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

National Guard has done little to reduce violent crime in D.C., a new study finds

Published

on

National Guard has done little to reduce violent crime in D.C., a new study finds

National Guard members stand watch near the Lincoln Memorial on the morning of Memorial Day in Washington, DC, May 25, 2026.

Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images

President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has reduced petty property crimes, but has had little to no effect on violent crime, despite the high cost to taxpayers, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan think tank Niskanen Center.

The study’s findings were published just weeks after federal officials announced that the number of troops in D.C. is set to double this summer to 5,000 as part of a “summer surge” of law enforcement ahead of events planned for America’s 250th birthday celebration.

Trump deployed the National Guard to D.C. last August, as part of the administration’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force, which he said was an effort to reduce crime and beautify the city. The task force includes hundreds of federal law enforcement — including immigration enforcement — working in conjunction with local police. It’s an approach that Trump previously said he wants to carry out in “many cities,” and already has in places like Memphis and New Orleans.

Advertisement

There are currently around 2,800 National Guard members deployed to D.C. from both the city itself and about a dozen other states, all of which have Republican governors. In contrast to other controversial National Guard deployments by Trump during his second term, the president has the authority over the Guard in D.C.

Guard members do not legally have the power to carry out arrests, but can detain individuals.

Troops — many of whom are armed — are largely carrying out what are called “high visibility patrols” to make their presence known around federal property and in residential areas, parks and city metro stations in an effort to free up D.C. police to redeploy to higher-crime areas. The report found that generally hasn’t happened.

Instead, researchers found that the deployment led to a 24% drop in “opportunistic” crimes — like property crimes and vehicle break-ins. But the presence of the Guard had no effect on violent crimes, including robberies, which were already on a downward trend before Trump came back into office.

“What the Guard brought was a massive, sudden shock from the visible presence of uniformed military personnel on the streets of Washington almost overnight,” researchers wrote, calling the deployment of the Guard a “blunt and expensive instrument.”

Advertisement

A recent assessment by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that it costs the federal government around $1.5 million per day for the current number of troops deployed to D.C.

“I think on balance the National Guard’s deployment is not a failure, there is success in what they’ve done. But I guess the point that we try to make is: compared to what?” says Richard Hahn, one of the authors of the study. “You could get the same or better outcomes, possibly much better outcomes, for much cheaper, if you just were very thoughtful about policing.”

In response to NPR’s request for comment about the study, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that it “should not be taken seriously.”

“The President’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force and National Guard presence have driven down crime, beautified the city, and improved quality of life for countless individuals,” Jackson said, without providing any evidence.

It’s unclear when the planned “summer surge” would end, or if the number of National Guard troops in the city would return to their current levels in the fall.

Advertisement

“Our message today is that we’re not done. We are not satisfied. We are not content with good. We are coming for perfection, and we won’t be done until we reclaim every last inch of ground on anyone seeking to do harm in our nation’s capital,” Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald said when announcing the surge.

NPR reached out to task force officials behind the Guard deployment for clarity on when the surge might start or end, but did not receive an immediate response.

Continue Reading

News

How Each House Member Voted on the Iran War Powers Resolution

Published

on

How Each House Member Voted on the Iran War Powers Resolution

Advertisement

Advertisement

Measure passed with 215 “yes” votes to 208 “no” votes.
Vote Total Democrats Republicans Bar chart of total votes
215 211 4
208 0 208

Advertisement

Note: Representative Kevin Kiley of California is an independent who caucuses with the Republicans.

The House on Wednesday passed a measure to direct President Trump withdraw U.S. forces from Iran or win congressional approval to continue military operations there. The vote was the fourth of its kind in the chamber since the war began, the previous three having failed.

A vote on this measure was originally scheduled for last month but was pulled by House Republican leaders after it became clear they lacked the votes at the time to defeat it because of several members’ absences. Several Republicans were also absent on Wednesday, but party leaders were unable to delay the vote any longer.

Advertisement

Votes fell mostly along party lines, with the exception of four Republicans, who voted with Democrats to pass the measure. Representative Jared Golden, Democrat of Maine, who had previously voted with Republicans, flipped and voted with his party.

Republicans who voted against their party

Advertisement

The House vote came after four Senate Republicans last month broke from their party to advance a measure to assert the legislature’s role in authorizing the war. The Senate had rejected seven other similar measures, but Republicans in both chambers have expressed increased uneasiness with the conflict as it wears on.

Even if a war powers resolution passed in both the House and Senate, it would be subject to an all-but-certain veto by Mr. Trump, which would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. Beyond that, the president and his senior aides have frequently dismissed efforts by Congress to rein in his war powers, saying they are unconstitutional.

Advertisement

How Every Member Voted

Advertisement

Republicans

Advertisement

Member Answer

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

Did not vote

Did not vote

Did not vote

Did not vote

Did not vote

Advertisement

Did not vote

Democrats

Member Answer
Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Did not vote

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support

Published

on

House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support

Washington — The House on Wednesday passed a measure that would force President Trump to end the war with Iran without congressional authorization, marking the first time the lower chamber has defied the White House on the conflict. 

The House voted 215 to 208 to approve the war powers resolution with the help of four Republicans. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, who has voted against the three previous failed attempts, also dropped his opposition and voted for the measure, giving his party unanimity on the issue.

Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted with Democrats in favor of the measure.

Democrats in the chamber erupted in applause after passage.

The vote was supposed to take place before lawmakers left for the Memorial Day recess, but House GOP leaders abruptly pulled the vote when it became clear they did not have the numbers to block it. Several Republicans were absent and others were expected to support it. 

Advertisement

The Senate advanced a similar measure in May to rein in Mr. Trump on Iran after four Republicans joined all but one Democrat to push it forward. Three Republican absences also helped deliver the breakthrough after seven previous unsuccessful votes. 

But the Senate’s procedural vote was just the first step on the way to potential passage, and Republicans will have another opportunity to block it in the coming days.

It’s unclear when they plan to vote on the House version. In a statement, House Democratic leaders called on Senate Republicans “to do the right thing.” 

Support for the war from some Republicans waned after the conflict passed a statutory 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the president must remove armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not authorized the war. The war passed the deadline on May 1, but the administration has argued that a fragile ceasefire stopped the clock in early April, though both sides have carried out attacks since then.

The Trump administration has also argued the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional, though that theory has never been tested in court.

Advertisement

Republicans who have voted in favor of limiting Mr. Trump’s military powers in Iran have been uncomfortable with the lack of congressional authorization on the war and a strategy to end it. Some fear the war’s unpopularity and the economic fallout could harm the GOP’s chances at keeping control of Congress after the midterm elections in November. 

GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson of Iowa, who is running for Senate, said in a private exchange at a campaign stop last week that the war could be a “political liability” if it continues beyond “the next couple of weeks,” according to audio obtained by CBS News. 

But Mr. Trump said last month he was in “no hurry” to make a deal with Iran ahead of the midterms. 

“Everybody’s saying, ‘Oh, the midterms, I’m in a hurry.’ I’m in no hurry,” he said. 

The resolution approved Wednesday was introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It directs the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran,” unless Congress declares war or authorizes the use of military force. 

Advertisement

Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier Wednesday called it a “stupid political vote” that “weakens the president’s hands as he’s negotiating with Iran.” 

After the vote, Meeks brushed off the assertion that the war powers votes have undercut the president during negotiations with Iran. When asked whether Democrats would keep forcing votes to end the Iran war, Meeks told reporters, “You can expect us to continue to do our jobs.” 

“We’re going to continue to do our constitutional responsibilities,” he said. 

Fitzpatrick, who also voted in favor of a war powers resolution in May, said, “The law is the law.” 

“We have to follow the law. There’s a law on the books,” Fitzpatrick said. “So you have two choices: You either follow the law or you change the law. You can’t violate the law. That’s not an option.” 

Advertisement

During floor debate on the measure on May 20, Democrats questioned why Republicans haven’t held a vote on an authorization for military force to provide Mr. Trump with legal guardrails for attacking Iran. 

“If my Republican colleagues believe this is justified, they should bring an AUMF to the floor,” Meeks said.

There’s been little momentum so far behind an AUMF introduced by Barrett earlier in May. 

Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, argued there are “better tools” for Congress to assert its authority. 

“We actually have the ability to provide direction as to how funds should be used,” Kiley said, referring to Congress’ power of the purse. “I understand why people want to use whatever tools are available, but I believe that Congress should use those tools of congressional oversight and the powers we have under Article I that really have teeth here.” 

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending