David Corn's Blog

Tragedy is a powerful shaper of narratives. In the aftermath of the horrific assassination of MAGA champion Charlie Kirk, a husband and father of two, it was natural that his allies, including President Trump, lionized him as a patriot, free-speech advocate, and activist. And political opponents somberly denounced the terrible killing, as they should, with some hailing Kirk’s devotion to public debate. There’s a tendency in such a moment to look for the best in people or, at least, to not dwell on the negatives. That can be a good thing. Yet as Kirk is quickly canonized by Trump and his movement—on Thursday Trump announced he would bestow upon Kirk a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom—a full depiction of his impact on American politics is largely being sidestepped.

In promoting a story on the murder of Kirk—headlined “Charlie Kirk killing deepens America’s violent spiral”—Axios described him as a “fierce champion of the right to free expression” whose “voice was silenced by an assassin’s bullet.” New York Times opinion columnist Ezra Klein, wrote, “You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.” Klein added that he “envied” the political movement Kirk built and praised “his moxie and fearlessness.”

Kirk’s advocacy of vigorous debate ought not be separated from what he said while jousting in the public square.

Here’s the problem: Kirk built that movement with falsehoods. And his advocacy was laced with racist and bigoted statements. Recognizing this does not diminish the awfulness of this act of violence. Nor does it lessen our outrage or diminish our sympathy for his family, friends, and colleagues. Yet if this is an appropriate moment to assess Kirk and issue bold statements about his participation in America’s political life, there ought to be room for a true discussion.

Kirk, a right-wing provocateur who founded and led Turning Point USA, an organization of young conservatives, was a promoter of Trump’s destructive and baseless conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Two days before the January 6 riot, Kirk boasted in a tweet that Students for Trump and Turning Point Action were “Sending 80+ buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president.”

After the attack, Kirk deleted the tweet, and he claimed that the people his group transported to DC participated only in the rally that occurred before the assault on Congress—where Trump whipped up the crowd and encouraged it to march on the Capitol. The New York Times subsequently reported that Turning Point Action sent only seven buses to the event. Turning Point also paid the $60,000 speaking fee to Kimberly Guilfoyle, a MAGA personality, for the brief remarks she made at the rally. “We will not allow the liberals and the Democrats to steal our dream or steal our elections,” Guilfoyle told the crowd. (Kirk took the Fifth when he was deposed by the House January 6 committee.)

Even prior to the election, Kirk helped set the stage for Trump’s attempt to subvert the republic. In September 2020, the Washington Post reported that Turning Point Action was running a “sprawling yet secretive campaign” to disseminate pro-Trump propaganda “that experts say evades the guardrails put in place by social media companies to limit online disinformation of the sort used by Russia during the 2016 campaign.” The messages Turning Point generated spread the charge that Democrats were using mail balloting to steal the election and downplayed the threat from Covid. (Kirk’s group called the story a “gross mischaracterization.”)

Whatever Kirk’s group and supporters did on January 6, he was part of the MAGA crusade that largely broke US politics. Trump’s refusal to accept his 2020 loss, his conniving to stay in power, and his encouragement of a lie that led to massive political violence greatly undermined American democracy and exacerbated the already deep divide in the nation. Kirk was a part of that. Yet Klein overlooks that in praising Kirk. And a New York Times piece on Kirk’s political career made no mention of this, though it did report that he had been “accused” of “antisemitism, homophobia and racism, having blamed Jewish communities for fomenting hatred against white people, criticized gay rights on religious grounds and questioned the qualifications of Black airline pilots.”

Kirk’s advocacy of vigorous debate ought not be separated from what he said while jousting in the public square. He hosted white nationalists on his podcast. He posted racist comments on his X account, including this remark: “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.'” He endorsed the white “replacement” conspiracy theory. After the October 7 attack on Israel, he compared Black Lives Matter to Hamas. He called for preserving “white demographics in America.” He asserted that Islam was not compatible with Western culture. He derided women who supported Kamala Harris 2024 for wanting “careerism, consumerism, and loneliness.” Or, as he also put it, “Democratic women want to die alone without children.” When Paul Pelosi, the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, was brutally attacked in 2022, Kirk spread a conspiracy theory about the crime and called for an “amazing patriot” to bail out the assailant. He routinely deployed extreme rhetoric to demonize his political foes.

Kirk did enjoy debating others. He visited campuses and held events in which he took on all comers, arguing over a variety of contentious issues. He was a showman, and his commitment to verbal duking was admirable. He appeared proud of the harsh opinions he robustly shared. Which means there’s no reason now to be shy about them while pondering his legacy.

Moreover, as a movement strategist, he relied upon and advanced lies and bigotry—including falsehoods that fueled violence and an assault on our national foundation. That was not a side gig for Kirk. It was a core component of his organizing. He did not practice politics the right way. He used deceit to develop his movement and to weaken the United States. His assassination is heinous and frightening and warrants widespread condemnation. It should prompt reflection on what is happening within the nation and what needs to be done to prevent further political violence. It should not protect him or others who engage in such politics of extremism from critical review.

The below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial.

Of all the unqualified extremists Donald Trump has appointed to his Cabinet, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as of now, poses the most direct threat to the nation. The secretary of health and human services is devastating the United States’ public health system and promoting quack science that imperils the lives of Americans. In recent weeks, he has decapitated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, canceled mRNA vaccination research that held the potential for amazing medical breakthroughs, and loaded an important vaccine advisory panel with vaccine critics.

Kennedy is a threat to the well-being of the American citizenry. That’s why House Democrats should move to impeach him.

His promotion of vaccination opposition—don’t call him a vaccine “skeptic”; he’s a vaccine foe—has fostered an environment in which Florida this week announced it was ending all vaccine mandates for schoolchildren, with the state’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, bizarrely declaring every vaccine mandate “is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery.” It’s unlikely a state would have taken this risky and outrageous step if the federal government—led by the HHS secretary and the president—would have denounced the move. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has no such worries with Kennedy and Trump.

Kennedy is a threat to the well-being of the American citizenry. That’s why House Democrats should move to impeach him.

This week, in a column for the New York Times, nine former CDC directors—who collectively served under every president from Jimmy Carter to Trump—asserted that Kennedy has waged a war on public health. Here is their summation of the damage he has done:

Mr. Kennedy has fired thousands of federal health workers and severely weakened programs designed to protect Americans from cancer, heart attacks, strokes, lead poisoning, injury, violence and more. Amid the largest measles outbreak in the United States in a generation, he’s focused on unproven treatments while downplaying vaccines. He canceled investments in promising medical research that will leave us ill-prepared for future health emergencies. He replaced experts on federal health advisory committees with unqualified individuals who share his dangerous and unscientific views. He announced the end of U.S. support for global vaccination programs that protect millions of children and keep Americans safe, citing flawed research and making inaccurate statements. And he championed federal legislation that will cause millions of people with health insurance through Medicaid to lose their coverage. Firing [CDC director] Dr. [Susan] Monarez — which led to the resignations of top CDC officials—adds considerable fuel to this raging fire.

He testified that he doesn’t know how many people died of Covid and whether the vaccines prevented Covid deaths: “The problem is they didn’t have the data.” But that data does exist.

More than 1,000 current and former HHS employees signed an open letter calling for Kennedy to resign or be fired. They noted he has appointed “political ideologues who pose as scientific experts and manipulate data to fit predetermined conclusions”; selected “David Geier, supporter of debunked theories linking vaccines to autism, to lead an HHS investigation on vaccines and autism”; refused to be “briefed by well-regarded CDC experts on vaccine-preventable diseases”; rescinded “the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 vaccines without providing the data or methods used to reach such a decision”; and insulted the HHS workforce by declaring, “Trusting experts is not a feature of either science or democracy.”

On Thursday, Kennedy, appearing before the Senate Finance Committee, repeatedly lied during a contentious hearing. He insisted he had not broken the vow he previously made to senators to not do anything to limit vaccines, though that’s exactly what he has done. He falsely claimed the CDC was overrun by financial conflicts and inaccurately said that was why he fired all 17 members of a vaccine advisory panel. (His new appointees have their own financial conflicts.) He testified that he doesn’t know how many people died of Covid and whether the vaccines prevented Covid deaths: “The problem is they didn’t have the data.” But that data does exist.

Kennedy demonstrated his slipperiness by agreeing that Trump ought to receive a Nobel prize for Operation Warp Speed, which developed the Covid vaccines, though he has previously said the Covid vaccine killed many people and was a “crime against humanity.” He told the senators that “there are no cuts to Medicaid.” But the Congressional Budget Office says that Medicaid provisions in Trump’s tax-and-spending bill would increase the number of people without health insurance by 7.8 million in 2034. And RFK Jr. hurled other falsehoods.

None of this is new. Kennedy has long been shown to be a deranged liar and conspiracy theorist. He lied during his confirmation hearings to hide his not-secret agenda to annihilate the nation’s vaccine regimen. And now we can see what happens when a disingenuous crusader obsessed with crackpot notions is put in charge of the US public health system.

Medical and scientific organizations—including the American Public Health Association, the American Society for Virology, and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society—have called for his dismissal. And numerous Democratic senators have done the same. House Democrats ought to do them one better and introduce articles of impeachment.

Do Americans want to Make Measles Great Again? Do they desire a wrecked public health system and severe cuts in research for cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and other diseases? Do they want to be unprepared for the next pandemic?

Cabinet members can be impeached. This has happened twice in US history. William Belknap, who served as secretary of war for President Ulysses Grant, was impeached in 1876 for his involvement in what was called the trader post scandal (in which he was accused of receiving kickbacks on federal contracts). He was acquitted by the Senate. In 2024, House Republicans impeached Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas for supposedly not complying with federal immigration law. The Democratic-controlled Senate dismissed the articles of impeachment, contending they did not “allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.”

Yes, there’s not much chance that articles of impeachment filed against Kennedy in the House, which is ruled by Trump’s cult, will get too far. But as Trump continues his authoritarian rampage and his administration implements profoundly harmful policies, the Ds need to acknowledge they are not in a conventional political battle and, most important, show some fight. Do Americans want to Make Measles Great Again? Do they desire a wrecked public health system and severe cuts in research for cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and other diseases? Do they want to be unprepared for the next pandemic?

These are extreme times. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries a few days ago stated that he’d like to work with Trump on affordable housing legislation. (See Dumbass Comment of the Week below.) The desire for bipartisanship is a tough craving for some of these guys and gals to kick. But to earn the trust and votes of concerned Americans, Democrats must show that they understand the multiple crises at hand and that they are willing and able to engage in the trench warfare that the Trump threat demands. Targeting Trump’s worst henchmen (and henchwomen) is just one way they can do that.

This can be a piece of the party’s 2026 strategy. The Democrats are aiming to regain the House and have hopes—though not as high—for the Senate. The most likely positive outcome for them at this point is a win in only the lower chamber. (I’m assuming nothing exceptional occurs to prevent or hinder the midterm elections—which is not an unsubstantial assumption.) Were the Democrats to triumph only in the House, their ability to thwart Trump’s assault on American democracy would increase but still be limited. They could mount investigations and issue subpoenas, but they could not pass legislation. And it’s important to keep in mind that much of what Trump has done in the past seven months to grab and consolidate power has not involved legislation. But the Democrats would hold the power of impeachment. And laying down a marker now for a Kennedy impeachment would be a serious flex.

What’s his impeachable offense? Endangering citizens ought to count, and lying to Congress is indeed a felony. His lies are life-and-death matters.

Why not move to impeach Trump? you ask. His authoritarian, unconstitutional abuses of power and arguably illegal moves could justify that. But the country has been through this before (twice!), and impeachment of a president is a direct defiance of the electorate’s will. Another Trump impeachment would allow an unpopular Trump to rally his supporters to oppose what he will call a new Democratic “hoax.” And his brown-nosing GOP lickspittles in the Senate would have his back. Also, a Democratic attempt to impeach Trump might make it seem the Democrats are as bent on revenge as Trump.

Impeaching Kennedy would cast the spotlight on his policies—which are not supported by the public—and place pressure on the handful of Republicans in the House and Senate who still have some connection to reality and who realize that Kennedy is a menace. What’s his impeachable offense? Endangering citizens ought to count, and lying to Congress is indeed a felony. His lies are life-and-death matters.

A handful of Republicans have begun to challenge Kennedy—or, that is, express concern about his perfidy. Talking about Kennedy’s recent decisions on vaccines, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a medical doctor who has long championed vaccination, said, “This is about children’s health. This is about how we protect the children of the United States of America. There’s allegations that that that health is being endangered. We need to try not presupposing anybody’s right or wrong. We got to get to the bottom of it.”

For a Republican in the Trump era, that weaselly statement counts as criticism. The bottom is already evident. Kennedy is undermining vaccinations for children and for adults. Cassidy had the chance to stop this during Kennedy’s confirmation process, when he was a key vote. After much pondering, he chickened out, backed Kennedy, and assumed a huge chunk of responsibility for the mess Kennedy is creating.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also was grousing about Kennedy this week. She asserted that the firing of Monarez and the departure of other high-level disease experts at the CDC raise “considerable questions about what is happening within the agency. Americans must be able to fully trust that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rigorously adheres to science-based and data-driven principles when issuing policy directives. The removal of the director after such a short tenure appears to be evidence that politics are taking precedence over policy. I fully support…Cassidy’s call for congressional oversight and look forward to participating in the committee’s work.”

She, too, voted to place Kennedy at HHS. No point in crying for the barn door to be closed now. The mad horseman of the apocalypse is on a breakneck gallop.

Kennedy presents a clear and present danger. He is Exhibit No. 1 that the Trump regime is a fever swamp of fringe views, grift, extremism, and conspiracism. As the House Democrats prepare for the coming electoral battle against the forces of Trumpism, they will have to do more than highlight their gazillion policy proposals and proclaim their ideas for health care, the economy, retirement security, and you-name-it are the best. They must display fierceness—over and over. Moving to impeach Kennedy is one way to do this. And it has the benefit of being fully warranted.

The below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial.

Toward the end of The Godfather, Michael Corleone, who has risen to become the head of the crime family his father built, orders the assassinations of the heads of rival mobs—brutal murders that occur as he attends the baptism of his sister’s baby. Also on his hit list is his sister’s husband, Carlo, who has betrayed the family. Before one of Michael’s lieutenants garrotes Carlo, Michael tells him, “Today I settle all family business.”

In his second stint as president, Donald Trump has taken the same mob boss stance: settling scores with his perceived enemies. Since returning to the White House he has been on vengeance spree. He removed security details from former government officials who criticized him. He has launched or encouraged the initiation of sham investigations of former President Barack Obama, former CIA chief John Brennan, former FBI chief Jim Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former special counsel Jack Smith, and others—for having dared to investigate his 2016 campaign’s contacts with Russia (as Moscow attacked the election to assist Trump) or his attempt to steal the 2020 election.

Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, his national director of intelligence, have yanked the security clearances of dozens of current and former national security officers, some who were involved in crafting the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia assaulted the 2016 campaign to help Trump, some who signed a letter in 2020 warning that stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop could be advancing Russian disinformation (which they were). Several intelligence analysts who had worked on Russia were dismissed.

At the FBI, Director Kash Patel, a Trump toady, has fired veteran agents who were involved in the Russia and January 6 probes. The Justice Department has fired prosecutors who worked on the Capitol riot criminal cases. It is investigating two Trump antagonists—Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and New York Attorney General Letitia James—for alleged mortgage fraud. (Apparently, no Republican legislator or state official is being probed for this.)

Trump also has gone after news organizations that have covered him critically and law firms that have ties to his political rivals. 

As I have been saying for almost a decade, Trump is obsessed with retribution. In fact, if one were to list his psychological motivations, the top three probably would be revenge, revenge, and revenge.

And it’s not just a matter of settling old grudges. Trump has shitcanned current officials who challenged his pronouncements. This includes the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (which released figures showing a low level of job creation) and the chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency (which produced an assessment that questioned whether Trump’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was a total success). Most recently, the FBI raided the home and office of John Bolton, who was Trump’s second national security adviser during his first presidency and who then became an ardent Trump critic.

The above is a partial recap. (Don’t forget Trump in 2023 suggested that Gen. Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had opposed Trump on various policy matters, deserved to be executed.) None of this unexpected. For as I have been saying for almost a decade, Trump is obsessed with retribution. In fact, if one were to list his psychological motivations, the top three probably would be revenge, revenge, and revenge. Perhaps more so than money and greed—though it’s a close competition.

During the 2016 campaign, I watched videos of speeches that Trump had delivered in the years before he entered politics on the keys to his success. He had a line he often repeated that went like this: I’m going to tell you the primary rule of business that business schools and successful execs won’t tell you—if someone screws you, you must screw them back harder. Here’s one example from a 2007 speech:

It’s called “Get Even.” Get even. This isn’t your typical business speech. Get even. What this is a real business speech. You know in all fairness to Wharton, I love ’em, but they teach you some stuff that’s a lot of bullshit. When you’re in business, you get even with people that screw you. And you screw them 15 times harder. And the reason is, the reason is, the reason is, not only, not only, because of the person that you’re after, but other people watch what’s happening. Other people see you or see you or see and they see how you react.

Trump repeated this advice to crowds of thousands who paid good money to get the inside dope on how to become fabulously wealthy. (At least, it was cheaper than enrolling in Trump University!)

After reviewing a load of these appearances, I wrote an article headlined, “Trump Is Completely Obsessed with Revenge.” I noted that revenge was “embedded in his DNA” and that his “favorite form of revenge is escalation—upping the ante, screwing ’em more than they screwed you.” And I observed that “constantly behaving vengefully is hardly a positive attribute” for a president. Unfortunately, this was a point that largely went uncovered during the circus of the 2016 campaign. In the years since, I have updated that piece again and again and again—including recently in this newsletter. (See here and here.)

“Revenge is sweet and not fattening.” – Alfred Hitchcock

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2014

Yet this pathological aspect of Trump’s personality has not fully registered with the electorate. He presents as a tough guy. But a close look reveals he’s full of rage and resentment and seethes with that desire to get even and destroy his presumed foes. Is the cause his childhood, during which he was tormented by his tyrannical father? Does this stem from the initial refusal of the Manhattan elite to welcome into its ranks this brash and obnoxious self-promoter from Queens? Whatever the reason, Trump has repeatedly displayed this twisted nature of his soul. And as the GOP has become a cult, it has embraced this fundamental—and very un-Christian—feature.

Trumpian revenge has become a rallying cry for all of MAGA. And his disciples have not been shy about this mission. In a 2023 book, Patel presented a list of the Deep State denizens that deserved investigation. It was a long roster of 60 names, including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Merrick Garland, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, as well as Republicans Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein, who together ran the Justice Department in the first Trump administration. (Barr did much to undercut the Russia investigation and undermine special counsel Robert Mueller, but he did not go along with Trump’s plot to steal the 2020 election.) Many on the list have already been targeted by the Trump gang.

Patel ought to have recused himself from any probe related to Bolton. Yet that would have diminished his usefulness to Trump, for his job as FBI director is to extract vengeance for Trump.

Bolton was one of the so-called Deep Staters that Patel marked for revenge. And for Patel, it was personal. In his book, Patel recounts that when Trump wanted to hire Patel for the National Security Council staff, Bolton initially blocked the move. But Bolton was forced to concede and give Patel a job. Patel considered the position Bolton offered beneath him. He took it anyway and eventually gained the post he wanted—though, he claims, Bolton’s people kept trying to sabotage him.

Clearly, Patel has his own beef with Bolton. It was absurd to appoint an FBI director with a hit list. (Patel notes in his book that his Deep State roster only covers past or present officials in the executive branch; the full list includes reporters, consultants, and members of Congress. Thus, the enemies in his sights must be in the triple digits.) And it was wrong for Patel to approve the investigation of Bolton, a personal nemesis of his, for alleged mishandling of classified information—an inquiry that led to this raid. Patel ought to have recused himself from any probe related to Bolton. Yet that would have diminished his usefulness to Trump, for his job as FBI director is to extract vengeance for Trump.

In February 2024, Trump said, “I don’t care about the revenge thing…My revenge will be success.” That was a lie. Yes, one of many for Trump. But it’s a falsehood that illuminates his essence. He lusts for vengeance. He always has. And the success he has had on this front in only seven months in office is a warning that he will go much further. He must have his own list of all who have slighted or attempted to thwart him. And Trump is working his way through that call sheet. He will not stop on his own accord. As he gets away with each brazen act of revenge, he is emboldened and encouraged to continue his get-even crusade. I imagine other Democratic officials will be targeted, as will additional news organizations and, eventually, specific journalists.

Who else? Donors who have stiffed him? Business competitors who bested him in deals? If you can imagine a particular person who might be a target, I am sure Trump has already etched that name on the slate. Trump, with the expanding power he is grabbing through assorted authoritarian measures, is bolstering his ability to make his past or present foes pay for their transgressions. He will use the FBI, the IRS, the CIA, the NSA, ICE, and perhaps the military to nail his adversaries.

During the 2024 campaign, Trump exclaimed to supporters, “I am your retribution.” That was bullshit. He is his own retribution. It’s about him. In the Godfather, when Michael Corleone volunteers to kill a mob rival and a crooked police captain, he tells his brother Sonny, “It’s not personal. It’s strictly business.” For Trump, it’s not business; it’s strictly personal. When Trump was merely a reality TV celebrity, his braying about revenge was harmless. It was a schtick. Now that he is abusing the powers of the federal government to fulfill his revenge fantasies, we can see institutional guardrails crumbling. His revenge-a-thon may only be starting.

The below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial.

I spent much of the summer of 1975 working on cars at my friend Jamie’s house. His older brother had a business renovating vintage sports coups—MGs, Triumphs, Jaguars—and Jamie and a group of his pals were the worker bees. The brother didn’t pay us—I was making money that summer pumping gas at an indie station—but every once in a while we earned a beer. Most of what we did was highly unskilled work: smoothing panels (by hand with sandpaper) and de-gunking disassembled motor parts. It was fun, and at night after quitting time there’d be the usual underage drinking in the garage behind the house or the basement rec room.

On the evening of August 15, as we were finishing up, I suggested we find a radio. A somewhat new-to-the-scene musician named Bruce Springsteen was playing with his E Street Band at the legendary Bottom Line club in New York City, as part of a 10-concert showcase, and WNEW-FM was broadcasting this performance live. Springsteen was about to release his third album, Born To Run. His first two—Greetings from Asbury Park, N.J. and The Wild, The Innocent & the E Street Shuffle—had garnered critical acclaim and airplay on the hippest FM stations but weren’t commercial successes. Columbia had signed Springsteen as the new next-Dylan, but so far, he had not delivered. This new disc could be his last shot. A pre-release of the “Born to Run” single—an operatic, full-throttle rock anthem that incorporated the sounds of Phil Spector and R&B—had quickly become a favorite at WNEW and other taste-making outlets, and expectations were high for the new album, for which Columbia Records was spending a ton to promote.

Yet when I said we should listen to this show, my gang—which included Deadheads and aficionados of middle-of-the-road arena rock—said, no dice. “He’s just greaser music,” one offered, which I found amusing, given that we spent our days reviving junkers—which seemed adjacent to the car-centric mythology at the center of Springsteen’s universe. I can’t recall how much of an argument I put forward, but I ended up alone in Jamie’s bedroom, sitting on the floor in the dark, with the stereo tuned to WNEW. I hung on every note, hook, and riff. Little did I realize that I—and many others listening at that moment—were forging what would be a lifelong relationship with this scruffy dude from Jersey.

His Bottom Line performances and the Born to Run album launched Springsteen into rock ‘n’ roll stardom. Two months later, he was featured on the covers of Newsweek (“Making Of A Rock Star”) and Time (“Rock’s New Sensation”). Springsteen was on his way to becoming not just a rock luminary but a guiding light for millions. He was composing what would be for 50 years the soundtrack for their lives.

His timing was propitious. After a decade or so of accompanying social upheaval, rock had become bloated. In the middle of the 1970s, it was no longer the music of peace-and-love-and-protest, as it had been in the 1960s. And much of the optimism that had accompanied the chaos of those years had evaporated. Watergate. The oil embargo and the end of cheap gas. The defeat of the United States in Vietnam. A mood of cynicism had started to take hold. Those of us who had been born at the end of the Baby Boom had missed out on the fun of the ’60s (Sex! Drugs! Revolution!). Though we had been too young for the party, we now were saddled with the morning-after hangover. After the cultural and political spasms of the previous decade, the nation was still at odds with itself and still with no direction home.

With mainstream rock having become flabby, there were stirrings of a new sound: punk music. Lou Reed (formerly of the Velvet Underground), the New York Dolls, the Stooges, MC5, and others were kicking a new jam. Just as Springsteen-mania was hitting, Patti Smith, a beat-style poet who hooked up with garage-rock musicians, was finishing her pioneering Horses album, full of dark and mystical lyrics. At the core of this rock rebirth was a sense of alienation and anarchy. The nihilistic message of much of this music: It’s all shit. In England, the Sex Pistols were being slammed as a sign of civilization’s end. Soon the Ramones would show up singing about sniffing glue and beating up brats. The arrival of The Clash would add a dose of politics to this countercultural sneer. It was all powerful stuff—especially for anyone disaffected and wondering where the hell the world was heading.

Springsteen offered something different: aspiration.

His songs captured what had been the traditional essence of rock: yearning for more. That more could be more fun, more love, more freedom, more community. What had Elvis symbolized? The ability to break free of convention. Springsteen’s songs focused on a fundamental American ideal: the pursuit of happiness. That was the main moral of the myths he created about teenage racers, street toughs, and guitar-wielding gangs. The protagonist of Born to Run was desperately seeking to escape the “death trap” of a “runaway American dream” to find “that place” where he and his love could “walk in the sun.” You didn’t have to be a motorhead who could rebuild a Chevy to identify with this compelling sentiment. In fact, as he has acknowledged, Springsteen wasn’t one either. That was just the realm where he located his poetry and storytelling. More fundamental, he was tapping into a universal desire of young people as America was experiencing an unsettling backlash to the 1960s.

He did this by embodying the spirit of early rock ‘n’ roll. During that Bottom Line performance, Springsteen played several covers, including “Then She Kissed Me” (a gender-flipped version of the Crystals’ “Then He Kissed Me”), “Having a Party” (Sam Cooke), and “Quarter to Three” (Gary “U.S.” Bonds). Each had been a hit for a Black musical act. And just as significant, his long-term relationship with saxophonist Clarence Clemons, a towering Black man, rendered the E Street Band a multiracial endeavor, a not-so-common lineup in mainstream rock.

With such covers and original compositions that sought to capture the fire of his progenitors, Springsteen was honoring and building upon the past, not rejecting it—incorporating it into a modern retelling of American life. His mission was to show that music could be a positive and reaffirming spark in the lives of those who listened. As an ungainly and out-of-sorts teen reared in a home in which family love and dysfunction competed, rock had been his salvation. He believed it could be the same for others. Music was a way to cope with the disappointments, mysteries, and longings of life, as well as a source of exhilaration and delight.

Most important, Springsteen grew up with us—or we with him. On the albums that followed Born to Run, he expanded his palette from songs that chronicled the exuberance of youth to tracks that confronted the responsibilities and obstacles of adulthood. It wasn’t always pretty. His most recent album of original songs explored the sense of loss experienced by anyone who makes it into their mid-70s. Without mawkish sentimentality, he sung about the friends he had lost—including each member of his first band—and the inevitability of the final farewell.

Springsteen examined the hardships of life without ever giving up on hope. “And I believe in the promised land,” he would sing—for decades. Even though burdens and challenges only increase through the years, he constantly reminded his audience that it was crucial to seek, recognize, and celebrate moments of jubilation.

One of his basic rules remained untouched by time: Rock is supposed to be joyous. He demonstrated this whenever he hit the stage with his fellow E Streeters for one of his marathon concerts. He was always a hard-working showman dedicated to inspiring and uplifting those who cheered and applauded before him. He wanted to give them something to hang on to. On the dark and moody Nebraska, his unplugged solo album, he put it simply: “Still at the end of every hard day / People find some reason to believe.” The camaraderie he displayed with his bandmates extended to the audience. For decades and through various stages of life—his and ours—he reassured us: We’re all in this together.

As he and his audience matured, Springsteen became more attuned to the world outside the cosmos of his lyrics. He began addressing deindustrialization and the decline of blue-collar America (“Johnny 99,” “My Hometown, and “Youngstown”), the poor treatment of Vietnam veterans (“Born in the USA,” which was absurdly hailed by Ronald Reagan as a patriotic anthem), AIDS (“Streets of Philadelphia”), the cruelty of 1990s Republicans (“The Ghost of Tom Joad”), police violence (“41 Shots”), 9/11 (“The Rising”), and the Iraq War and the use of torture (“Long Walk Home”). On his 2006 album, We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions, Springsteen offered his interpretation of 13 folk songs, including several protest songs, that Pete Seeger, the activist and folk musician, had popularized.

As a side gig, he became an articulate advocate for progressive American values. In May, during a show in Manchester, England, he introduced “Land of Hope and Dreams”—a quintessential Springsteen gospel-esque number that encourages optimism and faith—with a diatribe against Donald Trump: “In my home, the America I love, the America I’ve written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous administration. Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experiment to rise with us, raise your voices against authoritarianism and let freedom ring!”

The Springsteen generation came of age at a time when decline loomed. America seemed to be slipping on the world stage. The post–World War II economy that had birthed a powerful and secure middle class was no longer so mighty, and the wildness and thrills of the 1960s were heading toward the conventions and cultural conservatism of Reaganism. Fifty years ago this month, Springsteen unveiled Born to Run and offered a different path, presenting a revived rock ethos that would forge a bond with his fans for decades.

Springsteen maintained his relevance through all that time with deep respect for this relationship and with much discipline and mountains of hard work. He grabbed ahold of us long ago and took us on an exciting journey, as a ringleader and fellow seeker. It’s easy to poke fun at a certain demographic of white guys (and gals) for their devotion to Springsteen. But he mirrored our desires, transforming these notions into songs and stories that helped us better understand ourselves and our world, delivering both amusement and reflection. And he stayed with us, never letting go of that original dream, even though its contours inexorably changed as the years flew by. As an artist and an entertainer, he has been a faithful companion and a steady guide. He has held fast to that promise he presented half a century ago. He has given us a helluva ride.

These days, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, is a faithful servant for President Donald Trump, going so far as to cook up a phony intelligence report so Trump’s Justice Department can pursue investigations of his perceived enemies. But not so long ago, Gabbard slammed Trump for being a warmonger supporting a “genocidal war” in order to score billions of dollars in arms sales and for pushing an “insane” policy “to protect al-Qaeda.”

These blistering criticisms of Trump came during the first Trump presidency, when Gabbard was a Democratic House member from Hawaii and a founding fellow of the Bernie Sanders Institute, a nonprofit the socialist senator from Vermont set up after his 2016 presidential campaign to promote progresssive policies. In the fall of 2018, Gabbard, who had supported Sanders’ presidential bid, recorded a video with Jane Sanders, the senator’s wife and a co-founder of the institute, in which she accused Trump of profound perfidy.

Gabbard not only blasted the Trump administration’s policy as misguided; she asserted that Trump was backing Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen to protect $2 billion in US arm sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Gabbard excoriated the “disastrous decisions” of the US government that had led to “regime-change wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Referring to the “genocidal war that Saudi Arabia” was then waging in Yemen, she noted that it had created the “worst humanitarian disaster in the world,” and she decried the Trump administration for “standing shoulder to shoulder with Saudi Arabia in this war, as they commit these atrocities against Yemeni civilians.”

Gabbard referred to this conflict as “an illegal war that the United States is waging” with Saudi Arabia. She added that Trump was using US taxpayer dollars to “refuel Saudi planes, to provide precision missiles” that were attacking weddings and school buses. She called for stopping all US military support for Saudi Arabia—a government with which Trump was striving to forge a closer bond.

Gabbard not only blasted the Trump administration’s policy as misguided; she asserted that Trump was backing Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen to protect $2 billion in US arm sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. She leveled a serious charge at the Trump White House: “These leaders are making decisions for profits on the backs of the lives of these innocent civilians in Yemen. It’s heartbreaking to see how these millions of people’s lives have just been devastated by the continuance of this war.”

Sanders turned the conversation to the ongoing civil war in Syria. Trump had recently threatened to use military force against Russia-backed President Bashir al-Assad if Assad attacked Idlib province, a stronghold of the jihadist opposition, and Gabbard assailed the president for his “beating of the war drums.”

She contended that al-Qaeda controlled Idlib and Trump’s action was a “complete betrayal of the American people, of those who lost their lives on 9/11, of the troops who have been fighting against terrorism and their families.” She said, “It’s insane, frankly, that we would hear these threats coming from the United States president and the commander in chief that they will force ‘dire consequences’ and the use of military force against these other countries to protect al-Qaeda.” (At that point, the largest rebel force in Idlib was a group with historic ties to al-Qaeda.)

Explaining to Sanders why Trump was supposedly protecting al-Qaeda, Gabbard described what was close to a conspiracy theory:

Since 2011, when the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this kind of slow, drawn-out regime-change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham—these different groups—that have morphed and taken on different names but are essentially all linked with al-Qaeda or [are] al-Qaeda themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government. So President Trump and his war cabinet recognize now that if al-Qaeda is destroyed in Syria, in Idlib, which is kind of their last stand, then that ground force will be gone, and this regime-change war, in effect, will be over.

Gabbard was saying that Trump was purposefully backing what she called al-Qaeda in order to keep the war going in Syria.

Regarding Idlib, Trump’s national security team at that time was concerned that an Assad assault on the province—with the likely support of Russia and Iran—would produce much bloodshed and chaos and cause a massive flow of refugees into Turkey. This flood could include thousands of jihadist fighters who might move to other parts of Europe. Trump’s advisers also feared that Assad in attacking Idlib might once again use chemical weapons.

Gabbard did not address these matters and focused only on her belief that the Trump administration was aligning itself with al-Qaeda to keep alive the war against Assad. She seemed supportive of allowing Bashar to proceed with an assault on Idlib—or not taking steps to prevent him from doing so.

By this point, Gabbard had already positioned herself as an outlier on Syria policy and had been branded an apologist for Assad. She had questioned international findings that Assad had used chemical weapons on civilian targets. And in 2017, she held a secret meeting with him.

This conversation with Sanders was not a one-off. In an interview with the Nation weeks earlier, Gabbard had castigated Trump for protecting “al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria,” all the while “threatening Russia, Syria, and Iran, with military force if they dare attack these terrorists.” She slapped Trump for acting “as the protective big brother of al-Qaeda and other jihadists.” She painted a dark picture of him:

The president loves being adored and praised, and despite his rants against them, he especially craves the favor of the media. Trump remembers very well that the only times he has been praised almost universally by the mainstream media, Republicans, and Democrats, was when he has engaged in aggressive military actions… Right now, President Trump’s approval ratings are dropping, and he craves positive reinforcement. He and his team are making a political calculation and looking for any excuse or opportunity to launch another military attack, so that Trump can again be glorified for dropping bombs… President Trump and his cabinet of war hawks are concerned that if al-Qaeda is defeated in Idlib, then our regime-change war to overthrow the Syrian government will be over.

During her chat with Jane Sanders, Gabbard, who was a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, affirmed Sanders’ calls for Medicare for All and a Green New Deal. She bemoaned the nation’s “addiction to fossil fuels.” And when Sanders referred to the “autocratic nature” of Trump, Gabbard nodded along. She also praised the “great work” of the Bernie Sanders Institute.

Mother Jones sent Gabbard a long list of questions about her harsh criticism of Trump’s actions related to Yemen and Syria, her work with the Bernie Sanders Institute, and her support of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. She did not answer any query, but her press secretary at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Olivia Coleman, emailed, “For a publication that brands itself as ‘investigative’ and pro-peace, your inquiry conveniently ignores everything President Trump and DNI Gabbard, under his leadership, have done to keep Americans safe and advance peace since day one. Shame on you for using cherry picked remarks from seven years ago in a clear attempt to smear them.”

In December 2018, Gabbard was a featured speaker at a conference organized by the Bernie Sanders Institute, and appeared on a panel with actor Susan Sarandon, civil rights activist Ben Jealous, and progressive economist Radhika Balakrishnan. Addressing the topic of environmental justice, she said that “the most basic and fundamental human right is clean air and clean water.” She asked the audience to hold its breath. “You can’t exist for very long without air, ” she remarked.

At this gathering of leftist Democrats and progressives, Gabbard was quite at home. She noted that “so many of the decisions that are being made in regards to policy” were “being driven by greed.” She recounted her participation in the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in Standing Rock, South Dakota. She assailed the fossil fuel industry. She noted that economic conditions in Central America were driving people in that region to flee their countries and called for US policies to address that. She urged “economic empowerment” in the United States “based on human rights and needs, not consumerism and greed.”

Two months later, in February 2019, Gabbard announced her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After a year of campaigning, having collected merely two delegates, she withdrew from the race and endorsed Joe Biden, the eventual nominee. Two years later, Gabbard, who had once been a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, left the party—calling it too woke and too hawkish—and endorsed several Trump-backed GOP congressional candidates in the 2022 midterm elections.

In August 2024, Gabbard, the onetime progressive House Democrat and Bernie Sanders Institute fellow, endorsed Trump, now claiming he had the “courage” to pursue peace and see “war as a last resort.” His support of Saudi war crimes in Yemen (due to a greedy desire for revenue from arms sales) and his supposed scheming to support al-Qaeda in Syria were memory-holed—as were her previous leftish views on economics, health care, and the environment.

Trump’s current stable of top appointees includes several who were once fierce critics and who dumped their harsh views of Trump in order to serve him. On this roster are Secretary of State Marco Rubio (“a con artist”); Vice President JD Vance (either “a cynical a–hole like Nixon” or “America’s Hitler”) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (“a threat to democracy”). But only one of his senior aides previously accused Trump of making common cause with al-Qaeda, betraying the nation, and supporting war crimes for the sake of profits—and that person now comfortably works for Trump and oversees the entire US intelligence community.

The below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial.

Every day, Americans are bombarded with the bad news of Trump 2.0: concentration camps; cruel ICE raids targeting law-abiding residents; health insurance being yanked from millions; elite universities, media companies, and law firms yielding to mob-like extortion; crypto deals and other brazen grifting tied to a corrupt White House; rampant abuses of governmental power and threats of sham criminal prosecutions against the administration’s critics and political foes; drastic cuts in food assistance; assaults on women’s rights; the withholding of disaster relief; the reckless shutdowns and eviscerations of crucial government services and agencies that will result in hardship (and, in some cases, death) for Americans and people overseas.

This is, of course, a partial list. And it is exhausting to keep track of and absorb each new outrage. That is the clear intent. The Trump transgressions come so fast they distract from each other. Public attention rarely remains focused on any one atrocity. We’re bludgeoned by the never-ending stream of misdeeds and affronts—which each day come wrapped in propaganda extolling a new Golden Age and assorted false glories of Dear Leader. When one is caught in the crossfire, it is hard to see, let alone address, the big picture.

Trump and his gang are deconstructing America. It is the story that must be conveyed to the citizenry.

That is to Donald Trump’s advantage. For a long time, commentators have noted that he relishes generating chaos and believes he can exploit disorder for political advantage. It’s an escape route for him. The dizzying whirlwind he creates places critics and opponents off-balance. And perhaps best of all for him and his crew, it hides their overall plan and inhibits the development and promotion of an overarching counternarrative. Their foes are stuck decrying the individual acts of villainy, one at a time, without doing what is most necessary in American politics: telling a story.

Trump and his gang are deconstructing America. This is their purposeful goal and an obvious one, if you look past the daily barrage of absurdity, indecency, corruption, wrongdoing, and abuses of power. It is the story that must be conveyed to the citizenry.

For years, Trump’s lieutenants and allies—folks like alt-right leader Steve Bannon and the arch-conservative eggheads at the Heritage Foundation—have decried what they call the “administrative state” and urged its abolition. By this, they meant the permanent civil service that does the work of government, such as enforcing laws and implementing policies, regulations, and safeguards. It’s been a long-term desire of right-wingers to smash the state and disempower these public servants—and make way for an economically libertarian and socially conservative regime that, in the case of Trump, would be ruled by an autocrat. Government would no longer have the potential to be a countervailing force to the power of corporate interests and wealth. This is the dream shared by Elon Musk and the reason he jumped aboard the Trump train. Like many of his Silicon Valley brethren, he envisions a world in which profit-driven tech overlords plot our collective future free of the pesky meddling of government.

Trump’s master plan extends far beyond government. He is seeking to weaken and intimidate other influential sections of society that might provide a check on him and a corporate-friendly state.

To achieve something of this sort, Trump, following the playbook of Project 2025, is attempting to shift the basic balance of power in the United States and revoke a fundamental agreement of American society: The rich and the powerful get to be rich and powerful, while government constrains their excesses and looks out for the common interest of the rest of us. Under Trump, that deal—which often in American history has been executed shoddily and not infrequently ignored—is null and void. Look at artificial intelligence. Last month, Trump gave free rein to the tech firms to develop this new technology—which might present a risk to humanity—as they wish. There will be no consideration of the public interest or public safety.

But Trump’s master plan—of which he is hardly the main author—extends far beyond government. He is seeking to weaken and intimidate other influential sections of society that might provide a check on him and a corporate-friendly state. Embracing a decades-long crusade of the right, he has assaulted the media, looking to discredit news outlets and undercut their ability to hold him and his allies accountable. And big guns of corporate media—ABC News and Paramount, the owner of CBS News—have buckled, agreeing to pay Trump millions of dollars in extortion fees. A wave of baseless defamation suits from Trump and his confreres have sent chilling waves through the media. Brendan Carr, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, has issued not-so-veiled threats against news organizations and media companies that rely on broadcast licenses issued by the federal government.

Trump has gone after powerful law firms in the same Sopranos-like manner, several of which settled and agreed to pay huge fees though they had committed no wrongdoing. Now big law firms are more reluctant to take on cases that might offend Trump. This week, Reuters published an investigation that concluded, “Dozens of major law firms, wary of political retaliation, have scaled back pro bono work, diversity initiatives and litigation that could place them in conflict with the Trump administration…Many firms are making a strategic calculation: withdraw from pro bono work frowned on by Trump, or risk becoming the next target.”

The Trump White House also zeroed in on Ivy League schools. So far, Columbia, the University of Pennsylvania, and Brown have settled bogus cases deployed against them by the administration. Columbia will pay $200 million directly to the government and be subjected to an independent monitor. Brown escaped such an intrusion and agreed to pay $50 million over 10 years to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island. Harvard, which initially seemed to be a front of resistance, is now reportedly in negotiations to forge an agreement with Trump that could entail a payment of $500 million. Universities and colleges across the nation are undoubtedly watching all this and discussing how to avoid the wrath of Trump.

Trump and his posse are waging an inexplicable war on science. Is that because they see science as a fount of liberalism, as if reality has a political bias?

As is Corporate America. Trump has been good to many executives and firms by slashing their taxes and weakening regulatory enforcement, especially for polluters and financial firms. (Tariffs are another matter.) But the men and women in the C-suites are no fools and realize that a price will be paid if they end up at odds with Trump. (See Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.)

Trump has annihilated one of the centers of influential thought in the nation: the scientific research community. Slashing billions of dollars in funding for medical research and other scientific endeavors, he is wiping out a generation of science and scientists. One of the driving engines of American society and the US economy is being deprived of fuel. The United States is on its way to losing its preeminent standing in the global scientific community. That means lower likelihoods of breakthroughs in the search for treatments and cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and other diseases, as well as increased challenges once the next pandemic strikes. Dramatic reductions in NASA’s budget will cause a severe decline in basic scientific research. Trump and his posse are waging an inexplicable war on science. Is that because they see science as a fount of liberalism, as if reality has a political bias?

With his mass deportation effort, Trump has turned a slice of American law enforcement into a police state. He has spread fear through many towns and communities, as his masked marauders round up law-abiding residents and threaten small businesses. Why go after people who are working hard, paying taxes, and contributing to their communities? It’s difficult not to see a racial motive and a desire to reverse the demographic diversity that is a key and dynamic ingredient of American society. At the same time, Trump has moved to make the United States less secular. His IRS issued a ruling to allow churches and other places of worship to become more directly involved in elections. On Monday, his Office of Personnel Management released new guidance that would allow federal employees to display religious items in the workplace, pray in groups, and proselytize their fellow workers.

It’s an everything-everywhere-all-at-once strategy to reshape America to the fancy of an autocrat and far-right advocates who crave blowing up the foundations of America they regard as liberal, woke, or otherwise at odds with their MAGA theology.

What Trump and Co. are doing brings to mind Christian dominionism. Fundamentalists who adhere to this theology believe that Christians ought to have dominion over the vital sectors of society: family, religion, government, education, media, business, and arts and entertainment. Trump is striving for such domination. He even seized control of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. (Republicans have proposed renaming it the Donald J. Trump Center for Performing Arts.) His White House has muscled the Smithsonian Institution to eschew exhibitions that in the Trumpers’ view reflect DEI concerns. As a result of pressure from the administration, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Art History removed references to Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibit on impeachments in US history. In 1984, the Party has a slogan: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

It’s an everything-everywhere-all-at-once strategy to reshape America to the fancy of an autocrat and far-right advocates who crave blowing up the foundations of America they regard as liberal, woke, or otherwise at odds with their MAGA theology. And it entails amassing political clout unlike a president has ever done, with Trump illegally assuming powers he doesn’t possess (such as to impose tariffs and deport people without due process) and trying to rig the system (see the latest gerrymandering by Texas Republicans).

One huge question is how to tell this story? The individual components are so troubling they warrant their own headlines, and the conventional media is not adept at consistently portraying overarching narratives in a down-to-brass-tacks fashion. The key word in the last sentence is “consistently.” In today’s fractured and bubble-ized media ecosystem, plotlines don’t punch through unless there’s repetition and force in the presentation. It’s too easy to be distracted. Each day we are hit by thousands of impressions—social media posts, ads, emails, news stories, videos. How does an idea—such as, Trump is deconstructing American society—cut through the immense and never-ending clutter and register with a large number of people?

Before you quickly say, “The Democrats should be doing this,” I’ll note that, yes, the Democrats should be doing this. But let’s be real. There are few Democrats these days who have a national platform from which they can broadcast such a message. That’s not only because most are awful as communicators in the digital age, but also because the party locked out of the White House and the congressional majorities usually has difficulty gaining the attention of those Americans who don’t obsessively pay attention to politics.

The challenge of how to reach voters who do not engage with news or politics is the No. 1 problem for Democrats. You can’t rebrand if no one sees you trying to rebrand. Trump, a creation of reality TV and celebrity culture, commands attention—and even did so when he was not in office. There’s no Democrat with such standing. Thus, no Democrat is well positioned to inform Americans of the grand scheme underway.

The president was acknowledging he would use instruments of state power to try to lock up his political enemies. Richard Nixon musing about such things on the Watergate tapes was a massive scandal. Nowadays, it’s just another Tuesday.

That’s not to say that Democrats shouldn’t try. If enough of them use the daily outrages to illuminate the larger narrative and do so repeatedly, the message will reach some people. But this would require much repetition and discipline, as well as imagination and creativity regarding how to connect with people not looking for connections with politicians. At the moment, beating the Epstein scandal drum probably seems more effective for many Democrats, as they try to ride a wave of protest and upset created by Trump’s own base.

Reporters and commentators in the media could help share this story. But that might require breaking free of certain industry conventions. The gravitational pull within much mainstream media is toward neutral language and presentation. That aids bad-faith actors. It was shocking that when Trump recently said, “Whether it’s right or wrong, it’s time to go after people,” this remark did not lead to front-page headlines and days of high-octane coverage. The president of the United States was acknowledging he would use instruments of state power—in this instance, the intelligence community and the Justice Department—to try to lock up his political enemies. Richard Nixon musing about such things on the Watergate tapes was a massive scandal. Nowadays, it’s just another Tuesday.

Perhaps “deconstructing America” is not the best phrase for this task. “Destroying America” seems a touch vague and for some it might come across as hyperbolic. The “No Kings” slogan that apparently arose organically via national protests against Trump caught on, and it works as effective shorthand. But it may be too personalized, fixating on Trump’s pathological appetite for authoritarian rule, without sufficiently covering the transformational and wide-ranging attack on the nation that he and the right are perpetuating. I’m open to suggestions.

The point remains: The full impact of Trump’s rule has not seemed to register with most Americans, even as he slips in the polls. It is a frightening tale. He and his co-conspirators are forcing profound changes upon the nation—policies that do not have the support of the majority and that will cause much damage and be difficult to remedy. This is the narrative that needs to be conveyed, for if the people do not understand the sweeping dark reality of Trumpism, they will not be able to stop it.

The below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial.

There are only a few potential existential threats to human society, as far as we know. Nuclear weapons are the most obvious. Climate change, in the worst case, could lead to assorted doomsdays. And, according to the makers of sci-fi films and to some real-world scientists, artificial intelligence falls into this category. Many governments have been trying—to varying degrees of effectiveness—to confront the first two of this trio. Though arms control and nuclear nonproliferation efforts and policies to counter climate change have not been robust enough to prevent the worst possible disasters, we generally know what governments ought to do to handle these threats. It’s more a matter of political will. With AI, the best course of action remains a question, and the big decisions are mainly in the hands of tech companies, which care more about dollars than safeguards. Donald Trump just further empowered these firms.

It never became a campaign issue last year, but a reason to fear a Trump presidency was that should he win he would play a key role in determining rules for AI. Could Trump, a fellow who’s ignorant about so much and who doesn’t bother to spend time studying an issue, be trusted to make the correct and difficult decisions on AI without being unduly influenced by Big Tech, political contributors, or perhaps his own financial interests? Simply put, did you want this guy to be determining whether we develop Skynet? It was a conversation the American public didn’t have.

Now Trump is in that position, and he has decided to let the AI gang run free and wild—with one big exception.

So who will be calling the shots on AI? Not elected representatives of the public, but the companies desperately seeking to boost profits and grab as much as they can in this modern-day gold rush.

Last week, as the headlines were dominated by the Epstein mess, ICE raids, and the horrific famine in Gaza, Trump signed three executive orders on AI and released an “AI Action” plan. The net result is that tech firms will be allowed to develop AI free from bothersome regulations and safeguards. Trump has ripped up guidelines issued by the Biden administration that sought to implement AI protections, effectively saying to the tech sector, full speed ahead—it’s more important to beat China than to ponder how to safely and responsibly move forward with AI.

So who will be calling the shots on AI? Not elected representatives of the public, but the companies desperately seeking to boost profits and grab as much as they can in this modern-day gold rush. For all the harm Trump has caused—killing people overseas by canceling humanitarian relief programs, yanking health insurance from millions, eviscerating necessary government programs, destroying the nation’s research infrastructure, etc.—this maybe one of his most consequential decisions.

There’s a great debate about what AI means for our society and our species. It ranges from Pollyannish techno-optimism to warnings from serious thinkers of an apocalypse. For example, Geoffrey Hinton, the “Godfather of AI,” who won a Nobel Prize last year for his pioneering research on neural networks, believes there’s a 10 to 20 percent chance that AI will eventually take control from humans. If we do have reason to fear unrestrained AI, then Trump could be greasing the way to our Terminator future.

One of the executive orders Trump signed decried “political bias” in AI. But he’s not worried about the bias that Grok showed weeks ago when it went racist and antisemitic and called itself “MechaHitler.”

At the same time, Trump is trying to Trumpify AI—in an authoritarian fashion. He and his acolytes are repeating the same con they did with social media. Remember how the right spent years whining that social media companies had a liberal bias and suppressed conservative speech? That was bunk. But now Trump and MAGA are leading a similar blitz against AI.

One of the executive orders Trump signed decried “political bias” in AI. But he’s not worried about the bias that Grok, xAI’s chatbot, showed weeks ago when it went racist and antisemitic and called itself “MechaHitler.” Trump had something else in mind. He declared, “The American people do not want woke Marxist lunacy in the AI models.”

What was he referring to? Trump didn’t provide specifics, but last year conservatives lost their cool when Gemini, Google’s AI tool, produced a Black rendition of George Washington when asked to show the nation’s founding fathers. And Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey recently accused OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, and Meta of engaging in deceptive business practices because their AI chatbots, when asked to rank the last five presidents “from best to worst, specifically regarding antisemitism,” listed Trump last. (Trump is the only modern president to have held a dinner with an antisemitic rapper and a white supremacist who praised Hitler.)

“Missourians deserve the truth, not AI-generated propaganda masquerading as fact,” Bailey complained. “If AI chatbots are deceiving consumers through manipulated ‘fact-checking,’ that’s a violation of the public’s trust and may very well violate Missouri law.” 

In March, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, issued subpoenas to 16 tech companies, demanding information on whether the Biden administration had pressured AI firms to “censor lawful speech”—implying that President Joe Biden forced AI chatbots to suppress right-wing ideas.

But what does it mean that AI must reflect the truth and eschew “social engineering”—a term that right-wingers often attach to anything they see as “woke”?

With his executive order, Trump jumped to the front of this new conservative crusade. His action plan declared that the government must only procure AI that “objectively reflects truth rather than social engineering agendas.” It noted that AI developers seeking federal contracts must “ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down ideological bias.”

Since the AI companies view the US government as a major client, any procurement rules the feds set for AI is a big deal. But what does it mean that AI must reflect the truth and eschew “social engineering”—a term that right-wingers often attach to anything they see as “woke”? A White House fact sheet insisted that AI “shall be truthful and prioritize historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and objectivity.”

Who decides what is true? That’s the rub here. Ask an AI chatbot who won the 2020 election and what will you get? An answer that Trump claims is false. What if you pose this query: “Can you give me a list of the 30,000-plus lies or false statements Trump uttered during his first presidency that were chronicled by the Washington Post?” Or which president has had the best economy? Did Trump encourage an insurrectionist riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021? The replies will not line up with MAGA reality.

Trump is attempting to set up the federal government—his federal government—as an arbiter of the truth. This is, to make an obvious connection, Orwellian. For all his powers of imagination, the author of 1984 could not have envision an authoritarian state that controls the truth through AI. And this seems a clear violation of the First Amendment. Will commissars in the Trump White House cancel a Pentagon contract with OpenAI if they query ChatGPT about Russian intervention in the 2020 election and the chatbot says Moscow intervened to help Trump? Or if they find ChatGPT referencing a critical race analysis of a historical event or highlighting a UN study on the disastrous impact of climate change?

It’s a deal with the devil—to which tech companies are saying, “Fine.”

As Steve Levy notes in Wired, “Trump’s anti-bias AI order is just more bias.” He points out that “so far no Big Tech company has publicly objected to the plan.” They’re all so eager to cash in on AI—and appreciative of Trump’s let-’er-rip policy—that they’re not complaining about this unprecedented attack on free expression.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) has written to the heads of Alphabet, Anthropic, OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta, urging the firms to oppose Trump’s attempt to regulate and censor AI content. Trump’s order, he said, “will create significant financial incentives for the Big Tech companies…to ensure their AI chatbots do not produce speech that would upset the Trump administration.” He told Levy, “Republicans want to use the power of the government to make ChatGPT sound like Fox & Friends.”

Trump is unleashing the tech titans to proceed as they wish with this revolutionary and perhaps humanity-destroying technology yet telling them they will have to abide by and incorporate his biases and false realities. It’s a deal with the devil—to which the companies are saying, “Fine.” They get to amass fortunes, and Trump, the wannabe autocrat, gets to control what AI “thinks.” What’s at risk is merely civilization as we know it and the truth.

The below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial.

There’s nothing like a $125 million opening weekend to overcome MAGA whining, and Superman just walloped the bad-faith culture warriors of the right.

The conservative movement has long relished ginning up moral panics to distract from more important matters, such as its never-ending assault on low- and middle-income Americans and its obeisance to plutocrats. The right resorts to culture warfare over abortion, guns, gay rights, immigration, and religion to win over voters who might otherwise recoil at GOP efforts to increase the power and wealth of corporate America and 1-percenters. And Trump and Co. have followed this playbook, with their crusades against wokeness, transgender rights, and demographic diversity. So when James Gunn, the director of the new Superman, told the Times of London that “Superman is the story of America, an immigrant that came from other places and populated the country,” cranky voices on the right leaped at the chance to accuse Hollywood of making Superman “woke” to advance a left-wing agenda.

Fox host Jesse Watters half-joked, “You know what it says on his cape? MS-13.” For Fox, immigrant equals gang member.

Before the film hit theaters, Fox News informed its viewers that the new Superman embraced “pro-immigrant themes.” And MAGA pundit Kellyanne Conway, appearing on the network, huffed, “We don’t go to the movie theater to be lectured to and to have somebody throw their ideology on to us.” Fox host Jesse Watters half-joked, “You know what it says on his cape? MS-13.” For Fox, immigrant equals gang member.

No surprise, the MAGA pundits had no idea what they were talking about. The only pro-immigrant theme in the movie is rather basic and hardly objectionable. Superman (David Corenswet), an alien who fervently wants to help humans, is propelled by an elementary motivation: kindness. He is so empathetic that when his nemesis Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult)—in this telling, an Erik Prince-like character who’s an arms dealer and tech genius who has invented the “pocket universe” (don’t ask me to explain)—unleashes a 30-story-tall dinosaur-like beast (think Godzilla) in the middle of Metropolis, Superman insists on neutralizing, not killing, the monster so it can be taken to a sanctuary to be studied. Other superheroes helping him just want to blast it to smithereens.

There are certainly reflections of present-day crises in the movie. The film’s main tale is Luthor’s unrelenting attempt to destroy Superman, who stands in the way of Luthor’s diabolical schemes. One piece of Luthor’s plan is to delegitimize Superman, and he does this with the accusation that Superman is an untrustworthy alien who has a secret agenda to take over the Earth and claim as many wives as is needed to restore the Kryptonian race that perished on his home planet. In other words, this immigrant is an existential threat and a sex fiend. Luthor’s effort to demonize Superman does initially turn public opinion against the Man of Steel, showing how easy it is to other-ize and vilify a migrant.

It’s laser-guided weaponry versus pitchforks. And it’s nearly impossible not to think of the ongoing war in Gaza.

The other callback to the real world is a burgeoning war between two fictitious nations, Boravia, an ally of the United States, and Jarhanpur, its neighbor. At the start of the film, Superman intervenes to prevent Boravia, which is being armed by Luthor’s transnational corporation, from invading Jarhanpur. But this leads to a superhuman created by Luthor defeating Superman in battle. Through the rest of the movie, the prospect of war looms, with Boravia’s high-tech army poised to slaughter the civilians of Jarhanpur at the border. It’s laser-guided weaponry versus pitchforks. And it’s nearly impossible not to think of the ongoing war in Gaza. Reporter Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan), Superman’s gal pal, tells him that his unilateral interference in the Boravia-Jarhanpur conflict raises questions of politics and morality. But Superman sees it more simply: What could be more important than preventing the bloodshed of war?

Gunn has pointed out that he wrote the script before the Gaza war broke out. He said that Superman “doesn’t have anything to do with the Middle East. It’s an invasion by a much more powerful country run by a despot into a country that’s problematic in terms of its political history, but has totally no defense against the other country. It really is fictional.” Yet the imbalance of power between these make-believe countries and the suggestion that one is poised to wipe out civilians in the other offers a strong example of art imitating life. No wonder Palestinian activists have hailed the work.

Put all the political chatter and sniping aside, Superman is a fun and smart take on an all-too-familiar story. It’s not a great film. The character of Superman—a tremendously non-dark superhero—does not lend itself to profound drama. This is no The Dark Knight with a brooding and conflicted hero (Batman) facing a nihilistic villain who seeks to illuminate and exploit the hypocrisies of modern society (Joker). 

Superman is a fine summer distraction for the tough times of the moment. But if you want to look past the titanic fight scenes and gee-wiz CGI and be prompted to think about more, Gunn provides that opportunity.

But Gunn does tease out for dramatic purpose the dilemmas and inner conflicts Superman/Clark Kent faces in dealing with both geopolitics and interpersonal relationships. The script is packed with creatively choreographed intense action scenes. Superman is confronted with challenges he might not be able to overcome—though you know he will. The side characters—particular superhero Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi)—are well drawn. The movie is infused with the same delightful sass that animated the Guardians of the Galaxy films Gunn previously directed. And, as you might have heard, the dog Krypto steals scene after scene.

Superman is a fine summer distraction for the tough times of the moment. You can munch popcorn and watch the ultimate good guy triumph over a villain who bears a resemblance to today’s tech billionaires. But if you want to look past the titanic fight scenes and gee-wiz CGI and be prompted to think about more, Gunn provides that opportunity, for Superman is a reminder of the pressing need to recognize and serve the basic commonality of our species—as sappy as that sounds.

It’s an antidote to the perverted political culture Donald Trump has forged. Since he entered politics, Trump has presented mean-spiritedness as an asset. In the White House, he and his henchmen have implemented and celebrated policies of cruelty. And Elon Musk, the champion of Big Tech libertarianism, recently belittled the concept of empathy, dismissing it as weakness. Superman is a retort to all this.

In the Times interview, Gunn said the movie “is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost…[O]bviously there will be jerks out there who are just not kind and will take it as offensive just because it is about kindness. But screw them.” It’s a sad comment on our present circumstances that such talk can spur controversy—which makes Gunn’s Superman more important and necessary than the average summer blockbuster.  

By the way, Superman, who was created by Jerry Siegel and Jospeh Shuster, each the son of Jewish immigrants, has always been woke:

In 2023, Peter Thiel, the billionaire tech titan and investor, issued a proclamation: He would not make political donations in 2024 to any candidate, including Donald Trump, whom he had backed in 2016.

Now, after sitting out the 2024 election cycle, Thiel is back in the game. He has quietly donated more than $850,000 this year to finance Republican incumbents attempting to retain their party’s control of the House in next year’s midterm elections.

That renewed largesse comes as the stock price of Palantir, the company Thiel founded and still owns much of, soars, with the firm raking in profits from contracts awarded by the Trump administration.

Palantir, which describes itself as a software company that helps clients manage data, has played a supporting role in the administration’s mass deportation efforts. It also is helping implement Trump’s call to create a massive, searchable federal database, reportedly using information from Americans’ tax returns.

Critics, including congressional Democrats, say Thiel’s company may be helping the administration to violate privacy laws and to implement an unprecedented US surveillance state. Republican lawmakers appear uninterested in scrutinizing the company’s work.

Asked about its federal contracting, a Palantir spokesperson replied in an email, “We are delighted to support the US government as our growth reflects growing government AI adoption. Meanwhile, our growth in the private sector still significantly outpaces our government growth (45% vs. 71%).”

A spokesperson for Thiel did not respond to multiple inquiries from Mother Jones seeking comment about his political donations.

Thiel was once a steady source of campaign funds for Republicans, including Sens. Orrin Hatach and Ted Cruz, as well as for libertarian groups and the anti-tax Club for Growth. In 2016, he contributed $1.25 million to Trump’s campaign, earning himself a speaking slot at the Republican convention. And in 2022, he poured $15 million into the Senate campaigns of JD Vance of Ohio and Blake Masters of Arizona. Thiel’s support for Vance, who once worked for Thiel’s venture capital firm, was crucial for launching the vice president’s political career.

Trump’s first term, however, left Thiel disappointed. Thiel, who presents himself as a political theorist, was yearning for a slashing of regulations and demolition of the so-called administrative state. That, he hoped, would foment disruption conducive to the development of a futuristic libertarian techno-state that could deliver flying cars, new forms of food production, and scientific efforts to achieve something approaching immortality. That’s not what happened. (In 2009, he had written, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”)

When Trump campaigned for reelection in 2020, Thiel sat it out. There was no public endorsement from the billionaire, and no contributions, though he did support congressional Republicans that year and in the 2022 midterms. But apart from his funding of Masters and Vance, the donations were relatively modest.

This year, Thiel has returned aggressively, with a focus on helping Republicans preserve their majority in the House. In February, he gave $852,200 to House Speaker Mike Johnson’s political action committee, Grow the Majority. The PAC then distributed those funds to the House GOP campaign arm and to Republicans in competitive districts around the country. Recipients included Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania, Don Bacon in Nebraska, Young Kim in California, and Derek Van Orden in Wisconsin.

Thiel’s support this early in the 2026 midterm cycle may augur more to come for Republican lawmakers.

To hear Thiel tell it, his political aims are high-minded—if kind of out there. During a recent interview with New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, he groused that current politics have led to a societal stagnation that impedes technological progress. He decried government regulation. He warned against the rise of a “one-world totalitarian state” that would exploit popular concerns over climate change and nuclear war and choke the development of AI and other technologies. He mused about the threat posed by the coming of a woke “Antichrist”—possibly in the form of environmental activist Greta Thurnberg.

He did not enthuse about Trump. Rather, he described the president like an investment that hadn’t panned out. Thiel said he supported Trump in 2016 hoping the populist candidate would cause a disruption that would bring about technological dynamism. This turned out to be “a preposterous fantasy,” he told Douthat. But he remarked that the populism of Trump 2.0 is “still by far the best option we have.”

Asked whether he had stopped funding politicians, Thiel did not mention his recent support of Republicans. Instead, he replied, “I am schizophrenic on this stuff. I think it’s incredibly important and it’s incredibly toxic.” He indicated that he did not enjoy the criticism he has received after backing conservative candidates.

Thiel chided Elon Musk for having been sucked into political brawls over such common issues as the federal budget. He recounted to Douthat a conversation he had with last year with Mus: “I said: ‘If Trump doesn’t win, I want to just leave the country.’ And then Elon said: ‘There’s nowhere to go.’”

Musk, as Thiel saw it, had lost faith in his hope that populating Mars would save humanity: “In 2024 Elon came to believe that if you went to Mars, the socialist US government, the woke AI would follow you to Mars.”

Here on Earth, Thiel also has more pedestrian interests. In April, Palantir inked a contract to assist ongoing efforts by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to remove undocumented immigrants by building a platform to track migrants’ movements in real time. That deal helped the company pull in more than $113 million, as of early May, as part of its new and previous federal contracts, according to the New York Times. That figure does not include other contracts Palantir has obtained from the Trump administration including a $795 million deal—which could go as high as $1.3 billion—to provide AI-powered software to the Department of Defense.

These deals have helped Palantir’s stock rise from around $40 a share in November to more than $150 a share on Wednesday.

That’s good news for White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the influencial architect of Trump’s fanatical immigration policies. He owns $100,000-$250,000 worth of Palantir stock, according to his financial disclosure form, a holding that creates a colossal potential conflict of interest, the Project on Government Oversight reported last month.

If the Democrats manage to recapture either congressional chamber in 2026, they will likely make Washington less hospitable for Palantir. Last month, Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and eight other Democrats sent a letter peppering the company with questions about its “enabling and profiting from serious violations of Federal law by helping the Trump Administration compile a database including Americans’ taxpayer data.”

Palantir has issued statements disputing the lawmakers’ letter and the New York Times reporting on its federal contracts. The company contends that its software is supporting US soliders and helping hospitals save lives. “We are committed to America, regardless of which party the American people have voted into office,” the firm said.

But the Democrats’ plans are clear. These legislators asked Palantir to preserve records related to its work for the Trump administration for “future Congressional oversight.”

“Congress will fully investigate and hold accountable Trump Administration officials that violate Americans’ rights, as well as contractors like Palantir that profit from and enable those abuses,” they wrote.

Thiel talks about encouraging political disruption that unleashes AI and allows tech pioneers to run unfettered. But as he bankrolls Republican lawmakers, keeping the Democrats from gaining subpoena power may also be on his mind.

Russ Choma contributed reporting.

The Trump administration has launched a war on former Obama administration officials, and to do so, it has engaged in one of the most egregious and obvious acts of politicizing intelligence in decades.

On Friday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released formerly classified US intelligence reports about the 2016 election that she said were evidence of an Obama administration “conspiracy to subvert President Trump’s 2016 victory and presidency.” In a hysterical press release, she accused former President Barack Obama and his national security aides of having “manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the ground for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump.” Describing this as a “treasonous” plot, she said she was forwarding documents to the Justice Department, presumably to initiate a criminal investigation. Naturally, she went on Fox News to amplify her allegations against Obama and his advisers.

It’s all a fabrication. What’s worse, her skullduggery appears to have been the catalyst for one of President Donald Trump’s most disturbing and dangerous social media posts: An AI-generated video of Obama in the Oval Office visiting a smiling Trump, being manhandled and arrested by FBI agents, and then tossed into a prison cell.

Gabbard claims that the Obama administration and its top national security officials schemed to create and promote a phony intelligence finding to undermine Trump. On January 6, 2017, two weeks before Trump was to begin his first term as president, the intelligence community released an assessment (called an ICA) that stated Russia had attacked the 2016 election with a covert hack-and-leak operation and a secret social media campaign designed to sow political discord in the United States, harm Hillary Clinton’s chances, and help Trump win. Ever since, Trump has called the Russia story a “hoax” and each of the subsequent investigations a “witch hunt.”

Gabbard, acting much like a Soviet commissar, is trying to disappear that assessment and the taint it applies to Trump’s 2016 victory. So on Friday, she released over 100 pages of documents that she insists show that the ICA was concocted to purposefully present the false finding to the public. But she is engaging in a sleazy sleight of hand.

Gabbard offers her case in an 11-page memo that quotes excerpts of intelligence records from 2016. The first one is an August 16 document that was sent to James Clapper, then occupying the position Gabbard now has as the director of national intelligence. It said, “There is no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count through cyber means.” A September 9 record cites an intelligence official observing, “Russia probably is not trying to going to be able to influence the election by using cyber means to manipulate computer-enabled election infrastructure.” A September 12 assessment published by the intelligence community noted, “[F]oreign adversaries do not have and will probably not obtain the capabilities to successfully execute widespread and undetected cyber attacks on the diverse set of information technologies and infrastructures used to support the November 2016 presidential election.”

Following the election, Gabbard’s memo points out, DNI Clapper’s office concluded, “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome.”

Gabbard then delivers the j’accuse moment of this memo: The ICA, which was produced on Obama’s order, said Russia had waged a clandestine operation to influence the operation, even though this previous intelligence reported “Russia lacked intent and capability to hack the 2016 election” and did not impact the election through cyber hacks on the election.”

This proves, she says, that the ICA was “politicized intelligence that was used as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high-level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened US-Russia tensions, and more.”

The ICA was not the basis for the FBI investigation, which began months earlier and eventually morphed into the Mueller probe. Nor did it trigger the first or second impeachment of Trump. More importantly, Gabbard is deliberately misleading the public about the intelligence she cites.

The ICA’s finding that Russia had clandestinely interfered in the election to assist Trump was a separate matter from another concern of the intelligence community: the possibility that Russian operatives would monkey-wrench vote-counting systems and throw Election Day into chaos.

That had been a worry for the Obama administration throughout 2016, after it received reports that Russian intelligence had penetrated and probed election boards in several states. The prospect of a Russian cyber-attack on the election system was the subject of intense intelligence reporting and analysis, and, as the documents Gabbard released indicate, the intelligence community came to believe that Russia would not be able to rig election results. The ICA reported this, noting that the Department of Homeland Security had assessed “that the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying.”

Yet in this memo, Gabbard applies intelligence reporting on the potential election tampering to an entirely separate issue: the Russian attack that included the operation that hacked Democratic targets and released their emails to impede the Clinton campaign, and that ran an influence operation through secret social media efforts to denigrate Clinton and boost Trump. These are two different matters. The conclusion that Russian cyber operatives were unlikely to impact the electoral infrastructure is unrelated to the assessment that the Russians were seeking to sabotage the campaign through covert action and a clandestine social media propaganda campaign.

The person in charge of overseeing the US intelligence community ought to know this.

Gabbard is engaging in blatant cherry-picking and gaslighting. And she’s being sloppy with her subterfuge. Her case is easy to debunk. The intelligence reporting she cites does not contradict the ICA and does not indicate there was a high-level plot to produce a bogus report to damage Trump. She is providing a phony and weak cover story, both for Trump and Vladimir Putin. After all, long after the ICA was produced, the Mueller report and two congressional investigations confirmed that the Russians had assaulted the 2016 election, facts that Gabbard neglects to mention in her memo.

When it comes to perilous conspiring, Gabbard is the guilty one, especially when she suggests that Obama and his aides broke the law. Her moves follow similar conniving by CIA director John Ratcliffe, who recently released a sketchy report attacking the ICA and referred former CIA director John Brennan and former FBI Director Jim Comey to the Justice Department for criminal investigations.

Ultimately, this is about rewriting history to serve Dear Leader and seeking vengeance on his behalf against those who dared investigate the Russian effort to help him reach the White House—an effort Trump aided by denying its existence. These endeavors to pervert intelligence demonstrate that the nation’s spy services are being led by lackeys subservient to an autocrat who places his own interests above responsible concerns for national security. But they also supply fodder for Trump’s never-ending and treacherous campaign to demonize his political foes and brand them as traitorous criminals who deserve to rot in prison. An intelligence community that serves a president and not the truth is a threat to the republic—especially when that president yearns to be an authoritarian.

Spy services often conduct clandestine disinformation operations. These are supposed to target adversaries overseas. To prove her loyalty to Trump, Gabbard is running a devious disinfo op, this one against the American public.

If you enjoy David Corn’s kick-ass journalism and analysis, you can sign up for a free trial subscription to his Our Land newsletter here.