Ticking Debt Bomb

 Many posts have discussed federal deficits and the federal debt.

Zachary Basu at Axios:

Zoom in: President Trump said in 2016 that he could eliminate what was then roughly $19 trillion in national debt within eight years. On Tuesday, the debt crossed $40 trillion, after growing by $3 trillion in the past year alone.About $32 trillion is owed to investors and other outside holders. The rest is debt the government owes to its own accounts, including Social Security and other federal trust funds.

Treasury must refinance $9.7 trillion in debt coming due this fiscal year while covering a deficit the Congressional Budget Office now projects at roughly $2.1 trillion.

That creates a punishing cycle: Old debt comes due, Washington replaces it with more expensive debt, and the resulting interest bill feeds future deficits.CBO projects annual deficits will average $2.4 trillion through 2036, pushing debt held by the public to 120% of GDP — above the record set after World War II.
...

The big picture: America's debt burden is approaching the point where it starts reshaping household finances, presidential politics and the country's economic choices.Long-term Treasury yields have climbed to their highest levels since 2007, raising borrowing costs across the economy — from mortgages to business loans — and making Washington's own debt more expensive to refinance.

Social Security's retirement trust fund is projected to run dry in late 2032, during the final months of the next president's first term.

Medicare's hospital trust fund follows in the second quarter of 2033.

Between the lines: Trump and Elon Musk promised to break Washington's addiction to debt without forcing Americans to swallow painful sacrifices.Musk launched DOGE with ambitions of cutting as much as $2 trillion from federal spending. Its final public tally claimed just $215 billion in savings — barely a tenth of that goal.

A federal audit released this month found billions in unsupported or inaccurate savings claims, including $27.4 billion tied to contracts that were still active.

Dark Days at DHS

Many posts have discussed immigration. 

Vanessa Romo at NPR:

One of the last remaining checks on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and private-prison contractors running immigration detention centers has all but collapsed, leaving thousands of people trapped in a system with nearly nonexistent oversight, according to an NPR review.

The grievance system in immigration detention is designed to offer a safe channel to report violations of detention standards and seek redress, without fear of retaliation. It's often the only recourse for people to submit complaints about detention issues, including mistreatment, unsanitary conditions, medical neglect and sexual assault. But an NPR review of documents, available data and interviews with experts has found the system — which in the best of times was a complex patchwork — barely operates and even at times backfires for those using it. It is one of the few remaining safeguards for immigrants in federal custody after the Trump administration effectively dismantled other oversight offices.

...

Trying to enforce the rules of the grievance system has always been challenging, Chris Brundage, the former deputy of the now-closed Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, told NPR.

That's partly because it's not one single set of standards that all operators must follow, Brundage said. "It's a patchwork system that has never worked as intended," he said, explaining that there are at least three different sets of detention standards that operators are working under, depending on when they signed their contracts. (Some operators are following guidelines established in 2011. Others, an updated version from 2016, and those with new contracts are following 2019 standards.)

...

The Office of Detention Oversight, created by Congress to conduct internal inspections, and the Immigration Detention Ombudsman's office tasked with investigating detainee deaths and other issues have had their budgets gutted and suffered massive layoffs. Both agencies sit within DHS. In the case of the ombudsman's office, one of the only places that detainees could turn to to challenge a grievance denial outside of the immediate detention facility, it was fully shuttered in May.

Another office whose budget has been slashed is the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Brundage noted. In 2025, the administration slashed the CRCL staff from roughly 150 employees down to just a handful, effectively halting operations. The Government Accountability Project reported more than 500 active civil rights and detention-abuse complaints — including allegations of medical neglect, sexual abuse and dangerous conditions in immigration detention — were frozen or left uninvestigated.

...

"I think what happened when these offices were effectively gutted and shut down, you lost that … legitimacy. And legitimacy means that they're following the laws, regulations. But what happens if you don't have transparency into the process and you don't have accountability? Without those two things, that legitimacy erodes, " Brundage said.

You Have a Right to Record the Cops

Many posts have discussed freedom of speech and the press.

 C.J. Ciaramella at Reason:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit issued a landmark ruling Monday that a Connecticut man had a First Amendment right to film a police station from a public sidewalk, but it also ruled that the officers who arrested the man are immune from his lawsuit.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit held that Keith Massimino, a self-described "First Amendment auditing hobbyist," had a constitutional right to film the exterior of a police department in Waterbury, Connecticut, on an October evening in 2018.

"When the government wants to preserve its privacy, it may build a fence or close a door—but not ban speech," U.S. Circuit Judge Myrna Pérez wrote for the majority.

The panel's opinion creates binding precedent in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, and, according to the opinion, it makes the 2nd Circuit the ninth federal circuit to agree on the issue. Although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter, every circuit court that has considered the issue has found an unambiguous First Amendment right to record and monitor the police, so long as one isn't physically interfering with or obstructing an officer.

California Political Geography

Many posts have discussed California.

PPIC:

California’s political geography reflects both growing national polarization and enduring regional differences. Using survey data and sophisticated modeling to estimate public opinion across 46 areas of the state, this report shows that while partisan alignment increasingly shapes views on major issues, Californians broadly agree on several policy topics. At the same time, a persistent coastal-inland divide—and the distinct political and economic position of the Bay Area—continues to structure differences in attitudes and lived experiences across the state.

• A strong coastal-inland divide defines California politics. Coastal regions are far more Democratic and liberal, while inland areas anchor Republican support. The modern center of California conservatism is the far north of the state. These broad partisan tendencies shape the geography of a wide range of issues, from immigration to the size of government to climate change and perspectives on the economy. →
• Independents are numerous but typically partisan in practice. Most lean toward a party and vote consistently that way. Democratic-leaning independents are concentrated along the coast, while Republican-leaning independents are more evenly distributed. →
• Most Californians agree on several key issues. Though the exact level of support varies, majorities across the state support abortion access, view immigrants as a benefit, and favor state action on climate change. Opposition is mostly limited to very conservative areas in the far north of the state. A broad geographic range of Californians also want a smaller state government, despite the state’s overall liberalism. →
• The affordability crisis is spreading inland. Residents on the coast are the most likely to say housing is a big problem in their part of the state, but concern about housing has grown the most in the interior over the last few years. Likewise, Bay Area residents have the most negative economic outlook, though those in inland California worry the most about paying their bills, including housing costs. →
• The Bay Area is distinct politically and economically. It is the most liberal and Democratic region, showing the strongest consistent support for progressive policies. Despite high housing prices in the region, Bay Area residents are also less likely to share the affordability concerns of the rest of the state.

"Government Censorship Is Deeply Un-American"

Complaint by ABC et al. against FCC: 

1. Government censorship is deeply un-American.  That fundamental principle predates the Republic, with our Founders recognizing that “the freedom of the press is one of the great[est] bulwarks of liberty.”1  And it is no less true today, as the Supreme Court unanimously 1Va. Declaration of Rights § 12 (adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates, Williamsburg, Va., June 12, 1776). 1 Case 1:26-cv-02902     Document 1     Filed 08/18/26     Page 3 of 46 reaffirmed only two years ago: the government may not “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”  Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024).   

2. This case concerns the Administration’s sustained effort to do just that.  Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts.  

3. That campaign began in this Administration’s earliest days and has only intensified since.  Again and again, the Administration has attacked ABC’s speech—the stories its journalists report and the viewpoints its network programs air.  Over time, those attacks have escalated into express demands that ABC be stripped of its broadcast licenses because of its speech. 2   

4. In prosecuting the Administration’s campaign against free speech on network television, the Commission fights on several fronts using its expansive regulatory powers.  What has unfolded, in the words of sitting FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, is “a sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control, carried out through the weaponization of the FCC’s authority as a federal regulator and aimed at pressuring a free and independent press and all media into submission.”3   

5. The Administration has not been shy about openly coercing ABC into changing its programming.  For example, in response to on-air comments by ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, the FCC’s Chairman issued an ultimatum to Plaintiffs: “We can do this the easy way or 5. The Administration has not been shy about openly coercing ABC into changing its programming.  For example, in response to on-air comments by ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, the FCC’s Chairman issued an ultimatum to Plaintiffs: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.  These companies can find ways . . . to take action . . . on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”4   

 6. For months, the Administration has steadily increased the pressure on ABC, culminating in the present threat to the broadcasting licenses of the eight ABC Owned Stations (“the Stations”).  The day after the President objected to additional on-air comments by Mr. Kimmel, the Commission issued an unprecedented order requiring the Stations to file early applications to renew their licenses—years before any of their licenses would have come up for renewal in the ordinary course and allowing only thirty days to file applications which ordinarily take months to prepare.  Until the day before that order issued, the Commission had not called for a renewal application ahead of schedule in more than half a century.  Nor had it ever demanded simultaneous early renewal applications from a group of stations commonly owned with a single broadcast network—much less stations with the record of public service and award-winning journalism like these Stations.  In a contemporaneous interview, the Chairman did not mince words when explaining the Commission’s decision to ramp up its pressure on ABC: “If you didn’t take us seriously, now you should.”5   7. The Commission has demanded a review of the Stations’ licenses extraordinarily early.  For all but two of the Stations, this early review comes before their current license terms have even reached the halfway point, and years before the Commission is statutorily authorized to grant renewal.  That timing underscores the Commission’s true purpose: coercing and retaliating against a network that refuses to bow to the Administration’s demands.

Price Controls

 Anthony Salvanto, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus at CBS:

Though a slight majority, along with most Democrats and independents, [Republicans] would be okay with government price controls.

Nixon tried price controls, and they inflicted economic damage that lasted through the 1970s.  In his memoirs, he made a rare admission of error

What did America reap from its brief fling with economic controls? The August 15, 1971 decision to impose them was politically necessary and immensely popular in the short run. But in the long run I believe that it was wrong. The piper must always be paid, and there was an unquestionably high price for tampering with the orthodox economic mechanisms.

Viral Disinformation About Iran Nukes

Our most recent book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The first year of the second Trump administration has been full of ominous developments. 

War and economic woes will hurt the GOP in November.  The only question is how much.

Trump's war drove gas prices up.  Now Vance says that the war's purpose is to lower gas prices.  Incoherent.

Steven Lee Myers, Ronen Bergman, and Farnaz Fassihi at NYT:

On the morning of Aug. 5, an anonymous account on X in India posted seemingly sensational news. The commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps had vowed that his country would never give up its nuclear weapon ambitions as long as Israel and the United States possessed those weapons, the account said.

It was not true, and there’s no evidence that the commander made the remark or that Iran has developed nuclear weapons. The claim soon caromed around the internet anyway.

The quotation appeared on Israeli accounts, and then a television channel there posted it, calling it the first public declaration that Iran was working to build a nuclear bomb. That evening, it made its way into remarks that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered at Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, the country’s national cemetery.

In the United States, Mike Waltz, the Trump administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, reposted the quotation, as did Senator Rick Scott of Florida, a Republican. Fox News also reported the claim, as anchors and guests cited it as evidence of Iran’s duplicity.

The quotation, attributed to Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, was part of a campaign that succeeded in misleading politicians and news organizations around the world, according to a review by The New York Times. The claim’s spread showed how easily viral disinformation can twist the public debate over matters as serious as war and peace.

It is unclear who fabricated the quotation. However, it appeared intended to bolster Mr. Netanyahu’s longstanding claim that Iran is determined to build a nuclear weapon and that war against Iran was necessary.

President Trump, who had tried to justify the war by citing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, has been searching for a way out of it, and the quotation went viral three days after he said he was halting all attacks on Iran to give peace negotiations a chance.

“This quote was clearly crafted to drive a wedge into peace negotiations,” said Darren L. Linvill of the Media Forensics Hub at Clemson University, who tracks how disinformation and propaganda spread on social media.