Late Night Is Taken Aback by Trump's Potty Mouth
Welcome to Best of Late Night, a rundown of the previous night's highlights that lets you sleep — and lets us get paid to watch comedy. Here are the 50 best movies on Netflix right now.
F-Bombs Away
President Trump dropped the F-bomb on live television on Tuesday, while talking to reporters in front of the White House about Israel and Iran violating their previously announced cease-fire. 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the [expletive] they're doing,' he said.
Seth Meyers said that even though he has 'zero standards of expectations for Trump, it's still surprising to see the president drop an F-bomb on the White House grounds.'
'Wow, based on that language and that level of analysis, I'm surprised that they didn't give him the local news chyron.' — SETH MEYERS
'Remember when Biden whispered it to Obama and everyone on the right lost their [expletive] minds?' — SETH MEYERS
'Nothing says 'Everyone remain calm' like dropping an F-bomb on live TV.' — JIMMY FALLON
'Meanwhile, C-SPAN was like, 'It's OK. Nobody's watching anyway.'' — JIMMY FALLON
The Punchiest Punchlines (Fake News Edition)
'Last night, President Trump announced that Israel and Iran agreed to a total cease-fire and declared that the war has ended. Yeah. And for about 59 minutes, he was right.' — JIMMY FALLON
'President Trump announced yesterday in a post on Truth Social that Israel and Iran have agreed to a cease-fire and added, 'CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE!' Congratulations to everyone? Are you brokering a cease-fire or hosting the Tonys? 'Congratulations to all our winners tonight, get home safe!'' — SETH MEYERS
'In another post on Truth Social, President Trump defended his recently-announced cease-fire between Israel, Iran and the U.S. and said, 'THE CEASEFIRE IS NOW IN EFFECT. PLEASE DO NOT VIOLATE IT!' Well, that oughta do it. This reminds me of the time my bodega put up a 'No shoplifting' sign. You know what happened? Someone took it.' — SETH MEYERS
The Bits Worth Watching
Diego Luna brought his immigration lawyer to his second night hosting 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' on Tuesday.
What We're Excited About on Wednesday Night
The 'Bridgerton' star Jonathan Bailey will appear on Wednesday's 'Tonight Show.'
Also, Check This Out
Reneé Rapp and Ethel Cain are two of eight rising pop singers you should be listening to this summer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Three Ideas To Boost Economic Growth And Reduce Government Deficits
NEW YORK - NEW YORK - JUNE 1: A man walks near the National Debt Clock in Midtown Manhattan on June ... More 1, 2023 in New York City. (Photo by Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/VIEWpress) The federal budget is a mess, with federal debt held by the public at $29 trillion and counting. States cannot print money and borrow the way the federal government can, but some of them still have deficit problems. Maine, California, Colorado, and New York are just a few of the states facing large deficits over the next few years. Fortunately, there are policy reforms both the federal government and state governments can implement to boost economic growth and reduce deficits. In a recent National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) paper, economists Douglas Elmendorf, Zachary Liscow, and R. Glenn Hubbard examine several policies with the potential to increase economic growth and reduce deficits. The general idea is that increasing total factor productivity (TFP)—the primary driver of economic growth—increases incomes and thus tax revenue. If this can be done in a way that does not involve too much government spending (or revenue losses) then the higher tax revenue would lower the deficit. Using estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the authors calculate that increasing TFP by 0.5 percentage points each year for the next decade would reduce the federal budget deficit by 1.2% of GDP and make debt held by the public around 12% of GDP lower than it otherwise would be. The authors discuss seven policies in their paper, but I am going to focus on the three that seem to have the most potential. And while the paper focuses on the policies' impacts on federal deficits, the same growth effects would also impact state budgets. The first policy idea is making it easier to build housing. Economists know land-use regulations that restrict the supply of housing—including minimum lot sizes, parking requirements, and prohibitions on apartments, duplexes, and other forms of multi-family housing—make housing more expensive. As the authors explain, reducing the cost of housing construction would lead to more housing being built, which has downstream impacts on the demand for appliances, furniture, carpet, decks, and all the other things that make a house a home. The increase in housing construction and the production of complementary products would directly increase GDP all else equal. In addition to this direct effect, more housing in the most productive cities would make it easier for workers to move to take higher paying jobs. A few studies estimate that this mobility effect would increase U.S. GDP by roughly 8%. New residents also have a significant impact on state budgets. A recent report from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation shows that adding new residents can increase a state's revenue by billions of dollars. For all these reasons, it is a good idea for policymakers to reform regulations so we can build more housing in the places people want to live. State and local governments control most of the regulations that restrict the supply of housing. Over the last several years, many states have implemented reforms to make it easier to build, including Montana, Florida, California, and Arizona. This year, Texas passed several laws that will make housing more affordable in the Lone Star state. Other states should adopt and build on these reforms. A second and related idea discussed by Elmendorf, Liscow, and Hubbard is permitting reform for construction projects. In recent years, long permitting times have gotten more attention, and for good reason. Federal laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) can delay projects for years. A recent report from the Council on Environmental Quality, which oversees agency implementation of NEPA, found that 61% of environmental impact statements still take more than two years to review despite a law specifying a two-year deadline. Clearly, we need more changes at the federal level. States have permitting problems, too. Earlier this year, wildfires destroyed thousands of homes in Los Angeles County. California governor Gavin Newsome promised to fast-track permitting so families could rebuild and get on with their lives. Five months later, only 33 building permits have been issued and not one house has been rebuilt. This is unacceptable for a country as wealthy as the United States. Long permitting times increase project costs since money is tied up in resources—land, equipment, and buildings—that are not generating returns. As the authors note, shortening permitting times would accelerate projects already underway as well as increase the number and size of future projects by increasing the return on investment. And since reforming regulations and processes typically does not require a lot of government spending, the growth we create by shortening permitting times is likely to help bring down government deficits. A third idea to boost economic growth and help reduce government deficits is immigration reform. Allowing more foreign workers with advanced degrees in science, engineering, and math to live and work in America would increase U.S. innovation and productivity. The NBER study calculates that a one-time increase of 200,000 additional high-skill immigrants would reduce debt held by the public as a percent of GDP by 2% after thirty years. Adding more high-skilled immigrants every year instead of just a one-time increase would have a larger effect. In addition to increasing innovation and productivity, immigrants have a direct effect on government deficits. High-skill immigrants, like high-skill natives, have a positive effect on government budgets on average since they pay more in taxes than they consume in government services such as welfare benefits or Social Security. One study estimates that over a decade we could reduce federal deficits by $25 billion per 100,000 additional people who come to America to work. Another recent report from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity (CTUP) also makes the case for more immigration to increase growth. The basic formula for economic growth is to add workers and make workers more productive. The U.S. fertility rate is falling, and without a sudden rebound the best way to add workers will be through immigration. From 2013 to 2023 about half of the growth in the U.S. civilian labor force was due to immigrants, as shown in the figure below (red bar). Without immigration, U.S. labor force growth would slow and eventually turn negative. Labor force growth Immigrants also tend to be incredibly entrepreneurial. According to the CTUP report, nearly half of all Fortune 500 companies were founded by foreign-born or second-generation Americans. These immigrants and their children create jobs for native-born workers in addition to the valuable new goods and services their companies create for consumers. Federal policymakers should reform our immigration system so more high-skill immigrants can create and grow their companies in America. Government budgets throughout the United States are a mess. From cities such as Chicago to the Halls of Congress, policymakers struggle to keep spending in line with revenue. Economic growth cannot solve all these budget problems, but it can help. Policy changes that make it easier to build housing, reduce permitting times, and increase immigration would boost output, incomes, and tax revenue. If we could get government spending under control, too, we would have a real shot at fixing our debt problem.
Atlantic
12 minutes ago
- Atlantic
A Military Ethics Professor Resigns in Protest
Seven years ago, Pauline Shanks Kaurin left a good job as a tenured professor at a university, uprooted her family, and moved across the country to teach military ethics at the Naval War College, in Newport, Rhode Island. She did so, she told me, not only to help educate American military officers, but with a promise from the institution that she would have 'the academic freedom to do my job.' But now she's leaving her position and the institution because orders from President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, she said, have made staying both morally and practically untenable. Remaining on the faculty, she believes, would mean implicitly lending her approval to policies she cannot support. And she said that the kind of teaching and research the Navy once hired her to do will now be impossible. The Naval War College is one of many institutions—along with the Army War College, the Air War College, and others—that provide graduate-level instruction in national-security issues and award master's degrees to the men and women of the U.S. armed forces. The Naval War College is also home to a widely respected civilian academic post, the James B. Stockdale Chair in Professional Military Ethics, named for the famous admiral and American prisoner of war in Vietnam. Pauline has held the Stockdale Chair since 2018. (I taught for many years at the Naval War College, where I knew Pauline as a colleague.) Her last day will be at the end of this month. In January, Trump issued an executive order, Restoring America's Fighting Force, that prohibits the Department of Defense and the entire armed forces from 'promoting, advancing, or otherwise inculcating the following un-American, divisive, discriminatory, radical, extremist, and irrational theories,' such as 'gender ideology,' 'race or sex stereotyping,' and, of course, anything to do with DEI. Given the potential breadth of the order, the military quickly engaged in a panicky slash-and-burn approach rather than risk running afoul of the new ideological line. The U.S. Military Academy at West Point, in New York, for example, disbanded several clubs, including the local chapter of the National Society of Black Engineers. Other military installations, apparently anticipating a wider crackdown on anything to do with race or gender, removed important pages of American history about women and minorities from their websites. All of this was done by bureaucrats and administrators as they tried to comply with Trump's vague order, banning and erasing anything that the president and Hegseth might construe as even remotely related to DEI or other banned concepts. Some Defense Department workers 'deemed to be affiliated with DEI programs or activities' were warned that Trump's orders 'required' their jobs to be eliminated. Many professors at military institutions began to see signs that they might soon be prohibited from researching and publishing in their fields of study. Phillip Atiba Solomon: Am I still allowed to tell the truth in my class? At first, Pauline was cautious. She knew that her work in the field of military ethics could be controversial—particularly on the issues of oaths and obedience. In the military, where discipline and the chain of command rule daily life, investigating the meaning of oath-taking and obedience is a necessary but touchy exercise. The military is sworn to obey all legal orders in the chain of command, but when that obedience becomes absolute, the results can be ghastly: Pauline wrote her doctoral dissertation at Temple University on oaths, obedience, and the 1969 My Lai massacre in Vietnam, in which a young U.S. officer and his men believed that their orders allowed them to slay hundreds of unarmed civilians. For more than 20 years, she taught these matters in the philosophy department at Pacific Lutheran University, and once at Newport, she wrote a book on the contrasting notions of obedience in military and civilian life. When the Trump order came down, Pauline told me that Naval War College administrators gave her 'vague assurances' that the college would not interfere with ongoing work by her or other faculty, or with academic freedom in general. But one day, shortly after the executive order in January, she was walking through the main lobby, which proudly features display cases with books by the faculty, and she noticed that a volume on LGBTQ issues in the military had vanished. The disappearance of that book led Pauline to seek more clarity from the college's administration about nonpartisanship, and especially about academic freedom. Academic freedom is an often-misunderstood term. Many people outside academia encounter the idea only when some professor abuses the concept as a license to be an offensive jerk. (A famous case many years ago involved a Colorado professor who compared the victims of 9/11 to Nazis who deserved what they got.) Like tenure, however, academic freedom serves crucial educational purposes, protecting controversial research and encouraging the free exchange of even the most unpopular ideas without fear of political pressure or interference. It is essential to any serious educational institution, and necessary to a healthy democracy. Conor Friedersdorf: In defense of academic freedom Professors who teach for the military, as I did for many years, do have to abide by some restrictions not found in civilian schools. They have a duty, as sworn federal employees, to protect classified information. They may not use academic freedom to disrupt government operations. (Leading a protest that would prevent other government workers from getting to their duty stations might be one example.) And, of course, they must refrain from violating the Hatch Act: They cannot use government time or resources to engage in partisan political activity. But they otherwise have—or are supposed to have—the same freedoms as their colleagues in civilian institutions. Soon, however, jumpy military bureaucrats started tossing books and backing out of conferences. Pauline became more concerned. Newport's senior administrators began to send informal signals that included, as she put it, the warning that 'academic freedom as many of us understood it was not a thing anymore.' Based on those messages, Pauline came to believe that her and other faculty members' freedom to comment publicly on national issues and choose research topics without institutional interference was soon to be restricted. During an all-hands meeting with senior college leaders in February, Pauline said that she and other Naval War College faculty were told that the college would comply with Hegseth's directives and that, in Pauline's words, 'if we were thinking we had academic freedom in our scholarship and in the classroom, we were mistaken.' (Other faculty present at the meeting confirmed to me that they interpreted the message from the college's leadership the same way; one of them later told me that the implication was that the Defense Department could now rule any subject out of bounds for classroom discussion or scholarly research at will.) Pauline said there were audible gasps in the room, and such visible anger that it seemed to her that even the administrators hosting the meeting were taken aback. 'I've been in academia for 31 years,' she told me, and that gathering 'was the most horrifying meeting I've ever been a part of.' I contacted the college's provost, Stephen Mariano, who told me in an email that these issues were 'nuanced' but that the college had not changed its policies on academic freedom. (He also denied any changes relating to tenure, a practice predicated on academic freedom.) At the same time, he added, the college is 'complying with all directives issued by the President and Department of Defense and following Department of the Navy policy.' This language leaves Pauline and other civilian faculty at America's military schools facing a paradox: They are told that academic freedom still exists, but that their institutions are following directives from Hegseth that, at least on their face, seem aimed at ending academic freedom. In March, Pauline again sought clarity from college leaders. They were clearly anxious to appear compliant with the new political line. ('We don't want to end up on Fox News,' she said one administrator told her.) She was told her work was valued, but she didn't believe it. 'Talk is cheap,' she said. 'Actions matter.' She said she asked the provost point-blank: What if a faculty member has a book or an article coming out on some controversial topic? His answer, according to her: Hypothetically, they might consider pulling the work from publication. (Mariano denies saying this and told me that there is no change in college policy on faculty publication.) Every government employee knows the bureaucratic importance of putting things on paper. Pauline's current project is about the concept of honor, which necessarily involves questions regarding masculinity and gender—issues that could turn the DOD's new McCarthyites toward her and her work. So she now proposed that she and the college administration work up a new contract, laying out more clearly—in writing—what the limits on her work and academic freedom would look like. She might as well have asked for a pony. Administrators, she said, told her that they hoped she wouldn't resign, but that no one was going to put anything in writing. 'The upshot,' according to her, was a message from the administration that boiled down to: We hope you can just suck it up and not need your integrity for your final year as the ethics chair. After that, she told me, her choices were clear. 'As they say in the military: Salute and execute—or resign.' Until then, she had 'hoped maybe people would still come to their senses.' The promises of seven years ago were gone; the institution now apparently expected her and other faculty to self-censor in the classroom and preemptively bowdlerize their own research. 'I don't do DEI work,' she said, 'but I do moral philosophy, and now I can't do it. I'd have to take out discussions of race and gender and not do philosophy as I think it should be done.' In April, she submitted a formal letter of resignation. Initially, she had no interest in saying anything publicly. Pauline is a native Montanan and single mom of two, and by nature not the type of person to engage in public food fights. (She used to joke with me when we were colleagues that I was the college's resident lightning rod, and she had no interest in taking over that job.) She's a philosopher who admires quiet stoicism, and she was resolved to employ it in her final months. But she also thought about what she owed her chair's namesake. 'Stockdale thought philosophy was important for officers. The Stockdale course was created so that officers would wrestle with moral obligations. He was a personal model of integrity.' Even so, she did not try to invoke him as a patron saint when she decided to resign. 'I'm not saying he would agree with the choice that I made,' she told me. 'But his model of moral integrity is part of the chair.' She kept her resignation private until early May, when a professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Graham Parsons—another scholar who teaches ethics in a military school, and a friend of Pauline's—likewise decided to resign in protest and said that he would leave West Point after 13 years. Hegseth's changes 'prevent me from doing my job responsibly,' he wrote in The New York Times. 'I am ashamed to be associated with the academy in its current form.' Hegseth responded on X, sounding more like a smug internet troll than a concerned superior: 'You will not be missed Professor Parsons.' The episode changed Pauline's mind. She felt she owed her friends and colleagues whatever public support and solidarity she could offer them. Nor are she and Parsons alone. Tom McCarthy, a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy, in Annapolis, Maryland, recently resigned as chair of the history department rather than remove a paper from an upcoming symposium. And last month, a senior scholar at the Army War College, in Pennsylvania, Carrie Lee, also handed in her resignation, a decision she announced to her friends and followers on Bluesky. Jason Dempsey: Hegseth has all the wrong enemies Lee told me in an email that she'd been thinking of leaving after Trump was elected, because it was apparent to her that the Trump administration was 'going to try and politicize the military and use military assets/personnel to suppress democratic rights,' and that academic freedom in military schools was soon to 'become untenable.' Like Pauline, Lee felt like she was at a dead end: 'To speak from within the institution itself will also do more harm than good. So to dissent, I have little choice but to leave,' she said in a farewell letter to her colleagues in April. I asked Pauline what she thinks might have happened if she had decided to stay and just tough it out from the inside. She 'absolutely' thinks she'd have been fired at some point, and she didn't want such a firing 'to be part of the legacy of the Stockdale Chair.' But then I asked her if by resigning, she was giving people in the Trump administration, such as Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought—who once said that his goal was to make federal workers feel 'trauma' to the point where they will quit their jobs—exactly what they want: Americans leaving federal service. She didn't care. 'When you make a moral decision, there are always costs.' She dismissed what people like Vought want or think. 'I'm not accountable to him. I'm accountable to the Lord, to my father, to my legacy, to my children, to my profession, to members of the military-ethics community. So I decided that I needed to resign. Not that it would change anyone's mind, but to say: This is not okay. That is my message.' At the end of our discussion, I asked an uncomfortable question I'd been avoiding. Pauline, I know, is only in her mid-50s, in mid-career, and too young simply to retire. She has raised two sons who will soon enter young adulthood. I asked her if she was worried about her future. 'Sure,' she said. 'But at the end of the day, as we say in Montana, sometimes you just have to saddle up and ride scared.'
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump bombs Iranian nuclear facilities in major escalation. What happens next?
President Donald Trump has claimed to have 'completely, totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear program in a series of missile strikes and bombings, marking explicit U.S. intervention into Israel's war that risks a wider international crisis. The true extent of the damage is unclear. Retaliatory strikes are expected, as are efforts to revive already-fractured negotiations and diplomatic efforts to lower temperatures. But the United States is now embroiled in a war between two well-armed nations that could spill out far beyond their borders with untold casualties, experts have warned. 'Remember, there are many targets left,' Trump said in a brief address to the nation on June 21, roughly two hours after announcing a 'very successful' series of strikes on nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. 'If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.' The world is watching to see what will happen, as experts and analysts consider how current conditions, history and a volatile political environment could inform what's next. A 'dangerous escalation' Trump had campaigned on a promise to end all wars, including Israel's war in Gaza and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, yet the president has so far failed to negotiate an end to either. Israel sought American military support for its campaign against Iran after receiving virtual permission for its devastating war in Gaza in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks — 'undermining Trump's claim to be a peacemaker and his assertion that wars would never have started under his leadership,' according to Brookings Institution senior fellow Sharan Grewal at the Center for Middle East Policy. He now risks exploding a wider crisis across the Middle East that could endanger U.S. installations abroad and embolden Iran's allies to retaliate, following a legacy of U.S. intervention and destabilization in the Middle East dovetailing with U.S. support for Israel's ongoing devastation in Gaza and in occupied territories. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said late Saturday that he was 'gravely alarmed' by Trump's decision to bomb Iran, calling it 'a dangerous escalation' and 'a direct threat to international peace and security.' 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' he said. Iran could also retaliate by blocking the strategically important Strait of Hormuz or attacking the energy infrastructure of the Arab Gulf — dramatically driving up global oil prices. Within hours after Saturday's attacks, roughly 50 oil tankers were seen scrambling to leave the Strait of Hormuz. Iran-backed Houthis have warned that Trump 'must bear the consequences,' Houthi political bureau member Hizam al-Assad posted on X. The Houthi-controlled Yemeni Armed Forces also said the group was prepared to target U.S. Navy warships in the Red Sea 'in the event that the American enemy launches an aggression in support' of Israel. Houthi rebels had previously attacked ships linked to Israel's war in Gaza, and the United States retaliated with a series of airstrikes in Yemen earlier this year. Hardening Iran's resolve — or doing enough damage to force negotiations? Saturday's attack marks an 'unprecedented event that may prove to be transformational for Iran, the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, global non-proliferation, and potentially even the global order,' according to Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian-American policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.' 'Its impact will be measured for decades to come,' he wrote. 'It could entrench the regime — or hasten its demise. It could prevent a nuclear Iran — or accelerate one. ' Iranian officials have stressed for years that its nuclear programs are for civilian and peaceful purposes only, but Israel has claimed that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a claim central to the long and now accelerating conflict between the two nations. Following Saturday's bombings, Iran's atomic agency vowed 'never' to stop its nuclear program, according to Iranian media. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said the three targeted nuclear sites came under 'savage assault,' seen as 'blatant violation of international law, particularly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.' The agency also accused the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog of 'complicity' in the effort as it urged the international community to condemn the strikes and 'never allow the progress of this national industry … to be halted.' Aerial bombardment alone would not be enough to conclusively stop any nuclear ambitions because 'neither Israel nor the U.S. can kill all the nuclear scientists,' former U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker told Politico. Targeted strikes that significantly damage operations could convince Iran to negotiate, according to former U.S. special envoy Dennis Ross. But a wider assault — fueled by demands from Israeli officials and Iran hawks in the United States — could be seen by Iran as seeing that 'they have little to lose and their best bet is to show they can make us pay a heavy price,' he told Politico. When Israel struck nuclear programs in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, 'the long-term results were diametrically different,' according to Mara Karlin, former assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans, and capabilities under Joe Biden. 'Tehran could conceivably choose either path,' she said. 'And, as long as the uranium enrichment complex at Fordow remains largely intact, it does not need to decide.' Blowback in Washington — and across America Trump's attacks risk deepening a growing divide between his allies and anti-interventionist Republicans now tenuously aligned with a wider anti-war movement and the majority of Americans who do not want the United States involved with Israel's campaign at all. Several members of Congress have questioned whether the president's actions are even legal, amounting to an unconstitutional attempt to escape congressional authorization. At least two congressional Republicans — Rep. Warren Davidson and Thomas Massie — joined Democrats to immediately condemn the bombings as unconstitutional. 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress,' Sen. Bernie Sanders said in remarks in Oklahoma as the crowd learned about the bombings in real time. 'The president does not have the right.' 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers,' said Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' The New York congresswoman said the attack is 'clearly grounds for impeachment.' Top Democrats on congressional intelligence committees were also not briefed in advance of the attacks. 'The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran,' said Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who has urged Congress to pass legislation that would require Trump to go to Congress before attacking Iran. He noted that Israeli officials said its bombs have already set Iran's nuclear capability back by two to three years. 'So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today?' he said. 'Horrible judgment. I will push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' While Trump touts what he claims are unequivocal military successes, he has also spent his first few months in office developing plans to crush dissent domestically. The deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to respond to protests against his anti-immigration agenda could be seen as a 'dress rehearsal' for far more expansive emergency powers to impose federal control of America's cities, according to The Atlantic's David Frum. More demonstrations against further military action in Iran are expected, adding to a steady rhythm of protests and unrest against the Trump administration that exploded across American streets in recent weeks.
