Trump Trad, the aesthetic that tells us where America is going
You're reading the Today's Opinions newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox.
In today's edition:
Most of our Opinions columnists are squarely focused on the substance of President Donald Trump's actions, and justly so. But let me introduce you to Carolina Miranda, who is embarking on a series analyzing what the president seems to care about far more than his actions: his aesthetic.
'The aesthetics of a presidency might seem to matter little in comparison with actual policy,' Carolina imagines a reader thinking. But hear her out: 'Aesthetics define the battle lines in culture wars and provide the basis upon which leaders build their cults of personality.' Those are some mighty high stakes.
Carolina calls the president's look 'Trump Trad,' which manifests across his architectural, sartorial and tonsorial preferences. His 'clutter of historical styles' in home and club design, Carolina says, 'leaves no room for new ways of thinking'; the hyperfemininity of the women in his orbit ('body-hugging sheaths,' 'Utah curls') and the hypermasculinity of the men leave no room for anyone outside the gender binary. Haven't we already seen these aesthetic augurs take their policy form?
Carolina's piece is full of compelling visual examples, but what grabbed me most is her case that Trump Trad cops a lot of its language from another rich aesthetic: professional wrestling, especially the reality-blurring power of 'kayfabe.' Allow Carolina to explain.
Chaser: During Trump's first term, yours truly identified his aesthetic as something else: camp.
All right, back to policy, which these days seems to mean we're talking not about Trump but about his right-hand man, Elon Musk — or is it the other way around?
One worrisome checkpoint along Musk's asymptotic approach to omnipotence: He has your Social Security number now.
Natasha Sarin explains that agents of Musk's Department of Government Efficiency demanded access to the Treasury Department's sprawling federal payment system, which disburses Social Security checks and tax refunds, among other outlays. Putatively, this was to root out fraudulent payments, but this system doesn't identify fraud; that's the job of the IRS, which Republicans want to kneecap!
Natasha says we all ought to worry about what DOGE agents are up to: 'There is no legitimate reason for them to have this access.'
Basically everyone is wondering what DOGE is up to, to be fair. Matt Bai writes that Musk might be allowing the body to turn into a 'glorified IT consultant'; the opposite hypothesis is that Musk is gathering intel for an 'all-out assault on government spending.' (Matt walks through the hypothetical worldwide military withdrawal and elimination of 16 federal agencies; those don't get Musk even halfway to his savings goal.)
Maybe DOGE is wondering what DOGE is up to. But Matt is certain of one thing: 'Even if Musk doesn't have a coherent plan … right now, he eventually will. And whatever that plan ends up being, you can bet it will be good for Elon Musk.'
Chaser: On the latest 'Impromptu' podcast, Matt discusses Musk's seeming desire to destroy the government with Ruth Marcus and Dana Milbank. As they ask, can anybody stop him?
Bonus chaser: Philip Bump is skeptical that anyone can stop Trump. Our system isn't designed to police a president unwilling to abide by the law if the other branches roll over. One great quote: 'Violations of legal and precedential boundaries are about proving that no one can police the president, as much as revealing that no one can.'
On to Trump's imperial ambitions, a list to which you can now add Gaza. At a news conference Tuesday, Trump announced his desire to permanently remove all Palestinians from the Strip and develop it into the 'Riviera of the Middle East.'
Dana Milbank opens his column with a scolding of the Arab American voters who boosted Trump in response to Democrats' handling of the war in Gaza: ''Genocide Joe' never looked so good.'
Countries in the region immediately said they would take no part in this outrageous plan. But no matter, says Trump. 'I say they will.'
That's the bluster that characterizes Trump's vow to recolonize the Panama Canal, too — which isn't really about Panama at all, Marc Fisher writes in an analysis of Trump's obsessions.
'Panama just happens to be one of the few places around the world that Trump has been talking about for decades,' Marc writes, 'mainly because it was in the news as he entered his 30s and started paying a bit of attention to things beyond Queens.'
Chaser: Trump's threatened trade war with other members of the Western Hemisphere will undermine a bunch of domestic industries, including automaking, the Editorial Board writes.
It's a goodbye. It's a haiku. It's … The Bye-Ku.
Why work to rebuild
When gilding's cheap and easy?
Glittering Gaza
***
Have your own newsy haiku? Email it to me, along with any questions/comments/ambiguities. See you tomorrow!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
18 minutes ago
- Fox News
Musk says he regrets social media posts targeting Trump and more top headlines
1. Musk says he regrets social media posts targeting Trump 2. White House brings receipts after Newsom denies contact over LA riots 3. Trump vows consequences for 'animals' burning American flags CHAOS RETURNS – Rodney King riots officer says LA mayor acted 'too late' as anti-ICE violence engulfs city. Continue reading … ELITE UPSET – Liberal enclave in panic mode after ICE arrests dozens in wealthy vacation hotspot. Continue reading … AT A CROSSROADS – Final defense witness in Karen Read trial pumps brakes on prosecutors' case. Continue reading … DARK DESIRES – Diddy's alleged 'sexual deviant' behavior distracts from government's case. Continue reading … TORRID AFFAIR – Married counselor who enticed student into sexual encounters learns punishment. Continue reading … -- HERITAGE RESTORED – Crowd at Fort Bragg surprised with big announcement from Trump. Continue reading … POWER PLAY PAUSE – Trump tariffs survive as federal court overturns block in significant legal decision. Continue reading … TROUBLED WATERS – Democrat erupts at defense chief over submarine crisis as China's naval power grows. Continue reading … UNDER INDICTMENT – Democratic lawmaker faces prison after allegedly attacking federal agents at protest. Continue reading … EXIT STAGE LEFT – ABC News insider says there was 'no alternative' but for network to fire Terry Moran. Continue reading … PUSHING OUT THE FEDS – Dem demands ICE 'retreat' so locals can be 'given the opportunity to restore order.' Continue reading … ALL IN – New Hampshire enacts universal school choice, joining other states across the US. Continue reading … POINTING FINGERS – 'The View' co-host Sunny Hostin says ICE caused crisis in Los Angeles. Continue reading … SEN. RUBEN GALLEGO – Nuclear is the future – so why are Republicans blocking it? Continue reading … JOHN TEICHERT – US warfighters are losing a massive force multiplier advantage as China advances in space. Continue reading … -- SCARY SIPS – Your favorite alcoholic beverage could be linked to deadly form of cancer. Continue reading … 'NOT BUYING IT' – Social media rips Simone Biles' apology to Riley Gaines as PR statement. Continue reading … AMERICAN CULTURE QUIZ – Test yourself on festival firsts and summery snacks. Take the quiz here … FED UP – Americans slam fast-food favorite over their struggles with its sauce packets. Continue reading … LOOK WHO'S HOME – Military dad surprises family after year-long deployment. See video … SEN. JOHN KENNEDY – This is why the aliens won't talk to us. See video … MARC THIESSEN – Trump's responding to the anti-ICE riots exactly as he should. See video … Tune in to the FOX NEWS RUNDOWN PODCAST for today's in-depth reporting on the news that impacts you. Check it out ... What's it looking like in your neighborhood? Continue reading… Thank you for making us your first choice in the morning! We'll see you in your inbox first thing Thursday.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A short history of long ballots in Virginia
Voters in suburban Henrico's Short Pump precinct cast their ballots in 2018. (Photo by Ned Oliver/Virginia Mercury) With six candidates on the ballot, the June 17 Democratic contest for lieutenant governor is the second most-crowded statewide primary in modern Virginia history. If history is any guide, a congested primary can generate uncertainty and makes it possible that someone can claim the nomination with considerably less than a majority of votes cast. Here's a quick review of five statewide primaries since 1997 where the nominee won less than 40%. The races are listed in chronological order. Political newcomer Gil Davis made a splash by representing a former Arkansas state employee who filed a sexual harassment claim against then-President Bill Clinton. A week before the primary, state Sen. Ken Stolle released a TV ad attacking Davis, who was shown, drink in hand, talking to a client about her desire to pose naked in Playboy magazine. As it turned out, Stolle should have saved his fire for his Senate colleague, Mark Earley of Chesapeake. The party's ascendent anti-abortion base carried Earley to victory in a four-way race. Davis finished last. Mark Earley 35.8% Jerry Kilgore 24.6% Ken Stolle 20.8% Gilbert Davis 18.8% Source: Virginia Department of Elections Database In the 1997 general election, Republicans rode gubernatorial candidate Jim Gilmore's 'No Car Tax!' slogan to their first-ever trifecta of statewide offices. In the attorney general race, Earley captured 57.5% of the vote to defeat Democrat Bill Dolan. With a quiet second place finish in the GOP primary, Jerry Kilgore of Scott County in far Southwest Virginia put himself in line to become the party's consensus attorney general choice in 2001. Gil Davis never ran for office again, but one of his law associates, Bill Stanley, won a special election to the state Senate in January 2011. In the second year after the millennium, the candidates with the best name ID were two members of the House of Delegates. Alan Diamonstein, at 69, was part of the party's old guard that had just lost its majority in the House of Delegates. Jerrauld Jones was a skilled lawmaker who headed the Legislative Black Caucus. Richmond Mayor Tim Kaine, with his yard signs an unusual green and yellow, was only one year younger than Jones, but presented himself as a new generation of Democratic leadership. Kaine, the son-in-law of former Republican Gov. Linwood Holton, rang up big majorities in the Richmond area. Tim Kaine 39.7% Alan Diamonstein 31.4% Jerrauld Jones 28.9% Source: Virginia Department of Elections Database In the general election, Kaine landed just north of a majority (50.3%) in a three-way race against little-known Republican legislator Jay Katzen (48.1%) and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Reams (1.6%). Many Democrats had expected Charlottesville state Sen. Emily Couric to be their nominee. But Couric — a rising star who was as telegenic as her sister, Katie, the Today Show host — withdrew in July 2020 after a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Emily Couric died three weeks before Election Day. It's hard to imagine a statewide Democratic primary where the populous suburbs of Northern Virginia do not play the kingmaker. But that is essentially what happened in June 2001, when Democrats went to the polls to select nominees for lieutenant governor and attorney general. Without a single candidate from Northern Virginia, turnout was driven by candidates from Richmond and Tidewater. In the lieutenant governor's race, twice as many votes were cast in Henrico County (7,528) than in Loudoun and Prince William combined (3,012). Downstate candidates — state Del. Whitt Clement of Danville and state Sen. John Edwards of Roanoke — put up dazzling favorite-son margins in their respective home bases, but the turnout worked to the advantage of Donald McEachin, a state legislator from Henrico who won majorities in core urban cities like Richmond, Hampton and Newport News. Donald McEachin 33.6% John Edwards 29.5% Whitt Clement 26.9% Sylvia Clute 10.0% Source: Virginia Department of Elections Database In the general election, McEachin lost his bid to become the first Black attorney general in Virginia history. McEachin's social justice agenda was ignored by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Warner, who ran a centrist campaign with crossover appeal to gun-loving, NASCAR-crazy rural Virginia. McEachin managed only 39.9% of the vote, falling below Mary Sue Terry's previous record for the all-time worst performance by a Democrat in a statewide general election. From the standpoint of geography and ideology, the four candidates who sought the lieutenant governor nomination in 2005 seemed handpicked to splinter the state's Democratic coalition. Leslie Byrne and Chap Petersen were from Northern Virginia, Viola Baskerville was from Richmond and Philip Puckett was from Southwest Virginia. They ran the gamut from unabashed liberal (Byrne), diligent policy wonk (Baskerville), contrarian (Petersen) and conservative (Puckett). None were slouches; all were legislators who could point to achievements. In the end, party loyalists opted for Byrne, a familiar name who had served in both chambers of the state legislature and one term in the U.S. House, making her the first woman from Virginia to serve in Congress. Leslie Byrne 32.9% Viola Baskerville 26.1% Chap Petersen 21.7% Philip Puckett 19.4% Source: Virginia Department of Elections Database In the general election, Republicans nominated state Sen. Bill Bolling of Hanover County and figured they would make quick work of Byrne, arguably the most left-leaning statewide Democrat nominated since populist Henry Howell in the 1970s. Even though Bolling held a 2-to-1 ratio fundraising advantage, Byrne made it a close race. The final tally was Bolling 50.1%, Byrne 49.3%. This wide-open race with eight candidates — a record number for a statewide primary — narrowed in late April when then-Gov. Ralph Northam endorsed Hala Ayala. She was a little-known state legislator from Prince William County who had been swept into the House of Delegates as part of a massive anti-Trump backlash in 2017. Her story of financial struggle as a woman of color who lacked health care when her first child was born resonated with party faithful still celebrating Medicaid expansion in Virginia. Her multiethnic lineage (a father with Northern African roots who emigrated from El Salvador and a mother who was Irish and Lebanese) offered something for an increasingly diverse Virginia electorate. Hala Ayala 37.6% Sam Rasoul 24.3% Mark Levine 11.2% Andria McClellan 10.6% Sean Perryman 8.1% Xavier Warren 4.1% Elizabeth Guzman* 4.1% *Withdrew from race, but her name appeared on the ballot Source: Virginia Department of Elections Database The general election was a historic one in which Virginia would elect its first female lieutenant governor – and the first woman of color. The GOP nominated Winsome Sears, a native of Jamaica who emigrated as a child to the United States with her family. Sears won 50.7% of the vote as part of a GOP sweep of the three statewide offices. Also of note: Democratic Del. Mark Levine took the risky path of running in two primaries on the same day – one for lieutenant governor and the other to retain the party's nomination for his legislative seat in Alexandria. He lost both.
E&E News
an hour ago
- E&E News
What to look for in Zeldin's power plant rule repeal
EPA will move Wednesday to repeal Biden-era power sector rules for carbon and hazardous emissions. The two repeal proposals are the Trump EPA's most important regulatory actions to date. They will not only set the stage for rolling back key Clean Air Act rules, but also provide a glimpse of the Trump administration's broader anti-climate and anti-regulatory strategy. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin will unveil the proposals at the agency's Washington headquarters Wednesday afternoon during an event attended by several Republican lawmakers. Advertisement The proposals target two regulations central to the Biden administration's climate agenda: one that sets carbon pollution limits at fossil fuel power plants, and another that ramps up controls on harmful pollution like mercury. It's unclear whether the agency will release the full draft regulations and regulatory documents Wednesday — or wait until the drafts are published in the Federal Register. But here's what to know and watch in the days ahead. The basics EPA has said it plans to repeal both the carbon and mercury rules by the end of this year, and the proposals cleared White House review Friday. The draft climate rule repeal would jettison standards for new gas- and existing coal-fired power that were based on carbon capture and storage. EPA is not expected to immediately propose a replacement rule, but hasn't ruled out doing so in the future. The two proposals traveled to the White House for review in near-record time — just over 100 days after President Donald Trump's inauguration. The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs completed its review in a mere 35 days, or about half the time usually allotted for review of complex EPA rulemakings. The Trump administration has been tight-lipped about its strategy for doing away with the power plant carbon rule. EPA did not respond to calls for comment on this story. Possible legal arguments The agency will need to use the draft repeal to lay out its legal case for abandoning the 2024 carbon rule. That case could be twofold — a more conventional attack on the Biden administration's reliance on carbon capture as a benchmark technology, and a broader contention that power plant carbon shouldn't be regulated at all. Jeff Holmstead, who served as EPA air chief during the George W. Bush administration, said in a recent interview that EPA would be on firm legal ground to argue that carbon capture and storage doesn't align with the Clean Air Act's directive to base performance standards on controls that are 'adequately demonstrated.' 'I think that was a big stretch, and I don't think it would have been upheld in court,' he said. But EPA has signaled it plans to use the repeal to take a broader swipe at its own authority to regulate carbon — or at least carbon from power plants. To do that, it appears poised to argue that the U.S. power sector doesn't contribute 'significantly' to pollution and thus doesn't meet the Clean Air Act threshold for regulatory action. It's a gambit that, if successful, could make it harder for subsequent administrations to regulate power plant carbon. But lawyers say EPA has an uphill battle. Power is the country's second-highest-emitting sector after transportation. EPA argued during the first Trump administration that the power sector meets the Clean Air Act threshold. And the D.C. Circuit ruled in West Virginia vs. EPA — the same case that struck down the Obama-era Clean Power Plan — that power sector emissions were significant enough to merit regulation. 'The U.S. power sector, if it were a country, would be the sixth-biggest country emitter in the world,' said Jason Schwartz, legal director at the Institute for Policy Integrity. 'By any reasonable interpretation of the legal language, this is clearly a significant contribution. If this isn't, then nothing is and what's the point of the Clean Air Act in the first place?' Schwartz and his colleague Peter Howard recently released an analysis that estimated that a year of U.S. power sector emissions causes $370 billion in global damages and $56 billion in U.S. public health impacts, as well as contributes to 5,300 future U.S. deaths. Cost-benefit analysis One question that may be answered Wednesday is how EPA will weigh the costs and benefits of rolling back the rule. That will only be answered when — or if — the agency releases supporting documents for the repeal proposal. The breakneck pace of EPA's regulatory rollback means that the agency likely hasn't had time to construct an analytical framework on things like the health and mortality consequences of increased smog and soot stemming from the repeals, or changes it expects to see in power sector investments. That means the agency will either have to rely on outdated metrics from the first Trump administration or on the Biden-era projections it claims vastly inflate regulatory benefits and obscure costs. 'I have no idea what we're going to see tomorrow,' said Julie McNamara, associate policy director for climate at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a Tuesday interview. 'The power sector is in total flux. Will they be including increased demand from data centers? Will they be including increased costs of gas from all the ramp up of [liquefied natural gas] and gas generation? What do they assume for coal would have happened under the Biden-era regulations? 'That could be very telling for the narrative they tried to set around the future of this nation's power sector,' she said. 'It is quite unlikely to line up with reality.' Numerous experts outside the federal government have analyzed the effect of the Biden carbon rules on both the grid and emissions — and the possible impact of removing them. John Bistline, an energy systems analyst with Electric Power Research Institute, published a model-based study in the journal Science earlier this year. It found that the power plant carbon rule would make a significant dent in power sector emissions in later decades with or without increased power demand, and would reduce uncertainty around how much coal-fired power remained on the grid. The climate question One open question is how — or whether — EPA will try to monetize damages from climate change. The Trump White House has told agencies to avoid using a metric for the social cost of greenhouse gases that reflects climate damage stemming from agency policies. But with a regulatory action that hinges so directly on carbon emissions, experts said EPA could find it hard to defend the rollback if it hasn't shown it has grappled with the climate impacts of its decision to rescind the rule. 'If they didn't do any analysis, what is their explanation?' said Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. She noted that the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to provide a reasoned explanation for changes to existing policy. 'It all goes back to just classic administrative law,' Hankins said. 'Are they explaining why they've changed their mind since the Biden administration? Are they using the best available science? Are they adequately considering all aspects of the problem?' Schwartz said EPA might not release any regulatory analysis at all, if it believes it can repeal the Biden rule based solely on a legal argument that power plant carbon shouldn't be regulated under the Clean Air Act. But he said that could increase the chances that the rule would be thrown out in court. 'I think that would be a mistake,' he said. This story also appears in Energywire.
