
White House wants us to see Trump as Superman. We all know he's the villain.
President Donald Trump, the man whose first run for the presidency was widely viewed as a joke until it wasn't, wants to make you laugh.On July 11, Trump's communications team posted a photo of the president edited into the poster from the new 'Superman' movie with the all-caps caption, 'A SYMBOL OF HOPE. TRUTH. JUSTICE. THE AMERICAN WAY. SUPERMAN TRUMP,' tied up in a patriotic bow with an American flag emoji.
The self-mythologizing is almost laughable. Almost.
It's not the first time the Trump administration has tried to joke with the American public. In recent months, his communications team posted a photo of him dressed as the pope, a video of Gaza as a golden Trump paradise, and countless Truth Social posts that rely on YELLING IN ALL CAPS AT RANDOM and painting Trump as the greatest president to ever do it.
But we shouldn't laugh. That's exactly what he wants. We should instead realize how sad it is to watch an American president beg for attention.
Trump wants to be seen as the hero. He's the villain.
Trump presenting himself as Superman is just a distraction from the fact that he's the true villain of this story, the one who is harming entire groups of people in the United States for the fun of it. Similarly, he has done nothing to deserve a comparison to the pope. In fact, the newly selected Pope Leo XIV has already criticized Trump's deportation agenda, the emergence of nationalism, and Trump's strike on Iranian nuclear facilities back in June. Superman would never.
Opinion: I saw the new liberal 'Superman' movie and it gave me the woke mind virus
I am against memeifying the presidency, no matter who is in office. I was against 'Dark Brandon,' the meme genre produced by chronically online Democratic strategists during Joe Biden's presidency.
A meme of a presidency does nothing for the American public. It does not tell us what the head of our country is doing to make our society work for us. It does not heal the nation; it simply distracts from what ails us.
But there's something different about the way Trump tries to joke with the American public. It works better than the Biden ilk of memes, mostly because the MAGA audience is receptive to it. They put his face on T-shirts. They share his posts. They fly his flag as much, if not more, than the American flag. They lean into the absurdity.
It's not just MAGA, either. There's a certain subset of leftists who laugh at Trump, as opposed to with him. They make fun of his ridiculous posts and his blatant narcissism. While it manages to mitigate the fear that has come along with a Trump presidency, it also fails to capture the real dangers of the situation we find ourselves in as a country delving headfirst into the Trumpian. It's a real 'laugh to keep from crying' scenario, and I have to wonder if it actually improves our circumstances.
Opinion: Zohran Mamdani rallied Gen Z voters. We can't abandon him now.
Trump is just distracting us from how much we don't like him
At the end of the day, maybe we all just want to be liked – even the president. Perhaps Trump is memeing himself to get people to think he isn't that bad. At the very least, it serves as a distraction from the ways he is unpopular with the American public, according to a slew of polls on issues ranging from immigration to tariffs.
In recent days, MAGA has turned on Trump because of the criminal investigation of the files related to the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. He's facing hundreds of lawsuits for different administrative actions, most recently getting sued over the release of $7 billion in education grants. He is forging ahead with his extreme immigration agenda that aims to arrest 3,000 people a day.
His popularity is slipping, and he currently has an average 44% approval rating. In particular, he is losing the faith of the middle class, who are still struggling with an economy that doesn't work for them and the potential damage of the appropriations bill and tariffs.
Trump doesn't want you to pay attention to that, though. He just wants to make you laugh.
Whether he's Superman, the pope, or just a man in an oversized suit, Trump's whole schtick is that he's an eccentric man who happened to become president. A meme can't acknowledge the truth – that he is a deeply unpopular president who is hellbent on destroying the country. Maybe it's best if we all stop laughing.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffrey Epstein case: Survey finds almost 7 in 10 say details were concealed
Close to seven in 10 Americans in a new poll said details around disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein are being concealed as the Trump administration faces backlash over the issue. Sixty-nine percent said they believed there has been concealment of facts on Epstein's clients by the federal government, with close to 25 percent unsure whether facts had been concealed. Six percent said they did not believe that facts were kept secret, according to the Reuters/Ipsos poll. The poll highlights public grievances about whether authorities are withholding information on Epstein as President Trump has sought to tamp down a controversy that has divided his own party. On Wednesday, President Trump slammed 'foolish Republicans' who he said were helping Democrats by focusing on documents related to Epstein. The president, during an Oval Office meeting with the crown prince of Bahrain, repeated his assertion that the documents linked to Epstein were a 'hoax' from Democrats. Epstein was arrested on sex trafficking charges and died via suicide in 2019, according to authorities. 'Some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net, and so they try and do the Democrats' work,' Trump said. 'I call it the Epstein hoax. Takes a lot of time and effort. Instead of talking about the great achievements we've had … they're wasting their time with a guy who obviously had some very serious problems, who died three, four years ago. I'd rather talk about the success we have with the economy,' the president added. Trump's management of files linked to Epstein only received 17 percent backing in the Reuters/Ipsos poll, with 54 percent against it and 29 percent not sure or giving no response. The Reuters/Ipsos poll took place from July 15 to 16, featuring 1,027 people and close to 3 percentage points as its margin of error.


The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's unpredictability could doom Ukraine, but Europe can save it
President Trump is currently irritated by his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. Last week, with Ukraine suffering the heaviest air strikes since the full-scale Russian invasion started, he told NBC News that he had reached a deal with NATO for Patriot air defense missiles to be supplied to Ukraine via the alliance. Germany will pay for two systems and Norway for another one. The full measure of the president's annoyance had been evi d ent at a Cabinet meeting. 'We get a lot of bulls— thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,' Trump said. 'He's very nice all of the time, but it turns out to be meaningless … I'm not happy with Putin. I'm very unhappy with them.' These are harsh words indeed. Only last month, Trump had spoken warmly of the Russian president: 'Vladimir Putin made some very nice statements today. Look, he respects our country again.' Context is everything. The air strikes against Ukraine — 539 drones and 11 missiles on July 4, 728 drones and 18 missiles on July 9, 597 drones and 26 missiles on July 11 — came after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had paused some deliveries of weapons to Ukraine, including air-defense missiles. The stated reason was that America's own stocks of munitions were inadequate for national security, though this was refuted by unnamed U.S. officials and by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. The Kremlin noticed. With deliveries suspended, Ukraine was vulnerable; there is apparently a particular shortage of PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptor missiles for the Patriot systems. Ukraine's ability to shoot down drones and ballistic and cruise missiles was compromised, and Russia unleashed the heaviest attacks of the war. Hegseth did not inform the White House of his decision. He has acted unilaterally in this way twice before, in February and in May. Both times the decision was reversed, and Trump has since announced that the U.S. will now sell weapons to Ukraine, with NATO's European members picking up the tab. Anyone who supports Ukraine should welcome Trump's decision and hope that the Patriot batteries arrive quickly and reinforce the country's air defenses. We need to be cautious, however. Trump is driven by instinct, or rather whim, and his attitudes are not remotely consistent or enduring. On an impulse, he could turn 180 degrees tomorrow, with Putin back in favor and Hegseth allowed to keep choking off military assistance. This is not just an inconvenience for President Volodymyr Zelensky and his courageous, inventive but hard-pressed armed forces. The conflict in Ukraine is finely balanced. According to the U.K. Ministry of Defence, Russia has lost a million soldiers killed or injured since February 2022, a quarter of them dead. But it is also increasing its drone production tenfold and will spend 7.7 percent of its GDP (over $170 billion) on defense this year. In contrast, Ukraine has lost around 400,000 soldiers, of whom between 60,000 and 100,000 have been killed. Clearly that is much lower, but Russia's population is more than four times that of Ukraine. It is true that Russia's territorial gains over the past 18 months have been virtually nil, and that Russia is generally being outfought. Equally, however, Ukraine's military is at full stretch. All this means that a disruption in military assistance to Ukraine, even a relatively short one, could have a disproportionately decisive effect by creating a window of opportunity for Russia. Last week's air strikes were probing for just that kind of advantage. The Trump administration seems at best indifferent to the outcome of the conflict, no longer seeing it in terms of international security but as a matter for European powers. It is quite possible that Trump would simply shrug if Kyiv were to fall. European leaders have to acknowledge this potential scenario. U.S. funding has already been downgraded, and a complete cessation of support, while not inevitable, is not impossible either. America has given generously, authorizing $185 billion in assistance, more than any other country. But in terms of support given or earmarked, Germany has spent $51.4 billion, the U.K. $24.7 billion, France $5.3 billion and Poland $4.1 billion, while the EU's Ukraine Facility has made $50 billion available. Japan has given $12 billion. The agreement at the recent NATO summit for member states to raise defense spending to 5 percent of GDP indicates Europe is ready to do more, as is shown by the new deal for the alliance's European members to pay for U.S.-supplied weapons. Americans who still support Ukraine must keep making the case that this is not merely a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, but summons more fundamental questions about the future of geopolitics. Can autocrats simply take what they want? Is force the only argument required? What does it mean if the West shows this green light to Putin, and how will it be interpreted in Beijing? Europe can sustain Ukraine and help it develop its defensive capabilities, if every shoulder is put to the wheel. Together with the U.S., however, we could transform the conflict, stop Russia's thirst for expansion and send a powerful signal around the world. As the old joke goes, I wouldn't start from here — but it can still be done. Eliot Wilson is a freelance writer on politics and international affairs and the co-founder of Pivot Point Group. He was senior official in the U.K. House of Commons from 2005 to 2016, including serving as a clerk of the Defence Committee and secretary of the U.K. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.


Los Angeles Times
8 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The power grid battle that's dividing California environmentalists
In an early episode of the TV series 'Lost,' the plane crash survivors stranded on a mysterious island are running low on water. A fight breaks out, until emerging leader Jack Shephard admonishes everyone to work together. 'If we can't live together, we're gonna die alone,' he says. California lawmakers contemplating our climate future ought to take that lesson to heart. Senate Bill 540 would help establish a regional electricity market capable of tying together the American West's three dozen independent power grids. Supporters say it would smooth the flow of solar and wind power from the sunny, windy landscapes where they're produced most cheaply to the cities where they're most needed. It would help California keep the lights on without fossil fuels, and without driving up utility bills. That may sound straightforward, but the bill has bitterly divided environmentalists. Welcome to the Wild West of energy policy. Some consider regional power-trading a crucial market-based tool for accelerating climate progress. Others see it as a plot by greedy energy companies to enrich themselves. Those divides didn't stop the Senate from unanimously passing SB 540. But amendments demanded by skeptical lawmakers are now threatening to derail the bill in the Assembly — even as Gov. Gavin Newsom threw his weight behind the concept Wednesday. Critics warn that SB 540 would result in California yielding control of its power grid to out-of-state officials and the Trump administration, who could force Californians to pay for coal-fired electricity from Utah and Wyoming. They also worry about market manipulation driving up electric rates. Those fears are understandable. I also think they're misguided. California by itself can't stop the planet from heating up. The Golden State's decades-long campaign to slow the wildfires, floods and heat waves of the climate crisis has been predicated on the conviction that eventually, other states and nations will follow along — even oil bastions and MAGA hothouses. In other words: If we can't live together, we're gonna die alone. Fortunately, even in the wake of President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' gutting clean energy incentives, solar and wind power are still cheaper than planet-warming coal and fossil gas. Which is why Michael Wara, a Stanford energy and climate scholar, isn't worried that SB 540 will leave Californians drowning in dirty power. In a regional market, solar and wind will usually outcompete coal and gas. 'Any energy source that requires fuel to operate is more expensive than an energy source that doesn't,' he said. California also needs to prove that a grid powered entirely by clean energy is affordable and reliable. The state's rising electric rates are already a big concern. And although the grid has been stable the last few years, thanks to batteries that store solar for after dark, keeping the lights on with more and more renewables might get harder. Regional market advocates make a strong case that interstate cooperation would help. For instance, a market would help California more smoothly access Pacific Northwest hydropower, already a key energy source during heat waves. It would also give California easier access to low-cost winds from New Mexico and Wyoming. Best of all, that wind is often blowing strong just as the sun sets along the Pacific. Another benefit: Right now, California often generates more solar than it can use during certain hours of the day, forcing solar farms to shut down — or pay other states to take the extra power. With a regional market, California could sell excess solar to other states, keeping utility bills down. 'This is about lowering costs,' said Robin Everett, deputy director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign. When I wrote about a past regional market proposal in 2017, the Sierra Club was opposed. It believed a regional market would throw an economic lifeline to Utah and Wyoming coal plants owned by Warren Buffett's PacifiCorp company by giving them access to new markets — including California — to sell their power. Eight years later, things are different. High costs are driving coal toward extinction. Solar and wind cost even less. Sierra Club staff now say California should be less worried about opening new markets to coal and more worried about averting blackouts or high utility bills that could trigger an anti-renewables backlash. 'Otherwise we're going to see more and more gas, and a push to keep coal online,' Everett said. But here's where the politics get tricky. Although the Sierra Club endorsed the Pathways Initiative — the detailed regional market plan on which SB 540 is based — it hasn't endorsed the bill. That's because many of the club's volunteer leaders still hate the idea. They're not alone. SB 540's opponents include the Center for Biological Diversity, Food and Water Watch and Consumer Watchdog. (Full disclosure: My father-in-law, an energy lawyer, has advocated against the bill.) Eight chapters of and 73 chapters of progressive group Indivisible stand opposed. So does the Environmental Working Group. On the flip side, supporters include Climate Hawks Vote, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy, the Union of Concerned Scientists and two chapters of Loretta Lynch, who led the state's Public Utilities Commission during the early-2000s energy crisis, thinks SB 540 would open the door for more market manipulation, giving energy companies legally sanctioned tools to thwart climate goals and force Californians to pay for expensive fossil fuels. Her warnings have resonated with activists frustrated by California's investor-owned utilities, which keep raising electric rates and recently helped persuade officials to slash rooftop solar incentives. Indeed, SB 540's supporters include Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and trade groups for major power producers. 'They want no guardrails or limits on how they can fleece California,' Lynch said. It's a compelling narrative. But most energy experts who have studied the bill aren't convinced. For one thing, electricity sales have changed dramatically since the energy crisis, with more oversight and fewer last-minute trades limiting the potential for shenanigans. Unlike with past regional market proposals, California would retain control of its grid operator, with only a few functions delegated to a regional entity. And California's grid is already subject to federal regulation, meaning Trump could try undermining state policy at any time. Labor attorney Marc Joseph, who helped lead the charge against previous regional market bills, described Lynch's talking points as 'good arguments against a thing that is no longer being proposed.' 'We're in a different place because it's a fundamentally different thing,' Joseph said. Joseph represents the politically powerful International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. After years of fighting regional markets, IBEW is now a vocal supporter. What changed, Joseph said, is that SB 540 would safeguard state climate goals, thus making it a valuable tool to advance solar and wind farms — and create good-paying jobs. Even with IBEW's support, though, it's not clear if SB 540 will reach Newsom's desk. To secure support in the Senate in May, Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park), the bill's author, added amendments to assuage concerns about California giving up too much control of its grid. Ironically, many of the bill's key backers now say they're opposed unless the amendments are removed or tweaked. Why would they say that? Because California is the biggest electricity user in the West, and other states won't join a regional market unless they're confident California will participate — and the amendments would make it easier for the Golden State to bail. Out-of-state utilities don't want to waste time and money committing themselves to a California-led market only to lose California, and thus many of the economic benefits. That's especially true because those utilities have another option. Arkansas-based Southwest Power Pool, which operates the electric grid across much of the central U.S., is recruiting Western utilities to its own regional market. Already, utilities based in Arizona, Colorado and the Pacific Northwest have agreed to join. Arkansas isn't leading the West to a clean energy future. California can try — or it can close itself off to the world. Living together is no guarantee. But dying alone is definitely worse. This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our 'Boiling Point' podcast here. For more climate and environment news, follow @Sammy_Roth on X and @ on Bluesky.