The company that owns Truth Social, which is itself mostly owned by Donald Trump and his family, is marketing a new, premium service, according to the Financial Times. Pay a fee, and you can get access to posts from Donald Trump and the other “highest ranking” accounts on the network whole “milliseconds” before everyone else. The whole scheme would be a little more believable if the service, rather than being yet another transparent opportunity for companies and wealthy people to shove money at the president, were something anyone actually wanted to buy. Happy Friday.
The Call Is Coming from Inside the White Houseby Sam Stein When our nation’s intelligence agencies put together a report on the impact foreign governments and actors had on the 2020 elections, they broke down the results into two categories. There was election interference targeting “the technical aspects of the election, including voter registration, casting and counting ballots, or reporting results.” And there was election influence, defined as efforts “to affect directly or indirectly a US election—including candidates, political parties, voters or their preferences, or political processes.” The authors of that March 2021 National Intelligence Council report were pretty clear about which category was more consequential. Their first “Key Judgment”—the very first substantive sentence of the assessment—is that “We have no indications that any foreign actor attempted to alter any technical aspect of the voting process in the 2020 US elections, including voter registration, casting ballots, vote tabulation, or reporting results.” It’s worth considering these lines in light of Donald Trump’s speech last night. Because while the president spent a primetime address rehashing old, unsubstantiated claims of foreign election interference, he was actively engaging in an act of domestic election influence. Put more bluntly, Trump used the bully pulpit to undermine U.S. elections in ways that no other president has—in ways that adversarial governments could only dream of. To understand how destructive the speech was, go back and read that report, which was started under the first Trump administration. Time and again, the authors underscore the threat posed by outside actors trying to undermine faith in U.S. elections. “Some foreign actors, such as Iran and Russia, spread false or inflated claims about alleged compromises of voting systems to undermine public confidence in election processes and results,” the intelligence community found. The concept of “confidence” in elections comes up repeatedly. The report assesses that Russia’s government ran an influence operation denigrating Joe Biden, supporting Trump, and “undermining public confidence in the electoral process.” It notes that Iran attempted both to “undercut former President Trump’s reelection prospects” and “undermine public confidence in the electoral process.” It relays that Moscow has “longstanding goals of undermining confidence in US election processes.” And it says that, “Some foreign actors . . . spread false or inflated claims about alleged compromises of voting systems to try to undermine public confidence in election processes and results.” That last line, in particular, stood out to me as I watched Trump’s speech. Because if you removed “foreign actors” from it, you would have an apt description of . . . Donald Trump. The president spread false and inflated claims about China’s covert efforts to undermine his 2020 bid. He bemoaned alleged compromises of our voting systems, specifically Venezuela’s supposed manipulation of electronic voting machines. And he undermined confidence in our election processes by comparing them unfavorably to “any” third-world country. “Great damage has been done to our country. Our elections were left vulnerable to being rigged and stolen, and the trust of the American people was lost,” Trump proclaimed, surely aware at some psychological level that he is the one who destroyed that trust, and was doing so again as he spoke that line. Over and over, Trump has sowed doubt in our elections, treating them not as a bedrock of our government but as a grade that could be appealed, forged, or changed through sufficient whining or cheating. After he lost the 2016 Iowa caucus, Trump declared that, “Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz . . . either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.” I vaguely recall being flabbergasted at the time. I thought it was a bit. I didn’t realize it was an ethos. And now it’s a doctrine—pushed by Trump but actively embraced by the rest of his party. Hours before Trump spoke last night, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) claimed four or five of his colleagues in the Senate “didn’t legally win” office. He had no evidence for his claim. Earlier this week, DNI nominee Jay Clayton refused to say that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. He’s considered the sane alternative to the man currently in that post, Bill Pulte. That these top officials feel free, even compelled, to act like this is a greater problem facing our elections than anything we’ve seen so far from a foreign adversary. Because if one party will not accept results that don’t go its way, then there is nothing to “fix” at all. At that point, the election’s legitimacy is tied strictly to its outcome, not its administration. The White House released a bevy of documents last night meant to support Trump’s speech. They were underwhelming as far as the president’s claims go. But this statement by the NIC stood out to me, again for how it almost perfectly described what Trump himself is doing:
That was in January 2020. How much time we’ve lost. Two Options: Lose or Cheatby William Kristol Just one footnote to Sam’s piece: A couple of polls that appeared earlier this week are a useful reminder of why Donald Trump is making such frantic efforts to lay the groundwork for his election interference. The reason’s simple: If he doesn’t cheat, he’s going to lose. Both polls were in the field when gas prices had been coming down and before they started going back up. Nonetheless, in their monthly tracking poll fielded July 9–13, the Republican firm Echelon Insights found only 38 percent of likely voters approving of Trump’s job performance—a new low in their surveys—with 61 percent disapproving. And the Washington Post/Ipsos poll, taken July 8–13, had virtually identical numbers, with 37 percent of the American public approving of Trump, and 61 percent disapproving. Particularly noteworthy was the contrast in both surveys between the percentage of those who strongly approved and strongly disapproved of Trump. Echelon had 24 percent strongly approving and 51 percent strongly disapproving; the Post had 15 percent strong approval and 47 percent strong disapproval. If you average the two, you get about 20 percent strongly approving and about 50 percent strongly disapproving. These are disastrous numbers going into a midterm election that will be a referendum on Trump, and that will pose a choice between a Congress that will continue to support Trump or one that will try to constrain and check him. One other striking result from the Post poll: Only 13 percent say they are better off than when Trump returned to office in January 2025, while 39 percent say their situation is about the same, and a new high of 43 percent say they’re not as well off as at the beginning of Trump’s second term. The numbers are a reversal from Trump’s first term, when 28 percent said on the eve of the midterms that they were better off, 58 percent said things were about the same, and only 13 percent felt they weren’t as well off under Trump. Even so, Republicans lost control of the House in November 2018. They may well lose the House and the Senate in 2026. So Trump faces the prospect of a hostile Congress that will investigate him aggressively over the remainder of this term. And if his numbers don’t improve over the next two years, he faces the prospect of his party’s nominee likely losing in 2028, and being succeeded by an administration that will go about turning over the massive boulders of Trumpian corruption. Thus the increasingly desperate and widespread effort by Trump and his apparatchiks to tilt the electoral scales in a big way. What we saw last night was only the tip of the election subversion iceberg. The Trump administration can’t afford to lose power. So it will do everything it can over the next two and a half years not to. AROUND THE BULWARK
Quick Hits$500 ON “TREMENDOUS”: Grift for me, but not for thee. That’s apparently the rule in the White House, where one of President Trump’s longtime teleprompter operators has been put on leave after reportedly amassing more than $100,000 from bets he placed on the Kalshi prediction market about what the president would or would not say. ABC reports:
Apart from the questions of why an enterprising, tenacious working man like Gabriel Perez should have to play by the rules when no one else in the White House does, or why he was put on administrative leave for a six-figure payday while the president helps himself to billions, there’s another question that seems painfully unresolved here: How did operating the teleprompter give Perez any indication of what Trump was going to say? A BRIDGE TOO FAR: The United States has struck targets in Iran for the last six days in a row—though no one seems to know exactly to what end. Perhaps even more ominous than the lack of strategy, though, is the choice of targets. The Wall Street Journal reports that the latest airstrikes have been concentrated on bridges, especially around Bandar Abbas, the largest Iranian city on the Strait of Hormuz. Are bridges legitimate military targets? Well, yes and no. If the military uses them, then they can become legitimate targets even if civilians also use them. A senior U.S. official told the Journal that the strikes on bridges were part of “an effort to cut off supply routes to a port city and naval base in the Strait of Hormuz that Iran uses to attack ships and project power.” So . . . close enough that the military lawyers who (presumably) approved these strikes probably aren’t sweating too much. Except that there’s still the question of intent. Trump has been threatening attacks on Iran’s infrastructure—bridges and power plants especially—for months. He has made it clear that these attacks are not to be based on a case-by-case determination of which bridges or electrical stations are being used by the military and which are purely civilian; or at least, that’s the only reasonable interpretation considering that he, at roughly the same time, threatened to wipe out all of Persian civilization. So did Trump give an order to bomb bridges which the military then found a way to make at least somewhat legal? Or did the military tell him that they could bomb bridges and he immediately trumpeted it as a campaign of war crimes? And which is worse? HOUSE OF MADNESS: As much as we fume at the president for arrogating to himself power that rightly belongs to Congress—and at the courts for letting him, and thereby encouraging him—we have to lay at least some of the blame with Congress itself. Case in point: Does this seem like a body capable of wresting power back from the other branches and exercising government befitting a superpower?
Read the whole thing from CNN. Spoiler: The Guy Fawkes of all this legislative insanity is Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), which really isn’t much of a spoiler at all. But hey, the Republican majority isn’t trying to oust its own speaker—yet—so by recent standards, this counts as effective leadership. Cheap Shots
You’re a free subscriber to The Bulwark—the largest pro-democracy news and analysis bundle on Substack. For unfettered access to all our newsletters and to access ad-free and member-only shows, become a paying subscriber.We’re going to send you a lot of content—newsletters and alerts for shows so you can read and watch on your schedule. Don’t care for so much email? You can update your personal email preferences as often as you like. To update the list of newsletters or alerts you received from The Bulwark, click here. Having trouble with something related to your account? Check out our constantly-updated FAQ, which likely has an answer for you.
|
