Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Trump Treated Like a King by a Real King
Donald Trump thinks he is a king and certainly acts like a king, so NATO chief Mark Rutte decided the way to get through to him was to get an actual king to cozy up to him and treat him, well, royally. The NATO meeting this week happens to be in The Hague, where a real king (King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands) actually lives in a royal palace. So Rutte, the former prime minister of the Netherlands, who knows the king extremely well, asked His Majesty to put out the red carpet for Trump. Trump dined with the king and queen and got to stay overnight in the palace, which is a very rare honor. No U.S. president has ever been the house guest of the Dutch royal family before, so Trump can now brag he got an honor denied to Barack Obama and Joe Biden. That alone probably made his trip and put him in a good mood. The royal couple were instructed to flatter Trump endlessly. They probably actually hate him, since most Dutch people do, but they turned up their smiles to 10 and went to work. Possibly by design, none of the three young attractive princesses were home the night of Trump's sleepover. One is in college in Amsterdam, one is in college in London, and one is in an international baccalaureate program in Italy.
The goal of the royal treatment was to soften Trump up for the hard part of the trip: Making a deal on defense spending. Trump wants European countries to spend more on defense. Most are willing to do that, but the devil is in the details. The wording that Rutte gave Trump is mushy on both the details and the timeline. Spain, in particular, is refusing to get to Trump's goal of 5%. The prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, said 2.1% is his maximum. He probably thinks that Spain is so far from Russia that a Russian invasion is unlikely, so he doesn't need the other countries to promise to defend Spain if it is invaded.
Defense spending wasn't the only topic at the NATO summit. French President Emmanuel Macron also gently brought up Trump's tariffs and the trade war and the damage they will do. Nothing changed, of course.
Trump also spoke to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy briefly, even though Ukraine is not a member of NATO (although it would love to be one). Trump got almost everything he wanted, but will that be enough? Probably not. It never is. And in this case, someone might eventually explain to Trump that Rutte is an extremely skilled diplomat, and that he might just have found a way to tell Trump what he wants to hear, without actually promising much. (V)
Democrats Are Struggling with a Response on Iran
Democrats don't know what to say or do about Iran. Polls showed that Republican voters were strongly against bombing Iran—until Trump actually did it. Then suddenly they are for it. If Dear Leader is for something, then they are for it. That's the way it goes. But Democrats are at a loss for a response.
If the bombing was a spectacular success, that would be one thing, but reports in the past day suggest that Trump's statement that they obliterated Iran's nuclear capacity is completely wrong. At most, it looks like the attack may have set Iran's nuclear program back a few months. Democrats could say the bombing failed to do the job, due to Trump's totally incompetent choices for secretary of defense and especially DNI, but so far they haven't gone down that road. They also could make a point of objecting to bypassing Congress and attacking another country on his own. But no. In fact, instead of presenting a unified front, they are all over the map.
For example, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said: "No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy." But the former #2 Democrat in the House, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), contradicted Jeffries, saying: "The U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan... was essential to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon." Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) stated the obvious: "There are widely varied views." Rep Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, helpfully noted: "This is a complicated one." Good for her. Usually, the opposition party is united. After all, as Lord Randolph Churchill put it, the duty of the Opposition is to oppose. But this one is tricky enough that the Democrats can't even do that.
At least one Democrat, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), had something useful to say: "I don't think Trump has a clue what the hell he's doing. I mean, just follow his postings on Truth Social. I mean, I get whiplash, like from moment to moment, trying to figure it out." Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) at least went after the Republicans for their disunity, saying: "Republicans are not united either against regime change one minute and then he's for it the next." Still, the real message is "Democrats in disarray," also known as "dog bites man." (V)
The Son of the Former Shah of Iran Wants His Dad's Old Job
One person who is following the developments in Iran closely and is fervently hoping for regime change there is Reza Pahlavi. His dad was the former Shah of Iran until fleeing the country in Jan. 1979, moving between countries until he ended up dying of cancer in Egypt. If the Iranian people decide that they have had enough of the ayatollahs and are looking for a new leader, Pahlavi is definitely interested in taking over the family business. He might not even be the ruthless dictator dad was. Times have changed. Since there is no viable political opposition within Iran itself, Pahlavi might be a plausible leader, at least during a transition period. He could later become a monarch without any real power, like King Charles III, but could be the official head of the country to provide a rallying point for people opposed to Islamic rule. Here is dad with his buddy, Richard Nixon:
Pahlavi has been attacking the ayatollahs from afar for 5 decades, but this might be his moment, depending on how things develop there. At least he gives an answer to the question many Iranians are thinking: "If not the ayatollahs, then who?" Pahlavi recently said: "I am stepping forward to lead this national transition. I have a clear plan." On a social media post, he said if the current regime can't MIGA (Make Iran Great Again), then the Iranian people should rally around him to let him try. When was Iran last great? The ayatollahs think about 1,400 years ago, when Mohammed roamed the area. Pahlavi is probably going back further—say, 2,600 years to Cyrus the Great.
Since the shah was deposed almost half a century ago, only people in their 70s or older remember much about his rule. The closest parallel today is Xi Jinping. The shah was a brutal dictator, but he also worked to improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. He just didn't want anyone interfering with his plans. He built a modern economy, created jobs, and pulled many people out of poverty. Under the shah, women did not have to be covered from head to toe, and could drive cars, study at universities, and have paying jobs in government and private companies. As long as people didn't criticize him, life kept improving. The more Westernized view of women’s rights went away when the ayatollahs took over. Most older women probably remember the good things about the shah rather than the bad things and might well tell their daughters and granddaughters.
Pahlavi has a strong following in the Iranian diaspora. Since no one else does, that is a big head start. Of course, for Pahlavi to make a comeback, first the Iranian people have to rise up and depose the current regime. The B2 bomber can do a lot of things, but deposing the current regime isn't one of them. That is up to the people of Iran. (V)
Trump Has a New Plan for Deporting Hundreds of Thousands of Immigrants
CNN is claiming to have an exclusive report on Donald Trump's new plan to speed up the deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants. This is a huge step up from what he has been doing.
The plan is to go after all the people who entered the country illegally and then applied for asylum while in the country. That violates the asylum protocol. What asylum seekers are required to do is present themselves to a border patrol agent at a legal crossing point and apply for asylum on the spot. About a quarter of a million people filed for asylum after they were in the country. Since they did file paperwork, albeit too late, they are relatively easy to find. What Trump wants to do now is dismiss all their cases, round them up, and deport them all. At least here he has a legal leg to stand on, since they have admitted to a felony (entering the country illegally). In some cases, the immigrants have been in the U.S. for years and have not broken any other laws, but they are still likely to be deported.
Conchita Cruz, co-executive director of Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, has argued for having all their cases heard before an immigration judge and letting the judge rule on each case based on the facts of that case. But Trump doesn't want to do that. He wants to dismiss all the cases en masse and deport all the immigrants who filed too late.
In related news, CBS also has an exclusive story on immigrants. It has discovered that ICE now has 59,000 immigrants in detention, and half of them have no criminal record. This refutes Trump's story that he is only deporting violent criminals, since half the detainees aren't criminals at all. ICE has a capacity of 41,000, so it has already arrested more people than it has beds for.
Yet another exclusive story, this one from NBC, adds another twist to this. Last September, ICE told Congress that 13,000 immigrants are known to have committed a murder. Yet only 752 of them (6%) have been arrested. If the goal were to go after violent criminals, surely murderers ought to be high on the list.
As far as storage capacity is concerned, ICE is working on converting some military bases, like Fort Bliss, TX, into holding pens. Another plan is to build a facility in the Everglades, dubbed Alligator Alcatraz. The idea here is that if anyone escaped, the gators would take care of them. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has egged Florida on and is providing funds for it. Environmentalists are furious.
In any event, arrests are speeding up. In June they averaged 1,200/day, with some days over 2,000. ICE is getting increasingly indiscriminate in trying to reach Stephen Miller's goal of 3,000/day. What is new is that many of the detainees were picked up in the interior of the country rather than near the border, as has traditionally been the case. The new emphasis on states far from the border has been due to ICE agents desperately trying to make their daily quotas. (V)
The BBB Is Not Out of the Woods Yet
The One Big Beautiful Bill is still stalled in Congress. Not only are there differences of opinion within the Senate, but some representatives are claiming they won't vote for the Senate bill in its current form. Some of that may just be grandstanding, but both House moderates and Freedom Caucus members are making noises, albeit for different reasons.
Fundamentally, there are two serious problems that can't be papered over easily. First, the math doesn't add up. There is a double whammy here. Senate tax writers have written a bill that is hundreds of billions of dollars more expensive than the House bill. A new analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation has the Senate bill costing $400 billion more than the House bill. It is hard to hide that under the rug. Also, the JCT is assuming that no changes are made to the current SALT limitation, since the Senate has scaled that back. But House moderates may refuse to accept the Senate bill on account of this. If the Senate accepts the House bill's increase of the SALT deduction to $40,000, that will add another $350 billion to the deficit, making the Senate bill $750 billion more expensive than the House bill. If it gets back to the House like this, the Freedom caucus may balk at it. This will be a very tough nut to crack and if half a dozen representatives vote no, the bill won't pass.
Second, the voters hate the bill. Multiple polls have shown that repeatedly and the more the voters know about it, the less they like it. A Fox News poll has 38% of registered voters for the bill and 59% opposed. This is true across all demographic, age, and income groups. Independents oppose it 22%-73%. Even white noncollege men oppose it 43%-53%. A Quinnipiac University poll has 27% of registered voters for it and 53% against it. Among independents, 20% support it and 57% do not. A KFF poll has 35% of adults in favor of it and 64% against it. A Pew Research poll has 29% of adults for the bill and 49% against it. An Ipsos poll found that 23% of adults are in favor of the bill while 42% oppose it. Averaging these polls we get 30% for it and 53% against it. That is pretty deeply under water.
While different people oppose different aspects of the bill, the more they know about its real-world effects, the less they like it. It is up to the Democrats to inform them, most likely after it passes, forcing the Republicans to own it in 2026. Here are some of the big issues:
- It Is Epically Regressive: The bill provides for big tax cuts for the rich and big service
cuts for the middle class and poor. Calculations show that the top 20% of Americans by income will gain about 4% on the
average while the bottom 20% will lose about 4% on the average. It shifts money up the tree. The Bush tax cuts of 2001
helped the rich even more, but were popular because they helped everyone, just the rich the most. This one is a
straightforward transfer of wealth from the bottom 20% to the top 20% (with millionaires and billionaires getting the
most from it).
- The Worst Is the Least Known: There are a few items in the bill that benefit the very
rich that no one is talking about. One is a change to the estate tax. Under current law, the first $14 million of
someone's estate ($28 million for couples) is not taxed. The bill raises the exemption to $15 million for individuals
and $30 million for couples and it is indexed for inflation. The only people affected are people whose estate is worth
more than $14 million for an individual or $28 million for a couple. The average working-class Republican voter doesn't
make that in his whole life (50 years @ $66,000 is $3.3 million), let alone have that left over at the end. Only the
richest of the rich (top 0.1%) benefit here, but they benefit big time. A couple with an estate of, say, $30 million or
more would get an extra $2 million shielded from a 40% tax, which saves them $800,000 in estate taxes. How does this
help Joe Sixpack?
The second "secret" item is the pass-through business income tax. When a normal corporation makes a profit, it is taxed on the profit via the corporate income tax. Then the stockholders are taxed on the dividends they receive from the profit after taxes. With a pass-through business, the business pays no tax, only the owners. All you have to know is that 70% of the pass-through income goes to the top 1% of tax filers. Most law firms, group medical practices, and similar kinds of businesses are structured this way. The bill makes the current temporary 20% deduction a 23% deduction and makes it permanent. Together, these two "unknown" items will save the rich over $1 trillion over 10 years. In addition, the bill makes the current temporary top marginal tax rate stay at 37% rather than reverting to 39.6% if no bill passes. This helps the well off as well as the very rich. A married couple making over $750,000 benefits from this. Again, Mr. & Mrs. Sixpack are probably not pulling in $750K per year.
- Cuts to IRS: The Republicans are assaulting IRS. While this doesn't affect the taxes
anyone legally owes, it certainly affects enforcement of iffy tax-shelter-type constructions. A typical factory worker
probably doesn't own a corporation in the Cayman Islands that holds his stock portfolio and buys houses, cars,
airplanes, and other goodies for him while skirting all the rules. With weakened enforcement, none of this stuff will
even be investigated, let alone challenged. People whose entire income is subject to withholding of one sort or another
can't play these games, but wealthy people can. If they think the chance of getting caught is close to zero and can
afford the very best tax lawyers in the unlikely event they are caught, guess who ends up paying for this in the end?
- A Whack at Obamacare: Republicans have tried for years to repeal the ACA (Obamacare) with no success. This time they are trying to reduce the number of people who can use it, rather than killing it outright. Fewer people will notice this way. There are various procedural hurdles being created that will make getting coverage more difficult in various ways (e.g., proving you are disabled and unable to work) and will cut subsidies for those who qualify. These changes will affect low-income Americans far more than it will affect high-income Americans. All in all, projections show that the number of people expected to lose health insurance to be in the range of 10-16 million.
In short, the bill is a giveaway to rich people at the expense of ordinary people, and word is starting to leak out. If the bill passes in any form, Democrats would be well advised to shout its effects from the rooftops.
The bill is nowhere near getting through the Senate yet. At a conference lunch yesterday, multiple Republican senators informed Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) that they were not ready to vote for the bill yet and wouldn't be until there were extensive changes. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) wants major changes to the Medicaid part of the bill. He estimates the losses to his state at $38 billion and knows he will have a tough time defending a vote for it next year. He warned that the bill could cause Republicans to lose both chambers of Congress next year.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is concerned. In particular, she is concerned that the bill will reduce payments from insurance companies to rural hospitals and force some hospitals in her state to close. That could cost her reelection next year and she is not getting to "yes" until that (expensive) problem is fixed. She may have been egged on by a heavy ad campaign run by the Healthcare Education Project. This banner ad has been running on Politico for a while now and no doubt many other places.
Other senators complained about various things, but those two in particular are in tight races next year and probably mean it. In the end, they may get what they want, but that will make the math even worse and the deficit even bigger.
When the bill finally gets to the House, the deficit hawks, among them Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), are not going to be amused. Trump realizes that Massie is an even bigger problem than Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX). Massie not only opposes the Senate bill, but has threatened to introduce a resolution curtailing the president's warmaking powers. This has Trump absolutely seething. Trump is now going all-out to try to defeat the six-term congressman in a primary. It may not be so easy. Massie has survived attempts to be rid of him before, including a previous all-out attempt by Trump.
Massie's CV is a bit unusual for a fire-breathing right-wing dragon. He was born in West Virginia and grew up deep in Appalachia—specifically, in Vanceburg, KY, a town of 1,400 in northeast Kentucky, right across the Ohio River from Middle of Nowhere, OH. Despite all the disadvantages his background had, Massie went to M.I.T. (along with his high school sweetheart), where he got a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and a masters in mechanical engineering. He took part in a worldwide solar electric car race in Arizona as part of the M.I.T. team that came in second. He also won multiple prizes at M.I.T. for his inventions, raised $32 million in venture capital for his tech startup after graduating, hired 70 people, got 24 patents, and sold the company in 2003. He is definitely not a dumb hillbilly. Thereafter, he became what is called a county executive in other states and then was elected to the House in a special election in 2012 when the incumbent suddenly resigned for family reasons.
Massie's district, KY-04, runs along the northern edge of the state, some of it in the Cincinnati suburbs. It is the richest district in the state and is 87% white and 68% urban. This is typically the profile of a Democratic district, but this is Kentucky, so it is R+18. He has beaten back challengers before, in part because he is extremely pro-Israel, and that brings in money from out of state. He will not be a pushover for Trump. (V)
New Poll: Trump is 14 Points Underwater
No poll currently out was taken entirely after the bombing of Iran, but a YouGov poll was in the field when the bombing took place, with 37% of respondents having been interviewed pre-bombing and 63% afterwards, so it is a first look at where we may be headed. The bottom line is that Donald Trump's approval is now 14 points under water, with 40% approval and 54% disapproval, the worst poll he has had during Trump v2.0. This is also worse than he was during most of Trump v1.0.
Here is a graph of presidential approval for Trump v1.0, Biden, and Trump v2.0. As you can see, Trump's net approval is 23 points below where Biden was at this point in his presidency:
Note that Trump is down from +5 on Jan. 20, 2025 to -14 now, a drop of 19 points in 5 months. This is not a good sign for him.
Since YouGov knows who was interviewed pre-bombing and who afterwards, some comparisons are possible. Before the bombing, 57% of Republicans approved of Trump's handling of the Iran-Israel war. Afterwards, it jumped to 82% approval. Among Democrats, before the bombing, 56% did not want Trump to bomb Iran. After he did it, 74% disapproved. So it became a partisan thing.
Another interesting finding is that 48% of Republicans want America to take an active role in world affairs vs. 31% who are isolationist. Remember, Trump ran on an isolationist platform and promised not to get involved in any foreign wars. Now it seems that the base isn't really with him on that. Certainly, the party is divided on foreign affairs. (V)
Vance Explains the Trump Doctrine
If you paid attention in high school history class, you know all about the Monroe Doctrine. Actually, a few other presidents have had "doctrines," as well. These include Harry Truman, ("stop the spread of Communism"), Dwight Eisenhower ("protect friendly countries"), Jack Kennedy ("block Communism in Latin America"), Lyndon Johnson ("no domestic revolutions in Latin America on my watch"), Richard Nixon ("we will help friendly countries in need but it has to be their boots on the ground"), Jimmy Carter ("we will protect our interests in the Persian Gulf region"), and Ronald Reagan ("full support for insurgent movements in Communist countries").
Is there a Trump doctrine? At a sold-out dinner for the Ohio Republican Party, J.D. Vance tried to explain the Trump Doctrine to the attendees. It has three parts:
- The president articulates a clear American interest somewhere (e.g., Iran must not develop nuclear weapons).
- The president first tries diplomacy to solve the problem.
- If that fails, he uses overwhelming military power to solve it and then gets the hell out.
So far, so good, with respect to Iran. But what happens if step 3 fails—for example, if the bombing raid on Iran didn't actually damage Iran's nuclear program very much? In particular, what about the "gets the hell out" part if the military power doesn't do the job? Vance didn't answer that part. Maybe there will be an addendum some day. (V)
Gabbard Appoints a Trumper to a Key Position
DNI Tulsi Gabbard has picked a former spy and strong Trumpist, Nicholas Kass, as acting chair of the National Intelligence Council. This group is supposed to analyze intelligence reports and give advice to top U.S. officials on national security matters. It is supposed to be nonpartisan and provide the best analysis to any authorized government official who asks for it. People feel Gabbard is politicizing it.
This could further pollute the quality of intelligence given to the president and senior officials, telling them what they want to hear instead of the truth. Like, for example, that dropping half a dozen really big bombs on Iran would wipe out its nuclear program.
This isn't the first firestorm Gabbard has set off at the NIC. Last month she fired two top officials there when it produced a report undercutting Trump's immigration policies.
Kass does have some experience as an actual spy, but what attracted Gabbard to him are the articles he has written intensely castigating Democrats and his calling Trump's 2024 victory "epic." Oh, and he thoroughly hates the "deep state," where he has spent the last 30 or so years of his life.
It is not clear if Gabbard intends to make Kass the permanent chair. The position does not require Senate confirmation. (V)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones