Connect with us

News

‘The Age of Trump’ Enters Its Second Decade

Published

on

‘The Age of Trump’ Enters Its Second Decade

The trip down that escalator took less than 30 seconds, but it opened a much longer journey for the man and his country.

It has been 10 years now, as of Monday, since Donald J. Trump descended to the lobby of his namesake tower to announce his campaign for president. Ten years of jaw-dropping, woke-busting, scandal-defying, status quo-smashing politics that have transformed America for good or ill in profoundly fundamental ways.

In those 10 years, Mr. Trump has come to define his age in a way rarely seen in America, more so than any president of the past century other than Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, even though he has never had anywhere near their broad public support. Somehow the most unpopular president in the history of polling has translated the backing of a minority of Americans into the most consequential political force of modern times, rewriting all of the rules along the way.

In a sense, it does not matter that Mr. Trump has actually occupied the White House for less than half of that 10 years. He has shaped and influenced the national discourse since June 16, 2015, whether in office or not. Every issue, every dispute, every conversation on the national level in that time, it seems, has revolved around him.

Even voter repudiation and criminal conviction did not slow him down or diminish his hold on the national imagination on the way to his comeback last November. The presidency of Joseph R. Biden Jr. turned out to be just an interregnum between Mr. Trump’s stints in power.

Advertisement

And power has become his leitmotif. Since his often-stumbling first term, when he was the only president never to have served in public office or the military and by his own admission did not really know what he was doing, Mr. Trump has learned how to wield power to great effect. He has claimed more of it than any of his predecessors ever did — and more of it, judging by the plethora of court rulings against him, than the Constitution entitles him to.

Whether he is on the cusp of dictatorship as his “No Kings” critics argue, he has certainly tried to dictate the course of society across the board, seeking to impose his will not just on Washington but on academia, culture, sports, the legal industry, the news media, Wall Street, Hollywood and private businesses. He wants to personally determine traffic congestion rules in New York and the playbill at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

And not through the art of persuasion or even the art of the deal, but through the force of threats and intimidation. He has embarked on a campaign of what he has called “retribution” against his political enemies. American troops have been deployed to the streets of Los Angeles to quell protests. Masked agents sweep through towns and cities across the country seizing immigrants, not just the criminals or the undocumented, but in some cases those with all the right papers who in one way or the other offended the president’s sensibilities.

“President Trump has been the dominant figure in American politics since he rode down the escalator to announce his candidacy in 2015,” said Douglas B. Sosnik, a longtime Democratic strategist who served as White House senior adviser to President Bill Clinton. “History will look back and say that we have been living in the age of Trump since then. Biden’s presidency was just a speed bump during this historic period of change in our country’s history.”

It is change that his allies consider a long-overdue course correction after decades of liberal hegemony that they say sought to control not just what Americans did but what they thought and were allowed to say out loud. He is in their view the desperately needed antidote to woke excesses, unrestrained immigration and economic dislocation. His Make America Great Again theme appeals to those who feel left behind and browbeaten by a self-dealing ruling class.

Advertisement

And he has succeeded to an extent that might not have been expected even a few months ago at shaking up the very foundations of the American system as it has been operating for generations, a system he and his allies argue was badly in need of shaking up.

Since reclaiming the presidency five months ago, he has dismantled whole government agencies, overturned the international trading system, gutted federally funded scientific research and made the very word “diversity” so radioactive that even companies and institutions outside his direct control are rushing to change their policies.

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who has written multiple books extolling Mr. Trump, said the president had ushered in “a dramatic deep rebellion against a corrupt, increasingly radical establishment breaking the law to stay in power.”

Larry Kudlow, a national economics adviser to Mr. Trump in his first term, said the president “has transformed American thinking on border security, China trade, working-class wage protection and business prosperity.” Moreover, Mr. Kudlow added, “he has fostered a new conservative culture of patriotism, traditional family values, a revival of faith and American greatness.”

But while Mr. Trump’s supporters feel freed from the shackles of a suffocating left-wing elite obsessed with identity politics, his critics see a permission structure for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, Christian nationalism, white supremacy and hatred of transgender people.

Advertisement

“He sells the past,” said Christina M. Greer, the author of “How to Build a Democracy” and a political science professor at Fordham University. “He sells a version and vision of America that was only accessible to some.” She said that Mr. Trump “has exposed America — a fragile nation that can be torn apart quite quickly by the promise of cruelty. He is returning the nation to its true origin story, one that many would prefer to forget.”

The political shift embodied by Mr. Trump has defied resistance. Brief surges of progressive momentum have faded in the Age of Trump. Despite the #MeToo movement that transformed the American workplace, or perhaps in backlash to it, voters last year elected a president who had been found liable by a jury of sexually abusing a woman. Five years after the widespread protests against the police murder of George Floyd, Mr. Trump pressured Washington’s mayor to erase the “Black Lives Matter” street mural within sight of the White House.

Along the way, he has normalized the abnormal. Not only is he the first convicted felon elected president, but he has also dispensed with conflict-of-interest concerns that used to constrain other presidents and monetized the White House far more than anyone who has ever lived there. He has disproved the assumption that scandal is automatically a political death knell, so much so that even former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, who resigned in disgrace amid sexual harassment allegations, is now a front-runner to win election as mayor of New York.

He has also upended the old conventional wisdom that optimism was the key to success in presidential politics. Unlike Roosevelt and Reagan, who projected sunny confidence and offered an idealized view of America, Mr. Trump describes the country in dystopian terms like “hellhole,” “cesspools” and “garbage can.” He is a voice not so much of American greatness as American grievance, one that resonates with many voters.

Politics in the Age of Trump are not kinder and gentler, as President George H.W. Bush once promised, but coarse and corrosive. Mr. Trump seems to love nothing more than an enemy he can insult in scathing, sometimes scatological terms that would be familiar on a school playground but banned on prime-time television.

Advertisement

Others have taken their cue from him. Democrats were thrilled to have Gov. Gavin Newsom of California respond to Mr. Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in tough-guy, bring-it-on terms, daring the president to have him arrested and likening his tactics to those of “failed dictators.”

If the rhetoric is raw, politics have also grown increasingly violent, evoking the darker days of the 1960s. The assassination over the weekend of a Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota and her husband along with the shooting of another legislator and his wife served as a chilling reminder that political discourse has descended to physical danger. So too did two assassination attempts against Mr. Trump during last year’s campaign, one of which came just a couple of inches away from grisly success.

Both Roosevelt and Reagan emerged from assassination attempts with broad public support and sympathy, but today’s America is so polarized that the country is not brought together in moments of crisis for long. Mr. Trump pardoned supporters who beat police officers while storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and briefly considered pardoning men who were convicted of plotting to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, a Democrat, before dropping the idea.

Mr. Trump has brought the political fringe into the mainstream and even the corridors of power, installing people in positions of authority who would never have passed muster in previous administrations. And he has elevated conspiracy theories to the Oval Office, suggesting that the gold might have been stolen from Fort Knox, fanning old suspicions about President John F. Kennedy’s assassination and continuing to lie about his own election defeat in 2020.

For all of the controversies, for all of the conflicts, Mr. Trump maintains a strong hold on his base if not with the broader public. The latest Gallup poll found his approval rating at 43 percent, lower than any other modern president at this stage of a new term or a second term, but essentially right in the same range it has been for most of the time since Mr. Trump stepped off that escalator in 2015.

Advertisement

The uncertainty about the Age of Trump is whether it survives Mr. Trump himself. Will Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson or other aspirants to the throne extend this era beyond its progenitor? Mr. Trump has scrambled old voting blocs and ideological scripts, but will he forge an enduring political and governing coalition?

His appeal often seems as personal as it is political, as much about the force of his identity as the force of his ideas. For a decade, he has been a singularly commanding presence in the life of the nation, invigorating to his admirers and infuriating to his detractors.

The Age of Trump still has more than three and a half years to go, at least by the Constitution, and many tests ahead.

News

Federal judge halts Trump’s election executive order seeking to create a federal voter list

Published

on

Federal judge halts Trump’s election executive order seeking to create a federal voter list

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president’s order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year’s midterm election cycle.

Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits, both filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, noting in her ruling that the provisions of Trump’s order “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”

It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation’s elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.

The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order seeking to establish a federal voter list, argued that the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

Advertisement

But in an interim order before Thursday’s ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year’s election cycle were relevant: “In light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the challenges.

Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.

Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.

The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.

The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia. Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.

Advertisement

The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.

In a separate lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, who have appealed.

Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

With a Round of 32 spot already clinched, the U.S. takes on Turkey in the World Cup

Published

on

With a Round of 32 spot already clinched, the U.S. takes on Turkey in the World Cup

Folarin Balogun (r) of the U.S. celebrates scoring his team’s second goal with Weston McKennie during their World Cup match against Paraguay on June 12 in Inglewood, Calif. The U.S. defeated Paraguay and, later, Australia. The U.S. wraps up group play against Turkey on Thursday evening. Win, lose or draw, the U.S. has already won its group and will advance to the knockout round.

Richard Heathcote/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Richard Heathcote/Getty Images

INGLEWOOD, Calif. — For the U.S. men’s national soccer team, a loss in Thursday night’s FIFA World Cup game against Turkey wouldn’t change anything.

A win, though, would be history.

The squad’s earlier wins over Paraguay and Australia, plus two losses by Turkey to the same teams, mean the Americans have already won their group and clinched a favorable path in the knockout round, no matter the outcome of Thursday’s game.

Advertisement

But the American men have never won more than two games in a single World Cup. A third win would be new territory for this team, which has not been shy about its aspirations in this tournament and its confidence about living up to them.

“The group stage is not done yet. We want to end it the right way. We want to end it the way we came into it and continue to build off of the momentum that we’ve been creating,” said defender Mark McKenzie, speaking to reporters Wednesday.

Because the outcome of the game does not affect knockout-round placement, the U.S. can rest key starters who will enter the match with a yellow card. For those players — defenders Antonee Robinson and Chris Richards, midfielder Tyler Adams and forward Folarin Balogun — picking up a second yellow card against Turkey would result in a suspension in the Round of 32. (Any single yellow cards will be cleared after the group stage concludes.)

The team could also choose to ease in forward Christian Pulisic, who is expected to be available for the game after sitting out the U.S.-Australia game with a minor calf injury.

Turkey had come into the World Cup with high expectations. With talented young stars like the 21-year-old attackers Arda Güler of Real Madrid and Kenan Yildiz of Juventus, the team was thought by many — from analysts to the players themselves — to be a dark horse capable of a deep run.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

Published

on

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Casper.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

Advertisement

In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” said James, a Democrat.

A voter casts a ballot during New York’s primary election on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Ryan Murphy)

Advertisement

Advertisement

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle that it s up to the states and Congress to set election rules.

“While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down,” Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. “So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”

Requests for comment sent to the White House and he U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

Advertisement

Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump’s defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.

Advertisement

Casper, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending