
Trump's Dream Logic
In Ursula Le Guin's novel The Lathe of Heaven, George Orr wakes to discover that he has the power to control reality through his dreams. Each night while he sleeps, the world changes in profound and unexpected ways. In the morning, Orr alone remembers reality as it was. Soon, Orr (named, one would assume, for George Orwell) finds himself under the care of a psychiatrist, who, realizing that Orr has these powers, tries to use them to turn the world into a utopia. This does not go well for the world.
It doesn't go well because dreams have their own logic. They are nonlinear and to some degree nonsensical, and so directing oneself to dream of world peace may result in an alien invasion. Technically the dream has been fulfilled. Earthlings have stopped fighting with one another, but only because all of Earth is now ruled by an alien species. In this new dream reality, a world ruled by aliens becomes the only world you have ever known.
That is what the American experience is beginning to feel like in 2025: Not as if we are living in President Donald Trump's reality, but as if we are living in his dream. As the showrunner and director of TV shows including Fargo, Legion, and the upcoming Alien: Earth, I think a lot about how audiences navigate the tension between horror and the absurd. Now we're all in this liminal space of the president's devising.
Derek Thompson: The political fight of the century
When the Trump administration pretends that the three branches of government are not and never have been equal, it creates a state of unreality in the minds of everyday Americans, similar to that of a dreamer in a dream. When the president and his proxies ignore both laws passed by Congress and Supreme Court decisions, they seek to replace the vérité of our shared history and experience with a fantasy, turning the stabilizing force of precedent into the quicksand of dream.
Only in a dream could the bicycle you're riding become a pony. But if you tell the pony in the dream that he used to be a bicycle, he will deny it. I've always been a pony, he will say. And because this is a dream, you will accept that. But what if you're awake and your government is doing things and saying things that seem nonsensical? What are you supposed to think when you search for the Gulf of Mexico on Google Maps and discover that it no longer exists? What happens if, as a next step, the history books are revised to erase all records of the name? In this new reality, that body of water has only ever been called the 'Gulf of America.' You can imagine the argument that will happen years from now, where you swear there was once a Gulf of Mexico, but, for the life of you, you just can't prove it.
Over the past two months, the rule of law in this country has been replaced by the rule of whim. The whim is not just that of one man but of a loose cabal of Cabinet members and 'special advisers' who are combining revenge fantasies with small-government dreams, xenophobic visions, and cryptocurrency delusions. And so former national-security officials have had their security clearances revoked, government agencies have been fed into the wood chipper, 'alien enemies' have been deported despite a judge's court order, and a vaccine denier and pseudoscience champion has been confirmed as the secretary of Health and Human Services.
The only thing these dreamers have in common is that they want to control reality itself, to rewrite the past, present, and future simultaneously. Their actions create a maelstrom of daily news and revisionist history that the mind struggles to combine into a coherent reality. As a result, we are moving from a waking state to a dream state, where logic is flexible and anything can happen.
The movie Inception introduced us to a world in which corporate spies infiltrate the dreams of CEOs. Once inside, they steal secrets or, in the central action of the film, seek to implant an idea that the dreamer will, upon waking, turn into a reality. Inception, as they call this process, is considered almost impossible because of how difficult it is to make someone believe that an outside idea is their own. In this framework, however, the logic of the waking world is distinctly different from that of the dream. It assumes a waking world in which things make sense. Where facts have meaning. Not a world whose richest man brandishes a chain saw onstage and hires teenagers nicknamed 'Big Balls' to gut the federal government, while the president of the United States reposts an AI video of the Gaza Strip as a luxury resort destination.
Inception did not envision a world in which only dream logic exists even when the dreamer is awake; a world where the federal government is trying to both shut down the Department of Education and weaponize it in order to remake how and what children in this country are taught. A world in which the president signs an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act against immigrants from Venezuela, even though the country is not at war with Venezuela. In the administration's dream logic, the executive order itself creates a preexisting state of war, allowing it to issue the order. The logic is circular. Without being at war, the administration cannot use the act to justify the deportations. Or whatever. The bicycle is a pony. The logic is dream logic.
In the past century, authors in Russia, China, and other countries with totalitarian regimes have written about how absurd life becomes under autocracy. But until you experience it yourself, you can't fully comprehend the illogic of it—or, I should say, the dream logic of it. It is a feeling as much as an idea, a surreal sense of unreality, from which the dreamer wills himself to wake up.
As the Austrian-born psychologist Bruno Bettelheim wrote about life under fascism: 'Thus has tyranny robbed men of their sleep and pursued them even in their dreams.'
In this warped reality, rather than dreading sleep, we begin to dread waking up, because every day there is a new dream, one that, like George Orr's, threatens to fracture our reality yet again. Our job over the next four years is to remember what life was like before the dream so that one day we can make the world a logical place again.
Hashtags

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


USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
The 'true' origin story of 'The Ritual' is even more hair-raising: 'Begone Satan!'
The 'true' origin story of 'The Ritual' is even more hair-raising: 'Begone Satan!' Show Caption Hide Caption 'The Ritual': Al Pacino, Dan Stevens take on exorcism horror Al Pacino and Dan Stevens star in "The Ritual," a horror film based on the account of a 1928 American exorcism. "The Ritual" exorcism horror drama (now in theaters), starring Al Pacino as the real-life German-American Capuchin friar Theophilus Riesinger and Dan Stevens as Father Joseph Steiger, proudly claims to be "based on true events." The star duo delivers hair-raising moments as they recreate the 1928 exorcism of Emma Schmidt (Abigail Cowen). But on a horror level, it pales in comparison to the more sensational source material. Writer-director David Midell has made it clear "The Ritual" is inspired by the 1935 "Begone Satan!" book by Father Carl Vogl, a German priest and author. Vogl's exclamation point-filled "true account" of the proceedings in Earling, Iowa, is still available online and makes for great, campy reading. How 'Begone Satan!' emerged as the source of 'The Ritual' in Time magazine Steiger's job was to host (other churches declined) and to take notes during the harrowing (and reportedly successful) exorcism. The Steiger notes are the purported source of "Begone Satan!" which made front-page news in religious publications like Denver's Catholic Register years later. Time magazine brought the story to mainstream readers with a Riesinger-heavy 1936 account of the "diabolical possession." The Time article demonstrates some skepticism by reminding readers "that no Catholic is obliged to believe in any particular account of a case of diabolical possession outside of those recounted in Scripture." At the end of this long, twisted, and sometimes dubious road, "The Ritual" earns the right to make the carefully worded claim in its closing: "The 1928 exorcism of Emma Schmidt represents the most thoroughly documented and well-known exorcism in American history." The devil will apparently mess with your car In an early "Ritual" scene, Steiger apologizes for failing to pick up Riesinger at the train station, attributing the oversight to the devil's mischief. With 19 exorcisms to his name, he knows that the devil will mess with cars. In "Begone Satan!" Steiger can't explain why his "tip-top" car takes two hours to get to the station. Riesinger points out that the traveling mishap is the devil "doing his utmost to foil our plans." Later, Steiger is nearly killed after inexplicably losing control of his still-new car on a familiar road and crashing it to "smithereens." The book's car-totaling "devil's trick" doesn't make "The Ritual," which is a shame, given the rich real-life irony: Stevens' "Downton Abbey" character, Matthew Crawley, was killed in a Season 3 car crash that allowed him to pursue a film career. In "Begone Satan!" Steiger's congregation pitches in to buy a new car for the pastor, which frankly could have been an alternate film ending (with a Ford sponsorship). Riesinger had met Schmidt's demons before In "The Ritual," Riesinger makes it clear that the case is personal because he had previously exorcised Schmidt. "Begone Satan!" says Riesinger "freed her from this possession" in 1912, but Schmidt "became possessed again" in her 40s. Schmidt is said to be possessed by four entities that announce themselves as Beelzebub, betraying disciple Judas, Schmidt's abusive father Jacob and Mina (Jacob's lover and Schmidt's aunt). The devil didn't mess with the 'Ritual' nuns Three nuns are injured while dealing directly with the possessed Schmidt in "The Ritual," and Sister Rose ("Twilight" star Ashley Greene) has her hair pulled out of her scalp. In "Begone Satan!" the devil never attacked the nuns, saving his blows for the bigwigs — Pastor Steiger or Mother Superior (played by "Everybody Loves Raymond" star Patricia Heaton). In "The Ritual," the demons within Schmidt taunt Steiger with knowledge of his brother's recent death by suicide. There's no suggestion of these low blows in "Begone Satan!" But in the book, Steiger gives some memorable verbal shots in that never made the movie, like "detestable hellhound" and "vile serpent." Satan also calls Riesinger "dumbbell" when the overtired priest doesn't get his prayers right. That didn't make the movie, either. 'Begone Satan!' has the possessed woman flying over bed like 'The Ritual' The possessed Schmidt throws up black bile often in "The Ritual," but not as much as in the book. 'It was not unusual for her to vomit 20 to 30 times a day," the book says, including bedside descriptions of wretched output "resembling vomited macaroni." The movie scene featuring Schmidt flying over the bed is detailed in "Begone Satan!" "The possessed woman broke from the grip of her protectors and stood erect before them," the book says. "Only her heels were touching the bed." How 'Begone Satan!' ends the story Unlike the movie, the Iowa exorcism reportedly took place in three stages, in August, September and December 1928. The book's climax differs from "The Ritual" ending, which has Schmidt running through the church catacombs, and Steiger stepping up with an exorcist hero moment, shouting down the demon with the Bible in hand. In the book, levitating Schmidt returns to the bed, and "Satan was forced to leave his victim at last to return to Hell." Schmidt utters, "My Jesus mercy! Praised be Jesus!" showing she's clear. The woman "reportedly lived out the rest of her life peacefully," the movie says in the closing credits. "Begone Satan!" backs up that happy ending, adding "there were still possessions, but of a milder nature."

32 minutes ago
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes — tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's China Gambit Belies Rocky Road Ahead on Tariff Deals
(Bloomberg) -- Supply Lines is a daily newsletter that tracks global trade. Sign up here. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn Trump Said He Fired the National Portrait Gallery Director. She's Still There. President Donald Trump has come up short on striking trade deals with most nations with just one month left before his self-imposed tariff deadline, even as he took his first steps in weeks toward engaging with China. Trump secured a much-desired call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, paving the way for a new round of talks on Monday in London — yet the diplomacy was overshadowed by a blowout public fight between Trump and his billionaire onetime ally, Elon Musk. Trump's aides insisted Friday that the president was moving on and focused on his economic agenda. Still, question marks remain over the US's most consequential trade relationships, with few tangible signs of progress toward interim agreements. India, which the Trump administration has cited as an early deal target, has taken a tougher line in negotiations and challenged Trump's auto tariffs at the World Trade Organization. Japan held another round of talks with the US, while also signaling it wants a reprieve from duties on cars and light trucks. The legal fight over Trump's tariffs hangs over everything. A court ruling striking down the country-by-country duties imposed using emergency authorities left partners with no certainty over what Trump's powers are. The next test could come as soon as next week, when a court could rule on the administration's appeal. Trump and his team were eager to draw attention to inroads with China as proof his ways are working. Trump on Friday described talks with Beijing as 'very far advanced' and said Xi had agreed to speed shipments of critical rare-earth minerals that were at the center of recent tension. Unlocking those supplies would spell relief for major American automakers. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng will visit the UK next week, during which he will conduct trade negotiations with the US, the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement late Saturday. The mixed results in the talks so far demonstrate the highs and lows of Trump's mercurial approach to trade, in which he and aides have cast him as the ultimate decision-maker on any deals. Rather than provide a clear-cut victory, Trump's dealings with Xi also show the difficult road ahead with China. The rare-earths dispute revealed how important those supplies, which Beijing dominates, are for the US economy. 'Xi is not letting go of the rare earths. He's got leverage, he's using it,' said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank. 'They talked, that's the most important thing. I think they're really far apart.' The clock is ticking for Trump. His 90-day pause on higher tariffs for the European Union and nearly five dozen countries expires July 9 — barring an extension he could do with the flick of a pen — while China's reprieve extends until August. If deals aren't reached, Trump plans to restore tariff rates to the levels he first announced in April, or lower numbers that exceed the current 10% baseline, a White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'We will have deals. It takes time. Usually it takes months and years; in this administration, it's going to take more like days,' White House trade counselor Peter Navarro said Friday on Fox Business. 'We're on task and on target.' The Office of the US Trade Representative 'looks more like a deli now,' Navarro said, with countries lining up for talks. USTR sent letters this week to trading partners reminding them of the deadline. It's unclear what all the frantic activity has yielded. Xi for months was reluctant to get on the phone with Trump and analysts speculated about what concessions the US president offered to his counterpart in exchange for the call. Trump at least appeared to give some ground on foreign students, saying it would be his 'honor' to welcome Chinese scholars even as his administration cracks down on student visas. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz visited Washington facing demands from his nation's automakers for tariff credits for vehicles they produce in the US. But the subject barely came up during the public portion of his meeting with Trump, who spent a large chunk of time unloading on Musk. 'We'll end up hopefully with a trade deal or we'll do something — you know, we'll do the tariffs,' Trump said Thursday alongside Merz. Merz, in his US visit, emphasized the integrated trade ties between countries that are at risk — including by personally driving a BMW built in South Carolina. The German leader said Friday at an industry event the nations should agree on an 'offset rule' that would provide tariff relief for existing US production. Trump's UK deal — the lone pact so far — was undercut this week when he plowed ahead with levies on steel and aluminum. The UK said the pact included an agreement for zero tariffs on British metals, but Trump's latest order kept a 25% charge on them while negotiations continue and doubled the rate for others. Still, the upcoming Group of Seven summit of leaders from major economies could provide an opportunity for the type of in-person dealmaking Trump craves. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has been discussing terms of a potential interim deal with Trump ahead of the gathering this month near Calgary. One theme is clear: Negotiations over his so-called reciprocal tariffs have grown intertwined with his separate duties on autos and metals, despite previous US signals that the administration considered them separate. 'He's entirely transactional,' Holtz-Eakin said of Trump. 'He will always deal.' Talks are ongoing with the EU, which has previously proposed an agreement with the US to mutually drop auto tariffs to zero as part of a broader trade framework, which the Trump administration rejected. The bloc subsequently suggested working toward zero-for-zero tariffs on cars, other industrial goods and some agricultural imports with tariff-rate quotas as a possible interim measure. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said this week he'd consider some type of 'export credit' on autos, the kind of carve-out sought by Germany on vehicle tariffs. And he predicted there would be a US-India deal in the 'not too distant future.' Lutnick signaled, though, Trump's push for so-called reciprocity comes with caveats. The US wouldn't agree with Vietnam to drop all tariffs, because it believes the Southeast Asian nation is a hub for so-called transshipment of Chinese goods. Talks with South Korea, where Trump spoke with newly elected president Lee Jae-myung, and Japan, which had top trade negotiator Ryosei Akazawa meet with Lutnick, continued this week. In yet another sign of the Trump team's frenetic approach, Nikkei reported that different — and even competing — positions among Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Lutnick had confounded Japanese counterparts. --With assistance from Akayla Gardner, Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Alberto Nardelli, Hadriana Lowenkron, Arne Delfs and Shiyin Chen. (Updates with China's He attending talks in London in eighth paragraph) Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again The SEC Pinned Its Hack on a Few Hapless Day Traders. The Full Story Is Far More Troubling Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To What Does Musk-Trump Split Mean for a 'Big, Beautiful Bill'? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data