Category: Politics

  • Life in Chicago with ICE and the National Guard

    Life in Chicago with ICE and the National Guard

    Every day, Chicagoans outside the immediate areas where federal forces are deploying pick up fragments of what feels like an unfolding drama.

    Here’s a representative example: on the app NextDoor, the Chicago subreddit and in neighborhood Facebook groups, we watch cell-phone footage from Logan Square of smoke spreading through an intersection as a federal vehicle pulls away. Eventually, local outlets verify that a masked federal agent dropped canisters outside the Rico Fresh supermarket near Funston Elementary. It appears the air was filled with a chemical irritant, causing people to panic, and the vehicle departed. NBC Chicago asked Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security for explanations and, as of publication, had not received a detailed public rationale. Another cluster of videos captures tense scenes outside the ICE processing center in Broadview, a suburb just west of Chicago. In September, a federal agent positioned above the facility fired a projectile that struck Pastor David Black in the head.

    I witnessed an arrest last Saturday afternoon – a man purchasing a hot dog was picked up by CBP. A Greek-American friend, with olive skin and a mess of dark, curly hair, claims in a groupchat that he was asked to show his passport while walking downtown – sparse on details, high on alarm. Another friend, an undocumented immigrant from Ukraine, shares with me that she’s scared of being seized. Each day, a new story and mixed context for residents who may not understand what’s actually happening. 

    The Trump administration has deployed about 500 National Guard troops in the Chicago area for an initial period of 60 days – around 300 from Illinois and 200 from Texas. Federal officials say the mission is to protect personnel and property at federal sites, especially those used by ICE. On social media, there are reports that Chicagoans are preventing federal officials from doing their job through civil disobedience, which, some conservatives say, is justification for the Trump administration to step up operations.

    Illinois and the City of Chicago have sued, arguing the orders are unlawful and implicate the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use oIf the military in civilian law enforcement. Filed October 6, the complaint challenges both the federalization of the Illinois Guard and the importation of Texas Guard forces. A judge in Chicago is set to rule on whether to block the deployment while the case proceeds.

    Northern Command has publicly declared the troops are there to protect federal workers and property, not to perform general urban policing – though the chatter online tells a different story. There’s a general sense that Chicago is a “war zone” and that the presence of the National Guard is “overdue.” The White House itself has described the deployment as a “protection mission,” while DHS refers to the broader ICE enforcement escalation as Operation Midway Blitz.

    Reporters have yet to work out a complete, detailed after-action account explaining why gas was deployed in Logan Square at that moment. Federal officials have not produced a cohesive public explanation tying together the scattered incidents across the city. And so residents and observers have basic questions that remain unanswered: who ordered the canisters in Logan Square? What does it mean, practically, that one of our alderwomen was briefly handcuffed? Was she arrested or just threatened? Eventually there are fractions of answers, but not all emerge in time to affect public understanding.

    What many Chicagoans are experiencing is uncertainty, amplified by a lack of clear news sources. Local journalists are doing the work: verifying incidents, seeking official responses, documenting what happens on the ground. But that reporting doesn’t reach most people in its original form. Instead, it gets broken apart and redistributed through social platforms, stripped of context, arriving as fragments rather than as coherent stories. 

    From social media, people assemble different stories. Some accept the administration’s framing – that the Guard is there to keep federal workers safe in a city that allegedly refuses to do so. Others see the footage as evidence that federal power is expanding into everyday life  –  understood as authoritarian overreach. Both sides point to authentic images and cite official statements, but few can point to a single, verified timeline that links them all.

    The Guard deployment is real, active and officially limited to protecting federal personnel and property. ICE enforcement in the region has intensified under a named operation, producing repeated confrontations with residents and protesters. And the public does not yet have a stable, integrated account that links these episodes into a common operational plan. This is, in large part, a distribution problem. The pieces are authentic. The whole picture remains incomplete.

  • Has Trump won peace – or a pause? 

    Has Trump won peace – or a pause? 

    Donald Trump is on a roll. He not only wrangled Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu into submission, but also the terrorist organization Hamas, which has apparently agreed to release all remaining hostages. The war in Gaza, which has claimed the lives of at least 67,000 Palestinians, looks to be coming to an end. On Thursday evening, Trump took a victory lap as Israel and Hamas, who have been negotiating in Egypt, assented to the first phase of his 20-point peace plan.

    “I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan. This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”

    They are indeed. A jubilant Trump has indicated that he is planning to visit Israel and Egypt. So far, so good. His push for peace and readiness to confront Netanyahu has been vindicated. Netanyahu himself called the agreement “a great day for Israel.” The cessation of hostilities after two years of combat may be a testament to exhaustion on all sides as much as anything else. But will the agreement bring something more substantial than a temporary ceasefire?

    Vexed questions remain. Among them: will Hamas disarm? How far will Israel withdraw from Gaza? And who will run the denuded area and supervise its reconstruction?

    For Netanyahu, an end to the conflict will pose significant risks. He has been able to dodge accountability for the grievous national security lapses that took place on October 7, when Hamas attacked and murdered numerous Israeli civilians. His rickety right-wing coalition partners, who harbor the dream of expelling the Palestinians, may also abandon Netanyahu over the agreement. Still, they would lose their privileges and prerogatives should they exit the coalition.

    The most likely prospect is that a special election will take place in advance of the one scheduled for October 2026. This would almost surely result in a new and more centrist government. The possibility of a grand coalition that excludes far-right figures such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich would seem to be very much in the offing. For one thing, opposition leader Yair Lapid has supported Netanyahu over the past week, declaring that the fate of the hostages trumps any quotidian political concerns. Lapid is also intent on creating a unity government after elections take place. After the turmoil that Israel has endured over the past several years, it might well be a winning message, though Netanyahu’s skill at pulling electoral rabbits out of a hat should never be discounted. 

    But these considerations remain in the future. The most pressing issue is what will transpire with the Gaza strip itself, which has been largely reduced to rubble by Israel. When Trump travels to the Middle East later this week, he will be seeking to ensure that the temporary ceasefire becomes a permanent one, rather than devolving into a fresh round of violence. Nothing would please him more to accomplish what his loathed predecessor Joe Biden could not. And then there is the small matter of the Nobel Peace Prize he covets.

  • The Democrat who fantasized about killing a Republican

    The Democrat who fantasized about killing a Republican

    When it was revealed that Jay Jones, Virginia’s Democratic nominee for attorney general, joked in text messages about shooting a Republican lawmaker, Democrats didn’t rush to condemn him. They scolded the comments, sure. But they didn’t demand he drop out. That hesitation tells you everything about the new Democratic mindset: they don’t see this as hypocrisy. They see it as adaptation.

    For years, Democrats have insisted that Donald Trump changed American politics – that he shattered the old civility and made rage fashionable. Now they’re quietly admitting that rage works. They’re not abandoning their moral high ground; they’re repaving it with something harder and sharper. In their eyes, the game changed – and if the only way to win is to play by Trump’s rules, so be it.

    Trump has said and done outrageous things, no honest conservative would deny it. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: Democrats have grown addicted to the very aggression they once claimed to despise. They just market it differently. Republicans call it “fighting back.” Democrats call it “meeting the moment.” Either way, the temperature keeps rising – and both sides pretend they’re only reacting.

    Jones’s texts weren’t vague or flippant. He name-dropped a Republican House speaker, fantasized about shooting him, and even joked about desecrating Republican graves. Then came the apology tour: “I’m embarrassed, ashamed and sorry.” But the Democratic Party’s response has been careful – too careful. Condemnation without consequence.

    That’s not cowardice. It’s calculation. Democrats know the old etiquette of politics – the days of “when they go low, we go high” – died sometime around 2016. They believe their voters want fighters, not philosophers. So, as one strategist put it off the record, “you don’t disarm yourself while the other side is armed to the teeth.” In other words, the rhetoric might be ugly, but so is the world Trump built – and Democrats think they’re just learning to survive in it.

    It’s a seductive logic: that moral restraint is weakness, that power justifies posture. But it’s also the same logic that Democrats once accused Republicans of using. The Jones story doesn’t just expose one man’s lapse; it exposes a cultural conversion. The party of “norms and decency” has decided those luxuries can wait until after the next election.

    The most revealing part of this scandal isn’t what Jones said – it’s what Democrats didn’t say afterward. No leading Democrat has publicly called for him to step down. No one wants to be the first to demand accountability in an election season. Instead, they offer the usual script: “We reject violence in all forms.” Then they pivot to whataboutism – Trump’s language, MAGA threats, January 6 – as if pointing to the other side’s sins somehow cleanses their own.

    But moral credibility doesn’t work that way. You can’t condemn the fire while holding a lighter behind your back. The Jones controversy shows how both parties have lost the ability to be embarrassed by themselves. It’s not that Democrats no longer see rhetoric as dangerous – it’s that they’ve convinced themselves it’s necessary. In this new order, politics isn’t about persuasion anymore. It’s about dominance.

    Here’s where conservatives have to be careful. It’s tempting to gloat – to treat every Democratic scandal as proof of hypocrisy. But that’s not enough. The goal shouldn’t be to meet Democratic aggression with equal fury. The goal should be to model the discipline they’ve abandoned.

    If Democrats are determined to sound like the revolution, conservatives must sound like civilization. Strength isn’t shouting louder; it’s refusing to let outrage define your argument. Conservatives win not by matching the moral chaos, but by outlasting it – by showing voters that reason and restraint are still forms of power.

    We’re told this is just politics as usual, but it’s really a culture war over tone – over how far a person can go to prove they “care.” The louder and angrier the rhetoric, the more “authentic” it sounds to the base. But that kind of politics is self-consuming. It rewards fury, not vision. It mistakes destruction for passion.

    Jay Jones may survive his scandal. But Democrats won’t survive the culture that excuses it. Once you start believing you must become what you hate to beat what you hate, you’ve already lost something more important than an election – you’ve lost the moral language that made your cause worth fighting for.

    So let’s be clear: the danger isn’t that Trump made Democrats meaner. The danger is that Democrats now think meanness is a virtue. And if that’s the new rulebook of American politics, we should all be terrified at who’s keeping score.

  • Has Katie Porter just tanked her chances of becoming California governor?

    Has Katie Porter just tanked her chances of becoming California governor?

    How do you give an interview so bad that it tanks your chances of winning an election by nearly 40 points? Ask former California congresswoman Katie Porter, who until yesterday was the presumptive favorite to become the state’s next governor.  

    In a sit-down with Porter that resembles an old-school satirical Daily Show segment – before TDS turned that show into another partisan screed-fest – CBS News California Investigates correspondent Julie Watts asks Porter, simply, how she plans on winning Republican votes. “How would I need them in order to win, ma’am?” Porter sneers. “I have stood on my own two feet and won Republican votes before.” That’s a fairly standard answer, but then Porter pitches a fit as Watts asks follow-ups, saying the interview has become “unnecessarily argumentative.” 

     “I don’t want to keep doing this, I’m going to call it,” Porter says.  

    For anyone who’s followed the career of Porter, who showed up at a Trump impeachment vote in Congress in 2019 dressed as Batgirl, this exchange isn’t really a surprise. Her divorce filing from a few years ago, after all, revealed that she’d dumped boiling potatoes over her husband’s head and had berated him because he was bad at making Jell-O.  

    Divorces, as Cockburn knows from experience, get messy, but the personal can also tip over into the political sphere. An infamous photo surfaced of Porter reading the book The Subtle Art of Not Giving A F**k in the halls of Congress; she appears to have taken that to heart, without the subtlety part. There was the time Porter publicly fired a staffer, a Wounded Warrior veteran, because he forgot to follow protocols and was accused of giving her Covid. The congressional gossip account “Dear White Staffers” posted in 2022 that it’s “widely known across the party/consultants that Katie Porter is abusive. Unable to cope with basic demands of being a member so she takes it out on staff.” Given the era, they said, the worst possible thing about Porter was that she made jokes about black people to try and seem “edgy.”  

    Is this your next governor, California? Porter told Watts that she wanted to have a “pleasant positive conversation.” But that would be out of character. Watts is lucky there weren’t any hot potatoes in the studio. Now Porter’s career is the hot potato, as she’s suddenly trailing nondescript Senator Alex Padilla in betting markets. Cockburn has never been a fan of Porter’s, but he does enjoy a good political meltdown and hopes for a comeback. He wouldn’t bet against her just yet.

  • Why gold is at an all-time high

    Why gold is at an all-time high

    Gold is in the middle of what looks like an unstoppable bull run. It has already punched through $4,000 an ounce. At the rate the price is rising, it may well go to $5,000 within a few weeks, and perhaps even $6,000 as the next year unfolds. There have been lots of different explanations for this, from the looming collapse of the dollar, to secret Chinese buying, to the conspiracy theories circulating on the wilder fringes of the internet, such a secret plot to re-establish the gold standard, or attempts to replace all the metal that is meant to be stored at Fort Knox, America’s official gold reserve, which apparently went missing decades ago. But the real explanation is very simple: it is the only way to hedge against soaring government debt. So long as spending remains out of control, gold is a one-way-bet.

    At $4060 an ounce, gold is already at an all-time high, and looks set to go a lot higher before this bull run is over. Why? It may reflect a weakening of confidence in the dollar, although President Trump seems to have given up on his fight with the Federal Reserve, and the US economy has taken tariffs in its stride. Or it may reflect buying by central banks, although given that the Polish central bank is the largest buyer this year that may be exaggerated. 

    But the main reason is that government debt is spiraling out of control. In the US, the deficit is likely to remain above 5 percent of GDP even with the government shut down. President Trump shows no interest in bringing that under control. He even looks set to give away all his tariff revenue with $2,000 checks to every household instead of reducing the deficit. In Britain, the Labour government has clearly lost control of its spending, and it is now at the mercy of party rebels who insist they shouldn’t be bossed around by the bond market. In France, a succession of Prime Ministers who attempt to merely slow the rate at which spending rises are kicked out of office. Japan’s new PM Sanae Takaichi looks set to start spending again. Even Germany, the last man standing, has suspended its debt brake, and will borrow up to €900 billion this year to fund investment in infrastructure and defense. All those governments range across the right and the left of the political spectrum, but they are all united on one point: they are determined to keep borrowing more and more.

    Perhaps it will all work out fine. The extra spending may accelerate growth, as the UK’s Labour Party and Germany’s Christian Democrats hope it will. Or perhaps it can just be rolled over in perpetuity, which seems to be the strategy of the MAGA Republicans. We will see. The important point is this: if any of those plans go even slightly wrong, and the growth doesn’t materialize, or a recession hits, then gold will be the only asset worth holding. The only real surprise is that it has taken so long for gold to start soaring in price – and now that it has started, it won’t stop until borrowing comes under control again.

  • The Freedom Convoy trial has disgraced Canada’s justice system

    The Freedom Convoy trial has disgraced Canada’s justice system

    In a disgraceful conclusion to a disgraceful trial, Freedom Convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber have been sentenced to 12 months of house arrest and 6 months of curfew (with credit for the 49 days Lich has already spent in jail) – plus 100 hours of community service.

    An ironic addendum. For in the packed courtroom on October 7, there was likely not one person who has served the community with greater generosity than the two defendants.

    Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, organizers of the most successful protest in Canadian history, kept their cool, kept the peace and brought national unity, patriotism and common sense back to Canada after the pandemic – this, despite the sustained efforts of the most aggressively controlling, divisive government the nation has ever had. They achieved this under intense pressure and at great personal cost.

    They’re national heroes, and the persecution waged against them is destroying trust in the Canadian judicial system, though the judge involved does not seem to realize it. Justice Perkins-McVey said in court that if she discharged the defendants, it would “undermine confidence in the administration of justice”.

    But it’s quite the opposite. Though left-leaning outlets have portrayed the sentence as light, compared to the outrageous seven and eight years of jail time demanded by the Crown, any conviction and sentencing of the obviously innocent Lich and Barber only serves to confirm that Canadians with the wrong political views will not receive equal treatment before the law.

    We all know that in Canada, axe-wielding saboteurs, railway blockaders, rioters, traffic disruptors and violent protestors have escaped without so much as arrest, as long as the government views their cause with complaisance.

    Can you believe that Lich was convicted for saying things like “hold the line”, “stay united” and “don’t give in to fear”? Dangerous words indeed. And Barber? He was convicted for telling truckers not to honk unless their trucks were raided – this was defiance of the court order against honking. Three weeks of protesting, all recorded on thousands of devices, and those were the only charges that could be made to stick? It’s a good thing they didn’t try jaywalking.

    Thankfully, Lich’s lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, says they are seriously considering an appeal of her conviction, on grounds that “constitutionally protected freedom of speech which encourages peaceful assembly should always prevail over any rights to the enjoyment of property”.

    There was another ironic moment at the sentencing. The judge announced, “Politics has no place inside this courtroom” – yet the trial has been widely viewed as nothing more than the political vengeance of Doug Ford and the Ontario government.

    If it weren’t for politics, Lich and Barber would never have been arrested, let alone put through jail time, solitary confinement, loss of employment, years of drawn-out, costly legal proceedings, onerous bail conditions and emotional strain.

    They inspired a movement that made the government look bad in the eyes of the world, they challenged its pandemic management and the government was forced to back down. Now the government wants to make an example of them – whatever the cost.

    And the cost, so far, has been $21 million. That’s how much tax money Doug Ford and his government have spent to date on prosecuting Lich, Barber and others involved with the trucker protest. His targets are all working-class people of modest income. Many have lost their livelihoods because of the drawn-out legal proceedings against them.

    The only way they have been able to afford a defense and cover the cost of travel to and from the Ottawa court, is through donations from the public. This means the public is paying twice – once as taxpayers, with money intended to pursue real criminals wasted on a political vendetta – and once again, voluntarily, to support the brave people who stood up to ask for an end to lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

    This is the same public that already gave $24 million to the truckers to help them go to Ottawa and protest vaccine mandates and lockdowns: $24 million that never reached them, because politicians colluded with fundraising sites and banks to freeze the money, debank the protestors and doxx the donors, all without a court order. No criminal charges have been laid in Canada, to this writer’s knowledge, against the perpetrators of these deeds, though they damaged national institutions far more than any protest ever could.

    Justice Perkins-McVey is right to be concerned about confidence in the administration of justice. Many Canadians share her concern. Sadly, her handling of this case has done little to dispel their fears.  

  • Trump cuddles Carney 

    Trump cuddles Carney 

    “Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments,” William Shakespeare wrote in Sonnet 116, and he appears to have been prophetically talking about the very special relationship between President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. 

    The first meeting between the two leaders a few months ago was friendly. But today’s press conference, before a tariff negotiation lunch, was essentially a cuddlefest. Carney called Trump a “transformative president.” Trump joked about the upcoming “US/Canada merger,” and said the two countries had “natural conflict and natural love,” like in any marriage. 

    The problem, Trump said, “is that they want a car company, and we want a car company. It’s a natural business conflict… nothing wrong with it. When it comes to trade, the United States gave everything to Canada. Other Presidents didn’t see that. They were good politicians, but they weren’t business oriented. We’ve come a long way.”

    Carney nodded along while Trump said open borders made America a “raging hellhole,” which affected Canada as well. Trump said that his policy of blowing Venezuelan drug boats out of the water had made Canada safer, and Carney said “yep yep.” The “Golden Dome” missile protection system also brought along a “yep,” and as for tariffs, Carney said, “there are areas where we compete, and it’s in those areas where we have to come to agreement that works. But there are more areas where we’re stronger together, and that’s what we’re focused on, and we’re going to get the right deal.”

    “It’s true,” Trump said. 

    The press conference included the usual Trumpian side rants. The Democrats had shut down the government. Chicago has a lot of murders and incompetent leaders. If the Democrats had won the Presidency, there’d be men playing women’s sports. They’d be taking away your children and changing their sex, and there’d be windmills everywhere. “I’m not sure we’d even have a country,” Trump said. 

    But back to the matter at hand, Trump said, “I want to make the best deal with Canada and also whatever the best deal is for Canada. Other leaders have told me this, but Mark said he would too. A year ago we were a dead country, and now we are the hottest country anywhere in the world. There’s never been a country in the world that has money coming into it like this one. Maybe Canada. I do like Canada… The people of Canada, they will love us again. Most of them still do. Maybe 25 percent. I assume a lot of ‘em. I think they love us.”

    Regardless of whether or not that’s true, Trump does appear to have natural love for Prime Minister Carney. “I think he’s a great Prime Minister,” Trump said. “I mean, he could represent me any time. He is very strong, he is a very good leader. He’s a nice man, but he can be nasty. Maybe as nasty as anybody. I can tell you this because I deal with a lot of leaders all over the world. He is a world-class leader. He is a man that knows what he wants. I’m not surprised he won the election. He’s a good man, he does a great job, and he’s a tough negotiator.”

    So what’s the holdup? A Canadian reporter asked. If he’s such a great man, then why don’t you reach a deal? 

    “Because,” Trump said, sticking the landing, “I want to be a great man too.” 

  • The folly of Newsom’s redistricting plans

    “Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity” may very well be the epitaph of Gavin Newsom’s political career when he leaves office in January 2027. Driven by his presidential ambitions, California’s governor is torching a quarter-billion taxpayer dollars on a redistricting scheme that would make Elbridge Gerry himself blush. What Newsom calls “fighting Trump,” voters increasingly recognize as #GavinMandering, a transparent attempt to override the independent redistricting commission they approved to end exactly this kind of political manipulation.

    The political implications are staggering, not just for California but for the future of Democratic Party credibility nationwide. If the nation’s bluest state balks at dismantling fair redistricting, it raises serious doubts about the Democratic Party’s commitment to small-d democratic norms.

    Here’s what should terrify Democratic strategists: despite overwhelming Democratic registration advantages and a new tranche of money from George Soros, polling suggests that voters are split on Newsom’s redistricting power grab, spending massive sums to redraw congressional maps that an independent commission already completed in 2022. For many voters, this is about process integrity, not partisan preference.

    Californians remember why they created the independent redistricting commission in the first place. After decades of gerrymandered districts that protected incumbents and ignored competitive elections, voters demanded reform. They got it through Proposition 11 in 2008 and Proposition 20 in 2010, establishing a 14-member commission with equal Republican, Democratic, and independent representation. Voters also handily rejected Proposition 27, a plan to dismantle the commission entirely, proof that the system has broad bipartisan legitimacy.

    Now Newsom wants to scrap the independently drawn maps that were constructed over a year with thousands of hours of input from every interest group in the state for nakedly partisan reasons. His justification? Other states like Texas engage in gerrymandering, so California should, too. This race-to-the-bottom argument reveals everything wrong with modern political leadership, sacrificing principle for short-term tactical gain.

    The legislative process surrounding this redistricting push in Sacramento has been a masterclass in obfuscation. Democratic lawmakers’ public responses sounded more like word salads than thoughtful deliberation. When this process began several months ago, not one Democratic legislator wanted to admit who determined where the final wobbly lines would be drawn. Behind-the-scenes consultants and supposedly neutral officials turned out to be partisan players, undermining confidence in the entire independent process.

    This lack of transparency undermines any claims about good governance and feeds voter cynicism. When politicians won’t answer simple questions about who dictated where the data guy should draw district lines, why should those voters trust them? 

    Newsom’s redistricting gambit represents a fundamental misreading of California’s political moment and the Democratic Party’s national trajectory. The governor positions himself as Trump’s chief antagonist, adopting a resistance posture that may play well with progressive donors but increasingly alienates moderate voters who want effective governance over political theater.

    By catering to activist bases of the far-left fringe, Democrats risk losing the pragmatic center that once made California the economic envy of the world.

    Instead of focusing on California’s real challenges with housing costs, public safety, education outcomes, and infrastructure needs, Newsom is expending scarce political capital and taxpayer money on a cynical scheme designed to boost his national profile.

    Beyond political and fiscal implications lies a deeper constitutional issue. When politicians override voter-approved independent processes for partisan gain, they undermine the foundational principle that the people should determine electoral rules rather than defer to the political elites who caused the problem in the first place.

    California voters have repeatedly chosen independent redistricting to remove politicians from map-drawing decisions. Newsom’s end-run around this process sends the dangerous message that voter preferences matter only when they align with political ambitions. This precedent threatens democratic norms far beyond redistricting.

    Constitutional attorney Mark Meuser has outlined the legal complexities Newsom won’t honestly address, particularly regarding federal court oversight and interstate redistricting disputes. The governor’s simplistic “Texas did it first” narrative ignores these legal realities and not only puts California’s federal relationships in serious jeopardy, but risks alienation from Democratic partners in other states who are sure to lose congressional power in reflexive redistricting battles.

    California deserves better. Voters may not totally appreciate the arguments for principled governance, but they should be able to see through political opportunism.

    “Vanity of vanities,” indeed. California voters are going to render a verdict that will reflect poorly on Newsom regardless of how Proposition 50 fares at the ballot box. Democrats nationwide should take notice. Americans want leaders, not schemers. California shows what happens when ambition comes before service and it isn’t pretty.

  • Make Peace Great Again

    Make Peace Great Again

    With typical assertiveness, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave his marching orders to the US military at the end of September. No more “fat troops” or “fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon.” No more woke. Make War Great Again.

    At the same time, with typical modesty, Donald Trump said of his proposed peace deal between Israel and Gaza, “This is a big, big day, a beautiful day, potentially one of the greatest days ever in civilization.” No more starvation, no more senseless death. Make Peace Great Again.

    In Trumpworld, these two agendas are not contradictory. A strong army at home guarentees peace abroad – or that’s the hope, anyway. But what happens when America’s enemies don’t play ball?

    Hamas – or what remains of it – has yet to respond to the President’s announcements. If Trump really can end the killing and return Gaza to some sort of peace, it will be an achievement of which he can be proud – and which everyone else can welcome with relief.

    But there is a very big “if” there. It is not obvious why a terror organization which has been waging war against the very existence of Israel for years, and which has shown its zealotry over and over again, should want to accede to a deal which does not appear to offer it very much. Hamas fighters and officials would be allowed to leave Gaza or even to continue to live there, providing they do so peacefully, with some degree of immunity. A thousand Palestinian prisoners would be released by Israel in return for the remaining living Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

    But there is no offer of Palestinian statehood, however much that would please Britain, France and other countries which have recently made a show of recognizing it as a nation. Trump has not talked of the deal’s leading to a Palestinian state, and Benjamin Netanyahu has been adamant that it is not part of the deal and will never happen.

    Trump’s claim to greatness is built onthe pretext that he can cut deals which no other US president could

    The best that can be said about it from Hamas’s perspective is that, in contrast to an earlier proposal from the President, the deal would not require Palestianians to leave the Gaza Strip for ten years before – supposedly – being allowed back to a land which would by then have been transformed by western property developers. Neither, as per the video reposted by the President, would Gaza be transformed into a ghastly Trump resort. But Trump would be the ultimate governor of the place, aided by other figures including Jared Kushner and former British prime minister Tony Blair. Only at some point in the future would Gaza be entrusted to the Palestinian Authority, whose current territory is restricted to the West Bank.

    If Hamas does accept the deal, it will be because the Israel Defense Forces have degraded the group to the point at which the zealots are no longer quite so much in charge. Then again, even those who remain may well choose death over what would amount to surrender. If the deal is rejected and the war recommences it would be a tragedy for the Gazans. But that’s the all-too-likely scenario.

    Trump’s claim to greatness is built on the pretext that he can cut deals which no other US president could. His methods might be unconventional, alarming even. But at the end of the process he can shake hands and achieve things which would have eluded more earnest and straightforward leaders. In his first term, he lived up to this image. In contrast to Barack Obama, Trump realized that the way to deal with Kim Jong-un was to flatter him. Where other presidents would have shunned the North Korean leader, Trump went to meet him and appeared to succeed in containing his expansionist ambitions, at least for a while.

    There was success, too, in persuading Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates to recognize Israel. It promised a new era of relations between Israel and the Arab nations, which no other president had achieved – and few saw coming under Trump.

    In Trump’s second term, however, his foreign-policy magic seems to have deserted him, even if he does boast about “ending seven un-endable wars.” He misjudged his ability to talk Vladimir Putin into a ceasefire in Ukraine, with the fundamentally untrustworthy Russian President treating his overtures with contempt. Trump, who famously told President Volodymyr Zelensky that he had “no cards to play,” has since performed a backflip and told Ukraine to keep fighting.

    If Trump were to fail in Gaza, too, he could well retreat from the global stage and immerse himself entirely in domestic politics. His fantasy of winning the Nobel Peace Prize would be over – if it was ever a remote possibility given its long history as an award given by the liberal establishment to the liberal establishment. Success, on the other hand, would vindicate Trump’s way of doing things while showing the error of formally recognizing a Palestinian state. What has that achieved? Nothing, other than to give Hamas an opportunity to claim success.

    The world is a messy place. Trump realizes that if you want to do a deal to end a war you have to appeal to both sides. That seems to have been lost on other world leaders.

    Whatever Hamas’s response to Trump’s peace deal, there remain intractable problems. Many in Israel, such as Netanyahu, are dead set against there ever being a Palestinian state. Israeli settlement of the West Bank over many decades and under many governments has brazenly attempted to render this impossible by pockmarking it with areas occupied by Israelis. Tensions and grievances will remain.

    But if Hamas accepts the deal, at least the brutality of the past couple of years will be over. On this, even Trump’s many enemies should want him to succeed.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 13, 2025 World edition.

  • Is Brendan Carr a ‘great American patriot?’

    Is Brendan Carr a ‘great American patriot?’

    “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” the Federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr said on right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson’s show in September. Carr was leaning hard on ABC affiliates after Jimmy Kimmel made a slightly poor taste, but hardly out-of-bounds, comment about MAGA’s relationship to Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin Tyler Robinson. Carr then laid out his FCC doctrine quite clearly.

    “Companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel,” he said, “or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

    In other words: nice TV channel you have there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it. Carr didn’t try to hide what he was doing or saying, and people were alarmed. No less an adversary of liberals than Ted Cruz compared Carr to a mob boss and called his threats “dangerous as hell.” Given that later in the week, after he returned to the airwaves, Kimmel said Cruz’s statements often made him “want to throw up” (and also said Cruz looks like Gargamel, the evil wizard who torments the Smurfs), Cruz clearly didn’t express those concerns out of a spirit of friendship with Kimmel. In Cruz’s eyes, the head of the FCC was presenting a danger to the principle of free speech, the unmovable bedrock of American society.

    The Kimmel affair was most Americans’ introduction to Carr, and what they saw made them uneasy. Not so Donald Trump, who referred to Carr as a “great American patriot.” As is so often the case, the biggest requirement to be a member of the Trump court is not just competency (though that helps), or even loyalty (mandatory), but willingness to deploy every power at your disposal to destroy Trump’s enemies, real or perceived. And few pro-Trump bulldogs in the government have a sharper bite right now than Carr.

    Carr, a Republican, entered the FCC’s orbit during the Obama administration as a legal advisor to then-FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai. Trump nominated him as a commissioner in 2017. During Trump’s first term, Carr devoted most of his energy to two projects that were uncontroversial, at least to the public at large: streamlining the rollout of 5G towers and advocating for the repeal of net neutrality. He met with opposition and criticism from Democrats, but it was hardly headline-making stuff.

    Few pro-Trump bulldogs in the government have a sharper bite right now than Brendan Carr

    The ground shifted in 2022 when Carr began communicating with Wesley Coopersmith, the chief of staff to the president of the Heritage Foundation, about writing the FCC section of Project 2025, a blueprint for establishing a conservative philosophy at the deepest levels of government. “I would be interested,” Carr wrote. “Provided doing so clears ethics review.” Somehow it did clear the ethics review, because Carr agreed to do the work pro bono. Carr’s chapter is actually quite wonky, if definitely Republican-tinged, including proposals for deregulating wireless services, eliminating regulations that prevent growth in broadband coverage, and banning TikTok to protect government security. There’s also a substantial section on “reining in Big Tech.” So, unlike a recent South Park episode that depicted Carr flying around Mar-a-Lago, propelled by explosive diarrhea, he’s actually a serious person. He’s also a full inside-the-court type, visiting Mar-a-Lago and occasionally sporting a gold lapel pin featuring the President’s face.

    In 2022, speaking out against Twitter and other social networks’ repression of conservative viewpoints, Carr tweeted that “free speech is not a threat to democracy – censorship is.” He also said that “political satire is one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech” and “people in influential positions have always targeted it for censorship.” He was an advocate of Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, saying it might “bend Twitter’s content moderation towards a greater embrace of free speech.”

    In 2023, he tweeted, “Free speech is the counterweight – it is the check on government control. That is why censorship is the authoritarian’s dream.” Then Carr took charge of the FCC, and the authoritarian’s dream came true. Upon Trump’s election, he issued a statement that the FCC should be “reining in Big Tech, ensuring broadcasters operate in the public interest and unleashing economic growth while advancing our national security interests and supporting law enforcement.” In this case, though, the “public interest” seemed to directly align with the Trump administration’s interests.

    Eyebrows were raised further when the FCC approved the Paramount-Skydance merger the same week that CBS canceled the show of Stephen Colbert, a frequent, pompous and obnoxious Trump critic. At the time, CBS cited the show’s low ratings and Colbert’s excessive salary, both verifiable facts. But when Sinclair and Nexstar, broadcast syndicates with strong Trump ties, said they were pulling Kimmel’s show after his comments about Kirk’s death – and ABC decided to take Kimmel off the air – the decision-making process became murkier.

    As Johnson put it after his interview with Carr, “It’s called soft power. The left uses it all the time. Thanks to President Trump, the right has learned how to wield power as well.” There’s certainly truth to that. Liberal soft power ran Roseanne Barr out of the entertainment industry on a rail, forcing her off her high-rated sitcom because she made a racist joke about Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett. Trump himself was banned from some social media sites for a few years. But there’s still something particularly uncomfortable about the idea that private broadcast companies, which depend on the federal government for licenses, might be bullied into making editorial decisions because politicians and their regulators take issue with their programming.

    But Carr meets the boss’s approval, and that’s all that matters. On Friday, September 26, Trump posted on Truth Social: “Brendan Carr, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is Smart, Tough, and a True American Patriot. He is supported by MAGA, like few others. Keep up the GREAT work, Brendan. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 13, 2025 World edition.