American History and Its Amnesia

 

Most American interpretations of our history have been triumphal.  From the use of atomic weapons against Japan in 1945 to the justifications for war with Iran in 2026, politicians and pundits have largely accepted the triumphal nature of the use of force and denied the criticism that accompanied these actions.  Interpretations of the past and present have been a battleground at the heart of American politics.  Revisionists and critics have been for the most part on the outside looking in.

The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 is the best example of the triumphal portrayal of American history, portraying the bombs as necessary to ending the war and saving American lives by preventing a costly land invasion.  

Sadly, the dropping of the bombs on Japanese cities—and not military targets per se—conforms to the definition of terrorism.  Such a definition states that targeting civilians in order to place pressure on governments and governing leaders is a form of terrorism and constitutes a war crime.

On the 50th anniversary of the bombing campaign, the National Air and Space Museum tried to present an exhibit of the first use of an atomic weapon by featuring the fuselage of the Enola Gay.  The exhibit was designed to explain the weapon that brought peace and victory to the Pacific as well as to show the destruction and fear that was created.  

The criticism of this two-fold approach from the Air Force Association and other military lobbying groups forced the museum to cancel the historical narrative and to introduce a bland and upbeat description of the Enola Gay.

The past 80 years have witnessed numerous examples of the use of force that found the initial critics pushed to the sidelines and dismissed as contrarians.  The wars against Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, against Iraq in 2003, and the war against Iran were justified by deception and outright lies to gain the support of the American people.  

The Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1965 to justify the troop buildup in Vietnam was based on the false notion of a Vietnamese naval attack against the U.S. Navy.  The resolution gave Presidents Johnson and Nixon open-ended blank checks to wage war in Vietnam, where 58,000 U.S. military members and more than two million Vietnamese were killed.

The lies that accompanied the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 had an impact on the entire national security community, particularly the intelligence community.  Just as American journalists initially defended the war in Vietnam, the journalist community bought into the accusation that Iraq had nuclear weaponry and that Saddam Hussein was linked in some way to Osama bin Laden.  

Neither accusation was true, and I did my best to inform journalists of the disinformation that was being circulated.  More than 4,000 U.S. military members and several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians died in the war.  No evidence of a nuclear weapons program or a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were ever found.

Although the United States is not directly engaged in the war between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. policy toward East Europe, including Ukraine, played a role in President Putin’s decision to invade in 2002.  The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations that conducted the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is one of the “roots” of the war that Russian leaders cite.  

The expansion of NATO repudiated the guarantees that President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker gave to their Russian counterparts to abstain from incorporating former member states of the Warsaw Pact into NATO.

In the 1990s, I was one of the contrarians who argued that Russian leaders would not accept the continued absorption of former Soviet client states into a political and military alliance such as NATO.  And now, Putin or any likely successor will demand security guarantees as part of any settlement with Ukraine.  The conventional wisdom, however, is that Putin is preparing for additional military activity in Eastern Europe in the wake of any settlement with Ukraine.

Americans generally assume that there is a purity of purpose to U.S. use of force, but the picture is far more complicated than that.  Criticism of the use of force should not be considered marginal or inconvenient.  Until we understand the nature and risks of our military actions, there will be more setbacks and losses than are necessary.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent books are “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing, 2019) and “Containing the National Security State” (Opus Publishing, 2021). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

 -CounterPunch

-Photo by John Warg

Judge Talwani’s Most Recent Order on Voting by Mail

 

After the Supreme Court made a (purely procedural) decision about Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting, rejecting judicial action in the case brought by blue state AGs because it wasn’t “ripe” for a decision yet, Judge Indira Talwani did the logical thing. She gave the plaintiffs in that case and in the case brought by the League of Women Voters a push toward updating their lawsuits. The government showed off the final rule it wants to use to implement the executive order. The ripeness argument is now moot. The administration zeroed it out when the Postal Service announced its final rule was ready to publish. The rule was published on Wednesday.

Both groups of plaintiffs with cases before Judge Talwani refiled and asked for preliminary injunctive relief, also requesting that the court issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stay the government defendants’ implementation of the Final Rule. Quick reminder: a TRO is the shorter, emergency type of injunction. A preliminary injunction stays in place for a longer period of time, while litigation is happening. (Plaintiffs in related cases in the District of Columbia took steps to update their cases too.)

Thursday night, Judge Talwani granted a 14-day temporary restraining order in both of the cases before her, “staying the United States Postal Service (‘USPS’) from implementing certain sections of its final rule, Ballot Mail for Federal Elections.” 

She explained that “On emergency review, on August 24, 2026, the United States Supreme Court concluded that this court lacked jurisdiction to review challenges to the EO’s constitutionality where it was speculative as to whether the USPS would (1) propose a rule; (2) weigh the comments; and (3) issue a final rule consistent with the EO’s directives”—that’s the “ripeness” argument we’ve been discussing for weeks now. In essence, the Supreme Court directed her that the government hadn’t taken enough steps toward implementing Trump’s EO for the court to know what that implementation would look like and whether it was lawful. Too soon, the Supreme Court told Judge Talwani. You need to wait for the government to do more.

Now, the government has done more.

As we all know by now, the footnotes are frequently where the action is. This decision was no exception. In Footnote 4, Judge Talwani takes on a perplexing omission from the Supreme Court’s opinion: Their failure to discuss or even acknowledge that the Postal Service had announced its final rule. Judge Talwani explained it for them like this, which has the not-so-coincidental benefit of further strengthening her decision to reimpose an injunction against the executive order, because she’s set up a situation where they didn’t have all of the facts she had when they ruled:

The Supreme Court gave no indication that it was aware of the Final Rule when the Order was issued. Defendants nonetheless insist, without citation, that “publication of a Final Rule” was “already known to the Supreme Court” at the time of the Court’s Order … 

Although the government’s Supplemental Brief regarding the Final Rule was docketed at the Supreme Court a few hours before the Court’s per curiam Order was entered on August 24, 2026 … this court cannot assume that the Justices received the brief prior to the issuance of the per curiam Order a few hours later. 

In any event, that Order found a lack of standing based on the events at the time the complaint was filed and did not purport to take into account events that occurred during the months that the litigation was pending.

Judge Talwani also strengthens her order for when it heads back to the Supreme Court by pointing to the purely procedural nature of the Court’s decision last week. Their decision was limited to timing; it was not about whether the executive order itself is lawful. By setting it up this way, the Judge clarifies that she is free, now, to take up the substantive issue. 

She wrote, “The Supreme Court explicitly noted, however, that the disposition of the government’s emergency application ‘does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful.’” By pointing out that the Supreme Court itself left that issue open, she positions the new TRO as the next step in the case, not a decision contrary to the Court’s dictates (although we should expect the government to try to play it that way).

Judge Talwani also took a gentle, but satisfying slap at the Court, pointing out that the Trump administration isn’t exactly playing by the rules when it comes to court orders: “Although the Supreme Court expressed concern that this court’s injunction ‘prevent[ed] the Postal Service from so much as initiating a rulemaking that could yield a rule applicable to these States[,]’ … no such delay occurred, as the USPS had gone ahead and noticed a proposed rule, solicited and reviewed comments, and issued a Final Rule.” 

The Roberts Court has largely ignored the Trump administration’s efforts to challenge the authority of the courts, but occasionally, it bristles and summons some backbone when the administration goes too far—think last term’s decision on birthright citizenship or firing a Fed Governor. This opinion is a signal to the Court that this case too is one where the government must be reined in, lest the Court lose all authority to act as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive.

With the background laid out, we hit a critical juncture in the Judge’s decision. Here’s the most important thing to understand: the government defendants, who just days ago were arguing that the plaintiffs’ case wasn’t ripe for the court to decide, are now arguing that it’s too late for the court to intervene. Yes, you read that right. Too early has now become too late, with no Goldilocks spot in the middle. So much for the “justice” in Justice Department.

Here’s how Judge Talwani explains it. It’s worth reading her full layout:

“Two weeks before the Final Rule issued, Defendants’ counsel represented to the court that: when the final rule is implemented, if it affects an individual voter’s ability to vote, then they certainly have standing to challenge that final rule. And courts are able to work in an expedited basis. It would only take a very short amount of time for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction to issue.”

“And two days ago, when Defendants asked the court to vacate the preliminary injunction entered in LWVM prior to the Supreme Court’s Order, Defendants represented that Plaintiffs were not without a remedy, for where the Rule had now issued, they could ‘simply amend their complaint’ and challenge the Final Rule directly.”

“Defendants [the Trump administration] now claim that Plaintiffs are too late ‘because appellate review in the ordinary course would come too late for the 2026 midterms.’”

The Judge goes on to explain the technical reason the government is wrong on that last point. It’s because “the question is not when appellate review will be completed. The issue before the court is whether Plaintiffs have met the traditional standards for emergency relief.” 

But the thing that really matters here is that the courts should not permit the Trump law firm formerly known as the Justice Department to play gotcha when it comes to something as important as Americans’ right to vote. DOJ’s position is nothing short of appalling. And predictable, unfortunately, for this administration.

Temporary restraining orders preserve the status quo until courts reach a decision on the substance of cases before them. Judge Talwani’s order preserves the pre-executive order status quo, for now. To issue a TRO, she has to find in the movants’ favor on the elements courts have established for entering an injunction: a strong chance of success on the merits, irreparable injury in the absence of the remedy, and public interest/a balance of the equities favoring the injunctive relief. 

So, for starters, she has to be persuaded that the plaintiffs have a good chance of succeeding with their claims. They now argue that the newly issued final rule “is unconstitutional, contrary to statute, and ultra vires,” and that it “violates both the separation of powers doctrine and the USPS’s governing statutes.” The government responds that it’s just doing what is necessary to implement the executive order and the final rule “merely imposes modest conditions on the sending of mail.” Seriously. That’s what they say. They add in an argument that none of the plaintiffs have standing.

The Judge pushes the weak standing argument aside. As to the government’s claim it’s taking innocuous action to support the president’s order, she reminds them that “As to the substantive merits, the Constitution charges the States with election administration … the court is unaware of, and no party has proffered, any delegation Congress has made that would permit the USPS to regulate election mail.”

Judge Talwani concludes, “Through the Final Rule, the USPS is refusing to send mail ballots to eligible voters unless States or local election officials submit their mail ballot envelopes and return envelopes and receive advance approval from the USPS without regard to impending deadlines for the November 3, 2026 election … 

Additionally, the Final Rule requires elections officials to create accounts for a new electronic portal, certify that they have received approval regarding the mail ballot design, and thereafter upload to the USPS portal each voter’s information, including name, address, and a unique intelligent mail barcode.” She rules that the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that (1) the USPS lacked authority to issue the Final Rule; (2) the Final Rule is unconstitutional in imposing these requirements on the States; and (3) the Final Rule is unconstitutional in prohibiting non-compliant State and local officials from using the United States Postal Service to mail ballots.”

The likelihood of success argument is the heavy lifting here. The irreparable injury is practically self-proving when it comes to the risk that people will be disenfranchised, denied the right to vote. But Judge Talwani makes it plain, ruling that “Plaintiff States face irreparable harm where they are required to comply with a likely unconstitutional regulation for which compliance is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections, now little more than two months away.” She offers specific examples:

Most Plaintiff States have already ordered their mail ballots. Some are required by state law to send them to eligible voters as early as next week. Plaintiff States have neither time nor funds to design new mail ballots, seek approval of the new designs, order production of mail ballots, update their own election management systems, train election officials to use the USPS portal, and upload citizen data to the portal, all before the midterms.

The Final Rule includes no deadline or contemplated turn-around time for USPS approval of submitted mail ballot envelopes. If Plaintiff States are unable to comply with the Final Rule, an outcome that seems unavoidable given the timeframe, they will violate their obligations under the Constitution and State laws to administer elections.

The bottom line here is so grotesque that it’s impossible to imagine any other Justice Department advocating for such a plan, and any court taking longer than a few moments to reject it, as Judge Talwani did today. She notes that the government defendants “offer no reply to Plaintiff States’ assertion that compliance for the 2026 midterm elections will be impossible for many of them.” 

And what’s at stake is the right of Americans to vote. She notes the “significant risk of disenfranchisement” and finds that “In light of the State election officials’ unrebutted declarations that compliance with the Final Rule at this late date is impossible, the risk of irreparable harm to voters in those jurisdictions is grave.^” 

As for the League of Women Voters, their members face irreparable harm for the same reasons—because they live in states that will be unable to comply with these new measures, and so, their ballots will not count.

This is another key point we should all note. Why won’t the ballots count? It’s not because the voters involved aren’t eligible to vote. They are. It’s not because they’ve done anything wrong—failed to register or vote in a timely fashion. They haven’t. 

Americans will be disenfranchised because Donald Trump does not want them to vote. No legal sleight of hand can legitimize that. It’s an appalling abuse for an American president, especially one who spends so much time ranting about virtually non-existent voter fraud, when his intent is to keep eligible voters from exercising their rights.

The only thing that remains for the Judge to assess after this is the balance of harms and the public interest. “The record continues to lack any evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting,” she begins. Then she drives an industrial strength nail into the administration’s coffin and lays down something of a gauntlet to the Supreme Court, just in case it wants to contemplate reversing her again:

  “In any event, the USPS’s interest in correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement of citizens who need access to mail ballots in order to vote. The balance of harms and public interest warrant a TRO.”

And so, Judge Talwani grants a temporary restraining order, explicitly forbidding the government from taking additional steps towards implementing specified parts of its final rule for the next 14 days (she is still considering the request for a longer preliminary injunction). The final rule can’t be implemented. It can’t be enforced. The Trump administration can’t take “further preparatory steps” toward putting it into operation. 

And she gives it some teeth, requiring that the government “must” within a day of receiving the order, “provide written notice of this Order to the USPS Defendants and their employees” and “notify all such recipients that they are required to comply with this Order, under penalty of contempt.” District Judges have become wise to this administration’s tricks. Judge Talwani is playing for keeps here. There will be no excuses, only contempt if the government violates her order.

Will the Supreme Court permit the administration to throw the upcoming elections into confusion and disenfranchise broad swaths of voters? John Roberts probably doesn’t want that to be his legacy; it’s already tarnished enough. The easy out for the Court will be blocking the measure for the 2026 elections but allowing it to move forward for 2028. This will not be over any time soon.

We’ve now reached the point in this case where the lawfulness—or not—of what Trump wants to do to our elections takes center stage. The case will go back to the Supreme Court and the Court will have to decide whether the Constitution, which clearly leaves this bit of election administration up to the states, still matters. Will the Roberts Court decide to undo 250 years of American democracy? Are there five votes left for the rule of law? One hopes that even on this court, a majority, however slender, that will do the right thing exists.

This is the hard work we do here at Civil Discourse. I hope you’ll share this piece widely, because it matters, and this sort of insight into a judicial decision isn’t something you’ll get from the headlines. Thanks to those of you whose support means I have the time and resources to write a piece like this. For those of you who aren’t already paid subscribers, it’s a good day to join us.

We’re in this together,

Joyce Vance

 

Documents and interviews reveal Trump’s war on Iran is rapidly draining US navy budget

 

USS Abraham Lincoln to visit port in Thailand after more than 250 days at sea

Experts and former officials say accounts are running dry, and funding a war with no clear endgame is the main challenge.

Donald Trump’s war on Iran has driven the US military into a severe financial crisis, with the US navy forced to transfer money from its payroll and other sources to cover the costs of combat, according to documents obtained by the Guardian, and interviews with navy officials, contractors and defense analysts.

The US-Israeli operation, which has depleted US munitions stockpiles and prompted retaliatory Iranian strikes that have wrecked strategic bases across the Middle East, is piling pressure on budgets across the military. One Pentagon memo about navy funding seen by the Guardian warns that there are “shortfalls in payroll” accounts due to the department “raiding” them to fund combat operations.

Experts and former officials say the accounts are running dry. “The piggy bank is broken,” said Harlan Ullman, a retired naval officer. Ullman is a member of the National Commission for the Future of the Navy but he said he is not speaking on the commission’s behalf. One official and one navy contractor said non-emergency maintenance on shore-based facilities has been deferred because of the cash crunch.

When Trump started the war on 28 February, it quickly strained the military’s existing budgets – particularly that of the navy, which not only helped launch the initial wave of attacks but was later responsible for an extensive naval blockade. The White House eventually asked Congress for emergency funding to pay for the war efforts, but prospects that the request will be approved are dim amid the unpopularity of the war.

A navy official who was briefed on how the service is planning to address the shortfalls said money is shifted around in imaginative ways. “The money for payroll,” he said, “was robbed to pay for overseas contingencies and is being backfilled by money that hasn’t been spent. They are backfilling payroll, so we get enough money in our paycheck.”

The navy’s budget for 2026, almost $300bn, has different batches of money allocated by Congress for various requirements: personnel, shipbuilding, procuring specific weapons systems and “operations and maintenance”, the day-to-day running of the fleet and its bases. The law limits how money can be rejiggered throughout all those batches of money.

The issue has occasionally surfaced in some hearings on Capitol Hill. Susan Collins, in a 21 July hearing of the Senate appropriations committee, said: “I’m told some military services face near-term solvency challenges.” A staffer said the navy was one of the services Collins was referring to.

In a statement, a navy spokesperson said maintenance and operations funds have not been depleted. “The Department of the Navy,” the statement said, “is actively managing its resources to meet current pay obligations on time. We continue to work closely with Congress to address ongoing operational demands and sustain our personnel and readiness throughout the fiscal year.”

Inside the service, the cash shortage is no secret. “They’re just not speaking publicly about it,” said Todd Harrison, a defense analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.“

And I suspect that is a deliberate decision of the civilian leaders in the Pentagon, starting at secretary, that this is for political reasons, that they don’t want to look like they’re damaging future military readiness over a war that is becoming increasingly a political liability.”

The military knew the crisis was coming. In mid-May, Adm Daryl Caudle, chief of naval operations, cautioned Congress that the crunch would hit in July. “The FY ’26 budget didn’t bake in Epic Fury,” he said. “I do fear that I’ll have to start making decisions in the July time frame on how I do force generation. That could make differences between how I do exercises, how I do routine operations in order to make sure that I … have the funds necessary to continue the war effort for Epic Fury.”

Pete Hegseth has pushed Congress for emergency funding, without which, he said in July, “we face critical shortfalls”. The defense secretary testified that the Iran war cost $35.7bn, but it’s unclear if that is a full accounting of the war’s costs.

View image in full screen A Tomahawk missile is launched from the USS Thomas Hudner in Mediterranean Sea on 5 March 2026. Photograph: US navy/Getty Images 

When the Trump administration asked Congress for $67bn in emergency funds for the defense department, it didn’t break down how much would be for the navy. The House passed a $1.15tn defense bill in July and a separate budget authorization that would provide $73bn for the war in Iran, but it’s unlikely either will become law.

Ullman noted that during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, funding was more forthcoming from Congress because those conflicts were authorized by a resolution. “There is no authorization to use force in this case. Is Congress obliged to pay for a conflict it did not authorize?” he said.

The fact that the navy is broke – or at least out of money for now – may be something of a slap in the face for Trump. The president has often evoked what he sees as his affinity with Theodore Roosevelt, who was president from 1901 to 1909 and presided over the expansion of the US navy, deploying the so-called “Great White Fleet” that steamed around the world. 

Instead of a Great White Fleet, Trump’s administration has embraced the term “Golden Fleet”. Among his naval ambitions: plans for mammoth “Trump class” ships – the largest battleships in US history.

Trump’s micromanagement has included directing the navy to redesign an aircraft carrier, so it launches jets with a steam and hydraulic catapult system rather than by an electromagnetic system. As the Guardian reported, every year since 2017 he has opined about his preferences in carrier launch catapults.

At this point, however, funding a war with no clear endgame is the main challenge. A former military officer now working for a navy contracting company, who has been briefed on the shortfalls, said: “They’re fucked. They shot all their weapons; they trashed all their ships; they ran out of their money.”

...In a statement, a navy spokesperson said maintenance and operations funds have not been depleted. “The Department of the Navy,” the statement said, “is actively managing its resources to meet current pay obligations on time. We continue to work closely with Congress to address ongoing operational demands and sustain our personnel and readiness throughout the fiscal year.”

Inside the service, the cash shortage is no secret. “They’re just not speaking publicly about it,” said Todd Harrison, a defense analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “And I suspect that is a deliberate decision of the civilian leaders in the Pentagon, starting at secretary, that this is for political reasons, that they don’t want to look like they’re damaging future military readiness over a war that is becoming increasingly a political liability.”

The military knew the crisis was coming. In mid-May, Adm Daryl Caudle, chief of naval operations, cautioned Congress that the crunch would hit in July. “The FY ’26 budget didn’t bake in Epic Fury,” he said. “I do fear that I’ll have to start making decisions in the July timeframe on how I do force generation. That could make differences between how I do exercises, how I do routine operations in order to make sure that I … have the funds necessary to continue the war effort for Epic Fury.”

Pete Hegseth has pushed Congress for emergency funding, without which, he said in July, “we face critical shortfalls”. The defense secretary testified that the Iran war cost $35.7bn, but it’s unclear if that is a full accounting of the war’s costs.

When the Trump administration asked Congress for $67bn in emergency funds for the defense department, it didn’t break down how much would be for the navy. The House passed a $1.15tn defense bill in July and a separate budget authorization that would provide $73bn for the war in Iran, but it’s unlikely either will become law.

Ullman noted that during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, funding was more forthcoming from Congress because those conflicts were authorized by a resolution. “There is no authorization to use force in this case. Is Congress obliged to pay for a conflict it did not authorize?” he said.

The president has often evoked what he sees as his affinity with Theodore Roosevelt, who was president from 1901 to 1909 and presided over the expansion of the US navy, deploying the so-called “Great White Fleet” that steamed around the world. Instead of a Great White Fleet, Trump’s administration has embraced the term “Golden Fleet”. Among his naval ambitions: plans for mammoth “Trump class” ships – the largest battleships in US history.

Trump’s micromanagement has included directing the navy to redesign an aircraft carrier, so it launches jets with a steam and hydraulic catapult system rather than by an electromagnetic system. As the Guardian reported, every year since 2017 he has opined about his preferences in carrier launch catapults.

According to a leading global watchdog, American democracy is now more imperiled than at any point since the 1960s, marked by a precipitous decline in press freedom – driven by mounting pressure from the Trump administration in the form of threats, criminal investigations, politicized regulation, frivolous lawsuits and, for public media, catastrophic funding cuts ....

-The Guardian

Dolly Parton

 

On Tuesday, Dolly Parton’s family announced the death of the beloved country music icon, a woman whose career spanned so many decades and so many disciplines, who wrote so many unforgettable songs and inspired so many people through her joy, kindness, and empathy, that attempting to summarize her legacy feels as futile as bottling up the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.

Parton grew up in poverty but rose to become one of the most successful, instantly recognizable musicians of the 20th century — embodying the American dream in a way that few ever have. She was a savvy entrepreneur, and an actor with a knack for delivering plucky dialogue in classic movies like Steel Magnolias and 9 to 5 (“I’m gonna change you from a rooster to a hen with one shot!”) She was an astonishingly prolific songwriter, and one of the best to ever do it, penning “Jolene” and “I Will Always Love You” within a matter of days.

Parton’s creative gifts were legion. Yet she was, if anything, just as well-known for her outrageous personal style: the voluminous blond wigs, the rhinestone-bedazzled outfits, the bold acrylic nails that helped inspire the opening riff of “9 to 5.” “It costs a lot of money to look this cheap,” she famously said. With a gift for folksy zingers, Parton was effortlessly funny — certainly more amusing than the uninspired comedians who made countless lame jokes about her bust — and she typically made fun of herself rather than others.

There are few Americans alive today who aren’t familiar with some aspect of Parton’s life — whether her music, her screen performances, or even just her ubiquitous image, emblazoned on T-shirts, prayer candles, and countless tchotchkes across the land. Parton was a secular saint, admired by people across the political and cultural spectrum who shared little else in common, so untouchable that not even Donald Trump had a bad word to say about her.

Which is all to reiterate that quantifying Parton’s contributions to the world is exceedingly difficult. But here is one number that can at least begin to put her extraordinary contributions into context:

332,411,218. That’s the number of books that her charity, the Imagination Library, has given to children around the world over the last 31 years. In addition to being a brilliant entertainer and an exceptional entrepreneur, Parton was also one of the country’s most generous philanthropists. The organization, which provides free, age-appropriate books to preschool children, was founded to honor her father, Lee, who was illiterate.

“He was the smartest man I have ever known, but I know in my heart his inability to read probably kept him from fulfilling all of his dreams,” Parton has said.

Originally intended to benefit the children of Sevier County, Tennessee, the program has since expanded across the United States and to Canada, Australia, Ireland, and the U.K., instilling a love of reading in millions of young people who eagerly anticipated the arrival of their monthly gift from “Aunt Dolly.” Because Parton knew the stigma that came with getting “handouts,” she ensured that any child could receive books through the Imagination Library, regardless of their family’s income or economic status.

The Imagination Library is now the flagship program of the Dollywood Foundation, which Parton formed in 1988 — not long after the opening of the Dollywood theme park in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee — with the modest goal of improving educational outcomes for students in her home county. Through an initiative in the early ‘90s called the Buddy Program, she vowed to give every 8th grader who graduated from high school $500. The dropout rate subsequently decreased from 35% to 6%.

The Dollywood Foundation has continued to be a vital source of aid for the people of East Tennessee during times of crisis. In 2016, the organization launched the My People Fund to assist families who lost their homes to wildfires in the Great Smoky Mountains. In less than a year, it had distributed $12 million to those affected.

Parton was also a benefactor for life-saving medical research. She donated $1 million to fund Moderna’s COVID vaccine and got the shot — which she called “a dose of her own medicine” — as soon as she was eligible to reassure anyone who might be hesitant. “I just want to say to all of you cowards out there: Don’t be such a chicken squat,” she teased in her inimitable way. In 2022, she gave another $1 million to Vanderbilt University Medical Centre for research into infectious pediatric disease because, she said at the time, “No child should ever have to suffer.”

Even Parton’s business endeavors have benefitted her community in tangible ways. Dollywood is Sevier County’s largest employer, with more than 4,000 people working at the park itself during high season. According to one case study, the 160-acre park — which includes a bald eagle sanctuary — makes a direct annual impact of $1.8 billion a year in Tennessee.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Parton, a leading gay icon, repeatedly expressed her support for the LGBTQ+ community, before such opinions were widely held in either country music or the country at large. Her company, Sandollar Productions, co-produced the Oscar-winning 1989 documentary Common Threads: Stories From the Quilt, which tells the story of the AIDS memorial quilt and chronicles the lives of five people in its panels. She also contributed to the compilation album Red, Hot + Country, which raised money for AIDS charities, and participated in a public awareness campaign.

Parton’s generosity was not only financial, it also extended to her humane, compassionate songwriting, which she consistently used to tell stories about the downtrodden and marginalized. Though she became fabulously wealthy, Parton never lost her working-class solidarity. And though she avoided wading into partisan politics, she made her views clear in song.

Accepting the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy in 2022, Parton, the first female entertainer to receive the honor, spoke about what motivated her charitable endeavors. “I cannot be a hypocrite and just say I’m going to donate this money for a tax write-off. I’d really like for it to mean something to me — something I can take pride in,” she said.

Parton’s philanthropy has inspired similar largesse in other celebrities. Ahead of their wedding in July, Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift donated $26 million to various charities — including $2 million to the Imagination Library.

But with the possible exception of Swift, the world doesn’t produce celebrities as enormous as Parton anymore. The few people who rival her fame today are not once-in-a-generation artists, but tech oligarchs who hoard their wealth to buy elections and castles in Ireland, not books for preschoolers.

In a vintage TV clip that’s now circulating on social media, Parton was asked about her ultimate goal in life. “Just to be happy, to be as productive as I can be, make as many people happy as I can, make as much money as I can, so I can do for more people,” she said. “And I just want the freedom to work, and everybody else can have the money.”

If only more people lived by her example.

-The Contrarian

Jeffries Never Should Have Met with Kushner

Democrats of all political stripes were exasperated by a New York Times report Sunday that “Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, met privately in recent weeks with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and top outside adviser, and discussed potential areas of common ground.” Numerous Democrats fumed that the get-together violated pro-democracy, anti-corruption values, defied common sense, and seemed politically naïve.

First and foremost, Jeffries made a cardinal error in meeting with Kushner, a non-government employee whose self-promotional antics — aided by his family connection — have no doubt made Hunter Biden blush. (If you can imagine Speaker Mike Johnson meeting with Hunter Biden in search of “common ground,” you can appreciate the absurdity of the Jeffries meeting.)

The meeting inevitably extends legitimacy to Kushner’s ethical gamesmanship, which characterizes the regime’s grotesque corruption. Kushner has fully exploited his name to pursue billions in foreign investment opportunities, all the while evading whatever ethical constraints (concern for presidential relations’ ethics — how quaint!) exist for those performing top government jobs. While continuing to carry out missions for his father-in-law regarding Gaza and Iran, Kushner has leveraged his role to reap riches in the Middle East, triggered an uprising in Albania stemming from his scheme to develop an island resort, and been forced to back out of a scandal-plagued Serbian boondoggle.

As Jeffries surely knows, reports in March that Kushner was soliciting funds from Middle East sovereign wealth funds (while acting as an envoy, however incompetently, in Iran talks) triggered a furious statement from Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA). 

In it, they recapped Kushner’s years-long exploits, starting with Wyden’s “investigation of Kushner’s conflicts of interest in 2020 with an initial probe into whether Kushner advised Donald Trump to support a blockade against Qatar while Kushner Companies was seeking a billion-dollar bailout from Qatari, and possibly other Middle Eastern officials, for the property at 666 Fifth Avenue.”

As Wyden recounted, his investigation in 2024 examined “whether Affinity Partners, the firm Kushner launched immediately after the end of the first Trump administration, was in reality a compensation scheme designed in part to skirt federal disclosure requirements.” As a result of the investigation, he referred Kushner to the Justice Department for possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act in connection with his Saudi investment activities.

On the House side, in 2024, Ranking Member Garcia and Ranking Member Jamie Raskin “urged Chairmen James Comer and Glenn Grothman to hold a hearing regarding Kushner’s apparent influence peddling and quid pro quos for actions he undertook to reshape U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and beyond, as senior adviser in President Trump’s first Administration, following reports that Kushner was close to finalizing investments in Albania and Serbia and leveraged relationships he built during his time as a senior adviser in his father-in-law’s White House.” 

And Kushner continues to evade Congressional inquiry to this day, a direct affront to its Article I power. Once in the majority, Democrats should be investigating — not looking for common ground with — Kushner.

Given all that, any meeting with him strikes one as ill-conceived (at the very least). One can imagine some critical messages Jeffries could have delivered, including: a warning to preserve all documents relevant to allegations of self-dealing with foreign powers; a heads-up that Democrats will pursue, without exception, all allegations of corruption involving Trump, Trump family members, associates, and government employees; a preview of legislation that would mandate full financial disclosure and conflicts of interest rules for anyone serving as an envoy/international negotiator; and an FYI that the disgraced Board of Peace will be put under close supervision of Congress (and/all U.S. government employees and/or presidential relations barred from participation), beginning with public hearings and a subpoena of all relevant documents.

In response to written questions to Jeffries’s staff asking whether Kushner’s conflicts of interest came up at the meeting; what common ground Jeffries believes might exist; and why Jeffries decided to meet with someone who has purposefully sidestepped a government role to avoid scrutiny, I received a bland written statement early Monday evening:

Throughout this Congress, Republicans have adopted a my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing that has failed the American people. To stop the madness, we have repeatedly made clear that an extremist approach will not work and will be met with forceful opposition. 

The American people want bold change and that’s what House Democrats will deliver. In every conversation that we have with the Trump administration, we will continue to make it explicitly clear that the affordability crisis is not a hoax and nothing short of transformational policy change is acceptable. We are fighting for an affordable America. The question is whether Republicans will join us.”

To review: Jeffries’ tone did improve, although the original decision to meet with Kushner was, as they say in soccer, an “own goal.” When Democrats, as seems increasingly likely, win the House majority, their leadership will meet with Trump, his Cabinet, and/or White House staff. But even then, it is hard to fathom any rationale for meeting with someone who has chosen to avoid a government post to flout White House conflicts of interest laws and keep his affairs hidden from Congress.

Moreover, in the future, Jeffries must avoid any signal that that this is a “normal” president with whom he expects to do business, lest he rekindle criticism that he does not appreciate the nature of the Trumpian threat to democracy and is seeking to accommodate rather than confront a dangerous president. 

To be clear: no “common ground” exists with a regime engaging in an illegal war (contemptuous of Congress’s constitutional role), massive self-dealing (allegedly involving family members!), a reign of terror against immigrants, routine destruction of constitutional guardrails (e.g., ignoring Congress’s appropriations’ role, violating the Epstein Files Disclosure Act), a savage assault on healthcare to pay for billionaires’ tax cuts, thorough corruption of the Justice Department, and routine racist insults.

If they gain the majority, Democrats’ mandate will not be to find “common ground” with a decrepit autocrat bent on destroying congressional power. It will be to halt him in his tracks, reverse disastrous policies, and exercise exacting oversight. 

For now, Democratic leaders should focus entirely on achieving a resounding defeat that will hold Kushner, his father-in-law, and the entire regime accountable for their incompetence, malfeasance, and illegality.

-Jennifer Rubin, The Contrarian is community-supported. Help fund bold journalism and critical lawsuits to stop Trump’s corruption by becoming a paid subscriber. Join the fight now.

 

Trump's executive order

 

The Supreme Court ruled in the case brought by state attorneys general challenging Trump’s executive order on elections. In this case, the government wants an injunction to stop Judge Indira Talwani’s injunction, which stops the administration from implementing the EO—it gets a little confusing.

The Court did what the Trump administration asked. In an unsigned per curiam order, with dissents from Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Kagan) and Justice Jackson, the Court told the government it could go ahead and execute the EO.

It’s important to issue two caveats before we go any further:

This is not a decision that Trump’s EO is lawful. And as Steve Vladeck and I discussed tonight (link forthcoming), the Court would have to defy the Constitution, which gives control of elections to the states, to reach that result. That doesn’t mean we’re out of the woods here; this is a Court that, as Steve aptly puts it, is at its worst when it’s deciding voting cases, and its thumb will be on the scales for Trump. But today’s decision is limited to the injunction in the AG’s case.

Judge Talwani also issued a separate, nationwide injunction in the League of Women Voters case. That injunction stays in place, at least for now. As we’ve been discussing, the government owes her a response to the plaintiffs’ motion asking her to enforce it, after the Postal Service indicated it was ready to issue a final rule putting procedures in place to execute its role in the EO. Judge Talwani has indicated she’s prepared to rule quickly, likely tomorrow, so this case will be before the Court before long.

In its decision today, the Court held that Judge Talwani incorrectly entered the injunction and that it believes the government will prevail on the factors necessary to get an injunction of its own to put an end to hers. The Court ruled the Judge was wrong on two doctrines we’ve been discussing a lot lately: ripeness and standing.

The Court wrote that while “the District Court rejected the Government’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction over the States’ claims because the States lack standing to bring them,” the Supreme Court believed the government was likely to succeed on those jurisdictional arguments. That means the Court believes, not necessarily that the EO is lawful, but that these are the wrong plaintiffs to bring the case, that they lack standing and that they sued too early.

The Court also wrote that it believed the government would prevail on two other factors necessary for its injunction to succeed: that the injunction is causing it irreparable harm and that the equities do not favor leaving the injunction in place while the Government’s appeal is pending.

That’s what tonight’s decision is about. It doesn’t say the EO and what Trump wants to do are lawful. It doesn’t even let the administration move forward because the second injunction is still in place. Is it disturbing? Yes. I dislike the Court’s framing, which characterizes the EO like this: “President Trump issued an Executive Order designed to maintain public confidence in federal elections.” But the political value signaling isn’t a substantive decision. This is about where we are procedurally.

That leaves us with some questions:

Will the same analysis apply to the LWV case, or are the plaintiffs situated differently?

Why is the court willing to change election rules so close to the start of elections? What about the Purcell principle?

Does this decision mean the government will win on the merits, i.e., the legality of the EO?

-Joyce Vance

"This week, the Trump administration will continue its transparent efforts to manipulate the election this year in its favor. There is no other way to interpret the events we are now living through"

 

The Postal Service, pursuant to the executive order we’ve been discussing ever since Trump promulgated it earlier this year, is on board to try to keep ballots out of the hands of people whose votes this administration fears. 

In a 95-page “final rule” it has scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on Wednesday, it “is amending the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual, regarding the transmission of mail-in or absentee ballots for federal elections pursuant to its rulemaking authority.” 

This is how the executive order, which is largely an aspirational statement of what the president wants to see happen, would be put into effect. It would circumvent states’ control over their own elections by imposing a federal restraint in the form of which ballots the Post Office will accept and deliver.

We discussed the executive order on August 11th, when Judge Indira Talwani in Boston issued a nationwide injunction in the League of Women Voters lawsuit, which blocked the Postal Service from doing exactly what it’s now trying to do. The government’s major argument in that case had been that the dispute wasn’t “ripe” for a decision from the courts because the government hadn’t taken sufficient steps to put the EO into effect. That argument would seem to be off the table now.

And how does the government gild the lily, since there is an injunction against putting the EO in place for the 2026 elections? They try to do it like this: “To ensure the faithful execution of federal law in connection with federal elections, this rule has an immediate effective date.” They claim that “Delaying the effective date would jeopardize implementation of this rule in time for the 2026 general election,” before conceding that “Given injunctions currently in place … the Postal Service will not take actions to implement the rule specifically for the 2026 election unless and until the government obtains relief from those injunctions.” 

On the one hand, they write a rule meant to apply to 2026. On the other, they pay lip service to following court orders, which is mighty nice of them since they have no choice in that matter unless the Supreme Court intervenes for the administration.

But there’s another problem with what the government has done, since they specifically discuss application of the new measure to the 2026 elections. Judge Talwani ordered that the government was “preliminarily enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or enforcing Section 3 of Executive Order No. 14399, with respect to the November 3, 2026, or any earlier federal election, including refusing to transmit mail-in or absentee ballots; or otherwise initiating or completing rulemaking to promulgate the specific regulations outlined in Section 3(b)(i)–(v) or (d) of the EO for the November 3, 2026 or any earlier election.” [emphasis added].

Section 3 of the executive order, which the Judge enjoined the government from implementing, is the part of Trump’s order that applies to the Postal Service’s role in interfering with Americans who are trying to cast ballots. In other words, the government is proceeding in precisely the manner the Judge told them they could not.

Judge Talwani has only enjoined the government with regard to the 2026 elections, leaving the questions of both ripeness for action and the legality of the substance of the EO for future proceedings. There are also cases in front of other judges. So, this issue doesn’t go away after 2026, but the legal issues are particularly acute now, with the election less than three months away and Trump intent on preventing eligible Americans from voting.

We should never forget Trump’s August 18, 2025, Truth Social post that started like this:

Yes, it’s ironic. Trump votes by mail, as do a significant number of Republicans. But this is about something more for him; this is about building a narrative of fraud that he can try to use to overturn an election whose outcome he doesn’t like. That’s what it’s all about, Trump versus the voters of the United States. He has no respect for the Constitution, the democratic process, or the rule of law. We know that. He showed it for everyone to see on January 6. 

And having essentially gotten away with it and now being well on the way to erasing the insurrection from the history books, he is looking forward to the next election and figuring out how to erase losses there too. If only he would put as much energy into earning the voters’ trust and working for them as he does into circumventing their will.

In 2024, Trump told a gathering of conservative Christians ahead of the election that it would be the last election they’d ever have to vote in if he won.

Your right to vote shouldn’t turn on whether a hastily prepared federal list, almost certain to be full of errors, includes your name. The Constitution leaves decisions about elections, including who is qualified to vote in them, up to each state. Every day, the press, the Democratic Party, and the public should be bombarding everyone aligned with Trump with one simple question: “Why don’t you trust the voters?”

We’ll be watching the litigation over this as it takes shape this week. Saturday night, the League of Women Voters filed an emergency motion to enforce their injunction. Judge Talwani ordered the government to respond by 8 a.m. Tuesday morning, to permit her to rule before the Wednesday date the Postal Service indicated it would publish its new rule.

When I left the Justice Department the night before Trump’s first inauguration, I never imagined that my interest in voting law would become a mainstream topic of conversation in our country. But I’m deeply grateful to those of you who care and who trust me to help explain it when you read this newsletter. 

We’ve known since Trump first issued this Executive Order what everyone else is waking up to now: that it’s a deeply disturbing signal of Trump’s willingness to bypass the voters’ wishes and the fundamentals of democracy. 

Thank you for sticking with me and for relying on Civil Discourse for plain talk and an explanation of how the law works and intersects with our politics.

We’re in this together,

Joyce Vance