Saturday Report from Thom Hartmann

 

Russia’s main goal for years has been to cripple NATO by getting US troops out of Germany. Putin called Trump this week (we wouldn’t have known except Russian media bragged about it) and apparently gave him his instructions; yesterday the Pentagon announced we’re pulling 5,000 troops out of Germany and putting massive tariffs on EU goods to further weaken NATO member nations. They’re toasting their success with champagne in the Kremlin and planning their strategy to take the Baltic states once the war against Ukraine is over.

Thanks to six corrupt bought-off Republicans on the Supreme Court, Louisiana Republicans are colluding in broad daylight to rig this fall’s election and silence the voices of Black voters. Jeff Landry is one of the most corrupt governors in America, having been accused of accepting free flights and gifts, illegal use of campaign funds, and giving government jobs to top donors, among other things. Now he’s suspending the upcoming primaries (voting was already underway) so he and his cronies in the legislature can re-gerrymander the state to make sure the state will never again send a Black representative to Washington DC. 

Democracy Docket’s Marc Elias noted, “What is happening in Louisiana right now is both a redistricting power grab and a dry run for authoritarian election subversion this fall.” And this is just the beginning; with the six Republicans on the Court okaying new maps that shatter majority-Black districts, the Congressional Black Caucus is bracing for a major loss of members this fall and in 2028. John Roberts and his buddies on the Court claim that they’re not “seeing race” and that the problem of minority voters being victimized by Republican policies is long in the past; in fact it’s very, very real now and their and Landry’s actions prove it. Hypocrites and racist liars…

The Trump regime is the most lawless in America’s history. The War Powers Act of 1973 requires two things: If the United States has come under attack or an attack is imminent, the president may order an immediate commencement of war-making against the attacker; when that happens, he then has 60 days to try to resolve the situation, but after that must seek approval from Congress to continue kinetic action. Trump has already broken that law: Iran represented no immediate threat to the US at all but he bombed them anyway.

And now, as Democrats are joining Republicans in pretending he didn’t commit that crime and so are asking for the 60-day request for war authorization from Congress, Whiskey Pete Hegseth told senators yesterday that because our military isn’t currently shooting or bombing, “the clock is paused” and they don’t need to go to Congress. The law requires a cessation of hostilities within 60 days, and if blockading the Strait of Hormuz isn’t a hostile action then apparently the next step is for the Pentagon to declare that gravity is optional and wars only count when someone bothers to keep score. 

Meanwhile, ICE murders American citizens and ignores the 4th and 5th Amendments, the DOJ ignores court orders, Trump criminally impounds funds Congress had appropriated for Blue states, and the entire regime is in open and blatant violation of the Epstein Transparency Act. Hopefully, Democrats will find their spines and voices and hold these criminals to account once they acquire the power to do so and begin shadow hearings in the meantime to inform the American people of Trump’s and his people’s lawlessness.

Americans of all stripes and political affiliations agree: Data Centers are a plague. Big AI have been buying off politicians across the country, often even getting tax deferrals and free land as they burden local electric and water resources, all to increase the profits of a handful of morbidly rich AI oligarchs. Residents in the areas the tech bro oligarchs are eyeing are getting active, although a few well-placed “contributions” and “tips” to politicians often frustrate their efforts. Maine’s legislature, for example, passed a moratorium on the centers last month by a wide margin but then Governor Janet Mills, apparently feathering her nest for her upcoming retirement, vetoed the legislation. In other states it’s less obviously corrupt, but people are genuinely freaked out as AI transforms not just the physical landscape of America but the employment landscape as well.

In Michigan, The New York Times reports: “In towns across the state, suspicions are still rife, sometimes far-fetched. Residents in different towns expressed worries about effects on fertility. Others worried the centers could end up as military targets, pointing to Iran’s strikes on data center infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. People in Michigan also pointed to two contracts between a data center project in Saline Township and the state’s main electric utility that were so heavily redacted that the state’s attorney general is challenging them in court. A special fast-track process was used to bypass public hearings. Even the signatures are blacked out.”

AI is here and not going away, and Moore’s Law suggests many of these monster data centers will soon be scaled back, perhaps even bursting the AI bubble that keeps driving the stock market regardless of the Iran conflict. Keep an eye on this; it’s going to change the world our kids are inheriting in ways that are still unclear.

The Trump grift is multigenerational. Uday and Qusay…er…Don Jr and Eric just jumped into the defense contracting business, hooking up with three new drone companies. Suspiciously, the companies all are bidding for or just got massive multi-million-dollar contracts with the Pentagon, with more to come. Remember when Republicans screamed about Jimmy Carter’s brother Billy “cashing in on the presidency” by licensing his name to a brand of beer? Or when Republicans held endless hearings, press conferences, and years of Fox “News” reports about Biden’s son making $5 million for sitting on the board of an energy company? They were pikers. The Trump Crime Family is the most corrupt first family in American history and hopefully their reign will be short-lived when Democrats get the power of impeachment back.

Democracy around the world is under assault by right-wingers who get themselves elected and then flip their nations into autocracy and oligarchy. An estimated half of all the world’s democracies are under such an assault — including the United States — and Uganda is the most recent to go all in. President Yoweri Museveni says he wants to sign legislation that’s working its way through the Ugandan legislature that would criminalize opposition politicians, most types of reporting and opinion writing, and any group affiliated with foreign organizations. Russia, through diplomatic outreach and via their massive social media influence operations, has been pushing this sort of thing across the free world, and this bill is a virtual clone of Russian legislation that lets Putin imprison or even execute dissidents and reporters. And Trump, trying to help out his mentor and owner, has shut down Voice of America to make Putin’s job even easier.

Joe Walsh UNLEASHES Tea Party smear machine on a Democrat fighting for us working people. Former Republican congressman Joe Walsh went on his podcast and spewed a vitriolic tirade against Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner, calling him “despicable,” a “bullshitter,” even throwing around accusations like “anti-Semitic,” and then said he wouldn’t support him even if it helps keep a Republican in power. This from Joe Walsh, a former Tea Party bomb-thrower who built his career on outrage, division, and some of the ugliest rhetoric of the last decade.

And let’s not rewrite history here: this is a guy who helped normalize the very politics that damaged our democracy. Yet when he decided to rebrand himself, Democrats and progressives said fine, come on in, we believe in a big tent. We gave him grace; I’ve even invited him onto my program several times. And now? Now he turns that same scorched-earth, character-assassination playbook on a real progressive who’s actually connecting with voters on the number one issue in this country, affordability. That’s not principle, that’s hypocrisy dripping with arrogance. Walsh doesn’t want a “big tent,” he wants a tent where he gets to decide who’s worthy.

And when someone comes along with a message that resonates with working people, he panics and goes for the jugular. It’s the same old Tea Party venom, just dressed up in a different jersey. You don’t strengthen democracy by trashing candidates fighting for economic justice, you weaken it. And if that’s where Joe Walsh is going to stand, then he hasn’t changed nearly as much as he wants people to believe and will not be welcome on my show again until he publicly apology.

-Thom Hartmann, The Hartmann Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Rev. Andrew Guljas, C.S.C.

REV. ANDREW R. GULJAS, C.S.C. July 21, 1938 – April 20, 2026, Notre Dame, Ind. – Rev. Andrew Roland Guljas, C.S.C., 87, died on April 20, 2026, at Holy Cross House after a short illness. Fr. Guljas was born in South Bend, Ind., on July 21, 1938, to Michael and Genevieve (Penkala) Guljas and is the second oldest of seven children. 

After attending St. Joseph High School from 1953-1955, he entered the Holy Cross High School Seminary in Notre Dame, Ind., graduating in 1957. After his postulant year, he entered Holy Cross Novitiate in Jordan, Minn., on August 15, 1957, and pronounced his First Vows the following year. In 1962, he graduated from the University of Notre Dame with a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, while also making Final Vows on August 16th. 

In 1966, he earned his master’s in theology from Holy Cross College in Washington, D.C. and was ordained a Holy Cross priest on June 8, 1968. After ordination in 1968, Fr. Guljas assisted and taught at Notre Dame High School for Boys in Niles, Ill., until 1973, before serving as a guidance counselor at Holy Trinity High in Chicago, Ill., for the following school year. 

From 1974-1984, he assisted the District of Chile before doing advanced studies at Illinois Professional School of Psychology in Chicago, Ill., and a three-year internship at Fr. Meade Veterans Med Center in Rapid City, S.D., earning a PsyD in 1990. From 1990- 1995, he assisted the District of Chile again, before returning to Notre Dame, Ind. From 1995- 1997, he served as counselor for Life Treatment Center in South Bend, Ind., before assisting at AIDS Ministries from 1997-2022 and Victory Clinical Services from 2001-2022. 

Beginning in 2022, he resided at Holy Cross House in Notre Dame, Ind., until his passing. Fr. Guljas was preceded in death by his parents and brothers Fredrick (Loretta) and Michael (Susan). He is survived by his brother Edward (Valerie) and sisters Bonita Holderman (Jerry), Rose Kelsheimer and Mary Howie (Mark). He is also survived by many beloved nephews and nieces. 

A Wake Service was held on Monday, April 27, 2026, at 7:30 p.m. at Moreau Seminary and Scholasticate, Notre Dame, Ind. A Funeral Mass was held at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart, Notre Dame, Ind.  You may join via livestream at https://funerals.holycrossusa.org. Burial will be at the community cemetery at Notre Dame... 

Memorial contributions in support of the mission and ministries of the Congregation of Holy Cross can be made to: United States Province of Priests and Brothers, Office of Advancement, P.O. Box 765, Notre Dame, IN 46556-0765 or online at https://donate.holycrossusa.org

Fr. Guljas was my favorite teacher and priest at Notre Dame High School, where we had many discussions about religion, philosophy, and music. 

                 "No man is an island, entire of itself...  
                   Each man's death diminishes me, 
                   for I am involved in mankind; 
                   therefore, send not to know 
                   for whom the bell tolls, 
                   it tolls for thee."  
                                                    -John Donne

American Press Freedom on the Brink

As World Press Freedom Day (May 3) nears, it’s a good time to step back and assess how journalists and news outlets are faring in our current media climate. President Donald Trump came back to the White House and picked up right where he left off, insulting and attacking the press on an almost daily basis, suing media outlets, and taking a number of concrete actions to restrict press freedom. Against this backdrop, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) will release its 2026 World Press Freedom Index on April 30.  

Every year, RSF scores and ranks 180 countries and territories based on their level of press freedom. The Index evaluates five indicators: political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context, and safety. The United States has declined in each of these indicators and steadily fallen on the Index over the past decade, dropping in rank from 49th in 2015 to 57th in 2025.

It may be tempting to blame Trump entirely for the perilous state of journalism in the country, but that steady decline in press freedom over the past decade spans multiple administrations, with both parties holding power in Washington. Such a prolonged decline points to structural deficiencies that cannot be attributed to a single issue, person, or administration.

Media ownership has become increasingly consolidated among a few media moguls, as outlets have also faced major revenue losses. Local news is also vanishing, and millions of Americans, especially in rural and low-income areas, now live in “news deserts.” Time and again, Congress has missed opportunities to enact meaningful press freedom protections, such as the PRESS Act, while local and state governments have chipped away at press freedom.

Violence against journalists has risen to stubbornly high levels, according to the US Press Freedom Tracker. And in the last decade, eight journalists in the US were killed for their journalism or while working. And through this tumultuous period, public trust in news has plummeted. 

Now, on top of that overall troubling context, a White House openly hostile to journalism is exacerbating an already fraught situation. Since returning to power, Trump, along with his advisors and allies, has dealt devastating blows to journalism, setting dangerous precedents and inflicting enduring harm.

From limiting journalists’ access to government buildings to cutting public media funding to targeting and threatening disfavored media outlets, the administration has regularly violated press freedom. While these individual incidents are scandalous, and often unconstitutional, it’s easy for them to be washed away into the constant churn of the news cycle. Put them all together, though, and one conclusion is unavoidable: Trump is waging an all-out war on press freedom and journalism.

Trump promised to be a dictator on just “day one” of his term, but the totality of his anti-press campaign signals that the self-proclaimed “Peace President” is sinking to the depths of authoritarian regimes. His war on press freedom affects all five indicators RSF measures to compile the Index: political, legal, economic, sociocultural, and safety.

Political context

On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order “ending federal censorship,” effectively eliminating government monitoring of misinformation and disinformation. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has also weaponized the independent agency to investigate news outlets with coverage that the presidential administration disagrees with.

The administration removed thousands of US government pages that hosted information ranging from vaccines to climate change, vital resources for journalists and the general public alike. Reporters have been barred from, or had their access severely restricted at the State Department, Air Force One, the Pentagon, and even a section of the White House previously known as “Upper Press.”

Legal framework

In addition to the president’s numerous lawsuits against media outlets, his administration earlier this year raided the home of Washington Post journalist Hannah Natanson and confiscated her personal and professional devices, a truly dangerous and unprecedented assault that puts thousands of Natanson’s sources at risk and is likely to scare off future sources from speaking with journalists. Journalists like Don Lemon and Georgia Fort have been arrested and threatened with criminal charges while doing their work.

Economic context

Trump led the charge to eliminate federal funding for public media. He’s also inserted himself into media company mergers and acquisitions, putting his thumb on the scale to ensure his political allies take control of American media outlets—a move eerily reminiscent of Viktor Orbán in Hungary and even Vladimir Putin in Russia.

Sociocultural context

Trump’s near-daily attacks and insults against journalists have set an example for others, with journalists now facing online and public harassment while doing their job. The bar for attacks against journalists is undeniably lower today thanks to Trump. RSF’s 2024 investigation into the state of press freedom in swing states found journalists reporting alarming instances of direct threats to their safety by local politicians. Threats against journalists by elected officials that once seemed inconceivable have become de rigueur.

Safety

Journalists faced a spike in physical violence by law enforcement and federal agents while doing their work. This was most evident as journalists covered widespread protests against the administration’s sweeping crackdown on immigration in Minnesota’s Twin Cities, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Press freedom around the world is in trouble, as RSF’s Index has shown in recent years. Notably, the Trump effect extends beyond US borders. The American retreat from foreign aid led to the withdrawal of millions of dollars that supported independent media in developing economies around the world. In one striking example, a safety training session for journalists in the Amazon was abruptly canceled because of the USAID shutdown.

Authoritarian leaders are further emboldened to attack the press with the knowledge that the United States is no longer championing press freedom. When Serbian authorities raided the offices of the country’s largest fact-checker, they cited X posts by Elon Musk in his capacity as the leader of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) as evidence of the media organization’s crimes. That evidence? Accepting a USAID grant.

This is a moment of crisis for American media. During the twentieth century, press freedom—and free expression more broadly—saw a gradual, if uneven, expansion. Now we’re heading in the other direction for the first time in generations, and RSF isn’t the only organization that’s noticed. The Varieties of Democracy Institute’s 2026 Democracy Report found that US freedom of expression had declined to World War II levels. Freedom House also docked the United States in its latest global report, with freedom of expression cited as a leading factor in democratic backsliding.

We can’t lay all the blame for the state of American press freedom at the president’s feet, but Trump has taken a troubling situation and turned it into a full-blown crisis that we must urgently solve. Our very democracy is at stake.

-Clayton Weimers, CounterPunch

American Press Freedom on the Brink 

This was first published by Project Censored.

 

"The current state of US-UK relations is strained"

 

King Charles III's visit to the US was meant to be a celebration - of America's 250th anniversary, of enduring Anglo-American ties and of the "special relationship". But it has also been billed as a rescue mission. The current state of US-UK relations is strained - a reflection of British reluctance to fully back the joint US-Israeli war against Iran. So, the King's goal has been to ease those tensions with a royal charm offensive, most notably with his joint address to Congress on Tuesday afternoon.

The King spoke of the "reconciliation and renewal" that he said characterised the centuries of interactions between the two nations, a theme he returned to later at the White House state banquet. But there were also some lines in his speech, the first royal address to Congress since Queen Elizabeth II spoke at the Capitol in 1991, that may have buoyed Democrats - and raised eyebrows in the White House.

1. An acknowledgement of uncertainty

Admitting you have a problem is the first step of recovery, as the saying goes. And so King Charles started his speech by diving right into the "times of great uncertainty" that confront both the US and the UK. He ticked through conflicts in the Middle East and Europe – sources of recent contention between the US and the UK - while also noting the threat to democracy presented by the kind of political violence that upended Saturday night's White House Correspondents' Dinner.

From there, the King pivoted to talking about the fact that the US and the UK haven't always seen eye to eye. "With the spirit of 1776 in our minds," he said, "we can perhaps agree that we do not always agree". That was all a set-up, however, for his conclusion that the two nations, when in alignment, can do great things "not just for the benefit of our peoples, but of all peoples".

2. A warning about US executive power

When King Charles noted that executive power "subject to checks and balances" was a British legal tradition, enshrined in the Magna Carta, which became a bedrock principle in the US Constitution, he received another standing ovation – with a twist. The cheers started on the Democratic side of the chamber, before spreading across the entire room.

Donald Trump's critics on the left have frequently denounced the president for what they see as his abuse of power. A sense that the president should be subject to rigorous checks and balances was one of the motivating sentiments behind the "no kings" rallies that have drawn hundreds of thousands across the nation over the past year.

Later, as the King closed out his speech, one of his final lines prompted some muttering – of both agreement and concern – from the Democratic side. "America's words carry weight and meaning, as they have since independence," the King said. "The actions of this great nation matter even more."

Democrats, of course, have frequently been critics of Trump's words, and how he delivers them, as well as his actions. Whether intended or not, it appears liberals in the audience may have viewed the King as delivering a message of warning to the nation – while offering them a chance, once again, to express their "no kings" sentiment.

3. A nod to Nato and the transatlantic alliance

'Our two countries have always found ways to come together' Quoting former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the King spoke of an Atlantic partnership and noted – not for the first time among America's European allies – that the only time Nato mobilised in defence of one of its member-states was after the 9/11 terror attacks by al-Qaeda.

Trump has derided the British Navy, long a source of pride for the kingdom. He called their ships "toys" and said their aircraft carriers "didn't work".

King Charles, who served for five years in the Royal Navy, made a specific mention of his time in the service – using it as an entry point to remark on benefits of security and intelligence relations between the two nations – and between America and Europe.

He even found an avenue to mention climate change, an issue that has been a longtime concern of his. "From the depths of the Atlantic to the disastrously melting icecaps of the Arctic, the commitment and expertise of the United States Armed Forces and its allies lie at the heart of Nato, pledged to each other's defence, protecting our citizens and interests, keeping North Americans and Europeans safe from our common adversaries," he said.

4. No mention of Epstein's victims

Issues of international politics aside, one of the biggest questions surrounding King Charles's visit had been whether he would reference Jeffrey Epstein in his remarks or address the late sex offender's victims.

He did not. The closest he came, perhaps, was an oblique reference to the need to "support victims of some of the ills that, so tragically, exist in both our societies today". For those who had called for the King to meet with Epstein survivors while in the US, that comment alone may be viewed - to use an American phrase - as weak tea.

Last year, over the objections of the Trump administration, Congress passed legislation mandating the release of US government-held files related to the Epstein investigation. Those files led to new revelations about the depth of connections Epstein had to the rich and powerful, including former UK ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson and the King's brother, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

For now, the Epstein saga has had greater repercussions in the UK compared to the US, where few in current positions of political power have faced adverse consequences. Even if the subject didn't come up during the speech, the issue is not fading from the headlines – and the full story here in the US may be yet to emerge.

5. A touch of royal humour

Given the seriousness of the King's objectives – with no less than the future of US-UK relations at stake – his speech was, at times, whimsical.

He opened with the oft-quoted – and misquoted - line from Oscar Wilde about the US and England having everything in common "except, of course, a language".

He joked about the member of British parliament who is held "hostage" when the King speaks at Westminster – and wondered whether anyone in Congress had volunteered for such a job today.

He also riffed on how US independence was "just the other day" for a nation as old as Great Britain and that he wasn't coming to the US as a "cunning rearguard action" to reestablish British rule.

There may be tensions between the US and the UK at the moment, but on Tuesday the King appears to have successfully broken the ice.

 -BBC

What struck me most watching King Charles III

I hadn’t planned on watching King Charles III address Congress. I assumed I’d absorb the highlights later, filtered through the usual swirl of headlines and commentary. But something made me pause, just for a moment, and in that brief glance, I found myself unexpectedly drawn in.

There was a quiet gravity to his presence, a kind of composure that didn’t demand attention so much as earn it. His words were measured, deliberate, and carried with them the weight of history without ever feeling heavy-handed. It wasn’t just the content of the speech, but the cadence, the restraint, the sense that each phrase had been considered rather than performed. Before I knew it, I wasn’t skimming, I was listening.

Fully. It’s rare, in this era of noise and urgency, to encounter a moment that feels both dignified and unhurried. Whatever one’s views, there was something undeniably compelling about witnessing a speaker who understands not only the power of language, but the responsibility that comes with it.

The Architecture of Language

What struck me most watching King Charles III stand before Congress wasn’t just the content of his speech, it was the reminder of what language sounds like when it is treated with respect. Full sentences. Complete thoughts. A measured cadence that doesn’t lurch from grievance to grievance like a drunk driver weaving across lanes. It was, quite simply, the sound of someone who understands that words are not just noise, they are instruments of meaning, responsibility, and, occasionally, wisdom.

And in that moment, the contrast with Donald Trump wasn’t subtle, it was seismic.

Charles spoke of alliances not as transactional leverage, but as living commitments. He invoked NATO not as a protection racket, but as a shared defense of democratic stability. He referenced Ukraine not as a bargaining chip, but as a moral obligation. And when he turned to the climate crisis, he didn’t reduce it to a punchline or a hoax, he framed it, correctly, as a systemic threat to prosperity, security, and the continuity of life itself. This is what leadership sounds like when it is informed by history rather than inflated by ego.

Meanwhile, Trump stood beside him, physically present, intellectually absent, delivering his usual slurry of half-formed thoughts, superlatives without substance, and that unmistakable whiny bloviation that has become his linguistic signature. Listening to him after Charles is like following a symphony with a kazoo solo. One man builds an argument: the other builds a grievance. One understands that words carry weight; the other uses them like confetti at a rally.

What made Charles’s remarks particularly striking was their subtlety. This wasn’t a scolding, it was something far more devastating: a polite, impeccably delivered reminder of what America used to be. When he spoke of checks and balances, rooted in the legacy of Magna Carta, he wasn’t just offering a history lesson, he was holding up a mirror. When he said, “America’s words carry weight and meaning… the actions of this great nation matter even more,” it landed less as praise and more as a challenge. A nudge, perhaps, but one delivered with the kind of elegance that makes it impossible to dismiss.

I couldn’t help but think of Barack Obama in that moment. Not because Charles is Obama, or Obama is Charles, but because both men understand the architecture of language. They know how to construct a thought, how to guide an audience, how to elevate rather than inflame. Listening to them reminds you that rhetoric, when done properly, is not manipulation, it’s illumination. It clarifies. It connects. It aspires.

Which raises the unavoidable, almost painful question: imagine the visual, the symbolic weight, the sheer intellectual oxygen of a room that included Obama, Michelle Obama, Charles, and Queen Camilla. A gathering of people who can speak, listen, and think in complete sentences, who understand that leadership is not performance art for the aggrieved, but stewardship of something larger than themselves.

Instead, we get Trump and Melania Trump, a pairing that feels less like statesmanship and more like a branding exercise gone stale.

Charles called the U.S.–U.K. alliance “one of the most consequential in human history,” and he’s right. But alliances, like language, require maintenance. They require honesty, consistency, and a shared understanding of reality. You cannot sustain them with slogans, tantrums, and a worldview that reduces every relationship to a deal to be won or lost.

What Charles offered in that chamber was more than diplomacy, it was a reminder. A reminder that the world is watching. A reminder that leadership still has a vocabulary, even if we’ve forgotten how to speak it. And perhaps most painfully, a reminder that somewhere along the way, we traded eloquence for noise, clarity for chaos, and principle for performance.

And the silence that follows that realization?
That’s the loudest indictment of all.

— Michael Jochum
Author, Not Just a Drummer: Reflections on Art, Politics, Dogs, and the Human Condition

"Charging him is a free speech trap"

 

Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley said charging former FBI Director James Comey is a free speech trap after the Department of Justice (DOJ) secured a second indictment.

“Comey will now likely create a new category of protected shell speech,” Turley said in an opinion piece for Fox News published Tuesday. “The problem with this indictment will be the merits. The indictment concerns an image that was later removed by Comey showing ‘86 47’ in shells on a beach. Comey has a rather odd history of drawing inspiration from shells.”

“This message, however, had a lethal twist since many interpreted the message as essentially calling for the killing or ‘86-ing’ of Trump,” Turley added, in his piece titled “Comey’s shell post may be crass, but charging him is a free speech trap.”

Comey last May posted a photo of seashells on a beach set up to display the numbers 86-47, which President Trump, the 47th president, said at the time was a call for his killing.

“He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear,” Trump told Fox News last year.

The former FBI director is facing two charges for allegedly threatening Trump via the seashells post, per the indictment. “The defendant, James Brien Comey Jr., did knowingly and willfully make a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States,” the indictment reads.

“The First Amendment is designed to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech rarely needs protection. It also protects bad and hateful speech. It even protects lies so long as those lies are not used for the purpose of fraud or other criminal conspiracies,” Turley wrote in his Fox News piece.

 -The Hill

Shutting Down the War Machine

 

Right at this moment, we are witnessing an unprecedented shift of resources from domestic investments in the United States to the military-industrial complex (aka the war machine). The only comparable period in our history was the buildup to World War II, when the United States confronted a powerful adversary in Nazi Germany with designs to control not just Europe, but the world. The current buildup is breathtaking in scope and will certainly prove devastating in its impact — not just on this country’s foreign and domestic policies but also on the economic prospects of average Americans.

When, in 2023, my colleague Ben Freeman and I first conceived of our book, The Trillion Dollar War Machine, we viewed it in part as a cautionary tale about just how high the Pentagon budget might rise in the years to come (absent pushback from Congress and the taxpaying public). By the time our book came out in November 2025, however, the Pentagon budget had already topped the $1 trillion mark and, only recently, President Trump has proposed to instantly add another $500 billion to that already staggering figure and to do so in a single year’s time. 

And imagine this: such a proposed increase alone is higher than the total military budget of any other nation on Earth. Mind you, the current high levels of spending have already underwritten a provocative, unnecessary intervention in Venezuela and a region-wide war in the Middle East, and the larger costs of all this in human lives and damage to the global economy are guaranteed to shape the lives of the rest of us globally for years to come.

To add insult to injury, the Pentagon announced that it would seek a $200 billion supplemental appropriation to pay for its war on Iran, which has spread across the Middle East. That $200 billion would have been in addition to the $1.5 billion proposed for the Pentagon’s future budget. According to an analysis by Pentagon budget expert Stephen Semler, the Iran war, which started on February 28th with Israeli and U.S. air strikes on that country, cost the United States more than $28 billion just in its first two weeks. 

And to put that in perspective, $28 billion is more than three times the Trump administration’s proposed annual budgets for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency (at a time when the climate crisis and the need to head off future pandemics are essential to the health and security of all Americans). Worse yet, it’s all for a completely senseless war that should never have been started.

As President Trump alternates between engaging in negotiations to end the war and threatening to wipe Iran off the map — or even just walking away to bomb another day — there are reports that the supplemental budget request to pay for the war on Iran will shrink from the proposed $200 billion to $98 billion. And that $98 billion will include other things in addition to war costs, including disaster relief and aviation modernization.

The Garrison State and the Reign of the War Profiteers

On the campaign trail in 2024, Donald Trump pledged to drive the “war profiteers” and “war mongers” from Washington, suggesting that they like wars because “missiles cost $2 million each,” while bragging that, in his first term in office, “I had no wars.”

And his rhetoric as the ultimate champion of peace has continued during his second term, even as he has indeed launched reckless wars guaranteed to fill the coffers of the “war profiteers” he railed against on the campaign trail. He has, however, also pledged to help the weapons industry quadruple production of the same sort of “$2 million bombs” he decried during the campaign, plus — even better for the arms makers — missile interceptors that cost up to $12 million each. 

Worse yet, the demands of the current war on Iran, coupled with support for Israel’s war on Gaza and Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself from Russia, have left the Pentagon and the giant weapons corporations complaining that, if the U.S. doesn’t radically increase its production of artillery shells, bombs, and missiles, the cupboard could soon be bare.

Of course, filling that cupboard again to the tune of staggering sums of money is exactly the wrong solution. The answer to the current munitions shortage is not to further supersize this country’s arms manufacturing base, but to refrain from supplying the weapons used by Israel to commit genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon, or to fuel unjustified wars like the current conflict with Iran. The best policy to prevent such stocks of military equipment from running low would, of course, be a more discriminating approach to military aid and a more restrained approach to U.S. foreign policy and war-making (writ large).

Washington should, in fact, put diplomacy first and only engage in military action if there is a genuine threat to the United States itself. We need a smarter policy toward military procurement and military strategy, not the garrison state with its “military-industrial complex” that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against more than six decades ago.

In addition, of course, the Pentagon needs to shift its procurement strategy toward producing more reliable weapons at a more reasonable cost, while avoiding unnecessary complexity so that they can be made more rapidly and spend more time ready to be used and less time down for maintenance. Such a formula was a watchword of the bipartisan congressional military reform caucus of the 1980s, which at one point included more than 100 members of Congress and helped roll back the extremes of the military buildup launched by President Ronald Reagan.

The Diminishing Economic Returns of Pentagon Spending

In a detailed forthcoming study for the Transition Security Project and in her own writings, investigative journalist Taylor Barnes of Inkstick Media has charted the diminishing returns from Pentagon spending. Despite a soaring Pentagon budget, direct jobs in arms production are now one-third of what they were 30 years ago, down from three million then to 1.1 million now, according to the arms industry’s own trade association. Unionization rates in the arms production sector are also down sharply, with some big weapons firms like Northrop Grumman having unionization rates of less than 10%. In keeping with that trend, Lockheed Martin moved the production of its F-16 fighter — a staple of foreign arms exports — to the anti-union state of South Carolina.

Even worse, many states provide special tax breaks and other subsidies to attract or keep weapons factories — and that’s on top of the hundreds of billions the industry receives in federal tax dollars. In Utah, the state government staunchly refused to reveal how many jobs Northrop Grumman had promised in return for state subsidies, with one official claiming it would “compromise” the interests of the company to do so. 

Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman’s work on the Sentinel, the newest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), has been a poster child for dysfunctional weapons development, with the estimated cost of the program as a whole growing by 81% in just a few years. Part of the problem was that Northrop Grumman somehow managed to ignore the fact that its new missile would be too large to fit in existing silos, creating the need for further costly new construction efforts.

The spending of scarce tax revenues goes to ICBMs that former Secretary of Defense William Perry once labeled “one of the most dangerous weapons we have.” After all, a president might literally have only minutes to decide whether to launch them on being warned of a potential enemy attack, greatly increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war prompted by a false alarm. And there have been many false alarms and nuclear accidents in the nuclear age (even if not yet an actual nuclear attack loosed on the world), as meticulously documented in Eric Schlosser’s essential book Command and Control.

Then there’s the Golden Dome missile “defense” system, a fantasy of President Trump’s that, in reality, could never provide the promised “leakproof” protection against weaponry ranging from ICBMs and hypersonic missiles to low-flying drones. By now, more than 40 years after President Ronald Reagan promised a perfect defense against ICBMs in his 1983 “Star Wars” speech, it should be all too obvious that such a leakproof shield is physically impossible, since enemy ICBMs with nuclear warheads would come in at 15,000 — and no, that is not a misprint! — miles per hour and could be surrounded by large numbers of decoy balloons that would be indistinguishable from a warhead when floating in space. 

There could be hundreds of such incoming warheads in a full-scale nuclear attack. To even have a chance of intercepting all of them, a defensive system would have to devote as many as 1,600 interceptors to take down incoming missiles. An analysis by the conservative American Enterprise Institute estimates that a full-blown effort to build a comprehensive Golden Dome shield could cost $3.6 trillion just to construct. In fact, the Golden Dome concept is so delusional that it barely merits a detailed critique, though many such analyses are available. A more reasonable way to deal with it would, of course, be ridicule.

Ben Cohen, cofounder of Ben & Jerry’s and the founder of the “Up in Arms” campaign to cut Pentagon spending, has taken just such an approach. On April Fool’s Day, he placed a “Golden Hole-in-Dome” statue on the National Mall that included a Donald Trump, fully clothed, being soaked by water leaking through a faux Golden Dome shield. The Daily Beast‘s headline on its piece about the event captured the spirit of that day: “Ben and Jerry’s Co-Founder Humiliates Trump Outside His House.”

Meanwhile, the dysfunctional weapons systems on the Pentagon’s shopping list only continue to grow. Take Lockheed Martin’s F-35 combat aircraft, which was supposed to do almost anything (and does nothing) well. The plane, which could cost $2 trillion for roughly 2,500 aircraft if the Pentagon’s original plans hold, had taken 23 years to develop and still can’t operate as advertised, spending almost half its time in its hangar for maintenance.

Similarly, as Dan Grazier of the Stimson Center has pointed out, the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, which had to dock in Cyprus recently after multiple mishaps including a clogged toilet system that spewed feces onto the flight deck, is a $13 billion nightmare, chock full of fancy, untested, and expensive technology that all too often fails to work as advertised. As he points out, a more viable, less expensive carrier could have been built if proven technologies had not been replaced with high-tech fantasies. Unfortunately, that’s generally not how Pentagon procurement works these days.

Palmer Luckey Will Not Come to the Rescue

Palmer Luckey, the 32 year-old former game designer who now runs Anduril, one of Silicon Valley’s top military tech firms, made news a few months ago when he told a CNBC interviewer that, if the Pentagon were to stop buying the wrong things, it could provide a robust defense for America at a cost of perhaps $500 billion, half of current levels and one-third of the level President Trump is now seeking. Presumably, the wrong things are piloted aircraft like the F-35 and mammoth ships like the Gerald Ford, and the right things are drones, uncrewed submarines, and complex AI-driven targeting and surveillance systems of the type that Anduril and Peter Thiel’s Palantir produce.

But count on this: replacing piloted combat aircraft with swarms of drones won’t automatically be cheaper, depending on how large the swarms are and how complex their designs may prove to be. Early on, the Ukrainian military decided that U.S.-supplied drones from Silicon Valley were too brittle and expensive, so it launched a do-it-yourself drone program that took cheap commercial drones from China and fitted them with bombs and cameras. U.S. arms companies are now trying to get back in the act by partnering with Ukrainian firms to build more sophisticated drones. Don’t be surprised, though, if their price soars and their reliability sinks.

Another reason AI-driven weapons may not be as cheap as advertised is that Luckey, Thiel, and their merry band of unhinged techno-optimists want to eliminate virtually any oversight of their activities, whether through independent testing of their new systems or measures to prevent price gouging by unscrupulous contractors. At present, the motto of the military tech sector is “trust me.” I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to have someone minding the store, so that the tech billionaires don’t simply rob us blind.

Of course, what would it mean if Silicon Valley could deliver cheaper, more deadly advanced weaponry? After all, artificial intelligence systems were indeed used in recent times to accelerate targeting during Israel’s genocidal war on the people of Gaza, and they have been used in President Trump’s disastrous assault on Iran. And neither of those situations has yet had a happy ending. 

But that’s the point. The truth is we really don’t need ever more new weaponry that kills even faster. We need to stop the killing. And that means blunting the political influence of the warmongers and war profiteers that Donald Trump criticized on the campaign trail in 2024 and then so warmly embraced as president.

And to put all of this in grim perspective, he is now presiding over perhaps the most corrupt, incompetent, repressive regime in the history of this republic. And worse yet, some of his most dismal policies — like unstinting support for Israeli aggression — have, sadly enough, had bipartisan backing in Washington. In short, he has taken what were already some of the worst American policies and accelerated them, even as he destroys positive aspects of the government like the U.S. Agency for International Development’s provision of food, clean water, and public health services abroad or any further engagement in constructive international institutions.

Among other things, he is now narrowing America’s foreign policy options by dismantling civilian tools of statecraft, while doubling down on military approaches that haven’t “won” a war in this century (or the second half of the last one either). Meanwhile, the economic damage and humanitarian costs are spreading globally, including to his own supporters.

The challenge now is to build a movement that not only turns back Trump’s policies, but gets at the underlying economic, political, and cultural forces that have kept the United States in a permanent state of war for so long, while robbing us of opportunities to build a better, more peaceful, tolerant, and just future. Given the pace of destruction and chaos being visited upon us, it’s important to act now and continue to do so until we build enough power to rein in the war machine and begin creating actual structures of peace.

-William D. Hartung. CounterPunch, This piece first appeared on TomDispatch.