I F A SINGLE political idea has tied Americans together over their first quarter of a millennium, it is that one-person rule is a mistake. Most Americans also agree that the federal government is slow and incompetent. Together, these things ought to make it impossible for one man to govern by diktat from the White House. And yet that is what this president is doing: sending in the troops, slapping on tariffs, asserting control over the central bank, taking stakes in companies, scaring citizens into submission.
The effect is overwhelming, but not popular. President Donald Trump’s net approval rating is minus 14 percentage points. That is little better than Joe Biden’s after his dire debate last year, and no one fretted that he was over-mighty. This is a puzzle. Most Americans disapprove of Mr Trump. Yet everywhere he seems to be getting his way. Why?
One answer is that he moves much faster than the lumbering forces that constrain him. He is like the TikTok algorithm, grabbing attention and moving on to the next thing before his opponents have worked out what just happened. The Supreme Court has yet even to consider whether deploying troops to Los Angeles in June was lawful. While the justices take their time, the president may soon use the same routine in Chicago. The court may not rule on the legality of his tariffs for months. So far the president has obeyed Supreme Court rulings, but if one legal avenue is closed he will try another and the clock resets.
Another answer is that the Republican Party always lets him have his way. It is not just that he dominates it, with an approval rating among Republicans of almost 90%. It is that the party’s organising idea is that Mr Trump is always right, even when he contradicts himself. Policy debates have turned into theological disputation in which sides fight over the real meaning of his words.
Independent institutions—companies, universities or news organisations—might oppose him. But they suffer from a co-ordination problem. This is much easier to point out than to fix, because organisations that compete with each other would have to collaborate. What is bad for Harvard may not be bad for its rivals. If a single law firm can be picked off, its business may go to a competitor.
Behind all these lurks the ugly reality of Mr Trump’s vindictiveness and intimidation. Previous presidents were influenced by independent-minded experts and the cabinet. The new definition of an expert in the Oval Office is someone who agrees with the boss. Bearers of bad news are sacked; awkward Republicans primaried; business leaders punished; opponents investigated. For each, the rational response is to apologise, settle and hope that someone else will do the right thing. Having seen what that entails, someone else may prefer a quiet life.
Politically, therefore, the main task of opposition falls to the Democrats. They are, to put it kindly, confused. Should they fight Mr Trump with ALL CAPS posts, as Gavin Newsom is doing? Is it all about mastering curated authenticity, like Zohran Mamdani? Do they move left? Do they occupy the centre? Is the problem merely one of messaging that can be fixed if only activists would stop calling women “birthing people”?
The fact that Democrats can neither constrain Mr Trump nor even communicate clearly leaves their base angry. Mr Trump’s ratings are low, but he is more popular than the Democratic Party—not because Republicans and independents disapprove of it (though they do), but because Democrats disapprove of themselves.
In the short run the self-loathing may be overdone. The midterms are a year away. In ten of the 12 elections for the House of Representatives this century, voters have turned against the party that holds the presidency. Gerrymandering, which will reduce the number of competitive seats in the House from few to almost none, means that even a president this unpopular is unlikely to suffer a landslide defeat in 2026. But a Democratic House with subpoena power would provide a crucial check on presidential corruption and incompetence.
In the long run, though, that looks like false comfort. The Democratic brand is damaged. Democrats are more trusted by the electorate on health care, the environment and democracy. But on many issues voters care about, including crime and immigration, they prefer Republicans. In the 2024 election Kamala Harris was seen as more extreme than Mr Trump. Saying the voters are wrong or sexist to think this way is not helpful.
Demography is no longer the Democrats’ friend. Under Mr Trump, Republicans have made progress with non-white and young voters. The Democrats have lost the white working class. Although the most educated voters like them, only 40% of Americans aged 25 or over have a college degree. These changes mean the story Democrats have long told themselves—that they represented the real majority in America, but Republican machinations kept them out of power—is no longer true, if it ever was. Now they benefit from a lower turnout.
Ten years into the Trump era, Democrats are still underestimating him. His skill in setting traps for them is extraordinary. Take the looming vote in Congress on raising the federal debt ceiling: Democrats will have to choose between more cuts to foreign aid and shutting the government. Or take sending troops into cities, supposedly to fight crime. Democrats decry executive overreach; Mr Trump places them on the side of criminals and danger. Or take drone strikes on alleged drug-smugglers. It is hard to oppose the lack of any due process without sounding like a defender of violent gangs.
They alone can fix it
Democrats have choices about whether to walk into those traps. Lots of them think, rightly, that Mr Trump poses a danger to the country’s democratic values and conclude that this alone should make him toxic to most voters. Alas, it does not. Instead, the question Democrats need to keep asking themselves is this: why do voters think they are the extremists, rather than the guy trying to establish one-man rule? ■
Trump’s illegal National Guard deployment in Los Angeles cost taxpayers $120 million
What you need to know: Taxpayers are paying $120 million for Trump’s stunt to federalize the National Guard and put the Marines on the streets of Los Angeles.
Sacramento, California – While 300 National Guard members are still deployed to Los Angeles under the guise of protecting federal facilities, the receipts are out on what it cost taxpayers – an estimated nearly $120 million.
The Title 10 deployment of more than 4,200 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines cost $71 million for food and other basic necessities, $37 million in payroll, more than $4 million in logistics supplies, $3.5 million in travel, and $1.5 million in demobilization costs, which adds up to an estimated $118 million.
Let us not forget what this political theater is costing us all – millions of taxpayer dollars down the drain, an atrophy to the readiness of guardsmembers across the nation and unnecessary hardships to the families supporting those troops. Talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. We ask other states to do the math themselves.
Governor Gavin Newsom
In August, Governor Newsom’s office filed a federal Freedom of Information Act requesting all documents and records to identify the total expenses incurred to activate the U.S. Marines and federalize the National Guard since June 7. While the federal government has not responded to this request, the California National Guard developed the calculations at the request of the Governor.
Breaking down the cost
As Trump threatens military deployment to other states, know there are real financial and societal costs. There’s no doubt soldiers deserve to be paid for the time spent on the ground – even if they were mostly waiting around for orders at Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos – but there are better uses of their time and taxpayer funding.
The entire deployment process was rushed, soldiers early on were forced to sleep on the floors and in the open air, use facilities with no functioning plumbing and were often fighting boredom.
While less than 20% of the troops deployed to Los Angeles were actually utilized, soldiers were pulled away from their essential civilian duties as first responders, police officers, firefighters, doctors, nurses and teachers. Guardsmembers were taken off of specialized assignments – like in California where they were taken off Taskforce Rattlesnake firefighting teams and the Counterdrug Task Force work at ports of entry along the border.
All of this combined with reports of low morale.
Taking the Trump Administration to court
Just Tuesday, California filed a request for a preliminary injunction to block the Trump Administration’s order to extend the National Guard’s deployment in Los Angeles through Election Day.
On that same day, a federal court granted California’s injunction blocking Trump’s illegal use of the U.S. military as a domestic police force. The ruling makes clear: Trump is breaking the law by trying to create a national police force with himself as its chief.
How we got here
On June 10, 2025, following President Trump’s doubling down on the militarization of the Los Angeles area through the takeover of more than 4,000 California National Guard soldiers and the unlawful deployment of the U.S. Marines, Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta filed an emergency request for the court to block President Trump and the Department of Defense from expanding the current mission of federalized Cal Guard personnel and Marines. This mission orders soldiers to engage in unlawful civilian law enforcement activities in communities across the region, beyond just guarding federal buildings.
Trump pushes Europe to stop buying Russian oil and up pressure on China in effort to end Ukraine war
US President Donald Trump told a meeting of world leaders Thursday that Europe must stop purchasing Russian oil and put economic pressure on China to try to bring about an end to the war in Ukraine, a White House official told CNN, as the administration seemed to put the onus on its allies to get more involved in stopping the conflict.
Trump made the comments in a Thursday call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other European leaders in a meeting of the “Coalition of the Willing,” a group of Ukrainian allies trying to end the war and provide security for Ukraine from future attacks.
Following the call, French President Emmanuel Macron said that 26 countries have promised to contribute to a potential peacekeeping force if a ceasefire deal is finalized – though US support for security guarantees is seen as central to lending the Europeans’ actions credibility.
Macron acknowledged as much on Thursday, saying that alongside strengthening Ukraine’s armed forces and deploying European troops to Ukraine, the third component of Ukraine’s security guarantees ought to be an “American safety net.”.
“In the coming days we will finalize the American support for these security guarantees,” the French president said.
The developments reflect the intractability of the conflict in Ukraine and the increasing pressure Trump is under to punish Russia as he struggles to push forward negotiations to end the war. Now almost three weeks after his high-stakes Alaskan summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump is growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress on peace and is contemplating how involved he should be personally in brokering a meeting between Kremlin and Ukrainian leaders, administration officials have told CNN.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov on Friday said a “huge amount of work” is needed before any top-level meeting can take place between Moscow and Kyiv, Russia’s RIA state news agency reported.
The White House official said Macron and European leaders called Trump into the coalition meeting, and Trump “emphasized that Europe must stop purchasing Russian oil that is funding the war — as Russia received €1.1 billion in fuel sales from the EU in one year.”
“The President also emphasized that European leaders must place economic pressure on China for funding Russia’s war efforts,” the official said.
The official did not describe any discussion over what security guarantees the president is willing to provide Kyiv should a deal with Moscow be struck.
Trump pledged last month to participate in post-war security guarantees for Ukraine after hosting Zelensky and seven European leaders at the White House, though top Trump administration officials, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have argued that Europe should take the lead.
The US has indicated to allies it is open to playing a limited role in providing security guarantees to Ukraine if a peace deal is reached with Russia. Such guarantees could involve US pilots flying manned air support missions, though Trump has ruled out boots on the ground, CNN previously reported.
On Thursday, Zelensky said the strengthening of Ukraine’s air defenses is under discussion, adding that officials also talked about a “new format.”
“We shared it with the partners today and President Trump,” Zelensky said.
Trump also has previously threatened “severe consequences” on Putin if he does not end the war, though the US president is privately wary that doing so could upend talks, Trump administration officials say.
In the meantime, he’s looked to target countries that purchase Russian goods and oil as a way to force Putin’s hand. Asked Wednesday about whether he is considering slapping sanctions on countries that do business with Russia, Trump argued he’s already done so.
“I’ve already done that with regard to India,” Trump said, referencing his decision to raise tariffs on India to 50% for importing Russian oil and helping Russia finance the war.
For his part, Zelensky on Thursday also stressed the importance of ratcheting up pressure Moscow and “all countries who trade with Russia.”
“The Russian economy is pressured and all the countries who trade with Russia are pressured, and we will continue with this,” Zelensky said, adding that “secondary sanctions and special trade tariffs” can help.
Zelensky rejected Putin’s suggestion earlier this week that he’s ready for the two of them to meet in Moscow.
“Our American partners told me that Putin had invited me to Moscow. In my opinion, if someone wants the meeting to not take place, they should invite me to Moscow,” he said.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(426x575:428x577)/Queen-Camilla-departs-from-her-visit-to-Cornwall-Air-Ambulance-090225-b9331bd15c0e44909c6302d10c919161.jpg?w=1200&resize=1200,0&ssl=1 "From Camilla’s grit to William’s quiet influence: Revelations from a new royal tell-all")
