From Tariff Wars to Electoral Rout
Donald Trump has been utterly, totally wrong on tariffs. He has sold them as a way to make other countries pay, when the costs fall heavily on American businesses and households. Research on his first administration’s tariffs found that American importers and consumers bore their cost through higher prices. Calling a tariff a weapon against foreigners does not change who receives the bill.
There is a serious argument that the world needs a new trade architecture. The rules need to account for industrial subsidies, strategic dependencies, labor standards, environmental costs, and the extraordinary changes being brought about by artificial intelligence. A durable trading system also needs political legitimacy: people must believe that its benefits reach beyond corporate balance sheets. Those are substantial challenges requiring negotiation, investment, and institutional imagination.
A sweeping tariff war is a poor substitute for that work. It approaches an interconnected economy with the instincts of an earlier industrial age, as though national prosperity could be secured by making everything crossing a border more expensive. It is like dismantling the jet engine and announcing the triumphant return of steam. The machinery may make an impressive noise, but noise is not progress.
Trump’s casino history offers an uncomfortable metaphor. In the casino business, the house is supposed to have the advantage. Yet favorable underlying odds cannot rescue a business from excessive debt, poor decisions, or mismanagement. The political parallel is a president who took the advantages of incumbency and unified Republican government and converted them into an electoral reckoning.
The 2026 midterms have delivered that reckoning. Democrats have won control of both chambers of Congress, while also gaining governorships and making substantial advances in state legislatures. The defeat reaches well beyond Washington. Tariffs belong in the explanation, although assigning the entire result to one policy would oversimplify what voters have said. The broader indictment concerns affordability, judgment, and a presidency whose promises increasingly collided with people’s experience.
The Iran war requires a different assessment. It is possible to believe that military action was necessary while concluding that the war has been bungled. Supporting the decision to confront a threat does not require endorsing every subsequent decision. Indeed, the seriousness of going to war demands a higher standard of competence, a clearer political objective, and an honest account of what success would require.
Iran’s enrichment capability helps explain the urgency. Uranium enriched to 60 percent creates a profoundly different proliferation concern from fuel enriched for ordinary civilian power generation. Moving toward weapons-grade enrichment involves a shorter remaining technical path. But enrichment is not the same thing as possessing a usable nuclear weapon, and the urgency of a threat does not, by itself, settle every question about the timing or design of military action.
The case for the strikes therefore has to be distinguished from the case for the strategy that followed. Even if the opening attacks were justified, destroying facilities could never substitute for deciding what political future the campaign was meant to produce. Military force can damage capabilities. It cannot, on its own, establish a legitimate government.
A democratic Iran should have been the organizing political objective. That would have required sustained engagement with Iranians seeking representative government, including the diaspora, alongside a clear recognition that the country’s future belongs to people inside Iran. Diaspora communities could contribute organizing capacity, technical expertise, international advocacy, and resources. They could not simply be assigned leadership over a population enduring the consequences of war.
Nor could a democratic revolt responsibly be treated as the guaranteed final stage of a military timetable. Popular uprisings require trust, organization, communication, and the willingness of people on the ground to assume enormous risks. Bombing does not manufacture those conditions. A serious strategy would have prepared for political possibilities without pretending that a rapid democratic victory could be ordered from abroad.
The danger in seeking an accommodation with figures drawn from the existing regime is that personnel changes can preserve the same machinery of repression. A more compliant leadership might satisfy an immediate diplomatic objective while leaving Iranians without meaningful political freedom. The standard should be representative institutions, civil liberties, and accountable government. Replacing one set of rulers with another is an inadequate measure of success.
That is where the criticism of Trump’s tariffs and his conduct of the war converges. In both cases, the administration has displayed a preference for dramatic pressure over the painstaking construction of a durable outcome. Announcing tariffs is easier than building a better trading system. Launching strikes is easier than developing a credible political strategy for what follows. The consequences arrive after the spectacle.
The electoral defeat reflects a wider public judgment. Reporting on the results identifies economic anxiety, high living costs, and the Iran war among the forces behind the Republican losses. Those findings support an argument about accumulated failures; they do not establish that any single issue explains every defeated candidate.
The 2026 midterms open a new chapter because voters have changed who can exercise power and who can impose limits on it. Democrats now face the responsibility of turning rejection into a governing alternative: a credible approach to affordability, a more intelligent trade policy, and foreign policy that connects military decisions to achievable political ends.
The lesson is larger than Trump. Economic strength cannot be sustained by misunderstanding who pays a tax, and military strength cannot compensate indefinitely for an unclear destination. Voters eventually judge the results. In 2026, that judgment has arrived with devastating force.
When Enforcement Becomes an Assault on Community
Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown has inflicted damage that cannot be measured simply by counting arrests or deportations. Its consequences reach into classrooms, workplaces, churches, clinics, and family kitchens. When people become afraid to participate in ordinary life, the injury extends beyond the individuals facing removal. It weakens the relationships that allow a neighborhood to function as a community.
A community depends on everyday confidence: that parents can take their children to school, that sick people can seek treatment, that neighbors can gather for worship, and that someone who witnesses a crime can approach the police. These routines are part of a society’s essential infrastructure. Government should take extraordinary care before adopting methods that make people fear them.
Research documents the disruption. The Urban Institute found that immigration concerns led some adults in immigrant families to avoid work, medical settings, religious services, and community events in 2025. Families with differing citizenship and immigration statuses reported particularly high levels of anxiety about sending children to school and speaking with police. These findings describe a retreat from public life, with consequences for entire neighborhoods. Urban Institute
The effects also reach children who have no responsibility for immigration decisions. A child worried about whether a parent will return home carries that uncertainty into the classroom. Teachers then face a problem that no lesson plan can solve. UCLA research based on a nationally representative survey of more than 600 public high school principals documented educational disruption associated with intensified enforcement, including families leaving their communities. UCLA
Health care offers another measure of the damage. In the KFF/New York Times 2025 Survey of Immigrants, 5 percent of immigrant adults reported postponing or skipping care because of concerns about their own or a family member’s immigration status. Behind that percentage are people weighing a medical need against a perceived threat to their family’s security. A government ought to regard that calculation as a serious policy failure. KFF
The moral argument begins with recognizing people as members of actual communities. Someone described in a political speech as an immigration statistic may also be a child’s parent, a coworker, a caregiver, a customer, or the neighbor who helps when a car will not start. Immigration status has legal significance. It does not erase those relationships or make their destruction inconsequential.
A country has a legitimate responsibility to administer its borders and enforce its laws. Exercising that responsibility requires judgment about priorities, methods, and proportionality. Every enforcement decision should face a practical question: what public purpose does this action serve, and what harm will it cause? Arrest totals alone cannot answer it.
The administration’s approach deserves criticism precisely because enforcement can carry costs beyond its stated target. Fear spreads through families and social networks. An American citizen may worry about a spouse. A child may fear for a parent. A business owner may lose workers or customers. Urban Institute research found that the effects of immigration enforcement extended to both immigrant and US-born community members. Urban Institute The boundaries drawn in political rhetoric do not contain the consequences in everyday life.
That is why community belongs at the center of the debate. Public safety depends partly on cooperation, and cooperation depends on trust. Schools need parents to engage. Health providers need patients to seek care. Local institutions need people to believe they can participate without exposing their families to catastrophe. Policies that undermine that confidence impose a cost on the society they claim to protect.
The 2026 midterms have now delivered a broad rebuke to Trump and his administration, with Democrats winning control of the House and Senate. The result creates an opportunity for congressional scrutiny of the administration’s exercise of power, including its immigration enforcement practices. apnews.com
The election should be interpreted with care. It was a verdict on an administration facing public anger across several issues. The AP Voter Poll identified economic pressures, democracy, and corruption as leading concerns; it does not establish that opposition to ICE drove the national result. apnews.com The stronger argument is that voters have rejected Trump’s claim to continue governing without meaningful restraint. His immigration policies belong within the accountability that follows.
That accountability should produce concrete work. Congress should examine enforcement priorities, detention conditions, access to counsel, the treatment of families, and the consequences for schools and health care. Officials should explain how they measure success and whether those measures account for damage to public trust. People affected by enforcement should have a meaningful opportunity to describe what government decisions have done to their lives.
A durable alternative also requires a functioning immigration system: timely decisions, adequate administrative capacity, credible legal pathways, and fair procedures. Leaving families in prolonged uncertainty while relying on periodic crackdowns perpetuates the conditions that politicians then exploit. Competent government must resolve cases fairly and make the rules workable.
The deeper issue is what Americans expect government to protect. Community is built through years of shared work, mutual help, and ordinary familiarity. It can be damaged quickly when people come to see public life as a source of danger. Restoring it requires both policy changes and a clear commitment that human relationships count in the exercise of state power.
The voters have imposed a political check. The task now is to turn that check into accountable government—and to recognize that a country’s strength includes the confidence of its people to live, work, learn, and care for one another without pervasive fear.
A New Congress and the Duty to Investigate
The 2026 election has given the incoming Congress an unmistakable responsibility: scrutinize the exercise of presidential power. With Democrats winning control of the House and Senate, allegations of corruption involving the Trump administration can now face investigation by congressional majorities willing to demand answers. The change creates an opportunity to establish facts, examine potential conflicts of interest, and determine whether public authority has been used for private advantage. apnews.com
An allegation is not a finding of wrongdoing. That distinction makes investigation essential. Charges should be tested against documents, financial records, testimony, and applicable rules. Where evidence supports an allegation, Congress should explain the conduct and its consequences. Where evidence fails to support it, investigators should acknowledge that conclusion with equal clarity. Accountability requires the discipline to follow evidence wherever it leads.
Voters have good reason to expect that work. The AP Voter Poll found that roughly half of voters considered government corruption crucial to their congressional vote, while about seven in ten wanted Congress to provide stronger checks on presidential power. Those findings suggest a public demand for oversight that reaches beyond the usual partisan arguments. apnews.com Americans want to know whether government serves the country or the people positioned to profit from access to it.
Corruption deserves such attention because its costs spread far beyond any individual transaction. A public contract awarded improperly can waste money and disadvantage honest competitors. An official decision influenced by personal financial interests can distort national priorities. Special access for wealthy or politically connected interests can leave ordinary citizens believing that the rules operate differently for those with influence. Even the appearance of favoritism can weaken confidence when officials refuse to provide a credible explanation.
The incoming Congress should therefore begin with precise questions. What conduct is alleged? Who made the relevant decisions? What financial or personal interests existed? What records would establish whether those interests affected official action? Investigations built around answerable questions are more likely to produce useful findings than hearings organized around sweeping accusations.
Financial transparency should be central wherever the allegations concern money. Investigators should examine relevant disclosures, ownership arrangements, payments, contracts, and communications. A complicated business structure may be lawful, but complexity should never become a reason to abandon scrutiny. The purpose is to understand whether a financial relationship created a conflict and, if so, how that conflict was handled.
The same discipline should apply to allegations involving political access. Meeting a donor or business executive does not itself establish misconduct. The important questions concern what was requested, what was promised, what action followed, and whether normal procedures were bypassed. A serious inquiry must connect its conclusions to evidence rather than asking the public to accept insinuation as proof.
Congress should also examine the safeguards surrounding official decisions. Were potential conflicts disclosed? Did officials seek ethics advice? Were established review procedures followed? Did anyone raise concerns internally, and how were those concerns addressed? These questions can reveal institutional weaknesses even when the evidence does not establish criminal wrongdoing.
That distinction matters because congressional oversight has a broader purpose than determining whether someone can be prosecuted. Conduct may violate public trust, expose a dangerous loophole, or demonstrate a failure of judgment without satisfying the requirements of a criminal charge. Congress should describe such findings accurately and explain what remedy follows from them. Legislative reform, administrative changes, referrals to appropriate authorities, and public disclosure serve different purposes.
Witnesses and whistleblowers will be important to this process. People with direct knowledge should have a credible way to provide information, and their claims should be corroborated wherever possible. Protection against retaliation helps investigators obtain evidence that might otherwise remain hidden. At the same time, fairness requires giving people accused of misconduct a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Public hearings should make the evidence understandable. Their value lies in helping citizens see what happened, how investigators reached their conclusions, and what remains unresolved. A hearing that produces memorable exchanges but leaves the underlying facts obscure has accomplished little. The final reports should explain the strongest evidence, address substantial counterarguments, and distinguish established findings from unanswered questions.
Democrats will face their own test of credibility. The authority to investigate carries an obligation to exercise judgment. Investigations should be selected for their public importance and evidentiary basis, with clear objectives and a reasonable path to completion. Oversight loses force when every dispute becomes a scandal and every suspicion becomes a verdict.
Republicans, too, have an institutional responsibility. Congress’s duty to scrutinize executive power does not disappear when the president belongs to one’s own party. Members who believe an allegation is unfounded should welcome a fair examination capable of establishing that fact. Members who encounter credible evidence of misconduct should take it seriously regardless of its political consequences.
The ultimate goal should be a government that is harder to misuse. Findings should inform stronger disclosure requirements, clearer conflict rules, more transparent contracting, and better protection for independent oversight wherever the evidence demonstrates a need. An investigation achieves lasting value when it helps prevent the conduct it exposes.
The new Congress has an opportunity to restore a basic democratic expectation: public office comes with an obligation to answer public questions. Charges of corruption deserve a rigorous examination, and citizens deserve conclusions they can assess for themselves. The measure of success will be the quality of the evidence, the fairness of the process, and the willingness to act on what the investigation establishes.
The Next Democratic Majority Must Build the Future
The victorious Democrats have a responsibility larger than celebrating the defeat of Donald Trump. They must offer solutions, demonstrate competence, and give Americans a compelling picture of the future. An election victory creates an opportunity to earn lasting trust. What Democrats do with that opportunity will help determine whether 2026 becomes a temporary reversal or the beginning of a new governing era.
Voters have handed Democrats control of Congress in a broad rebuke to the administration. That result gives the party power to investigate, constrain, and challenge the president. It also raises expectations that Democrats will address the problems people experience every day. apnews.com Oversight belongs in that work, but a congressional majority needs an affirmative purpose that reaches into households, workplaces, and communities.
The central task is to make a better American future believable. People need to see how they will afford housing, obtain health care, raise children, develop useful skills, and share in the wealth created by technological progress. They need a political movement capable of connecting enormous national resources with ordinary human needs. Democrats should organize their agenda around that connection.
The opportunity extends well beyond repairing the damage of one presidency. My argument is that the Reagan era has exhausted its governing promise, and that 2028 could become a once-in-a-century election: a moment when the country chooses a different relationship between government, markets, technology, and economic security. In that interpretation, 2026 is the opening. The larger decision comes next.
For decades, the Reagan Revolution supplied the dominant vocabulary of American politics. Lower taxes, deregulation, private enterprise, and skepticism toward government shaped debates across party lines. Democrats often governed within that framework even while challenging particular Republican policies. Its influence was a measure of how thoroughly it had defined the boundaries of political possibility.
A governing philosophy loses authority when its answers cease to match the questions people face. A family struggling with rent needs more housing and greater purchasing power. A patient facing unaffordable treatment needs access to care. A worker confronting automation needs a credible path to security and opportunity. Repeating familiar arguments about smaller government offers little reassurance unless the resulting policies improve those conditions.
That is the opening for a new generation of FDR Democrats. Franklin Roosevelt’s lasting political achievement was to connect democratic government with a practical response to economic insecurity. His administration built institutions that changed what Americans expected from their country. The contemporary challenge is to bring comparable ambition to a different economy.
Artificial intelligence and robotics make that challenge especially urgent. Their development raises fundamental political questions about ownership, bargaining power, public investment, and the distribution of productivity gains. Technological capability alone cannot decide who benefits. Those decisions will emerge through institutions, laws, business choices, and democratic pressure.
A future-facing Democratic agenda should make abundance tangible. In housing, that means creating the conditions for substantially more homes while protecting people from displacement and insecurity. In health care, it means pursuing affordability and access with measurable goals. In education, it means making excellent instruction and continued learning available throughout life. In energy and infrastructure, it means building enough capacity to support both economic growth and rising living standards.
The party also has to take government performance seriously. Ambition creates obligations: programs must work, services must be accessible, projects must be delivered, and failures must be corrected. People should be able to judge public institutions by understandable results. A capable government earns support through the experience of using it.
This is where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez enters the argument. The prediction that she will become the next president rests on a belief about the direction of the country: that the next durable majority will seek economic security, public investment, and democratic control over a period of extraordinary technological change. AOC represents the possibility of giving that demand a clear political identity.
Calling her an FDR Democrat describes the scale of the opportunity. The case is for a presidency willing to reshape the economic settlement so that prosperity reaches more people, public institutions become more capable, and technological progress strengthens democratic society. Such a project would require persuasion, coalition building, legislative skill, and administrative discipline alongside moral conviction.
My prediction is that AOC will be the next president of the United States. I make it as a political judgment about an emerging historical moment. An astronomer can calculate Jupiter’s position because planetary motion follows physical laws; elections depend on choices, candidates, events, and institutions. The confidence of the prediction comes from a reading of the country’s needs, while its fulfillment would depend on the work of building a majority.
That work must begin now. Democrats cannot assume that dissatisfaction with Trump translates automatically into support for their entire agenda. The AP Voter Poll found widespread frustration with Congress and only limited enthusiasm for either party, even as voters sought stronger checks on presidential power. apnews.com A larger victory in 2028 must be earned through useful action and a convincing account of what comes next.
A durable coalition will need to include people whose immediate concerns differ. Young adults need a credible route to housing and family formation. Parents need care, education, and financial stability. Workers need opportunity and bargaining power. Entrepreneurs need infrastructure and functioning institutions. Older Americans need security and reliable services. The common project is an economy that allows more people to live with dignity and participate in progress.
The claim that the Reagan Revolution is over is therefore a challenge to Democrats as much as a criticism of Republicans. If an old governing framework is losing its hold, someone must build a better one. Nostalgia cannot perform that work. Neither can permanent opposition. The party must explain what it wants to create, how it intends to create it, and how Americans will know whether it has succeeded.
The promise of 2028 is a chance to establish a new governing direction for the age of AI. Democrats should approach the next two years with that responsibility in mind. Offer solutions, build confidence, and make the future something people can reasonably expect to share. A larger victory becomes possible when voters can see what their victory will accomplish.
