Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Wednesday, September 16, 2026

Trump Approves $2.8 Billion Arms Sale to Israel, Including 40,000 One-Ton Bombs - The New York Times

The G.O.P. Has Gone Off the Deep End

Shadows fall on a red carpet.
Damon Winter/The New York Times

"The Republican Party has a neo-Nazi problem.

This is not slander or pejorative or innuendo; it is the plain truth of the matter, a conclusion drawn from simple observation. And the problem has been getting worse.

Consider a few of the people staffing the Trump administration.

There is Paul Ingrassia, acting general counsel of the General Services Administration, who withdrew his nomination to serve as special counsel of the United States after Politico published a trove of offensive remarks from his social media and group chats. “I do have a Nazi streak in me from time to time, I will admit it,” Ingrassia, who is 31, wrote in a text in 2024. “We need competent white men in positions of leadership,” he wrote in another message. “The founding fathers were wrong that all men are created equal … We need to reject that part of our heritage.”

There is Nate Hochman, a young Republican operative who was fired from Gov. Ron DeSantis’s 2024 presidential campaign after promoting a pro-DeSantis video that used a Nazi symbol. He now works as speechwriter for Secretary of State Marco Rubio. (In 2022, Hochman wrote a feature for this newspaper’s Opinion section.)

And there are the young staffers responsible for the Trump administration’s social media presence, who use their large and influential platform to share Nazi-inspired rhetoric and post Nazi-inspired memes. In January of this year, for instance, the Department of Labor posted a video with the caption “One Homeland. One People. One Heritage. Remember who you are, American,” a line that echoes the Nazi slogan of “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer”: “One people, one realm, one leader.”

Social media accounts for the Department of Homeland Security show a steady stream of memes and images drawn from neo-Nazi and white supremacist agitprop. One post, a recruitment ad for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, read “WE’LL HAVE OUR HOME AGAIN,” the title of a song written by the Pine Tree Riots, an a cappella group associated with an explicitly white nationalist group. The song is popular with online neo-Nazis and white supremacists. It is unlikely to have been an accident. Another post, also an ICE recruitment ad, was captioned “Which way, American man?,” a direct reference to “Which Way Western Man?,” a virulently racist and antisemitic book published in 1978 and later sold and publicized by the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. 

Keep in mind that these are not staffers’ private accounts; these posts are reaching the public through the official organs of the U.S. government.

If this weren’t disturbing enough, consider some of the people working for Republican candidates and running for office under the Republican standard.

In Georgia, the Republican Senate nominee Mike Collins has had to answer for a former staffer who posted Nazi images online as well as a photo of himself in full Ku Klux Klan regalia. And Collins’s son-in-law, David Alan Scheer II, is a white nationalist and online influencer with a history of posting Nazi imagery. Senator Jon Husted, an Ohio Republican running to retain the seat to which he was appointed after Vice President JD Vance left for the White House, recently fired his 25-year-old political director after learning that he had used a photograph of Nazi soldiers as a social media profile picture.

You’ll notice that most of these people are in their 20s and 30s. That is no coincidence; it is clear that among the young staffer and operative class of the Republican Party are people with neo-Nazi sympathies and white supremacist views. Last year, for example, leaked messages from a group chat of Young Republicans from chapters across the country — who ranged in age from 18 to 40 — included racial slurs, support for Nazi ideas and a declaration of admiration for the leader of the Third Reich, all framed as jokes. “I love Hitler,” wrote Peter Giunta, then the chief of staff to a New York State assemblyman. Asked if he was watching an N.B.A. playoff game, Giunta, who was also the chairman of the New York State Young Republicans at the time, replied, “I’d go to the zoo if I wanted to watch monkey play ball.” If these were jokes, they revealed a taste for both cruelty and casual bigotry.

The University of Florida’s College Republicans chapter was disbanded after two members were seen performing a Nazi salute on social media. Elsewhere in the state, 34-year-old Marshall Rawson is set to take a seat in Florida’s House of Representatives nearly 10 years after marching alongside neo-Nazis at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va.

In March, 30-year-old Brandon Herrera won the Republican primary for Texas’ 23rd Congressional District. A far-right YouTube personality, Herrera has published videos that feature Nazi imagery and Nazi military anthems, joke about the Holocaust and showcase Nazi weapons. He can even be seen goose-stepping. And one of the most prominent neo-Nazis in the country is 28-year-old Nick Fuentes, a far-right provocateur and political commentator whose supporters are known as “Groypers.” Fuentes dined with President Trump between his two terms and in the past year sat for a friendly interview with Tucker Carlson, still arguably the most important figure in the right-wing media ecosystem.

As the historian David Austin Walsh makes clear in “Taking America Back: The Conservative Movement and the Far Right,” there is a degree of self-flattery in the old conventional wisdom that traditional conservatives successfully policed the borders of their movement in the past. Despite his influence, a figure like William F. Buckley Jr. could not actually expel people from the conservative movement or define “conservatism” to fully exclude people and groups that occupied the dark margins of American politics. “American conservatism,” Walsh writes, “resembled the fragmentation of the Protestant churches, with various factions and sects vying among themselves over who was ‘truly’ conservative.”

The upshot of this dynamic is that there have always been points of political, social and ideological overlap between the far right and more mainstream conservatives. At National Review, the spiritual and institutional home of movement conservatism through much of the late 20th century, writers like Joe Sobran “flirted with the avowedly racist right,” Walsh writes. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the neo-Nazi leader David Duke would make his home in the Louisiana Republican Party and win nearly 40 percent of the vote in the 1991 governor’s race. The next year, in the Republican presidential primary, Pat Buchanan would launch a spirited challenge to George H.W. Bush even after Buchanan was condemned for trafficking in Holocaust denialism.

For a time, the institutional Republican Party was strong enough to keep these views, and the underlying forces that fueled them, away from its center of gravity. It is with the total collapse of the traditional Republican “establishment” — and the extent to which it was supplanted, over the course of the 2000s and the 2010s, by conservative media and assorted billionaire donors — that the party lost any ability it had to police its boundaries. The apotheosis of this phenomenon is Donald Trump, who fully bypassed conservative and Republican gatekeepers on the strength of his celebrity and media savvy, and whose victory in the 2024 presidential election opened the floodgates of the party to the far right.

But where even Trump once had to create the sense of distance between himself and the alt-right, now it is hard to think of it as “alternative” at all. Now it is simply the Republican right.

There is every reason to think, in fact, that the Republican Party’s neo-Nazi problem is spreading.

Just look at the way that House Speaker Mike Johnson defended Herrera after being confronted with evidence of his abhorrent views, treating him as just another Republican candidate with an outsize online persona. “Brandon Herrera has been out running a very effective campaign,” Johnson said.

Or look to last week’s Republican midterm gathering in Dallas, where the vice president echoed far-right tropes about the alleged crime and disorder produced by immigrants. “We were tired of being called racists,” Vance said to the cheers and approving nods of the audience, “for noticing that our country was becoming dirtier and poorer and less safe and less prosperous.”

The vice president is nothing if not shrewd and opportunistic. He sees where his fellow young conservatives are headed. He does not plan to be left behind.

Perhaps there will be some seismic shift that derails the far-right capture of the Republican Party. But this feels like wishful thinking. If the past decade is any guide, then the fever, if that is what we want to call it, is only going to get worse.

Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va."

Trump Approves $2.8 Billion Arms Sale to Israel, Including 40,000 One-Ton Bombs - The New York Times

Stephen Colbert on the Emmys, His Wife Hating His Beard & Gifting Jimmy His Captain America Shield

 

Tuesday, September 15, 2026

Smart Answers to Stupid Comments About Slavery

 

A New Book Seeks to Shame the Elites Who Caved to Trump

 

A New Book Seeks to Shame the Elites Who Caved to Trump

 Summary

“Jacob Weisberg’s book examines elite capitulation to Trump, citing Brad Karp’s deal at Paul Weiss and shifts by Jeff Bezos and Sian Beilock. Susan Neiman attributes such submission to self-interest overriding virtue.

A black stain runs down a white marble pillar.
Sam Gulliver for The New York Times

The thing I’ve found most shocking about Donald Trump’s second presidency is not the epic grift, the ICE paramilitary violence or the assaults on free speech. These abuses, while horrifying, are predictable. What has stunned me has been the capitulation of so many American elites to Trump’s vulgar authoritarianism.

I didn’t expect major law firms, some that have long boasted about their progressive pro bono work, to fold with barely a fight. I didn’t expect TV networks to settle bogus lawsuits by paying the president millions, or for Ivy League schools such as Columbia to relinquish autonomy over curriculum, admissions and student discipline. In Hungary, it took years for Viktor Orban’s government to bring most of academia, the news media and other pillars of civil society to heel. Why were so many powerful people in America, a country whose civic culture is steeped in resistance to tyranny, so willing to abase themselves and their institutions?

That’s the question at the heart of Jacob Weisberg’s important new book, “Profiles in Cowardice: A Study of Collaboration in the Trump Era.” It’s an inverted version of John F. Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage,” offering character studies of eight people who gave in to Trump despite surely knowing better. Reading it made me wonder if there’s something about America today that selects for spinelessness at the highest levels.

Some of Weisberg’s choices perplexed me; a few of the figures he focuses on are less morally compromised than simply rotten. There’s nothing that mysterious, at least to me, in the failure of people like Mitch McConnell, Megyn Kelly or the vulture capitalist Stephen Schwarzman to display much democratic integrity. What’s harder to fathom is why people who presented themselves as bulwarks against Trumpism during his first term made such degrading compromises during his second.

The Amazon founder and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos adopted the motto “Democracy Dies in Darkness” for his newspaper during the first Trump presidency, then gutted it during the second. As president of Barnard during the first Trump administration, Sian Beilock championed sweeping antiracism initiatives. In Trump’s second term, as president of Dartmouth, she has kept mostly mum about Trump’s attacks on higher education. These are people who once knew how dangerous Trump was, but now that he’s worse than ever, they’re pretending not to see. Why?

The answers are a little different in each case, but they usually involve intra-elite competition. From the outside, these people look as if they can easily afford to risk acts of bravery. But they’re consumed in different ways with making sure their peers don’t get ahead of them. Courage is contagious, but so, it turns out, is cravenness.

An emblematic example in Weisberg’s book is Brad Karp, the former chairman of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which owed its reputation to its work for civil rights. As Weisberg writes, Paul Weiss was the first major New York law firm to hire a Black associate, William Coleman, who would help write some of the legal briefs in Brown v. the Board of Education. It represented Edith Windsor in her landmark 2013 gay marriage case. During the first Trump administration, Karp assigned 75 lawyers to fight Trump’s family separation policy. “Each of us needs to do what we believe is right, whatever the consequences,” Karp said in a 2024 interview.

So it’s astonishing that less than a year later, after Trump issued an executive order targeting the firm, Karp made a deal with the administration that included providing $40 million in pro bono work, which has included servicesfor the Commerce Department. As Weisberg points out, Paul Weiss’s surrender helped set off “a bidding war for submission.” Today, the firm’s culture has changed; gone from its website are pages that once described its work on voting rights, reproductive rights and immigrant rights.

Why would anyone sell out his own ostensible values the way Karp did? Weisberg, who interviewed Karp for the book, attributes his decision-making to Paul Weiss’s changing financial underpinnings. In the 2010s, the firm became a leader in the spectacularly lucrative field of private equity law. Competition for star lawyers who demanded salaries in the eight figures was fierce, since clients tended to be more loyal to their attorneys than to their firms. Threatened by Trump, Karp feared an exodus of partners and the loss of one of the firm’s biggest clients, Apollo Global Management, whose chief executive is a powerful Republican donor. Karp repeatedly described Paul Weiss’s peril as “existential.”

But as Weisberg points out, the stakes were hardly as grand as that word implies. Karp and his colleagues weren’t facing prison or penury. “An average of $7.5 million per partner might have fallen to, who knows, $4 or $5 million for a couple of years,” writes Weisberg. That’s a real hit, but it’s not exactly martyrdom.

Ultimately, Trump’s return to office brought Karp down, though not in the way he feared. This year, he was forced to resign after the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, which revealed that Karp had socialized with the sex trafficker and offered him free legal advice. Karp met Epstein through one of his prized clients, Leon Black, Apollo’s billionaire co-founder. Given the waters Karp swam in, the idea of choosing decency over riches might have seemed foolish. Paul Weiss is now one of the most profitable law firms in the world; revenue is up almost 24 percent.

The philosopher Susan Neiman’s new book, “Call It Evil: Understanding the Trump Era,” is a useful companion to “Profiles in Cowardice.” Like Weisberg, Neiman wanted to explain why so many institutions caved to Trump. She believes it begins with an ethos that disdains virtue as hypocritical or naïve. “When self-interest becomes the basis of reason, evil no longer needs to justify itself,” she writes. “It’s already been mistaken for rationality.”

Neiman cites research showing that “the longer people study economics, the more selfish they become.” The reason, as she interprets it, is that they grow convinced that maximizing self-interest is normal, and that to do otherwise makes you a sucker. The more the logic of capitalism pervades the rest of life, the less room there is for compassion, honor or heroism. Maybe that’s why some of the people most financially able to defend liberal democracy have decided it’s one of the few luxuries they can live without.

Michelle Goldberg has been an Opinion columnist since 2017. She is the author of several books about politics, religion and women’s rights and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 for reporting on workplace sexual harassment.“

Monday, September 14, 2026

Supreme court rejects Trump’s mail ballot restrictions for midterm elections

 

Supreme court rejects Trump’s mail ballot restrictions for midterm elections

 Summary

“The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s mail ballot restrictions, upholding an injunction that lets states continue existing processes. Kavanaugh concurred on timing; Alito dissented. Civil rights groups and Democrats praised the decision.

Decision allows states to send ballots under process followed for years even as president tried to limit system

A mail-in ballot during Pennsylvania primary
A mail-in ballot during the Pennsylvania primary election in Philadelphia on 19 May 2026.Photograph: Hannah Beier/Reuters

The supreme court on Monday rejected Donald Trump’s mail ballot restrictions for now, capping a flurry of last-minute legal action with voting in the midterm elections already underway.

The decision allows states to continue sending out mail ballots under the same processes they have used for years.

The Trump administration had asked the court, once again at the center of a roiling political controversy, to clear the way for restrictions before the pivotal November contests for control of Congress. The case has major implications because nearly one-third of the country votes by mail.

“The government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the district court’s preliminary injunction,” states the one-paragraph unsigned order. “And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this court do not favor a stay.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurrence, ruling that he believed the government had “at least a fair prospect” of success defending the plan, but that implementation so close to election day would be “arbitrary and capricious”.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. In the dissent, Alito blamed the litigating states for creating the conditions of a ruling so close to an election, and wrote that they should not benefit from a protracted process that they created with their suit.

“The plaintiff states cannot claim the timing of the rule tilts the equities in their favor when they, and courts hearing their claims, are responsible for so much of the delay,” he wrote.

Civil rights groups lauded the decision.

“It is alarming what the administration was seeking to do here,” said Kristen Clarke, NAACP general counsel and former head of the justice department’s civil rights division. “This was an 11th-hour effort by the administration to hijack the way that we vote by mail in our country.”

Civil rights groups could not have moved faster, she said. “At the earliest opportunity, civil rights organizations like the NAACP took to the court to stand up for voters. It’s important to remember that the final rule was not issued until about roughly 10 days ago. So, I find Justice Alito’s statements disingenuous … We should focus on the fact that the court is leaving in place an injunction that prevents this administration from turning our electoral system on its head. What the administration was attempting to do here would have unleashed chaos across the country.”

“The supreme court has done the right thing by protecting the American people’s right to vote,” said Robert Garcia, a Democratic representative from Long Beach, California. “Donald Trump tried to illegally interfere with our elections and undermine vote-by-mail for millions of Americans and failed. We will keep fighting to protect the right to vote of every single citizen in this country.”

The case stems from an executive order issued by Trump on 31 March requiring the post office to refrain from delivering ballots for mail-in voting to registered voters deemed ineligible when compared with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal records.

Voting rights groups, joined by 23 states and the District of Columbia, sued the administration to stop the proposed rule, arguing that the US constitution provides no authority for the president to issue orders governing the administration of elections.

Election officials have said there was simply no way to carry out a complete overhaul in the weeks before the midterms. Indeed, Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin began sending mail ballots to voters over the past week while the new system was still not active.

The Trump administration plan would require states to adopt a uniform envelope style and submit lists of eligible voters to an online portal. The postal service could refuse to deliver ballots to states that didn’t comply.

A whistleblower report, though, said the postal system’s requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent, because the portal wasn’t properly built and a single bar code error could result in an entire batch of ballots being tossed out.

Democratic state officials and voting rights groups challenged the restrictions in court, arguing the president has no constitutional authority to set election rules that would “virtually eliminate mail voting on the eve of a major election”.

Lower courts agreed. But an initial injunction issued by US district judge Indira ⁠Talwani was overturned on procedural grounds in July, but was reinstated after the USPS posted a final rule on ballot delivery. Monday’s ruling upholds that injunction.

The Trump administration appealed to the supreme court, arguing that federal control of the postal service allows them to set rules for mail ballot handling and that compliance was possible.

The federal government won an early procedural decision at the supreme court, but the justices pointedly did not decide the legality of the plan.

Trump has long opposed mail voting and falsely blamed it for his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, even though he often uses that method to cast his own ballot, including as recently as this year.

“The court’s ruling is a massive sigh of relief for local election officials and voters – especially for the thousands of service members abroad whose ballots are legally required to be sent by all 50 states within the next five days,” said Samantha Tarazi, co-founder and CEO of the Voting Rights Lab.

“But this isn’t over. This administration will keep testing every avenue to manipulate our elections and sow doubt in results he doesn’t like. Today is yet another example of President Trump’s extreme elections agenda losing in the courts and with the American people. The bottom line is simple: states run our elections – not the president.”

JD Vance is the Richard Nixon of the Groypers

 

Sunday, September 13, 2026

Grieving Father Gets a Standing Ovation as He EXPOSE Marco Rubio to His Face…Rubio Got Booed

 

Whole Room ERUPTS As Dem Rising Star DESTROYS Trump and Republicans, Gets a Standing Ovation

Whole Room ERUPTS As Dem Rising Star DESTROYS Trump and Republicans, Gets a Standing Ovation

What Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei Argued in His Call for AI Slowdown - The New York Times

What Anthropic’s C.E.O. Argued in His Call for Slower A.I. Development

"Dario Amodei’s 3,800-word letter laid out a three-step plan to rein in artificial intelligence.

Dario Amodei speaking into a microphone with “Anthropic” written on the wall behind him.
Dario Amodei, the chief executive of Anthropic, at a summit this year. His letter also called for cooperation from A.I. companies from other democratic countries.Priyanshu Singh/Reuters

Dario Amodei, the chief executive of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, published a 3,800-word open letter on Saturday calling for a slowdown in the development of A.I.

The essay prompted other A.I. leaders, including Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI; Elon Musk, SpaceX’s chief executive; and Demis Hassabis, the chair of Google DeepMind, to speak out in agreement.

Here are the key arguments that Mr. Amodei made in his essay:

Why A.I. Needs to Slow Down

Mr. Amodei said two recent developments convinced him that simply investing in A.I. safety was no longer enough.

One, he said, was that A.I. itself had begun helping to build the next generation of A.I., a self-reinforcing loop called “recursive self-improvement” that could soon outrun humans’ ability to understand or control what they were creating.

Mr. Amodei also pointed to a recent incident where OpenAI’s systems went rogue and attacked the A.I. start-up HuggingFace. OpenAI was not aware of the hack until it was informed about it by HuggingFace weeks later.

While the attack did not cause any real harm, Mr. Amodei said he predicted a more capable version of the A.I. could seize large parts of the internet and cause “hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.”

Proposed Steps for a Slowdown

Mr. Amodei laid out a three-step plan to “pace” the development of A.I. across the industry, arguing that the world would have to do it together.

First, he said, Anthropic would invite independent reviewers to work inside his company, giving them employee-like access, including desks, badges and laptops. The reviewers, which he called “evaluators,” would verify that his start-up was following its safety practices. These reviewers would then publish what they found, even if it was unflattering. Mr. Amodei urged rivals to do the same.

Second, Mr. Amodei said, A.I. companies in the United States and other democratic countries should agree on shared safety standards and a common limit on how fast A.I. capabilities could advance, aided by their governments. He suggested that A.I. companies coordinate — ideally through regulation, but voluntarily in the meantime — on how quickly their systems could advance.

Third, he said, the United States and other democratic nations should work to get authoritarian governments, chiefly China, to accept similar limits. Mr. Amodei said this step would be the hardest and most unlikely to happen soon.

Any deal with China would be a ladder, Mr. Amodei said, from the most to least achievable steps. They would include banning clearly dangerous A.I. uses; agreeing to test A.I. models for dangers before release; putting a “speed limit” on A.I.’s self-improvement capabilities; and, what China is least likely to agree to, a full pause on development.

Mr. Amodei said in the meantime, democracies must keep their lead over China, backing restrictions on selling powerful A.I. chips to the country and employing tighter security to keep rivals from stealing or copying American models.

“Any cooperation we are able to achieve with China will extend the amount of time we have to spend on pacing the frontier within the democratic nations,” he said.

Emmy Martin is a reporter covering the technology industry from San Francisco and a member of the 2026-27 Times Fellowship class."

What Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei Argued in His Call for AI Slowdown - The New York Times