Contributor: Cracks in the Trump coalition? They won't matter
Consider the contradictions: fast-food fanatics hanging out with juice-cleanse truthers chanting 'Make America Healthy Again' between ivermectin doses, immigration hardliners mixing with business elites who are 'tough on the border' until they need someone to clean their toilets or pick their strawberries, and hawkish interventionists spooning with America Firsters.
Dogs and cats living together — mass hysteria — you know the bit.
Navigating these differences was always going to be tricky. But in recent days — particularly following Israel's bombing of Iran, an operation widely believed to have been greenlit by Trump — the tension has reached new highs.
Signs of strain were already emerging earlier this year. We got early hints of discord during the 'Liberation Day' tariff fiasco — where Trump declared an 'emergency' and imposed steep tariffs, only to suspend them after they riled markets and spooked his business-friendly backers.
The tariff blunder was a harbinger of things to come. But it was the House's passage of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' — a budgetary monstrosity that self-respecting Freedom Caucus deficit hawks should've torched on principle — that truly exposed the rift.
Enter Elon Musk, the billionaire tech bro and MAGA ally, who publicly trashed both the bill and Trump in a flurry of posts. He even referenced Trump's name reportedly appearing in Jeffrey Epstein's files — a claim that, though unverified, was tantamount to 'going nuclear.'
But before there was enough time to say 'Republican civil war,' Musk deleted his mean tweets, adding to the evidence that this is still Trump's party; that modern Republicans view deficits the way the rest of us view library late fees — technically real, but nothing to lose sleep over; and that ketamine is a hell of a drug.
The next internecine squabble was over immigration. Trump proudly ran on rounding 'em all up. Mass deportations! Load up the buses! But then it turned out that his rich buddies in Big Ag and Big Hospitality weren't so keen on losing some of their best employees.
So Trump floated a carve out to protect some 'very good, long time workers' in those particular industries.
It even started to look like some exemptions were coming — until his Department of Homeland Security said 'no mas.' (The raids will presumably continue until the next time a farmer or hotelier complains to Trump in a meeting.)
But the real fissure involves some prominent America First non-interventionists who thought Trump was elected to end the 'forever wars.'
In case you missed it, Israel has been going after Iran's nuclear capabilities with the same gusto that Trump aide Stephen Miller applies to deporting Guatemalan landscapers, and Trump is all in, calling for an 'unconditional surrender' of the Iranian regime (and then deploying bombs on Saturday).
This didn't sit well with everyone in the MAGA coalition.
'I think we're going to see the end of American empire,' warned Tucker Carlson on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast. 'But it's also going to end, I believe, Trump's presidency — effectively end it — and so that's why I'm saying this.'
And Carlson (co-founder of the Daily Caller, where I worked) didn't stop there. 'The real divide isn't between people who support Israel and those who support Iran or the Palestinians,' he tweeted. 'It's between warmongers and peacemakers.'
Then he named names, alleging that Fox's Sean Hannity, radio firebrand Mark Levin, media titan Rupert Murdoch and billionaire Trump donors Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson were among the warmongers.
Trump hit back, calling Tucker 'kooky' and repeating his new mantra: 'IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.'
It's tempting to see this spat as the beginning of a schism — a break that might finally yield a coherent Trump Doctrine, at least, as it pertains to foreign policy (possibly returning the GOP to a more Reaganite or internationalist party). But that misunderstands the nature of Trump and his coalition.
These coalitional disagreements over public policy are real and important. But they mostly exist at the elite level. The actual Trump voter base? They care about only one thing: Donald Trump.
And Trump resists ideological straitjackets.
If Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu rubs him the wrong way next week (as he did by congratulating Joe Biden in 2020), or if Israel's military campaign starts slipping in the polls, Trump could flip faster than a gymnast on Red Bull.
There is no coherent philosophy. No durable ideology. What we're watching is a guy making it up as he goes along — often basing decisions on his 'gut' or the opinion of the last guy who bent his ear.
So if you're looking for a Trump Doctrine to explain it all — keep looking. There isn't one.
There's only Trump.
Matt K. Lewis is the author of 'Filthy Rich Politicians' and 'Too Dumb to Fail.'
If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How to Fix America's Gerrymandering Problem
U.S. Congressional District maps are displayed as the Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting meets at the Texas State Capitol on August 6, 2025 in Austin, Texas. Credit - Brandon Bell—Getty Images President Donald Trump has thrust the country into a new political battle: mutually assured gerrymandering. And the antidote is what we call 'mutually assured representation.' The current saga began in June, when Trump called for Texas to start a congressional redistricting process in the middle of the decade—rather than after the next census in 2030. Last month, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to replace the state's current House map which would favor his party. Now, Trump's push for mid-decade redistricting in Republican-controlled states appears likely to spread to Missouri, Ohio, and Florida. If this happens, Democrats would have retaliate in the states they control in order to have a chance at winning a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives in 2026. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has declared her readiness to 'fight fire with fire.' In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed holding a special election in November for voters to approve a ballot initiative allowing the legislature to redraw the state's congressional Texas, Republicans are claiming that they are entitled to five more congressional seats—even if they receive the exact same number of votes as before. To achieve this, they can redraw the boundaries of the districts that Democrats won in 2024, moving Democratic voters into heavily Republican districts where their votes will not matter, and moving Republican voters into previously Democratic districts so that they can win these seats. In 2024, Republicans in Texas won 25 of the state's 38 seats, and Democrats won 13. With this new map, Republicans could win in 30 of 38 congressional districts. The proposed gerrymander is likely to give Republicans four or five new seats even if Democrats win substantially more votes for Congress than they did in 2025. According to our calculation, this will happen even if there is a five percentage point swing towards Democrats in the 2026 elections. In recent years, just a few congressional seats have determined control of the House, and a flip of just five seats on its own might determine the national result. Partisan gerrymandering makes it harder for voters to hold their representatives accountable. Congressional district elections become uncompetitive. With reelection in the general assured, candidates are focused on catering to their own party base, which tends to be a more extreme subset of their constituents. Through this process, partisan gerrymandering often reduces effective representation in Congress and can play a role in crowding out moderate and independent voters. But here's a twist: President Trump's new wave of extreme gerrymandering may actually backfire, paving the way for electoral reform. Partisan gerrymandering is unpopular with voters, as we've seen repeatedly in recent years. Voters in states such as Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, and New Jersey, have supported nonpartisan redistricting commissions. In 2021, Democrats tried and failed to pass the For the People Act, a bill that would have limited partisan gerrymandering nationwide and implemented non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state. But Republican senators blocked the bill. Gerrymandering reform often fails because only one party makes the necessary reforms. For instance, previous successful anti-gerrymandering measures in states like California and New York created fairer maps in each state—but actually cost the party in power (Democrats in both instances) more seats than the margin determining control of the House in 2024. One proposed solution is bipartisan redistricting commissions. These can fail when the parties cannot agree on a map. For instance, the Virginia commission deadlocked in 2022, leaving the courts to draw the maps. Then there are more radical solutions that effectively blow up the current electoral system as we know it, such as multi-member districts or aproportional representation. But we think it is unrealistic to get rid of a system that has been in place for two hundred and fifty years. Instead, we believe it is possible to make reforms that keep the current electoral system while also overcoming some of its flaws. We've developed a process-based solution that has a number of appealing properties. It's inspired by the problem parents face when dividing a cake between two children. How can they make sure everyone gets an equal slice? One child cuts the cake in two, and the other child chooses between the two pieces. Our approach, which we call the 'Define-Combine Procedure,' splits the map drawing process into two simple stages. First, one party divides the state into twice the number of needed districts—for example, 20 sub-districts for a state that needs 10 congressional seats. Then, the second party pairs those sub-districts into the final 10 districts. The result is a fairer map than either party would have drawn on its own. Instead of mutually assured gerrymandering, this approach leads to mutually assured used real-world census and election data from 2020 in each state to forecast the results of extreme partisan gerrymandering and the Define-Combine Procedure in every state. In Texas, Republicans could draw a map where they won 30 of 38 congressional seats. If Democrats could unilaterally gerrymander Texas, they could create a map with 28 Democratic and 10 Republican seats. Depending on party control of redistricting in Texas, a whopping 20 seats could change hands. When we used the Define-Combine Procedure, the resulting map would produce 19 Republicans seats and 17 Democratic seats, with the two remaining seats changing hands depending on which party defines and which combines. This result comes much closer to the 53% of the two-party vote that Republicans won in 2020. Scaling nationwide, we estimate that extreme gerrymandering could determine which party holds almost 200 seats, out of the 435 seats in the House. Processes like ours could reduce the advantage that a party can earn just from drawing a map, with outcomes that are less biased and closer to proportional. The trick here is to use the impulse to score more seats for your party as a tool for fairness instead. It's a partisan solution for a partisan problem. One party alone cannot protect voting rights and ensure fair representation. That's why, in 1965, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the Voting Rights Act—and why they continued to amend and renew it for the next 40 years. But, a series of Supreme Court decisions over the last 12 years have substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act and allowed states to engage in extreme partisan gerrymandering. Now, a case before the court next year is likely to further diminish its remaining provisions. Instead of settling for mutually assured gerrymandering, with less effective representation, reduced accountability, and uncompetitive elections, both parties should unite behind solutions that achieve fairer outcomes nationwide. Such an outcome seems unrealistic right now as tit-for-tat gerrymandering ramps up, but the moment when the dust settles and voters take stock of the damage done may well be the best opportunity to address the scourge of partisan gerrymandering. If we don't seize this opportunity, America will pay the price. Contact us at letters@
Forbes
21 minutes ago
- Forbes
Homeland Security Praises 1940s Washington, D.C., In Social Media Posts
The Department of Homeland Security has posted illustrations depicting the beauty of 1940s Washington, D.C., across multiple social media posts this week, drawing criticism from some who say the Trump administration is glorifying a pre-civil rights era United States. DHS has made an aggressive social media push in recent months to boost Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officer recruitment. (Photo by David) Getty Images The department made three posts this week depicting illustrations of Washington, D.C. fixtures in the 1940s: an image of the Capitol building in 1943, as well as Union Station and the Supreme Court building, both from unspecified years in the 1940s. DHS accompanied each image with a caption: 'American Exceptionalism begins in the nation's capital,' it said alongside the image of the Supreme Court, and, 'We Can Return,' it said on the Capitol building post. The posts mark the department's latest social media push as it tries to boost recruitment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and its fixation on D.C. comes as the Trump administration deploys National Guard troops to the nation's capital to combat what President Donald Trump says is excessive crime. Some social media users have criticized the department's reverence for the 1940s, noting the period predated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed segregation, as well as other landmark legislation and Supreme Court decisions that were key to the civil rights era. Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., criticized Homeland Security's post of the Capitol in 1943, replying with an image of a segregation sign: ''We can return' to 1943 says the White House,' Frost said. One X user also responded to the Capitol post, stating: 'Choosing D.C. in 1943 to the moment you can "return" to is, well, a notable choice for very obvious historic reasons. (Hint: Segregation.),' garnerning 12,000 likes. Jill Filipovic, a journalist and author of several books on feminism, responded to the department's Union Station post: '...it looks the same now? What was better about it in the 1940s? Black people weren't allowed inside?' Some posters, including Hamilton College sociology professor Daniel Chambliss, responded to DHS stating the images the department posted are paintings, not photographs, suggesting the paintings may not be completely accurate depictions of the buildings. How Else Has Dhs Used Social Media In Recent Months? The department has turned to memes and other images that are reminiscent of wartime propaganda in its attempt to boost ICE recruitment. Some of the department's latest posts are explicit callbacks to famous wartime posters, like images of Uncle Sam pointing at the viewer, stating: 'America Needs You.' In a post last month, DHS modified a still from the film 'E.T.,' adding text that says: 'Even E.T. knew when it was time to GO HOME,' urging undocumented immigrants to leave the country. DHS also used a still from a 'South Park' episode that slammed the administration's ICE raids and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, captioning it with a link to the ICE recruitment webpage. The official White House social media accounts posted a video last month of ICE agents detaining immigrants set to the viral 'nothing beats a Jet2 holiday' TikTok sound, which achieved popularity this summer and is typically used in videos of chaotic situations. 'When ICE books you a one-way Jet2 holiday to deportation. ✈️🎶 Nothing beats it!' the White House captioned the post. DHS has also made posts using historic American artwork, which critics have accused of being a dogwhistle for racism. Last month, DHS posted an image of John Gast's famous 1872 painting 'American Progress,' which depicts a female personification of the United States expanding westward into land occupied by Native Americans, considered a symbol of manifest destiny. 'A Heritage to be proud of, a Homeland worth Defending,' DHS captioned the image. Some of the artists who have created images posted by DHS in recent months have disavowed the department's use of their work. Jess Glynne, the British singer whose song 'Hold My Hand' is featured in the viral Jet2 TikTok audio, said on Instagram the Trump administration's post made her 'sick' because her music is about 'love, unity, and spreading positivity - never about division or hate.' The 'South Park' creators, who have been highly critical of the Trump administration, traded insults with DHS on X: 'Wait, so we ARE relevant? #eatabagofdicks,' the show's X account responded to DHS after it posted a still from the show. The Kinkade Family Foundation responded to the department's use of late artist Thomas Kinkade's painting of a small town, 'Morning Pledge,' in a July X post, stating the use of the artwork was 'unauthorized' and the organization condemns the 'sentiment expressed in the post and the deplorable actions that DHS continues to carry out.' Similarly, artist Morgan Weistling said he 'DID NOT give the DHS permission to use my painting' in a post on his website, referring to the department's use of his painting, 'A Prayer for New Life,' which depicts a Western couple holding a baby in a wagon. Further Reading Painter Says DHS Stole and Retitled His Work for Social Post About 'Homeland's Heritage' (ArtNews) DHS has been creative with social media posts. Some artists and brands aren't happy (ABC News)
Buzz Feed
22 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Outrage Over PA Republican's Livable Wage Comments
Recently, we wrote about Republican Pennsylvania lawmaker Jesse Topper, who, back in June, gave remarks to the state's House of Representatives advocating against raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour. "Not every wage, and please hear me clearly on this," Topper says in a viral clip. "Not every wage is designed to be a livable wage." He goes on to give examples of his point, like a teenager or a retired person working for income they don't technically need to survive. The BuzzFeed Community had a WHOLEEE lot to say about Topper's comments, so let's get into it: "One thing I'll never understand is the idea that some jobs are 'supposed' to be for students trying to make money. Dude, who do you think is going to make your mid-morning coffee or make your fast-food lunch when STUDENTS ARE IN SCHOOL? It's just not feasible! Obviously, some students can make it work — and sometimes have to support their parents, unfortunately — but there just aren't enough people even available for minimum wage jobs. Adults have to do these jobs, too, and not just as 'starter jobs.' They need to make enough money to live, support kids, bills, etc." "If people who work full-time do not earn enough for them to live on, how are they supposed to survive? One way is by receiving benefits like Section 8, Medicaid, SNAP, and WIC. And I'm sure that this guy wants to cut those benefits. Or eliminate them. So, people who work hard to support themselves should go hungry? Live in their cars? Or the streets?" —rutharcone "If $7.25/hour is an acceptable pay rate to Pennsylvania lawmakers, then why don't they just make that the pay rate for Pennsylvania lawmakers?" "Sure, a job that a high schooler or a retiree is working to make extra money doesn't need to pay enough to live off of because they're not working it full-time. If that job IS being worked full-time, that job should have a wage that is able to be lived off of, because whoever is working that job is doing so TO MAKE A LIVING. Any job that hires any employee for 40 hours or more a week needs to pay a living wage." "The idiocy is not lost on me that these fast-food workers were considered 'essential' during the lockdown and still had to go to work, yet they aren't 'essential' enough to pay a livable wage to." —jasonr4da82caf9 "As an introverted disabled retiree, if I ever go back to work, it won't be because I want to. I've got plenty to do at home, and it would bring me no joy to go back out into the world and deal with assholes all day every day for $7.25/hour." "Let him live off of that wage!" "I think he is correct. Growing up as teenagers, we worked at jobs such as waitress, babysitter, pumping gas, cashier, filing paperwork, etc., to gain experience in the working world and also earn a wage to learn how to handle money, learn about taxes, etc. Originally, those types of jobs were not intended to actually support a family. The fact that these jobs are occupied by people who do need them is a sad reflection on our society." —smartnugget986 "Since when is a kid saving for college not necessary? Since when is grandma running a cash register at Walmart not needed income? This asshole's constituents should send him packing!" "Wow, how truly despicable." "Public service should be a minimum wage job. You're supposed to be sacrificing your time and effort for the greater good. So let's start enforcing that." "I didn't go to college, and I work in childcare, where I make $19.50 an hour. I still can't afford to live on my own, making almost $20 an hour. $7.50 is an absolute fucking joke. How can anyone afford to do anything with that?" —redpizza125 "I think all politicians should make minimum wage so they can truly understand how their constituents live. Watch them bitch and moan about not being able to live on $7.25 an hour while the people they represent have to. Don't like it, well then raise the minimum wage." "Love when they say the job is meant for teenagers when those same teenagers are supposed to be in school for most of the hours the job is open. There isn't a fast-food chain in the country that exclusively runs after 3 p.m., and that's without including prep work and opening." "I wish there would be a major push, worldwide, that politicians get paid whatever the minimum wage is of the region they're representing. They work fewer hours than the average worker. This would help bring back the ideology of the politicians working for the people again. It's become a joke where the majority of them are nepos of some sort who never worked a day in their lives." —animalmagentism "Welcome to America, where we work for vibes." "That's why it's called the MINIMUM wage. If jobs are difficult or require experience, then they get paid more than that. They make it sound like these employees will suddenly be living in the lap of luxury at $31,200 a year. If your rent is $1,000 (the national average is $1,700), that leaves you with only $19,000 to live on for the whole year before taxes. That doesn't count food, cars, clothes, insurance, phones, etc...." "At one time, businesses said they needed slavery so they could continue their lavish lifestyles. I would say if you cannot afford a livable wage to workers, do the work yourself so you can prosper on your own sweat." "I am retired and lucky that I am able to manage due to my husband's pension and Social Security income. I went into banking a very long time ago because they had retirement plans, but those were soon disbanded in the late '70s and '80s with the advent of 401(k) programs, so I have both 401(k) and Social Security." "My husband and I volunteer at the local retirement center and deliver food for the Meals on Wheels program. The meals cost $4, and some clients cannot even afford this cost, so since this is a 'suggested' amount, they pay what they can or pay $0. Since federal funding was cut by the Trump administration for social programs for counties, funding is no longer available for these senior centers, so now private and commercial donations have to make up the shortfall. I truly believe the Republicans are out of step regarding wages, programs for the needy, and retirees. There are a lot of retirees who have second jobs because their SS does cover their living expenses. Sad."—skimscissors355 "I'm really starting to hate Republiclowns. They should all be voted out of office. It kills me to think my tax dollars are paying for assholes like this." "There shouldn't be a minimum wage. Each job should just pay what the job is worth." "Over the past year in Pennsylvania, I've seen the local car wash hiring at $16/hour, and just this week, a relative was hired at a fast-food restaurant for a $15/hour starting wage. Anything less, and these positions stayed vacant. Idiots like this overpaid legislator (in one of America's largest and overpaid state governments) just show how out of touch our overlords actually are." —emoelf137 "They don't want to pay a livable wage, but then they get mad when people need assistance to survive, like Medicaid and food stamps. How do they not realize the cycle they have created? Do you want the guy who can work fast food and do a great job to make a living wage and support himself, or do you want him to not make that and have to apply for government assistance? Or is the truth of it just that you want poor people to die because they aren't convenient for you to think about?" "To not even consider that some of the people in those jobs might not be teenagers: The close-mindedness is willful and deliberate." —bexobexo"Also, if a teenager is working, it's extremely likely that they also need the money. Maybe more than if they were older and independent! My brother-in-law dropped out of high school to wash dishes so he could support his mom. Should he have had to? Absolutely not. But did he deserve a wage that you can support a family on just as much as any other working person? Absolutely. His family stayed housed, but he worked his ass off, and then had to go through the shame (to him — we didn't feel there was any shame in it) of telling my sister and our family that he needed to get a GED before they could carry out their plans for higher education for him as a mature student. Just to give one example of why teens aren't necessarily working just for 'fun money.'"—casualpizza23 "Can we stop with the wealthy people telling the rest of us to live with the scraps we get? Or at least stop telling us to be grateful for it." "Guy who gets paid $106K per year to work in a legislature that meets 50 or 60 days a year says what??? The man is clearly asking for a less-than-livable wage, and so he should have it." And finally, "USA is a straight-up dystopia." —cutealligator6018 What do you think? Let me know in the comments.
