Evangelicals forced into a reckoning — thanks to Trump
(REUTERS)
April 21, 2026
ALTERNET
Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s political career, writes the Nation, “pundits and religious observers have been asking themselves…just how a thrice-married casino owner who mocks opponents, savors vengeance, and revels in cruelty could become the hero of millions of devout Christians.” In 2016, he won 81 percent of the white evangelical vote — higher than George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, or John McCain in the preceding elections. Then in 2020, Trump secured 85 percent of Americans who both self-identified as evangelicals and attended church regularly. Finally in 2024, he yet again took over 80 percent of the evangelical vote.
Now in recent weeks, amidst Trump’s bizarre fight with the Pope, “Trump’s Christian right supporters have had to reckon anew with the fact that their purported values and those of their president are deeply misaligned.” From his decidedly un-Christian actions, to his beef with the Pope, to sharing photos of himself as Jesus, Trump “is a man who believes he is above faith and superior to those who profess it.”
What explains this “cognitive dissonance” on the part of evangelicals who profess Christian values on one hand but vote for a man who flaunts them on the other? “Trump is the ultimate American televangelist,” who “seized on a central truth about evangelism in the postmodern age: It is a style, not a theology.” This attracted a Christian audience that had been fed on flashy televangelism for decades.
As the Nation explains, Trump appeals to the same 20th-century revivalist landscape that produced the likes of Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, and now White House senior faith advisor Paula White-Cain: ministers who leveraged spectacle, cultural grievances, the defeat of enemies, and promises “that material success signaled divine favor” to draw evangelical masses raised on TV and consumerism. The future president took these lessons and applied them to his political rallies.
“Trump does not argue policy. He does not try to persuade with logic. He uses repetition over explanation and emotional intensity over coherence,” explains the Nation. “He regularly warns of an imminent apocalypse. He demands loyalty. He testifies. He reassures the devout…He also names his enemies, who happen to be the same groups that have dogged televangelists through the modern era.”
While some have argued the novelty of his “presidential bully pulpit,” the Nation notes that “Trump did not invent a new political style; he refashioned a religious style to transform politics. He merged his idiosyncratic form of pseudo-populist authoritarianism with classic revivalist evangelicalism. He has perfected the evangelical style in American politics” to the point where the two are indistinguishable.
Judging by the backlash against his AI-Jesus photo, says the Nation, “Donald Trump may have erred in promoting himself as a latter-day messiah,” but one thing is hard to deny: “he is the televangelist meme incarnate.”
Top historian says Trump is committing 'superpower suicide'
REUTERS/Evan VucciApril 21, 2026
ALTERNET
Over the course of President Donald Trump’s second term, the United States and the entire world have been thrust into chaos by the administration’s erratic actions. While many have speculated about what pushed the U.S. to elect its highly disruptive leader, renowned historian Timothy Snyder has a theory: it’s an attempt at “superpower suicide.”
“I’ve been thinking about how best to characterize what the United States is doing to itself on the scale of the world,” said Snyder on his Substack, “and I think ‘superpower suicide’ is probably the best term.”
There are a handful of points that drove him to this conclusion.
“To be a superpower, you have to be a power, and to be a power, you have to be a state,” he explained. “And I think the way we’re being governed now is inconsistent with statehood. The way we’re being governed now — or rather ruled — seems to have to do with the enrichment and the wealth of the president himself and the people immediately around him. It seems to involve the cult of an individual and his eternal power rather than the continuity of institutions that belong to everyone.”
That brought him to matters of succession, or the lack thereof, and the future in general.
“By calling into question past and future elections,” said Snyder, “the President of the United States is undermining…the principle of succession, which is fundamental to being a superpower” — the idea that a country will continue beyond its present leadership. What’s more, Snyder claimed that Trump lacks a coherent ideology to carry forward, saying, “What is the future of this country? I don’t think the people in power are able to give any of that a name. There is no idea of the future. There’s just day-to-day enrichment.” On top of that, the U.S. is “pursuing policies that are inconsistent with there being a future.” He explained that global powers rise and fall based on their energy policy, and Trump’s decision to double down on oil and gas while ceding green energy development to China simultaneously cedes the future to Chinese leadership.
On that note, Snyder argued that “a superpower would be able to deal with its adversaries, and we seem completely unable to do so.” Over the course of the past year, Trump has declared and quickly lost a trade war with China, then a war with Iran, and a consequence of both has been the enrichment of Russia. At the same time, Trump has made it clear that he’s not only uninterested in collaborating with allies, but happy to shred essential alliances.
Finally, Snyder suggested that “a superpower of the future…would be caring about education and science, which is what we’re not doing.” To the contrary, under Trump, the U.S. is decimating its K-12 and university systems. Science has become politicized, while students and researchers from abroad are now looking elsewhere to bring their smarts and expertise.
All of this, concluded Snyder, comes down to an act of "superpower suicide." But he didn’t end on an entirely dire note.
“To make things a little bit more hopeful,” said Snyder, it’s an “attempted suicide, because none of this has to happen. It could all be changed. But that would depend on the choices we make.”
Trump's China strategy torn apart by GOP tax gurus following evidence of failure
April 21, 2026
ALTERNET
President Donald Trump’s image is indelibly linked to that of American business, from branding a real estate empire with his name and giving business advice in his ghostwritten-book “The Art of the Deal” to starring in the business-themed reality TV show, “The Apprentice.” Yet a nonprofit that exists to promote free markets and low taxes, two policy staples of the American business community, accused Trump on Tuesday of failing American business against its main foreign competitor, China.
“Government reviews have repeatedly documented the ongoing failure of Section 301 tariffs to change China’s behavior,” wrote Bryan Riley, director of the Free Trade Initiative for a 501(c)(4) called the National Taxpayers Union. “Ways and Means and Finance Committee Members may want to ask Amb. Greer why we should expect new Section 301 actions launched by USTR to fare any better.”
The “Amb. Greer” in question is U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer, who is scheduled to speak before both the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee about Trump’s trade policies.
“In light of USTR’s recent announcement of new Section 301 trade investigations, those committees may want to follow up on his statement to the House Appropriations Committee last week,” Riley wrote. “‘In President Trump’s first term, the Section 301 tool was used to great effect.’ His comment referred to tariffs imposed following a 2017 Section 301 investigation into China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation. The goal of the investigation was to reduce or eliminate China’s unfair practices in these areas.”
Yet Riley insisted that “subsequent reviews cast substantial doubt on the effectiveness of this action,” ticking off as evidence data from a 2018 USTR update on Section 301, a 2019 Economic Report of the President on Chinese retaliatory tariffs, a 2021 Report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission and President Biden’s 2024 four-year review of the Section 301 tariffs.
“China has not eliminated many of its technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices. Instead of pursuing fundamental reform, the Chinese government largely took superficial measures aimed at addressing negative perceptions of its technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices,” Biden’s report started per Riley. “At the same time, China has persisted and even become more aggressive, particularly through cyber intrusions and cybertheft, in its attempts to acquire and absorb foreign technology, which further burden or restrict U.S. commerce.”
Although Trump imposed tariffs on a wide range of products at the start of his second term, the Supreme Court famously ruled Trump had abused his power by incorrectly claiming he could levy tariffs unilaterally. The tariffs are also exacerbating inflationary pressures at a time when Trump’s ongoing war against Iran, which prompted Iran to raise gas prices by closing the Strait of Hormuz, has made his tariffs increasingly unpopular."These ‘economists’ are idiots,” White House spokesman Kush Desai
told AlterNet earlier this month. He was referring to a pair of economists, Richard Wolff and Ed Gresser, who had criticized Trump’s senior counselor for trade and manufacturing Peter Navarro for arguing the Iran war will lower gas prices. “Peter Navarro is an American Patriot whose loyalty to the President and the American people is unimpeachable.”
Why Earth Day Matters More Than Ever
The environmental movement has already shown what collective action can achieve. The question now is whether we are prepared to use that power again.
Participants hold placards as they march on a street ahead of Earth Day on April 22, the annual environmental awareness day, in Jakarta on April 21, 2024.
(Photo by Yasuyoshi Chiba / AFP via Getty Images)
Common Dreams
Fifty-seven years ago, Earth Day changed American politics. On April 22, 1970, 20 million American, about 10% of the entire US population, took to the streets, campuses, and town squares in a single day to demand action after 150 years of uncontrolled industrial pollution. The demonstrations were so large and bipartisan that Washington responded almost immediately, probably out of fear but also respect for the intensity and size of the demonstrations. Within just a few years, President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress passed 20 landmark laws including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. Americans and their environment enjoyed that nonpartisan honeymoon for over a decade.
Again in the early 1990s, cooperation between Democrats and Republicans produced significant environmental progress, including the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which addressed acid rain, smog, and toxics, and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, which stopped pollutants at their source. Were they costly? Initially to the polluters yes, but the health and safety results, estimated to be close to $2 trillion in health-cost savings, have been stunning. And eventually industry investment in clean technologies led to efficiency, profits, and innovation. These laws and others demonstrated that bipartisan cooperation could deliver both environmental and economic results.
What is often forgotten today is how broad that political coalition once was. Environmental protection was not a partisan cause. Republicans and Democrats almost competed to be seen as environmental champions. Conservative lawmakers voted for pollution limits, and no wonder: 75% of Americans supported increased government spending to reduce air and water pollution, and large majorities said they were willing to pay higher costs for clean air and water.
For a time, that public pressure worked.
When citizens demonstrate that protecting the planet matters—to their communities, their votes, and their future—leaders respond.
But the momentum that first Earth Day created has slowed and increasingly reversed. Why? One major turning point came in 2010, when the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowed corporations and outside groups to spend unlimited money in elections. In the years since, political spending by all groups has surged but particularly by polluting industries, which outspent health and environmental groups 20 to 1. According to Climate Power, the fossil fuel industry spent $450 million during the 2024 election cycle.
In the past year, 425 environmental and health and safety laws and regulations have been rolled back or crippled, many of which, including all climate change related policies and laws, were promised during the election. The quid pro quo for donations was pretty straightforward—denial that climate change exists or is harmful.
Citizens United opened the spigot for anti-environmental spending, and what is coming out of those spigots is hurting our children, our health, and American innovation and economic leadership.
The influence of that spending has helped transform environmental policy from a bipartisan priority into one of the most polarized issues in Washington. In the years before the ruling, bipartisan climate legislation was still possible. In the years after Citizens United, cooperation largely collapsed. The result has been legislative gridlock at precisely the moment scientists and many economists say immediate action will both reduce or even solve the climate crisis and keep America from losing its place in the impossible to stop green economy.
Ironically, this reversal of environmental policy has occurred even as public concern has remained high. Surveys consistently show that large majorities of Americans believe climate change is real and more than 70% of Americans support stronger measures to address climate change. This disconnect between public concern and political action is the defining challenge of this Earth Day and the environmental movement itself.
That is why the theme of this year’s Earth Day, Our Power, Our Planet, is more than a slogan. It is a reminder of a fundamental truth that shaped the first Earth Day: Political power ultimately flows from citizens—real people—to Congress and the White House.
The environmental breakthroughs of the 1970s and 1990s did not happen because leaders suddenly discovered science. They happened because millions of people made environmental protection politically unavoidable. Citizens marched, organized, voted, and demanded action. They made it clear that protecting the planet was not optional. Today, that same civic power and engagement is needed again.
If governments believe environmental protection is a low priority for voters, progress will stall. If they believe the public is divided or disengaged, short-term political pressure and massive corporate dollars will always win. But when citizens demonstrate that protecting the planet matters—to their communities, their votes, and their future—leaders respond.
That is the real meaning of Our Power, Our Planet. The environmental movement has already shown what collective action can achieve. The question now is whether we are prepared to use that power again. Because the progress of the past half-century was never guaranteed; without sustained public engagement, it could easily erode.
Earth Day was never meant to be a celebration. It was designed as a demonstration of public will. Fifty-seven years later, the challenge is the same: to show governments, once again, that the power to protect our planet ultimately belongs to the people.
This piece was distributed by American Forum.
‘You Dirty Orange Maniac!’: The President of Ultimate Destruction
Sadly, as crazed as Donald Trump may be — and he clearly is a deeply disturbed (and, of course, disturbing) human being — when it comes to war and the burning of fossil fuels, he’s been anything but alone as president of the United States.
Orange blow-up garbagemen Donald Trump speaks at Green Bay airport
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)TomDispatch
When he’s on full blast, Donald Trump (not so long ago the “drill, baby, drill” candidate for president) is distinctly a furnace. And he seems intent on turning this planet, our only world, into a version of the same. But here’s the strange thing, when it comes to almost anything — from Iran to suddenly firing two key women, Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem, in his government (but certainly not the no-less-chaotic men) — there’s no minute, it seems, when he’s not flipping himself on his head and then spinning or stumbling or catapulting off in a new direction. There’s only one exception I’ve noticed and, all too sadly, that’s climate change, where everything he does — every single thing — is guaranteed to be a disaster for our children and grandchildren.
Recently, of course, he’s launched a nightmarish war, by definition a gigantic producer of greenhouse gases, that’s literally been all about oil and natural gas, thanks in part to the now chaotic, largely blocked Strait of Hormuz through which a quarter of humanity’s sea-borne oil and a fifth of its natural gas used to pass. And if you don’t believe me about it being a nightmare, just check out the most recent prices at your neighborhood gas station. Consider it an irony, then, that his disastrous Iranian war will undoubtedly lead in a direction — to the use of more green energy globally — that, if he ever thought about it, he would hate more than just about anything else. He has, of course, referred to environmentalists as “terrorists.” (“They are terrorists. I call them environmental terrorists.”) And in this country, over his two presidencies, he’s done his damnedest to attack and try to block wind and solar power projects in every imaginable way, even though, globally, green power is growing fast and getting ever cheaper.
And here’s the reality of our moment for which we do need to give Donald Trump credit: once upon a time, you couldn’t have made any of this up — or, of course, have made up Donald Trump as president of the United States (twice!). If you had, it would have seemed like the least believable science fiction novel ever written. Not that I drive a car in New York City (the subway and buses work fine for me), but as I was writing this piece, of course, the price of gas had also edged up in my city to almost four dollars a gallon and a (possibly global) recession is on the horizon. (Thank you, Donald Trump!)
Of course, in launching his recent war against Iran, however incoherently, “the PEACE PRESIDENT” (and yes, he’s into CAPS when it comes to himself) was, all too sadly, in good company, historically speaking. Since victory in World War II, from Korea to Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq and now to Iran (to mention only the big conflicts of that all-American era), our presidents have had quite a knack (if such a word can even be used) for starting wars, none (not a one!) of which has ended in anything faintly like victory. And it’s already obvious — you don’t need to have the slightest knack for seeing into the future to know this — that Donald Trump’s version of the same in Iran will prove to be a global disaster, made worse by the fact that, in the process, whether he faintly grasps it or not, he’s also launched another brutally losing war against Planet Earth.
And the worst thing is that I feel I’ve written all of this before. And before Trump — well, “leaves” is far too mild a word for it — abandons (??) the presidency, I could end up writing it again and again, and we would still be in the world — all too literally his world — from hell. Of course, for all we know, Donald J. Trump could decide to crown himself president and try to launch a third term in office that would, if successful, turn the constitution into an historical relic.
“The Only Orange Monarch I Want Is a Butterfly.”
The other week, feeling as I do about “our” president, I went to New York City’s “No Kings” rally. It was gigantic (though you wouldn’t have known that, had you read my hometown paper, the New York Times, in the days that followed). It started on 59th Street where Central Park ends, with masses of marchers on both Seventh and Eighth Avenue, heading for 34th Street. By getting there early, I made it to the front of the crowd on Seventh Avenue at the head of that vast mass of protesting humanity and, once it started, I wove my way in and out of the crowd, back and forth, downtown and uptown again, jotting in a little notebook some of the thousands of homemade signs people were carrying.
When I finally reached Broadway and 42nd Street, I stepped up on the sidewalk and looked back. To my amazement, I could see all the way to 57th Street where we had begun, and that significant-sized avenue was still totally — and I mean totally — packed right back to Central Park. And mind you, this old man was just one of an estimated more than eight million Americans who turned out at more than 3,000 rallies across the United States that day, in communities huge and microscopic, to protest the world Donald Trump has dumped on, spilled all over, and is continuing to roil and broil.
And, yes, it did seem like every third person (even the two demonstrators dressed as plastic tigers) was carrying a homemade sign. I doubt I had ever seen so many of them at any past demonstration. I was scrawling a number of them down in a little notebook, and they ranged from “Fight Truth Decay” and “Grandma says, ICE is not nice!” to “It’s a good thing Congress isn’t alive to see this” and “The only orange Monarch I want is a butterfly.”
And then there was the one carried by a bearded man that caught my attention: “You dirty ORANGE maniac! You blew it all up! Damn you to hell!” And I thought to myself, boy, is that painfully accurate. In his own fashion, among all the things he hasn’t succeeded in accomplishing, he has indeed been blowing it all up in a striking fashion and, unfortunately, potentially damning my children and grandchildren (and yours) to a literal planet from hell.
And sadly, as crazed as Donald Trump may be — and he clearly is a deeply disturbed (and, of course, disturbing) human being — when it comes to war and the burning of fossil fuels, he’s been anything but alone as president of the United States. After all, in these decades, war has been this country’s middle name and we’ve been burning fossil fuels to fight them as if… well, as if there would indeed be no tomorrow(s). And in his two terms in office, Trump and crew have gone with a passion after any form of clean, renewable energy that wouldn’t blister us all. Only recently, for instance, the Guardian (which is superb when it comes to climate-change coverage) was the only publication I saw that reported on new research in Nature magazine showing that this country has caused “an eye-watering $10tn [yes, that’s trillion!] in global damages to the world over the past three decades through its vast planet-heating emissions, with a quarter of this economic pain inflicted upon itself.”
Consider it something of an unintended irony, then, that the crew President Trump and his administration have put so much of themselves into goes by the acronym ICE. In fact, wouldn’t you have thought that “ICE” would be a curse word for President Trump and that, when it comes to creating an immigration hell on earth, his crew of manic enforcers would have been known as “HEAT”? Which reminds me that, at the No Kings rally, I noted an older woman carrying a homemade sign all too appropriately saying: “Deport Trump! Make ICE useful.”
And thanks to his brutal assault on Iran, this planet is only going to get hotter yet, as war releases staggering amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere! Honestly, back in 2016, even if you had let your mind run in wild and unbelievably crazy directions, you simply couldn’t have made up Donald Trump’s planet as it is now, could you? Who could have imagined that the president of the United States, after launching a war with Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, would attack European countries for not joining him, saying, “You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us.”
And remind me, who has Donald Trump been there for, other than the major fossil fuel companies that backed him so radiantly in the 2024 election and are now getting a remarkable return on their investment?
Giving Decline New Meaning
Of course, to put all of this in some kind of perspective, sooner or later great imperial powers do go down and the United States has been the number one imperial power on this planet since the end of World War II, with its only true competitor (until China rose well into this century), the Soviet Union, which collapsed in a heap in 1991. So, it shouldn’t be surprising that this country, which, singularly in human history, once reigned more or less supreme on Planet Earth, should finally have begun its own decline, while turning over investment in present and future green energy to China.
But of course, there’s decline and then, in ICE terms, there’s DECLINE!!! And Donald Trump is threatening to turn imperial decline, something known throughout history, into a distinctly new phenomenon. Even declining imperial powers haven’t usually had such a mad ruler or leader. And he does seem remarkably intent, in his own increasingly confused way, on taking this country down with him. The difference, historically, is that until now no imperial ruler had the chance to take down not just his (almost never her) country, but (after a fashion) our planet (at least as a livable place for us), too. And he does seem remarkably intent on continuing to fossil-fuelize our world in a disastrous fashion.
Of course, at this very moment, we’re all watching his approval ratings generally (and particularly on the economy) begin to tank. (Oh wait, my mistake! A tank is a war vehicle, and right now that reference only applies to Israel, which recently lost a remarkable number of tanks in southern Lebanon.) But “our” president has also focused a significant part of his administration on ending anything that could benefit the climate, while burning fossil fuels in a fashion that should be considered beyond incendiary. That includes recently agreeing to offer almost a billion dollars to a French energy company to abandon a project to construct wind farms off the East Coast of this country (as long as it was willing to reinvest that sum in future oil and gas projects here instead).
Yes, someday he could well be seen not just as the president of decline but potentially of ultimate devastation and that flaming red tie of his could end up having a symbolic significance that, once upon a time, no one might have imagined. No wonder that sign I saw on the No King’s Day march — and let me repeat it here one more time: “You dirty ORANGE maniac! You blew it all up! Damn you to hell!” — sticks in my mind. It predicts the very future that, unbelievably enough, 49.8% of American voters tried to usher in again in 2024.
Once upon a time, who could ever have imagined either Donald Trump as president of these (increasingly dis-)United States or such a possible fate?
© 2023 TomDispatch.com
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Type Media Center's TomDispatch.com. His books include: "A Nation Unmade by War" (2018, Dispatch Books), "Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World" (2014, with an introduction by Glenn Greenwald), "Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050"(co-authored with Nick Turse), "The United States of Fear" (2011), "The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's" (2010), and "The End of Victory Culture: a History of the Cold War and Beyond" (2007).
Full Bio >
Good Riddance to Trump’s Horrible, No Good Labor SecretaryThe disgraced Lori Chavez-DeRemer is what you get when you have a president and White House staff who don’t give a rat’s ass about whom they appoint to positions of power except for their loyalty to Trump and how they look on television.
Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who resigned from her post Monday, speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)Inequality Media
Lori Chavez-DeRemer resigned Monday as secretary of labor [translated: she was told to resign by the White House], after facing investigations by the department’s inspector general into multiple allegations of misconduct.
She’s alleged to have been drinking during the workday from a “stash” of alcohol in her office, arranging official trips for herself that were extended vacations, taking subordinates to an Oregon strip club while on one such trip, showing no interest in the work of the department, and having an affair with a member of her security team.
Sources have described Chavez-DeRemer as the “boss from hell,” saying she demanded staffers run personal errands for her or perform other menial tasks unrelated to their government jobs. More than two dozen department employees from across the political spectrum described in interviews with The New York Times a toxic workplace characterized by an absentee secretary, hostile aides, and a deeply demoralized staff.
In other words, Chavez-DeRemer was turning the great department I once headed and loved into shit. And I hold Trump responsible because he appointed her.
As I shared with you a few weeks ago, I loved the Department of Labor from the moment I entered the Frances Perkins Building on Constitution Avenue as secretary of labor in January 1992. I loved its mission: to protect and raise the standard of living of working Americans.
I loved its history. The first secretary of labor, Frances Perkins — appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 — was also America’s first female Cabinet secretary. She was the guiding light behind the creation of Social Security, the 40-hour workweek, the National Labor Relations Act, and much more.
I hung the painting of Frances Perkins behind my desk in my huge second-floor office. Whenever I felt discouraged, I looked at her, and she bucked me up. (Although I’m Jewish, I called her Saint Frances.)
I admired the Department of Labor’s career staff, who were dedicated to helping American workers. I was deeply impressed by the assistant secretaries, the deputy secretary, the chief of staff, and other appointees with whom I toiled, often six or seven days a week from early morning to late at night.
Never before or since have I had the privilege of working with such talented people who cared so much about what they were accomplishing for the American people, and who made such a positive impact on so many lives.
We raised the minimum wage for the first time in many years, even under a Republican-controlled Congress. We implemented the Family and Medical Leave Act. We fought against sweatshops. We took on big corporations that were cheating their employees. We kept workers safe. We … well, I could go on and on. (And I have, in my book Locked in the Cabinet, which you can also find here, but please don’t order from here.)
But like so much else Trump has done, he’s turned what was once a great department into a fucking mess. And it frankly breaks my heart.
It’s what you get when you have a president and White House staff who don’t give a rat’s ass about whom they appoint to positions of power except for their loyalty to Trump and how they look on television.
Trump and his White House assistants don’t mind if his appointees wreck our government because they don’t care about government. Hell, they came to government to wreck it. If the public loses confidence in, say, the Department of Labor, that’s perfectly fine. If Congress slashes its funding, so much the better.
What they do mind is if a Cabinet member makes Trump look bad, which is why Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi are now history — along with Chavez-DeRemer.
It infuriates me, because I’ve seen government work for the people. I’ve witnessed public servants who care deeply and bust their asses in service to this country. I know how important government can be if it’s doing the job it should be doing.
I loved the Department of Labor because it has improved the lives of millions of Americans. I worked like hell as secretary of labor because I believed in what we were doing. That it’s been treated like crap is an insult to generations of hardworking DOL employees, to American workers, to America.
The least we can all do is flip Congress in November, so senators and representatives who care about this country can oversee the departments of the government and try to remedy some of the wreckage that Trump and his appointees have wreaked on America.
In the meantime, goodbye and good riddance to Madam Secretary Chavez-DeRemer.
© 2025 Robert Reich
Robert Reich is professor emeritus of public policy at Berkeley and former US secretary of labor. His latest book is the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Coming Up Short."
Full Bio >
Trump’s Iran War: Anatomy of a DebaclePresident Donald Trump’s persistent boasts about tactical victories against Iran’ s military ignore the fundamental strategic fact that Trump has lost the Iran war.
High gas prices are displayed at a gas station after Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer spoke at a news conference outside the gas station amid the war in Iran on April 9, 2026 in Los Angeles, California.
(Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
“Regime Change”
No one doubted the capacity of the US armed forces to decimate Iran’s far inferior military force. But to what end?
Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convinced Trump that launching the attack would prompt a popular uprising that would lead to the overthrow of Iran’s theocracy. Listening to Netanyahu’s assertion, CIA Director John Ratcliffe called it “farcical.” Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio translated that word into language Trump would understand, “In other words, it’s bullshit.”
Trump’s bluster isn’t working with Iranian leaders. His threats to commit war crimes dominate news cycles, but they merely reveal to Iran Trump’s desperation to extricate himself from the mess he created.
Trump chose to believe Netanyahu. Announcing the US-Israeli assault, Trump told Iranians that this was their opportunity to reclaim their country. To win the war on Trump’s terms, the Iranian theocracy needed only to survive.
The attack killed the Supreme Leader of Iran and top members of the government. But immediately, the serpent grew another head—the Supreme Leader’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who had lost his wife and teenage son in the bombing. The new leader is known for deep, long-standing ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) security establishment. His appointment signaled a transition to a more heavily militarized, hard-line, and anti-Western regime.
Trump calls this “regime change.” By his definition, Admiral Karl Dönitz succeeding Adolf Hitler as head of the German state near the end of World War II constituted regime change too.
The Iran theocracy survived in an even more militant form.
Score: Iran 1, Trump 0
“Contain Iran”
Trump boasted that the war would restrain Iran’s ability to project power:
“We are systematically dismantling the regime’s ability to threaten America or project power outside of their borders,” he said.
Trump then described the destruction of Iran’s navy, air force, missile facilities, and defense industrial base. Those were tactical successes, but the war itself has been a strategic failure.
Iran’s response included attacks on neighboring countries. Even more troubling, it discovered and deployed a powerful new weapon: blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Notwithstanding its decimated navy, Iran now has a choke hold on the global economy.
Netanyahu had assured Trump that the regime would be so weakened from the US-Israeli assault that it would be unable to block the waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil flowed. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine flagged the enormous difficulty of securing the strait and the risks of Iran blocking it. But Trump dismissed that possibility on the assumption that the regime would capitulate before that could happen.
With the price of oil skyrocketing, Trump has created a new problem for the entire world and powerful leverage for Iran.
Score: Iran 2, Trump 0
“No Nuclear Weapons”
In his June 2025 attack on Iran, Trump claimed to have “obliterated” its nuclear facilities. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth went further, saying that not only were the facilities obliterated, but so too were Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Subsequently, Trump took repeated victory laps over the mission:“It knocked out their entire potential nuclear capacity.” (July 16)
“It’s been obliterated.” (July 31)
“We obliterated… the future nuclear capability of Iran.” (August 18)
“But I also obliterated Iran’s nuclear hopes, by totally annihilating their enriched uranium.” (September 20)
“Well, they don’t have a nuclear program. It was obliterated.” (October 13)
“…completely obliterated Iran’s nuclear capability.” (November 11)
“It was called Iran and its nuclear capability, and we obliterated that very quickly and strongly and powerfully.” (November 19)
“We obliterated their nuclear capability.” (December 11)
“We knocked out the Iran nuclear threat, and it was obliterated.” (January 8)
“…obliterated Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability.” (January 20)
“…achieving total obliteration of the Iran nuclear potential capability—totally obliterated.” (February 13)
In defending the launch of the war on February 28, 2026, Trump acknowledged that Iran’s nuclear program had not been obliterated after all. Rather, the country was now “right at the doorstep” of having a nuclear bomb. Trump has no strategy for solving that problem either.
Trump’s tactics—bombing—won’t work. Knowledgeable experts believe that a key Iranian nuclear facility is Pickaxe Mountain, where some of its uranium may be stored. That facility is so far below the ground that even America’s 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs can’t reach its inner chamber.
Trump talks about “going in” and taking the nuclear material out. But a ground operation to retrieve the material or destroy the facility would entail tremendous risk to those attempting it while providing, at best, an uncertain outcome.
The threat of a nuclear Iran remains.
Score: Iran 3, Trump 0
False Declarations of Victory That Backfire
Trump’s bluster isn’t working with Iranian leaders. His threats to commit war crimes dominate news cycles, but they merely reveal to Iran Trump’s desperation to extricate himself from the mess he created. As a negotiating strategy, it’s counterproductive.
Trump’s persistent boasts about tactical victories against Iran’ s military ignore the fundamental strategic fact that Trump has lost the Iran war. If a deal emerges from discussions between Iran’s experienced negotiators and Trump’s collection of amateurs, America and the world will pay a big price for a long time.
‘I’m Just Asking You a Factual Question’: Warren Corners Trump’s Fed Chair Pick on 2020 Election
“American monetary and bank safety policy will now depend on a demented ventriloquist in the White House,” said one consumer watchdog.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) questions US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on February 5, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Brad Reed
Apr 21, 2026
COMMON DREAMS
Kevin Warsh, the financier picked by President Donald Trump to be the next chair of the US Federal Reserve, found himself tripped up by a seemingly simple question from Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
During a confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, Warren (D-Mass.) said she wanted Warsh to demonstrate he had the prerequisite independence to serve as chairman of America’s central bank.
“Independence takes courage,” Warren informed Warsh. “Let’s check out your independence and your courage.”
She then asked Warsh if Trump lost the 2020 election to former President Joe Biden—a question numerous appointees of Trump have failed to answer correctly during their confirmation hearings.
“We try to keep politics, if I’m confirmed, out of the Federal Reserve...” Warsh began.
At this point, Warren interjected.
“I’m just asking you a factual question,” she said. “I need to know, I need to measure your independence and your courage.”
“Senator, I believe that [the US Senate] certified that election many years ago,” said Warsh.
“That’s not the question I’m asking,” Warren shot back. “I’m asking, ‘Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?’”
Warsh refused to directly answer the question, insisting that asking about the outcome of the election was outside the realm of monetary policy.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers took note of Warsh’s response to Warren, and wrote in a social media post that it “raises real questions about whether Warsh is independent of the president and if he has the courage to tell hard truths.”
Later in the hearing, Warren pressed Warsh on whether there was anything he would disagree with Trump about any aspect of his economic agenda, the financier responded with a joke about the president’s comment that Warsh was straight out of “central casting.”
“Quite adorable,” the senator said sarcastically. “But you know, we need a Fed chair who is independent.”
Warren wasn’t the only senator to probe Warsh’s ability to maintain his independence should he be confirmed as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) asked Warsh, who is a visiting scholar at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, to give a letter grade to the US economy.
Trump and top administration officials including Treasure Secretary Scott Bessent have insisted is strong and serving working families well even as the war in Iran has sent gas prices soaring and Trump’s tariff policy has cost households more than $2,500 on average.
Warsh joked that modern universities practically require all students to get “A” grades, but Warnock nonetheless pressed him to give his own evaluation of the economy under Trump’s stewardship.
“Well, if I gave a student anything other than an ‘A,’ the dean would summon me to his office because I would have hurt his self-image,” Warsh replied.
Warnock was not satisfied with Warsh’s answer.
“Well, the Americans that I talk to, particularly in the state of Georgia,” said Warnock, “who haven’t had the benefit of attending some of these elite institutions... they’re sitting around their kitchen tables trying to figure out how to put their kids through school.”
Warnock then added that “regardless of how the markets are doing, consumer confidence is at a record low.”
Bartlett Naylor, economist for Public Citizen, said on Tuesday that Warsh’s confirmation hearing showed how fundamentally unfit he is to be chair of the Federal Reserve.
“Trump named Kevin Warsh because he won the sycophancy contest, threatening the independence of the nation’s most important economic institution,” Naylor said. “At his nomination hearing, he failed to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election, affirming that loyalty, not facts, will govern his policy choices.”
Naylor warned that, if Warsh is confirmed, then “American monetary and bank safety policy will now depend on a demented ventriloquist in the White House.”
.jpg)
