead," be sure the flags are all raised full mast, have a glass of celebratory beverage, and move on without another word? As far as I am concerned, we will have endured more than enough of and about him during his time among the living not to need to do it once he's gone. Celebrating the world being a better place for his passing and then stonewalling him into obscurity seems appropriate and fitting.
(V) & (Z) answer: We have thought about what we might do on that day, and we have no idea. We can definitely imagine giving the Carter treatment to any of the other living presidents when they join the Peanut Farmer at the big White House up in the sky. But the difference between them and Trump is that Trump has spent most or all of his adult life, and all of his political career, actively trying to hurt people. It is difficult to conceive of writing anything that comes within a country mile of "honoring" that. On the other hand, it is difficult to conceive of a site centered on politics, and in particular presidential politics, completely ignoring the day when Trump goes the way of all men.