Connect with us

Politics

Column: We’re stuck with an unchecked mad king until January

Published

on

Column: We’re stuck with an unchecked mad king until January

Amid all the alarming and unhinged comments of the president of the United States in recent days threatening Iran with genocide — remarks beyond even the usual cray-cray blather from Donald Trump — it was a statement from his spokesperson on Tuesday that really put the madness in the White House in perspective.

“Only the President knows where things stand and what he will do,” Karoline Leavitt said.

She issued those words just hours before Trump’s 8 p.m. Tuesday deadline for Iran to either reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping or face Armageddon — that is, war crimes by the United States. The statement from the White House press secretary was as clear a description as Americans could get of governance under Trump these days: A mad king reigns, virtually unchecked.

And as a practical matter, there is nothing under the Constitution, neither impeachment nor removal under the 25th Amendment, that can be done about him. There’s only voters’ opportunity to eject the complicit Republican majorities in the House and Senate in November’s midterm elections, to install a Democratic — and democratic — check on Trump for the remaining two years of his term.

By now we know that, just before Trump’s deadline to Iran warning “a whole civilization will die tonight,” he announced a fragile two-week ceasefire for negotiations. The commander in chief declared victory, natch. But so did Iran. And it had the better of the argument: Iran continued to control and monetize passage through the strait, unlike before Trump’s war began Feb. 28, and already on Wednesday it flexed that power by closing the route in retaliation for Israeli strikes. The ceasefire also lets Iran retain possession of its enriched, nearly bomb-grade uranium, and the nation won Trump’s offer of possible tariff and sanctions relief.

Advertisement

So much for the “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” he demanded in a post a month ago.

I’m writing these words on Wednesday. Who knows where things will stand by the time you’re reading this? “Only the president knows.”

Trump has fluctuated, reversed and contradicted himself repeatedly — even within a single social-media screed or chest-thumping performance for the press — since he ordered war against Iran nearly six weeks ago, without notice to Congress, let alone its authorization. Since Sunday, he’s variously called Iran’s leaders “crazy bastards” and “animals” and taken credit for “Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail.”

Presidential rule by fiat and whim would be wrong in any case under the Constitution’s checks and balances of power, and specifically of war power. But in Trump’s case, America has a president who lately has piled on the evidence that he is mentally unstable, unfit for the office.

And spare us the cheerleaders’ claims on Fox News about how he’s playing multidimensional chess. When even Alex Jones likens Trump to “crazy King Lear” and calls for invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from power — echoing former Trump promoters including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Candace Owens, among others — you know he’s crossed a line by his unilateral war-making and profane threats (on Easter Sunday!) of genocidal apocalypse.

Advertisement

The evidence of Trump’s dangerous instability has been there from his political genesis. In his first term, he warned he’d unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” against nuclear-armed North Korea then declared that he “fell in love” with dictator Kim Jong-un (without achieving any diminution in Kim’s arsenal). He celebrates the deaths of political enemies and prosecutes those still living. He repeatedly interrupts himself on some policy question to bloviate about his ballroom plans.

He’s ordered armed agents into American neighborhoods on immigration raids, then expressed neither responsibility nor remorse when citizens died and legal residents got deported. The national security leaders of his first term let it be known that they’d prevented him from acting on his worst impulses, but there’s no chance of that from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Retired Gen. Mark Milley, former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 2021 described first-term Trump as being in mental decline and “fascist to the core.”

You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks Trump has gotten better in the intervening five years.

The country “can’t be a therapy session for … a troubled man like this,” Trump’s first-term attorney general, William P. Barr, told CBS in 2023 as Trump campaigned to return to office.

If only the presidency were therapy for Trump. Instead he’s like a power addict in the world’s most powerful job, mainlining its intoxicants, and no one will stop him. Only people with extraordinary egos seek the White House in the first place, but when an actual egomaniac inhabits that warping bubble of butter-uppers, there’s danger. I remain haunted by the words of retired Gen. John F. Kelly, Trump’s first-term Homeland Security secretary and then White House chief of staff, who in 2023 said of Trump’s potential reelection: “God help us.”

Advertisement

Having failed twice to convict and remove Trump in his first term, Democrats have shied from a third attempt, until now. Scores in Congress have called for impeachment or invocation of the 25th Amendment to oust him. There’s some value in sending a message. But Democrats are offering supporters false hope. A Republican-led Congress and a Cabinet of clownish sycophants will not exercise the powers they have, even against a mad king.

The authors of the Constitution, having thrown off a king, debated at length how to guard against a power-crazed president. But they didn’t anticipate political parties that put tribal loyalty over the country. That partisanship has rendered the high bars to a president’s removal — a vote of two-thirds of the Senate for conviction after impeachment, or, under the 25th Amendment, action by the vice president and a Cabinet majority — all but insurmountable.

That leaves the voters, who in special and off-year elections as recently as Tuesday have shown their zeal to punish Trump’s party. We can hope that a new Congress will check him come January.

And we can pray.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Advertisement

Politics

Trump Administration Casts Host of Policies Under Biden as Anti-Christian

Published

on

Trump Administration Casts Host of Policies Under Biden as Anti-Christian

The Justice Department on Thursday accused the Biden administration of pushing policies that were unfair to Christians, releasing a report that amounted to the latest rhetorical broadside by the Trump administration over what it calls the “weaponization” of government.

The 197-page document, released by a task force led by the department, sought to portray what President Trump’s advisers contend was anti-Christian bias among those who worked for President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is Roman Catholic. The report, which refers to decision-making at more than a dozen agencies, comes weeks after Mr. Trump publicly attacked the pope.

“The Biden administration’s policies regularly clashed with a Christian worldview and burdened traditional religious practices,” the report said. “These conflicts frequently arose over abortion, gender ideology, and sexual orientation.”

The document is the Justice Department’s latest effort to argue that it is removing purported political bias from the work of prosecutors. But critics say that the department under Mr. Trump has abandoned its tradition of operating independently from the White House, including by pursuing the president’s rivals, like James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, who was indicted this week for posting a photograph last year of seashells on a beach arranged to say “86 47.” The administration argues that the image was a coded threat to kill the president.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department issued a report accusing Biden-era prosecutors of unfairly pursuing anti-abortion activists through the use of a law that makes it a crime to obstruct or intimidate a person seeking abortion services or participating in a religious service at a house of worship. The Trump administration, in turn, has charged dozens of protesters, as well as the former CNN anchor Don Lemon, with violating the same law during a demonstration inside a church in St. Paul, Minn.

Advertisement

In a statement accompanying the release of Thursday’s report, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, vowed that the department would “continue to expose bad actors who targeted Christians, and work tirelessly to restore religious liberty for all Americans of faith.”

The report sharply criticized a leaked internal memo from 2023 by the F.B.I.’s field office in Richmond, Va., that said far-right extremists could be attracted to Catholic churches or groups.

For decades, the F.B.I. has worked to develop sources at churches, universities and mosques, but the Richmond memo quickly became a talking point on the right. Republicans argued that it showed the bureau was targeting Catholics.

F.B.I. officials quickly withdrew the memo after it was leaked, and an internal investigation found no evidence of “malicious intent.” But the new report argues otherwise. The memo, the report asserts, stemmed from a “misplaced reliance on baseless allegations from the Southern Poverty Law Center and the religious affiliation of a single law enforcement target who happened to identify himself as a ‘radical traditional Catholic.’”

Earlier this month, the Justice Department charged the S.P.L.C. with fraud, accusing the group of paying informants inside hate groups not to fight racism and extremism, but to promote them. The group has denied the charges and called it a politically motivated prosecution.

Advertisement

The new report also criticized a memo issued in 2021 by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in response to concerns raised by the National School Boards Association about purported threats to local education officials, as parents and teachers grappled with restrictions enacted during the coronavirus pandemic.

Mr. Garland’s memo ordered the creation of a task force of Justice Department prosecutors and F.B.I. investigators to use their “authority and resources to discourage these threats.”

That directive, however, raised significant internal concerns at the F.B.I. and Justice Department. One senior prosecutor warned that “the vast, vast majority of the behavior cited” by the National School Boards Association did not violate federal law.

“Almost all of the language being used is protected by the First Amendment,” the Justice Department lawyer warned shortly before the Garland memo was issued.

While the Trump administration report cites the Garland memo as an example of anti-Christian bias, the document leaves unclear how school board fights over masks, remote learning and safety in public schools constitute a religious issue.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

House Republicans splinter over pesticide provision in farm bill as MAHA movement flexes its muscle

Published

on

House Republicans splinter over pesticide provision in farm bill as MAHA movement flexes its muscle

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers moved Thursday to strip out a controversial pesticide provision from legislation setting U.S. farm and nutrition policy after Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., threatened to “slaughter” the legislation if her measure did not receive a floor vote.

Lawmakers voted 280 to 142 to approve Luna’s amendment, which removed language from the farm bill shielding pesticide manufacturers from legal liability. 

The successful vote could be a sign of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement’s growing influence over congressional Republicans, who splintered over the issue. Leading MAHA advocates applied public pressure on Republicans to back the amendment, arguing that failing to do so would be a betrayal of the MAHA movement.

Seventy-three Republicans backed Luna’s measure, while 142 GOP lawmakers rejected it.

Advertisement

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican from Florida, speaks to members of the media outside a House Republican Conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 3, 2025. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg)

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES THREATEN EXTENDED SHUTDOWN OVER ELECTION INTEGRITY MEASURE

The provision that lawmakers struck would block lawsuits against pesticide companies for failing to disclose potential health risks as long as they are in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on labeling. States and localities would be barred from issuing pesticide labeling guidance that diverges from the EPA. 

“I have a little boy, and the amount of articles I have seen on pesticides and herbicides popping up in children’s products (to include organic) is very bad,” Luna, a MAHA-aligned Republican, wrote on social media earlier this week. “On behalf of all the moms and dads that aren’t in office, I am not going to be bullied into supporting a bill that is providing protections and immunity to corporations that are responsible for giving children and adults cancer.”

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, policy chair of the House Freedom Caucus, also endorsed Luna’s amendment, arguing it would “protect Americans from dangerous pesticides.”

Advertisement

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, speaks to reporters after a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 20, 2025, during a government shutdown. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

‘LONG OVERDUE’: SENATE REPUBLICANS RAM THROUGH TRUMP’S CLAWBACK PACKAGE WITH CUTS TO FOREIGN AID, NPR

Republican critics, however, contended that Luna’s amendment would raise costs for consumers if the pesticide provision was stripped from the farm bill. 

“If the EPA says the label is good, I don’t see why every state municipality should have to have another label that would simply raise the price for the American consumer,” Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., said in opposition to Luna’s measure.

“We’re not talking about the pesticide in the jug as has been misrepresented to the American citizens and especially the MAHA movement,” Scott continued. “We’re talking about just the label on the jug. There is no liability shield for the pesticide in the jug. 

Advertisement

A farmworker wearing protective gear sprays pesticide in a field. (Andrew Holbrooke/Corbis via Getty Images)

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., also sharply criticized Luna’s measure.

“The arguments on the other side are pretty shallow, and they’re emotional,” Thompson said on the House floor. “They’re not science-based.”

Democrats also widely backed the effort to remove the pesticide provision from the bill.

“Put simply, this language puts chemical company profits over the health of Americans,” Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, said during debate on the House floor. 

Advertisement

A woman holds a bottle of the weedkiller Roundup containing glyphosate in her garden in a staged scene. (Wolf von Dewitz/Picture Alliance)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The floor battle over the pesticide provision also comes as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week about whether pesticide manufacturers like Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, should be given legal preemption from failing to warn consumers that its weedkiller product Roundup could cause cancer.

The Trump administration sparked controversy among MAHA advocates earlier this year when it declared domestic production of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, a national security priority. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an influential MAHA voice, publicly defended the move despite railing against glyphosate for years.

Bayer has repeatedly maintained that its product is safe to use and has not been found to cause cancer.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Your guide to the L.A. Unified Board of Education District 6 race: Incumbent Kelly Gonez is unopposed

Published

on

Your guide to the L.A. Unified Board of Education District 6 race: Incumbent Kelly Gonez is unopposed

p]:text-cms-story-body-color-text clearfix”>

Three seats are on the June 2 primary ballot for the seven-member Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, but the District 6 race is essentially a foregone conclusion: The only name on the ballot is two-term incumbent Kelly Gonez.

The nation’s second-largest school system, with close to 400,000 students, faces evolving challenges and uncertainties that could alter the direction of the district for years.

In mid-April L.A. Unified officials barely averted a strike by agreeing to significant employee raises, rescinding about 200 layoffs and agreeing to hundreds of new hires of counselors, school psychologists and other student support staff. The contracts with three district unions, including teachers, will cost nearly $1.2 billion a year, and board members now must find a way to pay for them amid budget pressures.

Advertisement

Standardized test scores have trended upward since the nadir of the COVID-19 pandemic, recovering faster than the state average, but the pace remains too incremental for critics.

The future of L.A. schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho is uncertain. He’s on paid administrative leave following FBI raids of his San Pedro home and downtown office. At least part of the investigation centers on a failed chatbot project that was supposed to revolutionize and individualize education.

Carvalho said he’s done nothing wrong and would like to return to work. If he does not return — and cannot serve out his new four-year contract — board members would select a superintendent.

L.A. Unified also faces declining enrollment — which reduces state funding and increases pressure to save money by closing many campuses.

Heightened federal immigration enforcement also has affected enrollment and attendance while creating anxiety that spills over into the classroom. Officials responded by declaring L.A. Unified a sanctuary district — both for immigrants and for the LGBTQ+ community, which also has been a target of some conservative groups.

Advertisement

Carvalho’s central focus on improving test scores has led to increased tutoring, repeated diagnostic measures and phonics training. In addition, the district put a successful school bond on the ballot to continue renovations, worked to lower student absenteeism and emphasized greener campuses.

The board majority consists of candidates elected with the endorsement of the powerful teachers union — United Teachers Los Angeles. This election will not change that balance because five seats are held by union-friendly incumbents. But the outcome will determine whether UTLA can further strengthen its hand or whether other constituencies will gain a measure of power at that union’s expense.

The material below was assembled through reporting and a survey provided to Gonez. Some responses are paraphrased for clarity or condensed for brevity.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending