Search this show’s transcripts

The Bulwark

en us
The news cycle doesn’t slow down, and neither does The Bulwark. Bulwark Takes brings you bite-sized takes on the news of the day from the entire Bulwark team, including Tim Miller, Sarah Longwell, and Bill Kristol, and more.

More details
The news cycle doesn’t slow down, and neither does The Bulwark. Bulwark Takes brings you bite-sized takes on the news of the day from the entire Bulwark team, including Tim Miller, Sarah Longwell, and Bill Kristol, and more.

Sources and links

Episodes

Page 8 · 50 per page

Trump hasn’t given the order to resume bombing yet, but the ceasefire with Iran seems to be dying a death of a thousand cuts. Hezbollah announced today, per the New York Times, that it will not “relinquish its weapons,” and Israel and the group continue to trade attacks despite the reported terms of the U.S.–Iran ceasefire.

Some quick bookkeeping: Sam and Will Sommer will be going live on YouTube and Substack at 10 a.m. EDT for MAGA Mondays—albeit a bleaker one than usual in the wake of Saturday’s attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Happy Monday.

President Donald Trump speaks during a press briefing in the Brady Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, D.C. shortly after a shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on April 25, 2026. (Photo by Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images)How Trump Intends to Exploit the Moment

by William Kristol

I should begin with the obvious: I condemn Saturday night’s act of violence at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, and I am grateful that no one, including President Trump, was killed.

Last Wednesday, after the vote here in Virginia on redistricting, I wrote that I was proud to be part of “a movement that does what it has to do—peacefully and legally and democratically—in defense of fair elections and liberal democracy.” I repeat: “peacefully and legally and democratically.”

We should be proud to be part of a civic and political movement that unequivocally rejects violence. Which this pro-democracy movement does. To take one example, the No Kings homepage states that “A core principle behind all No Kings events is commitment to nonviolent action. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events.”

So when MAGA propagandists try to tar eight million Americans who peacefully and lawfully exercised their right of assembly last month at No Kings protests, using a report that shooting suspect Cole Tomas Allen may have attended one of those protests, we should dismiss the smear with scorn.

We will never apologize for being pro-democracy. In fact it’s kinda our whole thing. Join us.

We should also be proud to be part of a movement that doesn’t make light of violent attacks on political opponents, as President Trump and his supporters did after the 2022 assault on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul. We should be proud to be part of a movement that doesn’t celebrate the death of public servants, as President Trump did a month ago: “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people.”

And we should be proud to be part of a movement that will not be cowed by attempts at intimidation. The pro-democracy movement will resist efforts by this administration and its MAGA minions to use Saturday night as an excuse to criminalize political dissent, silence legitimate criticism, and curtail our civil liberties.

Such efforts got underway within hours of the shooting at the Washington Hilton.

On Sunday morning, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said, “I don’t think this should be lost on anyone . . . that we have a third assassination attempt on President Trump—in that same week we learn that the Southern Poverty Law Center has been paying and generating hate.”

I’d say in response that I don’t think it should be lost on anyone that this is mere demagoguery in defense of the baseless indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and in defense of using Congress’s investigative powers, as Jordan intends to do, to abet DOJ. Of course Jordan doesn’t quite say that there is any connection between the shooter and the SPLC. But he implies one that should not “be lost on anyone.” This is pretty classic McCarthyism—or, for that matter, Trumpism.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) tried to use Saturday night’s incident as an excuse not just to get new funding for the Department of Homeland Security but to increase the power of the Senate Republican majority: “At a moment of national danger, if Democrats refuse to fund DHS, I would say this would be the time to nuke the filibuster for good.”

In fact, Democrats are refusing to provide new funds not for the whole of DHS but merely for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, neither of which has anything to do with Saturday’s shooting, but which have a lot to do with the administration intimidating opponents. But Trump wants more money for those agencies, and he wants to get rid of the filibuster. This fake “moment of national emergency” is the excuse.

And Speaker Mike Johnson intends to try once again this week to move legislation in the House reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without any real civil liberties safeguards.1 Expect to see him and his lieutenants use this “moment of national danger” to try to overcome opposition to the bill, even though there’s no connection between Section 702 and the events of Saturday night.

More broadly, we should expect a sustained effort in the days and weeks to come to intimidate and silence critics of the Trump administration in the same vein as the notorious National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” issued after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. There will be attempts to justify further investigation, chilling, and criminalizing of speech as part of a crackdown on “domestic terrorism.” According to NSPM-7, one of the “common threads animating this violent conduct” is “anti-Christianity.” So President Trump has already called Cole Tomas Allen “anti-Christian”—though as it happens he was active in a Christian group at college, and spends considerable time in his manifesto trying to justify his actions by appealing to scripture.

But the Trump administration will use any excuse to further batter American democracy, and so there will be plenty of demagoguery directed at us this week.

The pro-democracy movement shouldn’t, and won’t, yield to any of this. The Trump administration’s agenda is as noxious as ever, and it remains right for us to oppose it as vigorously as ever. The defense of civil liberties and the rule of law is as important today as it was before Saturday night. The true moment of national danger we face is Trumpism, and there is no reason to hesitate or waver in opposition to it.

Join now

AROUND THE BULWARKQuick Hits

NO NEWS IS BAD NEWS: After nearly two months of war in Iran, American and Iranian negotiators are seemingly locked in stalemate. Iran is treating the Trump administration’s bedrock demand—that it give up its store of enriched uranium and abandon efforts to enrich more—as a non-starter at least until the end of the war, but the White House says the war can’t end without Iranian nuclear concessions.

Over the weekend, Trump canceled a planned trip to Islamabad by his lead negotiators, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff,2 citing “too much time wasted on traveling” and “too much work.” “We have all the cards, they have none,” Trump insisted. “If they want to talk, all they have to do is call!!!”

Iran is making plenty of calls—just not, it seems, to us. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spent Sunday meeting with officials in Oman, the AP reported, working to drum up regional support for a plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz that would permanently lock in Iran’s wartime practice of extracting tolls from ships trying to transit the waterway. And today, Araghchi is in Russia to conduct “necessary coordination” with Vladimir Putin’s government, which has largely stayed on the sidelines of the conflict so far.

Despite diplomatic progress grinding to an apparent halt, and despite the continued closure of the strait, Trump seems loath to end the ceasefire he unilaterally extended last week. Oil prices, which earlier this month sagged in anticipation of the conflict’s end, are now pushing back toward their wartime highs: Brent crude was trading above $107 a barrel this morning.

JUSTICE DROPS POWELL INVESTIGATION: Negotiations over Iran weren’t the only staredown that went poorly for the president this weekend. As we wrote this month, the president’s plans for the Federal Reserve have been held in a stranglehold by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who was refusing to confirm Trump’s new nominee for Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, until the president dropped his ridiculous, pretextual criminal investigation of the current chair, Jerome Powell. On Friday, Trump finally bowed to the reality that this investigation, which was intended to hasten Powell’s departure, was actually risking prolonging his tenure. The Justice Department, sock-puppet U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced, was closing up its Powell investigation.

In announcing this change, Pirro and Trump were forced to walk a fine line—communicating to Tillis that they were backing down while insisting to the MAGA base that they were sticking to their guns. In a Friday post, Pirro said she had referred the matter to the inspector general of the Federal Reserve. “I expect a comprehensive report in short order and am confident the outcome will assist in resolving, once and for all, the questions that led this office to issue subpoenas.” She added that “I will not hesitate to restart a criminal investigation should the facts warrant doing so.”

But of course the facts have never warranted doing so, and the Federal Reserve’s inspector general does not report to Pirro or to the Justice Department. Nor is that office’s occupant, Michael Horowitz, a run-of-the-mill MAGA flunky: In fact, he has a longstanding reputation as a fair and by-the-book government watchdog.

The referral to Horowitz exists for one reason only: so that Trump can insist, as he did Saturday, that the investigation is “not dropped.” Tillis was happy to bank the win.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office criminal investigation into Chair Powell was a serious threat to the Fed’s independence, and it needed to end before I could support Kevin Warsh’s confirmation,” he wrote yesterday. “I take the Department of Justice at its word: the investigation is closed. . . . With these assurances, I look forward to supporting Kevin Warsh’s confirmation.”

HORRIBLE PEOPLE ALERT: In the immediate aftermath of the attempted attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, President Trump tried to strike a magnanimous tone toward the journalists with whom he’d just shared a highly unsettling experience. It didn’t last long.

In a Sunday evening interview with CBS News’s Norah O’Donnell, Trump remained even-keeled, even subdued—right until O’Donnell asked him about his reaction to the shooter’s calling him a “pedophile, rapist, and traitor.” Instantly, Trump’s whole demeanor changed. Here’s Politico:

“I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would, because you’re horrible people. Horrible people,” Trump said. “Yeah, he did write that. I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody.”

O’Donnell interjected, “Oh, do you think he was referring to you?”

But the president blew past her question, declaring, “I’m not a pedophile.”

Trump bristled at what he seemed to deem an insinuation about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who was not mentioned by name in the manifesto or by O’Donnell. “You read that crap from some sick person,” the president said. “I got associated with stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated.”

It’s reasonable to object to O’Donnell’s raising the profile of a would-be murderer’s manifesto by asking the president to weigh in on its accusations. But Trump’s instinctive shoot-the-messenger response was telling too: No wonder White House aides go out of their way to avoid bringing him bad news.

Share

Cheap Shots

As ever, the president is spending his evenings focused on the most pressing matters at hand:

Share

1

For a more detailed discussion of Section 702, its provisions and uses, and prospects for reform and extension, see this Lawfare article.

2

As ever: lol.

More description

Trump hasn’t given the order to resume bombing yet, but the ceasefire with Iran seems to be dying a death of a thousand cuts. Hezbollah announced today, per the New York Times, that it will not “relinquish its weapons,” and Israel and the group continue to trade attacks despite the reported terms of the U.S.–Iran ceasefire.

Some quick bookkeeping: Sam and Will Sommer will be going live on YouTube and Substack at 10 a.m. EDT for MAGA Mondays—albeit a bleaker one than usual in the wake of Saturday’s attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Happy Monday.

President Donald Trump speaks during a press briefing in the Brady Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, D.C. shortly after a shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on April 25, 2026. (Photo by Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images)How Trump Intends to Exploit the Moment

by William Kristol

I should begin with the obvious: I condemn Saturday night’s act of violence at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, and I am grateful that no one, including President Trump, was killed.

Last Wednesday, after the vote here in Virginia on redistricting, I wrote that I was proud to be part of “a movement that does what it has to do—peacefully and legally and democratically—in defense of fair elections and liberal democracy.” I repeat: “peacefully and legally and democratically.”

We should be proud to be part of a civic and political movement that unequivocally rejects violence. Which this pro-democracy movement does. To take one example, the No Kings homepage states that “A core principle behind all No Kings events is commitment to nonviolent action. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events.”

So when MAGA propagandists try to tar eight million Americans who peacefully and lawfully exercised their right of assembly last month at No Kings protests, using a report that shooting suspect Cole Tomas Allen may have attended one of those protests, we should dismiss the smear with scorn.

We will never apologize for being pro-democracy. In fact it’s kinda our whole thing. Join us.

We should also be proud to be part of a movement that doesn’t make light of violent attacks on political opponents, as President Trump and his supporters did after the 2022 assault on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul. We should be proud to be part of a movement that doesn’t celebrate the death of public servants, as President Trump did a month ago: “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people.”

And we should be proud to be part of a movement that will not be cowed by attempts at intimidation. The pro-democracy movement will resist efforts by this administration and its MAGA minions to use Saturday night as an excuse to criminalize political dissent, silence legitimate criticism, and curtail our civil liberties.

Such efforts got underway within hours of the shooting at the Washington Hilton.

On Sunday morning, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said, “I don’t think this should be lost on anyone . . . that we have a third assassination attempt on President Trump—in that same week we learn that the Southern Poverty Law Center has been paying and generating hate.”

I’d say in response that I don’t think it should be lost on anyone that this is mere demagoguery in defense of the baseless indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and in defense of using Congress’s investigative powers, as Jordan intends to do, to abet DOJ. Of course Jordan doesn’t quite say that there is any connection between the shooter and the SPLC. But he implies one that should not “be lost on anyone.” This is pretty classic McCarthyism—or, for that matter, Trumpism.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) tried to use Saturday night’s incident as an excuse not just to get new funding for the Department of Homeland Security but to increase the power of the Senate Republican majority: “At a moment of national danger, if Democrats refuse to fund DHS, I would say this would be the time to nuke the filibuster for good.”

In fact, Democrats are refusing to provide new funds not for the whole of DHS but merely for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, neither of which has anything to do with Saturday’s shooting, but which have a lot to do with the administration intimidating opponents. But Trump wants more money for those agencies, and he wants to get rid of the filibuster. This fake “moment of national emergency” is the excuse.

And Speaker Mike Johnson intends to try once again this week to move legislation in the House reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without any real civil liberties safeguards.1 Expect to see him and his lieutenants use this “moment of national danger” to try to overcome opposition to the bill, even though there’s no connection between Section 702 and the events of Saturday night.

More broadly, we should expect a sustained effort in the days and weeks to come to intimidate and silence critics of the Trump administration in the same vein as the notorious National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” issued after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. There will be attempts to justify further investigation, chilling, and criminalizing of speech as part of a crackdown on “domestic terrorism.” According to NSPM-7, one of the “common threads animating this violent conduct” is “anti-Christianity.” So President Trump has already called Cole Tomas Allen “anti-Christian”—though as it happens he was active in a Christian group at college, and spends considerable time in his manifesto trying to justify his actions by appealing to scripture.

But the Trump administration will use any excuse to further batter American democracy, and so there will be plenty of demagoguery directed at us this week.

The pro-democracy movement shouldn’t, and won’t, yield to any of this. The Trump administration’s agenda is as noxious as ever, and it remains right for us to oppose it as vigorously as ever. The defense of civil liberties and the rule of law is as important today as it was before Saturday night. The true moment of national danger we face is Trumpism, and there is no reason to hesitate or waver in opposition to it.

Join now

AROUND THE BULWARKQuick Hits

NO NEWS IS BAD NEWS: After nearly two months of war in Iran, American and Iranian negotiators are seemingly locked in stalemate. Iran is treating the Trump administration’s bedrock demand—that it give up its store of enriched uranium and abandon efforts to enrich more—as a non-starter at least until the end of the war, but the White House says the war can’t end without Iranian nuclear concessions.

Over the weekend, Trump canceled a planned trip to Islamabad by his lead negotiators, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff,2 citing “too much time wasted on traveling” and “too much work.” “We have all the cards, they have none,” Trump insisted. “If they want to talk, all they have to do is call!!!”

Iran is making plenty of calls—just not, it seems, to us. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spent Sunday meeting with officials in Oman, the AP reported, working to drum up regional support for a plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz that would permanently lock in Iran’s wartime practice of extracting tolls from ships trying to transit the waterway. And today, Araghchi is in Russia to conduct “necessary coordination” with Vladimir Putin’s government, which has largely stayed on the sidelines of the conflict so far.

Despite diplomatic progress grinding to an apparent halt, and despite the continued closure of the strait, Trump seems loath to end the ceasefire he unilaterally extended last week. Oil prices, which earlier this month sagged in anticipation of the conflict’s end, are now pushing back toward their wartime highs: Brent crude was trading above $107 a barrel this morning.

JUSTICE DROPS POWELL INVESTIGATION: Negotiations over Iran weren’t the only staredown that went poorly for the president this weekend. As we wrote this month, the president’s plans for the Federal Reserve have been held in a stranglehold by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who was refusing to confirm Trump’s new nominee for Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, until the president dropped his ridiculous, pretextual criminal investigation of the current chair, Jerome Powell. On Friday, Trump finally bowed to the reality that this investigation, which was intended to hasten Powell’s departure, was actually risking prolonging his tenure. The Justice Department, sock-puppet U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced, was closing up its Powell investigation.

In announcing this change, Pirro and Trump were forced to walk a fine line—communicating to Tillis that they were backing down while insisting to the MAGA base that they were sticking to their guns. In a Friday post, Pirro said she had referred the matter to the inspector general of the Federal Reserve. “I expect a comprehensive report in short order and am confident the outcome will assist in resolving, once and for all, the questions that led this office to issue subpoenas.” She added that “I will not hesitate to restart a criminal investigation should the facts warrant doing so.”

But of course the facts have never warranted doing so, and the Federal Reserve’s inspector general does not report to Pirro or to the Justice Department. Nor is that office’s occupant, Michael Horowitz, a run-of-the-mill MAGA flunky: In fact, he has a longstanding reputation as a fair and by-the-book government watchdog.

The referral to Horowitz exists for one reason only: so that Trump can insist, as he did Saturday, that the investigation is “not dropped.” Tillis was happy to bank the win.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office criminal investigation into Chair Powell was a serious threat to the Fed’s independence, and it needed to end before I could support Kevin Warsh’s confirmation,” he wrote yesterday. “I take the Department of Justice at its word: the investigation is closed. . . . With these assurances, I look forward to supporting Kevin Warsh’s confirmation.”

HORRIBLE PEOPLE ALERT: In the immediate aftermath of the attempted attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, President Trump tried to strike a magnanimous tone toward the journalists with whom he’d just shared a highly unsettling experience. It didn’t last long.

In a Sunday evening interview with CBS News’s Norah O’Donnell, Trump remained even-keeled, even subdued—right until O’Donnell asked him about his reaction to the shooter’s calling him a “pedophile, rapist, and traitor.” Instantly, Trump’s whole demeanor changed. Here’s Politico:

“I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would, because you’re horrible people. Horrible people,” Trump said. “Yeah, he did write that. I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody.”

O’Donnell interjected, “Oh, do you think he was referring to you?”

But the president blew past her question, declaring, “I’m not a pedophile.”

Trump bristled at what he seemed to deem an insinuation about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who was not mentioned by name in the manifesto or by O’Donnell. “You read that crap from some sick person,” the president said. “I got associated with stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated.”

It’s reasonable to object to O’Donnell’s raising the profile of a would-be murderer’s manifesto by asking the president to weigh in on its accusations. But Trump’s instinctive shoot-the-messenger response was telling too: No wonder White House aides go out of their way to avoid bringing him bad news.

Share

Cheap Shots

As ever, the president is spending his evenings focused on the most pressing matters at hand:

Share

1

For a more detailed discussion of Section 702, its provisions and uses, and prospects for reform and extension, see this Lawfare article.

2

As ever: lol.

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
Published 2026-04-26

Can Iran Take More Pain Than Us?

View

Eric and Eliot review an extended buffet of jackassery before turning to the current state of affairs in Iran. They assess the prospects for a negotiated settlement to the war, and whether we could end up in a "no war, no peace" situation. They also discuss the mutual incomprehension that leaders in both countries exhibit regarding the interests and intentions of the other, Iran's new collective leadership in the wake of Ali Khamenei's death, and the structural similarity to the situation faced by Soviet leaders after the death of Stalin. Finally, they respond to reports that the administration is considering deporting to the Democratic Republic of the Congo roughly eleven hundred Afghans in Qatar who were evacuated in 2021 amidst the US withdrawal.

Leave a comment

Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

Read more

More description

Eric and Eliot review an extended buffet of jackassery before turning to the current state of affairs in Iran. They assess the prospects for a negotiated settlement to the war, and whether we could end up in a "no war, no peace" situation. They also discuss the mutual incomprehension that leaders in both countries exhibit regarding the interests and intentions of the other, Iran's new collective leadership in the wake of Ali Khamenei's death, and the structural similarity to the situation faced by Soviet leaders after the death of Stalin. Finally, they respond to reports that the administration is considering deporting to the Democratic Republic of the Congo roughly eleven hundred Afghans in Qatar who were evacuated in 2021 amidst the US withdrawal.

Leave a comment

Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Bill Kristol and Tom Joscelyn went live to discuss white supremacy in the online Right and why they're obsessed with attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Bill Kristol and Tom Joscelyn went live to discuss white supremacy in the online Right and why they're obsessed with attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Bill Kristol and Sam Stein went live to discuss the aftermath of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Bill Kristol and Sam Stein went live to discuss the aftermath of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

John Avlon speaks with Alanna McCargo, Senior Fellow for Inclusive Capitalism at the Clinton Foundation, to explore a surprisingly old idea that could fix a very modern problem: what if workers actually owned a piece of what they build?


Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations

Employee Ownership and ESPOS

Council for Inclusive Capitalism

Leave a comment


Watch, listen and leave a comment.

How to Fix It with John Avlon is available wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. New episodes drop each weekend so if you like what you hear, add the show to your player of choice. To help more people discover this show, leave a comment and rate the show ⭐⭐⭐⭐ wherever you listen.

Ad-free editions are available exclusively for Bulwark+ on Substack and YouTube.

Read more

More description

John Avlon speaks with Alanna McCargo, Senior Fellow for Inclusive Capitalism at the Clinton Foundation, to explore a surprisingly old idea that could fix a very modern problem: what if workers actually owned a piece of what they build?


Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations

Employee Ownership and ESPOS

Council for Inclusive Capitalism

Leave a comment


Watch, listen and leave a comment.

How to Fix It with John Avlon is available wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. New episodes drop each weekend so if you like what you hear, add the show to your player of choice. To help more people discover this show, leave a comment and rate the show ⭐⭐⭐⭐ wherever you listen.

Ad-free editions are available exclusively for Bulwark+ on Substack and YouTube.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Sam Stein reacted live to the shooting at the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and Trump's press event afterward.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Sam Stein reacted live to the shooting at the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and Trump's press event afterward.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
Published 2026-04-25

Explaining "Never Trump" to David Pakman

23 min
View

Tim Miller joins David Pakman for a wide-ranging conversation on Trump’s unraveling, the “MAGA betrayal” moment among anti-war influencers, and what comes next for the right. They discuss why some of Trump’s loudest supporters feel misled, who actually drives conservative media, and how Never Trump has evolved into something broader. Plus: how to talk to voters who are starting to reconsider—and what a post-Trump GOP might look like.

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and Los Angeles in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

More description

Tim Miller joins David Pakman for a wide-ranging conversation on Trump’s unraveling, the “MAGA betrayal” moment among anti-war influencers, and what comes next for the right. They discuss why some of Trump’s loudest supporters feel misled, who actually drives conservative media, and how Never Trump has evolved into something broader. Plus: how to talk to voters who are starting to reconsider—and what a post-Trump GOP might look like.

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and Los Angeles in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Tim Miller joins David Pakman for a wide-ranging conversation on Trump’s unraveling, the “MAGA betrayal” moment among anti-war influencers, and what comes next for the right. They discuss why some of Trump’s loudest supporters feel misled, who actually drives conservative media, and how Never Trump has evolved into something broader. Plus: how to talk to voters who are starting to reconsider—and what a post-Trump GOP might look like.

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and Los Angeles in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Tim Miller joins David Pakman for a wide-ranging conversation on Trump’s unraveling, the “MAGA betrayal” moment among anti-war influencers, and what comes next for the right. They discuss why some of Trump’s loudest supporters feel misled, who actually drives conservative media, and how Never Trump has evolved into something broader. Plus: how to talk to voters who are starting to reconsider—and what a post-Trump GOP might look like.

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and Los Angeles in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
Published 2026-04-25

Trump Botched The Easiest Photo Op Ever

17 min
View

Catherine Rampell and Sarah Matthews take on the botched White House photo op that went viral. Donald Trump hosted the 2025 NCAA champion Georgia Bulldogs women’s tennis team—but puts them in the background and skips their handshake. They break down the optics, the politics, and what it reveals about the “women’s sports” talking point.

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

More description

Catherine Rampell and Sarah Matthews take on the botched White House photo op that went viral. Donald Trump hosted the 2025 NCAA champion Georgia Bulldogs women’s tennis team—but puts them in the background and skips their handshake. They break down the optics, the politics, and what it reveals about the “women’s sports” talking point.

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Happy Saturday! Overtime is for everyone. If you’re a Bulwark+ member: thank you. If you’re not, there’s no better time to subscribe to Bulwark+ than today. If you like today’s issue, you can share this newsletter with someone you think would value it.

Join now

🆕 OVERTIME Member Comment of The Week 🆕

John Murphy: The gerrymandering fights are going to get continually worse as the population rises. The more people a Representative represents, the more opportunities there are for them to pick their own constituency. I just don’t see how we solve this without increasing the size of the House of Representatives. Here in New Hampshire we have an enormous House, and while there are logistical problems to be sure, it’s broadly much better to have finer-grained representation. (4/21 Morning Shots)

Join now

COME JOIN US IN CALIFORNIA!May 21: Bulwark Live in Los Angeles at the The Novo featuring Tim, Sarah, and SamMay 20: Bulwark Live in San Diego at the Balboa Theatre featuring Tim, Sarah, and Sam

Join now

THE BULWARK ON SUNDAY

Come join BILL KRISTOL and THOMAS JOSCELYN this Sunday at Noon ET as they talk about white supremacy on the right. Join on Substack or YouTube.

🚨OVERTIME🚨

Behind the scenes in Columbus… Earlier this week, there were a few details that did not make it into my story. There was the whole saga of… getting in.

TPUSA has a history of denying The Bulwark access to its events, dating back to our earliest days, so I took some precautions. Still, I didn’t hide my identity. I wore a Bulwark hat to the show! But I came registered as a citizen, since there was no press registration. Just… nobody asked.

Meeting up with my pal D.J. Byrnes (The Rooster) and heading into the venue in a line filled with very few students…. we stuck out. If they denied us entry, well, that would’ve been the story. But we got in, only to run right into Rep. Gary Click, a frequent statehouse subject of Byrnes’s reporting. Naturally, D.J. immediately turned on the camera and started asking questions.

I thought we’d gotten lucky until a TPUSA staffer quickly picked up on the fact that we were not your typical attendees. She got on the phone and shadowed us through the lobby while we milled around. We’re cooked, I thought.

D.J. ordered some popcorn for $6, as one does at the circus, and then we calmly made our way inside and picked a spot. We were prepared to be escorted out of the same auditorium (where my sister graduated) at any moment. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

Suspiciously, a guy who didn’t clap was positioned in our row. He didn’t stand, didn’t cheer, didn’t show emotion: he just stared straight ahead. We didn’t clap either, so perhaps he was writing a story, too. I kid.

And of course, since it was mentioned, the White Castle went on the expense report.

Leave a comment

Tulsi Gabbard’s Dangerous War… Trump’s hatchet woman is weaponizing classified intelligence like never before, writes David Corn at Mother Jones.

A Ghastly Alliance, &c… Jay Nordlinger on North Koreans in the Ukraine war; the Donald Trump exemption; a mayor’s demagoguery; and more!

Tech support questions? Email members@thebulwark.com. Questions for me? Respond to this message.

Editorial photos provided by Getty Images. For full credits, please consult the article.

—30—

More description

Happy Saturday! Overtime is for everyone. If you’re a Bulwark+ member: thank you. If you’re not, there’s no better time to subscribe to Bulwark+ than today. If you like today’s issue, you can share this newsletter with someone you think would value it.

Join now

🆕 OVERTIME Member Comment of The Week 🆕

John Murphy: The gerrymandering fights are going to get continually worse as the population rises. The more people a Representative represents, the more opportunities there are for them to pick their own constituency. I just don’t see how we solve this without increasing the size of the House of Representatives. Here in New Hampshire we have an enormous House, and while there are logistical problems to be sure, it’s broadly much better to have finer-grained representation. (4/21 Morning Shots)

Join now

COME JOIN US IN CALIFORNIA!May 21: Bulwark Live in Los Angeles at the The Novo featuring Tim, Sarah, and SamMay 20: Bulwark Live in San Diego at the Balboa Theatre featuring Tim, Sarah, and Sam

Join now

THE BULWARK ON SUNDAY

Come join BILL KRISTOL and THOMAS JOSCELYN this Sunday at Noon ET as they talk about white supremacy on the right. Join on Substack or YouTube.

🚨OVERTIME🚨

Behind the scenes in Columbus… Earlier this week, there were a few details that did not make it into my story. There was the whole saga of… getting in.

TPUSA has a history of denying The Bulwark access to its events, dating back to our earliest days, so I took some precautions. Still, I didn’t hide my identity. I wore a Bulwark hat to the show! But I came registered as a citizen, since there was no press registration. Just… nobody asked.

Meeting up with my pal D.J. Byrnes (The Rooster) and heading into the venue in a line filled with very few students…. we stuck out. If they denied us entry, well, that would’ve been the story. But we got in, only to run right into Rep. Gary Click, a frequent statehouse subject of Byrnes’s reporting. Naturally, D.J. immediately turned on the camera and started asking questions.

I thought we’d gotten lucky until a TPUSA staffer quickly picked up on the fact that we were not your typical attendees. She got on the phone and shadowed us through the lobby while we milled around. We’re cooked, I thought.

D.J. ordered some popcorn for $6, as one does at the circus, and then we calmly made our way inside and picked a spot. We were prepared to be escorted out of the same auditorium (where my sister graduated) at any moment. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

Suspiciously, a guy who didn’t clap was positioned in our row. He didn’t stand, didn’t cheer, didn’t show emotion: he just stared straight ahead. We didn’t clap either, so perhaps he was writing a story, too. I kid.

And of course, since it was mentioned, the White Castle went on the expense report.

Leave a comment

Tulsi Gabbard’s Dangerous War… Trump’s hatchet woman is weaponizing classified intelligence like never before, writes David Corn at Mother Jones.

A Ghastly Alliance, &c… Jay Nordlinger on North Koreans in the Ukraine war; the Donald Trump exemption; a mayor’s demagoguery; and more!

Tech support questions? Email members@thebulwark.com. Questions for me? Respond to this message.

Editorial photos provided by Getty Images. For full credits, please consult the article.

—30—

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Everyone agrees that America is too divided. But ALMOST everyone is also contributing to that division in one way or another. So, how do we rebuild a country where Americans can live with each other a little easier? Sarah and our guest both have some ideas. Professional disagreer Jessica Tarlov of the Raging Moderates podcast and Fox News’s The Five, joins Sarah to discuss America’s political divisions and how voters across the political spectrum are feeling about them.

Pre-order Jessica’s upcoming book, I Disagree: Winning Arguments Without Losing Friends.

Get tickets to The Bulwark's May live shows in San Diego and Los Angeles!

Pre-order Sarah’s book, How to Eat an Elephant, coming in September!

Leave a comment

Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Hit that like 🤍 button and share this episode with a friend.

Ad-free editions are available exclusively for Bulwark+ members. Upgrade now to listen without ads and to join the community in the comments.

The Focus Group with Sarah Longwell is available wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. Click to find the show or add this podcast to your player of choice, here.

Share

Read more

More description

Everyone agrees that America is too divided. But ALMOST everyone is also contributing to that division in one way or another. So, how do we rebuild a country where Americans can live with each other a little easier? Sarah and our guest both have some ideas. Professional disagreer Jessica Tarlov of the Raging Moderates podcast and Fox News’s The Five, joins Sarah to discuss America’s political divisions and how voters across the political spectrum are feeling about them.

Pre-order Jessica’s upcoming book, I Disagree: Winning Arguments Without Losing Friends.

Get tickets to The Bulwark's May live shows in San Diego and Los Angeles!

Pre-order Sarah’s book, How to Eat an Elephant, coming in September!

Leave a comment

Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Hit that like 🤍 button and share this episode with a friend.

Ad-free editions are available exclusively for Bulwark+ members. Upgrade now to listen without ads and to join the community in the comments.

The Focus Group with Sarah Longwell is available wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. Click to find the show or add this podcast to your player of choice, here.

Share

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Sam Stein and Jared Poland give their takes on Trump’s new acting Navy secretary, Hung Cao. From viral podcast clips to resurfaced campaign interviews, Cao leans hard into “alpha male” rhetoric, conspiracy-adjacent claims about witches, and extreme takes on immigration, NATO, and the military. It’s a wild collection of moments, including comments about “peeing standing up,” calling ICE on people, and KKK hoods. Cao’s rise to the top ranks of the Pentagon raise serious questions about judgment and leadership under Pete Hegseth.

Get tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

More description

Sam Stein and Jared Poland give their takes on Trump’s new acting Navy secretary, Hung Cao. From viral podcast clips to resurfaced campaign interviews, Cao leans hard into “alpha male” rhetoric, conspiracy-adjacent claims about witches, and extreme takes on immigration, NATO, and the military. It’s a wild collection of moments, including comments about “peeing standing up,” calling ICE on people, and KKK hoods. Cao’s rise to the top ranks of the Pentagon raise serious questions about judgment and leadership under Pete Hegseth.

Get tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Catherine Rampell and Sarah Matthews take on the botched White House photo op that went viral. Donald Trump hosted the 2025 NCAA champion Georgia Bulldogs women’s tennis team—but puts them in the background and skips their handshake. They break down the optics, the politics, and what it reveals about the “women’s sports” talking point.

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Catherine Rampell and Sarah Matthews take on the botched White House photo op that went viral. Donald Trump hosted the 2025 NCAA champion Georgia Bulldogs women’s tennis team—but puts them in the background and skips their handshake. They break down the optics, the politics, and what it reveals about the “women’s sports” talking point.

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Sam Stein and Jared Poland give their takes on Trump’s new acting Navy secretary, Hung Cao. From viral podcast clips to resurfaced campaign interviews, Cao leans hard into “alpha male” rhetoric, conspiracy-adjacent claims about witches, and extreme takes on immigration, NATO, and the military. It’s a wild collection of moments, including comments about “peeing standing up,” calling ICE on people, and KKK hoods. Cao’s rise to the top ranks of the Pentagon raise serious questions about judgment and leadership under Pete Hegseth.

Get tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Sam Stein and Jared Poland give their takes on Trump’s new acting Navy secretary, Hung Cao. From viral podcast clips to resurfaced campaign interviews, Cao leans hard into “alpha male” rhetoric, conspiracy-adjacent claims about witches, and extreme takes on immigration, NATO, and the military. It’s a wild collection of moments, including comments about “peeing standing up,” calling ICE on people, and KKK hoods. Cao’s rise to the top ranks of the Pentagon raise serious questions about judgment and leadership under Pete Hegseth.

Get tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
Sarah Longwell breaks down California’s chaotic governor’s race, where 61 candidates and a fractured Democratic field could open the door for Republicans. In polls, Xavier Becerra is quietly rising as the “safe” choice  with Katie Porter still facing questions about her personal baggage, and billionaire Tom Steyer took most of the heat on the debate stage. All of this as Republicans, like Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, stand to benefit from the split in a chaotic jungle primary.
More description
Sarah Longwell breaks down California’s chaotic governor’s race, where 61 candidates and a fractured Democratic field could open the door for Republicans. In polls, Xavier Becerra is quietly rising as the “safe” choice  with Katie Porter still facing questions about her personal baggage, and billionaire Tom Steyer took most of the heat on the debate stage. All of this as Republicans, like Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, stand to benefit from the split in a chaotic jungle primary.
Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

JVL and Sarah Longwell talk about the firing of the Navy secretary mid-conflict and the bizarre “Trump-class battleship” saga, exposing a pattern of impossible promises and chaotic leadership. Plus: the Spirit Airlines bailout and what it says about Trump’s commitment to “capitalism.”

Leave a comment

ON SALE NOW: Bulwark Live is coming to San Diego on May 20 and Los Angeles on May 21. Click to join Sarah, Tim and Sam for an evening of politics among friends.

The Secret Podcast with JVL and Sarah is exclusively for members of Bulwark+. To watch or listen to future episodes and join the Secret community in the comments become a Bulwark+ member today.

Join now

Read more

More description

JVL and Sarah Longwell talk about the firing of the Navy secretary mid-conflict and the bizarre “Trump-class battleship” saga, exposing a pattern of impossible promises and chaotic leadership. Plus: the Spirit Airlines bailout and what it says about Trump’s commitment to “capitalism.”

Leave a comment

ON SALE NOW: Bulwark Live is coming to San Diego on May 20 and Los Angeles on May 21. Click to join Sarah, Tim and Sam for an evening of politics among friends.

The Secret Podcast with JVL and Sarah is exclusively for members of Bulwark+. To watch or listen to future episodes and join the Secret community in the comments become a Bulwark+ member today.

Join now

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Not only is the new hardline regime in Tehran now more likely to go rogue as a nuclear power a la North Korea, ordinary Iranians—who Trump and Bibi initially claimed we were rescuing—are also living under even harsher conditions. At the same time, the war has burned through billions worth of our critical weapons stockpile, a development that surely will figure into China’s calculations vis‐à‐vis Taiwan. This is the moment for Dems to reshape their brand and win back everyday working Americans. Plus, the settlers’ escalating attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank, the Trump administration’s depraved treatment of Afghan refugees, any talk of aid for UAE stinks of Trump family corruption, and Dems need to fix their blue places while simultaneously working to win voters in the red ones.


Nick Kristof joins Tim Miller for the weekend pod.

show notes

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, hit the like button or leave a comment. We want to hear from you.

Ad-free editions of The Bulwark Podcast are available exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

The Bulwark Podcast with Tim Miller is available wherever you get podcasts and on YouTube. New shows drop each weekday afternoon. If you like the show, leave a comment and ⭐⭐⭐⭐ wherever you listen. Add The Bulwark Podcast to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Not only is the new hardline regime in Tehran now more likely to go rogue as a nuclear power a la North Korea, ordinary Iranians—who Trump and Bibi initially claimed we were rescuing—are also living under even harsher conditions. At the same time, the war has burned through billions worth of our critical weapons stockpile, a development that surely will figure into China’s calculations vis‐à‐vis Taiwan. This is the moment for Dems to reshape their brand and win back everyday working Americans. Plus, the settlers’ escalating attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank, the Trump administration’s depraved treatment of Afghan refugees, any talk of aid for UAE stinks of Trump family corruption, and Dems need to fix their blue places while simultaneously working to win voters in the red ones.


Nick Kristof joins Tim Miller for the weekend pod.

show notes

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, hit the like button or leave a comment. We want to hear from you.

Ad-free editions of The Bulwark Podcast are available exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

The Bulwark Podcast with Tim Miller is available wherever you get podcasts and on YouTube. New shows drop each weekday afternoon. If you like the show, leave a comment and ⭐⭐⭐⭐ wherever you listen. Add The Bulwark Podcast to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Catherine Rampell and JVL are going live to cover the week's biggest developments in the world of finance and the economy.

Read Catherine Rampell's 'Receipts' Newsletter

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May

More description

Catherine Rampell and JVL are going live to cover the week's biggest developments in the world of finance and the economy.

Read Catherine Rampell's 'Receipts' Newsletter

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Before we get started, I just want to highlight a very cool chat I had this week with Lou Diamond Phillips about his new film Keep Quiet, which is playing at the Dallas International Film Festival on Saturday. I think there are still a handful of tickets, so if you’re around, you should check it out. As he put it in our talk, it’s “Training Day on the Rez.” A key example of a burgeoning film movement we might think of as Native Noir, Keep Quiet is a taut little thriller that is both specific to a place and a people and universal in its themes.

If you’re not in Dallas, I hope you check it out when it hits theaters later this year: July 10 is the official date. Don’t worry: I’ll make sure to drop a reminder.

(Photo by Rodin Eckenroth/The Hollywood Reporter via Getty Images)

THE RINGER’S SEAN FENNESSEY DEBUTED his new newsletter (you should subscribe!) with a nice effort to try and understand why it feels like there’s more energy and excitement around the movies than there has been in some time. His point about the paucity of kids’ movies jumped out at me:

I took my daughter to see Hoppers and GOAT in successive weekends. We had a ball with both movies. Two weeks after we saw Hoppers, out of nowhere, she plaintively asked me “Why did that girl become a beaver?” This led to an interesting exchange about how to save the environment and if we are doomed. This is called imprinting. These two movies were released three weeks apart. Neither one was wounded by the other. One featured a male lead, the other a female lead. One was about animals playing a form of basketball called “roarball.” The other is about an ecologically-minded girl coping with anxiety by entering her consciousness into an animatronic beaver. Weird stuff in both cases. They’re both original! Kids love these movies, they’re both among the top five of the year at the box office. Perhaps this is my theater-poisoned mind speaking, but why are there not 4-7 new kids features coming from every studio every year?

This is a point the Entertainment Strategy Guy also highlighted in his epic post about the biggest films of the year:

The obvious takeaway: audiences love family films and animated films; The Minecraft Movie, Lilo & Stitch and Zootopia 2 took the top three spots. … A few years ago, I read countless think pieces about horror films, but I was one of the only people arguing for more family films and complaining about the long dry spells between family films coming to theaters.

Two years ago I was arguing much the same point. If anything, things have gotten more dire, the success of Super Mario Galaxy and Hoppers aside. It just feels like we go incredibly long stretches without a darn thing for kids to watch, and we’re about to hit another such stretch. I guess The Mandalorian and Grogu counts as a kids’ film, kinda? That’ll be out next month. But we won’t get another proper animated film for the whole family until more than midway through June, with Toy Story 5, and a few weeks later with the upcoming Minions movie.

Set aside my own desire for an easy afternoon out with the kids. (I’m a lazy dad, I’m happy to outsource the family entertainment to a giant, domineering screen.) For the sake of the industry as a whole, you need to get kids back in the habit of getting excited to go to the theater or risk losing an entire generation to the tiny screens that will serve as the villain of Toy Story 5.

The good news is that Gen Z craves the movie theater mines: It is the demographic most likely to go to the theaters. Now, part of this is just common sense, as they’re right in the midst of the demo that’s long been most coveted by theater owners, the 13-to-25 set. But it demonstrates that for all the talk about Gen Z as the first demographic of digital natives, for all the worrying about them being addicted to short-form video and other phone-friendly formats, the link hasn’t been severed yet.

The benefits of encouraging theatergoing are palpable beyond simple grosses. Consider the impact of trailers on the big screen compared to your laptop: Seeing them in theaters leads to a surprise factor, a wow effect. “In the old days, a trailer would ‘occur’ to you when you sat down in your seat. You didn’t know what you were going to see. You didn’t click, ‘Oh, Mario,’ right? It would occur. It would reveal itself. And there’s something magical about that. So I would agree that we want to retain that magic,” Universal marketing chief Dwight Caines said on a panel at Variety’s Entertainment Marketing Summit earlier this week.

Again, I can only point to my own experiences, and my own experience involves my kids seeing a trailer and immediately asking to see the film, an impulse reinforced every time they see a poster outside of my local Drafthouse or a billboard on the side of the highway. If you build it, my kids will come. And I’m sure they’re not the only ones.

Leave a comment

‘Quite honestly, I was disgusted’

AS Y’ALL KNOW, I’ve been kind of bummed to watch the destruction of the Kennedy Center at the hands of the Trump administration. Which is one reason I was glad to talk to whistleblower Josef Palermo, who saw the malfeasance from the inside. It’s just an infuriating story and I hope you give it a watch or a listen.

Join Bulwark+ and get 20% off for 1 year

Michael ReviewJaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson in Michael. (Courtesy Lionsgate Films)

APPARENTLY, MICHAEL JACKSON STANS—a real thing that exists in the Year of our Lord 2026—are up in arms because critics aren’t swooning over the new film about the pop star that completely ignores the accusations of child abuse leveled at the singer of “Billie Jean” in the 1980s. I’m sure they’ll love my review, which opens with a comparison to Soviet propaganda documentaries.

As historian Thomas Doherty notes in his new book on documentaries drawn from newsreels, How Film Became History, cinema, at least until the rise of algorithmic social media, was the ultimate propagandist’s tool. In early Soviet Russia, for instance, “footage from the recent past was collected to teach Revolutionary doctrine, to deify Lenin (and later Stalin), and to tell, and retell, the Bolshevik origin story. The archival instinct merged with the totalitarian impulse to rewrite and recast the past to suit the ideological needs of the present.”

Understanding the ability of present filmmakers to rewrite (or erase) sins of the past is paramount to understanding why Michael exists in the form audiences will see it in.

Read the whole thing here.

Share

Assigned Viewing: Bang Bang (Kanopy, Paramount+)Tim Blake Nelson in Bang Bang. (Courtesy Sunrise Film Distribution)

THIS IS A 2024 FILM from Vincent Grashaw, the director of Keep Quiet. Tim Blake Nelson plays a boxer nicknamed Bang Bang who decides to train his estranged grandson in the family business, which leads to a bunch of old tensions coming to the surface. It’s an odd movie—there are some script issues; we kind of bounce around all over the place—but it a.) looks great, Grashaw has a keen eye and frames his shots really well; b.) is nicely paced; and c.) gives Nelson space to do some real work. He’s the sort of actor who always gets put in supporting parts, so it’s worth 100 minutes of your time just to see him show off why he’s such a reliable supporting actor.

Leave a comment

More description

Before we get started, I just want to highlight a very cool chat I had this week with Lou Diamond Phillips about his new film Keep Quiet, which is playing at the Dallas International Film Festival on Saturday. I think there are still a handful of tickets, so if you’re around, you should check it out. As he put it in our talk, it’s “Training Day on the Rez.” A key example of a burgeoning film movement we might think of as Native Noir, Keep Quiet is a taut little thriller that is both specific to a place and a people and universal in its themes.

If you’re not in Dallas, I hope you check it out when it hits theaters later this year: July 10 is the official date. Don’t worry: I’ll make sure to drop a reminder.

(Photo by Rodin Eckenroth/The Hollywood Reporter via Getty Images)

THE RINGER’S SEAN FENNESSEY DEBUTED his new newsletter (you should subscribe!) with a nice effort to try and understand why it feels like there’s more energy and excitement around the movies than there has been in some time. His point about the paucity of kids’ movies jumped out at me:

I took my daughter to see Hoppers and GOAT in successive weekends. We had a ball with both movies. Two weeks after we saw Hoppers, out of nowhere, she plaintively asked me “Why did that girl become a beaver?” This led to an interesting exchange about how to save the environment and if we are doomed. This is called imprinting. These two movies were released three weeks apart. Neither one was wounded by the other. One featured a male lead, the other a female lead. One was about animals playing a form of basketball called “roarball.” The other is about an ecologically-minded girl coping with anxiety by entering her consciousness into an animatronic beaver. Weird stuff in both cases. They’re both original! Kids love these movies, they’re both among the top five of the year at the box office. Perhaps this is my theater-poisoned mind speaking, but why are there not 4-7 new kids features coming from every studio every year?

This is a point the Entertainment Strategy Guy also highlighted in his epic post about the biggest films of the year:

The obvious takeaway: audiences love family films and animated films; The Minecraft Movie, Lilo & Stitch and Zootopia 2 took the top three spots. … A few years ago, I read countless think pieces about horror films, but I was one of the only people arguing for more family films and complaining about the long dry spells between family films coming to theaters.

Two years ago I was arguing much the same point. If anything, things have gotten more dire, the success of Super Mario Galaxy and Hoppers aside. It just feels like we go incredibly long stretches without a darn thing for kids to watch, and we’re about to hit another such stretch. I guess The Mandalorian and Grogu counts as a kids’ film, kinda? That’ll be out next month. But we won’t get another proper animated film for the whole family until more than midway through June, with Toy Story 5, and a few weeks later with the upcoming Minions movie.

Set aside my own desire for an easy afternoon out with the kids. (I’m a lazy dad, I’m happy to outsource the family entertainment to a giant, domineering screen.) For the sake of the industry as a whole, you need to get kids back in the habit of getting excited to go to the theater or risk losing an entire generation to the tiny screens that will serve as the villain of Toy Story 5.

The good news is that Gen Z craves the movie theater mines: It is the demographic most likely to go to the theaters. Now, part of this is just common sense, as they’re right in the midst of the demo that’s long been most coveted by theater owners, the 13-to-25 set. But it demonstrates that for all the talk about Gen Z as the first demographic of digital natives, for all the worrying about them being addicted to short-form video and other phone-friendly formats, the link hasn’t been severed yet.

The benefits of encouraging theatergoing are palpable beyond simple grosses. Consider the impact of trailers on the big screen compared to your laptop: Seeing them in theaters leads to a surprise factor, a wow effect. “In the old days, a trailer would ‘occur’ to you when you sat down in your seat. You didn’t know what you were going to see. You didn’t click, ‘Oh, Mario,’ right? It would occur. It would reveal itself. And there’s something magical about that. So I would agree that we want to retain that magic,” Universal marketing chief Dwight Caines said on a panel at Variety’s Entertainment Marketing Summit earlier this week.

Again, I can only point to my own experiences, and my own experience involves my kids seeing a trailer and immediately asking to see the film, an impulse reinforced every time they see a poster outside of my local Drafthouse or a billboard on the side of the highway. If you build it, my kids will come. And I’m sure they’re not the only ones.

Leave a comment

‘Quite honestly, I was disgusted’

AS Y’ALL KNOW, I’ve been kind of bummed to watch the destruction of the Kennedy Center at the hands of the Trump administration. Which is one reason I was glad to talk to whistleblower Josef Palermo, who saw the malfeasance from the inside. It’s just an infuriating story and I hope you give it a watch or a listen.

Join Bulwark+ and get 20% off for 1 year

Michael ReviewJaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson in Michael. (Courtesy Lionsgate Films)

APPARENTLY, MICHAEL JACKSON STANS—a real thing that exists in the Year of our Lord 2026—are up in arms because critics aren’t swooning over the new film about the pop star that completely ignores the accusations of child abuse leveled at the singer of “Billie Jean” in the 1980s. I’m sure they’ll love my review, which opens with a comparison to Soviet propaganda documentaries.

As historian Thomas Doherty notes in his new book on documentaries drawn from newsreels, How Film Became History, cinema, at least until the rise of algorithmic social media, was the ultimate propagandist’s tool. In early Soviet Russia, for instance, “footage from the recent past was collected to teach Revolutionary doctrine, to deify Lenin (and later Stalin), and to tell, and retell, the Bolshevik origin story. The archival instinct merged with the totalitarian impulse to rewrite and recast the past to suit the ideological needs of the present.”

Understanding the ability of present filmmakers to rewrite (or erase) sins of the past is paramount to understanding why Michael exists in the form audiences will see it in.

Read the whole thing here.

Share

Assigned Viewing: Bang Bang (Kanopy, Paramount+)Tim Blake Nelson in Bang Bang. (Courtesy Sunrise Film Distribution)

THIS IS A 2024 FILM from Vincent Grashaw, the director of Keep Quiet. Tim Blake Nelson plays a boxer nicknamed Bang Bang who decides to train his estranged grandson in the family business, which leads to a bunch of old tensions coming to the surface. It’s an odd movie—there are some script issues; we kind of bounce around all over the place—but it a.) looks great, Grashaw has a keen eye and frames his shots really well; b.) is nicely paced; and c.) gives Nelson space to do some real work. He’s the sort of actor who always gets put in supporting parts, so it’s worth 100 minutes of your time just to see him show off why he’s such a reliable supporting actor.

Leave a comment

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Sarah Longwell breaks down California’s chaotic governor’s race, where 61 candidates and a fractured Democratic field could open the door for Republicans. In polls, Xavier Becerra is quietly rising as the “safe” choice with Katie Porter still facing questions about her personal baggage, and billionaire Tom Steyer took most of the heat on the debate stage. All of this as Republicans, like Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, stand to benefit from the split in a chaotic jungle primary.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Sarah Longwell breaks down California’s chaotic governor’s race, where 61 candidates and a fractured Democratic field could open the door for Republicans. In polls, Xavier Becerra is quietly rising as the “safe” choice with Katie Porter still facing questions about her personal baggage, and billionaire Tom Steyer took most of the heat on the debate stage. All of this as Republicans, like Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, stand to benefit from the split in a chaotic jungle primary.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Catherine Rampell and JVL are going live at 12:30pm ET on Friday, April 23 to cover the week's biggest developments in the world of finance and the economy.

Read Catherine Rampell's 'Receipts' Newsletter

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Catherine Rampell and JVL are going live at 12:30pm ET on Friday, April 23 to cover the week's biggest developments in the world of finance and the economy.

Read Catherine Rampell's 'Receipts' Newsletter

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Hey guys! Jasmine and JVL here. Today we’re trying something a bit different. Earlier this week, we asked you all to leave us questions for a Triad Q&A, and here it is. We received over 600 questions (!) so we prioritized the most popular, the most frequently-asked, and the most fun.

If you like this new Triad format, let us know! If you don’t, let us know! (I promise, my feelings won’t be hurt.) If there’s something you’d like us to change about this mailbag format… let us know! If this works, we hope to make a Triad Q&A a regular event, coming straight to your inbox as the normal newsletter does.

Thank you for being such an energetic, inquisitive community. We hope you enjoy.

Leave a comment

JVL and Catherine Rampell are going live at 12:30 EDT for Receipts Live on Substack and YouTube.

Read more

More description

Hey guys! Jasmine and JVL here. Today we’re trying something a bit different. Earlier this week, we asked you all to leave us questions for a Triad Q&A, and here it is. We received over 600 questions (!) so we prioritized the most popular, the most frequently-asked, and the most fun.

If you like this new Triad format, let us know! If you don’t, let us know! (I promise, my feelings won’t be hurt.) If there’s something you’d like us to change about this mailbag format… let us know! If this works, we hope to make a Triad Q&A a regular event, coming straight to your inbox as the normal newsletter does.

Thank you for being such an energetic, inquisitive community. We hope you enjoy.

Leave a comment

JVL and Catherine Rampell are going live at 12:30 EDT for Receipts Live on Substack and YouTube.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

JVL is joined by new Bulwark colleague Jasmine Green for a first-ever mailbag episode—for Bulwark members only. JVL is answering questions straight from you on everything from Trump and nuclear weapons to how this era will be remembered. Along the way, they get into generational divides, whether “Dark JVL” is really a pessimist, and how both of them have changed their minds over time.

Read three things from JVL in the Triad newsletter mid-days Monday-Friday.

Leave a comment


Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

JVL is joined by new Bulwark colleague Jasmine Green for a first-ever mailbag episode—for Bulwark members only. JVL is answering questions straight from you on everything from Trump and nuclear weapons to how this era will be remembered. Along the way, they get into generational divides, whether “Dark JVL” is really a pessimist, and how both of them have changed their minds over time.

Read three things from JVL in the Triad newsletter mid-days Monday-Friday.

Leave a comment


Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer speaks after a gubernatorial debate on April 22, 2026 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Benjamin Fanjoy / Getty Images)

THE SMOKE FROM ERIC SWALWELL’S POLITICAL IMPLOSION has not yet cleared from the California gubernatorial race, but one figure is deploying a giant political box fan to give himself some visibility. Billionaire liberal donor and environmental activist Tom Steyer’s recent ad buys total around $115 million, almost thirty times the total of his nearest Democratic competitor.

Swalwell’s exit from the scene appears to have benefited Steyer: He is leading at 20 percent in a new Emerson poll, with former congressman and HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra1 close behind at 19 percent, also enjoying a bump in support following Swalwell’s exit.2 Steyer also picked up a major endorsement from the influential California Teachers Association, which had supported Swalwell before he withdrew from the race.

But while some of Swalwell’s collapsed political presence has been recouped by other Democrats still in the race, much of it is now that swirl of political smoke: There is not yet a clear frontrunner, which gives rise to the distant possibility that Democratic disarray will allow two Republicans to sneak in to the gubernatorial runoff thanks to California’s jungle primary system.

Steyer is no dummy: While a Washington Post poll last fall found that 75 percent of Democratic voters and 60 percent of independents thought spending by billionaires on political campaigns is either bad or very bad, those voters also overwhelmingly oppose ICE, and Steyer has worked hard to position himself as the anti-ICE candidate. He has called for abolishing the agency and jailing its agents who have broken the law; in a blog post he published last week detailing these plans, he described ICE as a “violent extremist group.” Don’t just take my word for it (or his). New York Times opinion contributor Jean Guerrero, who last week moderated a California gubernatorial debate, wrote that while the Democratic candidates should be stronger on immigration, Steyer “came across as the boldest defender of immigrants” on the debate stage.

“We need immigration services, we need it absolutely, but we don’t need a criminal organization with masks and assault rifles terrorizing our citizens and racially profiling them, and it’s not right,” Steyer told me in an interview a week ago.

Get 20% off for 1 year

For his efforts, Steyer has received the backhanded gift of Trump lashing out over Fox News’s coverage of his candidacy, which Trump worries could have the effect of “putting him [Steyer] ‘into play’” to win the race.

It wasn’t just Trump who bristled at Steyer’s rise. Elon Musk retweeted a screenshot of the opening to Steyer’s blog post about his five-point plan for ICE with a single word of commentary: “Wow.” The plan calls for not just abolishing ICE and forbidding all law enforcement agencies from racial profiling, but also creating an investigative unit to monitor ICE in California, as well as conditions in the agency’s detention centers. Steyer told me he also wants to create a legal-defense “superfund” for people who have been “kidnapped” by ICE—a plan modeled on an initiative he took on with his wife in 2018 wherein the couple provided around $3.3 million to cover legal representation for people under threat of deportation during Trump 1.0.

Steyer is proud of the criticism and alarm he’s elicited from Trump and Musk, and by all accounts, he’s serious about opposing ICE in California. But there is one thing that could trip him up in the lane he’s chosen for himself in this race—what some call his “original sin” on immigration.

“Is He Ready to Atone for Those Sins?”

In 2004, Steyer’s former hedge fund bought tens of millions of dollars’ worth of stock in the company now known as CoreCivic, a publicly traded detention company that has made hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts under Trump, tallying up allegations of poor medical care for sick detainees along the way.

Chris Newman, the general counsel for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and an attorney for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man who was wrongfully sent to a prison camp in El Salvador last year, rejects the idea that a billionaire should be elected in California. He told me Steyer is “obviously” trying to “buy his way into the immigrant rights champion lane.”

“The guy profited from investing in commercial prison companies—is he ready to atone for those sins?” he asked.

Steyer has called this investment a “mistake.” When we spoke I asked him about it again, noting that his opponents see it as fundamentally undercutting his anti-ICE position.

“We did invest in it—it was twenty-two years ago—I realized over twenty years ago it was a mistake and got rid of it,” he told me, noting that he has since been endorsed by the leading rehabilitative-justice organization in the state, Smart Justice. “But I didn’t just do that,” he continued:

We worked for the next twenty years to push not just for fair treatment of immigrants but also against the era of mass incarceration. We worked to make California a sanctuary state in 2019, which means that California law officers cannot cooperate with ICE legally except with regards for violent felons. We pushed also in 2019 to make sure the state could not have contracts with private prisons.

Steyer framed the decision to invest in private prisons back in 2004 not just as a mistake or failure of judgment, but as an important personal turning point—“a wakeup call” that “changed my life,” he said. “And there’s a reason I walked away from my business and billions of dollars: because I want to have a different life than that, and being in that situation puts pressure on me to do things I’m not willing to do.”

Hiring the Most-Sought-After Influencer in the Nation

Loyal readers of Huddled Masses may remember Carlos Eduardo Espina, the influencer whom every 2028 Democratic hopeful is courting thanks to his charisma, positive content, and platform of more than 22 million followers across Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook.

Steyer, too, is hoping to benefit from Espina’s influence with Latinos and immigrants: The billionaire recently brought him aboard as a campaign adviser in the sprint to the June primary.

I asked the typically forthcoming Espina how much he’s being paid for his work on the campaign, and he said he would be happy to tell me—but contracts go two ways, so I would need to ask the campaign. Steyer’s team declined to share that juicy bit of info.

Espina’s choice has given rise to some criticism among his followers over his decision not to instead endorse a Hispanic candidate like Becerra. (Espina told me he didn’t want to criticize Becerra during our call, but did acknowledge that the congressman’s time as HHS secretary under Biden—a role in which he oversaw shelters for migrant children—left a bad taste in his mouth.)

Espina, a Texas native, said he wasn’t sure about getting involved in California, but a large portion of his followers are from the state, and he counts Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) as a friend and was swayed by Khanna’s endorsement of Steyer, whose team soon pitched him on advising the campaign on Latino issues and engagement.

Share

Espina has already advised Steyer’s campaign to do more events in the Central Valley, Modesto, and Madera. And he’s been tapping his Californian followers to help hone Steyer’s policy focus: A Google form he posted with questions on the top issues they’re concerned about got close to a thousand responses, he told me. He learned that immigration and ICE raids are by far the number-one issue for these Latino Californians, followed by the economy.

Steyer described Espina as a “trusted ambassador” to a broad swath of Californians he hopes to reach through his campaign. And one of the things he wants to communicate is a position that will doubtless anger his MAGA critics.

“One of the questions has always been . . . should we be providing health care for people without documentation? The answer is: Yes, absolutely,” Steyer told me. “Health care is a right; the people of California need to have health care.”

Espina’s crowdsourcing also found that working-class Latinos tend to see the Golden State as increasingly unaffordable—another area where Steyer feels he has a valuable political message to offer them.

Latinos are the biggest group in California, Steyer said, and they disproportionately work in physically difficult and underpaid jobs. Helping them, he said, dovetails with his campaign’s commitment to affordability.

“When I’m talking about dropping the cost of rent, dropping the cost of health care, dropping the cost of electricity, putting a windfall profits tax on gasoline and sending it back to California directly, I’m talking about Latinos,” he said. “I’m talking about people who do the hardest jobs for the lowest money. . . . Anytime I’m talking about costs coming down, I’m talking about Latinos being able to afford the life they want. Anytime I’m talking about bringing in money so that we can have better education so our kids can do better, I’m talking overwhelmingly about Latino kids.”

Leave a comment

1

Correction (April 24, 3:56 p.m. EDT): As originally published, this sentence was worded in a way that erroneously suggested that former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra is currently in Congress. He served in Congress from 1993 to 2017, before becoming attorney general of California and then secretary of health and human services.

2

Keep in mind, when looking at Steyer’s 1-point lead in the Emerson poll, that the poll has a credibility interval of +/-3 percent.

More description
California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer speaks after a gubernatorial debate on April 22, 2026 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Benjamin Fanjoy / Getty Images)

THE SMOKE FROM ERIC SWALWELL’S POLITICAL IMPLOSION has not yet cleared from the California gubernatorial race, but one figure is deploying a giant political box fan to give himself some visibility. Billionaire liberal donor and environmental activist Tom Steyer’s recent ad buys total around $115 million, almost thirty times the total of his nearest Democratic competitor.

Swalwell’s exit from the scene appears to have benefited Steyer: He is leading at 20 percent in a new Emerson poll, with former congressman and HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra1 close behind at 19 percent, also enjoying a bump in support following Swalwell’s exit.2 Steyer also picked up a major endorsement from the influential California Teachers Association, which had supported Swalwell before he withdrew from the race.

But while some of Swalwell’s collapsed political presence has been recouped by other Democrats still in the race, much of it is now that swirl of political smoke: There is not yet a clear frontrunner, which gives rise to the distant possibility that Democratic disarray will allow two Republicans to sneak in to the gubernatorial runoff thanks to California’s jungle primary system.

Steyer is no dummy: While a Washington Post poll last fall found that 75 percent of Democratic voters and 60 percent of independents thought spending by billionaires on political campaigns is either bad or very bad, those voters also overwhelmingly oppose ICE, and Steyer has worked hard to position himself as the anti-ICE candidate. He has called for abolishing the agency and jailing its agents who have broken the law; in a blog post he published last week detailing these plans, he described ICE as a “violent extremist group.” Don’t just take my word for it (or his). New York Times opinion contributor Jean Guerrero, who last week moderated a California gubernatorial debate, wrote that while the Democratic candidates should be stronger on immigration, Steyer “came across as the boldest defender of immigrants” on the debate stage.

“We need immigration services, we need it absolutely, but we don’t need a criminal organization with masks and assault rifles terrorizing our citizens and racially profiling them, and it’s not right,” Steyer told me in an interview a week ago.

Get 20% off for 1 year

For his efforts, Steyer has received the backhanded gift of Trump lashing out over Fox News’s coverage of his candidacy, which Trump worries could have the effect of “putting him [Steyer] ‘into play’” to win the race.

It wasn’t just Trump who bristled at Steyer’s rise. Elon Musk retweeted a screenshot of the opening to Steyer’s blog post about his five-point plan for ICE with a single word of commentary: “Wow.” The plan calls for not just abolishing ICE and forbidding all law enforcement agencies from racial profiling, but also creating an investigative unit to monitor ICE in California, as well as conditions in the agency’s detention centers. Steyer told me he also wants to create a legal-defense “superfund” for people who have been “kidnapped” by ICE—a plan modeled on an initiative he took on with his wife in 2018 wherein the couple provided around $3.3 million to cover legal representation for people under threat of deportation during Trump 1.0.

Steyer is proud of the criticism and alarm he’s elicited from Trump and Musk, and by all accounts, he’s serious about opposing ICE in California. But there is one thing that could trip him up in the lane he’s chosen for himself in this race—what some call his “original sin” on immigration.

“Is He Ready to Atone for Those Sins?”

In 2004, Steyer’s former hedge fund bought tens of millions of dollars’ worth of stock in the company now known as CoreCivic, a publicly traded detention company that has made hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts under Trump, tallying up allegations of poor medical care for sick detainees along the way.

Chris Newman, the general counsel for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and an attorney for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man who was wrongfully sent to a prison camp in El Salvador last year, rejects the idea that a billionaire should be elected in California. He told me Steyer is “obviously” trying to “buy his way into the immigrant rights champion lane.”

“The guy profited from investing in commercial prison companies—is he ready to atone for those sins?” he asked.

Steyer has called this investment a “mistake.” When we spoke I asked him about it again, noting that his opponents see it as fundamentally undercutting his anti-ICE position.

“We did invest in it—it was twenty-two years ago—I realized over twenty years ago it was a mistake and got rid of it,” he told me, noting that he has since been endorsed by the leading rehabilitative-justice organization in the state, Smart Justice. “But I didn’t just do that,” he continued:

We worked for the next twenty years to push not just for fair treatment of immigrants but also against the era of mass incarceration. We worked to make California a sanctuary state in 2019, which means that California law officers cannot cooperate with ICE legally except with regards for violent felons. We pushed also in 2019 to make sure the state could not have contracts with private prisons.

Steyer framed the decision to invest in private prisons back in 2004 not just as a mistake or failure of judgment, but as an important personal turning point—“a wakeup call” that “changed my life,” he said. “And there’s a reason I walked away from my business and billions of dollars: because I want to have a different life than that, and being in that situation puts pressure on me to do things I’m not willing to do.”

Hiring the Most-Sought-After Influencer in the Nation

Loyal readers of Huddled Masses may remember Carlos Eduardo Espina, the influencer whom every 2028 Democratic hopeful is courting thanks to his charisma, positive content, and platform of more than 22 million followers across Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook.

Steyer, too, is hoping to benefit from Espina’s influence with Latinos and immigrants: The billionaire recently brought him aboard as a campaign adviser in the sprint to the June primary.

I asked the typically forthcoming Espina how much he’s being paid for his work on the campaign, and he said he would be happy to tell me—but contracts go two ways, so I would need to ask the campaign. Steyer’s team declined to share that juicy bit of info.

Espina’s choice has given rise to some criticism among his followers over his decision not to instead endorse a Hispanic candidate like Becerra. (Espina told me he didn’t want to criticize Becerra during our call, but did acknowledge that the congressman’s time as HHS secretary under Biden—a role in which he oversaw shelters for migrant children—left a bad taste in his mouth.)

Espina, a Texas native, said he wasn’t sure about getting involved in California, but a large portion of his followers are from the state, and he counts Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) as a friend and was swayed by Khanna’s endorsement of Steyer, whose team soon pitched him on advising the campaign on Latino issues and engagement.

Share

Espina has already advised Steyer’s campaign to do more events in the Central Valley, Modesto, and Madera. And he’s been tapping his Californian followers to help hone Steyer’s policy focus: A Google form he posted with questions on the top issues they’re concerned about got close to a thousand responses, he told me. He learned that immigration and ICE raids are by far the number-one issue for these Latino Californians, followed by the economy.

Steyer described Espina as a “trusted ambassador” to a broad swath of Californians he hopes to reach through his campaign. And one of the things he wants to communicate is a position that will doubtless anger his MAGA critics.

“One of the questions has always been . . . should we be providing health care for people without documentation? The answer is: Yes, absolutely,” Steyer told me. “Health care is a right; the people of California need to have health care.”

Espina’s crowdsourcing also found that working-class Latinos tend to see the Golden State as increasingly unaffordable—another area where Steyer feels he has a valuable political message to offer them.

Latinos are the biggest group in California, Steyer said, and they disproportionately work in physically difficult and underpaid jobs. Helping them, he said, dovetails with his campaign’s commitment to affordability.

“When I’m talking about dropping the cost of rent, dropping the cost of health care, dropping the cost of electricity, putting a windfall profits tax on gasoline and sending it back to California directly, I’m talking about Latinos,” he said. “I’m talking about people who do the hardest jobs for the lowest money. . . . Anytime I’m talking about costs coming down, I’m talking about Latinos being able to afford the life they want. Anytime I’m talking about bringing in money so that we can have better education so our kids can do better, I’m talking overwhelmingly about Latino kids.”

Leave a comment

1

Correction (April 24, 3:56 p.m. EDT): As originally published, this sentence was worded in a way that erroneously suggested that former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra is currently in Congress. He served in Congress from 1993 to 2017, before becoming attorney general of California and then secretary of health and human services.

2

Keep in mind, when looking at Steyer’s 1-point lead in the Emerson poll, that the poll has a credibility interval of +/-3 percent.

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Tim Miller appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored and got into a heated on-air clash with a right-wing “pastor” while dismantling the case for Trump’s war with Iran.

Watch more Piers Morgan Uncensored: https://www.youtube.com/piersmorganuncensored

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

More description

Tim Miller appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored and got into a heated on-air clash with a right-wing “pastor” while dismantling the case for Trump’s war with Iran.

Watch more Piers Morgan Uncensored: https://www.youtube.com/piersmorganuncensored

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
Published 2026-04-24

Trump Isn’t Thinking Strait

View

Another day, another Pentagon press conference in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fruitlessly demands Europe get more involved with reopening the Strait of Hormuz: “This should not be America’s fight alone,” Hegseth seethed. “We barely use the Strait of Hormuz. . . . [The Europeans] need the Strait of Hormuz much more than we do, and might want to start doing less talking and having fancy conferences in Europe and getting on a boat.”

Sure, he’s said some variation of this fifty times over the last month—but maybe he just wasn’t petulant enough before. Happy Friday.

(Photo illustration by The Bulwark / Photos: Getty)Open the Strait. Shut Down Trump.

by William Kristol

On March 21, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would “hit and obliterate” Iran’s power plants if the Strait of Hormuz was not “FULLY OPEN” within forty-eight hours. The strait did not “FULLY OPEN” within forty-eight hours, or for that matter, within the next two weeks. By April 5, Easter Sunday, the “very stable genius” who is our president had lost patience. He proclaimed that two days later, April 7, “would be “Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”

Well, Iran did not open the strait on April 7. And more than two weeks since, after a few days in which a few ships were able to pass through the strait, it is once again closed.

But that’s okay with Donald Trump! Because he’s now apparently in favor of keeping the strait closed. Yesterday morning, Trump adjusted his persona from that of a deranged, genocidal maniac to that of an interested if somewhat befuddled commentator. “Iran is having a very hard time figuring out who their leader is!” he informed us. “They just don’t know! The infighting between the ‘Hardliners,’ who have been losing BADLY on the battlefield, and the ‘Moderates,’ who are not very moderate at all (but gaining respect!), is CRAZY!”

But not to worry. Trump reassured us that “We have total control over the Strait of Hormuz. No ship can enter or leave without the approval of the United States Navy. It is ‘Sealed up Tight,’ until such time as Iran is able to make a DEAL!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Thank you for your attention to this newsletter! Morning Shots is free, but if you’d like to read our members-only newsletters, join Bulwark+.

So the Trump administration supposedly has total control and is using that control to seal the strait up tight. The president had been demanding, rather stridently, that it be opened pronto. But “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines,” as Ralph Waldo Emerson explained in 1841. Trump is no little statesman or philosopher or divine. He is, per his defenders, playing nineteen-dimensional international chess. He’s apparently closing the strait in order to pressure Iran—at an indeterminate point in the future—to open it.1 In any case, before Trump began his war the Strait of Hormuz was open. As of this morning, April 24, eight weeks into the war, it is closed.

Which is bad! It’s contrary to our national interest in many different ways. It’s doing a lot of damage to the global economy. And it’s reinforcing the lesson that Iran’s key chess move in this war, a pretty simple and two-dimensional one that was entirely foreseeable, has succeeded. And when this is all over, the world will remember that Iran’s gambit worked, and that Iran can make this move again in the future.

This is a very bad outcome. Even if we get lucky and end up stumbling into a not-too-terrible short-term accommodation when the strait reopens thanks to various fuzzy agreements and murky accommodations, no one is going to forget that the Iranian regime has established the principle that it can close the strait. Nor will the world fail to notice that Trump launched a war that has failed to achieve its goals (whatever they actually were), undercut our standing in the Middle East, further damaged our alliances in Europe, drawn down our military stocks in Asia, and above all exposed our commander-in-chief as an increasingly unstable, foolish, and reckless old man flailing about on the world stage.

For his part, Trump seems to have decided just to pretend that real damage isn’t being done to the global economy, and to ours, and he’s just going to move on to other matters.

You won’t be surprised to hear that Trump is still plenty active on Truth Social. But his posts and reposts late last night and early this morning are attacks on the Southern Poverty Law Center, on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for allegedly organizing the investigation of his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia, and on “Cryin’ Chuck Schumer” for criticizing the Border Patrol and ICE. At 6:23 p.m. yesterday, Trump shared the important news, “I LOVE TRUTH SOCIAL!”

Earlier in the day, at the White House, Trump spent time claiming that the crowd he convened on the Mall on January 6th was bigger than Martin Luther King Jr.’s in 1963. Today he’ll presumably be focused on sharpening the attacks on the media that he’s planning to deliver at Saturday evening’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

The fact that Trump is bored by his war is good, insofar as it means he’s somewhat less likely to try truly reckless and irresponsible things that would unleash a chain of events that would be even more damaging to our nation and the world. A demoralized Trump is safer than a megalomaniacal one.

But the mania is still there. And as it becomes increasingly clear that his excursion into the Middle East has been disastrous in so many ways, as voters from Hungary to Virginia weigh in against him, as a midterm debacle for him looms, Trump’s desperation will merge with his megalomania to produce threats to our democracy more dangerous than ever.

It would be good if the seaways for global shipping were reopened as soon as possible. But it’s up to us to continue to work as urgently and effectively as possible to choke off the all-too-many political pathways to Trumpist authoritarianism.

Join now

AROUND THE BULWARK

There are still tickets available for the Bulwark Live shows in California next month! Get yours here.

Quick Hits

THE CARD NOT TAKEN: Remember the Trump “gold card”? When the president announced his buy-your-residency program for foreigners last year, he bragged that he was expecting heavy demand for the applications priced at $1 million a pop: “We anticipate the TRUMP GOLD CARD will generate well over $100 Billion Dollars very quickly,” Trump wrote in September. “This money will be used for reducing Taxes, Pro Growth Projects, and paying down our Debt.”

So far he’s only a little bit off—about five orders of magnitude. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Thursday that exactly one person has so far been approved for a “gold card” visa to date, per Bloomberg News. Hundreds more, he claimed, are still in the pipeline undergoing what he described as “an extraordinary vet.” (Coming soon, perhaps: Gold Card Premium Plus Accelerated™—all the benefits, half the fuss!)

Many observers have long doubted whether Trump’s gold-card program would attract takers, especially given that other immigration pathways, like an EB-5 investor visa, already exist for foreigners willing to splash down some cash to establish residency in the United States. These doubts seem to be proving true—and it’s looking like the money for reducing Taxes, Pro Growth Projects, and paying down our Debt will need to come from someplace else.

WHERE DO THEY FIND THESE GUYS?: Hung Cao, the new acting Navy secretary following the ouster of John Phelan, doesn’t have much (any?) experience running large organizations, handling budgets, working with defense contractors, or dealing with D.C. politics and bureaucracy. But he does have something far more coveted in today’s MAGA politics: a long history of saying truly insane things on right-wing podcasts.

“There’s a place in Monterey, California called Lover’s Point,” Cao told pastor/podcaster Sean Feucht in 2023, while running for Senate in Virginia. “The original name was Lovers of Christ Point. Now it’s become, they took out the Christ. It’s Lover’s Point. And it’s really—Monterrey is a dark place now, a lot of witchcraft, and the Wiccan community has really taken over there. . . . We can’t let that happen to Virginia.”

Cao also seems to share Pete Hegseth’s obsession with anti-woke military recruitment. “When you’re using a drag queen to recruit for the Navy, that’s not the people we want,” Cao said during a 2024 debate. “What we need is alpha males and alpha females who are going to rip out their own guts, eat them, and ask for seconds.” No word yet on the state of alpha-male and alpha-female retention in the Navy during Cao’s brief tenure.

TROUBLE IN CRYPTO-PARADISE: The president’s crypto ventures have long been among his most hilariously and openly corrupt—a giant “BRIBE ME” sign hung out over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. These days, even some of his biggest investors are starting to agree. Here’s Reuters:

Crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun on Tuesday sued World Liberty Financial, the digital currency venture co-founded by U.S. President Donald Trump and his sons, ​alleging that World Liberty illegally froze his holdings of tokens issued by the company.

Sun alleged in the lawsuit, filed in a federal court in California, that World Liberty secretly installed tools to ‌prevent the sale of his tokens after they became tradeable in September 2025. The lawsuit also alleges that World Liberty threatened to “burn”—or permanently delete—his holdings, even while they were in Sun’s digital wallet.

Sun, the Hong Kong-based founder of the Tron cryptocurrency, bought $45 million of WLFI tokens—some 3 billion—and was later awarded a further 1 billion tokens after being named as an advisor to World Liberty, the lawsuit said.

One imagines it’s a hard lesson for Sun, who seems to have fallen prey to the same misimpression as so many of Trump’s business partners—the best marks are the people who think they’re in on the scam.

Share

Cheap Shots

Share

1

The Navy, through all of Trump’s gyrations, has been consistent: The mission it is executing is the blockade of Iran’s ports, not a blockade of the entire Strait of Hormuz.

More description

Another day, another Pentagon press conference in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fruitlessly demands Europe get more involved with reopening the Strait of Hormuz: “This should not be America’s fight alone,” Hegseth seethed. “We barely use the Strait of Hormuz. . . . [The Europeans] need the Strait of Hormuz much more than we do, and might want to start doing less talking and having fancy conferences in Europe and getting on a boat.”

Sure, he’s said some variation of this fifty times over the last month—but maybe he just wasn’t petulant enough before. Happy Friday.

(Photo illustration by The Bulwark / Photos: Getty)Open the Strait. Shut Down Trump.

by William Kristol

On March 21, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would “hit and obliterate” Iran’s power plants if the Strait of Hormuz was not “FULLY OPEN” within forty-eight hours. The strait did not “FULLY OPEN” within forty-eight hours, or for that matter, within the next two weeks. By April 5, Easter Sunday, the “very stable genius” who is our president had lost patience. He proclaimed that two days later, April 7, “would be “Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”

Well, Iran did not open the strait on April 7. And more than two weeks since, after a few days in which a few ships were able to pass through the strait, it is once again closed.

But that’s okay with Donald Trump! Because he’s now apparently in favor of keeping the strait closed. Yesterday morning, Trump adjusted his persona from that of a deranged, genocidal maniac to that of an interested if somewhat befuddled commentator. “Iran is having a very hard time figuring out who their leader is!” he informed us. “They just don’t know! The infighting between the ‘Hardliners,’ who have been losing BADLY on the battlefield, and the ‘Moderates,’ who are not very moderate at all (but gaining respect!), is CRAZY!”

But not to worry. Trump reassured us that “We have total control over the Strait of Hormuz. No ship can enter or leave without the approval of the United States Navy. It is ‘Sealed up Tight,’ until such time as Iran is able to make a DEAL!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Thank you for your attention to this newsletter! Morning Shots is free, but if you’d like to read our members-only newsletters, join Bulwark+.

So the Trump administration supposedly has total control and is using that control to seal the strait up tight. The president had been demanding, rather stridently, that it be opened pronto. But “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines,” as Ralph Waldo Emerson explained in 1841. Trump is no little statesman or philosopher or divine. He is, per his defenders, playing nineteen-dimensional international chess. He’s apparently closing the strait in order to pressure Iran—at an indeterminate point in the future—to open it.1 In any case, before Trump began his war the Strait of Hormuz was open. As of this morning, April 24, eight weeks into the war, it is closed.

Which is bad! It’s contrary to our national interest in many different ways. It’s doing a lot of damage to the global economy. And it’s reinforcing the lesson that Iran’s key chess move in this war, a pretty simple and two-dimensional one that was entirely foreseeable, has succeeded. And when this is all over, the world will remember that Iran’s gambit worked, and that Iran can make this move again in the future.

This is a very bad outcome. Even if we get lucky and end up stumbling into a not-too-terrible short-term accommodation when the strait reopens thanks to various fuzzy agreements and murky accommodations, no one is going to forget that the Iranian regime has established the principle that it can close the strait. Nor will the world fail to notice that Trump launched a war that has failed to achieve its goals (whatever they actually were), undercut our standing in the Middle East, further damaged our alliances in Europe, drawn down our military stocks in Asia, and above all exposed our commander-in-chief as an increasingly unstable, foolish, and reckless old man flailing about on the world stage.

For his part, Trump seems to have decided just to pretend that real damage isn’t being done to the global economy, and to ours, and he’s just going to move on to other matters.

You won’t be surprised to hear that Trump is still plenty active on Truth Social. But his posts and reposts late last night and early this morning are attacks on the Southern Poverty Law Center, on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for allegedly organizing the investigation of his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia, and on “Cryin’ Chuck Schumer” for criticizing the Border Patrol and ICE. At 6:23 p.m. yesterday, Trump shared the important news, “I LOVE TRUTH SOCIAL!”

Earlier in the day, at the White House, Trump spent time claiming that the crowd he convened on the Mall on January 6th was bigger than Martin Luther King Jr.’s in 1963. Today he’ll presumably be focused on sharpening the attacks on the media that he’s planning to deliver at Saturday evening’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

The fact that Trump is bored by his war is good, insofar as it means he’s somewhat less likely to try truly reckless and irresponsible things that would unleash a chain of events that would be even more damaging to our nation and the world. A demoralized Trump is safer than a megalomaniacal one.

But the mania is still there. And as it becomes increasingly clear that his excursion into the Middle East has been disastrous in so many ways, as voters from Hungary to Virginia weigh in against him, as a midterm debacle for him looms, Trump’s desperation will merge with his megalomania to produce threats to our democracy more dangerous than ever.

It would be good if the seaways for global shipping were reopened as soon as possible. But it’s up to us to continue to work as urgently and effectively as possible to choke off the all-too-many political pathways to Trumpist authoritarianism.

Join now

AROUND THE BULWARK

There are still tickets available for the Bulwark Live shows in California next month! Get yours here.

Quick Hits

THE CARD NOT TAKEN: Remember the Trump “gold card”? When the president announced his buy-your-residency program for foreigners last year, he bragged that he was expecting heavy demand for the applications priced at $1 million a pop: “We anticipate the TRUMP GOLD CARD will generate well over $100 Billion Dollars very quickly,” Trump wrote in September. “This money will be used for reducing Taxes, Pro Growth Projects, and paying down our Debt.”

So far he’s only a little bit off—about five orders of magnitude. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Thursday that exactly one person has so far been approved for a “gold card” visa to date, per Bloomberg News. Hundreds more, he claimed, are still in the pipeline undergoing what he described as “an extraordinary vet.” (Coming soon, perhaps: Gold Card Premium Plus Accelerated™—all the benefits, half the fuss!)

Many observers have long doubted whether Trump’s gold-card program would attract takers, especially given that other immigration pathways, like an EB-5 investor visa, already exist for foreigners willing to splash down some cash to establish residency in the United States. These doubts seem to be proving true—and it’s looking like the money for reducing Taxes, Pro Growth Projects, and paying down our Debt will need to come from someplace else.

WHERE DO THEY FIND THESE GUYS?: Hung Cao, the new acting Navy secretary following the ouster of John Phelan, doesn’t have much (any?) experience running large organizations, handling budgets, working with defense contractors, or dealing with D.C. politics and bureaucracy. But he does have something far more coveted in today’s MAGA politics: a long history of saying truly insane things on right-wing podcasts.

“There’s a place in Monterey, California called Lover’s Point,” Cao told pastor/podcaster Sean Feucht in 2023, while running for Senate in Virginia. “The original name was Lovers of Christ Point. Now it’s become, they took out the Christ. It’s Lover’s Point. And it’s really—Monterrey is a dark place now, a lot of witchcraft, and the Wiccan community has really taken over there. . . . We can’t let that happen to Virginia.”

Cao also seems to share Pete Hegseth’s obsession with anti-woke military recruitment. “When you’re using a drag queen to recruit for the Navy, that’s not the people we want,” Cao said during a 2024 debate. “What we need is alpha males and alpha females who are going to rip out their own guts, eat them, and ask for seconds.” No word yet on the state of alpha-male and alpha-female retention in the Navy during Cao’s brief tenure.

TROUBLE IN CRYPTO-PARADISE: The president’s crypto ventures have long been among his most hilariously and openly corrupt—a giant “BRIBE ME” sign hung out over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. These days, even some of his biggest investors are starting to agree. Here’s Reuters:

Crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun on Tuesday sued World Liberty Financial, the digital currency venture co-founded by U.S. President Donald Trump and his sons, ​alleging that World Liberty illegally froze his holdings of tokens issued by the company.

Sun alleged in the lawsuit, filed in a federal court in California, that World Liberty secretly installed tools to ‌prevent the sale of his tokens after they became tradeable in September 2025. The lawsuit also alleges that World Liberty threatened to “burn”—or permanently delete—his holdings, even while they were in Sun’s digital wallet.

Sun, the Hong Kong-based founder of the Tron cryptocurrency, bought $45 million of WLFI tokens—some 3 billion—and was later awarded a further 1 billion tokens after being named as an advisor to World Liberty, the lawsuit said.

One imagines it’s a hard lesson for Sun, who seems to have fallen prey to the same misimpression as so many of Trump’s business partners—the best marks are the people who think they’re in on the scam.

Share

Cheap Shots

Share

1

The Navy, through all of Trump’s gyrations, has been consistent: The mission it is executing is the blockade of Iran’s ports, not a blockade of the entire Strait of Hormuz.

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
Published 2026-04-24

Kash Patel SNAPS at Reporter on Live TV

23 min
View

Sam Stein and Will Sommer break down a chaotic day involving Kash Patel. First, Patel snaps at a reporter when pressed about his own lawsuit, turning a simple question into a total meltdown. They also dig into the Justice Department’s indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, explaining the allegations and why the case is already raising serious questions. Finally, they examine a troubling development: the FBI questioning a New York Times reporter after a story about Patel’s girlfriend.

Read more from Will's newsletter False Flag: https://www.thebulwark.com/s/false-flag

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

More description

Sam Stein and Will Sommer break down a chaotic day involving Kash Patel. First, Patel snaps at a reporter when pressed about his own lawsuit, turning a simple question into a total meltdown. They also dig into the Justice Department’s indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, explaining the allegations and why the case is already raising serious questions. Finally, they examine a troubling development: the FBI questioning a New York Times reporter after a story about Patel’s girlfriend.

Read more from Will's newsletter False Flag: https://www.thebulwark.com/s/false-flag

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

The Epstein files are back in the news and JVL and Will Sommer are here to break down the latest. Republicans are now weighing whether to recommend a pardon for convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. At the same time, the Department of Justice’s internal watchdog is launching a review into how the Epstein files were handled, raising new questions about what was released, what was withheld, and why. Is this a routine oversight review—or the start of something much bigger?

Read more from Will's newsletter False Flag: https://www.thebulwark.com/s/false-flag

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

More description

The Epstein files are back in the news and JVL and Will Sommer are here to break down the latest. Republicans are now weighing whether to recommend a pardon for convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. At the same time, the Department of Justice’s internal watchdog is launching a review into how the Epstein files were handled, raising new questions about what was released, what was withheld, and why. Is this a routine oversight review—or the start of something much bigger?

Read more from Will's newsletter False Flag: https://www.thebulwark.com/s/false-flag

Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego and LA in May: https://thebulwark.com/events

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
(Photo illustration by The Bulwark / Photos: Department of Justice, Shutterstock)

TO MUCH FANFARE, the Department of Justice this week announced a new indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group known for monitoring and calling out the rise and prevalence of right-wing extremism and hate groups.

In the indictment, the DOJ accused the group of bank and wire fraud as well as conspiracy to commit money laundering, arguing that SPLC’s use of paid informants to monitor extremist groups was, in actuality, a funding mechanism for those groups.

Reading through the eleven counts, however, I noticed a telling omission.

In order to make the argument that “the SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” the government listed several informants in white supremacist groups who received payoffs from the SPLC. One of them was described as an “Imperial Wizard” in a Ku Klux Klan group called the United Klans of America.

The indictment cites an SPLC article describing the United Klans of America as a “millennial reboot of what was once a serious domestic threat.”

Yet the DOJ left out one key word from that SPLC article: “pathetic.” In the actual 2013 story, the SPLC described United Klans of America as a “pathetic millennial reboot of what was once a serious domestic threat” (emphasis added).

That doesn’t sound like “manufacturing racism” so much as mocking it. If the SPLC were really trying to whip their donors into a frenzy over groups like United Klans of America, why would it describe the organization as “pathetic”?

And why would the DOJ leave that one word out of the indictment?

Those questions will almost assuredly be adjudicated in the courts, as the SPLC has pledged to fight the indictment. But, for now at least, they don’t seem to be causing much pause or hesitation on the right, which has seized on the indictment not just as a chance to crush a hated liberal institution, but as proof that essentially every politically unpalatable extremist on the right has been secretly funded by the SPLC.

“The supply of right-wing ‘hate’ was so low that a left-wing ‘anti-hate’ group had to subsidize it, so it could then raise money to fight it,” conservative activist Christopher Rufo tweeted.

“These extreme right-wing things that are supposedly everywhere, I swear to you, it is probably nothing but paid-off people from the SPLC and FBI informants,” Glenn Beck said Wednesday on his show.

Join Bulwark+ with a FREE 14-day trial

THE DOJ’S INDICTMENT OF THE SPLC comes, ironically, when the group is far removed from the powerful perch it occupied during its civil rights heyday, or even what it was a decade ago. The SPLC was founded in the early 1970s as a legal clinic focusing on a racial discrimination. But it gained a name for itself later in the decade by filing lawsuits against the Klan. Over the subsequent years it expanded its remit to include other hate groups.

The SPLC has long faced allegations that it has amassed far more money than it needs to fund its activities, with more than $800 million in assets as of 2024. Working at the SPLC in the early 2000s, writer Bob Moser suspected he was working at what he would later describe as a “highly profitable scam.”

But conservatives despised it not just because it was flush with cash but because they believed the group spuriously ruined the reputation of people and institutions that were not hate groups and that it chilled speech.

In his new book, Strange People on the Hill, former SPLC investigative reporter Michael Edison Hayden wrote about how, in the face of this conservative pressure—which became amplified in the MAGA era—the SPLC shrank away from its aggressive reporting on the right.1

Much of the DOJ’s indictment against SPLC focuses on the group’s use of paid informants to gain information on politically marginal neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan groups. But for many on the right, the real intrigue in the indictment has been the government’s allegation that the SPLC had an informant involved in helping organize the fatal “Unite the Right” Charlottesville march in the spring of 2017.

Jack Posobiec called the revelation proof the march was “a complete hoax from top to bottom.” And conservative personality Priya Patel tweeted that the march was a “Leftist psyop.”

But here too, it’s what is not in the indictment that stands out. The mention of the informant is brief. All the government says is that the individual received $270,000 from the SPLC between 2015 and 2023 and that they participated in the march and played some ill-defined organizing role.

“[Informant] was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ event in Charlottesville, Virginia and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC,” the indictment reads. “[Informant] made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees.”

What does that really mean? Who knows?

A couple hundred hard-right demonstrators marched in Charlottesville, and this informant arranged transportation for “several attendees.” That might mean a single rental car. As for the informant’s presence in an organizing chatroom, the best-known Charlottesville organizing chat, whose Discord logs were later leaked to the antifascist group Unicorn Riot, featured more than thirty people.

THE DOJ’S INDICTMENT MAY CENTER on the legal definition of what constitutes bank and wire fraud. But the larger question it raises is whether it is useful or even smart for a group devoted to disrupting violent racist groups to have people giving them information from the inside?

While certainly grimy, it’s not always illegal to pay someone for information. Private investigators do this. And while the practice is widely frowned upon in American journalism, it’s not forbidden. TMZ pays its sources. The National Enquirer buys stories—and buys them to kill them, too.

For their part, the SPLC leaders have tried to justify the program on the grounds that it was investigating potentially violent groups, and shared that information with law enforcement.

“This use of informants was necessary, because we are no strangers to threats of violence,” interim president and CEO Bryan Fair says in a video posted on the group’s website.

Even getting the money to the sources in a way that would protect their identities appears to have exposed the SPLC to prosecution. The indictment charges the group with making false statements to banks, over the SPLC’s use of bank accounts for fictitious front businesses to handle the payments.

But much of the government’s case rests on the idea that the SPLC committed wire fraud by not telling its own donors it was paying white supremacists for information.

Here again, more information would be helpful, specifically the reaction from the donors. Are they disappointed by the use of paid informants? Given that prosecutors admit in the indictment that the information provided by paid tipsters was used to write articles critical of the groups, why would donors feel defrauded?

Share

WHILE THERE ARE ULTIMATELY some missing elements in the DOJ’s indictment that caught my attention, in one major respect it is the oversharing of information that stands out.

Reading the document, I was struck by how much detail the prosecutors provided about the identity of the SPLC’s alleged informants, considering that these are people who exist in a world where white supremacists are murdered with regularity.

I was able to confidently identify five of the ten informants described in the filing based only on their descriptions in the filings and some articles on the SPLC’s website. The government provided specific titles for several informants and at least one relative, and there are only so many “exalted cyclops” involved in adopt-a-highway lawsuits out there. Someone more familiar with the violent racist demimonde—like a vengeful Klansman or neo-Nazi biker—could likely figure out more.

Who would want to risk their lives to reveal the inner workings of right-wing extremist groups if they know the FBI is comfortable revealing their identities? Then again, perhaps that’s a fringe benefit of this whole case for the Trump administration.

Leave a comment

1

Full disclosure: I provided a nice blurb for Hayden’s book, which is well worth a read!

More description
(Photo illustration by The Bulwark / Photos: Department of Justice, Shutterstock)

TO MUCH FANFARE, the Department of Justice this week announced a new indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group known for monitoring and calling out the rise and prevalence of right-wing extremism and hate groups.

In the indictment, the DOJ accused the group of bank and wire fraud as well as conspiracy to commit money laundering, arguing that SPLC’s use of paid informants to monitor extremist groups was, in actuality, a funding mechanism for those groups.

Reading through the eleven counts, however, I noticed a telling omission.

In order to make the argument that “the SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” the government listed several informants in white supremacist groups who received payoffs from the SPLC. One of them was described as an “Imperial Wizard” in a Ku Klux Klan group called the United Klans of America.

The indictment cites an SPLC article describing the United Klans of America as a “millennial reboot of what was once a serious domestic threat.”

Yet the DOJ left out one key word from that SPLC article: “pathetic.” In the actual 2013 story, the SPLC described United Klans of America as a “pathetic millennial reboot of what was once a serious domestic threat” (emphasis added).

That doesn’t sound like “manufacturing racism” so much as mocking it. If the SPLC were really trying to whip their donors into a frenzy over groups like United Klans of America, why would it describe the organization as “pathetic”?

And why would the DOJ leave that one word out of the indictment?

Those questions will almost assuredly be adjudicated in the courts, as the SPLC has pledged to fight the indictment. But, for now at least, they don’t seem to be causing much pause or hesitation on the right, which has seized on the indictment not just as a chance to crush a hated liberal institution, but as proof that essentially every politically unpalatable extremist on the right has been secretly funded by the SPLC.

“The supply of right-wing ‘hate’ was so low that a left-wing ‘anti-hate’ group had to subsidize it, so it could then raise money to fight it,” conservative activist Christopher Rufo tweeted.

“These extreme right-wing things that are supposedly everywhere, I swear to you, it is probably nothing but paid-off people from the SPLC and FBI informants,” Glenn Beck said Wednesday on his show.

Join Bulwark+ with a FREE 14-day trial

THE DOJ’S INDICTMENT OF THE SPLC comes, ironically, when the group is far removed from the powerful perch it occupied during its civil rights heyday, or even what it was a decade ago. The SPLC was founded in the early 1970s as a legal clinic focusing on a racial discrimination. But it gained a name for itself later in the decade by filing lawsuits against the Klan. Over the subsequent years it expanded its remit to include other hate groups.

The SPLC has long faced allegations that it has amassed far more money than it needs to fund its activities, with more than $800 million in assets as of 2024. Working at the SPLC in the early 2000s, writer Bob Moser suspected he was working at what he would later describe as a “highly profitable scam.”

But conservatives despised it not just because it was flush with cash but because they believed the group spuriously ruined the reputation of people and institutions that were not hate groups and that it chilled speech.

In his new book, Strange People on the Hill, former SPLC investigative reporter Michael Edison Hayden wrote about how, in the face of this conservative pressure—which became amplified in the MAGA era—the SPLC shrank away from its aggressive reporting on the right.1

Much of the DOJ’s indictment against SPLC focuses on the group’s use of paid informants to gain information on politically marginal neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan groups. But for many on the right, the real intrigue in the indictment has been the government’s allegation that the SPLC had an informant involved in helping organize the fatal “Unite the Right” Charlottesville march in the spring of 2017.

Jack Posobiec called the revelation proof the march was “a complete hoax from top to bottom.” And conservative personality Priya Patel tweeted that the march was a “Leftist psyop.”

But here too, it’s what is not in the indictment that stands out. The mention of the informant is brief. All the government says is that the individual received $270,000 from the SPLC between 2015 and 2023 and that they participated in the march and played some ill-defined organizing role.

“[Informant] was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ event in Charlottesville, Virginia and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC,” the indictment reads. “[Informant] made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees.”

What does that really mean? Who knows?

A couple hundred hard-right demonstrators marched in Charlottesville, and this informant arranged transportation for “several attendees.” That might mean a single rental car. As for the informant’s presence in an organizing chatroom, the best-known Charlottesville organizing chat, whose Discord logs were later leaked to the antifascist group Unicorn Riot, featured more than thirty people.

THE DOJ’S INDICTMENT MAY CENTER on the legal definition of what constitutes bank and wire fraud. But the larger question it raises is whether it is useful or even smart for a group devoted to disrupting violent racist groups to have people giving them information from the inside?

While certainly grimy, it’s not always illegal to pay someone for information. Private investigators do this. And while the practice is widely frowned upon in American journalism, it’s not forbidden. TMZ pays its sources. The National Enquirer buys stories—and buys them to kill them, too.

For their part, the SPLC leaders have tried to justify the program on the grounds that it was investigating potentially violent groups, and shared that information with law enforcement.

“This use of informants was necessary, because we are no strangers to threats of violence,” interim president and CEO Bryan Fair says in a video posted on the group’s website.

Even getting the money to the sources in a way that would protect their identities appears to have exposed the SPLC to prosecution. The indictment charges the group with making false statements to banks, over the SPLC’s use of bank accounts for fictitious front businesses to handle the payments.

But much of the government’s case rests on the idea that the SPLC committed wire fraud by not telling its own donors it was paying white supremacists for information.

Here again, more information would be helpful, specifically the reaction from the donors. Are they disappointed by the use of paid informants? Given that prosecutors admit in the indictment that the information provided by paid tipsters was used to write articles critical of the groups, why would donors feel defrauded?

Share

WHILE THERE ARE ULTIMATELY some missing elements in the DOJ’s indictment that caught my attention, in one major respect it is the oversharing of information that stands out.

Reading the document, I was struck by how much detail the prosecutors provided about the identity of the SPLC’s alleged informants, considering that these are people who exist in a world where white supremacists are murdered with regularity.

I was able to confidently identify five of the ten informants described in the filing based only on their descriptions in the filings and some articles on the SPLC’s website. The government provided specific titles for several informants and at least one relative, and there are only so many “exalted cyclops” involved in adopt-a-highway lawsuits out there. Someone more familiar with the violent racist demimonde—like a vengeful Klansman or neo-Nazi biker—could likely figure out more.

Who would want to risk their lives to reveal the inner workings of right-wing extremist groups if they know the FBI is comfortable revealing their identities? Then again, perhaps that’s a fringe benefit of this whole case for the Trump administration.

Leave a comment

1

Full disclosure: I provided a nice blurb for Hayden’s book, which is well worth a read!

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

The Cook Political Report is out this morning with a midterms vibe check, and Democrats have to like what they see: Across the 36 competitive districts most likely to decide control of the House of Representatives, “Democrats hold a six-point advantage on the generic congressional ballot, 50 percent to 44 percent,” the authors write. “Voters here are deeply frustrated with Trump and are willing to overlook their antipathy to Democrats in order to put a check on the president.”

Maybe the resistance party should give up on restoring their battered reputation and just lean in. “Vote Blue: Odds Are You Hate Us Less.” Happy Thursday.

(Joshua Roberts/Getty Images)Old Man Yells ‘Rigged Election’

by Andrew Egger

It’s remarkable that it’s become so unremarkable to say: Yesterday, the president of the United States claimed that an election outcome he disliked had been the result of election fraud.

“A RIGGED ELECTION TOOK PLACE LAST NIGHT IN THE GREAT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA!” Trump fumed . “All day long Republicans were winning, the Spirit was unbelievable, until the very end when, of course, there was a massive ‘Mail In Ballot Drop!’ Where have I heard that before—and the Democrats eked out another Crooked Victory!”

Even in the crowded catalog of Trump’s bogus fraud claims, this one stands out as laughable. The entire substance of the claim is that the election was fraudulent because Virginia’s biggest counties, with the most votes to count, took the longest to count them. “Longest” being a relative term: the race had been called within two hours of polls closing.

Yet even within that two-hour window, some Trump allies were already laying the predicate for Trump’s argument: “New Virginia election results show opposition to the Democrats’ redistricting plan now leading 53% to 46%,” Laura Loomer’s show account Loomer Unleashed tweeted at 7:49 p.m. Tuesday. “However, Democrat controlled Fairfax County, one of Virginia’s most populated counties, still refuses to release its election results. Sadly, a swing could be coming soon.”

But at no point had allegations of misconduct come from any actual on-the-ground Republicans. No one in the Fairfax County GOP alleged any funny business yesterday. Party Chair Katie Gorka—wife of C-list Trumpworld figure Sebastian Gorka—decried the Democrats’ “hollow, shameful victory,” but made no allegations of fraud. When I reached out to the county party to get her response to Trump’s allegation, she did not reply. I live in Fairfax County, so just for fun I swung by the party office to see if anyone there had heard about any fraud: the friendly pair of front-desk volunteers I talked to, Bob and Nancy Hoyler, said that “we haven’t really heard anything about that.” (Then again, Bob added, “they never tell us anything.”)

Can’t say we never told you anything. This newsletter is free. So is most of what we publish at The Bulwark. If you want to support our work, consider joining Bulwark+.

Nor were the White House or the Republican National Committee eager even to attempt to substantiate Trump’s claims. When I asked where specifically the president was claiming fraudulent votes had been counted, a White House press aide simply referred me back to his post. RNC spokeswoman Kiersten Pels, by contrast, pivoted to attacking the fairness of the gerrymander—again without touching the substance of Trump’s claim.

“46 percent of Virginians voted Republican in the last federal election, yet Democrats are rigging the system to cling to power and silence voters they can’t win over,” Pels said. “This map is an unconstitutional partisan power grab designed to disenfranchise millions of voters and tilt the playing field.”

Hey guys! Your boss doesn’t just think the measure was unfair! He thinks Democrats literally dropped in fraudulent votes and stole the election! Isn’t anyone going to look into this?

Figuring out what to make of all this requires us to hold two ideas in friction at once. On the one hand, this is all faintly silly old-man-yells-at-cloud stuff. Trump’s brain is so cooked that he immediately believes that literally any election result that fails to go his way must have been the result of fraud—to the point where even his own aides seem faintly embarrassed at having to cover for him.

And yet we can’t ignore the fact that he’s managed to pull a large chunk of the country and all the dizzying powers of the federal government down into his own mania as well. It’s difficult to overstate just how widespread truly kooky election-integrity beliefs have become within Trump’s GOP: Just this week, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 46 percent of voters, including 82 percent of Republicans, and 38 percent of independents, think there are “large numbers of fraudulent ballots cast by non-citizens in U.S. elections.”

What Trump and his allies have created over the years is a self-sustaining and self-reinforcing base of electoral nihilists. In past cycles, convincing such people that the fix was in usually required the mass propagation of specific lies: rigged voting machines from Venezuela, 2,000 Mules-style ballot-stuffing operations, batches of phony ballots snuck into the count by dastardly poll workers. But now this crowd’s cynicism has achieved orbital velocity; it no longer requires additional thrust. When Trump points at any given election and shouts “rigged!”, he no longer needs anything resembling a smoking gun: A giant chunk of the electorate is ready to go along.

Six years ago, Donald Trump attempted the most brazen theft of a presidential election in our lifetimes—a full-court legal and extralegal press to deny his defeat and stay in the White House that culminated in a deadly riot in the U.S. Capitol. And he keeps taking actions to remind us explicitly of his total lack of remorse: Pardoning every January 6th criminal, pursuing criminal charges against those who stood in the way of his theft attempt, enforcing a government-wide soft ban on anybody acknowledging that he actually lost.

We’re not going to see a “Stop the Steal” effort in Virginia, where the president and his allies actually have a decent chance of defeating the new gerrymander in court. (Yesterday, a circuit court judge gave them an early victory in a decision blocking the map from going into effect; Democrats, of course, are appealing.) But every stupid, baseless allegation of fraud the president makes should be another flashing warning sign. He’s tried it before. He’d do it again.

Join now

The King, the Tyrant, and Jeffrey Epstein

by Jordan Ferdman

On Monday, the king and queen consort of England will visit the United States to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our independence. If Trump and King Charles III want to talk politics, they can discuss the Anglo-American special relationship and the important role each country plays in the policies of the other. If they wanted to keep it light, they could talk about Scotland, where Trump owns golf clubs and Charles III is, well, the king. One topic they likely won’t broach, though, is the one that offers the starkest juxtaposition of the United States and the former mother country: our leaders implicated in the Epstein files.

Powerful and influential men of many lands found their names in the Epstein files, but the United States has been singularly lenient in its handling of those implicated. The embarrassing contrast between the United States and the United Kingdom is worth pausing on.

In short: King Charles threw his younger brother to the wolves. Trump can’t even bring himself to fire Howard Lutnick.

Former Prince Andrew’s arrest in February marked the most significant development in the Epstein case since the conviction and imprisonment of Epstein’s longtime accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. It was the first time since 1647—more than a hundred years before American independence—that a senior British royal had been arrested. And just in case there was any ambiguity about how Charles felt about his brother’s alleged crimes, he unceremoniously stripped Andrew of his titles and honors.1

In Virginia Giuffre’s memoir recounting her experience as a survivor of Epstein’s trafficking, she wrote that Andrew behaved “as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright.” It’s likely Andrew did believe it, and maybe even likelier that he believed that his birthright was both to commit the crime and to evade punishment for it. Charles III, an hereditary monarch whose coronation included his anointment with holy oil symbolizing his divine right to rule, made clear to Andrew that abusing people is not, in fact, Andrew’s birthright. Andrew thought—perhaps with good reason—that the law was something that applied only to other people. For nearly 400 years, that might not have been a bad bet.

At its core, the American experiment rejected the premise of unchecked, absolute power. “Governments,” proclaimed the Declaration of Independence, “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed”—not from birthright.

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,” accused the Founders in reference to King George III, Charles III’s great-great-great-great-grandfather. But today it’s the American president who has “in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States”—including by extending more sympathy and dignity to the men implicated in the files than to the girls they abused.

The contrast between Trump and Charles III inverts American exceptionalism in the ugliest way. We should not be exceptionally indifferent to our leaders’ transgressions and crimes. We should not be exceptionally tolerant of sex trafficking and child rape.

As we prepare to celebrate our milestone birthday, we ought to—maybe with gritted teeth—embrace the irony of this discrepancy in accountability. Across the pond, a prince, stripped of his titles and banished from the palace, was arrested for his affiliations with Jeffrey Epstein. At home, our aspiring king directs the most shameful coverup in American history from the Resolute Desk.

—Jordan Ferdman is a researcher at Longwell Partners.

Share

AROUND THE BULWARKQuick Hits

NEVER SAY NEVER: Even in our deeply stupid era, the idea that Donald Trump might pardon Jeffrey Epstein associate and convicted sex criminal Ghislaine Maxwell seems almost too preposterous even to contemplate. And yet, well, here’s the GOP chair of the House Oversight Committee frankly admitting many of his own members are in favor of such a thing, per Politico:

Members on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are divided over whether President Donald Trump should pardon Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell in exchange for her cooperation in the panel’s Epstein investigation, Chair James Comer said in an interview Wednesday. . . . When asked whether he believed it was a favorable deal to issue a pardon in return for Maxwell’s testimony, Comer said, “A lot of people do.”

“My committee’s split on that,” he added, declining to name who on the panel supported granting a pardon. “I don’t speak for my committee.”

Comer himself, for the record, disapproves. Read the whole thing.

STRAITJACKETED: And now for your regular vibe check, courtesy of the New York Times, on the Strait of Hormuz:

The number of ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz has become a barometer of how the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is affecting the global economy. On Tuesday, after nearly eight weeks of war, that number was one, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. Then Wednesday, more ships tried and Iran attacked two cargo vessels in the strait.

“They are reminding us that their threats to attack ships are genuine, and that’s enough to suppress traffic through the strait,” said Rosemary Kelanic, a director at Defense Priorities, a research organization focused on foreign affairs. Ships linked to Iran have passed through the strait, ship tracking data shows.

The problem for the United States and the world is the same as ever: Iran doesn’t actually need to be able to exercise control over every ship passing through the strait to keep it in a state of near-permanent stasis. All they have to do is stroll out every few days or so and shoot at some craft that’s trying to transit without their permission—which is enough to raise the risk of transiting above what shipping companies find acceptable.

Share

Cheap Shots

Share

1

Andrew remains eighth in the line of succession to the throne.

More description

The Cook Political Report is out this morning with a midterms vibe check, and Democrats have to like what they see: Across the 36 competitive districts most likely to decide control of the House of Representatives, “Democrats hold a six-point advantage on the generic congressional ballot, 50 percent to 44 percent,” the authors write. “Voters here are deeply frustrated with Trump and are willing to overlook their antipathy to Democrats in order to put a check on the president.”

Maybe the resistance party should give up on restoring their battered reputation and just lean in. “Vote Blue: Odds Are You Hate Us Less.” Happy Thursday.

(Joshua Roberts/Getty Images)Old Man Yells ‘Rigged Election’

by Andrew Egger

It’s remarkable that it’s become so unremarkable to say: Yesterday, the president of the United States claimed that an election outcome he disliked had been the result of election fraud.

“A RIGGED ELECTION TOOK PLACE LAST NIGHT IN THE GREAT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA!” Trump fumed . “All day long Republicans were winning, the Spirit was unbelievable, until the very end when, of course, there was a massive ‘Mail In Ballot Drop!’ Where have I heard that before—and the Democrats eked out another Crooked Victory!”

Even in the crowded catalog of Trump’s bogus fraud claims, this one stands out as laughable. The entire substance of the claim is that the election was fraudulent because Virginia’s biggest counties, with the most votes to count, took the longest to count them. “Longest” being a relative term: the race had been called within two hours of polls closing.

Yet even within that two-hour window, some Trump allies were already laying the predicate for Trump’s argument: “New Virginia election results show opposition to the Democrats’ redistricting plan now leading 53% to 46%,” Laura Loomer’s show account Loomer Unleashed tweeted at 7:49 p.m. Tuesday. “However, Democrat controlled Fairfax County, one of Virginia’s most populated counties, still refuses to release its election results. Sadly, a swing could be coming soon.”

But at no point had allegations of misconduct come from any actual on-the-ground Republicans. No one in the Fairfax County GOP alleged any funny business yesterday. Party Chair Katie Gorka—wife of C-list Trumpworld figure Sebastian Gorka—decried the Democrats’ “hollow, shameful victory,” but made no allegations of fraud. When I reached out to the county party to get her response to Trump’s allegation, she did not reply. I live in Fairfax County, so just for fun I swung by the party office to see if anyone there had heard about any fraud: the friendly pair of front-desk volunteers I talked to, Bob and Nancy Hoyler, said that “we haven’t really heard anything about that.” (Then again, Bob added, “they never tell us anything.”)

Can’t say we never told you anything. This newsletter is free. So is most of what we publish at The Bulwark. If you want to support our work, consider joining Bulwark+.

Nor were the White House or the Republican National Committee eager even to attempt to substantiate Trump’s claims. When I asked where specifically the president was claiming fraudulent votes had been counted, a White House press aide simply referred me back to his post. RNC spokeswoman Kiersten Pels, by contrast, pivoted to attacking the fairness of the gerrymander—again without touching the substance of Trump’s claim.

“46 percent of Virginians voted Republican in the last federal election, yet Democrats are rigging the system to cling to power and silence voters they can’t win over,” Pels said. “This map is an unconstitutional partisan power grab designed to disenfranchise millions of voters and tilt the playing field.”

Hey guys! Your boss doesn’t just think the measure was unfair! He thinks Democrats literally dropped in fraudulent votes and stole the election! Isn’t anyone going to look into this?

Figuring out what to make of all this requires us to hold two ideas in friction at once. On the one hand, this is all faintly silly old-man-yells-at-cloud stuff. Trump’s brain is so cooked that he immediately believes that literally any election result that fails to go his way must have been the result of fraud—to the point where even his own aides seem faintly embarrassed at having to cover for him.

And yet we can’t ignore the fact that he’s managed to pull a large chunk of the country and all the dizzying powers of the federal government down into his own mania as well. It’s difficult to overstate just how widespread truly kooky election-integrity beliefs have become within Trump’s GOP: Just this week, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 46 percent of voters, including 82 percent of Republicans, and 38 percent of independents, think there are “large numbers of fraudulent ballots cast by non-citizens in U.S. elections.”

What Trump and his allies have created over the years is a self-sustaining and self-reinforcing base of electoral nihilists. In past cycles, convincing such people that the fix was in usually required the mass propagation of specific lies: rigged voting machines from Venezuela, 2,000 Mules-style ballot-stuffing operations, batches of phony ballots snuck into the count by dastardly poll workers. But now this crowd’s cynicism has achieved orbital velocity; it no longer requires additional thrust. When Trump points at any given election and shouts “rigged!”, he no longer needs anything resembling a smoking gun: A giant chunk of the electorate is ready to go along.

Six years ago, Donald Trump attempted the most brazen theft of a presidential election in our lifetimes—a full-court legal and extralegal press to deny his defeat and stay in the White House that culminated in a deadly riot in the U.S. Capitol. And he keeps taking actions to remind us explicitly of his total lack of remorse: Pardoning every January 6th criminal, pursuing criminal charges against those who stood in the way of his theft attempt, enforcing a government-wide soft ban on anybody acknowledging that he actually lost.

We’re not going to see a “Stop the Steal” effort in Virginia, where the president and his allies actually have a decent chance of defeating the new gerrymander in court. (Yesterday, a circuit court judge gave them an early victory in a decision blocking the map from going into effect; Democrats, of course, are appealing.) But every stupid, baseless allegation of fraud the president makes should be another flashing warning sign. He’s tried it before. He’d do it again.

Join now

The King, the Tyrant, and Jeffrey Epstein

by Jordan Ferdman

On Monday, the king and queen consort of England will visit the United States to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our independence. If Trump and King Charles III want to talk politics, they can discuss the Anglo-American special relationship and the important role each country plays in the policies of the other. If they wanted to keep it light, they could talk about Scotland, where Trump owns golf clubs and Charles III is, well, the king. One topic they likely won’t broach, though, is the one that offers the starkest juxtaposition of the United States and the former mother country: our leaders implicated in the Epstein files.

Powerful and influential men of many lands found their names in the Epstein files, but the United States has been singularly lenient in its handling of those implicated. The embarrassing contrast between the United States and the United Kingdom is worth pausing on.

In short: King Charles threw his younger brother to the wolves. Trump can’t even bring himself to fire Howard Lutnick.

Former Prince Andrew’s arrest in February marked the most significant development in the Epstein case since the conviction and imprisonment of Epstein’s longtime accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. It was the first time since 1647—more than a hundred years before American independence—that a senior British royal had been arrested. And just in case there was any ambiguity about how Charles felt about his brother’s alleged crimes, he unceremoniously stripped Andrew of his titles and honors.1

In Virginia Giuffre’s memoir recounting her experience as a survivor of Epstein’s trafficking, she wrote that Andrew behaved “as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright.” It’s likely Andrew did believe it, and maybe even likelier that he believed that his birthright was both to commit the crime and to evade punishment for it. Charles III, an hereditary monarch whose coronation included his anointment with holy oil symbolizing his divine right to rule, made clear to Andrew that abusing people is not, in fact, Andrew’s birthright. Andrew thought—perhaps with good reason—that the law was something that applied only to other people. For nearly 400 years, that might not have been a bad bet.

At its core, the American experiment rejected the premise of unchecked, absolute power. “Governments,” proclaimed the Declaration of Independence, “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed”—not from birthright.

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,” accused the Founders in reference to King George III, Charles III’s great-great-great-great-grandfather. But today it’s the American president who has “in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States”—including by extending more sympathy and dignity to the men implicated in the files than to the girls they abused.

The contrast between Trump and Charles III inverts American exceptionalism in the ugliest way. We should not be exceptionally indifferent to our leaders’ transgressions and crimes. We should not be exceptionally tolerant of sex trafficking and child rape.

As we prepare to celebrate our milestone birthday, we ought to—maybe with gritted teeth—embrace the irony of this discrepancy in accountability. Across the pond, a prince, stripped of his titles and banished from the palace, was arrested for his affiliations with Jeffrey Epstein. At home, our aspiring king directs the most shameful coverup in American history from the Resolute Desk.

—Jordan Ferdman is a researcher at Longwell Partners.

Share

AROUND THE BULWARKQuick Hits

NEVER SAY NEVER: Even in our deeply stupid era, the idea that Donald Trump might pardon Jeffrey Epstein associate and convicted sex criminal Ghislaine Maxwell seems almost too preposterous even to contemplate. And yet, well, here’s the GOP chair of the House Oversight Committee frankly admitting many of his own members are in favor of such a thing, per Politico:

Members on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are divided over whether President Donald Trump should pardon Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell in exchange for her cooperation in the panel’s Epstein investigation, Chair James Comer said in an interview Wednesday. . . . When asked whether he believed it was a favorable deal to issue a pardon in return for Maxwell’s testimony, Comer said, “A lot of people do.”

“My committee’s split on that,” he added, declining to name who on the panel supported granting a pardon. “I don’t speak for my committee.”

Comer himself, for the record, disapproves. Read the whole thing.

STRAITJACKETED: And now for your regular vibe check, courtesy of the New York Times, on the Strait of Hormuz:

The number of ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz has become a barometer of how the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is affecting the global economy. On Tuesday, after nearly eight weeks of war, that number was one, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. Then Wednesday, more ships tried and Iran attacked two cargo vessels in the strait.

“They are reminding us that their threats to attack ships are genuine, and that’s enough to suppress traffic through the strait,” said Rosemary Kelanic, a director at Defense Priorities, a research organization focused on foreign affairs. Ships linked to Iran have passed through the strait, ship tracking data shows.

The problem for the United States and the world is the same as ever: Iran doesn’t actually need to be able to exercise control over every ship passing through the strait to keep it in a state of near-permanent stasis. All they have to do is stroll out every few days or so and shoot at some craft that’s trying to transit without their permission—which is enough to raise the risk of transiting above what shipping companies find acceptable.

Share

Cheap Shots

Share

1

Andrew remains eighth in the line of succession to the throne.

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
(Photo illustration by The Bulwark / Photos: Jim Swift)

Columbus, Ohio
LIVE, UNSCRIPTED QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSIONS are a uniquely high-risk proposition for marquee events. Failed Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, now running for governor of Ohio, received an opportunity to reflect on this fact anew when, in an appearance at Ohio State University on Tuesday night, he found himself being questioned by a mime whose eloquent gestures were being translated into audible English by a clown.

OSU’s Mershon auditorium often serves as a venue for comedy shows—but not usually quite like this Turning Point USA-sponsored event. The balcony was cordoned off with pipe and drape, meaning that in a venue with about 2,500 seats, something short of 1,000 people came.

I found much of the programming amusing, as did a buddy I ran into there, independent journalist D.J. Byrnes. If you don’t know Byrnes, all you really need to know is that he once tricked Ramaswamy into meeting him in a Raising Cane’s parking lot by leading him to believe he was going to address the OSU football team there.

Ramaswamy’s whistlestop—part of TPUSA’s “This is Turning Point” campus tour series—had already been through a rough sixteen minutes before the pharmaceutical-entrepreneur-cum-presidential-candidate-cum-co-DOGE-boss-cum-gubernatorial-candidate took the stage. The ostensibly student-focused event had drawn a mostly older audience, whose patience had worn thin after a cavalcade of erratic speakers.

Byrnes and I had watched with growing discomfort as the itinerary, which began with a guy who pitched his delinquent private student loan restructuring company, progressed to a local TPUSA organizer, and then to Savannah Chrisley, the reality TV star (The Masked Singer, Chrisley Knows Best) who became a MAGA darling after successfully lobbying Trump for pardons for her reality-TV-star parents following their convictions on tax fraud charges.

Here’s how she opened on Tuesday night:

What’s up, everyone? I swear, every time I come to a Turning Point event, I get more and more excited because this is exactly what Charlie [Kirk] would have wanted to happen. Coming into this, it is bittersweet because trust me, I would much rather see Charlie up here than me. But we do have to keep his mission alive.

And first off, I want to comment on my outfit. It is a very loose outfit. And the reason being is because I just went through surgery on Friday for my egg retrieval, because I do believe in bringing more children into this world and teaching them. . . . [Confused applause.]

This was just the first moment of whiplash in a speech that careened so hard throughout that it became all unexpected swerve, from complaints about biased AI to motivational speaking about Charlie Kirk’s mission to a tubthumping endorsement for Ramaswamy’s campaign. She concluded by inviting conservative audience members to take libs out for coffee, change those friends’ minds about things, and then charge the drinks to Chrisley via Venmo.

Join Bulwark+ with a FREE 14-day trial

Chrisley introduced Ramaswamy, and he gave a vaguely Reaganesque (rather than explicitly Trumpy) stump speech. But then—then came the Q&A, and with it, the mime and the clown.

They waited patiently as Diana—a recent grad, Christian, and mom—asked Ramaswamy pointedly about the AI data centers popping up all over Ohio. She was concerned they were going to ruin Ohio’s farmland aesthetic. She came armed with stats and talking points, and after declaring the candidate’s answer unsatisfactory, she turned to go, smiled, and said “Vote for Casey Putsch!” (“Who’s that?” an older woman in the row in front of me asked her friend. “The other guy,” her friend responded. “Oh.”) “It’s a free country,” Ramaswamy shrugged.

By all appearances, the performance artists who stood up next were not there on behalf of any candidate. They served the cause of spectacle alone. As his silent, grease-painted friend mimed under the lights, the red-nosed clown offered an account of his meaning. It turned out they were friends in spite of deep ideological differences: “Unlike my Franco Marxist friend over here, I am a red-blooded American clown, right? I’ve never been infected with the woke mind virus.” Come on, Vivek. You deserve this.

They performed a comic filibuster before the question finally came out: “Because [Democratic gubernatorial candidate] Amy Acton is a physician and has health care experience, does she have an advantage over you on health care policy, given your business/biotech background?” The students who recognized the pair, even the conservatives, ate it up.

Ramaswamy made their question into an opportunity to attack Acton for her pro-lockdown stance during the pandemic, and waved the wavy pair away.

Then the questions got more serious. A student named Ari asked, “How can someone like me call myself Republican when people reject me because of my religion or skin color?” He noted this problem extends to the event’s sponsor, recalling a controversial “report” by TPUSA’s Savannah Hernandez, who stood inside a Hindu temple in Texas and concluded: “Immigration is destroying America.”

“I’m nobody’s pawn. I’m my own man,” Ramaswamy insisted, saying he would call out that kind of discrimination on the right before celebrating the GOP’s “big tent,” which allows room for “healthy disagreement” even on issues like, presumably, whether racism is merely acceptable or actually part of what makes America great. In case that didn’t satisfy, he also threw in a “you will see hypocrisy everywhere you look in life,” just to make sure these impressionable students weren’t getting too comfortable about having ideals.

Share

There were some earnest questions from liberals, the evening’s sin-eaters; the audience savored the delectation of booing them. One older man seated a row or two behind me yelled “Deport him!” after a ginger-haired questioner, Ashton, wondered whether undocumented immigrants were really a threat to the economy or public safety.

But the last few questions brought the MAGA GOP’s identity crisis to the fore. They centered on Israel, the Jews, and an ejection.

Mara asked Ramaswamy if he’d “commit to lobbying Congress to stop funding Israel in the name of America First.” Ramaswamy rejected the framing and advocated an old campaign plank of phasing out aid to Israel over time. But he also asked why some of his fellow travelers (not Mara, specifically) seem obsessed with that particular disbursement of federal money. The clear implication was that their concerns were overwrought and possibly rooted in antisemitism.

A woman in a row where people with walkers were predominantly seated shouted: “MINNESOTA GAVE PALESTINE $20 MILLION!” I hope that one of her rowmates let her know that she was confusing Palestine with Somalia. But they didn’t seem much like let-one-another-know types. They were seniors, but not at Ohio State, if you get my drift.

Finally, Brandon took the mic, and when he did, it became apparent that he was about to prove the truth of Vivek’s point about right-wingers obsessed with aid to Israel.

But before he could speak, a man waiting in line realized he was about to lose out on an opportunity for attention, which prompted him to shout that he wanted to know why Vivek was cheating on his wife. (Ramaswamy’s supposed infidelity is a widely circulated hothouse internet rumor.) The moral policeman became unstable and was escorted out by the real police. (Well, the campus police, anyway.)

Join now

Amid the commotion, Brandon posed his question:

“I wanna know what you’re gonna do about the Israeli lobby problem and the ideals of the central text of Rabbinic Judaism called the Talmud.” He then continued: “Practices like usury, charging interest to strictly non-Jews, are clearly intended to keep the average American and European citizen down.” He concluded: “When the country that is our biggest ally practices and supports these ideas, it’s important that I know the candidates I vote for will fight against these twisted ways that are meant to keep us down.”

Yikes. This is bog-standard Protocols of the Elders of Zion–type stuff. Vivek, to his credit, responded capably:

I disagree with the premise of your question. What I will not abide is the vilification or mockery of anyone’s faith. When it was the secular left mocking Christianity, I said the same thing. When it is someone today mocking Judaism, I say the same thing now. The mockery of anyone else’s sincerely held faith is a mockery of faith itself, and that is un-American. If you want to have a rational debate about foreign policy, let’s have that debate. But to come at it with a vengeful attitude by singling out one religion and quoting the Talmud as a way to vilify people. . . . I just don’t think that’s right.

It was a good answer. An audience member quickly shouted after, “This is the true Republican party right here, folks!” But allow for a moment his comment to have been ambiguously directed: He could have meant it the ugly way and been partly right. After all, young MAGA operatives—the future of the Republican party—keep showing themselves to be unreconstructed racists and Nazi-curious edgelords. The heckler could also have meant it about Vivek’s answer—similar in spirit to John McCain famously defending Barack Obama—and he would be wrong on the facts, though right in upholding the old ideals, no matter how far the party has strayed from them.

Which way is the future? “Regular” MAGA? Or America First groyperism? Either way, old-school Republicanism isn’t on offer.

Fortunately for me, that’s not my party anymore. Though, if Vivek manages to win, it does remain my problem, as an Ohioan. But that’s a concern for another day. My only quandary after the Q&A was finished on Tuesday night was deciding which White Castle to stop at on the way back home to Cincinnati.

Leave a comment

More description
(Photo illustration by The Bulwark / Photos: Jim Swift)

Columbus, Ohio
LIVE, UNSCRIPTED QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSIONS are a uniquely high-risk proposition for marquee events. Failed Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, now running for governor of Ohio, received an opportunity to reflect on this fact anew when, in an appearance at Ohio State University on Tuesday night, he found himself being questioned by a mime whose eloquent gestures were being translated into audible English by a clown.

OSU’s Mershon auditorium often serves as a venue for comedy shows—but not usually quite like this Turning Point USA-sponsored event. The balcony was cordoned off with pipe and drape, meaning that in a venue with about 2,500 seats, something short of 1,000 people came.

I found much of the programming amusing, as did a buddy I ran into there, independent journalist D.J. Byrnes. If you don’t know Byrnes, all you really need to know is that he once tricked Ramaswamy into meeting him in a Raising Cane’s parking lot by leading him to believe he was going to address the OSU football team there.

Ramaswamy’s whistlestop—part of TPUSA’s “This is Turning Point” campus tour series—had already been through a rough sixteen minutes before the pharmaceutical-entrepreneur-cum-presidential-candidate-cum-co-DOGE-boss-cum-gubernatorial-candidate took the stage. The ostensibly student-focused event had drawn a mostly older audience, whose patience had worn thin after a cavalcade of erratic speakers.

Byrnes and I had watched with growing discomfort as the itinerary, which began with a guy who pitched his delinquent private student loan restructuring company, progressed to a local TPUSA organizer, and then to Savannah Chrisley, the reality TV star (The Masked Singer, Chrisley Knows Best) who became a MAGA darling after successfully lobbying Trump for pardons for her reality-TV-star parents following their convictions on tax fraud charges.

Here’s how she opened on Tuesday night:

What’s up, everyone? I swear, every time I come to a Turning Point event, I get more and more excited because this is exactly what Charlie [Kirk] would have wanted to happen. Coming into this, it is bittersweet because trust me, I would much rather see Charlie up here than me. But we do have to keep his mission alive.

And first off, I want to comment on my outfit. It is a very loose outfit. And the reason being is because I just went through surgery on Friday for my egg retrieval, because I do believe in bringing more children into this world and teaching them. . . . [Confused applause.]

This was just the first moment of whiplash in a speech that careened so hard throughout that it became all unexpected swerve, from complaints about biased AI to motivational speaking about Charlie Kirk’s mission to a tubthumping endorsement for Ramaswamy’s campaign. She concluded by inviting conservative audience members to take libs out for coffee, change those friends’ minds about things, and then charge the drinks to Chrisley via Venmo.

Join Bulwark+ with a FREE 14-day trial

Chrisley introduced Ramaswamy, and he gave a vaguely Reaganesque (rather than explicitly Trumpy) stump speech. But then—then came the Q&A, and with it, the mime and the clown.

They waited patiently as Diana—a recent grad, Christian, and mom—asked Ramaswamy pointedly about the AI data centers popping up all over Ohio. She was concerned they were going to ruin Ohio’s farmland aesthetic. She came armed with stats and talking points, and after declaring the candidate’s answer unsatisfactory, she turned to go, smiled, and said “Vote for Casey Putsch!” (“Who’s that?” an older woman in the row in front of me asked her friend. “The other guy,” her friend responded. “Oh.”) “It’s a free country,” Ramaswamy shrugged.

By all appearances, the performance artists who stood up next were not there on behalf of any candidate. They served the cause of spectacle alone. As his silent, grease-painted friend mimed under the lights, the red-nosed clown offered an account of his meaning. It turned out they were friends in spite of deep ideological differences: “Unlike my Franco Marxist friend over here, I am a red-blooded American clown, right? I’ve never been infected with the woke mind virus.” Come on, Vivek. You deserve this.

They performed a comic filibuster before the question finally came out: “Because [Democratic gubernatorial candidate] Amy Acton is a physician and has health care experience, does she have an advantage over you on health care policy, given your business/biotech background?” The students who recognized the pair, even the conservatives, ate it up.

Ramaswamy made their question into an opportunity to attack Acton for her pro-lockdown stance during the pandemic, and waved the wavy pair away.

Then the questions got more serious. A student named Ari asked, “How can someone like me call myself Republican when people reject me because of my religion or skin color?” He noted this problem extends to the event’s sponsor, recalling a controversial “report” by TPUSA’s Savannah Hernandez, who stood inside a Hindu temple in Texas and concluded: “Immigration is destroying America.”

“I’m nobody’s pawn. I’m my own man,” Ramaswamy insisted, saying he would call out that kind of discrimination on the right before celebrating the GOP’s “big tent,” which allows room for “healthy disagreement” even on issues like, presumably, whether racism is merely acceptable or actually part of what makes America great. In case that didn’t satisfy, he also threw in a “you will see hypocrisy everywhere you look in life,” just to make sure these impressionable students weren’t getting too comfortable about having ideals.

Share

There were some earnest questions from liberals, the evening’s sin-eaters; the audience savored the delectation of booing them. One older man seated a row or two behind me yelled “Deport him!” after a ginger-haired questioner, Ashton, wondered whether undocumented immigrants were really a threat to the economy or public safety.

But the last few questions brought the MAGA GOP’s identity crisis to the fore. They centered on Israel, the Jews, and an ejection.

Mara asked Ramaswamy if he’d “commit to lobbying Congress to stop funding Israel in the name of America First.” Ramaswamy rejected the framing and advocated an old campaign plank of phasing out aid to Israel over time. But he also asked why some of his fellow travelers (not Mara, specifically) seem obsessed with that particular disbursement of federal money. The clear implication was that their concerns were overwrought and possibly rooted in antisemitism.

A woman in a row where people with walkers were predominantly seated shouted: “MINNESOTA GAVE PALESTINE $20 MILLION!” I hope that one of her rowmates let her know that she was confusing Palestine with Somalia. But they didn’t seem much like let-one-another-know types. They were seniors, but not at Ohio State, if you get my drift.

Finally, Brandon took the mic, and when he did, it became apparent that he was about to prove the truth of Vivek’s point about right-wingers obsessed with aid to Israel.

But before he could speak, a man waiting in line realized he was about to lose out on an opportunity for attention, which prompted him to shout that he wanted to know why Vivek was cheating on his wife. (Ramaswamy’s supposed infidelity is a widely circulated hothouse internet rumor.) The moral policeman became unstable and was escorted out by the real police. (Well, the campus police, anyway.)

Join now

Amid the commotion, Brandon posed his question:

“I wanna know what you’re gonna do about the Israeli lobby problem and the ideals of the central text of Rabbinic Judaism called the Talmud.” He then continued: “Practices like usury, charging interest to strictly non-Jews, are clearly intended to keep the average American and European citizen down.” He concluded: “When the country that is our biggest ally practices and supports these ideas, it’s important that I know the candidates I vote for will fight against these twisted ways that are meant to keep us down.”

Yikes. This is bog-standard Protocols of the Elders of Zion–type stuff. Vivek, to his credit, responded capably:

I disagree with the premise of your question. What I will not abide is the vilification or mockery of anyone’s faith. When it was the secular left mocking Christianity, I said the same thing. When it is someone today mocking Judaism, I say the same thing now. The mockery of anyone else’s sincerely held faith is a mockery of faith itself, and that is un-American. If you want to have a rational debate about foreign policy, let’s have that debate. But to come at it with a vengeful attitude by singling out one religion and quoting the Talmud as a way to vilify people. . . . I just don’t think that’s right.

It was a good answer. An audience member quickly shouted after, “This is the true Republican party right here, folks!” But allow for a moment his comment to have been ambiguously directed: He could have meant it the ugly way and been partly right. After all, young MAGA operatives—the future of the Republican party—keep showing themselves to be unreconstructed racists and Nazi-curious edgelords. The heckler could also have meant it about Vivek’s answer—similar in spirit to John McCain famously defending Barack Obama—and he would be wrong on the facts, though right in upholding the old ideals, no matter how far the party has strayed from them.

Which way is the future? “Regular” MAGA? Or America First groyperism? Either way, old-school Republicanism isn’t on offer.

Fortunately for me, that’s not my party anymore. Though, if Vivek manages to win, it does remain my problem, as an Ohioan. But that’s a concern for another day. My only quandary after the Q&A was finished on Tuesday night was deciding which White Castle to stop at on the way back home to Cincinnati.

Leave a comment

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
(Photo: Getty Images)

HIS APPROVAL RATINGS ARE SAGGING. His foreign war is floundering while economic woes multiply at home. His erstwhile loyal supporters are rebelling, and there are elections coming up. Donald Trump? Yes, but his role model in the Kremlin is having the same problems.

Not exactly the same, of course. Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine is now in its fifth year, and the Russian economy has been previously saved from collapse by being retooled as a war machine. Putin’s recent drop in approval ratings has left the share of Russians who say they trust him at 72 percent, which Trump could only dream about; but that’s still down nearly 7 points from two months ago, and in official surveys by the government’s own polling agency. Of course, as expatriate political analyst Abbas Galyamov points out, under a borderline totalitarian regime such questions primarily measure “the level of fear.” Notably, when approval is measured in a way that doesn’t force respondents to state directly that they don’t trust Putin—by asking Russians which politicians they trust—Putin gets the nod from only 29 percent, and that figure is down from 35 percent at the end of last year.

Another big difference between Trump and Putin, obviously, is that the elections to the state Duma coming up in September are very unlikely to pose a threat to Putin: Over his twenty-six years in power as president and prime minister, the Russian political system has perfected the art of both rigging the vote and keeping undesirables off the ballot in the first place to such a point that only a genuine tsunami of popular anger might be able to break through.

Yet alarm bells are going off. At a recent televised meeting of high-level officials, a petulant Putin demanded to know “why the trajectory of macroeconomic indicators is currently below expectations.” Despite still being fueled by military spending, Russia’s GDP grew just 1 percent in 2025—and shrank by nearly 2 percent in January and February of this year. The budget deficit is growing, and oil revenues are falling despite the spike in oil prices caused by the war in Iran—thanks mainly to Ukraine’s remarkable success in taking out, or at least temporarily disabling, Russia’s oil depots and oil-processing facilities. Those strikes are also adding to the general sense of instability: Even the official Russian media have been reporting on the massive fires following two waves of drone strikes at the southern Russian port city of Tuapse, not only a major transport hub but a popular seaside spot. A viral video shows a tearful Russian woman lamenting that she just wanted to live by the sea with her child, but “now the sea is all fucked up” by oil spills and “those drones are flying around and smashing the fuck out of everything.”

Meanwhile, the Russian state continues its war on the internet—a big deal in a country where the digitization of life, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, was until recently an area of surprisingly rapid progress. With more and more websites blocked and more and more apps disabled, the Roskomnadzor, Russia’s fearsome “Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media,” is halfheartedly trying to fight the use of VPNs, virtual private networks that allow people to bypass the blocks. Russian VPN users are no longer able to access government websites that provide essential services; some major Russian banks and online shopping companies are blocking them as well. It’s more of a hassle than an insurmountable obstacle, since it means simply that people have to turn the VPN on and off; but regular small hassles can add up to a lot of irritation, in this case unmistakably directed at the government.

Join Bulwark+ with a FREE 14-day trial

IN THE MIDST OF THIS SIMMERING TURMOIL, an unexpected would-be voice of the people has emerged: Victoria Bonya, а 46-year-old fitness and beauty blogger and former Russian TV personality who now lives in Monaco. I wrote last month about Bonya’s Instagram video clip denouncing the slaughter of supposedly infected cows in Siberia (and also taking a swipe at the internet shutdowns). Recently, she has upped the ante with an Instagram video billed as “an appeal to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin from all Russians who care.” It opened with a remarkable statement:

Vladimir Vladimirovich, people are afraid of you. The common people are afraid of you. Bloggers and artists are afraid of you. Governors are afraid of you. But you are the president of our country. It seems to me that we should not be afraid. . . . I think there is a great, thick wall between you and the people.

Bonya then took it upon herself to report to Putin about several problems on which she believed he was not being adequately informed: recent floods in Dagestan, oil spills in the southern Anapa Bay (this one apparently unrelated to Ukrainian drones), the cow slaughter in Siberia, and the internet blockings. To some extent, this is a standard “good tsar, bad boyars” line, but with a key twist: The boyars aren’t keeping the tsar in the dark because they’re bad but because they’re scared to tell him the truth. So maybe the tsar isn’t so good after all.

Of course, it’s still a hilariously absurd assessment of the actual situation in Russia. There is, of course, no mention of the war in Ukraine. And it’s hard not to crack up when Bonya breathlessly declares, “One gets the feeling that we don’t live in a free country anymore, but in some sort of banned country.” Um, yes, where have you been? It’s like the people just now discovering in 2026 that Trump is an egotistical narcissist with no moral center.

But guess what: Whatever one thinks of her intellect or integrity, Bonya has an impact. Her celebrity goes back to a year-long stint on Russia’s biggest reality show, House 2, in 2006–07. She still has some 13 million Instagram followers—some presumably expatriates, but most of them living in Russia and cheerfully defying the Instagram ban. Indeed, her appeal to Putin had 30 million views in one week. (Putin’s annual news conference at the end of last year was viewed live by 6.7 million; obviously, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison since at least some people presumably watched Putin recorded, but even so, the numbers put Bonya’s reach in some perspective.)

Some dissident Russian commentators have speculated that Bonya’s mutiny-lite was staged by the regime—perhaps as a distraction from the bad news on the war and the economy, perhaps as a prelude to liberalization-lite. But some of Bonya’s statements smacked of heresies far too dangerous to be planted: for instance, that if the government continues ignoring ordinary people’s problems, “they will eventually stop being scared—they’re being pressed like a spring, but one day this spring may shoot out.”

What’s more, the propaganda machine’s response to the video suggests something of a scramble to address an unexpected challenge. Kremlin bots and various loyalist media quickly went on the attack, accusing Bonya of pro-Ukraine sympathies and dubious morals. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov made a cautious and vaguely conciliatory comment, saying that the video had been seen and that “a great deal of work [was] being done” on the issues raised in it. And chief propaganda jock Vladimir Solovyov unleashed a torrent of invective, denouncing Bonya as a “used-up skank” spewing garbage from her “filthy mouth” at the instigation of some nefarious forces.

More dramatics ensued. Bonya—who has lived in Monaco since 2011 but still has properties in Russia and can thus fear retaliation from the government—seemed to turn down the heat in a second video that tearfully thanked Peskov for his attention to her appeal and asked foreign and opposition media like the BBC and TV-RAIN to “leave her out of it”: “I’m not with you, I’m with the people and within the people,” she declared. (An easy target for gibes when you’re “with the people” from your luxury home in Monaco.) Her next video took on Solovyov and other pro-Kremlin men who had attacked her in misogynistic language—including Duma member Vitaly Milonov, who remarked that he had thought she was “some escort girl working in Dubai.” Not only did Bonya threaten to sue Solovyov and his fellow sexists for defaming women, she also posted an AI video of herself as Spider-Woman pummeling the offenders, with an invitation to other women to join her in a community of “warriors of light.”

The result, so far, has been a torrent of online indignation at Solovyov, who has backed off enough to suggest that he never meant to attribute any ill intent to Bonya—only to say that she was being used. Russian émigré journalist Tatiana Felgengauer suggests that this spat reveals the artificial nature of the controversy: public attention is now being diverted away from the Kremlin’s political and economic problem toward Solovyov’s sexist vulgarities and from the war in Ukraine toward gender wars within Russian culture. Yet Felgengauer also thinks that, whatever the purpose of Bonya’s declarations, the popular response—expressed, among other things, in the comments on her videos—shows a burgeoning discontent among the Russian public which feels that its concerns are being ignored.

Maybe Bonya’s display of defiance is merely a marketing ploy (she has her own line of cosmetics). Or maybe it’s a political ploy to channel that discontent into safe outlets—or even to undermine hardline propagandists like Solovyov and pave the way for a new perestroika. (Yes, that’s a theory too, articulated by podcaster and former TV-RAIN host Vyacheslav Shiryaev.) But, interestingly, it was none other but Solovyov who put his finger on the quiet radicalism of Bonya’s first video: the statement that the country is afraid of Putin, to the point of being terrorized into silence. Solovyov thinks—or, at least, says—that this is an enemy “narrative.” In fact, it’s a powerful truth—and one that positions Putin as a tyrant, not a strong leader. Coupled with an exhortation not to be afraid, it’s downright revolutionary. For that matter, even Bonya’s rebuke to the misogynist rhetoric emanating from some of her detractors can be seen as a larger challenge to the Putin regime’s aggressive macho ethos.

Will there be a Bonya revolution? No. But the Bonya rebellion, such as it is, could be a sign of shifting winds in Russia.

Leave a comment

Share

More description
(Photo: Getty Images)

HIS APPROVAL RATINGS ARE SAGGING. His foreign war is floundering while economic woes multiply at home. His erstwhile loyal supporters are rebelling, and there are elections coming up. Donald Trump? Yes, but his role model in the Kremlin is having the same problems.

Not exactly the same, of course. Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine is now in its fifth year, and the Russian economy has been previously saved from collapse by being retooled as a war machine. Putin’s recent drop in approval ratings has left the share of Russians who say they trust him at 72 percent, which Trump could only dream about; but that’s still down nearly 7 points from two months ago, and in official surveys by the government’s own polling agency. Of course, as expatriate political analyst Abbas Galyamov points out, under a borderline totalitarian regime such questions primarily measure “the level of fear.” Notably, when approval is measured in a way that doesn’t force respondents to state directly that they don’t trust Putin—by asking Russians which politicians they trust—Putin gets the nod from only 29 percent, and that figure is down from 35 percent at the end of last year.

Another big difference between Trump and Putin, obviously, is that the elections to the state Duma coming up in September are very unlikely to pose a threat to Putin: Over his twenty-six years in power as president and prime minister, the Russian political system has perfected the art of both rigging the vote and keeping undesirables off the ballot in the first place to such a point that only a genuine tsunami of popular anger might be able to break through.

Yet alarm bells are going off. At a recent televised meeting of high-level officials, a petulant Putin demanded to know “why the trajectory of macroeconomic indicators is currently below expectations.” Despite still being fueled by military spending, Russia’s GDP grew just 1 percent in 2025—and shrank by nearly 2 percent in January and February of this year. The budget deficit is growing, and oil revenues are falling despite the spike in oil prices caused by the war in Iran—thanks mainly to Ukraine’s remarkable success in taking out, or at least temporarily disabling, Russia’s oil depots and oil-processing facilities. Those strikes are also adding to the general sense of instability: Even the official Russian media have been reporting on the massive fires following two waves of drone strikes at the southern Russian port city of Tuapse, not only a major transport hub but a popular seaside spot. A viral video shows a tearful Russian woman lamenting that she just wanted to live by the sea with her child, but “now the sea is all fucked up” by oil spills and “those drones are flying around and smashing the fuck out of everything.”

Meanwhile, the Russian state continues its war on the internet—a big deal in a country where the digitization of life, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, was until recently an area of surprisingly rapid progress. With more and more websites blocked and more and more apps disabled, the Roskomnadzor, Russia’s fearsome “Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media,” is halfheartedly trying to fight the use of VPNs, virtual private networks that allow people to bypass the blocks. Russian VPN users are no longer able to access government websites that provide essential services; some major Russian banks and online shopping companies are blocking them as well. It’s more of a hassle than an insurmountable obstacle, since it means simply that people have to turn the VPN on and off; but regular small hassles can add up to a lot of irritation, in this case unmistakably directed at the government.

Join Bulwark+ with a FREE 14-day trial

IN THE MIDST OF THIS SIMMERING TURMOIL, an unexpected would-be voice of the people has emerged: Victoria Bonya, а 46-year-old fitness and beauty blogger and former Russian TV personality who now lives in Monaco. I wrote last month about Bonya’s Instagram video clip denouncing the slaughter of supposedly infected cows in Siberia (and also taking a swipe at the internet shutdowns). Recently, she has upped the ante with an Instagram video billed as “an appeal to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin from all Russians who care.” It opened with a remarkable statement:

Vladimir Vladimirovich, people are afraid of you. The common people are afraid of you. Bloggers and artists are afraid of you. Governors are afraid of you. But you are the president of our country. It seems to me that we should not be afraid. . . . I think there is a great, thick wall between you and the people.

Bonya then took it upon herself to report to Putin about several problems on which she believed he was not being adequately informed: recent floods in Dagestan, oil spills in the southern Anapa Bay (this one apparently unrelated to Ukrainian drones), the cow slaughter in Siberia, and the internet blockings. To some extent, this is a standard “good tsar, bad boyars” line, but with a key twist: The boyars aren’t keeping the tsar in the dark because they’re bad but because they’re scared to tell him the truth. So maybe the tsar isn’t so good after all.

Of course, it’s still a hilariously absurd assessment of the actual situation in Russia. There is, of course, no mention of the war in Ukraine. And it’s hard not to crack up when Bonya breathlessly declares, “One gets the feeling that we don’t live in a free country anymore, but in some sort of banned country.” Um, yes, where have you been? It’s like the people just now discovering in 2026 that Trump is an egotistical narcissist with no moral center.

But guess what: Whatever one thinks of her intellect or integrity, Bonya has an impact. Her celebrity goes back to a year-long stint on Russia’s biggest reality show, House 2, in 2006–07. She still has some 13 million Instagram followers—some presumably expatriates, but most of them living in Russia and cheerfully defying the Instagram ban. Indeed, her appeal to Putin had 30 million views in one week. (Putin’s annual news conference at the end of last year was viewed live by 6.7 million; obviously, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison since at least some people presumably watched Putin recorded, but even so, the numbers put Bonya’s reach in some perspective.)

Some dissident Russian commentators have speculated that Bonya’s mutiny-lite was staged by the regime—perhaps as a distraction from the bad news on the war and the economy, perhaps as a prelude to liberalization-lite. But some of Bonya’s statements smacked of heresies far too dangerous to be planted: for instance, that if the government continues ignoring ordinary people’s problems, “they will eventually stop being scared—they’re being pressed like a spring, but one day this spring may shoot out.”

What’s more, the propaganda machine’s response to the video suggests something of a scramble to address an unexpected challenge. Kremlin bots and various loyalist media quickly went on the attack, accusing Bonya of pro-Ukraine sympathies and dubious morals. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov made a cautious and vaguely conciliatory comment, saying that the video had been seen and that “a great deal of work [was] being done” on the issues raised in it. And chief propaganda jock Vladimir Solovyov unleashed a torrent of invective, denouncing Bonya as a “used-up skank” spewing garbage from her “filthy mouth” at the instigation of some nefarious forces.

More dramatics ensued. Bonya—who has lived in Monaco since 2011 but still has properties in Russia and can thus fear retaliation from the government—seemed to turn down the heat in a second video that tearfully thanked Peskov for his attention to her appeal and asked foreign and opposition media like the BBC and TV-RAIN to “leave her out of it”: “I’m not with you, I’m with the people and within the people,” she declared. (An easy target for gibes when you’re “with the people” from your luxury home in Monaco.) Her next video took on Solovyov and other pro-Kremlin men who had attacked her in misogynistic language—including Duma member Vitaly Milonov, who remarked that he had thought she was “some escort girl working in Dubai.” Not only did Bonya threaten to sue Solovyov and his fellow sexists for defaming women, she also posted an AI video of herself as Spider-Woman pummeling the offenders, with an invitation to other women to join her in a community of “warriors of light.”

The result, so far, has been a torrent of online indignation at Solovyov, who has backed off enough to suggest that he never meant to attribute any ill intent to Bonya—only to say that she was being used. Russian émigré journalist Tatiana Felgengauer suggests that this spat reveals the artificial nature of the controversy: public attention is now being diverted away from the Kremlin’s political and economic problem toward Solovyov’s sexist vulgarities and from the war in Ukraine toward gender wars within Russian culture. Yet Felgengauer also thinks that, whatever the purpose of Bonya’s declarations, the popular response—expressed, among other things, in the comments on her videos—shows a burgeoning discontent among the Russian public which feels that its concerns are being ignored.

Maybe Bonya’s display of defiance is merely a marketing ploy (she has her own line of cosmetics). Or maybe it’s a political ploy to channel that discontent into safe outlets—or even to undermine hardline propagandists like Solovyov and pave the way for a new perestroika. (Yes, that’s a theory too, articulated by podcaster and former TV-RAIN host Vyacheslav Shiryaev.) But, interestingly, it was none other but Solovyov who put his finger on the quiet radicalism of Bonya’s first video: the statement that the country is afraid of Putin, to the point of being terrorized into silence. Solovyov thinks—or, at least, says—that this is an enemy “narrative.” In fact, it’s a powerful truth—and one that positions Putin as a tyrant, not a strong leader. Coupled with an exhortation not to be afraid, it’s downright revolutionary. For that matter, even Bonya’s rebuke to the misogynist rhetoric emanating from some of her detractors can be seen as a larger challenge to the Putin regime’s aggressive macho ethos.

Will there be a Bonya revolution? No. But the Bonya rebellion, such as it is, could be a sign of shifting winds in Russia.

Leave a comment

Share

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
Katie Couric is joining JVL and Bill Kristol to talk about Trump's dismal approval polling, the GOP's failed attempt to gain an edge in the House via gerrymandering, and the upcoming White House Correspondents Dinner.
More description
Katie Couric is joining JVL and Bill Kristol to talk about Trump's dismal approval polling, the GOP's failed attempt to gain an edge in the House via gerrymandering, and the upcoming White House Correspondents Dinner.
Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
(Photo illustration by The Bulwark / Photos: Shutterstock, Getty)

THE MEMBERS OF THE D.C. PRESS CORPS will dust off their black-tie attire and flock to the basement ballroom of the Washington Hilton this Saturday evening for the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

The evening is supposed to be a celebration of the First Amendment and a toast to the institutions tasked with covering the most powerful person in the world. But this year, some attendees fear it could become a staging ground for their ritualistic humiliation.

Donald Trump will, for the first time, be on the dais. And no one is quite certain if he will use the occasion to disparage the very organizations whose coverage of him the evening is meant to honor. That certainly would be in character for a man who has called reporters “enemies of the people,” accused the New York Times of “treason,” filed numerous defamation lawsuits against independent media outlets, banned the Associated Press from the White House press pool, revoked $1.1 billion in already appropriated federal funding for public broadcasting, and cheered the arrest of reporters. Even if he does not give remarks of that sort, the very fact of his presence on the stage threatens to normalize the attacks on the press he engages in daily.

“[Presidents] all have a version of the same message: ‘I don’t always like what you do, your stories are a pain in the ass sometimes, but I get it. This is part of our democracy, and I respect that.’ That’s not what Donald Trump has said,” said Frank Sesno, a former CNN correspondent, anchor, and Washington bureau chief. “We’re living in a world where this administration, if they don’t like something, they sue the reporter, they sue the news organization.”

Join Bulwark+ with a FREE 14-day trial

Let me say at this point that I recognize that any ink spilled over the WHCA Dinner might come off as insufferable parlor room chatter. While presidents have attended since the days of Calvin Coolidge—using the opportunity to send a public signal about the mutual understanding that democracy cannot thrive without a critical and robust press corps—the affair long ago became a gauche display of Washington’s excesses.

But this year is different. This year will give us a vivid illustration as to the role the White House press corps feels it should play when faced with an administration that is contemptuous of a free press.

And I fear it could go poorly. Because, as I’ve found out in my conversations with fellow reporters,

Read more

More description
(Photo illustration by The Bulwark / Photos: Shutterstock, Getty)

THE MEMBERS OF THE D.C. PRESS CORPS will dust off their black-tie attire and flock to the basement ballroom of the Washington Hilton this Saturday evening for the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

The evening is supposed to be a celebration of the First Amendment and a toast to the institutions tasked with covering the most powerful person in the world. But this year, some attendees fear it could become a staging ground for their ritualistic humiliation.

Donald Trump will, for the first time, be on the dais. And no one is quite certain if he will use the occasion to disparage the very organizations whose coverage of him the evening is meant to honor. That certainly would be in character for a man who has called reporters “enemies of the people,” accused the New York Times of “treason,” filed numerous defamation lawsuits against independent media outlets, banned the Associated Press from the White House press pool, revoked $1.1 billion in already appropriated federal funding for public broadcasting, and cheered the arrest of reporters. Even if he does not give remarks of that sort, the very fact of his presence on the stage threatens to normalize the attacks on the press he engages in daily.

“[Presidents] all have a version of the same message: ‘I don’t always like what you do, your stories are a pain in the ass sometimes, but I get it. This is part of our democracy, and I respect that.’ That’s not what Donald Trump has said,” said Frank Sesno, a former CNN correspondent, anchor, and Washington bureau chief. “We’re living in a world where this administration, if they don’t like something, they sue the reporter, they sue the news organization.”

Join Bulwark+ with a FREE 14-day trial

Let me say at this point that I recognize that any ink spilled over the WHCA Dinner might come off as insufferable parlor room chatter. While presidents have attended since the days of Calvin Coolidge—using the opportunity to send a public signal about the mutual understanding that democracy cannot thrive without a critical and robust press corps—the affair long ago became a gauche display of Washington’s excesses.

But this year is different. This year will give us a vivid illustration as to the role the White House press corps feels it should play when faced with an administration that is contemptuous of a free press.

And I fear it could go poorly. Because, as I’ve found out in my conversations with fellow reporters,

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Katie Couric is joining JVL and Bill Kristol to talk about Trump's dismal approval polling, the GOP's failed attempt to gain an edge in the House via gerrymandering, and the upcoming White House Correspondents Dinner.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Katie Couric is joining JVL and Bill Kristol to talk about Trump's dismal approval polling, the GOP's failed attempt to gain an edge in the House via gerrymandering, and the upcoming White House Correspondents Dinner.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Tim Miller and Catherine Rampell break down a clip from Tucker Carlson's show attacking Catherine—what he said, what he meant, and why people need to hear the real story.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Tim Miller and Catherine Rampell break down a clip from Tucker Carlson's show attacking Catherine—what he said, what he meant, and why people need to hear the real story.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Sonny Bunch speaks with whistleblower Josef Palermo, who saw the collapse of the Kennedy Center from the inside. The Kennedy Center president Ric Grenell and the Trump administration said the shutdown was about renovations. But Palermo says the real story is financial collapse, political interference, and a dramatic shift away from the institution’s mission. From six-figure ticket markups to a fundraising pitch delivered during an October 7 memorial, Palermo lays out how things went wrong and how fast it happened.

Read more from Josef Palermo: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2026/04/inside-kennedy-center-shutdown-drama/686801/

More description

Sonny Bunch speaks with whistleblower Josef Palermo, who saw the collapse of the Kennedy Center from the inside. The Kennedy Center president Ric Grenell and the Trump administration said the shutdown was about renovations. But Palermo says the real story is financial collapse, political interference, and a dramatic shift away from the institution’s mission. From six-figure ticket markups to a fundraising pitch delivered during an October 7 memorial, Palermo lays out how things went wrong and how fast it happened.

Read more from Josef Palermo: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2026/04/inside-kennedy-center-shutdown-drama/686801/

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Trump's madman antics got him into a game of chicken with Iran, but he's up against people who are even crazier than he is. And he is not likely to get a deal with Tehran that is any better than Obama's nuclear agreement—which Trump called the worst deal in the world. Plus, the Virginia win is another reminder that Dems can effectively play hardball, Kevin Warsh is looking like an alarming pick for the Fed, the media coverage of the mass shooting in Shreveport was almost non-existent, MAGA is obsessed with Mamdani, Sam and Tim have new Cabinet rankings, and is there a way to stop Kushner from making deals with Sharia law countries?

Sam Stein joins Tim Miller.

show notes

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, hit the like button or leave a comment. We want to hear from you.

Ad-free editions of The Bulwark Podcast are available exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

The Bulwark Podcast with Tim Miller is available wherever you get podcasts and on YouTube. New shows drop each weekday afternoon. If you like the show, leave a comment and ⭐⭐⭐⭐ wherever you listen. Add The Bulwark Podcast to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Trump's madman antics got him into a game of chicken with Iran, but he's up against people who are even crazier than he is. And he is not likely to get a deal with Tehran that is any better than Obama's nuclear agreement—which Trump called the worst deal in the world. Plus, the Virginia win is another reminder that Dems can effectively play hardball, Kevin Warsh is looking like an alarming pick for the Fed, the media coverage of the mass shooting in Shreveport was almost non-existent, MAGA is obsessed with Mamdani, Sam and Tim have new Cabinet rankings, and is there a way to stop Kushner from making deals with Sharia law countries?

Sam Stein joins Tim Miller.

show notes

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, hit the like button or leave a comment. We want to hear from you.

Ad-free editions of The Bulwark Podcast are available exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

The Bulwark Podcast with Tim Miller is available wherever you get podcasts and on YouTube. New shows drop each weekday afternoon. If you like the show, leave a comment and ⭐⭐⭐⭐ wherever you listen. Add The Bulwark Podcast to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Sonny Bunch speaks with whistleblower Josef Palermo, who saw the collapse of the Kennedy Center from the inside. The Kennedy Center president Ric Grenell and the Trump administration said the shutdown was about renovations. But Palermo says the real story is financial collapse, political interference, and a dramatic shift away from the institution’s mission. From six-figure ticket markups to a fundraising pitch delivered during an October 7 memorial, Palermo lays out how things went wrong and how fast it happened.

Read more from Josef Palermo: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2026/04/inside-kennedy-center-shutdown-drama/686801/

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Sonny Bunch speaks with whistleblower Josef Palermo, who saw the collapse of the Kennedy Center from the inside. The Kennedy Center president Ric Grenell and the Trump administration said the shutdown was about renovations. But Palermo says the real story is financial collapse, political interference, and a dramatic shift away from the institution’s mission. From six-figure ticket markups to a fundraising pitch delivered during an October 7 memorial, Palermo lays out how things went wrong and how fast it happened.

Read more from Josef Palermo: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2026/04/inside-kennedy-center-shutdown-drama/686801/

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.) and Ben Parker are discussing the week's major military and foreign policy news.

The Bulwark is going to Southern California! Go to https://thebulwark.com/events to learn more.

More description

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.) and Ben Parker are discussing the week's major military and foreign policy news.

The Bulwark is going to Southern California! Go to https://thebulwark.com/events to learn more.

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
(Photo illustration by The Bulwark/Photos: Getty, Shutterstock)

Heads up: Bill Kristol and I will be live with Katie Couric today at 5pm in the East. You can watch us on Substack here or on YouTube here.

1. Virginia

Abigail Spanberger did not campaign on saving democracy at the federal level. But that might turn out to be the most important thing she does as governor.

As Bill discussed this morning, Republicans in Texas—at the behest of the president—violated a bunch of norms when they embarked on a quest to gerrymander more seats for their party in the middle of an election cycle.

This action was illiberal and anti-democratic but—and this is the key—it was also legal.

Democrats, to their credit, responded not by rending their garments but with ruthless proportionality: Led by Gavin Newsom and Spanberger, they counter-gerrymandered.

This is the way.

The road to preserving liberal democracy does not involve unilateral disarmament or faking normality in the hopes of making the world normal again. It involves meeting force with force while crafting a national remedy for nonpartisan redistricting, which would force everyone to behave according to standards of good government.

It’s classical deterrence theory. As some Roman general once said, “If you seek peace, prepare for war.”

This should be the model for the biggest piece of ruthless aggression of them all: expanding the Supreme Court.

Let’s get ruthless.

[Reminder: This Friday’s Triad will be a members-only “Ask JVL” video newsletter. Leave your questions here.]

Join now

Read more

More description
(Photo illustration by The Bulwark/Photos: Getty, Shutterstock)

Heads up: Bill Kristol and I will be live with Katie Couric today at 5pm in the East. You can watch us on Substack here or on YouTube here.

1. Virginia

Abigail Spanberger did not campaign on saving democracy at the federal level. But that might turn out to be the most important thing she does as governor.

As Bill discussed this morning, Republicans in Texas—at the behest of the president—violated a bunch of norms when they embarked on a quest to gerrymander more seats for their party in the middle of an election cycle.

This action was illiberal and anti-democratic but—and this is the key—it was also legal.

Democrats, to their credit, responded not by rending their garments but with ruthless proportionality: Led by Gavin Newsom and Spanberger, they counter-gerrymandered.

This is the way.

The road to preserving liberal democracy does not involve unilateral disarmament or faking normality in the hopes of making the world normal again. It involves meeting force with force while crafting a national remedy for nonpartisan redistricting, which would force everyone to behave according to standards of good government.

It’s classical deterrence theory. As some Roman general once said, “If you seek peace, prepare for war.”

This should be the model for the biggest piece of ruthless aggression of them all: expanding the Supreme Court.

Let’s get ruthless.

[Reminder: This Friday’s Triad will be a members-only “Ask JVL” video newsletter. Leave your questions here.]

Join now

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.) and Ben Parker discuss the week's major military and foreign policy news.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

More description

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.) and Ben Parker discuss the week's major military and foreign policy news.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Read more

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Yesterday morning, with White House officials set to depart for Pakistan for further peace talks with Iran and a two-week ceasefire on the verge of expiring, Donald Trump issued one of his now-standard threats: “I expect to be bombing” Iran within a few days, he told CNBC’s Squawk Box, “because I think that’s a better attitude to go in with.”

Iran, however, seems to be putting less and less stock in such threats—and it’s hard to argue they’re wrong to do so. Yesterday afternoon, Trump suddenly announced he was unilaterally extending the ceasefire despite a lack of diplomatic engagement from Iran “until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are concluded, one way or the other.”

Iran’s response, per an adviser to Iranian Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf: “The extension of the cease-fire by Donald Trump has no meaning.” Overnight, Iran said it seized two ships that were attempting to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Who’s in charge around here again?

Programing note: For this week’s episode of Command Post, Mark Hertling and Ben Parker will be going live on Substack and YouTube at 10:30 a.m. EDT. Happy Wednesday.

Photo illustration by The Bulwark/Photos ShutterstockTwo Cheers for Gerrymandering (For Now)

by William Kristol

The Muse of History can be capricious. We don’t remember Elbridge Thomas Gerry (1744–1814) of Massachusetts as an important early supporter of the American Revolution. We don’t recall that he served in the Second Continental Congress, where he was not only a signer of the Declaration of Independence but a leading advocate of it. We don’t know that a decade later Gerry was elected to the first House of Representatives, where he was involved in the passage of the Bill of Rights.

We remember his name—alas!—only because later on, as governor of Massachusetts, he presided over a highly partisan redistricting by the state legislature. A local newspaper compared the shape of one of the new state senate districts to a salamander, coining the term “Gerry-mander.” And so we have memorialized this impressive Founder with the term “gerrymandering.”

When the history of the democratic resistance to Trumpism of 2026 is written, yesterday’s vote in Virginia will be called a ratification of gerrymandering. And not unfairly. The new maps approved by the voters have some salamander-like qualities in pursuit of a likely gain of four Democratic seats and a 10–1 Democratic congressional delegation for the state.

But just as Gerry’s redistricting deserves to be remembered as only one act in an impressive political career, so yesterday’s vote was merely one act in a broader patriotic effort. The Trump administration started the mid-cycle redistricting wars in the summer of 2025. Over the next several months Republican legislatures in Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, and Missouri (themselves gerrymandered to ensure lopsided Republican majorities) passed new maps to produce increased Republican representation from their states in Congress.

Would Democrats and anti-Trumpists respond only by hand-wringing and eloquent op-eds decrying the unfairness? No. California acted first, with a voter-approved congressional redistricting in November 2025. And last night, Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing the state legislature to temporarily reshape the commonwealth’s congressional districts, which had been drawn by a nonpartisan redistricting process in 2021. Maps drawn by a bipartisan commission will return after 2030.

Last night’s vote was close, with about a 3-point margin in favor of the referendum. It wasn’t an easy sell. Virginia voters had approved the nonpartisan redistricting process in 2020 by a two-to-one vote, and there was unhappiness among even Democrats and anti-Trumpists at having to resort to this unattractive counter-measure here to what Republicans had done elsewhere. There were also voters in central Virginia unhappy at being stuffed into districts that would be dominated by Northern Virginians, and likely represented by someone from Northern Virginia. And the anti-referendum campaign was sophisticated, making what appeared to be a case for good government, not for Donald Trump.

Still, the referendum passed. And so the bottom line is this: Democrats and liberals have likely wrestled Republicans and Trumpists to a draw—possibly even to slightly better than a draw—in the great redistricting war.

When things look dark, it’s important to have a community from which to draw strength. And when things look hopeful, it’s good to have a community to hope with. That’s why the Bulwark community exists. Join us.

It’s an impressive achievement. Democrats are often thought to be hapless competitors in rough-and-tumble politics. Liberals are often thought to be unwilling or unable, in Robert Frost’s memorable formulation, to take their own side in a fight. But Democrats held their own in this contest of political hardball, liberals stepped up and fought back in this bare-knuckle political struggle.

I’d add that the fact that many Democrats and liberals were unhappy about having to resort to temporary gerrymandering is to their credit. It’s good to be part of a movement that is reluctant rather than exultant when it has to embrace a somewhat unsavory expedient. But it’s also good to be part of a movement that does what it has to do—peacefully and legally and democratically—in defense of fair elections and liberal democracy.

If I can close by returning to our friend Gerry, I’ll point out that no less of a figure than John Adams said of him in 1776 that “If every Man here was a Gerry, the Liberties of America would be safe against the Gates of Earth and Hell.” Virginia’s exercise in counter-gerrymandering was a contribution to making the liberties of America safer against the gates of a Trumpist Republican party. The Founders, including Gerry, would be pleased and proud. We should be too.

Join now

Undue Command Influenza

by Mark Hertling

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently announced that he is discarding mandatory flu vaccinations for U.S. service members. It may appeal to an anti-vax political base, and it may sound minor in the abstract—part of what Secretary Hegseth described as “restoring freedom to the joint force.” But “freedom” also comes with civic and community obligation, especially in a profession built on individual and group responsibility. In military units and on military bases, individual choices have immediate and cascading consequences for the health and readiness of others.

Consider how other high-performance organizations or facilities with throngs of people in close contact handle contagious illnesses. If a professional sports team has a player with the flu, that athlete often isn’t welcomed into the locker room or told to push through practice. He’s isolated to prevent the spread of the virus.

Consider a daycare center or an elementary school where a policy like Hegseth’s became commonplace. Parents would have justifiable questions. Classrooms are enclosed. Kids share space, air, and germs. One case becomes five, then fifteen. Teachers get sick, as do parents. Learning suffers, and families, especially those with vulnerable members, feel the ripple effects.

No serious organization would accept that risk. The military is a serious organization that does all it can to prevent such outbreaks because they know the repercussions—especially when sending people home or spacing them out aren’t options. Many soldiers live in barracks, train in formation (or share tight crew quarters in a tank, submarine, or aircraft), eat in shared dining facilities, and operate in close quarters every day. Additionally, troops who are married have families who live in base housing, send their kids to base schools and child care, attend religious services, and interact in a closed environment where exposure compounds quickly. What spreads in one unit rarely stays there.

I’m not a doctor, but as a former commander, I know that medical protection and ensuring the care of troops are critical tasks—and they’re unlike those in a normal private-sector company. In the military, health is not just an individual matter. It’s a readiness issue. That distinction is important.

In civilian life, getting the flu is usually an individual inconvenience—missed work, a few days of recovery, perhaps a ripple effect within a household or office. In the military, illness spreads rapidly across formations. One soldier shows up sick to morning physical training, and within days, an entire unvaccinated platoon would likely be degraded. Maintenance slows. Training schedules slip. Leaders spend time managing symptoms and manning rosters instead of preparing for missions. Scale that to a battalion or brigade, and the impact becomes operational. For units in training, missed days due to illness mean less preparation for the next fight, which could lead to higher casualties or mission failure. For units in combat, the consequences can be even more severe.

Commanders have long understood the implications of keeping their units healthy. That’s why routine vaccinations have never been about bureaucracy—they’ve been about illness prevention and military readiness. Not every flu case is severe, but the cumulative effect of many cases, spreading quickly through formations, creates a predictable and avoidable degradation of capability.

Good leaders don’t ignore predictable risks; they mitigate them.

There’s also a deeper issue at play: trust. Service members accept that their profession carries hardship, threats, and danger. They also trust that their leaders will reduce unnecessary risk wherever possible—especially in areas that are well understood and historically managed. Force health protection is one of those areas.

When leaders step away from established preventive measures, it raises questions not just about policy, but about priorities. Are they accepting risk because it is unavoidable, or because it’s politically popular? If the latter, that isn’t leadership.

In the Army, we emphasize that leaders are responsible for everything their people and their unit do—or fail to do. That includes anticipating second- and third-order effects. Illness in close quarters is not a new problem. Armies throughout history have been weakened not just by enemy fire, but by disease spreading through their ranks. That lesson hasn’t changed.

What has changed is that for a long time we have had the means to reduce the risk of infectious disease and have institutionalized prevention measures because they work.

A professional sports team can bench a player, isolate him, and move on with the season. The military doesn’t operate that way. Units are not interchangeable rosters. Cohesion, timing, and collective performance matter in ways that don’t allow for easy substitution or separation. You can’t “bench” a platoon. You can only prepare it—or degrade it.

Eliminating mandatory flu vaccinations may appear to be a small policy change by a naïve civilian leader appealing to his boss’s base. But he’s removing a layer of protection from a force that needs collective health to function effectively. And unlike a sports team or a school, the consequences aren’t just missed games or sick days. The results affect readiness, mission execution, and ultimately, the well-being of the force.

That’s not a medical judgment. It’s a command responsibility.

Share

AROUND THE BULWARK
  • Trump Has Revealed MAGA’s Anti-Christian Nature… It’s time for sincere believers to pull the wool from their eyes and see the truth about the president and his followers, argues MONA CHAREN.

  • George Washington’s Woke Vaccines… What the Founders would have thought about Pete Hegseth lifting the requirement that service members get the flu vaccine, writes THOMAS LECAQUE.

  • Lawsuit: Blaze’s Crackpot Reporting Prompted a Wild, Unnecessary FBI Raid: Quickly debunked reporting based on “gait analysis” was enough to get the feds to descend with a helicopter on a falsely accused J6 pipe-bomber’s home, reports WILL SOMMER in False Flag.

Quick Hits

SCHRÖDINGER’S URANIUM HUNT: In yesterday’s Morning Shots LIVE video, your correspondents spent plenty of time breaking down Donald Trump’s long, rambling, newsy call into CNBC’s Squawk Box—from his insistence he would have won the Vietnam War very quickly had he been president, to his continued stubborn refusal to drop his pretextual criminal investigation of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, to his applauding companies like Apple for not (yet) seeking reimbursement of the revenues they paid under his illegal “Liberation Day” tariffs last year.

Still, there’s always lots more to chew on.1 Let’s just pluck out one more moment, shall we? Here was Trump discussing the problem of the uranium buried at the nuclear sites America bombed last year:

They can’t get the nuclear dust, because it was obliterated by the B-2 bombers that went in. . . . They’ve tried to get down there. You know, we have cameras from Space Force on it all the time. They’ve tried to get down. They can’t get down. That place was obliterated. . . . The left tries to demean all the time, like, ‘Oh, well, maybe it wasn’t totally obliterated.’ It was. And they can’t get it, or they would have tried to get it.

For the record, the question Trump was answering was about interest rates. As he often does, Trump spent much of this interview ignoring his interviewers’ questions to instead answer other critiques that have plainly been irritating him lately—in this case, the critique that it’s ludicrous for him to claim the United States has achieved a total military victory over Iran if its cache of enriched uranium remains unaccounted for.

Trump insists this is silly: that we don’t need to retrieve or account for the uranium, because it’s buried so deep that Iran can never get at it. But observe the two explanations Trump gives—back to back, one following immediately on the other—for how we know this is so. Iran has “tried to get down there,” he says, without success. (We know this, apparently, because of the “cameras from Space Force.”) But we also know “they can’t get at it” because otherwise “they would have tried to get it.”

So there you have it. Iran can’t get its uranium back, which we know for two reasons: because they have tried to get it back, and because they haven’t tried to get it back. Careful, kids: This is what becomes of a mind that has spent its entire career operating in the realm of spin rather than of fact.

BAD NATO! VERY BAD NATO!: The sanctimony of these people! The pure hectoring poutiness! Politico reports on the White House’s latest effort to break the bonds between ourselves and our NATO allies: the development of a “naughty and nice” list distributing head pats and finger wags based on how obediently other countries drop everything to throw themselves into American boondoggles like the Iran war:

The effort, which officials worked on ahead of NATO head Mark Rutte’s visit to Washington this month, includes an overview of members’ contributions to the alliance and places them into tiers, according to three European diplomats and a U.S. defense official familiar with the plan.

It’s the latest sign that President Donald Trump plans to make good on his threats against allies who don’t adhere to his wishes. And it’s another pressure point on the increasingly frayed alliance, which has been battered by Trump’s attacks—from his push to annex Greenland to his warning of a complete withdrawal from the pact.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth floated the broad idea in December. “Model allies that step up, like Israel, South Korea, Poland, increasingly Germany, the Baltics and others, will receive our special favor,” he said. “Allies that still fail to do their part for collective defense will face consequences.”

The funniest/bleakest quote in the piece comes from an anonymous European official: “They don’t seem to have very concrete ideas. . . when it comes to punishing bad allies. Moving troops is one option, but it mainly punishes the U.S. doesn’t it?” Sure, but that’s never stopped them before. Read the whole thing.

Share

Cheap Shots

Share

1

It’s amazing how a guy so loose in his language can consistently deliver such rich texts to analyze. You drop your bucket down anywhere and pull it up with something to say.

More description

Yesterday morning, with White House officials set to depart for Pakistan for further peace talks with Iran and a two-week ceasefire on the verge of expiring, Donald Trump issued one of his now-standard threats: “I expect to be bombing” Iran within a few days, he told CNBC’s Squawk Box, “because I think that’s a better attitude to go in with.”

Iran, however, seems to be putting less and less stock in such threats—and it’s hard to argue they’re wrong to do so. Yesterday afternoon, Trump suddenly announced he was unilaterally extending the ceasefire despite a lack of diplomatic engagement from Iran “until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are concluded, one way or the other.”

Iran’s response, per an adviser to Iranian Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf: “The extension of the cease-fire by Donald Trump has no meaning.” Overnight, Iran said it seized two ships that were attempting to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Who’s in charge around here again?

Programing note: For this week’s episode of Command Post, Mark Hertling and Ben Parker will be going live on Substack and YouTube at 10:30 a.m. EDT. Happy Wednesday.

Photo illustration by The Bulwark/Photos ShutterstockTwo Cheers for Gerrymandering (For Now)

by William Kristol

The Muse of History can be capricious. We don’t remember Elbridge Thomas Gerry (1744–1814) of Massachusetts as an important early supporter of the American Revolution. We don’t recall that he served in the Second Continental Congress, where he was not only a signer of the Declaration of Independence but a leading advocate of it. We don’t know that a decade later Gerry was elected to the first House of Representatives, where he was involved in the passage of the Bill of Rights.

We remember his name—alas!—only because later on, as governor of Massachusetts, he presided over a highly partisan redistricting by the state legislature. A local newspaper compared the shape of one of the new state senate districts to a salamander, coining the term “Gerry-mander.” And so we have memorialized this impressive Founder with the term “gerrymandering.”

When the history of the democratic resistance to Trumpism of 2026 is written, yesterday’s vote in Virginia will be called a ratification of gerrymandering. And not unfairly. The new maps approved by the voters have some salamander-like qualities in pursuit of a likely gain of four Democratic seats and a 10–1 Democratic congressional delegation for the state.

But just as Gerry’s redistricting deserves to be remembered as only one act in an impressive political career, so yesterday’s vote was merely one act in a broader patriotic effort. The Trump administration started the mid-cycle redistricting wars in the summer of 2025. Over the next several months Republican legislatures in Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, and Missouri (themselves gerrymandered to ensure lopsided Republican majorities) passed new maps to produce increased Republican representation from their states in Congress.

Would Democrats and anti-Trumpists respond only by hand-wringing and eloquent op-eds decrying the unfairness? No. California acted first, with a voter-approved congressional redistricting in November 2025. And last night, Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing the state legislature to temporarily reshape the commonwealth’s congressional districts, which had been drawn by a nonpartisan redistricting process in 2021. Maps drawn by a bipartisan commission will return after 2030.

Last night’s vote was close, with about a 3-point margin in favor of the referendum. It wasn’t an easy sell. Virginia voters had approved the nonpartisan redistricting process in 2020 by a two-to-one vote, and there was unhappiness among even Democrats and anti-Trumpists at having to resort to this unattractive counter-measure here to what Republicans had done elsewhere. There were also voters in central Virginia unhappy at being stuffed into districts that would be dominated by Northern Virginians, and likely represented by someone from Northern Virginia. And the anti-referendum campaign was sophisticated, making what appeared to be a case for good government, not for Donald Trump.

Still, the referendum passed. And so the bottom line is this: Democrats and liberals have likely wrestled Republicans and Trumpists to a draw—possibly even to slightly better than a draw—in the great redistricting war.

When things look dark, it’s important to have a community from which to draw strength. And when things look hopeful, it’s good to have a community to hope with. That’s why the Bulwark community exists. Join us.

It’s an impressive achievement. Democrats are often thought to be hapless competitors in rough-and-tumble politics. Liberals are often thought to be unwilling or unable, in Robert Frost’s memorable formulation, to take their own side in a fight. But Democrats held their own in this contest of political hardball, liberals stepped up and fought back in this bare-knuckle political struggle.

I’d add that the fact that many Democrats and liberals were unhappy about having to resort to temporary gerrymandering is to their credit. It’s good to be part of a movement that is reluctant rather than exultant when it has to embrace a somewhat unsavory expedient. But it’s also good to be part of a movement that does what it has to do—peacefully and legally and democratically—in defense of fair elections and liberal democracy.

If I can close by returning to our friend Gerry, I’ll point out that no less of a figure than John Adams said of him in 1776 that “If every Man here was a Gerry, the Liberties of America would be safe against the Gates of Earth and Hell.” Virginia’s exercise in counter-gerrymandering was a contribution to making the liberties of America safer against the gates of a Trumpist Republican party. The Founders, including Gerry, would be pleased and proud. We should be too.

Join now

Undue Command Influenza

by Mark Hertling

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently announced that he is discarding mandatory flu vaccinations for U.S. service members. It may appeal to an anti-vax political base, and it may sound minor in the abstract—part of what Secretary Hegseth described as “restoring freedom to the joint force.” But “freedom” also comes with civic and community obligation, especially in a profession built on individual and group responsibility. In military units and on military bases, individual choices have immediate and cascading consequences for the health and readiness of others.

Consider how other high-performance organizations or facilities with throngs of people in close contact handle contagious illnesses. If a professional sports team has a player with the flu, that athlete often isn’t welcomed into the locker room or told to push through practice. He’s isolated to prevent the spread of the virus.

Consider a daycare center or an elementary school where a policy like Hegseth’s became commonplace. Parents would have justifiable questions. Classrooms are enclosed. Kids share space, air, and germs. One case becomes five, then fifteen. Teachers get sick, as do parents. Learning suffers, and families, especially those with vulnerable members, feel the ripple effects.

No serious organization would accept that risk. The military is a serious organization that does all it can to prevent such outbreaks because they know the repercussions—especially when sending people home or spacing them out aren’t options. Many soldiers live in barracks, train in formation (or share tight crew quarters in a tank, submarine, or aircraft), eat in shared dining facilities, and operate in close quarters every day. Additionally, troops who are married have families who live in base housing, send their kids to base schools and child care, attend religious services, and interact in a closed environment where exposure compounds quickly. What spreads in one unit rarely stays there.

I’m not a doctor, but as a former commander, I know that medical protection and ensuring the care of troops are critical tasks—and they’re unlike those in a normal private-sector company. In the military, health is not just an individual matter. It’s a readiness issue. That distinction is important.

In civilian life, getting the flu is usually an individual inconvenience—missed work, a few days of recovery, perhaps a ripple effect within a household or office. In the military, illness spreads rapidly across formations. One soldier shows up sick to morning physical training, and within days, an entire unvaccinated platoon would likely be degraded. Maintenance slows. Training schedules slip. Leaders spend time managing symptoms and manning rosters instead of preparing for missions. Scale that to a battalion or brigade, and the impact becomes operational. For units in training, missed days due to illness mean less preparation for the next fight, which could lead to higher casualties or mission failure. For units in combat, the consequences can be even more severe.

Commanders have long understood the implications of keeping their units healthy. That’s why routine vaccinations have never been about bureaucracy—they’ve been about illness prevention and military readiness. Not every flu case is severe, but the cumulative effect of many cases, spreading quickly through formations, creates a predictable and avoidable degradation of capability.

Good leaders don’t ignore predictable risks; they mitigate them.

There’s also a deeper issue at play: trust. Service members accept that their profession carries hardship, threats, and danger. They also trust that their leaders will reduce unnecessary risk wherever possible—especially in areas that are well understood and historically managed. Force health protection is one of those areas.

When leaders step away from established preventive measures, it raises questions not just about policy, but about priorities. Are they accepting risk because it is unavoidable, or because it’s politically popular? If the latter, that isn’t leadership.

In the Army, we emphasize that leaders are responsible for everything their people and their unit do—or fail to do. That includes anticipating second- and third-order effects. Illness in close quarters is not a new problem. Armies throughout history have been weakened not just by enemy fire, but by disease spreading through their ranks. That lesson hasn’t changed.

What has changed is that for a long time we have had the means to reduce the risk of infectious disease and have institutionalized prevention measures because they work.

A professional sports team can bench a player, isolate him, and move on with the season. The military doesn’t operate that way. Units are not interchangeable rosters. Cohesion, timing, and collective performance matter in ways that don’t allow for easy substitution or separation. You can’t “bench” a platoon. You can only prepare it—or degrade it.

Eliminating mandatory flu vaccinations may appear to be a small policy change by a naïve civilian leader appealing to his boss’s base. But he’s removing a layer of protection from a force that needs collective health to function effectively. And unlike a sports team or a school, the consequences aren’t just missed games or sick days. The results affect readiness, mission execution, and ultimately, the well-being of the force.

That’s not a medical judgment. It’s a command responsibility.

Share

AROUND THE BULWARK
  • Trump Has Revealed MAGA’s Anti-Christian Nature… It’s time for sincere believers to pull the wool from their eyes and see the truth about the president and his followers, argues MONA CHAREN.

  • George Washington’s Woke Vaccines… What the Founders would have thought about Pete Hegseth lifting the requirement that service members get the flu vaccine, writes THOMAS LECAQUE.

  • Lawsuit: Blaze’s Crackpot Reporting Prompted a Wild, Unnecessary FBI Raid: Quickly debunked reporting based on “gait analysis” was enough to get the feds to descend with a helicopter on a falsely accused J6 pipe-bomber’s home, reports WILL SOMMER in False Flag.

Quick Hits

SCHRÖDINGER’S URANIUM HUNT: In yesterday’s Morning Shots LIVE video, your correspondents spent plenty of time breaking down Donald Trump’s long, rambling, newsy call into CNBC’s Squawk Box—from his insistence he would have won the Vietnam War very quickly had he been president, to his continued stubborn refusal to drop his pretextual criminal investigation of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, to his applauding companies like Apple for not (yet) seeking reimbursement of the revenues they paid under his illegal “Liberation Day” tariffs last year.

Still, there’s always lots more to chew on.1 Let’s just pluck out one more moment, shall we? Here was Trump discussing the problem of the uranium buried at the nuclear sites America bombed last year:

They can’t get the nuclear dust, because it was obliterated by the B-2 bombers that went in. . . . They’ve tried to get down there. You know, we have cameras from Space Force on it all the time. They’ve tried to get down. They can’t get down. That place was obliterated. . . . The left tries to demean all the time, like, ‘Oh, well, maybe it wasn’t totally obliterated.’ It was. And they can’t get it, or they would have tried to get it.

For the record, the question Trump was answering was about interest rates. As he often does, Trump spent much of this interview ignoring his interviewers’ questions to instead answer other critiques that have plainly been irritating him lately—in this case, the critique that it’s ludicrous for him to claim the United States has achieved a total military victory over Iran if its cache of enriched uranium remains unaccounted for.

Trump insists this is silly: that we don’t need to retrieve or account for the uranium, because it’s buried so deep that Iran can never get at it. But observe the two explanations Trump gives—back to back, one following immediately on the other—for how we know this is so. Iran has “tried to get down there,” he says, without success. (We know this, apparently, because of the “cameras from Space Force.”) But we also know “they can’t get at it” because otherwise “they would have tried to get it.”

So there you have it. Iran can’t get its uranium back, which we know for two reasons: because they have tried to get it back, and because they haven’t tried to get it back. Careful, kids: This is what becomes of a mind that has spent its entire career operating in the realm of spin rather than of fact.

BAD NATO! VERY BAD NATO!: The sanctimony of these people! The pure hectoring poutiness! Politico reports on the White House’s latest effort to break the bonds between ourselves and our NATO allies: the development of a “naughty and nice” list distributing head pats and finger wags based on how obediently other countries drop everything to throw themselves into American boondoggles like the Iran war:

The effort, which officials worked on ahead of NATO head Mark Rutte’s visit to Washington this month, includes an overview of members’ contributions to the alliance and places them into tiers, according to three European diplomats and a U.S. defense official familiar with the plan.

It’s the latest sign that President Donald Trump plans to make good on his threats against allies who don’t adhere to his wishes. And it’s another pressure point on the increasingly frayed alliance, which has been battered by Trump’s attacks—from his push to annex Greenland to his warning of a complete withdrawal from the pact.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth floated the broad idea in December. “Model allies that step up, like Israel, South Korea, Poland, increasingly Germany, the Baltics and others, will receive our special favor,” he said. “Allies that still fail to do their part for collective defense will face consequences.”

The funniest/bleakest quote in the piece comes from an anonymous European official: “They don’t seem to have very concrete ideas. . . when it comes to punishing bad allies. Moving troops is one option, but it mainly punishes the U.S. doesn’t it?” Sure, but that’s never stopped them before. Read the whole thing.

Share

Cheap Shots

Share

1

It’s amazing how a guy so loose in his language can consistently deliver such rich texts to analyze. You drop your bucket down anywhere and pull it up with something to say.

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
Kevin Warsh—President Donald Trump’s nominee for chair of the Federal Reserve—taking the oath before testifying during his Senate confirmation hearing on April 21, 2026. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

KEVIN WARSH, DONALD TRUMP’S pick for Federal Reserve chair, had his confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee yesterday. The hearing was held under the shadow of Trump’s ongoing efforts to persecute (and prosecute) the current Fed chair, Jerome Powell—a vendetta that simultaneously undermines both the rule of law and the nation’s long-term economic prospects.

It was Warsh’s chance to prove his commitment to independence, and he failed.

He gave plenty of lip service to Fed independence, but he actually needed to answer two specific questions:

1) Is Trump’s criminal investigation into Powell appropriate?

2) What would Warsh do if Trump threatened retribution against him for monetary policy decisions the president disliked?

Both questions are critical, given that Trump’s demands for interest rate cuts—and Warsh’s promise to deliver them—will almost inevitably come into conflict with the inflation stoked by Trump’s war in Iran. But Warsh answered neither. In fact, no one even bothered to ask him the second question.

If you care about the markets. If you care about democracy. If you care about accountability…then sign up for Bulwark+ today.

Kevin Warsh’s “Evolution”

Unlike some of the other candidates Trump has considered for Fed jobs, Warsh is not obviously insane or incompetent. He’s not a clown, or a hack, or someone who makes easily falsifiable claims on TV. On paper, he looks like a terrific candidate. He is polished and fast on his feet, has market experience, and has even served on the Fed Board before (from 2006 to 2011, as an appointee of President George W. Bush). Plenty of people I respect have said he more than clears the bar.

But the question has never been whether Warsh has the brains for the job. It’s whether he has the spine for it. Which he will very much need, given who is in the White House.

As I’ve noted before, Warsh spent nearly his entire career advocating for policy positions the exact opposite of those that Trump demands today. Trump wants looser monetary policy, regardless of economic conditions. Trump even has affirmed that a commitment to cut interest rates immediately was a “litmus test” for anyone wanting his nomination to lead the Fed. But Warsh has generally been considered an inflation hawk, favoring tighter monetary policy with higher interest rates and a smaller Fed balance sheet.

Even in the deepest, darkest depths of the financial crisis—as in, literally one day after Lehman Brothers failed—Warsh said he was worried about inflation. Instead, we immediately experienced deflation.1

Join Bulwark+ with a FREE 14-day trial

Warsh has been fairly consistent about this positioning with two major exceptions: Each time Trump happened to be entering the White House. Less than two months before Trump was re-elected, Warsh chided the Fed for cutting interest rates. Warsh then reversed himself a few months later, when Trump just happened to be scouting out a new Fed chair.

The timing certainly smelled funny. Particularly given the fact that Warsh had been passed over for the Fed job before, in Trump’s first term, and had attributed his rejection then to the fact that he hadn’t said what Trump wanted to hear.

“My meeting with the president went on for a bit more than an hour, and he was transparent in his views,” Warsh told Simon Bowmaker in a 2023 interview for a forthcoming book (Fed Reckoning: Conversations on America’s Central Bank, due out in January 2027). “It was a very rigorous interview. He asked some very relevant questions, and I offered my best judgments. I left the interview, however, not overly enthused about my prospects for selection. I did not put my ambitions ahead of my principles.”

We don’t know if Warsh’s subsequent transformation from inflation hawk to dove was actually politically motivated. As Warsh said in Tuesday’s hearing, “My opinions change when the facts change.” That is certainly a reasonable approach, and words I hope to live by too.

What makes this latest conversion concerning, however, is how it overlays Trump’s efforts to politicize the Fed, and how Warsh has responded to those efforts.

Trump’s Attacks on Fed Independence

The central bank is supposed to be politically independent. The only way it can keep price growth in check is by being willing to take painful actions that politicians won’t, such as raising interest rates when the economy starts getting too hot—or taking away the “punch bowl” just when the party gets going, as the expression goes.

Politicians pretty much always want to put more booze in the punch bowl—i.e., lower interest rates—regardless of the long-term consequences for the economy. That is why countries where politicians control the money supply tend to have much worse inflationary outcomes.

This was a problem here in the United States too, in the 1970s, when Nixon leaned on the Fed chair to keep rates low. But ever since Paul Volcker helmed the central bank, the Fed has proved its willingness to do “whatever it takes” to crush inflation, no matter how unpopular, and it has aggressively guarded its independence in the process.

Presidents got the memo: However much they might gnash their teeth in private about Fed policy, they knew it was important to stay out of the bank’s way and let it do its thing.

At least until Trump got into office in 2017.

Share

Trump elevated Powell to Fed chair for a term beginning in early 2018, and within months he was already publicly berating Powell for not doing his bidding. Trump’s angry tweets and interviews about Powell were pretty shocking at the time, at least to us Fed watchers.

But now those early rage-tweets seem almost quaint. Trump has escalated from smearing Powell as an “enemy” of the United States to repeatedly threatening to fire him. Trump actually did try to fire another Fed governor, Lisa Cook, on unsubstantiated allegations that she committed mortgage fraud (this case is now before the Supreme Court). And now Trump’s Justice Department is conducting a politically motivated criminal investigation into Powell, ostensibly related to cost overruns on a building renovation.

The irony is that Powell’s term as Fed chair is already scheduled to end next month. Trump could have just waited him out. But our president cannot help but continue to harass, threaten, and punish his perceived personal enemies, even after a federal court tells him to lay off.

This has all backfired tremendously for Trump.

Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) has said he likes Warsh but will not advance any Fed appointments until the investigation into Powell is over. This actually means that Powell could remain leading the Fed for longer, since the law allows the chair to stick around until a replacement is named.2

Warsh Ducks the Issue

So where is Warsh in all this? Mostly silent. But at times, he has encouraged Trump’s bad behavior, at least when he was publicly auditioning for the Fed job.

When asked last year about whether it was appropriate for Trump to publicly jawbone the Fed, Warsh defended Trump’s behavior, and said Fed officials must not be “pampered princes.”

Likewise, when every living former Fed chair signed a Supreme Court amicus brief warning of the dire economic consequences should Trump succeed in firing Cook, Warsh mocked them. “I did not know that senior economic officials’ at the Treasury and the Federal Reserve expertise went all the way to constitutional jurisprudence,” he snarked.

And then came yesterday’s confirmation hearing.

Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) asked Warsh if he would “commit to defending Governor Cook’s tenure as Chairman Powell has done.” She also quoted Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as saying that Cook’s firing “would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve,” and asked Warsh if he agreed.

Alsobrooks then asked about the criminal investigation into Powell, and asked Warsh if he disputed Powell’s assertion that the investigation and threats of criminal charges are pretexts for disagreements over the Fed’s interest-rate policy.

Warsh refused to answer any of these questions. His rationales (or excuses) were some combination of: he shouldn’t comment on ongoing litigation before the Supreme Court; he trusts the courts; and though he “took a constitutional law class,” he lacks the legal expertise to weigh in.

This was a test, and Warsh failed it. And he knows it. In 2023, in that interview with Simon Bowmaker, Warsh said he had conveyed to the first Trump administration that he would not cooperate with any effort to remove Fed officials over policy disagreements:

Bowmaker: In Nick Timiraos’s recent book, Trillion Dollar Triage, he wrote that at a White House signing ceremony in January 2020, President Trump told you, “I would have been very happy with you [as Fed chair].” What would you have done differently if you had been Fed chair in the 2018–19 period?

Warsh: If you are referencing media reports that the president had grown unhappy with the Fed chairman at certain points, recognize that the Federal Reserve chairman is appointed with a fixed term. If the president wanted to truncate that term and replace the Fed chairman, I suspect that is a case that would have ultimately been decided by the Supreme Court. During the period that you reference, I did hear on occasion from senior administration officials querying about my interest in the role of chairman of the Federal Reserve. My response was that the position was not open and would not be open until the chairman’s term was complete.

How things have changed.

Join now

A Trump–Warsh Confrontation Is Coming

Now one might argue—as some of Warsh’s friends have said to me privately in recent months—that Warsh has to make unseemly rhetorical concessions to get the job. There’s no way around it.

This kind of slippery elision may just be the price of admission for the job. As is the expectation that Trump appointees refuse to acknowledge Trump lost the 2020 election. (When Sen. Elizabeth Warren asked Warsh about this on Tuesday, he also declined to answer.) Most charitably, we can say that however gross these kinds of comments seem, they don’t mean Warsh will do Trump’s bidding if he’s confirmed.

After all, Warsh understands markets, and he has waxed poetic about Fed independence in the past. What matters is how he plans to respond when (not if) Fed independence comes under pressure on his watch.

Unfortunately, in the hearing, Warsh was never asked how he would react if Trump were to, say, call Warsh an “enemy,” or launch a bullshit criminal investigation into him, or try to fire him, or otherwise take him to court. (At the recent Alfalfa dinner, Trump “joked” about suing Warsh if the Fed didn’t cut rates.) When faced with such an onslaught, Powell stood his ground. Would Warsh? We don’t know! He wasn’t asked.

Maybe Warsh thinks he can manage Trump. Certainly every other onetime Trump ally or appointee seems to believe they’re uniquely able to survive a disagreement with him. But smooth and well-connected as Warsh is,3 I am dubious he’ll be able to sweet-talk his way out of presidential wrath. That’s important, because a confrontation over interest rates between Trump and a Warsh-led Fed is starting to look inevitable.

Why? First: Warsh will be just one of twelve votes on the committee that sets interest rates; he can’t deliver them solo.

Second, markets don’t seem to think he’ll really want to. When Warsh was first announced as Trump’s nominee in January, long-term Treasury yields ticked up slightly—suggesting investors expect the Fed to become somewhat more hawkish under Warsh, despite Trump’s demands and Warsh’s recent dovish transformation.

Third, that market reaction occurred before Trump started bombing Iran, leading to severed global supply chains and higher prices.

Developments in the war have led markets to further downgrade the likelihood of big rate cuts this year. Maybe investors will be wrong—particularly if the energy shock leads to a recession—but at the very least, the Fed will be in an even trickier position than it was before the war. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said he’d “understand” if the Fed held off on further rate cuts for a bit while monitoring the war’s impact. If at some point all the Fed’s internal models suggest inflation risks are high and rate hikes are necessary, but at the same time Trump is screaming for rate cuts because he wants to survive the midterms, how will Warsh react?

Senators should have asked that. Warsh should have to answer. Because the public deserves to know.

Leave a comment

1

It is a good thing the Fed didn’t heed Warsh’s advice, as tightening monetary policy at the time might have led to a global depression. Fortunately, when Warsh was scaremongering about inflation, Ben Bernanke was chair of the Fed. Bernanke is perhaps the leading economic historian of the Great Depression, and was awarde his Nobel for his research on the subject. He has also specifically blamed the Fed’s rate hikes for worsening the 1929 crisis. As he said in a 2002 speech honoring Milton Friedman, who with Anna Schwartz had famously detailed the Fed’s role in turning the financial crash into the worst depression in American history: “Regarding the Great Depression . . . we did it. We’re very sorry. . . . We won’t do it again.”

2

Powell can also remain as a regular member of the Fed Board even after a successor as chair is confirmed. This almost never happens—who wants to stay after being demoted?—but Powell says he’ll remain if the investigation persists.

3

Warsh’s father-in-law is Ron Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics heir and Trump crony who reportedly convinced the president to go after Greenland. Warsh has also been at the Hoover Institution forever, and has lots of friends among D.C. bigwigs as well as apparently the NFL.

More description
Kevin Warsh—President Donald Trump’s nominee for chair of the Federal Reserve—taking the oath before testifying during his Senate confirmation hearing on April 21, 2026. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

KEVIN WARSH, DONALD TRUMP’S pick for Federal Reserve chair, had his confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee yesterday. The hearing was held under the shadow of Trump’s ongoing efforts to persecute (and prosecute) the current Fed chair, Jerome Powell—a vendetta that simultaneously undermines both the rule of law and the nation’s long-term economic prospects.

It was Warsh’s chance to prove his commitment to independence, and he failed.

He gave plenty of lip service to Fed independence, but he actually needed to answer two specific questions:

1) Is Trump’s criminal investigation into Powell appropriate?

2) What would Warsh do if Trump threatened retribution against him for monetary policy decisions the president disliked?

Both questions are critical, given that Trump’s demands for interest rate cuts—and Warsh’s promise to deliver them—will almost inevitably come into conflict with the inflation stoked by Trump’s war in Iran. But Warsh answered neither. In fact, no one even bothered to ask him the second question.

If you care about the markets. If you care about democracy. If you care about accountability…then sign up for Bulwark+ today.

Kevin Warsh’s “Evolution”

Unlike some of the other candidates Trump has considered for Fed jobs, Warsh is not obviously insane or incompetent. He’s not a clown, or a hack, or someone who makes easily falsifiable claims on TV. On paper, he looks like a terrific candidate. He is polished and fast on his feet, has market experience, and has even served on the Fed Board before (from 2006 to 2011, as an appointee of President George W. Bush). Plenty of people I respect have said he more than clears the bar.

But the question has never been whether Warsh has the brains for the job. It’s whether he has the spine for it. Which he will very much need, given who is in the White House.

As I’ve noted before, Warsh spent nearly his entire career advocating for policy positions the exact opposite of those that Trump demands today. Trump wants looser monetary policy, regardless of economic conditions. Trump even has affirmed that a commitment to cut interest rates immediately was a “litmus test” for anyone wanting his nomination to lead the Fed. But Warsh has generally been considered an inflation hawk, favoring tighter monetary policy with higher interest rates and a smaller Fed balance sheet.

Even in the deepest, darkest depths of the financial crisis—as in, literally one day after Lehman Brothers failed—Warsh said he was worried about inflation. Instead, we immediately experienced deflation.1

Join Bulwark+ with a FREE 14-day trial

Warsh has been fairly consistent about this positioning with two major exceptions: Each time Trump happened to be entering the White House. Less than two months before Trump was re-elected, Warsh chided the Fed for cutting interest rates. Warsh then reversed himself a few months later, when Trump just happened to be scouting out a new Fed chair.

The timing certainly smelled funny. Particularly given the fact that Warsh had been passed over for the Fed job before, in Trump’s first term, and had attributed his rejection then to the fact that he hadn’t said what Trump wanted to hear.

“My meeting with the president went on for a bit more than an hour, and he was transparent in his views,” Warsh told Simon Bowmaker in a 2023 interview for a forthcoming book (Fed Reckoning: Conversations on America’s Central Bank, due out in January 2027). “It was a very rigorous interview. He asked some very relevant questions, and I offered my best judgments. I left the interview, however, not overly enthused about my prospects for selection. I did not put my ambitions ahead of my principles.”

We don’t know if Warsh’s subsequent transformation from inflation hawk to dove was actually politically motivated. As Warsh said in Tuesday’s hearing, “My opinions change when the facts change.” That is certainly a reasonable approach, and words I hope to live by too.

What makes this latest conversion concerning, however, is how it overlays Trump’s efforts to politicize the Fed, and how Warsh has responded to those efforts.

Trump’s Attacks on Fed Independence

The central bank is supposed to be politically independent. The only way it can keep price growth in check is by being willing to take painful actions that politicians won’t, such as raising interest rates when the economy starts getting too hot—or taking away the “punch bowl” just when the party gets going, as the expression goes.

Politicians pretty much always want to put more booze in the punch bowl—i.e., lower interest rates—regardless of the long-term consequences for the economy. That is why countries where politicians control the money supply tend to have much worse inflationary outcomes.

This was a problem here in the United States too, in the 1970s, when Nixon leaned on the Fed chair to keep rates low. But ever since Paul Volcker helmed the central bank, the Fed has proved its willingness to do “whatever it takes” to crush inflation, no matter how unpopular, and it has aggressively guarded its independence in the process.

Presidents got the memo: However much they might gnash their teeth in private about Fed policy, they knew it was important to stay out of the bank’s way and let it do its thing.

At least until Trump got into office in 2017.

Share

Trump elevated Powell to Fed chair for a term beginning in early 2018, and within months he was already publicly berating Powell for not doing his bidding. Trump’s angry tweets and interviews about Powell were pretty shocking at the time, at least to us Fed watchers.

But now those early rage-tweets seem almost quaint. Trump has escalated from smearing Powell as an “enemy” of the United States to repeatedly threatening to fire him. Trump actually did try to fire another Fed governor, Lisa Cook, on unsubstantiated allegations that she committed mortgage fraud (this case is now before the Supreme Court). And now Trump’s Justice Department is conducting a politically motivated criminal investigation into Powell, ostensibly related to cost overruns on a building renovation.

The irony is that Powell’s term as Fed chair is already scheduled to end next month. Trump could have just waited him out. But our president cannot help but continue to harass, threaten, and punish his perceived personal enemies, even after a federal court tells him to lay off.

This has all backfired tremendously for Trump.

Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) has said he likes Warsh but will not advance any Fed appointments until the investigation into Powell is over. This actually means that Powell could remain leading the Fed for longer, since the law allows the chair to stick around until a replacement is named.2

Warsh Ducks the Issue

So where is Warsh in all this? Mostly silent. But at times, he has encouraged Trump’s bad behavior, at least when he was publicly auditioning for the Fed job.

When asked last year about whether it was appropriate for Trump to publicly jawbone the Fed, Warsh defended Trump’s behavior, and said Fed officials must not be “pampered princes.”

Likewise, when every living former Fed chair signed a Supreme Court amicus brief warning of the dire economic consequences should Trump succeed in firing Cook, Warsh mocked them. “I did not know that senior economic officials’ at the Treasury and the Federal Reserve expertise went all the way to constitutional jurisprudence,” he snarked.

And then came yesterday’s confirmation hearing.

Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) asked Warsh if he would “commit to defending Governor Cook’s tenure as Chairman Powell has done.” She also quoted Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as saying that Cook’s firing “would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve,” and asked Warsh if he agreed.

Alsobrooks then asked about the criminal investigation into Powell, and asked Warsh if he disputed Powell’s assertion that the investigation and threats of criminal charges are pretexts for disagreements over the Fed’s interest-rate policy.

Warsh refused to answer any of these questions. His rationales (or excuses) were some combination of: he shouldn’t comment on ongoing litigation before the Supreme Court; he trusts the courts; and though he “took a constitutional law class,” he lacks the legal expertise to weigh in.

This was a test, and Warsh failed it. And he knows it. In 2023, in that interview with Simon Bowmaker, Warsh said he had conveyed to the first Trump administration that he would not cooperate with any effort to remove Fed officials over policy disagreements:

Bowmaker: In Nick Timiraos’s recent book, Trillion Dollar Triage, he wrote that at a White House signing ceremony in January 2020, President Trump told you, “I would have been very happy with you [as Fed chair].” What would you have done differently if you had been Fed chair in the 2018–19 period?

Warsh: If you are referencing media reports that the president had grown unhappy with the Fed chairman at certain points, recognize that the Federal Reserve chairman is appointed with a fixed term. If the president wanted to truncate that term and replace the Fed chairman, I suspect that is a case that would have ultimately been decided by the Supreme Court. During the period that you reference, I did hear on occasion from senior administration officials querying about my interest in the role of chairman of the Federal Reserve. My response was that the position was not open and would not be open until the chairman’s term was complete.

How things have changed.

Join now

A Trump–Warsh Confrontation Is Coming

Now one might argue—as some of Warsh’s friends have said to me privately in recent months—that Warsh has to make unseemly rhetorical concessions to get the job. There’s no way around it.

This kind of slippery elision may just be the price of admission for the job. As is the expectation that Trump appointees refuse to acknowledge Trump lost the 2020 election. (When Sen. Elizabeth Warren asked Warsh about this on Tuesday, he also declined to answer.) Most charitably, we can say that however gross these kinds of comments seem, they don’t mean Warsh will do Trump’s bidding if he’s confirmed.

After all, Warsh understands markets, and he has waxed poetic about Fed independence in the past. What matters is how he plans to respond when (not if) Fed independence comes under pressure on his watch.

Unfortunately, in the hearing, Warsh was never asked how he would react if Trump were to, say, call Warsh an “enemy,” or launch a bullshit criminal investigation into him, or try to fire him, or otherwise take him to court. (At the recent Alfalfa dinner, Trump “joked” about suing Warsh if the Fed didn’t cut rates.) When faced with such an onslaught, Powell stood his ground. Would Warsh? We don’t know! He wasn’t asked.

Maybe Warsh thinks he can manage Trump. Certainly every other onetime Trump ally or appointee seems to believe they’re uniquely able to survive a disagreement with him. But smooth and well-connected as Warsh is,3 I am dubious he’ll be able to sweet-talk his way out of presidential wrath. That’s important, because a confrontation over interest rates between Trump and a Warsh-led Fed is starting to look inevitable.

Why? First: Warsh will be just one of twelve votes on the committee that sets interest rates; he can’t deliver them solo.

Second, markets don’t seem to think he’ll really want to. When Warsh was first announced as Trump’s nominee in January, long-term Treasury yields ticked up slightly—suggesting investors expect the Fed to become somewhat more hawkish under Warsh, despite Trump’s demands and Warsh’s recent dovish transformation.

Third, that market reaction occurred before Trump started bombing Iran, leading to severed global supply chains and higher prices.

Developments in the war have led markets to further downgrade the likelihood of big rate cuts this year. Maybe investors will be wrong—particularly if the energy shock leads to a recession—but at the very least, the Fed will be in an even trickier position than it was before the war. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said he’d “understand” if the Fed held off on further rate cuts for a bit while monitoring the war’s impact. If at some point all the Fed’s internal models suggest inflation risks are high and rate hikes are necessary, but at the same time Trump is screaming for rate cuts because he wants to survive the midterms, how will Warsh react?

Senators should have asked that. Warsh should have to answer. Because the public deserves to know.

Leave a comment

1

It is a good thing the Fed didn’t heed Warsh’s advice, as tightening monetary policy at the time might have led to a global depression. Fortunately, when Warsh was scaremongering about inflation, Ben Bernanke was chair of the Fed. Bernanke is perhaps the leading economic historian of the Great Depression, and was awarde his Nobel for his research on the subject. He has also specifically blamed the Fed’s rate hikes for worsening the 1929 crisis. As he said in a 2002 speech honoring Milton Friedman, who with Anna Schwartz had famously detailed the Fed’s role in turning the financial crash into the worst depression in American history: “Regarding the Great Depression . . . we did it. We’re very sorry. . . . We won’t do it again.”

2

Powell can also remain as a regular member of the Fed Board even after a successor as chair is confirmed. This almost never happens—who wants to stay after being demoted?—but Powell says he’ll remain if the investigation persists.

3

Warsh’s father-in-law is Ron Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics heir and Trump crony who reportedly convinced the president to go after Greenland. Warsh has also been at the Hoover Institution forever, and has lots of friends among D.C. bigwigs as well as apparently the NFL.

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
(Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

THE PAST FEW DAYS HAVE FEATURED the vice president of the United States lecturing the pope on morality and church doctrine; Sean Hannity making it official that he worships at the Church of Trump; Pete Hegseth quoting made-up verses from Pulp Fiction as if they were actual scripture; and Trump styling himself as Jesus Christ. A few years ago, one might have wondered how these acts of contempt toward Christianity would go down with the religious right, but after 10 years of cultishness, it would be foolish to expect many defections.

Still, as someone who came up in the conservative movement, I find it a bit dizzying to watch people who used to venerate religious leaders of all stripes now smack-talk the pope and commit what some have characterized as blasphemy.

Vance took several swipes at the vicar of Christ. On Fox News, he advised that

In some cases it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality, to stick to matters of whatʼs going on in the Catholic Church, and let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy.

You do Mass and baptisms and such and let us handle war and peace. That’s some high-octane condescension, but if he had stopped there, it would only have registered as normal MAGA insolence. But no, Vance wasn’t finished. Speaking the next day at a Turning Point USA event, Vance rebuked the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion Christians (including himself: Vance converted to Catholicism in 2019) for his theology! The pope was wrong about just war theory, Vance insisted, and he then scolded the pope, saying,

In the same way that it’s important for the vice president of the United States to be careful when I talk about matters of public policy, I think it’s very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology.

If Vance is careful when he talks about matters of public policy, I shudder to imagine what a cavalier Vance would say. Was his flat endorsement of the lie that Trump won the 2020 election an example of Vance being careful? Was his false allegation that illegal Haitian immigrants (they were legal) were eating people’s pets in Springfield measured and cautious? Was his embrace of authoritarian Viktor Orbán prudent? What about his repeated claim that tariffs would make people “much better off”—was that carefully researched? His admission that he created false, incendiary stories in order to drag a reluctant media to report on immigration: careful commentary?

Unlike the vice president, we do our level best to offer carefully researched, measured, and prudent commentary. Support our independent journalism by signing up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription:

Beyond that, even as he was chastising the pope for sloppiness about matters of doctrine, he was actively misrepresenting what the pontiff said—in other words, being exceedingly sloppy with facts. Vance taunted, “Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated France from the Nazis? Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated Holocaust camps?” Contra Vance, Leo did not say that God is never on the side of those who fight wars. As Bishop James Massa of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine explained,

A constant tenet of that thousand-year [just war] tradition is a nation can only legitimately take up the sword “in self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2308). That is, to be a just war it must be a defense against another who actively wages war, which is what the Holy Father actually said: “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.”

Vance might want to brush up on his catechism. Even if Vance had been right about just war doctrine instead of flat wrong, the eagerness to spar with the pope—it bears repeating: the head of the entire Catholic Church—is utterly Trumpian. Thou shalt have no gods before Trump. Centuries of moral teaching are as nothing if they contradict the wishes of the cult leader.

One of the sad revelations of our time, ably chronicled by Peter Wehner, Tim Alberta, David French, Russell Moore, and many others, is the shallowness of many Christians’ professed faith. I’m Jewish, but I’ve long admired the commitment of serious Christians. I will never forget visiting a facility run by Christian volunteers for abandoned babies exposed to drugs in the womb. These babies needed round-the-clock care of the most grueling nature—not just changing diapers, but adjusting feeding tubes, oxygen masks, and more. The people who worked there did it because they truly honored every human being. They believed that each child, no matter how handicapped, was made in the image and likeness of God. They took to heart the commandment to do “for the least of these.”

Of course, religious belief can also be perverted to enable cruelty and even atrocities. From the Crusades to the Inquisition to the sex abuse scandals of recent years, churches, synagogues, and mosques have spawned crimes, betrayals, and lies. “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made,” as Immanuel Kant put it.

But the particular sacrilege that late stage Trumpism has adopted must be tearing at some hearts. From Trump’s declaration that unlike Erika Kirk, he doesn’t forgive his enemies, to his crude attacks on the pope as “weak on crime,” to his insane AI rendering of himself as Jesus, he seems to be deliberately testing Christians’ forbearance. Above all, his threat to commit war crimes by deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran (bridges, power plants) and culminating in the maniacal vow to destroy Iranian civilization in one night ought to have produced a recoil in any nation with a conscience.

Time to consider that he might be a false prophet—if people can distinguish truth from falsehood anymore.

Send this story to a friend whose sincere religious convictions you admire.

Share

More description
(Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

THE PAST FEW DAYS HAVE FEATURED the vice president of the United States lecturing the pope on morality and church doctrine; Sean Hannity making it official that he worships at the Church of Trump; Pete Hegseth quoting made-up verses from Pulp Fiction as if they were actual scripture; and Trump styling himself as Jesus Christ. A few years ago, one might have wondered how these acts of contempt toward Christianity would go down with the religious right, but after 10 years of cultishness, it would be foolish to expect many defections.

Still, as someone who came up in the conservative movement, I find it a bit dizzying to watch people who used to venerate religious leaders of all stripes now smack-talk the pope and commit what some have characterized as blasphemy.

Vance took several swipes at the vicar of Christ. On Fox News, he advised that

In some cases it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality, to stick to matters of whatʼs going on in the Catholic Church, and let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy.

You do Mass and baptisms and such and let us handle war and peace. That’s some high-octane condescension, but if he had stopped there, it would only have registered as normal MAGA insolence. But no, Vance wasn’t finished. Speaking the next day at a Turning Point USA event, Vance rebuked the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion Christians (including himself: Vance converted to Catholicism in 2019) for his theology! The pope was wrong about just war theory, Vance insisted, and he then scolded the pope, saying,

In the same way that it’s important for the vice president of the United States to be careful when I talk about matters of public policy, I think it’s very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology.

If Vance is careful when he talks about matters of public policy, I shudder to imagine what a cavalier Vance would say. Was his flat endorsement of the lie that Trump won the 2020 election an example of Vance being careful? Was his false allegation that illegal Haitian immigrants (they were legal) were eating people’s pets in Springfield measured and cautious? Was his embrace of authoritarian Viktor Orbán prudent? What about his repeated claim that tariffs would make people “much better off”—was that carefully researched? His admission that he created false, incendiary stories in order to drag a reluctant media to report on immigration: careful commentary?

Unlike the vice president, we do our level best to offer carefully researched, measured, and prudent commentary. Support our independent journalism by signing up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription:

Beyond that, even as he was chastising the pope for sloppiness about matters of doctrine, he was actively misrepresenting what the pontiff said—in other words, being exceedingly sloppy with facts. Vance taunted, “Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated France from the Nazis? Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated Holocaust camps?” Contra Vance, Leo did not say that God is never on the side of those who fight wars. As Bishop James Massa of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine explained,

A constant tenet of that thousand-year [just war] tradition is a nation can only legitimately take up the sword “in self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2308). That is, to be a just war it must be a defense against another who actively wages war, which is what the Holy Father actually said: “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.”

Vance might want to brush up on his catechism. Even if Vance had been right about just war doctrine instead of flat wrong, the eagerness to spar with the pope—it bears repeating: the head of the entire Catholic Church—is utterly Trumpian. Thou shalt have no gods before Trump. Centuries of moral teaching are as nothing if they contradict the wishes of the cult leader.

One of the sad revelations of our time, ably chronicled by Peter Wehner, Tim Alberta, David French, Russell Moore, and many others, is the shallowness of many Christians’ professed faith. I’m Jewish, but I’ve long admired the commitment of serious Christians. I will never forget visiting a facility run by Christian volunteers for abandoned babies exposed to drugs in the womb. These babies needed round-the-clock care of the most grueling nature—not just changing diapers, but adjusting feeding tubes, oxygen masks, and more. The people who worked there did it because they truly honored every human being. They believed that each child, no matter how handicapped, was made in the image and likeness of God. They took to heart the commandment to do “for the least of these.”

Of course, religious belief can also be perverted to enable cruelty and even atrocities. From the Crusades to the Inquisition to the sex abuse scandals of recent years, churches, synagogues, and mosques have spawned crimes, betrayals, and lies. “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made,” as Immanuel Kant put it.

But the particular sacrilege that late stage Trumpism has adopted must be tearing at some hearts. From Trump’s declaration that unlike Erika Kirk, he doesn’t forgive his enemies, to his crude attacks on the pope as “weak on crime,” to his insane AI rendering of himself as Jesus, he seems to be deliberately testing Christians’ forbearance. Above all, his threat to commit war crimes by deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran (bridges, power plants) and culminating in the maniacal vow to destroy Iranian civilization in one night ought to have produced a recoil in any nation with a conscience.

Time to consider that he might be a false prophet—if people can distinguish truth from falsehood anymore.

Send this story to a friend whose sincere religious convictions you admire.

Share

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
(Photo illustration by The Bulwark / Images: Library of Congress, Shutterstock)

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH yesterday took time out of his busy schedule of committing war crimes and firing generals to focus on the real enemy: vaccination.

The Defense Department is “is once again restoring freedom to our Joint Force,” he tweeted. “We are discarding the mandatory flu vaccine requirement, effective immediately.” In a video, he explained the reasoning, if that’s the right word, behind the move:

Under the disastrous Biden administration, this Pentagon waged an unrelenting war on our warriors on many fronts, including when it came to denying them simple medical autonomy and the freedom to express their religious convictions. . . . You know what I’m talking about, what happened: COVID-19 and the vaccine. No more. That era of betrayal is over. . . . We’re seizing this moment to discard any absurd overreaching mandates that only weaken our warfighting capabilities. In this case this includes the universal flu vaccine and the mandate behind it. . . . Our new policy is simple: If you, an American warrior entrusted to defend this nation, believe that the flu vaccine is in your best interest, then you are free to take it; you should. But we will not force you. Because your body, your faith, and your convictions are not negotiable, your health.1

I will leave it to others to weigh Hegseth’s claim in the video that letting service members skip the vaccine “pose[s] no threat to our military readiness”; I instead want to focus on his assertion that mandatory vaccination violates service members’ “freedom to express their religious convictions” and represents an “era of betrayal.”

A decade into the age of Trump, there are all kinds of things we can say about the way MAGA and MAHA have infected branches of evangelical Christianity in the United States. It can be difficult to know where QAnon bullshit ends and the church begins—as I’ve written over and over and over again. So this time, I want to try to explain just how stupid Hegseth’s decision is in terms even he can understand, by putting it in the context of the American founding, especially in this 250th anniversary year. Because if vaccine mandates truly represent an “era of betrayal,” then I guess George Washington’s woke vaccines are the root of it.

Join Bulwark+ with a FREE 14-day trial

Before we get to Washington, let’s set the stage with a look at the decade before he was born. Hegseth’s religious claim simply doesn’t pass the smell test in the context of people who keep trying to claim the mantle of the Founding Fathers. In the 1720s in Boston, a smallpox epidemic led to a widespread debate over variolation—an inoculation technique that is a precursor to today’s vaccines, introducing small doses of live smallpox to people so that they might have a mild infection and then develop protective immunity. The debate played in press and pulpit, because variolation could indeed cause fatal cases of smallpox.2

And in 1720s Boston, the person with the loudest voice from the pulpit was Cotton Mather. If his name rings a bell, it might be of his association with witch hunting and apocalypticism—but that doesn’t mean he was anti-inoculation. In fact, he was the strongest advocate for inoculation in Boston.

That’s right. Cotton Mather—Puritan luminary, proponent of hunting witches—was a big believer in inoculation. Mather inoculated his own son after learning about the procedure from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and the testimony of his enslaved servant Onesimus, who had been inoculated in West Africa before he was kidnapped. With Mather’s support, Dr. Zabdiel Boylston experimented on Mather’s son, Mather’s enslaved servant Jack, and Jack’s son, and when none of them developed full cases of smallpox, began continuing with other people. There was intense pushback—a bomb was thrown into Cotton Mather’s house on November 14, 1721, because of his advocacy—but the campaign moved forward.

A half-century later, smallpox was enough of a problem—and inoculation had become enough of a proven technique—that this was not just a matter for individual cities and individual clergy to debate but a matter of urgency for the war for independence. Smallpox broke out in the Quebec campaign, ravaging the Continental Army in 1775 and 1776. As John Adams3 wrote to his wife, Abigail, in June 1776,

Our Misfortunes in Canada, are enough to melt an Heart of Stone. The Small Pox is ten times more terrible than Britons, Canadians and Indians together. This was the Cause of our precipitate Retreat from Quebec, this the Cause of our Disgraces at the Cedars.—I dont mean that this was all. There has been Want, approaching to Famine, as well as Pestilence.

Smallpox was a fundamental threat. And while quarantines were an important part of the solution, quarantines during an active military campaign were far from ideal. So in February 1777, George Washington, the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, wrote a letter to William Shippen, Jr., director general of the hospitals for the army:

Finding the Small pox to be spreading much and fearing that no precaution can prevent it from running through the whole of our Army, I have determined that the troops shall be inoculated. This Expedient may be attended with some inconveniences and some disadvantages, but yet I trust in its consequences will have the most happy effects. Necessity not only authorizes but seems to require the measure, for should the disorder infect the Army in the natural way and rage with its usual virulence we should have more to dread from it than from the Sword of the Enemy.

The general ordered “without delay” the immediate inoculation of “All the Continental Troops that are in philadelphia and those that shall come in as fast as they arrive.”

Now skip ahead a generation to when smallpox vaccination came to America. (The word “vaccination” comes from the Latin for cow, since the English physician Edward Jenner proved in the 1790s that intentionally infecting someone with cowpox could confer immunity to smallpox.) The Founding Fathers welcomed vaccination. On Christmas Day in 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Benjamin Waterhouse, the physician who brought the technique to America, that “every friend of humanity must look with pleasure on this discovery.”

Join now

I COULD OFFER OTHER EXAMPLES of the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries expressing gratitude for these disease-preventing techniques, and celebrating the decision to require the troops be inoculated during the Revolution. Likewise, I could point to other examples of eighteenth-century religious figures who, like Mather, embraced these measures.4

The point, though, is that Hegseth’s claim—that requiring the vaccination of service members violates their religious freedom and is part of a “war on our warriors”—doesn’t hold water. The Founders appreciated the importance of the mandate.

Pete Hegseth and the broader Trump administration are concerned with a brand of anti-wokeism that is divorced from our shared reality. In the context of all the other things Hegseth and the administration have been doing, it seems like the ending of vaccination mandates is a small thing to get mad about.

But vaccines work. They are safe. They save lives. And mandating them in the military is a tradition that dates back to the Founding era whose 250th anniversary we are marking this year.

One last point, a question for Secretary Hegseth: If you really believe that mandatory vaccination violates “medical autonomy” and “the freedom to express . . . religious convictions,” then why stop with lifting the requirement for the flu vaccine? Why not do away with the requirements that service members be vaccinated against polio, measles, hepatitis, and the other diseases for which vaccinations are now mandatory? No? So much for the “era of betrayal.”

Share

1

Hegseth did not mention that service members could already file requests to be exempted from vaccines on religious grounds.

2

Today’s vaccines, which use weakened or dead viral material, or bits of genetic code that can prod the immune system into action, are much safer.

3

John Adams and much of Boston had been inoculated by Dr. Joseph Warren, Son of Liberty and major general in the Continental Army, who had run a smallpox inoculation clinic in the 1760s. Abigail Adams had herself and her children inoculated in 1776.

4

Here’s another example—a contemporary of the Founders, a Dutch Reformed pastor in Albany, New York, Eilardus Westerlo. In a November 1782 diary entry, he wrote:

This day my daughter Catharine and other children in my family are to be inoculated with the smallpox that have been and are at present in town and country. I desire to wait on the Lord for a blessing. Oh, may the Lord in His infinite mercy bless this approved experiment and give us new matter of praises unto Him, who remembers mercy. . . .

More description
(Photo illustration by The Bulwark / Images: Library of Congress, Shutterstock)

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH yesterday took time out of his busy schedule of committing war crimes and firing generals to focus on the real enemy: vaccination.

The Defense Department is “is once again restoring freedom to our Joint Force,” he tweeted. “We are discarding the mandatory flu vaccine requirement, effective immediately.” In a video, he explained the reasoning, if that’s the right word, behind the move:

Under the disastrous Biden administration, this Pentagon waged an unrelenting war on our warriors on many fronts, including when it came to denying them simple medical autonomy and the freedom to express their religious convictions. . . . You know what I’m talking about, what happened: COVID-19 and the vaccine. No more. That era of betrayal is over. . . . We’re seizing this moment to discard any absurd overreaching mandates that only weaken our warfighting capabilities. In this case this includes the universal flu vaccine and the mandate behind it. . . . Our new policy is simple: If you, an American warrior entrusted to defend this nation, believe that the flu vaccine is in your best interest, then you are free to take it; you should. But we will not force you. Because your body, your faith, and your convictions are not negotiable, your health.1

I will leave it to others to weigh Hegseth’s claim in the video that letting service members skip the vaccine “pose[s] no threat to our military readiness”; I instead want to focus on his assertion that mandatory vaccination violates service members’ “freedom to express their religious convictions” and represents an “era of betrayal.”

A decade into the age of Trump, there are all kinds of things we can say about the way MAGA and MAHA have infected branches of evangelical Christianity in the United States. It can be difficult to know where QAnon bullshit ends and the church begins—as I’ve written over and over and over again. So this time, I want to try to explain just how stupid Hegseth’s decision is in terms even he can understand, by putting it in the context of the American founding, especially in this 250th anniversary year. Because if vaccine mandates truly represent an “era of betrayal,” then I guess George Washington’s woke vaccines are the root of it.

Join Bulwark+ with a FREE 14-day trial

Before we get to Washington, let’s set the stage with a look at the decade before he was born. Hegseth’s religious claim simply doesn’t pass the smell test in the context of people who keep trying to claim the mantle of the Founding Fathers. In the 1720s in Boston, a smallpox epidemic led to a widespread debate over variolation—an inoculation technique that is a precursor to today’s vaccines, introducing small doses of live smallpox to people so that they might have a mild infection and then develop protective immunity. The debate played in press and pulpit, because variolation could indeed cause fatal cases of smallpox.2

And in 1720s Boston, the person with the loudest voice from the pulpit was Cotton Mather. If his name rings a bell, it might be of his association with witch hunting and apocalypticism—but that doesn’t mean he was anti-inoculation. In fact, he was the strongest advocate for inoculation in Boston.

That’s right. Cotton Mather—Puritan luminary, proponent of hunting witches—was a big believer in inoculation. Mather inoculated his own son after learning about the procedure from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and the testimony of his enslaved servant Onesimus, who had been inoculated in West Africa before he was kidnapped. With Mather’s support, Dr. Zabdiel Boylston experimented on Mather’s son, Mather’s enslaved servant Jack, and Jack’s son, and when none of them developed full cases of smallpox, began continuing with other people. There was intense pushback—a bomb was thrown into Cotton Mather’s house on November 14, 1721, because of his advocacy—but the campaign moved forward.

A half-century later, smallpox was enough of a problem—and inoculation had become enough of a proven technique—that this was not just a matter for individual cities and individual clergy to debate but a matter of urgency for the war for independence. Smallpox broke out in the Quebec campaign, ravaging the Continental Army in 1775 and 1776. As John Adams3 wrote to his wife, Abigail, in June 1776,

Our Misfortunes in Canada, are enough to melt an Heart of Stone. The Small Pox is ten times more terrible than Britons, Canadians and Indians together. This was the Cause of our precipitate Retreat from Quebec, this the Cause of our Disgraces at the Cedars.—I dont mean that this was all. There has been Want, approaching to Famine, as well as Pestilence.

Smallpox was a fundamental threat. And while quarantines were an important part of the solution, quarantines during an active military campaign were far from ideal. So in February 1777, George Washington, the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, wrote a letter to William Shippen, Jr., director general of the hospitals for the army:

Finding the Small pox to be spreading much and fearing that no precaution can prevent it from running through the whole of our Army, I have determined that the troops shall be inoculated. This Expedient may be attended with some inconveniences and some disadvantages, but yet I trust in its consequences will have the most happy effects. Necessity not only authorizes but seems to require the measure, for should the disorder infect the Army in the natural way and rage with its usual virulence we should have more to dread from it than from the Sword of the Enemy.

The general ordered “without delay” the immediate inoculation of “All the Continental Troops that are in philadelphia and those that shall come in as fast as they arrive.”

Now skip ahead a generation to when smallpox vaccination came to America. (The word “vaccination” comes from the Latin for cow, since the English physician Edward Jenner proved in the 1790s that intentionally infecting someone with cowpox could confer immunity to smallpox.) The Founding Fathers welcomed vaccination. On Christmas Day in 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Benjamin Waterhouse, the physician who brought the technique to America, that “every friend of humanity must look with pleasure on this discovery.”

Join now

I COULD OFFER OTHER EXAMPLES of the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries expressing gratitude for these disease-preventing techniques, and celebrating the decision to require the troops be inoculated during the Revolution. Likewise, I could point to other examples of eighteenth-century religious figures who, like Mather, embraced these measures.4

The point, though, is that Hegseth’s claim—that requiring the vaccination of service members violates their religious freedom and is part of a “war on our warriors”—doesn’t hold water. The Founders appreciated the importance of the mandate.

Pete Hegseth and the broader Trump administration are concerned with a brand of anti-wokeism that is divorced from our shared reality. In the context of all the other things Hegseth and the administration have been doing, it seems like the ending of vaccination mandates is a small thing to get mad about.

But vaccines work. They are safe. They save lives. And mandating them in the military is a tradition that dates back to the Founding era whose 250th anniversary we are marking this year.

One last point, a question for Secretary Hegseth: If you really believe that mandatory vaccination violates “medical autonomy” and “the freedom to express . . . religious convictions,” then why stop with lifting the requirement for the flu vaccine? Why not do away with the requirements that service members be vaccinated against polio, measles, hepatitis, and the other diseases for which vaccinations are now mandatory? No? So much for the “era of betrayal.”

Share

1

Hegseth did not mention that service members could already file requests to be exempted from vaccines on religious grounds.

2

Today’s vaccines, which use weakened or dead viral material, or bits of genetic code that can prod the immune system into action, are much safer.

3

John Adams and much of Boston had been inoculated by Dr. Joseph Warren, Son of Liberty and major general in the Continental Army, who had run a smallpox inoculation clinic in the 1760s. Abigail Adams had herself and her children inoculated in 1776.

4

Here’s another example—a contemporary of the Founders, a Dutch Reformed pastor in Albany, New York, Eilardus Westerlo. In a November 1782 diary entry, he wrote:

This day my daughter Catharine and other children in my family are to be inoculated with the smallpox that have been and are at present in town and country. I desire to wait on the Lord for a blessing. Oh, may the Lord in His infinite mercy bless this approved experiment and give us new matter of praises unto Him, who remembers mercy. . . .

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere

Tim Miller and Bill Kristol give their takes on a major election night development in Virginia as voters approve a redistricting referendum that reshapes the state’s congressional map and clears the way for a potential 10–1 Democratic advantage. The result marks a significant political victory for Democrats, who moved aggressively to counter Republican-led gerrymandering efforts in other states.

Stop putting off those doctors appointments and go to https://Zocdoc.com/bulwarktakes to find and instantly book a doctor you love today.

Sign up for the Morning Shots newsletter: https://www.thebulwark.com/s/morningshots

More description

Tim Miller and Bill Kristol give their takes on a major election night development in Virginia as voters approve a redistricting referendum that reshapes the state’s congressional map and clears the way for a potential 10–1 Democratic advantage. The result marks a significant political victory for Democrats, who moved aggressively to counter Republican-led gerrymandering efforts in other states.

Stop putting off those doctors appointments and go to https://Zocdoc.com/bulwarktakes to find and instantly book a doctor you love today.

Sign up for the Morning Shots newsletter: https://www.thebulwark.com/s/morningshots

Extract Knowledge
Listen elsewhere
Show details
Episodes
888
Transcripts
0
0% coverage
Missing transcripts
888
With chapters
0