January 1, 2026
TRUMP GIVES A BOOST TO CHINA’S BIOTECH COMPANIES
“The cost in lost U.S. innovation will be far greater than the government savings.”
One-Sentence Summary:
The Wall Street Journal editorial argues that President Trump’s proposed “most-favored nation” drug pricing rule would harm U.S. pharmaceutical innovation while unintentionally accelerating the global rise of Chinese biotech firms.
Article Summary:
The editorial contends that President Trump, despite rolling back many Biden-era regulations, is advancing an even more damaging policy by importing foreign-style drug price controls into Medicare. Days before Christmas, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed a 560-page regulation to implement Trump’s “most-favored nation” (MFN) plan, which would require drugmakers to sell medicines to Medicare at the lowest prices charged in other developed countries.
According to the editorial board, this policy represents a double-cross. More than a dozen pharmaceutical companies had earlier reached agreements with the administration to increase U.S. investment and sell drugs directly to consumers at lower prices, expecting relief from threatened tariffs and MFN pricing. The new proposal offers no clear protection for those companies and could later be reversed by a future administration.
Under the MFN plan, drugmakers would owe rebates to Medicare equal to the difference between U.S. prices and the lowest price among 19 countries, including Canada, the Czech Republic, and Sweden. In some cases, rebates could exceed 80 percent of a drug’s list price. Because many of these countries tightly restrict access to new medicines, the policy would reduce incentives for companies to sell drugs there, since low foreign prices would then be imposed on the much larger U.S. Medicare market.
The editorial warns that these incentives would especially benefit Chinese biotech firms, which already operate in a lower-cost, faster development environment. Reduced profitability in the U.S. would discourage domestic innovation, potentially drive companies to raise prices for commercial insurers, and weaken investment in new drugs. Citing economist Tomas Philipson, the piece notes that the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare price controls have already led companies to halt at least 55 research programs and abandon 26 medicines, particularly small-molecule drugs.
The MFN proposal, the board argues, would intensify these disincentives, even undermining the development of low-cost generics. CMS justifies the rule as a payment model experiment affecting about 25 percent of Medicare patients, but the editorial notes that Medicare out-of-pocket costs are already capped at $2,000 under the IRA, and CMS does not project direct savings for patients. Instead, rebates would flow to the government, functioning as a de facto tax on drugmakers.
While CMS estimates Medicare savings of $26 billion over five years, the editorial stresses this is minimal relative to projected total Medicare spending of $7.5 trillion. The long-term cost, it argues, would be lost U.S. innovation and a strategic advantage handed to Chinese biotech firms.
“Trump Gives a Boost to China’s Biotech Companies.” The Wall Street Journal, 31 Dec. 2025, www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-drug-price-controls-most-favored-nation-cms-joe-biden-ed43a287
BIDEN’S IRA IS HARMING CANCER PATIENTS
One-Sentence Summary:
The Inflation Reduction Act’s drug price controls are discouraging follow-on cancer research, reducing innovation and potentially depriving patients of more effective treatments, according to new academic evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A large share of cancer innovation comes from follow-on research after initial drug approval.
- The IRA’s price caps shorten the effective market life of drugs, discouraging this research.
- Small-molecule cancer drugs are hit especially hard due to earlier price controls.
- Early evidence suggests significant declines in research programs and investment since the law’s passage.
- Policy changes could reduce harm while preserving incentives for medical innovation.
Article Summary:
The authors argue that the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), while intended to lower drug prices, is unintentionally undermining cancer innovation by weakening incentives for follow-on research after a drug’s initial approval. The law imposes price caps that effectively shorten a drug’s patent life, applying controls based on the date of first FDA approval rather than the approval of later uses. For biologic drugs, price controls begin after 13 years; for small-molecule drugs, typically pills, they begin after only nine years.
Drawing on a recent study published in Health Affairs, the authors examine all FDA-approved cancer drugs from 2000 to 2024 and find that a substantial share of cancer progress comes from follow-on approvals. About 42 percent of cancer therapies initially approved during that period later gained approval for additional uses, such as treating different cancers or earlier stages of disease. Sixty percent of these follow-on approvals involved earlier-stage treatment, which is often more effective for patients.
The problem, the authors contend, is that follow-on research often occurs years after the first approval. On average, the first follow-on approval arrives three years later, and the second another 1.5 years after that. For small-molecule drugs, this leaves roughly 4.5 years before price controls take effect, often too little time to justify the cost and risk of further clinical trials. Examples such as enzalutamide for prostate cancer and letrozole for breast cancer illustrate how long it can take to expand a drug’s use, timelines that would likely be uneconomic under the IRA.
The authors argue that the IRA is particularly damaging to small-molecule drugs, which many experts see as crucial to future cancer treatment because they are easier to administer, often have fewer side effects, and can precisely target cancer cells. Despite these advantages, the IRA subjects them to price controls four years earlier than biologics.
Since the law’s passage, the authors report that companies have halted at least 55 research programs and abandoned 26 medicines, far exceeding earlier projections by the Congressional Budget Office. They also cite steep declines in early-stage biotech investment and new cancer programs focused on small molecules. The authors conclude that repealing the IRA’s price controls, or at minimum equalizing the timing for biologics and pills as proposed in the bipartisan EPIC Act, would reduce harm to patients and preserve the cumulative research that drives cancer progress.
Philipson, Tomas J., and Martin Kozlowski. “Biden’s IRA Is Harming Cancer Patients.” The Wall Street Journal, 30 Nov. 2025, www.wsj.com/opinion/bidens-ira-is-harming-cancer-patients-83708773
January 3, 2026
Kelly v. Kobach: A High-Stakes Battle Over Kansas’s Election Fraud Prosecution Authority
In Kelly v. Kobach, Kansas’s Democratic Governor battles its Republican Attorney General over who controls election fraud prosecutions. The Kansas Supreme Court must decide whether a 2015 statute granting the AG concurrent prosecution authority violates separation of powers by transferring executive power from the Governor. The outcome will determine not just who prosecutes election crimes, but how much power the Legislature has to restructure executive authority in Kansas.
See:
Kelly v. Kobach: A High-Stakes Battle Over Kansas’s Election Fraud Prosecution Authority
January 4, 2026
Trump’s Venezuela operation captured Maduro, but legal and strategic questions multiply
Operation Absolute Resolve achieved its immediate tactical objective-the capture of Nicolás Maduro-with remarkable military precision. However, the strategic and legal aftermath remains deeply uncertain. The administration’s dual framing as “law enforcement” domestically and “Trump Corollary” internationally faces challenges on both fronts: bipartisan congressional resistance to unchecked presidential war powers, and near-universal international legal condemnation. Trump’s dismissal of opposition leader Machado while announcing plans to “run” Venezuela raises questions about what “judicious transition” means in practice. With a War Powers vote imminent and Maduro’s trial approaching, the legal and political battles over this operation are just beginning.
More analysis:
Trump’s Venezuela operation captured Maduro, but legal and strategic questions multiply
January 5, 2026
Trump Air Force One Press Gaggle: Venezuela Operation and Regional Policy
Summary and fact-check.
President Trump held an extended press gaggle aboard Air Force One on January 4, 2026, confirming the U.S. is “in charge” of Venezuela after capturing Nicolás Maduro. Trump announced American oil companies will rebuild Venezuela’s infrastructure and predicted Cuba’s government will collapse without Venezuelan oil revenues.
Fact-checking analysis reveals a pattern of significant exaggerations, unverifiable claims, and some outright falsehoods mixed with occasional accurate statements. The most egregious claims involve economic statistics (the twenty trillion dollar investment figure) and fraud allegations (the nineteen billion dollar Minnesota claim), which appear to inflate real numbers by factors of one hundred or more. Other claims, such as those about Venezuela’s economic collapse and the humanitarian crisis, are substantially accurate in their core assertions even if somewhat hyperbolic in presentation. Several claims, including those about drug interdiction and piracy, contain elements of truth but misattribute causation or exaggerate the magnitude of recent changes. This mixture of accurate observations, misleading characterizations, and false claims makes it essential for readers to verify specific factual assertions independently rather than accepting statements at face value.
Summary:
Trump Air Force One Press Gaggle: Venezuela Operation and Regional Policy
Fact-check:
As Signs of Aging Emerge, Trump Responds With Defiance
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
At 79, President Donald Trump shows visible signs of aging while publicly dismissing health concerns, rejecting some medical advice, and insisting his stamina and fitness remain exceptional.
Article Summary:
The Wall Street Journal reports that President Donald Trump, now 79 and the oldest person to assume the presidency, is exhibiting increasing signs of aging even as he forcefully rejects concerns about his health. According to people close to him, Trump struggles at times with hearing, sleep, swelling in his legs, and visible bruising, yet he insists he is in “perfect” health and credits his condition to good genetics rather than medical intervention.
Trump acknowledged taking a higher daily dose of aspirin than his doctors recommend, a habit he has maintained for 25 years despite bruising. He briefly tried compression socks to address ankle swelling caused by chronic venous insufficiency, a common condition in older adults, but stopped using them because he disliked them. He also avoids regular exercise beyond golf, calling workouts “boring,” and maintains a diet heavy in fast food.
In October, Trump underwent a CT scan to rule out cardiovascular issues, though he repeatedly described it publicly as an MRI before later correcting the record. He said he regretted the scan because it fueled public speculation about his health, even though doctors reported no abnormalities. The White House provided a summary of an AI-assisted Mayo Clinic analysis suggesting Trump’s cardiac age is closer to 65.
Aides have privately urged Trump to slow his pace and adjust his schedule, including taking extended time in Florida during the holidays. Staff have also expressed concern about optics after cameras captured him appearing to doze during meetings. Trump denied falling asleep, saying he merely closes his eyes to relax.
Despite these concerns, Trump remains highly visible, regularly taking questions from reporters and maintaining a packed schedule. Supporters, including administration officials and physicians who have not treated him, say he is mentally sharp and capable of fulfilling his duties. Trump, irritated by repeated scrutiny, argues that the focus on his health is excessive and politically motivated.
“As Signs of Aging Emerge, Trump Responds With Defiance.” The Wall Street Journal, 1 Jan. 2026, www.wsj.com/us-news/as-signs-of-aging-emerge-trump-responds-with-defiance-769c5dcd
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/as-signs-of-aging-emerge-trump-responds-with-defiance-769c5dcd?st=e9QJHW&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
January 6, 2026
City Hall Surrender in Genesis-Steven Ice Center Debacle Casts Doubt on Competence | Opinion
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
Dale Goter argues that Wichita City Hall’s quiet settlement over the Ice Center fiasco exposes years of mismanagement and undermines trust as leaders seek voter approval for an $810 million sales tax.
Key Takeaways
- The city settled for far less than it initially sought.
- Contract flaws and delayed enforcement cost taxpayers money.
- Leaders seek major new funding despite unresolved past failures.
Article Summary:
Dale Goter contends that Wichita city leaders have demonstrated chronic incompetence by settling the Genesis-Steven Ice Center dispute for $200,000 instead of pursuing up to $2.6 million in unpaid obligations and damages. The city terminated Genesis Health Clubs’ 10-year management contract in 2022 after years of missed payments, yet waited too long to act, limiting legal recovery to only the final three years. Goter criticizes the original 2012 contract for allowing this loophole and faults successive councils for ignoring nonpayment while taxpayers covered bond payments tied to a $750,000 loan. He highlights the plan to approve the settlement via the consent agenda, avoiding public discussion, and contrasts this behavior with City Hall’s push for voter support of a proposed 1 percent sales tax funding an $810 million slate of projects. Goter concludes that without public accountability and apology, voters should reject new spending requests.
Goter, Dale. “City Hall Surrender in Genesis-Steven Ice Center Debacle Casts Doubt on Competence | Opinion.” Wichita Eagle, 5 Jan. 2026, www.kansas.com/opinion/guest-commentary/article314188345.html
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.kansas.com/opinion/guest-commentary/article314188345.html?giftCode=5d23d76fe7fb9700dadb2d1b56497b73495d2d1482f361b3c787b77158f1eaab
Trump’s Claim: “$20 Trillion” in Foreign Investment
The Claim: Trump stated that the United States would receive “over $20 trillion” in foreign investment, calling it a record that far exceeds China’s previous record of “three” trillion about ten years ago.
The Verdict: This claim is false and lacks any basis in economic reality. The numbers Trump cites are completely inconsistent with actual foreign direct investment data and appear to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of global capital flows.
To understand why this claim is problematic, we need to examine what foreign direct investment actually looks like globally. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which tracks these flows comprehensively, the entire world’s foreign direct investment in 2023 totaled approximately 1.3 trillion dollars across all countries combined. The United States, as the world’s largest recipient, attracted roughly 285 billion dollars in foreign direct investment in 2023. Even in the best years on record, U.S. foreign direct investment has never exceeded 500 billion dollars annually.
China’s record year for foreign direct investment was 2021, when it received approximately 181 billion dollars, not three trillion dollars as Trump suggested. The total stock of foreign investment in China-meaning all accumulated investment over decades-is approximately 3.5 trillion dollars, which may be what Trump was confusing with annual flows.
For the United States to receive twenty trillion dollars in investment would require foreign entities to invest more than fifteen times the entire world’s annual foreign direct investment total. This would represent an amount larger than the entire U.S. gross domestic product for a full year. No economist or investment tracking organization has reported anything remotely approaching these figures.
The claim appears to conflate various unrelated economic statistics or represents an extreme exaggeration without factual foundation. When economic claims deviate this dramatically from established data sources, it typically indicates either a misunderstanding of the underlying statistics or deliberate inflation of figures for rhetorical effect.
References:
UNCTAD. (2024). World investment report 2024. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2024_en.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2024). Foreign direct investment in the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.bea.gov/data/intl-trade-investment/direct-investment-country-and-industry
Trump’s Claim: His Book Predicted Bin Laden
The Claim: Trump stated, “I wrote about Bin Laden one year before the attack in the World Trade Center. And I said, ‘You gotta go after Bin Laden.’ It was in my book.”
The Verdict: This claim is misleading and significantly overstates Trump’s prescience. While Trump did mention Osama bin Laden in his 2000 book, the reference was brief and did not constitute a prediction or warning about the September 11 attacks.
Trump’s 2000 book “The America We Deserve” does contain a mention of Osama bin Laden, but examining the actual text reveals that the claim of prediction is substantially exaggerated. In the book, Trump wrote: “I really am convinced we’re in danger of the sort of terrorist attacks that will make the bombing of the Trade Center look like kids playing with firecrackers… One day we’re told that a shadowy figure with no fixed address named Osama bin Laden is public enemy number one.”
This passage does mention bin Laden and does express concern about terrorism, which gives the statement some basis. However, it does not constitute a specific prediction about the September 11 attacks or a call to “take out” bin Laden as Trump suggested in his remarks. The reference was part of a broader discussion about terrorism concerns generally, not a specific intelligence assessment or warning about imminent danger.
Furthermore, concerns about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were not unique to Trump in 2000. Following the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 USS Cole bombing, bin Laden was widely recognized as a major terrorism threat. The Clinton administration had attempted to capture or kill bin Laden through several operations, and the 9/11 Commission Report later documented extensive pre-September 11 intelligence about al-Qaeda’s capabilities and intentions.
The characterization that Trump uniquely warned about bin Laden and that “if they would’ve listened to me, they would’ve taken out Bin Laden and you wouldn’t have had the World Trade Center tragedy” significantly overstates both the specificity of the book’s mention and Trump’s unique role in identifying this threat. Many terrorism experts, intelligence officials, and policymakers were deeply concerned about bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the years leading up to September 11, 2001.
References:
Trump, D. J. (2000). The America we deserve. Renaissance Books.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. (2004). The 9/11 Commission report: Final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. W.W. Norton & Company. https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/
Coll, S. (2004). Ghost wars: The secret history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet invasion to September 10, 2001. Penguin Press.
Maga’s Foundational Lie
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
Jeffrey Goldberg argues that Donald Trump’s mass pardoning of January 6 rioters exposes a core falsehood of MAGA ideology — that it stands for law and order — and illustrates a broader pattern of indecency that has reshaped American political life.
Key Takeaways:
- Trump’s January 6 pardons undermine claims that MAGA supports law enforcement.
- The violence of the Capitol attack was foreseeable and encouraged by false claims of election theft.
- Indecency, rather than ideology alone, is presented as the defining feature of Trump’s leadership.
- Repeated exposure to norm-breaking risks dulling public moral judgment.
Article Summary:
Jeffrey Goldberg opens by revisiting the origins and violence of the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, anchoring the narrative in Donald Trump’s December 2020 tweet urging supporters to gather in Washington and promising the day would be “wild.” Goldberg recounts the actions of David Nicholas Dempsey, a California man who traveled to Washington, embraced the rhetoric of vengeance against political leaders, and violently assaulted multiple police officers during the riot, leaving officers fearing for their lives. More than 140 law enforcement officers were injured during the siege.
Goldberg describes his own experience attending Trump’s rally on the Ellipse and walking with the crowd to the Capitol, noting his failure at the time to fully grasp the seriousness of the threat posed by protesters wearing tactical gear and carrying restraints. Many believed they were acting on divine or constitutional authority, primed by conspiracy theories and Trump’s insistence that the election had been stolen.
After detailing the prosecutions of January 6 participants, Goldberg focuses on Trump’s return to office and his decision, on January 20, 2025, to pardon roughly 1,500 individuals charged or convicted in connection with the insurrection, including hundreds accused of assaulting police officers and dozens who used deadly weapons. Trump justified the pardons by claiming the rioters loved the country and portraying himself as a defender of law enforcement.
Goldberg argues that these pardons represent the most morally revealing act of Trump’s presidency because they expose a foundational lie of the MAGA movement: its claim to be pro-police and pro-law and order. By absolving those who violently attacked officers, Trump demonstrated allegiance not to institutions or principles, but to personal loyalty and grievance.
The essay broadens to catalog Trump’s actions since returning to office, including dismantling foreign aid programs, undermining science and public health, attacking democratic allies, praising authoritarian leaders, targeting immigrants with cruelty, and politicizing the Justice Department. Goldberg contends that while many of these actions are shocking, the deeper and more corrosive trait underlying them is Trump’s fundamental indecency.
Drawing on commentary by Andrew Sullivan and a recollection of a 2017 conversation with Barack Obama, Goldberg emphasizes that Trump’s norm-breaking is not merely ideological but moral, marked by a disregard for restraint, dignity, and empathy. Obama’s reaction to Trump’s Boy Scouts Jamboree speech is presented as emblematic of this decline: a moment when civic leadership was replaced by vulgar self-indulgence.
Goldberg concludes that Americans have grown dangerously accustomed to indecency from the nation’s highest office. The pardoning of violent insurrectionists stands as a warning that shock itself is fading, even as the consequences for democratic norms, public servants, and the rule of law grow more severe.
Goldberg, Jeffrey. “MAGA’s Foundational Lie.” The Atlantic, Jan. 6, 2026, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/02/trump-indecency-jan-6-pardons/685324/
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/02/trump-indecency-jan-6-pardons/685324/?gift=-RYyyhoVwMCBPkXbjlfICrzkEeDXW_03Cfdx4AU2Iak
Trump’s ‘American Dominance’ May Leave Us With Nothing
One-Sentence Summary:
In this Atlantic essay, Anne Applebaum argues that Donald Trump’s embrace of great-power “spheres of influence,” exemplified by the seizure of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, undermines democracy, alienates allies, and ultimately weakens American power.
Key Takeaways:
* The concept of rigid spheres of influence is replacing values-based foreign policy in the Trump administration.
* The removal of Maduro illustrates a shift away from democracy and international law toward raw power.
* Smaller nations retain agency and are unlikely to accept imposed domination.
* American power depends on alliances and legitimacy, not coercion alone.
Article Summary:
The article opens with an analogy to George Orwell’s 1984, describing a world divided into arbitrary spheres of influence where power, not truth or law, determines reality. Applebaum argues that this once-theoretical vision has begun to shape real U.S. foreign policy during Trump’s second term. She traces the idea’s origins to Russian discourse, noting that it gained traction as Moscow sought recognition as a peer to the United States and China, even floating proposals to “swap” influence over countries such as Venezuela and Ukraine.
Applebaum explains that this logic now underpins the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy, which emphasizes American “dominance” in the Western Hemisphere while downplaying global alliances and democratic values. Trump’s rhetoric and actions — including threats to allies such as Denmark, Panama, and Canada, and the unilateral raid that removed Maduro from power — mark a departure from past U.S. interventions, not because force was used, but because the administration openly rejects the language of democracy, international law, and legitimacy.
At a press conference following Maduro’s capture, Trump invoked a distorted version of the Monroe Doctrine to justify American control over Venezuela, suggesting the United States would “run” the country without clarifying how or by whom. Applebaum contrasts this stance with the reality of Venezuela’s opposition movement, led by Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, whose coalition documented a decisive electoral victory despite repression by Maduro’s regime. Rather than recognizing this democratic mandate, the administration has hinted it may work with figures from within the existing authoritarian system, signaling a preference for stability and control over genuine political change.
The essay argues that Trump’s actions are intentionally illogical, reflecting a worldview in which power alone confers legitimacy. Applebaum notes the contradiction between justifying Maduro’s seizure as a criminal arrest while pardoning other indicted foreign leaders, underscoring that the administration’s approach is not grounded in consistent principle. This logic, she warns, mirrors the arguments used by Vladimir Putin to justify domination over Ukraine and by Xi Jinping to claim Taiwan as part of China’s rightful sphere.
Applebaum further contends that the practical consequences of this strategy are likely to disappoint its proponents. Venezuela remains a fragmented, unstable state with powerful armed groups, and without sustained legitimacy, investment, or alliances, the United States cannot simply extract benefits such as oil or regional influence. More fundamentally, the assumption that smaller nations lack agency is flawed. Venezuelans who welcomed Maduro’s removal are unlikely to accept a new dictatorship imposed or endorsed by Washington.
The essay concludes that Americans themselves will gain little from this approach. Most do not want their military used to secure resources for political donors, nor do they want the country reduced to a regional bully. By abandoning alliances and values in favor of coercive dominance, Applebaum argues, the United States risks isolation as former partners close their markets and cooperate against it. In the end, the pursuit of “American dominance” may leave the country with neither influence nor allies, and with diminished power rather than renewed strength.
Applebaum, Anne. “Trump’s ‘American Dominance’ May Leave Us With Nothing.” The Atlantic, 5 Jan. 2026, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/trumps-american-dominance-may-leave-us-with-nothing/685503/
Donald Trump Wants You to Forget This Happened
One-Sentence Summary:
The article uses the intertwined stories of a January 6 rioter and the police officers he attacked to examine how Donald Trump and his allies systematically rewrote the meaning of the Capitol attack, transforming a violent insurrection into a myth of patriotism and erasing accountability through pardons.
Article Summary:
Jamie Thompson’s article centers on Thomas Webster, a retired New York City police officer and Marine veteran, whose personal radicalization, violent actions on January 6, 2021, and eventual pardon illustrate how the attack on the U.S. Capitol has been reframed in American political life. Webster is introduced as an ordinary, civic-minded man unsettled by the COVID-19 pandemic, government restrictions, and social isolation. Over 2020, he increasingly consumed right-wing media, came to believe Donald Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen, and viewed attending the January 6 rally as a patriotic duty.
On January 6, Webster joined the crowd at the Capitol and violently assaulted Metropolitan Police Department officer Noah Rathbun, using a metal flagpole and his body to break through barricades. Video evidence showed Webster striking, choking, and attempting to gouge the officer’s eyes. Despite Webster’s later insistence that he was provoked, a jury convicted him on multiple felony counts, including assault with a dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to ten years in prison.
The article then broadens its focus to the experiences of police officers, particularly MPD officer Daniel Hodges, who endured extreme violence while defending the Capitol. Hodges describes being beaten, crushed, and nearly blinded as rioters attempted to force their way inside. For him and other officers, January 6 was a traumatic battle that nearly cost them their lives and left lasting psychological damage.
Initially, there was widespread bipartisan condemnation of the attack, Trump’s impeachment, and a public consensus that January 6 was a violent attempt to overturn a democratic election. However, Thompson shows how this consensus quickly fractured. Conservative media figures and Trump allies began promoting alternative narratives that minimized the violence, blamed antifa or federal agents, and portrayed the rioters as peaceful protesters or political prisoners.
As Trump returned to political power, this reframing became official policy. After his reelection in 2024, Trump issued sweeping pardons to nearly all January 6 defendants, including hundreds convicted of assaulting police officers with weapons. Webster was released after serving just over two years of his sentence. The pardons erased years of investigations, trials, and guilty pleas, and nullified the judgments of courts and juries.
After his release, Webster rebuilt his life in Mississippi, supported by a community sympathetic to January 6 defendants. Although he expresses some regret for the disruption to his family, he continues to believe the election was stolen and that the government orchestrated January 6 as a trap for Trump supporters. He credits Trump with restoring his freedom and still views him as a necessary figure to fight the “deep state.”
The article concludes by contrasting Webster’s unresolved self-justification with the enduring trauma of officers like Hodges, who continue to speak publicly to prevent what they see as the falsification of history. Thompson argues that Trump’s greatest success regarding January 6 may not be the pardons themselves, but the normalization of a narrative that denies the reality of the violence, absolves its perpetrators, and asks the country to forget what actually happened.
Thompson, Jamie. “Donald Trump Wants You to Forget This Happened.” The Atlantic, January 6, 2026, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/02/jan-6-ex-nypd-officer-capitol-police-attack/685325/
Trump Is Unleashing Forces Beyond His Control
One-Sentence Summary:
David French argues that President Trump’s unilateral military seizure of Venezuela’s dictator revives a dangerous, pre-World War I approach to power politics that rejects just war principles and risks destabilizing the global order.
Article Summary:
David French examines President Trump’s decision to launch a military strike against Venezuela, seize its dictator Nicolás Maduro, and bring him to the United States to face criminal charges, arguing that the action reflects a return to an amoral conception of war as simply an extension of policy. French frames his critique through the contrast between the ideas of Carl von Clausewitz, who described war as a continuation of politics by other means, and Thomas Aquinas, whose just war theory emphasizes lawful authority, just cause, and moral purpose.
French contends that Trump’s action violates all three pillars of just war theory. The strike was ordered unilaterally, without congressional authorization or a declaration of war, undermining constitutional requirements. It lacked a just cause recognized by international law or the United Nations Charter, a point echoed by legal scholars who argue the operation clearly violates the charter even if enforcement mechanisms are weak. Finally, while removing a dictator can be morally defensible, French argues that sidelining Venezuela’s democratically elected opposition and leaving remnants of a corrupt regime in place risks perpetuating oppression rather than advancing justice.
The essay does not minimize Maduro’s brutality. French details Venezuela’s economic collapse under Maduro, including a steep drop in gross domestic product and the mass exodus of nearly eight million Venezuelans since 2014. Maduro’s retention of power through fraudulent elections and repression is presented as undeniable. Still, French insists that moral ends cannot justify unlawful means, especially when undertaken by the world’s most powerful nation.
French situates the Venezuela strike within a broader revival of 19th-century “gunboat diplomacy,” reinforced by the administration’s National Security Strategy emphasizing a renewed Monroe Doctrine, which Trump has dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine.” He warns that treating the Western Hemisphere as a U.S. sphere of influence invites resistance, alliances among weaker states, and escalation, just as similar dynamics helped trigger the world wars of the 20th century.
The article argues that the post-World War II international order, though imperfect, has succeeded in preventing total war largely because the United States embraced restraint and legality. French concludes that if the United States abandons this role and adopts the same power-first logic as authoritarian rivals, the fragile global consensus that limits catastrophic conflict could collapse, with consequences far beyond Venezuela.
French, David. “Opinion | Trump Is Unleashing Forces Beyond His Control.” The New York Times, 5 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/opinion/trump-venezuela-maduro-clausewitz-aquinas.html
Trump Says We Have the “Hottest” Economy. Markets Tell a Different Story
One-Sentence Summary:
Catherine Rampell argues that despite Donald Trump’s claims of a booming economy and strong stock markets, closer inspection shows U.S. economic performance lagging globally, propped up narrowly by an AI-driven market bubble while deeper institutional damage accumulates.
Article Summary:
Catherine Rampell examines the disconnect between President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions that the United States has the “hottest” economy in the world and what market data actually show. While the stock market appeared strong in 2025 — with the S&P 500 rising about 16 percent — Rampell contends that this headline figure masks deeper weaknesses and growing risks created by Trump’s policies.
She begins by noting that many economists and observers have warned that Trump’s actions — including erratic tariffs, corporate intimidation, politicization of the Federal Reserve, degradation of research institutions, and erosion of the rule of law — should be harmful to long-term economic health. Yet markets have not visibly reacted, leading some to speculate that investors expect a delayed Trump-led economic boom. Rampell finds this explanation unconvincing and offers three more troubling interpretations.
First, U.S. markets are underperforming relative to global peers. Data from MSCI show non-U.S. markets growing nearly twice as fast as U.S. markets in the past year. The dollar also weakened significantly in 2025, posting its largest decline since the first year of Trump’s prior term, with every major currency appreciating against it. The United States entered 2025 as the “envy of the world,” but exited the year diminished.
Second, both economic growth and stock market gains are heavily concentrated in a single sector: artificial intelligence. Through the first nine months of 2025, AI-related investment accounted for roughly one-third of real GDP growth. In equity markets, a small group of mega-cap technology firms — the so-called “Magnificent Seven” — generated nearly half of all market returns, with Nvidia alone rising almost 40 percent. This narrow concentration suggests the broader economy is far less healthy than aggregate numbers imply.
Third, Rampell warns that the AI boom increasingly resembles a bubble. Massive capital is chasing AI investments under the assumption of winner-take-all outcomes, raising the risk of a sudden collapse if expectations shift. Stock valuations already look historically stretched, with Robert Shiller’s cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio exceeding 39, its highest level since the dot-com bubble.
Rampell also stresses the long-term economic consequences of undermining democratic institutions and the rule of law. Citing economists Nick Bloom and Nobel laureates who studied the relationship between institutions and prosperity, she explains that unpredictability, selective enforcement of laws, and politicized governance discourage investment. Businesses delay or cancel projects, including in sectors Trump claims to support, because regulatory and legal outcomes feel arbitrary.
The article concludes that investors may recognize these dangers but continue participating while profits last, a common dynamic in asset bubbles. Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin likens the situation to the lead-up to the 1987 crash, while economist Simon Johnson compares it to authoritarian growth spurts that end abruptly, such as Indonesia in the late 1990s. Rampell’s core message is that today’s apparent market strength is fragile, narrow, and dependent on conditions unlikely to last.
Rampell, Catherine. “Trump Says We Have the ‘Hottest’ Economy. Markets Tell a Different Story.” The Bulwark, 4 Jan. 2026, www.thebulwark.com/p/trump-says-we-have-the-hottest-economy-markets-tell-different-story
2025 Year-end Report On The Federal Judiciary
Chief Justice John Roberts dedicates his 2025 Year-End Report to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, tracing how Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and Jefferson’s Declaration shaped American constitutional principles of equality and judicial independence. The report examines the ongoing struggle to fulfill the Declaration’s promises from the Civil War amendments through the Civil Rights Movement, while providing detailed federal judiciary workload statistics for 2025.
Summary:
January 7, 2026
Trump GOP Retreat Speech 2026: Venezuela Operation, Tariffs, Healthcare Reform & Midterm Strategy
Summary and fact-check.
President Donald Trump delivered an expansive address to the GOP House Member Retreat on January 6, 2026, celebrating the recent military operation in Venezuela, defending his tariff policies, and outlining an aggressive agenda for Republican midterm success. Trump memorialized the late Congressman Doug LaMalfa, praised House leadership including Speaker Mike Johnson, and detailed his “Favored Nations” prescription drug pricing initiative while urging Republicans to seize the healthcare issue from Democrats by directing funds to individuals rather than insurance companies. The President emphasized unprecedented economic achievements, criticized the media, and warned that historical patterns show the party holding the presidency typically loses midterm elections-a trend he challenged Republicans to defy.
A comprehensive fact-check of major claims from President Trump’s January 6, 2026 GOP House retreat speech, follows, examining assertions about the Venezuela military operation, tariff revenue collections, prescription drug pricing, Washington DC crime statistics, insurance company profits, and stock market records using authoritative sources and official data.
Summary:
Trump GOP Retreat Speech 2026: Venezuela Operation, Tariffs, Healthcare Reform & Midterm Strategy
Fact-check:
Fact-Checking Trump’s GOP Retreat Claims: Venezuela, Tariffs, Drug Prices, DC Crime & Stock Market
January 8, 2026
Trump Says U.S. Oversight of Venezuela Could Last for Years
One-Sentence Summary:
President Trump said the United States expects to run Venezuela and control its oil sales for years, framing the intervention as profitable reconstruction while critics warn of an open-ended occupation without clear legal authority.
Key Takeaways:
- Trump says U.S. control of Venezuela and its oil industry could last for years.
- The administration plans to oversee oil sales indefinitely as part of a phased strategy.
- Democrats warn the intervention lacks clear legal authority and risks becoming open-ended.
- Trump praised the operation that captured Nicolás Maduro and downplayed future military intentions.
Article Summary:
In a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times, President Trump said U.S. oversight of Venezuela could last “much longer” than months, suggesting years of direct involvement as Washington assumes effective control over the country’s oil industry and political future. He said the United States would rebuild Venezuela “in a very profitable way,” extracting oil to lower global prices while returning some revenue to a cash-starved nation.
Trump’s remarks followed briefings to Congress in which administration officials outlined a three-phase plan under which the United States would indefinitely control the sale of Venezuelan oil. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has led the effort, which has drawn support from many Republicans but sharp criticism from Democrats, who argue the intervention risks becoming a prolonged international occupation without a clear legal basis.
The president declined to specify when Venezuela might hold elections or why his administration recognized Delcy Rodríguez, the former vice president and a Maduro loyalist, as interim leader instead of backing opposition figures who won the 2024 election. He said Rodríguez and other former Maduro allies were cooperating fully with Washington and “giving us everything that we feel is necessary.”
Trump praised the recent U.S.-led operation that captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife from a fortified compound in Caracas, describing it as a major success that intimidated other regional leaders. He contrasted it with past U.S. foreign policy failures, citing the 1980 Iran hostage rescue attempt and the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal. The operation, he acknowledged, appeared to have resulted in roughly 70 deaths.
The president said the United States had already begun taking Venezuelan oil previously under sanctions, announcing plans to obtain 30 to 50 million barrels of heavy crude. He admitted reviving Venezuela’s neglected oil sector would take years and avoided answering questions about whether American troops might be deployed on the ground if cooperation faltered or if Russian and Chinese personnel were not expelled.
Trump also described a lengthy phone call with Colombian President Gustavo Petro that eased immediate tensions after U.S. threats over drug trafficking, and said he might one day travel to Venezuela if security conditions improved.
“Trump Says U.S. Oversight of Venezuela Could Last for Years.” The New York Times, 8 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-venezuela.html
Trump Is About to Lose Control of the Economy
One-Sentence Summary:
Jason Furman argues that in early 2026 President Trump’s dominance over U.S. economic policy is likely to weaken as the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve, Congress, and market forces reassert limits on his power.
Article Summary:
Jason Furman contends that the decisive, top-down control President Trump exercised over the economy in 2025 is nearing its end, as institutional checks and political dynamics begin to constrain his agenda. He explains that several imminent developments — largely outside the president’s direct control — will shape the economy in ways that may dilute or reverse Trump’s influence.
The first major inflection point involves the Supreme Court’s pending rulings on the legality of the administration’s sweeping tariffs, many of which rely on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Furman notes that while the Court could either fully uphold or reject the tariffs, a more likely outcome is a partial, ambiguous decision. Such a ruling could leave some tariffs in place while limiting others, creating uncertainty for businesses, raising consumer prices, and inviting retaliation from trading partners. If tariffs are struck down, the administration is likely to seek alternative legal justifications, prolonging instability through further litigation.
A second, potentially more consequential ruling concerns the president’s authority over the Federal Reserve. The Court is set to hear a case involving Trump’s attempt to remove a Fed governor, a move blocked by lower courts. Furman warns that if the Court weakens protections for Fed officials, it could undermine central bank independence by allowing presidents to remove policymakers at will. At the same time, Trump’s forthcoming nomination to replace Fed Chair Jerome Powell will face Senate scrutiny, with markets, internal Fed dissent, and legal constraints limiting how much influence any new chair can exert.
Furman also highlights signs that Congress may begin to reclaim its role. After largely accommodating Trump’s economic agenda in 2025, lawmakers are showing fractures as midterm elections approach and Republican control narrows. He points to the expiration of expanded Affordable Care Act subsidies as a key test case, with bipartisan moves already challenging party leadership and signaling potential resistance to prior cuts in Medicaid and nutrition assistance.
These institutional shifts come amid broader economic uncertainty. While growth has been strong and inflation has eased, risks remain from lingering price pressures, a possible recession, and the uncertain trajectory of artificial intelligence-driven productivity. Furman concludes that although the resulting system may be messy and fragmented, a stalemate shared among courts, Congress, the Fed, businesses, and consumers is preferable to unilateral presidential control. Such a balance, he argues, leaves room for the underlying resilience of the American economy.
Furman, Jason. “Opinion | Trump Is About to Lose Control of the Economy.” The New York Times, 7 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/opinion/trump-economy-inflation-tariffs.html
Is Genesis Clubs’ Wichita Ice Center disaster the tip of the iceberg?
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
The Wichita Eagle Editorial Board argues that the failed Genesis Health Clubs partnership at the Wichita Ice Center exposes a broader, systemic breakdown in how the city negotiates, monitors, and enforces public-private contracts.
Key Takeaways
- Poorly written contracts can severely limit public accountability.
- Wichita has a pattern of failing to enforce subsidy agreements.
- Structural reform is needed to protect taxpayers.
Article Summary:
The editorial examines Wichita’s $219,000 settlement with Genesis Health Clubs after a deeply flawed public-private partnership to manage the city-owned Wichita Ice Center. Although Genesis carefully maintained its private gym space, the public skating facility deteriorated and its ice system ultimately failed. Wichita had issued $750,000 in bonds to support Genesis, but the company made only one payment in eight years. Due to poorly written contract terms, the city could legally recover only the last three years of missed payments, far less than what was owed. The board argues this failure is not isolated, citing recent examples involving discounted rent at a disc golf course, unpaid development loans, and secret parking deals that cost taxpayers millions. While city officials now plan to centralize contract oversight, the editorial calls for a dedicated Office of Contract Enforcement to prevent recurring losses and restore public trust.
“Is Genesis Clubs’ Wichita Ice Center Disaster the Tip of the Iceberg? | Opinion.” Wichita Eagle, 7 Jan. 2026, www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/dion-lefler/article314217771.html
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/dion-lefler/article314217771.html?giftCode=40035b5b78bf21e272a1550ec2e3507312c85358642faefd05179873ead1b52e
January 9, 2026
December Employment Situation Report
The Bureau of Labor Statistics December 2025 employment report shows the labor market has dramatically cooled, with only 50,000 jobs added and unemployment holding at 4.4 percent. The economy created just 584,000 positions throughout 2025 at 49,000 per month, compared to 2 million jobs in 2024. Long-term unemployment rose by 397,000 over the year, while federal employment dropped 277,000 positions since January.
More analysis:
December 2025 Jobs Report: Only 50K Jobs Added as Labor Market Cools Dramatically from 2024
January 10, 2025
Fact-Check: December 2025 Jobs Report – What the Data Really Shows vs. Administration Claims
FACT-CHECK: DECEMBER 2025 JOBS REPORT – WHAT THE DATA REALLY SHOWS VS. ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS
The December 2025 jobs report is getting very different interpretations. The DOL calls it “blockbuster” growth. Independent economists call it “miserable.”
We fact-checked claims from 5 major sources and found significant discrepancies in how the same data is being presented. Key findings:
✓ 50,000 jobs added (confirmed)
✓ Unemployment fell to 4.4% (confirmed)
✗ “Blockbuster growth” characterization (contradicts expert consensus)
✗ Administration pre-released confidential data (confirmed breach)
Comprehensive analysis:
Fact-Check: December 2025 Jobs Report – What the Data Really Shows vs. Administration Claims
Wichita City Council Navigates Sales Tax Details, Public Safety Innovation, and Youth Engagement
WICHITA CITY COUNCIL NAVIGATES SALES TAX DETAILS, PUBLIC SAFETY INNOVATION, AND YOUTH ENGAGEMENT
Wichita City Council deferred its performing arts center funding resolution after Mayor Wu demanded stronger taxpayer protections, including requiring private dollars fund all design costs before public matching begins. The council will hold a comprehensive January 27 workshop covering all five sales tax ballot projects. Meanwhile, QuikTrip donated funds to expand the city’s drone surveillance program, and the Mayor’s Youth Council showcased its 103% increase in community volunteering.
Meeting summary:
Wichita City Council Navigates Sales Tax Details, Public Safety Innovation, and Youth Engagement
Wichita City Council Approves Sales Tax Vote, Major Developments in Marathon 9-Hour Meeting
The Wichita City Council voted 7-0 on December 16, 2025, to place a controversial 1% sales tax initiative on the March 2026 ballot, capping a marathon meeting that lasted over nine hours and included emotional tributes to retiring City Manager Robert Layton, heated debates over city spending priorities, and multiple development approvals totaling hundreds of millions in private investment. The special election will cost taxpayers approximately $150,000 and ask voters to approve the largest tax increase in Wichita’s history to fund public safety, homelessness services, property tax relief, and new performing arts facilities. Assistance from Claude AI.
Summary of meeting:
Wichita City Council Approves Sales Tax Vote, Major Developments in Marathon 9-Hour Meeting
January 11, 2025
Videos Show How ICE Vehicle Stops Can Escalate to Shootings
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
A Wall Street Journal visual investigation finds that a surge in ICE vehicle stops has coincided with at least 13 shootings since July, showing how routine enforcement actions can escalate into deadly encounters that diverge from standard policing practices.
Key Takeaways:
- The Journal identified 13 vehicle-related shootings involving immigration agents since July, with two confirmed deaths.
- Video evidence shows recurring tactics that experts say increase the risk of deadly escalation.
- Most civilians shot were unarmed, and several were U.S. citizens.
- DHS maintains all uses of force were justified, despite criticism from policing specialists.
Article Summary:
The Wall Street Journal analyzes video, court records, and public documents to show how traffic stops conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have increasingly escalated into shootings. The investigation identifies 13 incidents since July in which ICE or Customs and Border Protection agents fired at or into civilian vehicles, leaving at least eight people shot and two dead. Only one civilian was confirmed to be armed, and that weapon was never drawn. At least five of those shot were U.S. citizens.
The reporting centers on a January 2026 killing in Minneapolis, where ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Nicole Good while she was in her vehicle. Video verified by the Journal shows Ross moving toward and partially in front of Good’s car while its engine was running, then firing the first shot as she drove forward. Former and current DHS officials say agents are trained not to place themselves in front of moving vehicles, though DHS maintains the shooting was justified and describes the shots as defensive.
The Journal compares the Minneapolis case with three other incidents for which video is publicly available, finding recurring tactical patterns. In each case, agents boxed in vehicles — a maneuver typically reserved for high-risk felony stops — but often left escape routes open. Officers approached vehicles with engines running, attempted to open doors or smash windows within seconds, and in some cases clung to vehicles or stepped into their path as drivers tried to flee. Policing experts interviewed by the Journal say these actions, known as “intrusive actions,” increase the likelihood of resistance and escalation.
The article places these incidents in the context of a broader expansion of street-level immigration enforcement under President Trump’s immigration crackdown. DHS says vehicle attacks against its agents more than doubled in 2025, and the White House reports more than 100 alleged car-ramming incidents against federal agents in recent weeks. DHS has hired thousands of new agents and says it has updated training, though former officials and current officers question how extensively vehicle-stop tactics are taught.
While DHS asserts that agents followed training and used appropriate force in all 13 cases, experts quoted in the investigation warn that firing at moving vehicles creates severe risks, including the danger of an uncontrolled vehicle continuing on as an “unguided missile.” The Journal concludes that the videos reveal a consistent pattern in which enforcement tactics, rather than weapons in the vehicle, often drive deadly outcomes.
“Videos Show How ICE Vehicle Stops Can Escalate to Shootings.” The Wall Street Journal, 10 Jan. 2026, www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-show-how-ice-vehicle-stops-can-escalate-to-shootings-caf17601
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-show-how-ice-vehicle-stops-can-escalate-to-shootings-caf17601?st=iwXc9Y&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Wichita City Council Meeting: December 9, 2025 – Animal Shelter Concerns, Neighborhood Disputes, and Routine Business
The Wichita City Council convened on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, at 9:03 a.m. for a regular meeting that addressed significant community concerns alongside routine municipal business. The meeting featured passionate public testimony about conditions at the Wichita Animal Shelter (WAS), ongoing neighborhood disputes involving alleged criminal activity, and the approval of multiple ordinances related to utility rates, industrial revenue bonds, and zoning changes. All seven council members were present, and the council unanimously approved the consent agenda containing planning, housing, and airport items.
Key Takeaways:
- Advocate Janette Peterson presented detailed concerns about animal welfare at WAS, citing a 30% euthanasia rate and inadequate veterinary care despite monthly payments to Kansas Humane Society
- Resident Victor Mariani reported ongoing criminal activity and property damage from neighbors, expressing frustration with law enforcement response
- Council approved second reading of ordinances increasing water and sewer rates
- Multiple industrial revenue bond ordinances were passed to support local economic development, including projects for Textron Aviation Inc., Larksfield Place, and Air Capital Flight Line
- Routine consent agenda items included property sales, plat approvals, and airport licensing agreements
Meeting summary:
The Philosopher Who Explains Stephen Miller
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
Gal Beckerman argues that Stephen Miller’s worldview echoes a crude, selective reading of Thomas Hobbes, embracing raw power and domination while ignoring Hobbes’s deeper warning about chaos and his argument for legitimate authority grounded in consent.
Article Summary:
The article frames contemporary American politics through a classic philosophical divide: John Locke versus Thomas Hobbes. Locke, a foundational thinker for liberal democracy, believed humans are capable of reason and moral judgment, while Hobbes viewed human beings as inherently vicious and in need of strong authority to prevent violent chaos. Beckerman suggests that although American political culture long favored Locke, Hobbesian thinking has returned to prominence.
Barack Obama is presented as a modern Lockean, confident that informed citizens can deliberate toward the common good. Donald Trump, by contrast, is described as overtly Hobbesian, frequently portraying the world as dangerous, brutal, and governed by force. This outlook is crystallized in recent remarks by Stephen Miller, Trump’s influential deputy chief of staff, who asserted that the world is ruled by strength, power, and coercion — ideas that closely resemble Hobbes’s description of life in the state of nature.
Miller’s comments followed Trump’s actions and ambitions regarding Venezuela and Greenland, which Beckerman characterizes as examples of domination for its own sake. Miller reassured Americans that such behavior is simply “the real world,” dismissing international law and institutions as empty formalities. Beckerman notes that Miller’s rhetoric mirrors Hobbes’s bleak description of life without a common power to impose order.
However, the article stresses that Hobbes himself did not celebrate this condition. Hobbes described the state of nature as terrifying and unstable in order to justify the creation of a sovereign authority, the Leviathan, formed through collective consent to ensure peace, security, and social flourishing. Hobbes’s solution was authoritarian by modern standards, but it was meant to end chaos, not glorify it.
Beckerman contrasts this with Trump’s self-conception. Unlike Hobbes’s sovereign, who derives legitimacy from collective agreement, Trump has suggested that his authority comes from his own mind and will. Rather than strengthening international institutions to impose order, Trump often undermines them, suggesting a worldview closer to permanent conflict than to Hobbes’s escape from it.
The article compares this dynamic to William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, casting Trump as Jack, the character who rules through fear and spectacle rather than rules. Beckerman also examines whether Trump’s foreign policy fits the tradition of realpolitik associated with Henry Kissinger. He concludes that it does not: instead of pursuing balance and stability, Trump’s actions in Venezuela appear to be naked exercises of power aimed at resource extraction.
Finally, Beckerman situates Hobbes’s ideas within American intellectual history. Founders such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson viewed Hobbes with suspicion. Jefferson agreed that government is necessary but rejected Hobbes’s bleak view of human nature, arguing that humans possess a moral sense and take pleasure in doing good. For Jefferson, a legitimate government must cultivate these instincts, not merely suppress violence. Beckerman closes by suggesting that Miller’s worldview ignores this moral dimension and offers Americans a vision of permanent brutality rather than a livable political order.
Beckerman, Gal. “The Philosopher Who Explains Stephen Miller.” The Atlantic, 11 Jan. 2026, www.theatlantic.com/books/2026/01/philosopher-who-explains-stephen-miller-thomas-hobbes/685574/
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/books/2026/01/philosopher-who-explains-stephen-miller-thomas-hobbes/685574/?gift=-RYyyhoVwMCBPkXbjlfICqgYgcnYKyeRHISL0Nhekks&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Wichita City Council Meeting: December 2, 2025
The Wichita City Council convened on Tuesday, December 2, 2025, for a comprehensive session addressing critical issues including the approval of a new City Manager, significant water and sewer rate adjustments, union contract negotiations, and affordable housing initiatives. The meeting featured passionate public testimony on food deserts and homelessness, the approval of Dennis Marstall as the next City Manager despite concerns about the selection process, and a contentious vote establishing three-year water rate increases. Assistance from Claude AI.
Key Decisions:
- Dennis Marstall approved as City Manager (5-2 vote)
- Water/sewer rates increased through 2028 using Option 3 (4-3 vote)
- Three union contracts approved unanimously
- Multiple affordable housing revenue bond letters of intent approved
- Golf course irrigation improvements authorized
Summary and analysis:
ICE Is Only Getting Started, the Worst Is Yet to Come: A Conversation With David J. Bier
One-Sentence Summary:
In a wide-ranging interview, immigration policy analyst David J. Bier argues that Donald Trump’s second-term immigration crackdown is far broader, more indiscriminate, and more authoritarian than widely understood, targeting not only undocumented immigrants but also legal residents and citizens while eroding constitutional protections for everyone.
Key Takeaways:
- ICE enforcement in Trump’s second term targets mostly nonviolent immigrants, many with no criminal records.
- Massive new funding for immigration enforcement signals a coming escalation in arrests and deportations.
- Legal immigration pathways, including refugee, asylum, family, and work visas, have been aggressively curtailed.
- Weak judicial and congressional accountability enables systemic abuses with few consequences.
Article Summary:
In this interview for The UnPopulist’s Zooming In podcast, Shikha Dalmia speaks with David J. Bier of the Cato Institute about the scope and trajectory of immigration enforcement under Donald Trump’s second term. Bier contends that while the current level of arrests and deportations is not yet an order of magnitude higher than during Trump’s first term, the administration has crossed far more serious legal and constitutional lines. Mass arrests, racial profiling, random street stops, and the detention of people with no criminal records have become routine. According to ICE’s own data, roughly 95 percent of those detained are nonviolent, and nearly three-quarters have no criminal convictions at all, contradicting official claims that enforcement focuses on dangerous criminals.
Bier argues that the most alarming development is Congress’s approval of roughly $170 billion in new immigration enforcement funding, much of which has not yet been spent. This, he says, means the “worst is yet to come,” as the administration scales up arrests, detention, and deportation capacity. Enforcement incentives emphasize raw arrest numbers rather than public safety, leading ICE to cast wide nets in immigrant neighborhoods, workplaces, and even immigration courts, where people actively seeking legal relief are arrested.
The conversation highlights what Bier describes as a performative cruelty campaign: highly publicized raids, filmed deportations, and propaganda-style videos designed to intimidate immigrants into self-deportation. One of the most extreme examples discussed is the rendition of Venezuelan migrants – many with legal status – to a notorious prison in El Salvador, in defiance of court orders and without due process. Bier calls this the administration’s worst atrocity, noting that even the Supreme Court later ruled the actions unconstitutional, yet no meaningful accountability followed.
Conditions in U.S. detention facilities are also described as increasingly brutal. The interview cites ACLU reports documenting overcrowded cells, denial of food, water, medical care, and access to lawyers, as well as physical abuse and retaliation against detainees who complain. Bier argues that Supreme Court precedent has largely stripped individuals of the ability to sue immigration agents for constitutional violations, creating what he calls a dangerous accountability vacuum.
Beyond enforcement, Bier details an unprecedented assault on legal immigration. The administration has eliminated refugee admissions, parole programs, asylum access at ports of entry, and the CBP One app; imposed sweeping nationality-based bans covering about 40 countries, including spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens; and introduced a $100,000 fee for new H-1B work visa applications, effectively shutting down that pathway. Even tourist visas are increasingly restricted through health and social media screening.
Dalmia and Bier also challenge the narrative that the Biden administration “opened the borders.” Bier argues that Biden largely maintained Trump-era restrictions early on, particularly Title 42, and that illegal immigration surged in part because legal pathways were closed. The interview concludes on a pessimistic note about both parties, with Bier warning that unless Congress restores legal pathways and meaningful accountability, future immigrants – and Americans – will no longer trust the U.S. government to respect basic rights.
Dalmia, Shikha. “ICE Is Only Getting Started, the Worst Is Yet to Come: A Conversation With David J. Bier.” The UnPopulist, 9 Jan. 2026, www.theunpopulist.net/p/ice-is-only-getting-started-the-worst
January 14, 2026
Wichita Sales Tax Flap Shows Who’s Really the Boss at City Hall | Opinion
WICHITA SALES TAX FLAP SHOWS WHO’S REALLY THE BOSS AT CITY HALL | OPINION
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
Dion Lefler argues that Wichita’s sales tax controversy exposes how wealthy business leaders wield outsized influence over City Hall, often at the expense of public trust and democratic process.
Article Summary:
Dion Lefler examines a dispute over when Wichita voters should decide on a proposed 1 percent sales tax, using it to illustrate who truly holds power at City Hall. Although the City Council voted 4-3 against holding a special meeting to move the vote from March to August, Mayor Lily Wu called one anyway, underscoring mayoral authority. Lefler focuses on comments by Council member J.V. Johnston, who argued against delaying the vote because a private group had already spent money promoting it. The tax proposal originated with Wichita Forward, led by prominent local CEOs, and was rushed onto the ballot with minimal public input. Lefler contends that concerns about “losing trust” prioritize business elites over the city’s roughly 400,000 residents. He concludes that ordinary citizens would never receive such fast, deferential treatment, revealing whose trust City Hall truly values.
Lefler, Dion. “Wichita Sales Tax Flap Shows Who’s Really the Boss at City Hall | Opinion.” Wichita Eagle, 14 Jan. 2026, www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/dion-lefler/article314310289.html
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/dion-lefler/article314310289.html?giftCode=56d5a518a7e90b68220a0812dac5b89104474c2f8256c169fb737159925e0046
Trump Returns to Detroit Economic Club: Defends Economic Record, Attacks Welfare Fraud, and Promises Major Healthcare Changes
Summary and fact-check.
On January 13, 2026, President Donald Trump claimed record $18T in new investment & historic economic turnaround at Detroit Economic Club, while announcing major welfare fraud crackdown targeting Somali communities & sanctuary cities. He previewed healthcare overhaul, drug price cuts up to 600%, and housing policy coming at Davos. Full breakdown of economic claims, immigration enforcement, and controversial rhetoric.
Fact-checking analysis examines major claims made by President Donald Trump during his address to the Detroit Economic Club on January 13, 2026, using government data, academic sources, and investigative journalism. The pattern shows consistent exaggeration of positive economic claims and dramatic framing of immigration/fraud issues beyond what evidence supports.
Summary:
Fact-check:
January 15, 2026
Three Things Trump Did in 24 Hours to Show That He’s in Control of American Business
One-Sentence Summary:
In a single day, President Donald Trump unveiled sweeping interventions in housing, defense contracting, and international energy trade that critics say amount to an unprecedented assertion of state control over American capitalism.
Article Summary:
The Fortune article describes a 24-hour stretch in which President Trump announced three major policy actions that collectively signal a sharp break from traditional Republican free-market principles and an embrace of direct state management of private economic activity. Corporate governance scholar Jeffrey Sonnenfeld characterized the moves as a form of state capitalism driven not by ideology but by autocratic control, arguing that they substitute presidential discretion for market outcomes and leave businesses operating at the pleasure of the White House.
The first intervention targeted the housing market. Trump announced a ban on large institutional investors buying single-family homes and urged Congress to codify the policy into law, arguing that homes are for people, not corporations. Although such investors own only about 2 percent of U.S. housing stock, their holdings are concentrated in certain Southern cities. The announcement immediately rattled markets, with shares of firms such as Blackstone, Invitation Homes, and American Homes 4 Rent dropping sharply. Some policy analysts questioned whether the move meaningfully addresses housing affordability or simply offers a politically appealing narrative.
Hours later, Trump turned to the defense industry, announcing plans to cap executive compensation at major defense contractors at $5 million annually until production benchmarks are met. He followed up with a sweeping executive order restricting dividends and stock buybacks for underperforming firms and tying future incentive pay to production speed and quality, using authorities under the Defense Production Act. The move directly affected companies such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman. Sonnenfeld argued this approach may violate the Fifth Amendment by effectively confiscating shareholder rights without compensation, and industry insiders expressed alarm at what they see as an assault on core principles of private ownership.
The third action extended beyond U.S. borders. Following the arrest and extradition of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, Trump announced that the United States would take control of roughly 50 million barrels of Venezuelan crude oil. The proceeds would be placed in an account controlled by Trump and used exclusively to purchase American-made goods, creating a tightly managed, closed-loop trade system. While the article compares this to managed trade mechanisms such as the voluntary export restraints of the Reagan era, it notes that Trump’s approach is far more direct and explicit in subordinating market forces to state command.
Taken together, the three moves show an administration increasingly willing to dictate who can buy homes, how executives are paid, and how trade is conducted. The article concludes that this rapid-fire policymaking is not only destabilizing for markets but also represents a structural shift in how American capitalism functions and how businesses experience government power.
Roytburg, Eva. “Three Things Trump Did in 24 Hours to Show That He’s in Control of American Business.” Fortune, 8 Jan. 2026, fortune.com/2026/01/08/three-things-trump-did-market-intervention-state-capitalism-jeffrey-sonnenfeld/
New City Manager, Settlement Drama, and Student Advocates: Wichita City Council’s First Meeting of 2026
The January 6, 2026 Wichita City Council meeting exemplified both the challenges and possibilities of local government. From passionate advocacy by homeless individuals and high school students to contentious negotiations over taxpayer dollars and somber remembrances of community servants, the six-plus hour session covered the full spectrum of municipal governance.
The successful negotiation of the Genesis settlement to recover the full $219,000 demonstrated a council willing to push back and fight for taxpayer interests even mid-meeting. The thoughtful responses to the students’ healthcare transportation initiative showed government at its best – connecting young advocates with resources and opportunities while taking their policy proposals seriously.
Perhaps most importantly, the meeting revealed a council and new city manager committed to learning from past mistakes. The Genesis situation represents years of failures in contract enforcement and financial oversight, but rather than simply accepting a settlement, the council used the opportunity to demand better processes, greater accountability, and systemic improvements going forward.
As Wichita enters 2026 – America’s 250th anniversary year, as Mayor Wu noted – the city faces familiar challenges of homelessness, infrastructure needs, and community development alongside new opportunities for student engagement, improved management systems, and renewed commitment to transparent governance. The January 6 meeting set a tone of accountability, civic engagement, and willingness to have difficult public conversations – a strong foundation for the year ahead.
Meeting summary:
December 2025 CPI Report Explained: Inflation Holds at 2.7% as Housing and Food Costs Rise
DECEMBER 2025 CPI REPORT EXPLAINED: INFLATION HOLDS AT 2.7% AS HOUSING AND FOOD COSTS RISE
The Bureau of Labor Statistics December 2025 CPI report shows consumer prices rose 0.3% monthly and 2.7% annually, unchanged from November’s rate. Housing costs drove increases with a 3.2% yearly gain, while food prices climbed 3.1% despite egg prices plummeting 20.9%. Energy rose just 2.3% as gasoline fell but natural gas surged. Core inflation remained at 2.6%, indicating persistent price pressures above the Fed’s 2% target, though well below 2021-2022 peaks.
More analysis:
December 2025 CPI Report Explained: Inflation Holds at 2.7% as Housing and Food Costs Rise
January 17, 2026
Market Performance in 2025: U.S and World
MARKET PERFORMANCE IN 2025: U.S AND WORLD
Throughout 2025, President Donald Trump often stated that the U.S. stock markets are the “best in history.”
In December 2025 he said: “We’ve had the greatest stock market in history. We have a stock market that’s gone up 52 times to new highs during a 10-month period. My first 10 months, we set a record. 52 days we had the highest stock market in history.”
Notably absent from his statements was any acknowledgment or awareness that international markets significantly outperformed U.S. stocks in 2025 (MSCI EAFE +31.6% vs. S&P 500 +16.4%), which undercuts his claim that U.S. performance was uniquely exceptional. This is is noteworthy because the U.S. (particularly tech stocks) had dominated for the previous 15 years.
For an interactive chart, click here.
2025 Returns:
- S&P 500 (U.S.): +16.4%
- MSCI EAFE (Developed markets ex-US): +31.6%
- MSCI Emerging Markets: +30%
- MSCI ACWI ex-USA (All countries ex-US): +29.2%
Major Takeaways:
- International markets significantly outperformed the U.S. in 2025, nearly doubling the S&P 500’s returns
- Asian markets were standouts: South Korea’s Kospi surged 76%, Japan’s Nikkei rose 26%, and Taiwan’s TSMC gained 46.5%
- The AI boom extended beyond U.S. tech giants to global chipmakers and tech companies
- A 9.4% decline in the U.S. dollar (its worst year since 2017) boosted foreign investment returns for American investors
- European markets benefited from Germany’s fiscal stimulus plans, with MSCI Europe up 35.4%
The visualization shows this rare reversal where international diversification paid off handsomely after years of U.S. dominance.
I’ll explain each of these major stock market indexes:
S&P 500
- What it tracks: The 500 largest publicly traded companies in the United States
- Coverage: Represents about 75% of the U.S. stock market by value
- Examples: Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, NVIDIA
- Purpose: The primary benchmark for U.S. large-cap stock performance
MSCI EAFE
- Stands for: Europe, Australasia, and Far East
- What it tracks: Large and mid-cap stocks in 21 developed countries, excluding the U.S. and Canada
- Geographic breakdown:
- Europe: UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, etc.
- Asia: Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia
- Coverage: About 85% of the free float-adjusted market cap in each country
- Purpose: The standard benchmark for international developed market stocks (from a U.S. investor’s perspective)
MSCI Emerging Markets
- What it tracks: Large and mid-cap stocks across 24 emerging market countries
- Major countries included:
- China, India, Taiwan, South Korea
- Brazil, Mexico
- Saudi Arabia, South Africa
- Coverage: About 85% of market cap in each emerging market
- Key difference from EAFE: These are faster-growing economies with higher risk/reward profiles
- Purpose: Benchmark for investing in developing economies with higher growth potential
MSCI ACWI ex-USA
- Stands for: All Country World Index excluding USA
- What it tracks: Both developed AND emerging markets outside the U.S. (combines EAFE + Emerging Markets)
- Coverage: 49 countries total
- Purpose: The broadest measure of international stocks – everything except America
Key Distinction: Developed vs. Emerging
- Developed markets (EAFE): Mature economies with stable governments, established financial markets, lower growth but lower risk (Japan, UK, Germany, etc.)
- Emerging markets: Faster-growing economies with more volatility, political risk, but higher potential returns (China, India, Brazil, etc.)
MARKET PERFORMANCE IN 2025: U.S AND WORLD
U.S. stock markets had outperformed the world, until 2025.
See:
January 18, 2026
Opinion | An Old Theory Helps Explain What Happened to Renee Good
One-Sentence Summary:
David French argues that Renee Good’s killing by an ICE agent exposes how layers of legal immunity and presidential power have created a dangerous “dual state” in which federal officials can act with near-total impunity.
Article Summary:
The column opens by asking readers to imagine being part of Renee Good’s family after her death at the hands of an ICE agent in Minneapolis and trying to seek justice. French walks through, step by step, why nearly every legal avenue appears closed. Federal prosecutors decline to investigate, the Justice Department’s civil rights division does not open a case, and the administration declares the agent acted lawfully. Even future accountability is unlikely, French argues, because a president can pardon the agent, eliminating federal criminal liability.
State prosecution also faces steep obstacles. French explains supremacy clause immunity, a doctrine that often blocks states from prosecuting federal officers acting within the scope of their duties. While not absolute, it creates a nearly insurmountable barrier. Civil lawsuits are similarly constrained. Although federal law allows citizens to sue state and local officials for constitutional violations, no comparable statute exists for federal officials. A 1971 Supreme Court decision briefly opened a path for such suits, but subsequent rulings have narrowed it so severely that successful claims are now rare.
French situates these doctrines within a broader constitutional failure. He argues that American law has come to rely excessively on trust in presidential integrity, especially through unchecked pardon power and judicially created immunities. Drawing on James Madison’s Federalist No. 51, French emphasizes that the founders expected “auxiliary precautions” to restrain government actors. In his view, those safeguards have eroded, particularly during the Trump era.
To explain the deeper danger, French invokes the concept of the “dual state,” developed by German lawyer Ernst Fraenkel and revived by legal scholar Aziz Huq. In this framework, a normative state governed by regular law coexists with a prerogative state marked by arbitrary power and violence. French argues that while most Americans continue to live under the normative state, interactions with federal immigration enforcement can thrust individuals into the prerogative state, where legal protections evaporate.
He points to video of Good’s encounter with the ICE agent, suggesting she believed she was still protected by ordinary rules of law, unaware she had entered a zone where noncompliance could be fatal and unpunished. French stresses that this system was often built by well-meaning actors seeking to protect public servants from frivolous lawsuits, but it has resulted in a government that is dangerously unaccountable.
The column concludes by warning that any system premised on the virtue of leaders is doomed to fail. French calls for future reform aimed at dismantling the prerogative state and restoring accountability, arguing that no official should be immune from the rule of law and that the cost of failing to act is already being paid “in blood.”
French, David. “Opinion | An Old Theory Helps Explain What Happened to Renee Good.” The New York Times, 18 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/2026/01/18/opinion/renee-good-ice-immunity.html
Opinion | Behold Donald of Deliria!
One-Sentence Summary:
Maureen Dowd argues that Donald Trump’s second term marks a dangerous shift from performative chaos to aggressive militarism, imperial ambition, and unchecked personal power.
Article Summary:
In “Behold Donald of Deliria!”, Maureen Dowd portrays Donald Trump’s second term as a dark transformation from a chaos-loving showman into a leader intoxicated by raw military power. She opens with an analogy from Lawrence of Arabia, using it to frame Trump’s unsettling enjoyment of violence and domination. Dowd recalls that Trump once disdained foreign military adventures, preferring deals and spectacle over invasion, even criticizing the Iraq War and dreaming of commercial developments in hostile regions rather than conquest.
That restraint, she argues, has vanished. Trump now revels in the might of the U.S. military, openly boasting about its power and expressing contempt for those who oppose him. Dowd catalogs a series of actions and threats that signal imperial ambition: seizing Venezuela’s leader to exploit its oil, menacing Iran with military action, threatening Denmark over Greenland, and using tariffs as leverage to force territorial acquisition. His rhetoric toward Canada, she notes, has alienated a longtime ally and pushed it closer to China.
Domestically, Dowd describes an alarming militarization of law enforcement and immigration enforcement. She focuses on a deadly shooting by an ICE officer in Minnesota, connecting it to the broader post-9/11 trend of treating civilian policing as counterinsurgency warfare. She warns that Trump’s consideration of invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy troops against Americans reflects his growing disregard for democratic norms. Trump’s comment that elections may no longer be necessary underscores, in her view, his authoritarian impulse, even as polls show widespread dissatisfaction with his second term.
Dowd also criticizes what she sees as Trump’s naked greed and moral emptiness. She contrasts his behavior with earlier Republican administrations that at least cloaked self-interest in ideological justification. Trump, she argues, dispenses with pretense altogether, whether by accepting dubious honors, remaking public institutions in his own gaudy image, or treating the presidency as a vehicle for personal enrichment. The column ends with a chilling reminder of Trump’s own words when asked about limits on his power: only his “own morality” and “own mind” — a response Dowd suggests offers little reassurance.
Dowd, Maureen. “Opinion | Behold Donald of Deliria!” The New York Times, 17 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/2026/01/17/opinion/behold-donald-of-deliria.html
What’s New in Trump Two
One-Sentence Summary:
Peggy Noonan argues that Donald Trump’s second term is defined less by new beliefs than by a harder, less restrained exercise of power, driven by confidence, resentment, and a desire to dominate rather than persuade.
Article Summary:
Marking the first anniversary of Donald Trump’s second inauguration, Peggy Noonan examines what, if anything, is different about “Trump Two” compared with his first administration. Drawing on conversations with supporters, critics, and political moderates, she concludes that Trump’s core beliefs remain unchanged, but his posture, context, and methods have shifted significantly.
Noonan describes Trump as more confident, less restrained, and less concerned with approval than during his first term. He has written off the mainstream press, works with high energy, and no longer appears interested in persuasion. Instead, he seeks victory and dominance, believing that winning alone will determine historical judgment. This change is mirrored by those around him, who Noonan says have also “hardened.”
A central theme of the column is Trump’s sense of himself as a world-historic figure. Noonan argues that his image, voice, and persona are now permanently embedded in global political culture, comparable to iconic figures such as Abraham Lincoln or Napoleon. His style is instantly recognizable and easily imitated, which, she notes, is only possible for figures who have truly penetrated public consciousness.
Noonan identifies two major differences between Trump’s first and second terms. First, he has hardened personally and politically, no longer caring what scholars, intellectuals, or critics say. Second, he now appears to see no meaningful constitutional or institutional boundaries. Where he once tested limits, he now acts as though limits do not apply, viewing courts and Congress as obstacles too slow or irrelevant for the demands of the moment.
Using a metaphor from The Godfather, Noonan portrays Trump as embodying all three Corleone brothers at once: the calculating Michael, the impulsive Sonny, and the insecure Fredo. This combination, she writes, makes him exhausting and unpredictable, with different aspects of his personality dominating on different days.
The column also explores the emotional undercurrents of Trumpism. Noonan suggests that many opponents remain shocked by his presidency and quietly resent their fellow Americans for electing him, while many supporters derive satisfaction from the discomfort of cultural and professional elites. She frames this dynamic as rooted in American ambition and resentment: the drive to rise, and the impulse to resent those who do.
Ultimately, Noonan concludes that the country’s response to Trump reflects America’s own complexity and contradictions, rather than any single political explanation.
Noonan, Peggy. “What’s New in Trump Two.” The Wall Street Journal, 15 Jan. 2026, www.wsj.com/opinion/whats-new-in-trump-two-ee9b4cc9
Kansas State of the State 2026: Where Kelly and Republicans Agree and Disagree on Taxes, Schools, and Spending
Governor Laura Kelly’s final State of the State address and House Speaker Dan Hawkins’ Republican response show Kansas politics at a crossroads. Both leaders celebrated bipartisan wins like tax cuts, school funding, and the Chiefs stadium deal. But they told starkly different stories about who built Kansas’s recovery, with deep disagreements emerging over government spending, welfare reform, and the future of civility in Topeka.
More summary and analysis:
January 19, 2026
Trump Attacks Minneapolis, Venezuela, and Threatens Greenland: An Executive Watch Roundup
One-Sentence Summary:
This Executive Watch roundup details a surge of actions by President Trump in mid-January 2026 that critics argue constitute abuses of power, including militarizing domestic protests, retaliating against political opponents, defying courts and Congress, and pursuing aggressive, legally dubious foreign policies.
Key Takeaways
- The administration threatened to deploy active-duty troops and invoke the Insurrection Act against domestic protests in Minneapolis.
- The Justice Department is portrayed as being used to retaliate against political opponents and shield federal agents from accountability.
- Trump pursued foreign policy actions — tariffs, territorial pressure, and control of Venezuelan oil — without congressional approval.
- Courts and statutory limits were openly challenged or ignored, raising concerns about constitutional erosion.
Article Summary:
This Executive Watch roundup from The UnPopulist surveys a concentrated period in mid-January 2026 that the editors describe as an unusually intense wave of presidential abuses of power during Donald Trump’s second term. Compiled by the Institute for the Study of Modern Authoritarianism, the project categorizes these actions under five themes: power consolidation, presidential retribution, policy illegality, political corruption, and personal grift.
Domestically, the article centers on Minneapolis, where a federal immigration enforcement surge led to mass protests after an ICE officer shot and killed Renee Good. The administration responded by flooding the city with federal agents, threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act, and reportedly preparing 1,500 active-duty soldiers for possible deployment. The roundup argues that these moves amount to the threatened military occupation of a U.S. city to suppress lawful protest, not to quell riots, and warns that invoking the Insurrection Act would grant the military extraordinary domestic policing powers.
The administration is also accused of conducting a systematic disinformation campaign to justify the killing of Good, falsely portraying her as a violent “domestic terrorist” despite video evidence and eyewitness accounts that contradict official claims. At the same time, the Justice Department declined to investigate the ICE officer involved while pressuring prosecutors to investigate Good’s widow for potential political activism, prompting mass resignations within the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.
Beyond Minneapolis, the roundup documents multiple acts of presidential retribution. These include opening a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell after he refused to cut interest rates, and launching investigations into Democratic senators and military veterans who publicly reminded service members of their duty to refuse illegal orders. In each case, the article argues that the aim is intimidation rather than viable prosecution, using the legal process itself as punishment.
On foreign policy, the article highlights Trump’s threat to impose sweeping tariffs on European allies unless they agree to the U.S. acquisition of Greenland, actions described as violations of treaty obligations and congressional authority. It also details Trump’s seizure of control over Venezuelan oil production and revenues following U.S. intervention there, an arrangement the authors argue is unconstitutional because it bypasses Congress’s exclusive power over federal revenues.
Additional examples include the Justice Department’s defiance of a court ruling invalidating the appointment of a Trump-aligned U.S. attorney, selective freezing of federal welfare and child care funds to Democratic-led states under the pretext of fraud, and revelations that the Pentagon used an unmarked military aircraft disguised as a civilian plane in a deadly Caribbean strike, potentially constituting a war crime.
Taken together, the roundup portrays an administration aggressively consolidating power, punishing dissent, and eroding legal constraints, while warning that even threats of such actions can have a chilling effect on democratic norms and the rule of law.
“Trump Attacks Minneapolis, Venezuela, and Threatens Greenland: An Executive Watch Roundup.” The UnPopulist, 18 Jan. 2026, www.theunpopulist.net/p/trump-attacks-minneapolis-venezuela
Trump’s Letter to Norway Should Be the Last Straw
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
Anne Applebaum argues that Donald Trump’s letter to Norway, threatening U.S. control of Greenland over a perceived Nobel Peace Prize slight, reveals a dangerous break from reality that Congress must urgently confront.
Article Summary:
Anne Applebaum opens by reproducing in full a letter sent by President Donald Trump to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, a document the White House clearly intended to circulate widely. In the letter, Trump complains that Norway failed to award him the Nobel Peace Prize, asserts that he has “stopped 8 wars,” questions Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, and declares that “Complete and Total Control of Greenland” is essential for global security. Applebaum highlights the letter’s childish grammar, erratic capitalization, and factual errors, noting that Greenland has been Danish territory for centuries, that its residents are Danish citizens, and that multiple written agreements — including ones signed by the United States — affirm Danish sovereignty.
She argues that the most alarming aspect is not any single false claim, but the worldview the letter reveals. Trump appears to inhabit a reality detached from history, law, and normal diplomatic conduct, while displaying an obsessive fixation on the Nobel Peace Prize. Applebaum explains that the Norwegian Nobel Committee is independent of the Norwegian government, yet Trump seems to blame Norway itself and uses this grievance to justify threats against Greenland.
Applebaum warns of the real-world consequences already anticipated by financial markets, including the risk of a trade war or even a U.S. military occupation of Greenland. She asks readers to imagine American forces occupying Nuuk and forcibly subjugating citizens of a treaty ally, raising unanswered questions about governance, legitimacy, and moral responsibility. Unlike prior U.S. interventions, such an occupation would involve compelling allied citizens to become American against their will.
The essay dismisses attempts to rationalize Trump’s behavior through doctrines such as isolationism or neo-imperialism. Instead, Applebaum concludes that Trump’s actions are driven by personal grievance and a compulsive need to “win,” regardless of long-term strategy or national interest. She criticizes those around him for failing to restrain him and identifies Republicans in Congress as the final institutional barrier. Applebaum ends with a direct call for lawmakers to act immediately to prevent irreversible damage to U.S. alliances, global standing, and American interests.
Applebaum, Anne. “Trump’s Letter to Norway Should Be the Last Straw.” The Atlantic, 19 Jan. 2026, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/trump-letter-to-norway/685676
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/trump-letter-to-norway/685676/?gift=-RYyyhoVwMCBPkXbjlfIChK_x0rzkyx17x2NNOvMmqk&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
The Greenland War of 2026
“For more than 75 years, the fondest dream of Russian strategy has been to divide Western Europe from the U.S. and break the NATO alliance. That is now a possibility as President Trump presses his campaign to capture Greenland no matter what the locals or its Denmark owner thinks.”
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
The Wall Street Journal editorial argues that President Trump’s tariff threats over Greenland risk fracturing NATO, undermining U.S. trade deals, and advancing Russian and Chinese strategic interests rather than protecting American ones.
Article Summary:
The editorial contends that President Trump’s push to obtain U.S. sovereignty over Greenland, backed by escalating tariffs on European allies, represents a serious threat to Western unity and the NATO alliance. The board notes that for decades Russia has sought to divide Europe from the United States, and Trump’s actions risk accomplishing that goal by alienating key allies.
Trump has threatened a 10 percent tariff starting February 1, rising to 25 percent by June, against Denmark and several other European countries that oppose U.S. ownership of Greenland. These countries include Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom, many of which recently participated in joint military exercises meant to reassure Washington of their commitment to defending Greenland from Russian and Chinese influence. The editorial argues that rather than accepting cooperation, Trump is pursuing outright ownership of the island, including its territory, resources, and population.
While acknowledging legitimate U.S. strategic interests in Greenland, such as its Arctic location and rare-earth mineral reserves, the board emphasizes that the United States already enjoys significant access and that Denmark has shown willingness to negotiate further. Using tariffs as leverage is described as bullying imperialism that is likely to harden resistance both in Greenland and across Europe.
The editorial also criticizes the economic logic of the tariff threat. Because most targeted countries are members of the European Union, any U.S. tariffs would have to apply to the entire EU, effectively undermining trade agreements Trump negotiated the previous year. European Parliament members have already signaled they may block approval of those deals, reinforcing the perception that agreements with Trump are unreliable.
Beyond trade, the piece warns of broader geopolitical consequences. Tariffs on Britain could disrupt a recent pharmaceutical agreement, while higher consumer prices could hurt U.S. voters ahead of midterm elections. More broadly, Trump’s posture toward Greenland, combined with his tariffs and his tilt toward Russia against Ukraine, is pushing allies to hedge diplomatically and economically, including strengthening ties with China.
The editorial concludes that while Trump may believe acquiring Greenland would secure his legacy alongside historic U.S. territorial expansions, the likely result would be lasting damage to NATO, U.S. alliances, and American global leadership.
“The Greenland War of 2026.” The Wall Street Journal, Editorial Board, 18 Jan. 2026, www.wsj.com/opinion/the-greenland-war-of-2026-europe-trump-tariff-e27b8b98
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-greenland-war-of-2026-europe-trump-tariff-e27b8b98?st=bDwVGc&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
January 20, 2026
Trump Pre-Davos Press Gaggle: Greenland Claims, Economic Boasts, and Board of Peace Updates
TRUMP PRE-DAVOS PRESS GAGGLE: GREENLAND CLAIMS, ECONOMIC BOASTS, AND BOARD OF PEACE UPDATES
Summary and fact-check.
Trump celebrates first year with bold economic claims and renewed Greenland controversy before Davos trip. President declares U.S. has “more money being invested than any country in history,” confirms Putin invited to “Board of Peace,” and threatens 200% tariffs on French wine if Macron remains uncooperative. Trump previews Davos as showcase for American strength: “It’s gonna be a very interesting Davos.”
The press gaggle demonstrates a pattern where Trump’s most verifiable claims (stock market records, inauguration timing) prove accurate, while his most sweeping assertions (historical investment levels, inflation characterizations, war-ending claims, NATO spending achievements) range from misleading to disputed to factually incorrect. The economic claims in particular show a tendency to overstate achievements while the India-Pakistan claims reveal a willingness to maintain assertions despite explicit denials from one of the involved nations.
Event summary:
Fact-check:
Comprehensive Fact-Check: Trump Pre-Departure Press Gaggle – January 19, 2025
Trump Celebrates Boulevard Naming at Mar-a-Lago, Touts Economic Gains and Venezuela Operation
President Donald Trump attended a ceremonial event at Mar-a-Lago on January 16, 2026, celebrating the renaming of a major Palm Beach boulevard in his honor. Trump announced that the stretch from Palm Beach International Airport to Mar-a-Lago would become “President Donald J. Trump Boulevard.” The same legislation honored three fallen Palm Beach County sheriff’s deputies by renaming another section of Southern Boulevard as the “PBSO Motor Men Highway.” Trump used the occasion to make sweeping claims about his administration’s first-year achievements, including assertions about $18 trillion in investments (his own White House documents show $9.6 trillion, and fact-checkers rate this claim as false), zero illegal border crossings for eight months (actually 91,603 encounters occurred in that period, though releases did drop to zero), and the recent Venezuela operation that captured Nicolas Maduro (confirmed by multiple sources as accurate). The president credited Florida’s political transformation to Republican leadership, thanked dozens of state and local officials who supported the legislation, and declared America had transformed from “a dead country” to “the hottest country in the world” within his first year back in office.
Summary of event:
Trump Celebrates Boulevard Naming at Mar-a-Lago, Touts Economic Gains and Venezuela Operation
Trump’s First Year Could Have Lasting Economic Consequences
One-Sentence Summary:
Despite steady headline indicators, economists warn that President Trump’s first year back in office has weakened core institutions and policies that underpin long-term U.S. economic strength, risking slower growth and instability in the decades ahead.
Article Summary:
The article argues that while the U.S. economy at the end of President Trump’s first year of his second term appears resilient by conventional measures, his policies may have set in motion long-term damage that is not yet visible. Unemployment remains low, consumer spending is strong, inflation is high but easing, and the stock market gained about 16 percent. Tariffs, Trump’s signature policy, neither triggered the manufacturing boom he promised nor the inflation spike many feared. Analysts who entered 2025 warning of turmoil ended the year surprised by the economy’s stability.
However, Ben Casselman emphasizes that this surface-level stability masks deeper risks. Unlike his first term, Trump has pursued what economists describe as a broad assault on institutions and norms long considered central to American prosperity. These include efforts to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve, firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cutting funding for research universities, intervening directly in private business decisions, restricting immigration, questioning alliances, and imposing sweeping tariffs on allies and rivals alike.
Economists across the political spectrum express concern that these actions will gradually erode economic dynamism, raise interest rates, weaken financial stability, and reduce long-term prosperity. Kimberly A. Clausing warns that the country is weakening the “special sauce” behind U.S. economic success, while conservative economist Vance Ginn argues that deregulation and tax cuts have been outweighed by the costs of trade restrictions, immigration limits, rising deficits, and political interference in markets. Gregory Mankiw adds that such policies are historically hostile to long-run prosperity, even if their effects are hard to pinpoint in real time.
Politically, Trump has also failed to ease voter anxiety about the cost of living, a central issue in his 2024 campaign. He has focused on tariffs rather than housing, child care, or health insurance affordability, opposing subsidies that lowered insurance costs. Consumer sentiment initially rose after his election but fell sharply during his early months in office, with many Americans citing tariffs as a reason to expect higher prices. More recently, concerns have shifted toward the job market, where hiring has slowed and workers fear difficulty finding new employment if laid off.
Trump’s defenders argue that his policies need more time to deliver results, particularly on trade and domestic manufacturing. But most economists remain skeptical, warning that the most serious threats come not from tariffs alone but from attacks on Fed independence, growing budget deficits, reduced investment in scientific research, and the erosion of legal and institutional stability that has long attracted global investors. While a recession in 2026 appears unlikely and growth may even accelerate, economists caution that long-run consequences can arrive suddenly after years of apparent calm.
Casselman, Ben. “Trump’s First Year Could Have Lasting Economic Consequences.” The New York Times, 20 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/2026/01/20/business/trump-first-year-economy.html
January 21, 2026
Trump vs. GOP: Inside the Senate Revolt & The ‘Greenland Plot’ Failure
This video by George Will provides a detailed political commentary on a growing rift between Donald Trump and Republican Senators, sparked by a controversy regarding Greenland. It argues that this specific conflict has exposed the fragility of Trump’s control over his party and pivots to a broader discussion on institutional reform.
Summary and link to video:
Trump vs. GOP: Inside the Senate Revolt & The ‘Greenland Plot’ Failure
Trump Vs. The Fed Goes to the Supreme Court
One-Sentence Summary:
The Supreme Court is set to decide whether President Trump can remove a Federal Reserve governor for alleged misconduct, a case that could redefine presidential power and threaten the Fed’s long-standing independence.
Article Summary:
The Wall Street Journal editorial examines a Supreme Court case arising from President Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a move that raises fundamental questions about presidential authority and central bank independence. The dispute began when Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, publicly accused Cook of possible mortgage fraud related to claims about primary residences in 2021. Cook denied wrongdoing and has not been charged, yet Trump argued the allegations constituted “cause” for dismissal under the Federal Reserve Act.
The editorial recounts the constitutional and historical foundations of the Federal Reserve, emphasizing that the framers deliberately insulated monetary policy from executive control to prevent political abuse of the currency. Congress designed the Fed with long, staggered terms, independent funding, and protections against at-will removal. While the Federal Reserve Act allows governors to be removed “for cause,” it does not define the term, unlike other statutes that limit cause to inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
The Justice Department, defending Trump’s authority in this case, argues that the absence of a statutory definition gives the President broad discretion, so long as removal is not based on policy disagreement. It further claims courts lack power to review such removals, a position the editorial says would render the “for cause” protection meaningless. A federal district judge blocked Cook’s dismissal, finding that alleged misconduct predating her tenure could not justify removal and that she had a protectable interest in her office. A divided appellate panel upheld the injunction on narrower grounds.
The editorial board argues that Supreme Court precedent, including Marbury v. Madison, supports judicial review of removals and that Cook should have the chance to contest the allegations. Allowing presidents to fire Fed officials based on unproven claims would effectively subordinate the central bank to the executive. While acknowledging the Fed’s policy mistakes and regulatory overreach, the board concludes that granting presidents control over monetary policy would concentrate power over money in ways the Constitution’s framers sought to prevent.
“Trump Vs. The Fed Goes to the Supreme Court.” The Wall Street Journal, 20 Jan. 2026, www.wsj.com/opinion/lisa-cook-donald-trump-supreme-court-federal-reserve-b9f89ee6
MAGA Jesus Is Not the Real Jesus
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
Peter Wehner argues that the Trump-era fusion of militant nationalism, harsh immigration enforcement, and Christian symbolism represents a profound betrayal of Jesus’s teachings and risks permanently deforming American Christianity.
Key Takeaways:
- The Trump administration has increasingly used Christian language and imagery to legitimize aggressive state power, especially through ICE.
- Many white evangelicals support immigration policies that sharply contradict traditional Christian teachings on compassion and justice.
- Right-wing populism often treats Christianity as a cultural identity rather than a moral or spiritual commitment.
- Historical parallels, particularly with Nazi-era “German Christians,” illustrate the dangers of subordinating faith to nationalism.
- The long-term damage to American Christianity may outweigh any short-term political gains.
Article Summary:
Peter Wehner’s essay examines how the Trump administration, particularly through Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security, has increasingly wrapped coercive state power in Christian language and imagery. He opens with DHS recruitment videos that quote Scripture while depicting heavily armed ICE agents conducting raids, arguing that the implicit message is that aggressive immigration enforcement is divinely sanctioned. This fusion of militarism and piety, Wehner contends, presents ICE as “doing the work of God.”
The article is framed by the killing of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, an incident that triggered nationwide protests and intensified scrutiny of ICE’s conduct. Wehner describes the agency’s transformation under Donald Trump and adviser Stephen Miller into a militarized, less accountable force, supported by rhetoric asserting broad or even absolute immunity for agents. Trump’s threats to invoke the Insurrection Act and the deployment of federal forces to Minneapolis are presented as part of a deliberate strategy to provoke confrontation and consolidate power.
Wehner then turns to the religious dimension of this moment. He cites polling data showing that large majorities of white evangelicals support extremely harsh immigration policies, including internment camps and deportations without due process. Drawing on the work of scholar Tobias Cremer, Wehner argues that right-wing populism often uses Christianity not as a faith but as a cultural identity marker, severed from the ethical teachings of Jesus. In this dynamic, Christianity is reshaped to sanctify cruelty, domination, and authoritarianism.
To underscore the danger, Wehner draws a historical parallel to the “German Christians” movement in Nazi Germany, which reimagined Jesus as a heroic, nationalist figure aligned with the state and stripped of his Jewishness and moral teachings. While carefully noting that America in 2026 is not Germany in 1936, Wehner insists that the pattern of subordinating faith to political power is disturbingly familiar. He contrasts this with the Confessing Church, which resisted Nazification but was ultimately crushed, highlighting the cost of moral courage.
The essay concludes with a somber assessment of American evangelicalism. Wehner argues that many Christians have effectively chosen a “MAGA Jesus” over the Jesus of the Gospels, rationalizing their support for a movement led by cruelty, revenge, and contempt for the vulnerable. This choice, he warns, has inflicted incalculable damage on Christian witness. Ending on a note of hope tempered by realism, Wehner calls for Christians to rediscover the beauty and moral demands of their faith, to become genuine peacemakers, and to live in a way that reflects love rather than power.
Wehner, Peter. “MAGA Jesus Is Not the Real Jesus.” The Atlantic, 21 Jan. 2026, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/maga-christians-betray-ethics-ice/685679
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/maga-christians-betray-ethics-ice/685679/?gift=-RYyyhoVwMCBPkXbjlfICiCWvFm6RJY7jL74vJGTkpo&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
The U.S. Military Faces a Reckoning on Greenland
One-Sentence Summary:
Tom Nichols argues that Donald Trump’s threats to invade Greenland would force the U.S. military into a moral and institutional crisis by compelling it to plan aggression against close NATO allies, a burden that should instead be stopped by civilians and elected officials.
Article Summary:
In this opinion essay, Tom Nichols reflects on his experience as a military educator to examine the unprecedented strain placed on the U.S. armed forces by President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to seize Greenland, a territory belonging to Denmark, a long-standing NATO ally. Nichols notes that while the U.S. military routinely prepares for war across domains, it has never trained to betray and attack its own allies. Trump’s rhetoric, including hostile messages to allied leaders and open discussion of conquest, represents a fundamental inversion of American military purpose.
Nichols emphasizes that the military is legally obligated to refuse illegal orders, but he raises the harder question of how officers should respond to orders that are legal yet profoundly immoral and strategically irrational. Planning for an invasion of Greenland could be framed as a routine war game, but Nichols argues that such planning would feel deeply perverse to officers who have trained and fought alongside Danish and other NATO forces, particularly given Denmark’s sacrifices alongside the United States after 9/11.
The essay describes how Trump’s fixation would require the military to dismantle and reverse its training, effectively turning a defensive alliance into a target. Nichols uses analogies from medicine and education to illustrate how alien and disturbing this would be for professional officers. He suggests that, in any other context, a leader proposing such ideas would face removal, counseling, or investigation, yet these ideas now carry the force of policy because they come from the commander in chief.
While Nichols acknowledges that some personnel may respond with moral emptiness and obedience to orders, he insists that most service members will experience deep conflict. Ultimately, however, if senior leadership complies, the chain of command will likely hold, risking catastrophe. Nichols concludes that it is not the military’s role to stop the president; rather, Congress and the American public must act quickly to prevent the armed forces from being forced into an immoral and potentially disastrous course.
Nichols, Tom. “The U.S. Military Faces a Reckoning on Greenland.” The Atlantic, 20 Jan. 2026, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/us-military-trump-greenland/685677
Greenland, Minnesota, Army-Navy Game: Another Day, Another Emergency
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
George F. Will argues that Donald Trump’s fixation on seizing Greenland, declaring emergencies, and bending legality reflects ego-driven impulsiveness that undermines NATO, constitutional norms, and American credibility rather than advancing national security.
Article Summary:
In this opinion column, George F. Will frames President Donald Trump’s threats to acquire Greenland as an exercise in imagination turned reckless, comparing them to Vladimir Putin’s ambitions and warning that they risk damaging NATO, the most successful collective security alliance in history. Will describes Trump’s stated willingness to use military force or declare a national emergency to redirect congressionally appropriated funds if Denmark refuses to sell Greenland, portraying this as a pattern of executive overreach and contempt for legal constraints.
Will emphasizes that the United States already has extensive military access to Greenland through existing agreements with Denmark, a loyal NATO ally that has shed blood alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He traces Greenland’s long-standing strategic relevance, from Cold War submarine operations to contemporary Arctic competition involving China and Russia, and notes that U.S. security interests in the region are already well served without territorial acquisition. Claims that Greenland falls under the Monroe Doctrine are dismissed as historically and diplomatically absurd.
The column argues that Trump’s posture has little to do with genuine national security concerns and much to do with personal grievance and ego, including resentment over not receiving a Nobel Peace Prize. Will broadens his critique to include other contemporaneous assertions of emergency power, such as the reported consideration of deploying the Army to Minnesota in response to unrest linked to aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions, and Trump’s decree barring other football broadcasts during the Army-Navy game.
Will concludes by invoking Winston Churchill’s description of a politically dangerous figure addicted to drama and centrality, suggesting that Trump’s constant cycle of emergencies and spectacle reflects instability rather than strength. The repeated invocation of “national security,” Will argues, has become a magic wand that renders legality irrelevant and erodes constitutional governance.
Will, George F. “Greenland, Minnesota, Army-Navy Game: Another Day, Another Emergency.” The Washington Post, 21 Jan. 2026, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/20/trump-greenland-denmark-nato-europe
Unlocked gift link:
https://wapo.st/4r73CAn
Trump Jan 2026 Briefing: Operation Midnight Hammer, Gulf of America & Border Claims
On January 20, 2026, President Donald Trump held a press briefing at the White House to mark the first anniversary of his second term. The event, described by the President as having a “record” attendance, focused on a retrospective of his administration’s first year, specifically highlighting military actions, economic shifts, and controversial executive orders.
Summary:
Trump Jan 2026 Briefing: Operation Midnight Hammer, Gulf of America & Border Claims
January 22, 2026
China Wins as Trump Cedes Leadership of the Global Economy
One-Sentence Summary:
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Trump publicly renounced long-standing pillars of U.S.-led globalization, creating an opening for China to portray itself — however imperfectly — as a defender of multilateral trade and global economic cooperation.
Key Takeaways:
- Trump publicly rejected core principles of postwar U.S.-led globalization.
- China is positioning itself as a rhetorical champion of multilateral trade.
- Europe faces a strategic dilemma between U.S. nationalism and Chinese influence.
- Trade, climate policy, and security alliances are increasingly intertwined.
Article Summary:
In a lengthy and combative address at the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Trump delivered what amounted to a repudiation of the liberal international economic order that the United States helped build after World War II. Speaking before an audience traditionally associated with globalization, Trump declared that the United States would no longer provide open markets or military protection to allies he characterized as freeloaders, while reaffirming his commitment to tariffs and trade wars. He framed tariffs as a “price of admission” to the American consumer market and argued that the rest of the world had taken advantage of the United States for decades.
The speech stood in sharp contrast to a 2017 address delivered in the same venue by China’s president, Xi Jinping, who warned against protectionism and portrayed China as a supporter of economic globalization. Although Xi’s message was met with skepticism at the time — given China’s subsidies, trade practices, human rights abuses, and military assertiveness — Trump’s rhetoric has since amplified the sense that China, at least rhetorically, is more invested than the United States in multilateral engagement and global trade.
Trump’s remarks extended beyond trade to climate policy and security alliances. He mocked European climate initiatives, praised fossil fuels, and dismissed renewable energy efforts as a “green new scam,” even as China has become the world’s leading producer of clean energy technologies. He also renewed his criticism of NATO, reiterated grievances about U.S. defense commitments, and revived his controversial interest in Greenland, temporarily softened only by a later social media reversal on tariffs against Denmark.
European leaders and analysts expressed alarm at the implications of Trump’s stance. While Europe and China share commitments to rules-based trade and climate action, deep divisions remain, particularly over China’s refusal to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Experts noted that China is eager to appear as the “adult in the room,” but doubts persist about whether the world is prepared to embrace Beijing’s leadership.
The broader message from Davos was reinforced by senior Trump administration officials, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who declared the existing global trading system effectively dead. In contrast, Canada’s prime minister warned of a dangerous rupture in the world order, marked by unconstrained great-power rivalry. Trump underscored his unpredictability with an anecdote about arbitrarily raising tariffs on Switzerland after a phone call with its president, later lowering them following lobbying by a Swiss watchmaker.
Taken together, the events in Davos suggested a historic shift: as the United States retreats from its traditional role as steward of the global economy, China is increasingly positioned — by default rather than consensus — to fill the vacuum, even as profound mistrust of its intentions remains.
Goodman, Peter S. “China Wins as Trump Cedes Leadership of the Global Economy.” The New York Times, 22 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/business/davos-trump-xi-china.html
Wichita Council Votes 5-2 to Keep March Sales Tax Election
In a consequential special meeting, the Wichita City Council voted 5-2 to keep the proposed 1% sales tax election on March 3, 2026, rather than delaying it to August. Mayor Lily Wu called the meeting after learning the special election would cost $170,000 and force approximately 26,000 voters (10% of Wichita’s electorate) to use temporary polling locations.
Election Commissioner Laura Rainwater explained that polling site availability issues and facility problems required the changes, noting the impact far exceeds the 5% displacement typical of special elections. Moving to August or November would eliminate both the cost and polling disruptions, as these county-wide elections are already funded.
The proposed sales tax would generate up to $850 million over seven years for five priorities: public safety facilities and equipment, homelessness and affordable housing, property tax relief, arts and culture, and convention/cultural facilities. Finance Director Mark Manning estimated cash-funding the $193 million public safety portion would save $25-26 million in interest costs.
Twenty-two community members spoke, raising concerns about rushed timelines, insufficient guardrails, regressive impact on low-income residents and renters, and trust deficits from past project failures. Firefighter union president Ted Bush urgently described deteriorating stations where firefighters sleep in freezing temperatures and face carcinogen exposure from broken ventilation systems.
Council members voting to proceed cited urgent infrastructure needs, the Second Light homeless shelter facing a $1.8-2 million funding gap, and belief that focused elections produce better outcomes. Mayor Wu and Council Member Hoheisel argued the new information warranted delay to rebuild trust and develop proper guardrails.
Meeting summary:
Wichita City Council Elects Glasscock Vice Mayor Amid Sales Tax Controversy
The Wichita City Council held a regular meeting on January 13, 2026, marking a significant transition in leadership with the selection of Dalton Glasscock as the new Vice Mayor for 2026. The meeting was dominated by a dramatic debate over whether to delay the March 3, 2026 special election on a proposed sales tax increase, with Mayor Lily Wu’s motion to hold a special meeting for reconsideration ultimately failing in a 3-4 vote. The Council also approved multiple capital improvement projects for parks and recreation, addressed public concerns about transit technology issues, and received updates on the McConnell Air Force Base Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) study.
Summary and analysis:
Wichita City Council Elects Glasscock Vice Mayor Amid Sales Tax Controversy – January 13, 2026
U.S. Income Rises, Spending Outpaces Saving in Late 2025, BEA Reports
New BEA data show U.S. personal income rose in October and November 2025, but consumer spending increased more rapidly. Inflation stayed moderate while the personal saving rate fell, signaling continued consumer-driven growth with rising financial pressure on households.
Summary:
U.S. Income Rises, Spending Outpaces Saving in Late 2025, BEA Reports
January 24, 2026
The GOP Looks Increasingly Like a Home for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
One-Sentence Summary:
Veronique de Rugy argues that the modern Republican Party has abandoned free-market conservatism in favor of populist, interventionist economic policies that closely resemble those long championed by progressive Democrats.
Key Takeaways:
- The GOP increasingly embraces economic policies traditionally associated with progressive Democrats.
- Republican leaders now support price controls, industrial policy, and government intervention in private markets.
- Policies aimed at housing, credit, and industry risk raising prices and reducing access rather than helping consumers.
- The shift represents a rejection of free-market conservatism rather than an evolution of it.
Article Summary:
Veronique de Rugy contends that the Republican Party, particularly under the influence of the MAGA movement and Donald Trump, is undergoing a profound ideological shift away from free markets and limited government. Conservatives who continue to defend market principles are increasingly dismissed as RINOs, while Republican leaders now openly promote policies once denounced as socialist overreach.
De Rugy traces this transformation to the early years of Trump’s first term, arguing that aside from tax cuts and deregulation, Republicans in power have adopted Democratic-style instincts and policy tools. These include industrial policy, trade protectionism, corporate scapegoating, price controls, ownership restrictions, and discretionary federal intervention. She suggests the GOP increasingly resembles Democrats in rhetoric and substance, coining the term “Depublicans” to describe the phenomenon.
She highlights four recent policy proposals backed or defended by Trump and other Republican leaders. First is a proposal to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes. De Rugy argues this policy wrongly treats ownership as suspect and is based on a false premise. Data show institutional investors own only about 1 to 2 percent of single-family homes, far too little to explain the sharp rise in housing prices since the pandemic.
Second, she criticizes Trump’s suggestion that the federal government should control executive compensation at defense and aerospace companies and restrict dividends or stock buybacks. She notes that the administration has already taken equity stakes in multiple companies and effectively nationalized the steel industry. Treating private firms like public utilities, she warns, would undermine incentives and lead to stagnation.
The third proposal involves ordering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities to lower mortgage rates. De Rugy argues this mirrors quantitative easing and repeats a familiar mistake: subsidizing demand in a housing market constrained by supply, which only drives prices higher and inflates bubbles.
Finally, she addresses a proposed 10 percent cap on credit card interest rates. De Rugy explains that such price controls would not make credit cheaper but instead restrict access, pushing higher-risk borrowers out of the formal financial system and into worse alternatives.
She concludes that these ideas are no longer fringe but increasingly normalized across the populist right, promoted by the administration, the vice president, and prominent Republican lawmakers. Replacing progressive language with nationalist rhetoric, she argues, does not change the underlying economic reality. These policies would raise prices, restrict supply, reduce opportunity, and erode the institutional foundations that support long-term prosperity. If belief in free markets now defines a RINO, she concludes, then the GOP is not becoming more conservative but more comfortable with government control of private economic life.
De Rugy, Veronique. “The GOP Looks Increasingly Like a Home for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.” Reason, 22 Jan. 2026, reason.com/2026/01/22/the-gop-looks-increasingly-like-a-home-for-elizabeth-warren-and-bernie-sanders/).
Where Have the “Don’t Tread on Me” Republicans Gone?
One-Sentence Summary:
Steven Greenhut argues that today’s Republicans have abandoned small-government principles in favor of interventionist policies once associated with Democrats.
Key Takeaways:
- Republicans increasingly support interventionist economic policies.
- Trump’s proposals resemble long-criticized Democratic approaches.
- Both parties are moving away from limited government.
Article Summary:
Steven Greenhut argues that Republicans who once championed limited government and the Gadsden flag have largely abandoned those principles. Using former Rep. Justin Amash’s warning about an emerging police state as a springboard, Greenhut contends that many conservatives now excuse heavy-handed policies so long as their own party is in power. He focuses on Donald Trump’s economic agenda, which he says increasingly mirrors Democratic interventionism. Trump has proposed capping credit-card interest rates at 10 percent, banning institutional investors from buying single-family homes, capping executive pay at defense contractors, steering mortgage markets through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pressuring firms like Intel, and issuing tariff-funded checks and bailouts. Greenhut argues these measures amount to price controls, industrial policy, and redistribution that distort markets, slow growth, and favor politically connected firms. He warns that tariffs act as hidden taxes and that expanding government control policing signals a bipartisan embrace of big government.
Greenhut, Steven. “Where Have the ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ Republicans Gone?” Reason, 23 Jan. 2026, reason.com/2026/01/23/where-have-the-dont-tread-on-me-republicans-gone/.
Trump Sounds a Lot Like You-Know-Who
One-Sentence Summary:
Will Saletan argues that Donald Trump’s Davos speech seeking Greenland echoes Adolf Hitler’s 1938 Sudetenland rhetoric in unsettling ways, highlighting rhetorical, strategic, and ideological parallels while acknowledging the vast moral differences between the two figures.
Article Summary:
In this article, Will Saletan examines a speech Donald Trump delivered at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2026, in which Trump renewed his call for the United States to acquire Greenland. Saletan notes that Trump framed the proposal as historically justified and grounded in national security, pointing to threats from Russia and China and questioning Denmark’s sovereignty over the territory. The author finds these arguments disturbingly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s 1938 speech demanding the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia.
Saletan is careful to stress that Trump is not Hitler and that the differences between them are enormous, especially given Hitler’s responsibility for unprecedented mass murder. Still, he argues that the similarities in rhetoric and posture deserve serious attention. Both leaders invoked external threats tied to communism to justify territorial demands, claimed cultural or geographic entitlement to the land in question, and questioned the legitimacy of the existing sovereign power. Trump’s insistence on acquiring “right, title, and ownership” of Greenland closely mirrors Hitler’s language about legal title to the Sudetenland.
The article also compares how both men emphasized military strength while portraying themselves as restrained. Hitler boasted of Germany’s rearmament while claiming patience; Trump highlighted America’s rebuilt military and suggested that force would be unstoppable if he chose to use it, even as he promised not to do so. Trump’s reference to a recent U.S. attack on Venezuela as a successful way to compel negotiation further reinforces, in Saletan’s view, the implicit threat underlying his rhetoric.
Beyond territorial ambition, Saletan situates Trump’s speech within a broader pattern of authoritarian and fascistic behavior. He cites Trump’s consolidation of power, persecution of critics, use of political violence, and embrace of paramilitary force. The article draws additional parallels between Hitler’s ethnic nationalism and Trump’s denunciations of immigration and multiculturalism, including Trump’s remarks about Europe becoming “unrecognizable” and his calls for “reverse migration,” specifically targeting Somali immigrants.
Saletan concludes by warning against the temptation to dismiss these developments as harmless or exaggerated, recalling how European leaders in 1938 reassured themselves that conceding territory would ensure peace. The article argues that even if Trump’s actions never reach Hitler’s scale, the echoes of history are clear and should alarm both Americans and Europeans.
Saletan, Will. “Trump Sounds a Lot Like You-Know-Who.” The Bulwark, 23 Jan. 2026, www.thebulwark.com/p/trump-davos-speech-greenland-echoes-1938
Kash Patel’s FBI Is Making America Less Safe, Current and Former Employees Say
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
Based on extensive interviews, current and former FBI employees describe how Kash Patel’s leadership has politicized the bureau, hollowed out its expertise, and redirected resources in ways they say have weakened national security and undermined constitutional norms.
Article Summary:
Emily Bazelon and Rachel Poser report that Kash Patel’s tenure as FBI director has triggered an unprecedented internal crisis, according to dozens of current and former employees across divisions and field offices. The article traces a year-long chronology showing how rapid leadership purges, politicized decision-making, and sweeping shifts in priorities have destabilized the bureau and, in the view of many agents, made the country less safe.
Soon after President Trump’s reelection, Patel was nominated and narrowly confirmed as FBI director. Despite assurances during his Senate hearing that there would be no retribution against agents for prior casework, top FBI leadership was quickly forced out, including executives and field-office heads associated with investigations into Trump. Employees describe these firings as devastating, eliminating centuries of institutional experience and signaling that loyalty to the president’s agenda outweighed professional independence.
The turmoil intensified when Justice Department officials ordered the compilation of lists of employees involved in January 6 investigations, prompting fear of retaliation and lawsuits over agent safety. Patel then redefined the FBI’s mission, narrowing its stated priorities and eliminating or weakening key programs, including foreign influence, counterintelligence, cybercrime, and public corruption. Former officials argue these changes reduced the bureau’s capacity to counter espionage, cyber threats, and complex criminal networks.
At the same time, Patel directed the FBI to devote large portions of its workforce to immigration enforcement, an area outside its traditional mandate. Agents describe being pulled from terrorism, cartel, neo-Nazi, and corruption investigations to support deportation operations largely driven by optics and arrest quotas. Several say this shift damaged long-term investigations, alienated communities, and increased risks to agent safety.
The appointment of Dan Bongino, a partisan media figure with little FBI experience, as deputy director deepened concerns. Employees recount breakdowns in internal communication, leadership obsessed with media narratives, and the use of polygraph tests to enforce personal loyalty and punish leaks. High-profile crises, including mass shootings, were described as being handled with an emphasis on social media messaging rather than operational response.
The article documents repeated firings of agents tied to politically sensitive cases, particularly the CR-15 public-corruption squad that investigated Trump. Several agents were dismissed without findings of misconduct, sometimes amid personal tragedy, leading many to resign in protest. Others describe the chilling effect on investigative independence and morale.
By year’s end, agents say the bureau was increasingly focused on domestic political threats defined in broad ideological terms, reviving fears of constitutionally improper surveillance. Although Patel publicly touted dramatic increases in arrests and crime-fighting success, many employees argue the statistics are misleading and reflect routine policing or immigration activity rather than the FBI’s traditional mission.
Bazelon and Poser conclude that while Patel and his allies frame their actions as reform and accountability, many within the FBI see a dismantling of its professional norms. The result, they argue through these voices, is an agency weakened by fear, politicization, and lost expertise — with consequences that extend well beyond the bureau itself.
Bazelon, Emily, and Rachel Poser. “Kash Patel’s FBI Is Making America Less Safe, Current and Former Employees Say.” The New York Times, 23 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/22/magazine/trump-kash-patel-fbi-agents.html
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/22/magazine/trump-kash-patel-fbi-agents.html?unlocked_article_code=1.G1A.6qti.-RpJ2TM-v1OD&smid=url-share
January 25, 2025
Opinion | Trump Is Engineering Regime Change, Right Here at Home
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
E.J. Dionne Jr. argues that President Trump’s second-term actions amount to a deliberate effort to dismantle democratic constraints and engineer a form of regime change within the United States itself.
Article Summary:
E.J. Dionne Jr. contends that a series of shocking events early in 2026 reveal a pattern that can no longer be dismissed as chaos or ego-driven misbehavior: President Trump is actively pursuing regime change at home. Dionne opens by listing recent incidents that, taken together, signal a rupture in American political life, including the killing of civilians by federal agents, alleged coverups, a wave of corrupt pardons, and the Justice Department’s criminal investigations of political opponents ranging from the Federal Reserve chair to Democratic governors, mayors, and members of Congress.
The column argues that Trump’s threats to impose tariffs or even use force to coerce allies over Greenland exemplify his strongman approach to power and his willingness to undermine long-standing alliances for personal or political gain. Although Trump retreated after market backlash, Dionne says the episode demonstrated how much damage a single unconstrained executive can inflict. Trump’s public suggestion that his attorney general should target former special prosecutor Jack Smith is presented as another example of weaponizing state power against critics and legal adversaries.
Dionne frames these developments as part of a coherent ideological project rather than a series of impulsive acts. He points to the embrace of “radical constitutionalism” by Trump-aligned thinkers and officials, including Russell Vought, now head of the Office of Management and Budget, who has openly called for conservatives to see themselves as dissidents seeking to overturn the existing constitutional order. Early in Trump’s second term, Dionne argues, this ideology manifested in actions such as effectively nullifying a law banning TikTok by executive fiat and issuing blanket pardons to Jan. 6 insurrectionists, signaling that loyalty to Trump would be rewarded and legal constraints ignored.
The article describes how these initial abuses normalized further steps: mass firings of civil servants, defiance of court orders, politicization of the Justice Department and FBI, intimidation of universities and law firms, appointment of election deniers to key posts, and the use of presidential power for personal enrichment. Dionne emphasizes that because many institutions still function on the surface, warnings about regime change once sounded abstract. Recent killings by federal agents and politically motivated investigations, however, have made the threat tangible and frighteningly concrete.
Dionne concludes that Congress’s failure, particularly by its Republican majority, to restrain Trump has enabled this transformation. He suggests that the Greenland episode may finally force a reckoning with the dangers of radical constitutionalism and unchecked executive power. Citing Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s remark that the world is experiencing a “rupture, not a transition,” Dionne warns that complacency, not alarmism, is now the greatest risk.
Dionne, E. J., Jr. “Opinion | Trump Is Engineering Regime Change, Right Here at Home.” The New York Times, 25 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/2026/01/25/opinion/trump-greenland-venezuela-democracy.html
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/25/opinion/trump-greenland-venezuela-democracy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HFA.6tVj.eE_27hqPPO9q&smid=url-share
Opinion | Trump Just Proved Mark Carney’s Point
One-Sentence Summary:
Ezra Klein argues that Donald Trump’s retaliatory response to Mark Carney’s Davos speech inadvertently validated Carney’s warning that American power under Trump has become nakedly transactional, coercive, and ultimately self-undermining.
Article Summary:
Ezra Klein examines the clash between President Trump and Mark Carney, Canada’s prime minister, to show how Trump’s behavior confirms Carney’s critique of contemporary American power. The column opens with Trump’s Truth Social letter theatrically disinviting Carney from a self-styled “Board of Peace,” a move Klein describes as petty and revealing. This episode followed Trump’s renewed pressure campaign over Greenland and his public grievance about being denied a Nobel Peace Prize, reinforcing an image of a leader driven by personal resentment and transactional instincts.
Klein focuses on two key elements of Carney’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. First, Carney repeatedly used the term “hegemon,” referring to the United States not as a trusted ally but as a dominant power willing to exploit dependence. Second, Carney invoked Václav Havel’s essay “The Power of the Powerless,” especially the metaphor of the grocer who displays a political slogan not because he believes it, but to avoid punishment. Carney argued that today’s global system similarly depends on countries pretending that economic integration is mutually beneficial, even when it increasingly serves as a tool of coercion.
Carney warned that great powers are now weaponizing tariffs, supply chains, and financial systems, making it impossible for weaker states to “live within the lie” of benign globalization. Klein notes that Trump seemed to confirm this diagnosis almost immediately, issuing a mob-like warning that Canada should be grateful for its dependence on the United States. For Klein, this was not a misunderstanding between leaders but a clear demonstration that both sides accurately perceive each other.
The column situates Trump’s actions within a consistent worldview rooted in leverage and dominance, a philosophy Trump articulated long ago in The Art of the Deal. Klein contrasts this with Havel’s insight that authoritarian systems often cloak raw power in moral language. Trumpism, by contrast, dispenses with moral pretense altogether, presenting corruption and coercion as blunt honesty. While this frankness appeals to voters cynical about politics, Klein argues it is both false and fragile, because most leaders and societies do not share Trump’s extreme transactionalism.
Klein concludes that Carney’s speech resonated precisely because it modeled an alternative: a leader acting against narrow self-interest and speaking openly about the costs of submission. Such acts, he suggests, expose Trumpism’s central weakness. American power, Klein argues, has always depended on restraint, reciprocity, and willing partnerships. By monetizing alliances and relying on intimidation, Trump risks pushing allies to diversify their relationships and hedge against U.S. pressure, ultimately eroding the very strength he claims to wield.
Klein, Ezra. “Opinion | Trump Just Proved Mark Carney’s Point.” The New York Times, 25 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/2026/01/25/opinion/trump-carney-davos-canada-greenland.html
Why Putin Still Prefers War: Russia’s Growing Resolve to Fight On in Ukraine
One-Sentence Summary:
The article argues that Vladimir Putin has consciously chosen to prolong the war in Ukraine despite economic strain and diplomatic overtures, because war has become integral to his regime’s power, ideology, and survival.
Article Summary:
Drawing on the Cold War reflections of Soviet diplomat Valentin Falin, who argued that confrontation is always a choice rather than a destiny, the article contends that Vladimir Putin’s persistence in the Ukraine war reflects a deliberate decision, not miscalculation or inevitability. Western leaders, including U.S. Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump, repeatedly assumed that Putin would act “rationally” in a cost-benefit sense and could therefore be persuaded to stop fighting. These assumptions have proven false.
During 2025, the Trump administration pursued a strategy of inducement, offering Russia territorial concessions, limits on Ukraine’s sovereignty, guarantees against NATO membership, and the promise of renewed business ties. Trump also staged high-profile diplomatic gestures, including a summit in Alaska and frequent phone calls, while publicly predicting imminent peace. Yet these overtures failed because Putin no longer seeks a negotiated settlement; he openly signals his intent to reclaim the Donbas and broader regions of southeastern Ukraine by force. The Kremlin has used the appearance of negotiations to legitimize continued fighting while keeping Washington engaged as a geopolitical partner, a strategy the author describes as the “new Putin doctrine.”
This doctrine rests on a revived nineteenth-century view of power measured in territory and coercion. Putin’s propaganda frames the war as the “liberation of territories” and the defense of Russians abroad, while his actions show that military control outweighs economic or diplomatic considerations. Trump’s own emphasis on spheres of influence and great-power bargaining, including his idea of a “Core 5” group of dominant states, has unintentionally reinforced Putin’s worldview rather than moderating it.
The article details the growing economic toll inside Russia. Government budgets are strained, taxes have risen sharply, consumer prices for staples have jumped, social spending has been cut, and industrial production has stagnated outside the defense sector. Foreign direct investment has collapsed by more than 90 percent since before the war. Nonetheless, the Kremlin has chosen to fund the war by extracting more from society, shifting the burden onto citizens and businesses while expanding benefits for soldiers and veterans to maintain loyalty.
Militarization has distorted the Russian economy and social contract. Where oil revenues once sustained stability, the regime now relies on “human fuel,” expecting citizens to accept stagnation and sacrifice in exchange for patriotic recognition. Polling suggests most Russians publicly endorse this trade-off, and the population has largely adapted to repression, censorship, and restrictions on digital communication. At the same time, scattered protests and cultural dissent indicate underlying tension.
Internationally, the article argues that Russia under Putin exports instability as well as energy. Even if a peace deal were reached in Ukraine, the regime’s internal structure would continue to generate confrontation abroad and repression at home. The war has accelerated the erosion of the post-Cold War order, producing a chaotic struggle for influence among strongmen, including Putin, Trump, and China’s Xi Jinping. Returning to Falin’s insight, the author concludes that peace remains a choice, but one for which current leaders lack sufficient incentives.
“Why Putin Still Prefers War: Russia’s Growing Resolve to Fight On in Ukraine.” Foreign Affairs, 13 Jan. 2026, www.foreignaffairs.com/russia/why-putin-still-prefers-war
This Unlikely Leader Ended Trump – With Gentlemanly Clarity
One-Sentence Summary:
Kathleen Parker contrasts Donald Trump’s bombastic Davos speech about Greenland with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s eloquent, reality-based rebuke of great-power bullying and the collapse of the rules-based international order.
Article Summary:
In this Washington Post opinion column, Kathleen Parker recounts President Donald Trump’s appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he floated – and partially walked back – the idea of a U.S. takeover of Greenland. Trump reassured listeners that a military invasion was “off the table for now,” while simultaneously arguing that Greenland was vital to global security and jokingly lamenting that the United States ever returned it to Denmark after World War II. His speech was marked by self-congratulation, exaggeration, and fantastical claims, including the proposal to place a massive “golden dome” over the island as a deterrent to enemies.
Parker then pivots to what she presents as the true highlight of the forum: a speech by Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney. Delivered a day earlier, Carney’s address is described as elegant, restrained, and devastating in its implications for Trump’s worldview. Carney argued that the postwar, rules-based international order has fractured, not evolved, and that American hegemony once provided shared global goods that no longer function as promised. In today’s world, he said, rules constrain only weaker nations, while superpowers act unilaterally – citing Russia in Ukraine, China’s ambitions toward Taiwan, and U.S. behavior toward Venezuela and Greenland.
Carney urged middle powers such as Canada and European nations to pursue strategic autonomy in areas like energy, food, finance, and supply chains, while warning that isolationist self-sufficiency would be less effective than collective action among countries with shared democratic values. Negotiating individually with a hegemon, he argued, amounts to accepting subordination while pretending to exercise sovereignty. His call for realism, solidarity, and truth-telling was met with an enthusiastic standing ovation, in stark contrast to the lukewarm response Trump received.
Parker frames Carney’s speech as a rare moment of moral and intellectual clarity, likening its impact to historic wartime rhetoric and recalling a World War II anecdote involving Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt’s envoy Harry Hopkins. While Carney did not explicitly call for Trump’s defeat, Parker suggests his meaning was unmistakable: confronting reality requires resolve, cooperation, and the courage to resist intimidation.
Parker, Kathleen. “This Unlikely Leader Ended Trump – With Gentlemanly Clarity.” The Washington Post, 23 Jan. 2026, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/23/greenland-trump-carney-davos
With Executive Power Rampant, the Right Book Has Arrived
One-Sentence Summary:
George F. Will argues that a new biography of Robert H. Jackson arrives at a moment when his warnings about unchecked presidential power are newly urgent.
Key Takeaways:
- Robert H. Jackson believed judicial deference to executive claims of national security should be high but never unlimited.
- He warned that courts legitimizing emergency powers create dangerous precedents that outlive the crisis.
- Jackson’s steel seizure concurrence remains a foundational critique of presidential authority without congressional approval.
- The article argues these lessons are especially relevant in the modern era of frequent “emergency” declarations.
Article Summary:
The column centers on the publication of “Robert H. Jackson: A Life in Judgment,” a biography by G. Edward White, and contends that its timing could not be more relevant. Will frames Jackson as a Supreme Court justice uniquely attuned to the dangers of executive overreach, especially when presidents justify extraordinary actions by invoking national security.
Will recounts Jackson’s role in a 1943 case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses, where the Court reversed an earlier decision that allowed compulsory flag salutes. Writing for the majority, Jackson rejected the idea that national unity could justify coerced conformity, emphasizing that the Bill of Rights exists to shield certain liberties from political pressure and majoritarian fear.
The article then turns to the 1944 Korematsu case, in which the Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Jackson dissented, not by defending the policy, which he called constitutionally “very bad,” but by warning that judicial approval of such measures would permanently legitimize racial discrimination under the guise of emergency. His famous “loaded weapon” metaphor underscored how dangerous precedents could be reused by future authorities claiming urgent need.
Will highlights Jackson’s most influential contribution in the 1952 steel seizure case, when President Harry Truman ordered the federal government to take control of steel mills during the Korean War. Jackson’s concurrence rejected the idea that presidential power could be implied from vague constitutional authority or foreign commitments. He warned that allowing such reasoning would enable presidents to manufacture emergencies and expand their control over domestic affairs without congressional approval.
The column concludes by linking Jackson’s thinking to the present, arguing that Americans have become accustomed to presidents declaring emergencies to sidestep constitutional limits. Jackson’s insistence that courts must be the last, not the first, to surrender restraints on executive power is presented as a vital lesson for today’s judiciary.
Will, George F. “With Executive Power Rampant, the Right Book Has Arrived.” The Washington Post, 23 Jan. 2026, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/23/supreme-court-trump-robert-jackson-executive-power
January 26, 2026
Time for ICE to Pause in Minneapolis
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
The Wall Street Journal editorial argues that the Trump administration should temporarily halt aggressive ICE operations in Minneapolis after a fatal shooting exposed serious moral, political, and law-enforcement failures that are inflaming tensions and undermining public support for immigration enforcement.
Key Takeaways:
* The editorial calls the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti a moral and political failure for ICE and the Trump administration.
* It argues that Pretti’s actions warranted arrest, not lethal force.
* Administration officials are criticized for implausible and inflammatory justifications of the shooting.
* Both federal escalation and state-level rhetoric are blamed for worsening tensions.
* The board urges a temporary pause in ICE operations and a shift toward less provocative enforcement.
Article Summary:
The editorial examines the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minneapolis and contends that the incident represents a serious moral and political crisis for the Trump administration’s immigration policy. The board recalls President Trump’s 2024 remarks acknowledging the need for enforcement tempered by humanity, and contrasts them with what it describes as a lack of restraint and compassion by ICE on the ground.
According to the editorial, videos of the incident suggest that Pretti, a nurse with no criminal record, intervened after witnessing agents pepper-spray a woman. He was tackled by multiple agents, disarmed after they discovered he was legally carrying a concealed firearm, and then shot while lying on the ground. The board argues that while Pretti made a grave mistake by interfering, his actions warranted arrest, not death.
The editorial sharply criticizes administration officials, including Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, for portraying Pretti as a domestic terrorist and suggesting malicious intent based on his legally carried weapon. It calls these claims implausible and hypocritical, particularly coming from strong advocates of gun rights.
The piece raises concerns that ICE agents may be inadequately trained or operating in a highly agitated environment that makes violent outcomes more likely. It also criticizes both federal and state leaders for escalating tensions. President Trump is faulted for sending additional immigration officers into Minneapolis despite an already heavy federal presence, while Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is criticized for encouraging residents to film ICE agents and using inflammatory rhetoric.
Ultimately, the editorial urges President Trump to pause ICE enforcement in the Twin Cities to reduce tensions and reassess strategy. It argues that enforcement should focus on serious criminals rather than low-level workers, and that administration officials should adopt a more conciliatory and persuasive public tone. The board concludes that current tactics are politically damaging to Republicans and risk turning immigration from a strength into a liability ahead of the 2026 elections.
“Time for ICE to Pause in Minneapolis.” The Wall Street Journal, 25 Jan. 2026, www.wsj.com/opinion/time-for-ice-to-pause-in-minneapolis-e9ecf097
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/time-for-ice-to-pause-in-minneapolis-e9ecf097?st=Q3iNHz&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Yes, It’s Fascism
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
Jonathan Rauch argues that Donald Trump’s second-term governing style now clearly meets the defining characteristics of fascism, not as a rhetorical insult but as an accurate analytical description grounded in ideology, behavior, and institutional transformation.
Key Takeaways:
* Fascism should be understood as a pattern of governing traits, not a single policy or symbol.
* Trump’s second term shows ideological, institutional, and behavioral shifts consistent with fascism.
* Politicized law enforcement and mass disinformation pose the greatest structural threats.
* The United States remains a liberal constitutional system, but under acute strain.
* Naming fascism is essential to recognizing and countering it.
Article Summary:
In this essay, Jonathan Rauch explains why he has abandoned his earlier reluctance to label Donald Trump a fascist and now concludes that the term is not only appropriate but necessary. Rauch begins by noting that fascism is often poorly defined and overused, and that during Trump’s first term, “patrimonialism” — treating the state as personal property — seemed a more accurate description. However, he argues that over the past year Trump’s governing approach has evolved from personalistic corruption into something ideological, aggressive, and revolutionary, which aligns with fascism’s historical core.
Rauch emphasizes that fascism is best understood not as a checklist but as a constellation of traits that, taken together, form a recognizable pattern. He then systematically reviews those traits as they now appear in Trump’s second term. These include the deliberate demolition of democratic norms and civic decency; the open glorification of violence and cruelty; the belief that power and strength alone determine legitimacy; and the politicization of law enforcement to punish enemies and protect allies. Rauch highlights Trump’s direct interference with the Justice Department, retaliatory prosecutions, and mass targeting of perceived opponents as especially dangerous departures from liberal governance.
Other fascist characteristics Rauch identifies include the dehumanization of political opponents and immigrants; the transformation of ICE into a massive, paramilitary national police force; and the use of police-state tactics such as warrantless detentions, collective punishment, and performative brutality. He also points to Trump’s repeated undermining of elections, including denial of electoral legitimacy, flirtation with canceling future elections, and the expectation that power will not be relinquished voluntarily.
Rauch further argues that Trump rejects the liberal boundary between public and private life by coercing or commandeering private institutions, attacking universities, law firms, media companies, and even seizing control of private platforms. He details sustained assaults on the news media, including threats to licenses, regulatory abuse, lawsuits, and intimidation, noting that these tactics mirror those used by authoritarian leaders abroad.
On foreign policy, Rauch observes a dramatic shift toward territorial and military aggression, contempt for international law, and alignment with authoritarian regimes. He describes Trump’s “blood-and-soil” nationalism, repudiation of birthright citizenship, and appeals to white and Christian identity as modern versions of fascist ethnonationalism. The essay also recounts Trump’s use of mobs and militias, from January 6 onward, his cultivation of a personality cult, and his systematic deployment of disinformation to create an “alternative reality.”
Rauch situates all of this within a broader fascist conception of politics as war between enemies rather than negotiation among citizens, drawing on the ideas of Carl Schmitt. He argues that MAGA politics increasingly embraces a revolutionary ethos aimed at dismantling constitutional checks, destabilizing institutions, and ruling through shock, fear, and domination.
Despite this grim assessment, Rauch concludes that the United States itself is not yet a fascist state. Courts, states, the media, and parts of civil society remain independent, and Trump has not fully captured public opinion or rewritten the Constitution. The country, Rauch argues, is now a hybrid system: a liberal constitutional order facing a fascist-style leader. He ends by insisting that naming fascism matters, because recognition is a prerequisite for effective resistance.
Rauch, Jonathan. “Yes, It’s Fascism.” The Atlantic, 25 Jan. 2026, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/america-fascism-trump-maga-ice/685751
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/america-fascism-trump-maga-ice/685751/?gift=-RYyyhoVwMCBPkXbjlfICoYk15gXiUcYC7SljhiifAA&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
For Trump, the Truth in Minneapolis Is What He Says It Is
One-Sentence Summary:
The article examines how President Trump and his administration rapidly advanced misleading narratives about the fatal shootings of two protesters in Minneapolis, seeking to override video evidence and shape public perception through repetition and partisan media amplification.
Article Summary:
Peter Baker reports that two fatal shootings of protesters by federal officers in Minneapolis — captured on cellphone video — have become a defining example of how President Trump asserts his own version of reality regardless of contradictory evidence. In both cases, the administration immediately portrayed the victims as violent threats. Renee Good was labeled a “domestic terrorist” who supposedly ran over an ICE officer, while Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, was described as an “assassin” intent on killing law enforcement.
Video footage widely circulated online undermined these claims. Analysis suggested that Good was attempting to drive away when she was shot repeatedly, and that Pretti was holding a phone, not a weapon, and was shot while pinned beneath officers after trying to help a pepper-sprayed woman. While the videos are incomplete and do not capture officers’ perspectives, the administration has blocked independent investigations that could clarify the events.
Baker situates these incidents within Trump’s broader political strategy: asserting a narrative early, repeating it relentlessly, and relying on sympathetic media to reinforce it. This approach, the article notes, mirrors Trump’s continued false claims about winning the 2020 election, which many Republicans still believe despite extensive refutation. In Minneapolis, the videos themselves have become a “Rorschach test,” interpreted differently depending on viewers’ political loyalties.
Families of the victims, Minnesota officials, and some Republicans criticized the administration for distorting facts and rushing to judgment. Senator Amy Klobuchar said the videos plainly contradict official statements, while Senator Thom Tillis warned that suppressing investigations damages the country and Trump’s legacy. Administration officials countered that short video clips cannot capture the full context of weeks of unrest.
The article also catalogs a broader pattern of misleading accounts by Trump officials in recent protest-related cases, including acquittals and judicial findings that federal officers lied. Baker recounts Trump’s long history of dishonesty, from criminal convictions and civil fraud findings to thousands of false statements documented during his first term. Polls show that most Americans do not view Trump as honest, yet Baker argues that Trump continues to believe repetition can substitute for truth.
The piece concludes by suggesting that ubiquitous cellphone cameras pose a rare challenge to Trump’s reality-shaping tactics, raising a central question of modern American politics: whether visual evidence can still outweigh a president’s insistence on his own version of events.
Baker, Peter. “For Trump, the Truth in Minneapolis Is What He Says It Is.” The New York Times, 26 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/2026/01/25/us/politics/trump-truth-minneapolis-shootings.html
January 28, 2026
What Should Americans Do Now?
One-Sentence Summary:
George Packer argues that the killings of two civilians by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis mark a decisive turn toward lawless authoritarianism in the United States, and that Americans must respond not with violence or passivity but with disciplined, nonviolent resistance rooted in civic solidarity.
Article Summary:
George Packer frames the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by ICE agents in Minneapolis as a watershed moment demonstrating that the U.S. federal government is no longer constrained by law when confronting political opposition. Unlike the murder of George Floyd in 2020, which led to investigations, trials, and institutional reform, these deaths are unlikely to result in accountability. Federal authorities have blocked local investigations, denied wrongdoing, and treated public outrage with open contempt, signaling that raw force has replaced constitutional authority.
Packer situates these events within a longer trajectory that began with the January 6, 2021, insurrection. Although democratic institutions initially held, the insurrection never truly ended. Over time, nearly half the country came to accept or excuse it, and by Trump’s return to power, key institutional restraints had eroded. By 2025, Trump openly claimed that the only limit on his authority was his own judgment. The Minneapolis shootings, Packer argues, are the predictable outcome of this unchecked power: a regime willing to kill citizens with impunity while branding protesters as terrorists.
The author rejects both despair and violent retaliation. Legal challenges and conventional protests, including the “No Kings” demonstrations, have played a role, but remain insufficient if they stay symbolic and infrequent. Instead, Packer highlights what has emerged in Minneapolis: networks of ordinary residents practicing organized, nonviolent resistance. These groups protect immigrant neighbors, escort children to school, provide food and medical aid, monitor ICE activity, and attempt de-escalation. Their actions are decentralized, leaderless, and grounded in human solidarity rather than ideology.
Drawing on the work of nonviolent theorist Gene Sharp, Packer outlines a broader strategy of noncooperation with an illegitimate government. This includes boycotts, strikes, refusal to participate in regime-backed institutions, slow or reluctant compliance with unjust orders, and civil disobedience. Such actions carry real risks — legal harassment, imprisonment, injury, and death — but violence, he argues, would be both morally wrong and strategically disastrous.
Packer concludes by acknowledging his own reluctance to accept how dire the situation has become. Yet he warns that the greater danger is denial. Americans, he writes, have an obligation first to recognize the reality of authoritarianism and then to act collectively, nonviolently, and with basic decency to resist it.
Packer, George. “What Should Americans Do Now?” The Atlantic, 27 Jan. 2026, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/minneapolis-ice-protests-democracy/685778
Donald Trump Can Be Stopped
One-Sentence Summary:
Jonathan Chait argues that President Donald Trump’s retreat from an aggressive federal crackdown in Minneapolis shows that his administration, while authoritarian in impulse, remains vulnerable to sustained public resistance, political pressure, and internal dissent.
Article Summary:
Jonathan Chait examines the political significance of President Donald Trump’s retreat from an aggressive federal operation in Minneapolis, arguing that it punctures the myth of Trump’s invincibility. The episode followed the killing of Alex Pretti by federal agents, after which senior administration figures, including Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, labeled the victim a terrorist and sought to intimidate or silence opposition. This reflexive defense of state violence signaled the administration’s authoritarian instincts and its desire to operate beyond accountability.
The retreat began when other Republicans quietly expressed unease and called for an investigation, an unusual breach of discipline in a party largely defined by loyalty to Trump. Public messaging shifted: Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt distanced Trump from Miller’s rhetoric, Trump himself adopted a conciliatory tone toward Minnesota officials, and the administration replaced the Minnesota commander Gregory Bovino with Tom Homan, a more conventional immigration hard-liner. These moves amounted to a rare concession under pressure.
Chait situates this defeat as a major setback for the national conservatives, or “NatCons,” the most ideologically authoritarian faction within Trumpism. NatCons reject persuasion and compromise, viewing American liberalism and immigration as existential threats that justify extraordinary state violence. Influential figures such as Vice President J.D. Vance, Stephen Miller, Senator Eric Schmitt, and Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts have pushed mass deportation as a political and civilizational necessity, arguing that immigration ensures permanent Democratic power. Minneapolis was meant to exemplify their theory in action.
The article explains that NatCons gained influence by presenting themselves as Trump’s most loyal defenders, never wavering after events such as January 6. Yet Trump’s retreat reveals a critical weakness in their strategy: Trump is not a committed ideologue. His authoritarianism is instinctive, driven by ego, aversion to criticism, and sensitivity to public embarrassment. While he endorses harsh immigration policies, he also vacillates when imagery or political cost threatens his standing.
Chait emphasizes that the turning point came from disciplined resistance by Minneapolis residents, who exposed federal abuses and raised the political cost of repression until Republicans could no longer ignore it. The episode demonstrates that Trump’s power, while dangerous, is not absolute. Chait concludes by reflecting on debates over whether Trumpism constitutes fascism. He argues that fascism, properly defined, makes opposition impossible — and the Minneapolis retreat proves that this threshold has not yet been crossed, though the danger remains real.
Chait, Jonathan. “Donald Trump Can Be Stopped.” The Atlantic, 27 Jan. 2026, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/trump-retreats-minneapolis-natcons/685776
Tim Walz: The Un-American Assault on Minnesota
“… the Minnesota Department of Corrections honors all federal and local detainers by notifying Immigration and Customs Enforcement when a person committed to its custody isn’t a U.S. citizen. There is not a single documented case of the department’s releasing someone from state prison without offering to ensure a smooth transfer of custody.”
One-Sentence Summary:
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz argues that the Trump administration’s recent immigration crackdown in his state is unlawful, violent, and politically motivated, misrepresents basic facts, and undermines public safety rather than protecting it.
Article Summary:
In this Wall Street Journal opinion essay, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz condemns what he calls an “assault” by the Trump administration on his state under the guise of immigration enforcement. Walz argues that federal immigration actions in Minnesota have moved far beyond lawful enforcement and instead constitute organized brutality that is unjust, illegal, and counterproductive to public safety.
Walz cites the fatal shootings of two Minnesota residents, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, by immigration agents as evidence that the operations have become deadly. He also describes numerous incidents in which protesters, bystanders, and targeted individuals were physically attacked, racially profiled, or subjected to warrantless home entries. According to Walz, many of those affected have committed no crimes and are targeted largely because they are people of color.
The governor disputes the administration’s claim that Minnesota refuses to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. He states that the Minnesota Department of Corrections consistently honors detainers and notifies Immigration and Customs Enforcement when noncitizens are due for release. Walz says there is no documented case of the state releasing someone from prison without attempting a transfer to ICE custody.
Walz also challenges specific public claims by ICE, including an assertion that Cottonwood County released an alleged child sex predator. He says local officials followed procedure and contacted ICE, but agents failed to take custody. He further calls out inflated statistics about noncitizens in Minnesota prisons, noting that only 207 of roughly 8,000 inmates are noncitizens, not the 1,360 claimed by the administration.
Addressing a published list of arrests touted as proof that ICE is targeting “the worst of the worst,” Walz points to reporting by Minnesota Public Radio showing that most individuals on the list had already been transferred to ICE custody before the recent enforcement surge began. He accuses ICE of taking credit for arrests made earlier by state and local authorities.
Walz characterizes current federal actions as chaotic and unconstitutional, citing masked agents abducting children, separating families, stopping people without cause, and breaking into homes without warrants. He warns that President Trump appears to welcome escalating tensions in hopes of provoking violence and political spectacle.
The essay concludes by praising Minnesotans for responding with peaceful protest, mutual aid, and documentation rather than violence. Walz argues that effective immigration enforcement does not require brutality and insists the federal government can pursue a secure, lawful, and humane system consistent with American values.
Walz, Tim. “Tim Walz: The Un-American Assault on Minnesota.” The Wall Street Journal, 26 Jan. 2026, www.wsj.com/opinion/tim-walz-the-un-american-assault-on-minnesota-67730de4
Assume This Loutocracy Is Lying About ICE Until Proven Otherwise
One-Sentence Summary:
In a sharply critical opinion, George F. Will argues that growing misconduct, misinformation and lack of accountability by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the Trump administration and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has so eroded public trust that Americans should assume officials are lying about ICE actions until proven otherwise.
Key Takeaways:
- Will asserts that repeated misleading statements and opaque conduct by ICE under the current administration justify skepticism from the public.
- He highlights Kristi Noem’s credibility problems as emblematic of broader issues within the Department of Homeland Security.
- Recent federal actions in Minneapolis, including controversial shootings by immigration agents, have intensified scrutiny and distrust.
- The rise of citizen video documentation is shifting public awareness and challenging official accounts.
- Will criticizes political leadership for enabling unaccountable enforcement and undermining democratic oversight.
Article Summary:
In his Washington Post opinion “Assume This Loutocracy Is Lying About ICE Until Proven Otherwise,” George F. Will contends that the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration-enforcement policies and the leadership of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have exacerbated public distrust in federal agencies, especially ICE and related operations. Will uses the term “loutocracy” to describe governance by what he views as crude, unqualified officials and highlights Noem’s credibility problems, such as a false anecdote in her memoir. He connects these credibility issues with broader patterns of misleading claims and lack of transparency from ICE and other federal law-enforcement bodies. Recent controversial actions in Minneapolis, including fatal shootings by federal agents during deportation enforcement and protests, illustrate, in his view, how these agencies have operated with militarized tactics and insufficient oversight, contributing to widespread skepticism about official narratives. Will argues that the spread of citizen-captured video of law-enforcement actions is a democratizing force that exposes such misconduct. He criticizes the Senate’s confirmation of unqualified officials, the Trump administration’s hostile posture toward oversight, and the overall deterioration of trust between the government and the public in matters of immigration enforcement and accountability. The piece sits against a backdrop of escalating political and public backlash in cities like Minneapolis, where ICE and Border Patrol operations have sparked protests, calls for resignations or impeachment of Noem, and intense scrutiny of federal narratives about law-enforcement shootings.
Will, George F. “Assume This Loutocracy Is Lying About ICE Until Proven Otherwise.” The Washington Post, 27 Jan. 2026, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/27/trump-noem-deportation-ice-border-control-minneapolis
This Theory Explains Trump’s Baffling Foreign Policy
One-Sentence Summary:
The authors argue that Donald Trump’s foreign policy is best understood not as chaos or traditional great-power competition, but as a “neoroyalist” system in which foreign policy is used to extract wealth and status for Trump and his inner circle rather than to advance national interests.
Article Summary:
Stacie Goddard and Abraham L. Newman contend that widespread confusion about President Trump’s foreign policy stems from applying the wrong historical framework. Rather than behaving like a 19th-century great-power realist, Trump is operating according to what the authors call “neoroyalist international politics,” a model rooted in early modern royal courts. In this system, foreign policy serves the private interests of a ruler and his entourage, eclipsing national interests and rules-based governance.
The article opens with Trump’s demand for U.S. ownership of Greenland, which baffled allies such as Denmark and France and appeared irrational given existing U.S. military access. The authors argue that this, like other actions, makes sense when viewed as a status-driven and extractive strategy. Trump openly dismisses international law and undermines decades of U.S. support for a rules-based order, replacing it with a system based on personal power, tribute, and loyalty.
Instead of competing consistently with rivals, Trump has shown a willingness to collude with them when it benefits his court. Examples include reportedly offering Russia territorial gains in Ukraine and approving expanded sales of advanced Nvidia chips to China and the Middle East, despite long-standing U.S. security concerns. The administration’s foreign policy apparatus, the authors argue, resembles a royal household, dominated by family members, loyalists, and major campaign donors rather than professional institutions.
The Venezuela intervention is presented as a clear case of neoroyalist extraction. While framed as boosting U.S. prosperity, the tangible gains flow primarily to Trump’s donors and associates, including hedge fund affiliates that acquired Venezuelan oil assets. The scale of these gains is trivial for the U.S. economy but significant as a source of patronage and personal control.
Trade policy follows a similar pattern. Tariffs are less about reshoring manufacturing and more about pressuring countries and corporations to provide investment, favors, or symbolic gifts. The authors cite pledges from Japan and South Korea, Vietnam’s approval of a Trump family golf course amid tariff negotiations, and lavish gestures from corporate executives. Trump family wealth, they note, has reportedly increased dramatically since the election.
Status-seeking is as important as money. Trump prizes pageantry, flattery, and recognition, including interest in the Nobel Peace Prize. Leaders who withhold praise or symbolic deference, such as India’s prime minister, have faced punitive tariffs. Greenland, the authors suggest, fits this same logic of coercion tied to prestige.
International resistance has been limited. While European leaders have begun to push back on Greenland, they have largely accommodated Trump on Venezuela and Ukraine, hoping the system will eventually revert to normal. The authors warn this is dangerous, as appeasement normalizes neoroyalist behavior.
To counter this trend, the authors urge countries to openly name and resist neoroyalism, coordinate economically and militarily, deepen alternative trade arrangements, and reduce dependence on the United States. Domestically, they argue, businesses should recognize that short-term patronage undermines long-term rule of law. A neoroyalist world, they conclude, prioritizes extraction for the few over stability and prosperity for the many and is bad for both the United States and humanity.
Goddard, Stacie, and Abraham L. Newman. “This Theory Explains Trump’s Baffling Foreign Policy.” The New York Times, 27 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/2026/01/26/opinion/trump-foreign-policy-neo-royalist.html
White House Press Briefing: Leavitt Defends Immigration Enforcement After Minneapolis Shooting, Demands Minnesota Cooperation
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on January 26, 2026 announced that President Trump spoke directly with Governor Tim Walz demanding Minnesota implement three specific measures to cooperate with ICE operations following a shooting that killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Leavitt blamed Democratic leaders for “deliberate and hostile resistance” that created dangerous conditions for federal officers, while defending administration officials who characterized the incident before investigations concluded.
Summary with analysis:
Trump Returns to Iowa to Tout Economic Achievements and Rally Support for 2026 Midterms
President Trump returned to Clive, Iowa on January 27, 2026, touting his administration’s first-year achievements: $18 trillion in new investment commitments, year-round E-15 ethanol support, the largest prescription drug price cuts in U.S. history through “Most Favored Nations” policy, and a $70 million John Deere excavator factory. Trump warned that Republican losses in 2026 midterms could reverse tax cuts, threatened Iran with military action, and claimed dramatic crime reductions while celebrating closed borders and record stock market gains.
Summary and analysis:
Trump Returns to Iowa to Tout Economic Achievements and Rally Support for 2026 Midterms
January 29, 2026
The Perils of a Falling Trump Dollar
One-Sentence Summary: The Wall Street Journal editorial board argues that President Donald Trump’s endorsement of a weaker dollar is economically risky, inflationary, and destabilizing for both the United States and the global financial system.
Article Summary:
The editorial responds to President Trump’s comment that a weaker dollar is “great,” warning that political enthusiasm for currency depreciation has historically produced more harm than benefit. The board notes that the dollar has already weakened significantly, with the WSJ Dollar Index down about 8 percent over the past year and the dollar losing roughly 14 percent of its value against the euro. Gold prices rising above $5,300 an ounce are cited as another signal of eroding confidence in the currency.
While some policymakers still argue that a weaker currency boosts exports and employment, the editorial contends this view is outdated. In modern, high-tech global markets, exchange rates play a limited role in competitiveness, as consumers weigh factors such as quality, safety, and features alongside price. Empirical evidence suggests that any growth effects from currency swings are short-lived and tend to be offset by inflation or deflation. This is especially concerning, the board argues, given the political sensitivity of inflation ahead of U.S. midterm elections.
The piece also critiques protectionist arguments that foreign investment overvalues the dollar and drives trade deficits. The editorial counters that heavy foreign investment reflects confidence in U.S. growth and that proposed remedies, such as taxing foreign holders of U.S. Treasurys, would deter capital and weaken the economy. A strong or stable dollar policy, it argues, better serves U.S. interests.
The editorial examines risks abroad as well. Japan’s weak yen is described as a byproduct of economic normalization and fiscal strain, not manipulation, and U.S. pressure on exchange rates could worsen instability. China, by contrast, is trying to prevent excessive yuan appreciation to avoid deepening deflationary pressures in its debt-laden economy. Pushing China toward a downturn would harm global growth.
The board concludes that Washington’s traditional strong-dollar policy exists for good reason. By embracing dollar weakness, President Trump risks inflation, financial instability, and long-term economic damage at home and abroad.
“The Perils of a Falling Trump Dollar.” The Wall Street Journal, 28 Jan. 2026, www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-weak-dollar-economy-exchange-rates-101b278a
January 30, 2026
Whatever This Is, It Is Not Strategy
Key Takeaways:
- The 2026 National Defense Strategy is dominated by praise for Donald Trump rather than strategic analysis.
- It offers slogans and insults instead of concrete plans, budgets, or trade-offs.
- Major threats, including China’s military growth and ongoing terrorism, are inadequately addressed.
- Cohen argues the document reflects fear and conformity, not serious strategic thought.
One-Sentence Summary:
Eliot A. Cohen argues that the Trump administration’s 2026 National Defense Strategy is an unserious, sycophantic document that substitutes flattery, insults, and vague slogans for genuine strategic thinking.
Article Summary:
In this essay for The Atlantic, Eliot A. Cohen delivers a scathing critique of the Trump administration’s 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS), contending that it fails to meet the basic standards of a serious strategic document. Cohen begins by noting that a real NDS should logically follow from the National Security Strategy and provide sober guidance on military priorities, risks, and trade-offs. Instead, he writes, the document is dominated by praise for President Donald Trump, repeated references to his leadership, and rhetorical bombast rather than analysis.
Cohen highlights the document’s excessive flattery, including dozens of mentions of Trump and photographs that elevate him to near-mythic status. This tone, he argues, crosses from normal political loyalty into outright sycophancy. Equally troubling, in Cohen’s view, is the NDS’s habit of deriding all previous administrations, accusing them of betraying the “warrior ethos,” neglecting homeland defense, and pursuing abstract international ideals. Such sweeping denunciations, he suggests, reflect insecurity rather than confidence.
Beyond tone, Cohen finds the substance thin. The NDS outlines four “lines of effort”: defending the U.S. homeland, deterring China in the Indo-Pacific, increasing burden-sharing with allies, and revitalizing the defense industrial base. Yet Cohen argues that these priorities are asserted without historical understanding, strategic depth, or practical detail. For example, the discussion of homeland defense invokes the Monroe Doctrine while displaying expansive and unsettling views of U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere, including references to Greenland.
The treatment of China strikes Cohen as oddly restrained, emphasizing stability and de-escalation in contrast to the administration’s otherwise bellicose rhetoric. By contrast, the section on allies, especially in Europe, is sharper and more accusatory, portraying wealthy European nations as capable of confronting Russia without substantial U.S. support. On industrial mobilization, the document calls for sweeping action but provides no cost estimates or concrete plans.
Cohen contrasts this with what a real defense strategy would include: clear budgetary implications, serious discussion of China’s military buildup and global ambitions, analysis of ongoing Islamist threats, lessons from recent wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and thoughtful consideration of European security. The absence of these elements leads Cohen to conclude that the NDS was written by officials more concerned with pleasing an imperious president than with grappling honestly with global dangers. In a volatile world, he warns, such unseriousness is not merely embarrassing but dangerous.
Cohen, Eliot A. “Whatever This Is, It Is Not Strategy.” The Atlantic, 29 Jan. 2026, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/unserious-national-defense-strategy/685784
January 31, 2026
A Farewell Column From David Brooks
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
David Brooks announces his departure from The New York Times after 22 years, using his farewell column to argue that America’s deepest crisis is a cultural and moral loss of faith, and that renewal must come through a revived humanistic culture rather than politics alone.
Article Summary:
In his farewell column, David Brooks reflects on his personal journey to The New York Times, his family’s experience of the American dream, and the honor he has felt writing for the paper over 22 years. He explains that he is leaving not out of disillusionment with journalism, but to pursue a new project aimed at addressing what he sees as a profound cultural failure in American life.
Brooks argues that the defining trend of the past two decades has been a widespread loss of faith — religious, civic, moral, and interpersonal. He contrasts the relative optimism of the early 2000s with today’s pessimism, tracing disillusionment to events such as the Iraq War, the financial crisis, the rise of social media-driven loneliness, declining social trust, and the emergence of authoritarian populism. He describes Donald Trump as a symptom rather than the cause of this moral collapse, portraying Trump as the embodiment of nihilism and noting that millions of voters no longer view moral character as politically relevant.
The column contends that decades of hyperindividualism and the abandonment of the humanities have hollowed out America’s humanistic core. Brooks criticizes the privatization of morality, arguing that asking individuals to invent their own values has produced moral confusion, social fragmentation, and a “naked public square” with no shared standards of truth, beauty, or goodness. He links this erosion of shared moral order to rising anxiety, loneliness, and despair, citing data on declining belief in the American dream and widespread lack of purpose among young adults.
Brooks maintains that political reform alone cannot address this crisis. Instead, he argues that cultural change precedes political change and that renewal must come through culture broadly defined — shared habits, stories, rituals, values, and conversations that shape how people understand themselves and others. Drawing on thinkers such as Edmund Burke, he emphasizes that “manners,” or culture, exert a deeper and more lasting influence than laws.
The column concludes on a cautiously hopeful note. Brooks points to historical periods when cultural renewal preceded reform and argues that a humanistic revival is already underway, particularly on college campuses. He highlights emerging efforts in moral formation, civic education, reasoning across differences, and teaching students how to live meaningful lives. He closes by inviting readers to join what he calls the “Great Conversation” — the ongoing humanistic dialogue about how to live well together — and thanks readers for accompanying him during his time at the paper.
Brooks, David. “Opinion | A Farewell Column From David Brooks.” The New York Times, 30 Jan. 2026, nytimes.com/2026/01/30/opinion/david-brooks-leaving-columnist.html
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/opinion/david-brooks-leaving-columnist.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IlA.I74u.b-Zp2AUKExk3&smid=url-share
Inside Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Break With Trump and MAGA
(Unlocked gift link included)
One-Sentence Summary:
Robert Draper chronicles how Marjorie Taylor Greene, once Donald Trump’s fiercest congressional loyalist, broke decisively with him and the MAGA movement after a mix of moral reckoning, policy disputes, and personal threats, culminating in her decision to resign from Congress.
Article Summary:
The article traces Marjorie Taylor Greene’s transformation from Trump’s most combative and loyal ally in Congress to one of his most unlikely apostates. Draper opens with a pivotal moment in September, when Greene watched the memorial service for conservative activist Charlie Kirk. She was struck by the contrast between Kirk’s widow, who publicly forgave her husband’s killer, and Trump, who declared that he hated his opponents. That moment, Greene says, forced her to confront the corrosive culture of vengeance she had embraced and to reconsider her behavior through the lens of her Christian faith.
Greene’s reassessment coincided with growing political and ideological tensions with Trump and his administration during his second term. Though she continued to describe herself as loyal to “America First,” she increasingly opposed key administration policies, including support for cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence deregulation, tariffs that hurt businesses in her Georgia district, foreign student visas, and the expiration of Obamacare subsidies. She also publicly condemned Israel’s war in Gaza as a genocide, placing her far outside Republican consensus.
The decisive rupture came over the Jeffrey Epstein files. Greene viewed the government’s failure to release them as emblematic of elite corruption and injustice toward women. After hearing testimony from Epstein’s victims, she pressed Trump to release all related documents and even suggested inviting victims to the Oval Office. Trump reacted angrily, warning that his friends would be hurt. Greene then broke precedent by partnering with Democrats and Republican dissenters to force a vote compelling disclosure. This move, combined with her broader dissent, led Trump to denounce her publicly as a “traitor.”
The fallout was severe and personal. Greene and her family received bomb threats and death threats, including against her son. When she informed Trump, he responded with insults rather than concern. Greene later apologized publicly for her own past role in toxic politics, acknowledging her history of inflammatory rhetoric and harassment of political opponents. This apology further isolated her from MAGA allies, many of whom viewed contrition as weakness.
Despite moments of apparent vindication, including the overwhelming House passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Greene found herself politically alone. She concluded that returning to Congress would mean continued danger, futility, and moral compromise. In November, she announced she would resign before the end of her term, insisting she had no master plan and professing deep exhaustion with politics.
Draper portrays Greene not as a convert to liberalism but as a figure who believes she has matured rather than changed her views. She leaves Washington politically homeless, estranged from Trump yet still holding many of her hard-line positions. Her story, the article suggests, functions as a parable of the Trump era: intense loyalty, sudden excommunication, and the high personal cost of dissent within a movement built on absolute fealty.
Draper, Robert. “Inside Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Break With Trump and MAGA.” The New York Times, 31 Dec. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/12/29/magazine/marjorie-taylor-greene-trump-maga-split.html
Unlocked gift link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/29/magazine/marjorie-taylor-greene-trump-maga-split.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IlA.2MJC.YNnuXNQwT8_I&smid=url-share
From Athens to Sparta: How Trumpism Is Driving America’s Decline
One-Sentence Summary:
Johan Norberg argues that Trumpism reflects a historical pattern in which societies abandon openness and innovation for control and fear, accelerating their own decline.
Article Summary:
Norberg examines why civilizations experience golden ages and why they collapse, contrasting an “Athenian” mindset of openness, trade, pluralism, and innovation with a “Spartan” instinct for rigidity, orthodoxy, and control. Surveying historical examples from ancient Athens to the modern Anglosphere, he argues that prosperity emerges where ideas, people, and commerce flow freely and where power is restrained by institutions and law. Decline begins when crises push societies to scapegoat outsiders, suppress dissent, and centralize authority, producing short-term stability at the cost of long-term stagnation. Norberg applies this framework to the United States, contending that Trump’s attacks on trade, immigration, independent institutions, and allies undermine the very conditions that enabled American success. Internationally, he warns that abandoning a rules-based order risks repeating Athens’s late imperial mistakes. The essay concludes that other democracies may preserve this order if the United States retreats, potentially prompting a future American return.
Norberg, Johan. “From Athens to Sparta: How Trumpism Is Driving America’s Decline.” The UnPopulist, 27 Jan. 2026, www.theunpopulist.net/p/from-athens-to-sparta-how-trumpism
When It Comes to Killing Protesters, Trump Sounds Like Iran
One-Sentence Summary:
Will Saletan argues that the Trump administration’s rhetoric and justifications for killing U.S. protesters closely mirror the propaganda and repression used by Iran’s authoritarian regime during mass protests.
Article Summary:
The article contends that Donald Trump and his senior officials have adopted language, logic, and excuses strikingly similar to those used by Iran’s leaders when justifying lethal crackdowns on protesters. Saletan opens by describing recent incidents in Minneapolis in which federal agents killed two protesters, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, during immigration-related demonstrations. According to the author, administration officials repeatedly misrepresented the facts of these killings to portray the victims as violent terrorists, despite video evidence and eyewitness accounts contradicting those claims.
Saletan draws a systematic comparison between U.S. officials and Iranian leaders. Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh labeled Iranian protesters “savage armed terrorists,” a characterization Saletan parallels with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol officials falsely claiming that Pretti and Good posed deadly threats. In both cases, officials redefined ordinary or nonviolent behavior as terrorism to retroactively justify lethal force.
The article highlights Trump’s frequent use of the term “sedition,” noting its resemblance to Iranian prosecutors’ language when condemning dissent. Trump’s threats against members of Congress, journalists, and critics — including statements suggesting that “sedition” could be punishable by death — are compared to the rhetoric of Iran’s judiciary and clerical leadership.
Saletan also examines how Iranian and American officials accuse the media of fabricating events and inciting violence. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi blamed international media for distorting reality, a claim echoed by U.S. officials such as JD Vance, who accused American reporters of acting as agents of propaganda after the Minnesota shootings.
Further parallels include claims that protests are orchestrated by paid outsiders, allegations of shadowy financial backers, and assertions that security forces exercised “maximum restraint” despite video evidence of brutality. Saletan argues that these tactics are hallmarks of authoritarian governance, regardless of whether they occur in Tehran or Washington.
The article concludes by noting the irony of Iranian officials accusing the United States of hypocrisy at the United Nations. While acknowledging that Iran’s death toll far exceeds that of the U.S., Saletan warns that the moral logic and rhetorical strategies used by the Trump administration place it uncomfortably close to regimes it traditionally condemns.
Saletan, Will. “When It Comes to Killing Protesters, Trump Sounds Like Iran.” The Bulwark, 30 Jan. 2026, www.thebulwark.com/p/protesters-iran-minnesota-good-pretti-trump
Unusual Debate Shows Better Way to Handle Wichita 1% Sales Tax Flap | Opinion
A respectful “Braver Angels” debate over Wichita’s proposed 1% sales tax showed how public policy decisions could be handled more thoughtfully than the rushed, polarizing process that produced the current ballot measure.
Article Summary:
Dion Lefler describes a chaotic period in Wichita politics as voters approach a March 3 special election on a proposed 1% sales tax. The week included inflammatory pro-tax television ads, including one equating opponents with communists, and a three-hour City Council hearing that generated little clarity about how tax revenues would be controlled. In contrast, a “Braver Angels” debate at the Advanced Learning Library drew about 120 residents who calmly discussed and questioned the proposal. Citizens raised concerns about vague spending categories, overlapping investments in performing arts facilities, lack of guarantees against fund diversion, and minimal public input before the measure reached the ballot. Lefler criticizes Wichita Forward for unveiling a completed plan just before election deadlines, limiting debate and relying on a low-turnout vote. He notes unusual political splits among conservatives and progressives and argues that earlier, inclusive discussions like the Braver Angels forum could have produced a more legitimate and durable civic decision.
“Unusual Debate Shows Better Way to Handle Wichita 1% Sales Tax Flap.” Wichita Eagle, 30 Jan. 2026, www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/dion-lefler/article314474204.html