Trump's new theme song: Cha-ching, cha-ching!
Not every president has been such a gold-digger. In his masterful biography of our 33rd president, David McCullough describes Harry Truman's humble return to Independence, Missouri.

"He had traveled home from Washington unprotected by Secret Service agents and there were to be none watching over him. He had come home without salary or pension. He had no income or support of any kind from the federal government other than his Army pension of $112.56 a month. He was provided with no government funds for secretarial help or office space, and not a penny of expense money." In his last weeks in office, McCullough reports, Truman had to take out a bank loan to tide him over.

As former president, Truman had no plans or interest in future employment. McCullough writes: "He said his only intention was to do nothing - accept no position, lend his name to no organization or transaction - that would exploit or commercialize the prestige and dignity of the office of the President."

There could be no greater contrast to Donald Trump, who from the start saw the presidency, not just as a monumental ego trip, but as the ultimate get-rich opportunity. Speaking to Fortune magazine in 2000, back when he was first thinking about running for president, Trump famously said: "It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it."

Bingo. Said and done. If nothing else, that's one goal he's accomplished. Both as a candidate and in office, Trump's primary focus has been how to accumulate more wealth - an obscene amount of wealth - for himself and his family. He sees his job as president not as serving the public, but as personal profiteering. And, in that, he has succeeded beyond even his wildest imagination.

Of course, Trump himself would never tell us how much money he's pocketed as president. He still hasn't released his tax returns, and never will - because he'd be embarrassed by how much he's made and how little he's paid in taxes. But if, like me, you'd wondered how much Trump's raking in from all the money-making deals he's made, fret no more. As a great public service, and a tribute to the importance of investigative journalism, the New Yorker magazine's exposed the raw truth.

In its August 1 1 edition - it's worth subscribing, just to read the whole thing - the New Yorker features "The Number," a blockbuster 17-page article by reporter David D. Kirkpatrick. As Kirkpatrick explains, there'd been a lot of talk about deals Trump's made or merch he's selling, but nobody had added it all up, so "I decided to attempt to tally up just how much Trump and his immediate family have pocketed off his time at the White House." Fasten your seat belts. The total is staggering.

Kirkpatrick breaks it down into every category Trump's involved in, from golf courses to new hotel deals to his various crypto ventures. In each, he's careful to include only what he can confirm. And he provides a running total of Trump's haul.

As documented by Kirkpatrick, here's the cash bonanza for each Trump money-making scheme. Mar-A Lago: $125 million; Trump Merch: $127.7 million; Persian Gulf: $320 million; More Saudi deals: $105.8 million; Private jet: $150 million; Hotel Hanoi: $40 million; Corporate squeeze: $91 million; Truth Social: $25 million; 1789 Capital: $19.6 million; Token Investments: $412.5 million; American Bitcoin: $13 million; Crypto ventures: $14.4 million; Crypto Gulf: $243 million; $Trump: $385 million; Trump Media Crypto: $1.3 billion.

Don't reach for your calculator. Kirkpatrick's added it up for you. Some of those deals were made by Trump himself, some by sons Donald Jr. or Eric, some by son-in-law Jared Kushner, but a big bite of every deal goes into Trump's own pocket - for a total of $3.4 billion!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. While Donald Trump's been mass firing federal employees, rounding up and deporting immigrants who've committed no crimes, weaponizing the Justice Department against his political opponents, rolling back environmental protections, and sending the military into American cities, he's also been exploiting the presidency to become richer and richer.

But where's the outrage? Sherman Adams, Eisenhower's chief of staff, was forced to resign after the gift of a vicuna coat. House Speaker Jim Wright was tossed out for profiting from a book deal. First Lady Hillary Clinton was condemned for making $100,000 on a stock trade - 14 years before her husband was elected president.

There was a time when ethics mattered. No more.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Trump's military takeover starts in Washington

Returning to Washington, D.C., this week, we saw three soldiers on a street corner near the Washington Monument. The next morning, Carol went out for a run and, one block from our house, saw a car that had been t-boned and totally destroyed by a 14-ton armored military vehicle.

Later that morning, I ran into two soldiers at our subway station. "Where are you guys from?" I asked one of them. "South Carolina National Guard," he said. "And what do you know about the Washington Metro?" I asked next. "Nothing," he honestly replied. "It's the first time I've ever been here." Was that supposed to make me feel safer?

Welcome to Donald Trump's Occupied Washington. The whole thing is a joke. But a sick and dangerous joke.

There is absolutely no justification for Donald Trump's military takeover of Washington, D.C. What's new? He is simply lying when, without any evidence, he calls Washington "one of the most dangerous cities anywhere in the world." Put that right up there with Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States, Trump won the 2020 election and he didn't know anything about Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring. Lies, lies, lies.

Take it from this D.C. resident. I've lived in Washington for 29 years. I've never been accosted, threatened or mugged. And I don't know anybody who has. Washington is a beautiful, clean and safe city - for residents and for visitors.

Which is not to say that, like any other city, Washington doesn't have a serious crime problem. There are some neighborhoods where I would not feel safe walking alone at night. Especially for residents of those neighborhoods, the fact that there is any street crime at all is a serious problem. But it's a problem that the Metropolitan Police Department is quite capable of handling on its own.

Trump doesn't mention that the attempted carjacking of a DOGE staffer - Trump's alleged excuse for calling in the military - was thwarted by DC police, who caught and arrested the two teenagers involved.

The city does not need and does not want the Army and up to 1,100 National Guard troops patrolling the streets. In the latest Washington Post poll, 80 percent of Washingtonians, even those in dicey neighborhoods, oppose the federal presence.

In fact, as confirmed by the Washington Post, the crime rate per 100,000 in D.C. has fallen to its lowest point since before the pandemic. Violent crime has been on the decline since 2023, when a generational spike in killings rendered the nation's capital one of America's deadliest cities. DC's homicide rate in 2024 was less than a third of the highs in the early 1990s. And 2025 continues that downward trend.

Trump's own actions prove that his military takeover has nothing to do with keeping Washington residents safe. It's all about creating a big distraction from Jeffrey Epstein and politicizing the military - just as he's already succeeded in politicizing the Justice Department.

For starters, Trump's Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt admitted that the White House "reconfigured" D.C.'s crime statistics because they were too rosy, in order to back up the president's claims of lawlessness in Washington. Plus, it's no accident that six states asked to send in National Guard troops are all red states with Republican governors. Nor that mayors of three cities where Trump has sent, or threatened to send, troops - Los Angeles, Oakland and Washington - are Black women.

Most tellingly of all, look at where federal troops are deployed. You won't find them in troubled neighborhoods like Congress Heights and Anacostia, whose residents desperately need more protection. Nope. They're stationed at tourist attractions: the National Mall, Smithsonian, White House, Union Station and subway stops. And police records show that most people arrested by federal agents so far were immigrants. Yes, Trump's soldiers are fighting crime by arresting people who've not committed any crime.

And, of course, it must be said that Donald Trump is the LAST person in the world to complain about crime in Washington. The worst crime spree in the city's history was the sacking of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, spurred and instigated by Trump himself - who then pardoned nearly 1,600 people who participated in the attack, including those charged with sedition and assaulting police officers. Mr. Law and Order, Trump ain't!

But make no mistake. This is only the first step. If Trump gets away with it here, federal troops will soon swarm into every other city with a Democratic mayor - and his Napoleonic control of America will be complete.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

There are many things to be depressed about these days, although they all boil down to one thing: Donald Trump.

One of the things that depresses me most is that Trump does and says so many outrageous things every hour of every day that we not only can't keep up with them, we've grown numb to it. We have, and the mainstream media have, too. Trump's strategy of "flooding the zone" works. If any other president said or did the same things he's guilty of, it would make banner headlines and drive crowds into the streets. But Donald Trump says it, and people just shrug it off.

On July 22, for example, talking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump was asked about National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard's request that the Justice Department launch a criminal investigation into whoever was responsible for the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election to help candidate Trump - which Trump still calls "the Russian hoax." Who should be charged with a crime?

"Well, based on what I read, and I read pretty much what you read," replied Trump, "it would be President Obama. He started it." Then Trump rambled on, concluding a meandering response with these blockbuster words: "Look, he's guilty. It's not a question. ... This was treason." Which, of course, is punishable by death.

Woah! I couldn't believe it. This might be the most explosive thing Donald Trump's ever said. I couldn't wait for the front-page New York Times headline the next morning: "Trump Accuses Obama of Treason!" Instead, the Times, like every other mainstream media publication, buried the "treason" quote in the middle of another story on page 14.

And, of course, slavishly following Trump's orders, Attorney General Pam Bondi this week launched a criminal investigation into alleged treasonous activity by former President Obama. So much for Trump's promise not to "weaponize" the Justice Department.

After nine years, we shouldn't have to say this, but there's not one shred of truth to anything Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard or Pam Bondi are saying. In fact, there's no doubt Russia was meddling in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump. It's been proven beyond doubt. Seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies came to that conclusion. So did a three-year Senate Intelligence Committee investigation led by then-Senator Marco Rubio, who cited "irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling." And so did the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which not only showed that Russia was interfering in the election, but that the Trump campaign "expected it would benefit electorally" from it.

Again, we shouldn't have to say this, but it's ridiculous to blame Obama for starting the Mueller investigation. Mueller was actually appointed Special Counsel by Trump's Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017 - five months after Obama had left the White House.

But that's not all. In January 2020, unhappy with the Mueller report, Trump's Attorney General Bill Barr appointed yet another special counsel, John Durham, to investigate the origins of the Russian investigation for what Trump claimed was a "conspiracy" against him by the FBI, the Justice Department, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Three years later, Durham reported he found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by Obama administration officials to sabotage Trump.

Add it up. The Russian operation to influence the outcome of the 2016 election was real. And Donald Trump's attempt to paint any investigation of Russia's involvement as a politically motivated attack on him is a giant nothing-burger. That should be the end of it, except now Trump has an attorney general who's willing to politicize the Justice Department and keep the conspiracy alive - as one more distraction from Jeffrey Epstein.

Speaking of attorney generals, we wouldn't even be in this mess today if it weren't for Merrick Garland, Biden's spineless attorney general. If Garland had not waited two years before pursuing Trump for stealing presidential documents and sending an armed mob to attack the Capitol on January 6, the cases against Trump would have been settled long before 2024 and Trump might even be in jail. Clearly, there was one former president guilty of treason. Not Barack Obama, but Donald Trump. And Merrick Garland looked the other way.

Democrats can learn an important lesson here from Republicans: When you've got power, use it. Don't hesitate. Don't worry about rounding up bipartisan support. Use your power to do good things. And forget about what Michelle Obama said. When they go low, don't go high. Go even lower. That's how to win.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Kamala Harris makes the wrong decision

Deciding to run for political office is an incredibly tough, personal decision. It requires an unusual combination of courage, ambition, determination and self-confidence - plus a solid check on reality and a good sense of timing.

It's hard to get it right. Many people make the mistake of running for office when they have no chance of winning. But Kamala Harris just did the opposite. She made the mistake of not running for governor of California when she had every chance of winning.

Don't get me wrong. I say that, not as a foe of Harris, but as a longtime, unapologetic fan. She was an outstanding California attorney general, United States senator and vice president. I don't blame her for 2024. It's not her fault that a fickle American electorate decided to give the Orange Man another chance to wreck our democracy. True, she should have distanced herself more from President Joe Biden. But she still ran a strong campaign. With more time, she might have won.

So what's next? Harris is too young to retire on the ranch, plus she wants to stay in public office. And she should. For her, governor of California would have been perfect. Next to president, it may be the most powerful post in the nation. You're automatically head of the fourth largest economic power in the world - a recognized leader in the fields of technology, finance, entertainment, aerospace, education and agriculture. As the nation's most visible and powerful governor, you are not only a national player, you can have your own foreign policy and be a major voice on the world stage.

Plus - reality check! - while Harris would enjoy no coronation, getting elected governor would have been a slam dunk. She enjoys total name recognition and high public approval. Current Gov. Gavin Newsom is term-limited and can't run for a third term. Other strong Democrats were interested, but most of them had admitted they would step aside if she decided to run. And the idea that any Republican could beat her doesn't even pass the laugh test. No Republican has won statewide in California since 2006, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was reelected governor. The job was hers for the asking.

In fact, as former chair of the California Democratic Party, I've been asked over and over again, ever since she lost in 2024, whether Harris should run for governor of California. And my answer was always the same: an enthusiastic "YES!" And then the important caveat: "As long as she stays there, and doesn't run again for president in 2028."

My answer's the same today. The downside of Harris not running is that she leaves open the possibility - in her own mind, and in the world of political speculation - that she would launch her third bid for president by jumping into the 2028 Democratic primary. Reportedly, in private conversations with friends, she's already toying with that idea.

And that's the last thing the Democratic Party needs. For Kamala Harris and for the party, running for president again in 2028 would be an even bigger mistake than not running for governor.

Again, that's no criticism of her qualities as a leader. It's simply stating the obvious: that in order to get back in power - and save the country! - the Democratic Party needs to move forward with new leadership and not be stuck in the past, trying to recycle the old.

One thing for sure: If Harris were to enter the 2028 Democratic primary, she would not be handed the nomination. She'd have to fight for it. And she'd be up against a strong lineup of already popular candidates, mainly governors, all of whom are already running around the country testing the waters. They include: Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro, Maryland's Wes Moore, Kentucky's Andy Beshear, Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois' J. B. Pritzker and, of course, California's Newsom. Each has executive experience. Plus each as the advantage of being a new face on the national scene and, perhaps most importantly, of not being part of the tired old Washington political establishment.

If nothing else, the stunning victory of Zohran Mamdani in New York City's mayoral race shows that voters are hungry for new faces and new ideas. That presents an incredible opportunity for Democrats nationwide at every level, but not if they insist on repackaging yesterday's losers.

Having decided not to run for governor, there are other public service options Kamala Harris might consider, like university president or head of a foundation. But running for president again should not be one of them.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC. 

Elon Musk was right: Trump's in Epstein files!

For most of his political career, Trump's been the Harry Houdini of American politics. Like Houdini, Trump locked himself in boxes it was impossible to get out of - yet he always escaped.

To the delight of his MAGA base, Trump escaped a Department of Justice investigation into efforts by Russia to help his 2016 campaign. He escaped 34 counts of falsifying federal records to hide his affair with Stormy Daniels. He escaped being found liable for sexual abuse by a jury in the E. Jean Carroll case. He escaped trying to overturn results of the 2020 primary election in Georgia. And he escaped being impeached - not once, but twice.

But now Trump is locked in a box he can't get out of. It's a box of his own making, called Jeffrey Epstein.

For the last six years, ever since Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking underage girls, Trump and his loyal followers, including Kash Patel, Dan Bongino and J.D. Vance, convinced his MAGA base that Epstein was the subject of a massive government coverup by the "deep state." They insisted he was murdered in his cell, and not a suicide victim. They accused the Justice Department of covering up his "client list" to protect well-known "elites" who took part in his depravity. And they promised that, if elected, Trump would release the Epstein files and expose the whole deal.

Once sworn in, Attorney General Pam Bondi further raised expectations by inviting influencers to the White House and giving each of them a big box labeled "The Epstein Files: Phase 1" which turned out to contain nothing new. She then went on Fox News and promised the full Epstein files were "sitting on her desk" for her review.

Oops! One week later, Bondi issued a statement refuting everything she and Trump had ever said about Epstein: He was not murdered, he committed suicide, and there was no client list.

But the MAGA base isn't buying it. Why? Because Trump did such a good job selling the Epstein conspiracy that now he can't lie his way out of it.

You must admit, it's been amusing, watching Trump try all of his old tricks to get out of the Epstein box. He begged his supporters to please, please, please stop talking about Epstein. He blamed it all on Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Trying to change the subject, he released the files about the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., without the King family's approval. He ordered the attorney general to ask the court to release "pertinent" parts of the Epstein grand jury testimony (a federal judge refused). He sued the Wall Street Journal.

Then, in sheer desperation, Trump accused former President Obama of committing "treason" by launching a Department of Justice investigation led by Robert Mueller into Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. Which, of course, is the most outrageous charge of all. Mueller, in fact, was appointed by Trump's own Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, five months after Obama left the White House.

And, by the way - maybe Trump forgot? - without charging Trump with any crime, Mueller concluded that Russia did, in fact, attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 election on Trump's behalf and that the Trump campaign knew all about it, which was confirmed by all 17 American intelligence agencies. It was the same conclusion reached unanimously after a three-year investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee, whose Acting Chair at the time, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla), now Trump's secretary of state, cited "irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling."

Trump has thrown every plate of spaghetti he can think of against the wall, but so far none of it's sticking. Not only will the Epstein scandal not go away, every day it gets worse.

This week alone, CNN uncovered never-before-published photos of Trump and Epstein, two New York playboy friends, hanging out together. And the Wall Street Journal dropped the bombshell that Trump was informed by Bondi in May that his name does, in fact, often show up in the Epstein files. What do you know? It looks like Elon Musk was right, after all!

With the House now scheduled to vote on releasing the Epstein files after their August recess, and the House Oversight Committee summoning testimony from Epstein's partner-in-crime Ghislaine Maxwell, the scandal's not going away anytime soon.

Who knows? In the end, it may be a convicted sexual predator who brings down a convicted serial sexual abuser. If so, how appropriate.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
 

Search for backbone in Washington comes up empty

History can be cruel. Charles Sumner, the great abolitionist senator from Massachusetts, is remembered only for being beaten on the Senate floor with a gold-topped walking stick by South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks in 1856, after Sumner had delivered an impassioned anti-slavery speech.

But a new biography of Sumner by Zaakir Tameez - "Charles Sumner, Conscience of a Nation" - argues he should be remembered for much more. As early as 1849, he argued for "equality before the law" and desegregation of public schools. He pushed President Lincoln to sign an emancipation proclamation even before Fort Sumter. And, after the Civil War, he sponsored a civil rights bill that would have gone even further than the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Sumner also set an example for politicians that too few, then and now, followed. There are only three things to look for in a politician, Sumner famously said: "The first is backbone, the second is backbone, and the third is backbone."

Sadly, backbone was the main missing ingredient in the debate over Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill."

Let's remember, first, what this bill does. It offers no new tax breaks for the middle class, but extends those 2017 tax cuts which benefit mainly the top 1 percent of American families. According to the Congressional Budget Office, because of cuts to Medicaid, it means 10.8 million Americans will lose their health care. Another 3.3 million will lose access to food stamps. It ends almost all funding for renewable energy projects already underway, many in red states. It shovels billions into Trump's border wall and mass deportation roundups. And, again according to the CBO, it will swell the national debt by at least $4.3 trillion and raises the debt ceiling by a staggering $5 trillion.

It is, according to many congressional experts, perhaps the most bloated, most expensive, most regressive and most destructive piece of legislation ever passed by Congress. In one phrase, it rewards the wealthy and sticks it to the middle class. And it contradicts everything the Republican Party once stood for: smaller government, balanced budget and fiscal conservatism.

So, what did so-called fiscal conservative Republicans do? They put loyalty to Orange Man over principle. Under the flimsiest of excuses, they voted for it.

You won't find any backbone in Josh Hawley (R-Mo). For weeks, he was the most outspoken opponent of the BBB because it contained massive cuts in Medicaid in order to pay for Trump's tax cuts. "We cannot be a working-class party if you are taking away health care for working-class people," he piously warned. That was before Trump put the hammer on him. Then Hawley caved, voted for the bill and - ready for this? - promised to spend the next two years restoring cuts to Medicaid. Yes, he actually promised to work against the bill he'd just voted for.

No backbone in Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, either. Until the 11th-plus hour, she was a confirmed NO vote. Then she, too, caved. "Do I like this bill? No," she told reporters. "There are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill." But she ended up voting for it anyway, she said, because it contained tax breaks for a handful of Alaskan whaling captains. Really?

And, worst of all, no backbone in the biggest phony fiscal conservative loudmouth, Chip Roy of Texas, Policy Chair of the House Freedom Caucus. cNever, never, never would they vote to increase the debt ceiling or add one penny to the national debt, members of the Freedom Caucus crowed. Yet, after being summoned to the White House by Trump, they all caved. Now they might as well disband the Freedom Caucus. Nobody takes it seriously anymore.

For the record, there was one member of Congress who did show some spine: Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Tillis knew this was a bad bill. He knew millions of Americans would suffer. He knew it was the opposite of what Republicans had always campaigned on. But, despite Trump's threat of a primary opponent, he couldn't in good conscience vote for the bill. So he told Trump to take his job and shove it. How rare. Good for him.

In the end, the ones who benefit most from the "big, beautiful bill" may be the Democrats, who have been struggling to find a winning message for 2026. Now they've got one: With the help of congressional Republicans, Trump betrayed the middle-class Americans who voted for him. If Democrats can't use that message to win big in the midterms, they don't deserve to win.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
 

Freedom of the press: great while it lasted

There was a time, not so long ago, when we celebrated the press for doing its job of holding elected officials accountable and telling the truth, no matter how much government pressure they encountered.

In 1971, for example, we hailed the New York Times and the Washington Post for defying the Nixon administration by publishing the Pentagon Papers and exposing the lies told about the Vietnam War by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. The Supreme Court upheld the papers' right to publish because, as Justice Hugo Black wrote for the majority: "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government."

One year later, it was the Washington Post again - led by reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward and Executive Editor Ben Bradlee - which first reported on the involvement of the White House in the Watergate break-in, leading to Nixon's resignation. In 2002, as documented in the film "Spotlight," the Boston Globe exposed the widespread sexual abuse by Catholic priests and the shameful response by Catholic bishops.

But that was then, this is now. Today, instead of doing their job and standing up to government pressure, media executives are caving in right and left, like they all failed to show up when God was giving out backbones. It started even before Trump was re- elected, when Washington Post publisher Jeff Bezos and Los Angeles Times publisher Patrick Soon-Shiong, afraid of how Trump might retaliate were he to win the election, both killed editorials endorsing Kamala Harris for president. Bezos and Meta's Mark Zuckerberg followed up by both donating $1 million to Trump's inauguration committee - after dining with Trump at Mar-a-Lago.

Next to bend the knee was Disney, owner of ABC News, against which Trump filed a bogus lawsuit over anchor George Stephanopoulos' use of the word "rape" in discussing Trump's conviction for sexual abuse. Since Stephanopoulos had, in effect, only quoted the judge's closing comments, legal experts said Disney had zero chance of losing the case. But, in January, rather than defend the media's right to tell the truth and fight Trump in court, Disney decided to settle the case and pay him $16 million.

Many warned that the ABC settlement would set a dangerous precedent, and this week we saw how spot-on those warnings were when Paramount, owner of CBS News, greased Trump's palm with another $16 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit he'd filed against CBS, claiming he'd been damaged by how "60 Minutes" edited an interview with Kamala Harris.

Which is ridiculous on the face of it. Consider the facts. In that October 2024 interview, host Bill Whitaker asked Harris more than 40 questions. It was a tough interview, which CBS ran in its entirety. It didn't cover up anything. Trump's objection was about the editing of her lengthy answer to only one of the 40-plus questions, about Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netayahu. Her answer was so long that CBS chopped it in half, using one part in a tease for the show, the second part in the actual broadcast.

And that was it! No change in meaning. No harm to anyone. No impact on the outcome of the election. Yet Trump ludicrously claimed it was "election interference" and sued for $20 billion in damages. Anybody else would have fought that case - and won easily. But Paramount has a problem. It's in the middle of a merger with Skydance, which requires FCC approval. So, rather than anger Trump and endanger their Skydance deal, Paramount decided to buy him off with $16 million.

Paramount's surrender is a total disgrace. As Mother Jones' David Corn noted, it amounts to nothing less than a "mob-like shakedown." And it's an insult to Edward R. Murrow, Eric Sevareid, Walter Cronkite and other media greats who built CBS.

Of course, the more media executives fold, the more Trump will demand their loyalty. He's still pursuing a ridiculous lawsuit against the Des Moines Register for publishing results of a poll he didn't like. And this week he threatened to sue CNN for reporting on the existence of an app which allows people to track movements of ICE agents.

Thomas Jefferson famously said, "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." Today, sadly, we are at risk of losing our freedom of the press - not because Trump or the Congress are shutting it down, but because cowardly media executives are giving it away. And, once lost, we'll never get it back.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
 

Bill Press: Israel should finish what it started - without our help

It's the old Catholic in me, I guess. But I can't resist. "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I had breakfast with Steve Bannon."

Well, kind of, sort of. I was one of some 30 journalists who showed up this week for a breakfast with Bannon sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. And, to my total surprise, I actually ended up agreeing with Bannon on one very important and timely issue.

Of course, I bristled when he talked about the "invasion" of "ten million illegal alien invaders." I bit my tongue when he complained about the "Deep State" actually running the government. And I gagged when he bragged about how well the economy's doing under Trump Two. But, when it came to Iran, I wanted to stand up and applaud.

"I'm a big supporter of Israel, and always have been," Bannon declared. But when it came to Israel's attacks on Iran, Bannon said he'd told President Trump what he believed was the best course: "Israel has to finish what they started." Israel having started this war, Bannon argued, it was not our job to ride in now, like a Wild West cavalry, to finish the job with a big, bunker-buster bomb. Israel started this war, let them finish it.

Bannon was especially critical of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, basically accusing him of trying to trap the United States into joining his war. Bibi knew Trump was in negotiations with Iran to get them to drop their nuclear enrichment program. He knew Trump had expressed his hope that Israel would hold off, in order to give diplomacy a chance. But, defying the United States, Bib decided to launch his war anyway - and killed most of the Iranian officials the Trump administration had been talking to, making further negotiations pointless.

As Bannon pointed out, Netanyahu also knew that Israel did not have the military capacity to destroy Iran's nuclear capability, which is concentrated 300 feet under a mountain in the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. Only a bunker-buster bomb could destroy that facility. Israel doesn't have one. Only the United States does. So Netanyahu deliberately set up Trump and tried to force his hand. Because, Bibi declared, Iran was only months, or weeks, away from developing a nuclear bomb - which, as several news organizations have documented, is a claim Bibi's been making every year since 1996!

Netanyahu wasn't the only target of Bannon's scorn. He directed much of his criticism against Fox News, which he condemned as a "pure propaganda network." He accused the network, led by Sean Hannity's nightly tirades, of beating the war drums for an American invasion of Iran, just like they did in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Based on what proved to be phony intelligence, they propelled America into one "forever" war in the Middle East - and today, Bannon says, based on phony intelligence, Fox News is trying to propel us into yet another one.

Whatever the final decision, Bannon repeatedly emphasized, Trump should not allow Bibi to set the timetable. The president must take the time to get the advice of military leaders, talk to other players in the Middle East, and consider what the American people want, before deciding whether or not to join forces with Israel. There's no hurry.

But here's where I strongly disagree with Bannon. Even though, at this point, the MAGA movement overwhelmingly opposes America's involvement in Iran, Bannon says that if Trump does decide to start a third war, and explains his decision, most MAGA followers will support him. Of course they will. Because they've drunk the Kool-Aid. The MAGA movement is a religious cult, blindly worshipping one man. It's not a serious political movement.

For now, we can only pray that Trump - with one eye on the Nobel Peace Prize - will make the right decision and stay out of Iran. Otherwise, the consequences are unthinkable: inferno in the Middle East, rupture with long-term allies, losses of American lives and resources, all bringing us to the brink, if not the reality, of World War III. The risk is too great. Making Bibi happy is not worth it.

One final point. Let's remember. Iran had once agreed to cease production of nuclear bombs in a pact negotiated by President Obama. We wouldn't be in this crisis today if Trump hadn't canceled that agreement in 2018. He made a huge mistake then. Let's hope he doesn't make another one now. Netanyahu is wrong. Diplomacy, not war, is the only answer.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC. 

It's a story we've heard many times, but it's always worth repeating. In 1787, when Benjamin Franklin was walking out of the Constitutional Convention, a lady famously asked "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic," Franklin replied tartly, "if you can keep it."

Even Franklin might be surprised we did keep it for 238 years. But it's gone now. If 1787 marked the birth of our American democracy, 2025 marked the end of it. We no longer live in a democracy. We don't even live in a monarchy. We live in a dictatorship.

It's no democracy when a president can send his goons onto college campuses to round up people who've committed no crimes, deport them and confine them to prison in another country with no due process and no opportunity to defend themselves.

It's no democracy when a president can ban private universities from accepting foreign students, simply because he believes, with no evidence, they're a national security threat.

It's no democracy when a president can invent a national crisis, send Marines into the streets of Los Angeles, and threaten to deploy troops to any other city where Americans protest the gestapo-style tactics of ICE - who are only following Trump's orders to deport at least 3,000 a day.

First, let's be clear about one thing. Los Angeles is not burning. The City of Angels is not at risk. Take it from me. I lived in LA during the Rodney King and O.J. Simpson riots. I stood on the roof of KCOP-TV and watched a mob of looters storm up La Brea Boulevard, torching shops and restaurants. While hosting my radio talk show, I was warned by security guards to hide under my desk because snipers were firing shots at our building. I was covering the riots from First AME Church in South Central when the entire neighborhood went up in flames. A Black church member had me lie on the floor in the backseat of his car, threw a blanket over me and drove me through the violence-filled streets to my home in West Hollywood. By comparison, what's happening today in Los Angeles is a picnic in the park.

And, by the way, the National Guard were also on the scene in both riots. But they were there the way it's supposed to work: summoned by the governor of California, at the request of the mayor of Los Angeles, and used to guard the perimeter and enforce the curfew. Local law enforcement did a good job of dealing with the protesters, just like they're doing again today.

The truth is, there is no national crisis. There is no Los Angeles crisis. There is no California crisis. There is only a crisis in democracy, stirred up deliberately by Donald Trump to expand his presidential power and paint Democrats as soft on crime and immigration.

Yes, there were peaceful protests against ICE, with some scattered violence, which the LAPD was more than capable of taking care of - until Trump, without consulting local or state officials, sent in the National Guard and the Marines. Donald Trump didn't fix this "crisis." He created it.

He's only doing this "to defend law and order," Trump insists, adding: we won't allow protesters "to spit on our police." Unbelievable! This shameless boast from the protester-in-chief who gave a presidential pardon to men convicted of killing police officers on January 6.

What's happening in LA is the same mad power play Trump tried to unleash during the George Floyd protests, when he summoned the military to Lafayette Square and threatened to send troops into every big city. The difference is, then there were Justice Department and Pentagon officials who stopped Trump in his tracks and refused to consider martial law. This time around, Pam Bondi and Pete Hegseth will let Trump do whatever he wants.

We're seen this playbook before: sow disinformation, silence your critics, muzzle the media, condemn the courts, stoke violence and unleash the military to seize more power. It was the playbook of Stalin, Hitler and Putin yesterday. It's Donald Trump's playbook today.

So what can we do? Our only hope is to roadblock Trump by taking back the House and Senate in 2026. Then we can look Ben Franklin in the eye and say: "Sorry, we really messed up. We let our republic fall for two years - but we worked hard - and finally got it back." It's up to us.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.