Congress must prevent a mass-amnesty for COVID fraud
That's because this March, the five-year statute of limitations on COVID-era fraud prosecution is set to expire. Criminals are about to walk away with hundreds of billions of dollars, and Congress has just weeks to make a simple fix to demand accountability.
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) has introduced legislation to extend the statute of limitations on these crimes from five years to 10. This same extension was already passed in 2022 for fraud in two other COVID programs, and allowing this reform to cover unemployment fraud already has the support of prosecutors and senior Republicans.
But if Congress fails to act, criminals will walk away with as much as $135 billion in government checks the recipients aren't eligible for. That's more than the entire budgets of 48 states, and twice the annual spending of the State Department. It's more money than Bank of America, Target or AT&T make in a year.
State unemployment programs have long been a target of criminals, identity thieves and organized crime, due to antiquated systems, poor monitoring and, in many states, a lack of the most basic cross-checks and verification.
In the teeth of the pandemic, my organization published a report exposing some of the worst unemployment fraud schemes. This includes using identity theft (or even just using the governor's name) to apply for unemployment, or applying in multiple states at the same time, or applying while incarcerated or employed elsewhere. Many states took action to fix the flaws in their programs, but a staggering amount of fraud has gone unpunished. More still needs to be done.
And for COVID-specific unemployment fraud, the five-year statute of limitations is just weeks away.
For many, the memories of frustration, uncertainty and job losses during COVID are all too vivid. In April 2020, 23 million Americans suddenly found themselves out of work, a fourfold increase from that February. Criminals knew that this swarm of unemployment applications would make fraud more difficult to detect, and the system would prioritize economic relief in the hands of impacted Americans over fraud detection and prosecution.
And they were right. In the first three months of COVID, the volume of unemployment claims rose a stunning 15 times higher compared to the same time period in 2019. State agencies responsible for unemployment programs 'did not have the capacity or sufficient internal control environment to process claims timely without bypassing safeguards in place to prevent fraud,' according to dozens of after-the-fact audits and a report from the federal Pandemic Response Accountability Committee.
While some people panicked, criminals cashed in.
Of the total $135 billion, only $6.8 billion in improper unemployment payments have been recovered — just 5 percent. For every dollar of fraud committed during COVID, about a nickel has been recovered through enforcement.
Across all COVID-era programs, an Associated Press report found that as much as $400 billion may have been lost to waste and fraud; some of the stories now coming to light are truly jaw-dropping.
Criminals defrauded the Paycheck Protection Program for millions at a time, spent on luxury cars, watches and even a rare Pokémon card. Some even posted pictures online with stacks of ill-gotten cash. Soon, the statutes of limitation for these crimes will expire, and along with it, the opportunity to bring these culprits to justice.
Yes, statutes of limitation exist for a reason. Memories fade, prosecutors' priorities change, and for some crimes, a sense of closure is helpful to move on.
But over the last four years, the Department of Justice has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to prosecuting this kind of fraud, focusing its attention instead on targeting the left's political enemies, including President Trump, parents attending school board meetings, and Catholics doing nothing more than practicing their faith.
But the American people have now elected Trump based on his promise for a return to affordability, common sense and law and order — a new golden age for America.
Already, the president has created new cost-cutting initiatives, including the Department of Government Efficiency, spearheaded by Elon Musk, which is being replicated in Congress and in the states. And he has also nominated new, principled leaders to oversee agencies including the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who have the knowledge, skill and courage to restore law and order.
The only thing standing in the way of bringing unemployment fraudsters to justice is the five-year statute of limitations. Fortunately, there is an easy fix.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
The fireworks begin
Presented by With help from Eli Okun, Bethany Irvine and Ali Bianco Good Friday morning, and happy Independence Day. This is Zack Stanton, looking forward to the fireworks on the National Mall tonight (they start at 9:09 p.m.), which I hope to enjoy somewhere away from the crowds. A July Fourth question: A few years back, I worked on a roundup for POLITICO Magazine asking a number of historian types who they would put on an imagined 'new' Mt. Rushmore. Answers ranged from Ida B. Wells to FDR to Dorothy Day to Dwight Eisenhower. It's a fun thought experiment. Who would you put on it? Let me know. DRIVING THE DAY THE SIGNATURE ACCOMPLISHMENT: In the end, President Donald Trump got what he wanted. A signature legislative victory? Check. A pliant Republican Congress? Check. A chance to mark it all with a celebration at the White House on July 4? Check. A reaffirmation that many people are unable to see any issue except as an up-or-down vote on Trump? Check. Later today, the president is expected to sign the Republican megabill into law in a 5 p.m. ceremony at the White House. With a few pen strokes, he will enact into law the most sweeping cuts to America's social safety net in a generation, extend his 2017 tax cuts and pair them with new tax breaks for income from tips, and usher in a wave of new spending on immigration enforcement. But for Republicans on the Hill, the megabill was, on some deep level, 'never about those tax rates or Medicaid or the deficit,' as POLITICO's Jonathan Martin writes this morning in a column we're bringing you first in Playbook. 'The underlying legislation was no bill at all, but a referendum on Trump. And that left congressional Republicans a binary choice that also had nothing to do with the policy therein: They could salute the president and vote yes or vote no and risk their careers in a primary.' That political reality informed the process and policy. 'The hard truth for small-government conservatives in Congress to swallow is that their primary voters care more about fidelity to Trump than reducing the size of the federal government,' JMart observes. THE PROCESS … For all the discussion this week about potential Republican 'no' votes, there was scant opposition when it came time to stand and be counted. Only two House Republicans voted against the bill: libertarian-minded Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and moderate front-liner Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.). Everyone else — running the ideological spectrum from Don Bacon (R-Neb.) to Chip Roy (R-Texas) — got on board. The House Freedom Caucus surrendered. 'They called their own bluff,' Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.), a frequent critic of the group, told POLITICO's Meredith Lee Hill. 'How many times have they done this? I mean, I've been in Congress for two years and five seconds, and they pulled the same stunt 19 times. … The influence of the Freedom Caucus is over.' What did they get? 'In the end, [Trump] seems to have promised them executive orders — though details are scarce,' report WaPo's Liz Goodwin and colleagues. ''We came to significant agreements with the administration overnight on executive actions, both inside and outside, of the bill that will make America great again,' Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) said, without elaborating.' The conservative hard-liners folded. At 3:15 a.m. yesterday, a dozen hard-right members gathered for a photo in the House chamber, smiling for a group photo. 'The Republican holdouts had ended their fight by getting together to strike a pose,' POLITICO's Ben Jacobs writes in the best kicker we've read today. 'It wasn't difficult. After all, they had been posing all week.' What did they get? OMB Director Russ Vought 'reassured lawmakers that the administration would use its authority to limit spending,' WSJ's Natalie Andrews and colleagues report — even spending already approved by Congress. The moderates got in line. 'A bloc of more moderate House Republicans from politically competitive districts, many of whom had warned that the bill's Medicaid cuts could hurt their constituents and suggested they could not stomach the legislation, ultimately voted 'yes,'' writes NYT's Catie Edmondson. 'They included Representative David Valadao of California, who just last weekend warned that he could not embrace the 'harmful cuts to Medicaid' the Senate had included in its version of the bill.' What did they get? Honestly, it doesn't seem like they got anything. With the notable exception of Fitzpatrick (good backgrounder on his unique situation from POLITICO's Holly Otterbein) moderate Republicans ultimately accepted the Senate bill, which 'is harsher on Medicaid provider taxes, financing mechanisms that states use to boost their federal funding,' WSJ's Richard Rubin and colleagues write. Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) 'said that delays to some Medicaid-funding changes helped him get comfortable with supporting the bill,' per the Journal. 'A lot's going to happen between now and 2028, and they start slowly,' Van Drew said. 'It's not going to be an immediate change next week, which is what people think it's going to be.' The prevailing message: If the vote in the House boiled down to a referendum of support for Trump and his agenda, that was a message also carried in the Senate by Eric Schmitt. The Missouri Republican, who has 'become a trusted point man' for Trump and VP JD Vance, conveyed to the complex web of coalitions in the chamber that there simply was no alternative to passing the bill, a person familiar with the dynamics tells Playbook's Dasha Burns. THE POLICY … The one-paragraph summary: 'The legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts,' AP's Kevin Freking and Lisa Mascaro write. 'It temporarily would add new tax deductions on tip[s], overtime and auto loans. There's also a $6,000 deduction for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year, a nod to [Trump's] pledge to end taxes on Social Security benefits. It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200. Millions of families at lower income levels would not get the full credit. A cap on state and local deductions … would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. … There are scores of business-related tax cuts, including allowing businesses to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research.' How to pay for that? Frankly, the bill frankly doesn't pay for it. The Congressional Budget Office projects it'll increase federal deficits by nearly $3.3 trillion over the next decade, though many Republicans quibble with that math. To the extent there is a financial tradeoff at the heart of Trump's bill, it comes in slashing funding for Medicaid in order to partially pay for the tax cuts. Grand Old Party vs. Grand New Party: In that way, it pits traditional Republican policy dogma against the political interests of the Trump-era Republican voter coalition, as POLITICO's Robert King and Kelly Hooper shrewdly observe. 'The Republican base now includes more working-class and low-income people, many of whom receive their health insurance through Medicaid,' they write. 'But the traditional sentiment of many Republican lawmakers toward the social safety-net program — that it provides handouts on taxpayers' dime — has largely remained the same.' Indeed, beyond some 'populist flourishes' included in the bill, 'the measure is regressive,' WaPo's Marianna Sotomayor and colleagues write. 'The 10 percent of households with the lowest incomes would stand to be worse off by an average of $1,600 per year on average because of benefits cuts, according to the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the House version of the bill. The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes would be better off by $12,000 on average. … Adding in the impact of Trump's tariffs — which the White House has argued will help pay for the bill's tax cuts and new spending — the bottom 80 percent of households would see their take-home incomes fall, according to the Yale Budget Lab.' THE POLITICS … The next phase: Democrats are eager to wield the megabill vote as a heavy cudgel ahead of the 2026 midterms, POLITICO's Elena Schneider reports. Whether they can do so effectively is almost certain to determine the balance of power in the House. Starting now: 'Ad-makers have quickly prepped attack ads to air as soon as the holiday weekend is over, including in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. House Democrats are plotting to turn the August recess into the opening salvo of the midterms, including through town halls and organizing programs. And Democrats see an opportunity to expand the battleground, going on offense into red areas across the country.' What Dems are seeing: My Playbook colleague Dasha Burns obtained a study that Blue Rose Research conducted for the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC. In it, they found that without any priming, net support for the bill was 8 points underwater. When provided with a fairly anodyne description of the bill, it's 19 points underwater. (And notably, this study was done before some of the largest cuts to Medicaid were introduced to the package.) What Republicans are seeing: As Dasha reported earlier this week, GOP pollster par excellence Tony Fabrizio sees a politically salient way Republicans can brand the legislation (out: 'One Big Beautiful Bill'; in: 'Working Families Tax Cuts') and its component parts (framing the Medicaid cuts around work requirements and slashing waste, fraud and abuse). There's a reality to acknowledge: Midterms rarely break in favor of the president. Yes, you can argue that there's a massive spin battle at hand about how to sell the bill to a weary public, with a chance that Republicans come out on top. But consider recent history. Midterm waves build regardless of what the incumbent party wants to focus on or how they try to frame it. In 2010, Democrats tried to center their message on Barack Obama's Recovery Act, which did little to satisfy voters riled up about the Affordable Care Act and the Wall Street bailouts signed by George W. Bush; Republicans won control of the House and picked up six seats in the Senate. In 2018, Republicans tried to tout the Trump tax cuts while anger about Trump writ large combined with a Dem focus on the GOP's push to repeal the ACA; Dems retook the House and picked up seven governor's mansions. All of which is to say this: Republicans will celebrate today at the White House, but that'll be before the fireworks start. In the meantime, the hope of future electoral wins will be cold comfort for many Democrats. Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) was seen sobbing as she left the vote yesterday. 'The amount of kids who are going to go without health care and food — people like my mom [who struggle with substance use disorder] are going to be left to die because they don't have access to health care,' she said, per NYT's Annie Karni. 'It's just pretty unfathomable.' 9 THINGS THAT STUCK WITH US 1. TRADING SPACES: Trump said as he returned from his trip to Iowa that he is 'set to resume a set of tariffs that he initially imposed in April on dozens of countries, before pausing them for 90 days to negotiate individual deals' and some of the levies 'could be even steeper than originally announced,' NYT's Lydia DePillis writes. What Trump said: ''So we're going to start sending letters out to various countries starting tomorrow,' said Mr. Trump, hours after his major domestic policy bill passed the House of Representatives. 'They'll range in value from maybe 60 or 70 percent tariffs to 10 and 20 percent tariffs.' He said his administration would then send more letters each day until the end of the 90-day pause, on Wednesday, when he expected they would all be covered. Smaller countries would come toward the end, and duties would begin to be collected on Aug. 1.' 2. SCOTUS WATCH: The Supreme Court yesterday 'cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport eight men to South Sudan who have been detained in a shipping container on a U.S. military base in Djibouti for six weeks after becoming caught up in a legal tug-of-war between the White House and a federal judge in Boston,' POLITICO's Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney report. The details: 'By an apparent 7-2 vote, the justices lifted an order from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy that had blocked the men's deportation. Murphy took that step despite a Supreme Court ruling last week that put a hold on an earlier, nationwide injunction he issued requiring the administration to give deportees advance notice of their destination and a 'meaningful' chance to object if they believed they'd be in danger there.' 3. ON THE BORDER: 'US expands militarized zones to 1/3 of southern border, stirring controversy,' by AP's Morgan Lee: 'It's part of a major shift that has thrust the military into border enforcement with Mexico like never before. The move places long stretches of the border under the supervision of nearby military bases, empowering U.S. troops to detain people who enter the country illegally and sidestep a law prohibiting military involvement in civilian law enforcement. … The militarization is being challenged in court, and has been criticized by civil rights advocates, humanitarian aid groups and outdoor enthusiasts who object to being blocked from public lands while troops have free rein.' 4. RUSSIA-UKRAINE LATEST: As he boarded Air Force One for his trip to Iowa yesterday, Trump gave a few details about his call earlier in the day with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 'It was a pretty long call. We talked about a lot of things, including Iran. We also talked about the war with Ukraine and I'm not happy about that,' the president said. But when asked whether there was a serious discussion about a deal to end the war, Trump said: 'No, I didn't make any progress.' A top Kremlin aide also said the two leaders did not discuss a recent pause in weapons shipments to Ukraine, which was first reported by POLITICO, in the nearly two-hour long conversation. More from POLITICO's Ben Johansen So much for 'Vladimir, STOP': Hours after the phone call, Russia 'attacked Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities on Friday with the largest number of drones and missiles launched in a single barrage so far in the war, according to the Ukrainian Air Force,' NYT's Andrew Kramer reports from Kyiv. It's the latest salvo in a string of 'relentless attacks' that Putin has planned as his country's war on Ukraine enters a fourth summer, WSJ's James Marson and Jane Lytvynenko write: 'Putin's strategy is aimed at breaking Ukraine's ability and will to fight the war, by ratcheting up pressure on its military and civilian population as the country's most powerful backer shuffles toward the sidelines.' 5. MIDDLE EAST LATEST: Trump 'hopes to strike a ceasefire deal in Gaza next week as he hosts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House while his negotiating team narrows the gaps between Hamas and Israel on an agreement to release hostages and end hostilities,' WaPo's John Hudson and colleagues report. Where things stand: 'Hamas is weighing whether to accept an amended proposal for a 60-day ceasefire put forward by Qatar and Egypt interlocutors … Israelis are expecting Netanyahu and Trump to announce a ceasefire deal as well as agreements with other neighboring Arab nations during the trip.' On the other side: 'As the United States presses for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, the militant group's decision will largely hinge on its new de facto leader in Gaza,' NYT's Adam Rasgon and Ronen Bergman report. 'The commander, Izz al-Din al-Haddad … is in his mid-50s [and] helped plan the Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7, 2023 … He is believed to be in firm opposition to Israeli efforts to dislodge Hamas from power, suggesting that he could block any push to release all remaining hostages before a total end to the war in Gaza and a withdrawal of Israeli troops.' 6. DANCE OF THE SUPERPOWERS: The Trump administration is 'reaching out to business executives to weigh interest' in whether they would accompany Trump on a potential visit to China later this year, much like the trip that the president took across the Middle East earlier this year, Bloomberg's Jenny Leonard and Catherine Lucey report. 'The Commerce Department is making calls to gauge interest from chief executives at some US companies,' though it's 'unclear how many company leaders have been asked to participate or whether any have confirmed.' The trip could come about in late October, when Trump is expected to travel to South Korea and Malaysia for back-to-back summits. 7. CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WATCH: 'Trump Claims Sweeping Power to Nullify Laws, Letters on TikTok Ban Show,' by NYT's Charlie Savage: 'Attorney General Pam Bondi told tech companies that they could lawfully violate a statute barring American companies from supporting TikTok based on a sweeping claim that President Trump has the constitutional power to set aside laws, newly disclosed documents show. In letters to companies like Apple and Google, Ms. Bondi wrote that Mr. Trump had decided that shutting down TikTok would interfere with his 'constitutional duties,' so the law banning the social media app must give way to his 'core presidential national security and foreign affairs powers.'' 8. CAPITULATION CORNER: In the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and Trump's subsequent booting from social media platforms, he sued the heads of the tech giants that took action. Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk settled the suits against their companies. Now, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who oversees YouTube, appears to have his chance. Lawyers for the two sides 'have begun 'productive discussions' about the next steps of the case against YouTube, 'with additional discussions anticipated in the near future,'' The Atlantic's Michael Scherer reports, citing little-noticed briefs filed in San Francisco. 'The parties have asked the judge to give them until September 2 to come to an agreement on a path forward.' 9. FIRST IN PLAYBOOK — Email error: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Thursday accidentally scooped who the White House may be planning to nominate for the National Labor Relations Board by telling members of its labor relations committee before the formal rollout of the picks, according to emails obtained by POLITICO's Daniel Lippman. 'In the lead-up to the long Independence Day weekend, the White House today announced several much-anticipated appointments of two members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): Scott Mayer, Chief Labor Counsel at The Boeing Corporation, and James Murphy, a former career official with the NLRB,' the Chamber wrote in an email. But the White House hasn't yet announced those picks. Fifteen minutes after its first email went out, the Chamber wrote to the same list: 'Please ignore our recent email on NLRB nominees. This was sent in error.' A Chamber spokesperson declined to comment on the mistake, except to confirm it was an error. A White House spokesperson had no comment. Mayer and Murphy didn't respond to requests for comment. THE WEEKEND AHEAD FOX 'Fox News Sunday': Speaker Mike Johnson … Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) … Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) … Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Panel: Horace Cooper, Meghan Hays, Mollie Hemingway and Hans Nichols. CBS 'Face the Nation': NEC Director Kevin Hassett … Ken Burns. ABC 'This Week': CEA Chair Stephen Miran … Larry Summers … Richard Besser. Panel: Donna Brazile and Chris Christie. CNN 'State of the Union': Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Panel: Scott Jennings, Shermichael Singleton, Jamal Simmons and Kate Bedingfield. MSNBC 'PoliticsNation': Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear … Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) … Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). NewsNation 'The Hill Sunday': Retired Adm. William McRaven … Robert George … Andrew Sullivan … Julie Silverbrook. NBC 'Meet the Press': Olivia Munn … Bob Costas … Sal Khan … Amanda Gorman. TALK OF THE TOWN FIRST IN PLAYBOOK — Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was supposed to join EU Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security Maroš Šefčovič on Thursday for a meeting as Europe negotiates a trade deal with the Trump administration, but Lutnick had already left town to go on vacation with his family in Italy, a person familiar with the matter told POLITICO's Daniel Lippman and Daniel Desrochers. Instead, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he was meeting with the EU as the deadline for Trump's pause on his so-called reciprocal tariffs is due to expire next Wednesday. 'Secretary Lutnick met his wife and family for a July 4th trip,' a Commerce spokesperson said in a statement to Playbook. 'He has been on nonstop calls working for the American people and plans to be back in DC this weekend. President Trump's deal announcement with Vietnam earlier this week proves that Sec. Lutnick continues to level the playing field for the American worker.' GARDEN VARIETY — 'White House says Garden of American Heroes may not be complete until 2029,' by WaPo's Janay Kingsberry: 'The White House said it is working to finish President Donald Trump's patriotic statue garden by the end of his second term — an acknowledgment that comes as a key deadline for the project passed this week, and one that diverges sharply from a federal agency's stated plans to complete the ambitious installation before the United States' 250th birthday next year.' THE FRENCH CONNECTION — 'Why a birthday party in D.C. for a late French general was packed with guests,' by WaPo's Petula Dvorak: 'The honoree was Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, the comte de Rochambeau, who would be turning 300 on that day. And despite his advanced age, he can still draw a crowd of more than 100. For many in attendance, that was largely because his actions 244 years ago remain an important lesson for America today.' TRANSITION — Josh Craddock is joining the Justice Department as deputy assistant AG in the Office of Legal Counsel. He previously was an associate at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. … Lilia Dashevsky is now founder and CEO of Emet Strategies. She previously was SVP and democracy practice lead at CLYDE. BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY: The United States of America is 249 … Geraldo Rivera … WSJ's Natalie Andrews … Luke Tomanelli … former Reps. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.) and Sam Farr (D-Calif.) … Ed Matricardi … Frank Donatelli … Lanhee Chen … Ripple's Susan Hendrick … Matthew Gravatt … Stat's Chelsea Cirruzzo … Ann Rulon … Dustin Todd … Kathleen Kennedy Townsend … Kevin McLaughlin … Ryan Williams … Will Ritter of Poolhouse … Catlin O'Neill … Sunshine Sachs' Taylor Friedman … Lauren Ashburn … Cassie Ballard of Chime … Malia Obama … Viveca Novak … Terry Wade … Brandon English … Matthew Lee Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here. Send Playbookers tips to playbook@ or text us on Signal here. Playbook couldn't happen without our editor Zack Stanton, deputy editor Garrett Ross and Playbook Podcast producer Callan Tansill-Suddath. Correction: Yesterday's Playbook misspelled Mychael Schnell's name.
Wall Street Journal
34 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
How Immigrants Will Help Fund Trump's Tax Cuts
WASHINGTON—To help cover the cost of their marquee tax-and-spending package, Republicans have turned to a community President Trump has often targeted: immigrants. The package, which is heading to Trump's desk, includes new fees on immigrants navigating the legal process, and cutting legal immigrants out of certain federal safety-net programs. The Wall Street Journal estimates that immigrants—including those who are in the U.S. legally—will be paying in some way for at least $64 billion of the package through 2034. That helps fund new tax cuts and Trump's mass-deportation pledge.
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Whole Hog Politics: Discontentment, democracy and the promise of Independence Day
On the menu: Concern over ICE tactics; Tillis blows up N.C. Senate race; SupCo may throw parties a lifeline; Greene with envy; Hacking into the job market It should surprise no one that democracy isn't very popular these days. Watching Congress cough up a budget bill like an asthmatic house cat with a hairball doesn't exactly fill one with confidence. A recent Pew Research survey looked at how satisfied residents of nations around the globe were with 'the way democracy is working in their country.' Notably, among the residents of 12 mostly wealthy, mostly stable nations — Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States — 64 percent of adults said they were dissatisfied, compared to 35 percent who were satisfied. On the one hand, so what? As Winston Churchill said, 'democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried.' People don't like the way democratic government works, but they're not really supposed to. Democracy is like a lot of good things in life: more valuable for what it prevents rather than what it delivers. If the alternative to self-government is tyranny, then imperfect democracy is a gift to be cherished. That's why Americans should feel more than a little superior on this, the 249th birthday of our democracy — the oldest unbroken one in the world. And yet, compared with the residents of other wealthy nations, Americans are feeling pretty lousy about government by 'We the people.' The same survey found that 64 percent of Americans were dissatisfied, dramatically worse than the countries with which we share the most in common: 23 points worse than Canada, 11 points worse than the United Kingdom, 23 points worse than Germany and 23 points worse than Australia. The trend in the U.S. and among other wealthy nations generally, though, has been downward. In 2017, the average for America's cohort was 49 percent satisfied, 49 percent dissatisfied. Eight years later, it's a spread of almost 30 points. Every country has its own reasons for its frustrations with democracy, including those places like Hungary and South Korea, which of late have been struggling mightily to maintain some kind system that is both functional and democratic. But in the United States, the richest, freest, safest nation in the history of the world, it doesn't seem right. Why does the apex nation feel so crummy about its system of government? Part of it is no doubt a version of affluenza in which Americans have come to see self-government in a Madisonian democracy based on equal rights and equal protections as the default. While we may be the stark exception to the great powers of history, it is normal to us. Like all good things in great supply, we take liberty for granted. But it may also be a misunderstanding of cause and effect. The temptation for Americans for more than a century has been to think that we have freedom and self-government because we are rich and powerful. The truth is that we are rich and powerful because we have freedom and self-government. America is now in its 250th year. One year from today in Philadelphia, we will celebrate that grand achievement: truly the envy of the world. And when we do, one suspects Americans will still be unhappy with their system of government. And again, how could you blame them? Our politics are rotten and our government can barely perform its basic duties. National elections have turned into battles royale in which winners get to spend two or four years trying to punish the other side only for the other side to then get its turn with the shillelagh. Back and forth we go, each time a little meaner and a little more dysfunctional. It should be remembered that this is a perversion of our system, not the system itself. Unlike the residents of other nations that built their systems out of local custom grafted with American-style democracy, this is our own birthright. The declaration made in Philadelphia 249 years ago today that all men are created equal is the inheritance of every American citizen, wherever she or he was born. When we are dissatisfied with our democracy, we don't need a different sort of government, we have to go back to what made us great in the first place. We have the source code if we are willing to reclaim it. To that end, I'd ask that you take a moment in today's celebration to remember the gift that we have been given. What President Calvin Coolidge said in speech celebrating the 150th anniversary of the founding is just as true today: 'No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.' Amen, amen. Happy Independence Day. May your barbecues, like this newsletter, be whole hog. [Make sure to watch a special episode of 'The Hill Sunday with Chris Stirewalt' this Sunday at 10 a.m. ET on NewsNation and local CW stations as guests including Adm. William McRaven and professor Robert P. George explore practical patriotism for America's 250th year.] Holy croakano! We welcome your feedback, so please email us with your tips, corrections, reactions, amplifications, etc. at WHOLEHOGPOLITICS@ . If you'd like to be considered for publication, please include your real name and hometown. If you don't want your comments to be made public, please specify. NUTRITIONAL INFORMATION Trump Job Performance Average Approval: 42 percent Average Disapproval: 53.2 percent Net Score: –11.2 Change from one week ago: ↑ 1.2 points Change from one month ago: ↓ 3.4 points [Average includes: Marist College 43 percent approve – 52 percent disapprove; Emerson College 45 percent approve – 46 percent disapprove; Quinnipiac University 41 percent approve – 54 percent disapprove Ipsos/Reuters 41 percent approve – 57 percent disapprove Gallup 40 percent approve – 57 percent disapprove] Majority concerned about ICE raids How would you describe the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in enforcing immigration laws? Do you think they have: Gone too far: 54 percent About right: 26 percent Not gone far enough: 18 percent [Marist College poll of 1,381 adults nationally, June 23-25] ON THE SIDE: LAST DAYS OF THE RAJ IN MAGAZINELAND NYT: 'As the longtime editor in chief of Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter was accustomed to big expenses … But in early 2001, he wondered if he had gone too far. Annie Leibovitz, the magazine's chief photographer, had run up a $475,000 bill on a cover shoot involving 10 world-famous actresses — Nicole Kidman, Penélope Cruz, Sophia Loren — and an elaborate stage set, complete with a mantelpiece and a genuine John Singer Sargent painting, which was flown from Los Angeles to New York to London. ('It was like Vietnam, the expenses,' Mr. Carter recalled.) Now, he needed to tell his boss, S.I. Newhouse Jr., the billionaire owner and patron of Condé Nast, about the latest line item on his tab. … 'Well, I think we just shot the most expensive cover in magazine history.' A pause. 'What's the good news?' 'It looks like a $475,000 cover.' It was the equivalent of roughly $850,000 today. Mr. Newhouse was fine with it.' PRIME CUTS Tillis's exit supercharges N.C. Senate race: The Hill: 'Sen. Thom Tillis's (R-N.C.) decision to not seek reelection to another term has scrambled the field for what will be one of the most competitive Senate races in the country next year. The North Carolina Senate race was already going to be one of the most-discussed contests of the 2026 midterms as one of the two main targets for Democrats hoping to at least narrow the Republican majority in the body. But with Tillis out, the race appears set to become even more hotly contested as big names on both sides of the aisle are floated as potential candidates, including Lara Trump and former Gov. Roy Cooper (D). … 'I think it's changed the calculus tremendously because … Tillis was going to be not impossible but difficult to beat,' said North Carolina Democratic strategist Doug Wilson. … Democrats previously acknowledged the challenge they would face in defeating Tillis for a third term but expressed hope, especially if the popular former two-term Gov. Cooper enters the race. Cooper has been considering a bid, but the North Carolina-based NBC affiliate WRAL reported that he won't decide for at least a few more weeks.' Sherrill opens big lead in New Jersey as Trump influence looms large: New Jersey Globe: 'Democrat Mikie Sherrill has a 20-point lead over Republican Jack Ciattarelli in the New Jersey governor's race, with President Donald Trump figuring prominently in voters' decisions, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll released this morning. Sherrill leads Ciattarelli, 51%-31%, with 13% undecided. When leaners are included, Sherrill's lead grows to 56%-35%. … More than half of New Jersey (52%) say Trump's presidency is a major factor in who they'll support for governor, while 18% call it a minor factor and 30% say it won't affect them at all. 'Trump's influence appears to be more of a benefit to Sherrill right now, given key groups more likely to support her are also more likely to claim the president is a factor in their vote choice, while those more supportive of Ciattarelli do not.' … 'While Trump's endorsement may have helped in the primaries, these numbers are an early sign that the endorsement may play differently when it comes to the general.'' Super PACs beware: SupCo could restore flow of campaign cash to parties: Washington Post: 'The Supreme Court will hear a significant campaign finance case next term that will examine whether it violates the Constitution to restrict the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with individual candidates on advertising and other communications. The case has the potential to reshape election spending in a major way. The restrictions being challenged were established in the early 1970s during the Nixon era to try to prevent donors from contributing to parties as a way to skirt limits on direct giving to candidates. Richard H. Pildes, a New York University law professor, said ending the limits could shift the balance of financial might from outside groups that have come to dominate campaign spending to political parties that were once the major players. 'It would at a minimum open up more opportunities for political parties to work with their campaigns,' Pildes said. 'More expansively, it could lead to political parties regaining some of the ground they lost to the Super PACs over the last 20 years.'' SHORT ORDER Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan to run as an independent in attempt to succeed Whitmer — NBC News Stampede starts to replace longtime Rep. Dwight Evans in deep-blue Philly district — Pennsylvania Capital-Star Dems take the safe bet in Virginia, picking former Connolly aide to succeed late congressman — Associated Press New poll finds Adams trailing behind Silwa — The Hill Republican overperforms in San Diego special election — Newsweek TABLE TALK Narrator: It was actually over 'There's no way that [Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)] has the votes in the House for this [reconciliation bill]. I think it's far from over.' — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in an interview hours before the House voted to advance the legislation. MAILBAG 'I've seen various headlines about various political folks wanting to arrest New York City wunderkind [Zohran Mamdani]. But on what legitimate legal basis? Is there a whiff that he's done anything wrong on his immigration paperwork? An article on that might be helpful as New York City voters make up their minds on the three top current candidates. As well it might be integrated with a deep dive into the various criminal allegations against [Mayor Eric Adams] and ex-Governor [Andrew Cuomo].' — David Tomsovic, San Diego Mr. Tomsovic, In the ledger of moral bankruptcy that describes Woodrow Wilson's time as president, there are many contenders for what might be the very worst thing he did: Jailing the women protesting for suffrage, screening a pro-Klan movie at the White House, pumping out fake news through a propaganda newspaper, etc. But the worst is probably jailing his political opponents and using the Justice Department to harass and intimidate dissenters. Wilson's government imprisoned Eugene Debs, the Socialist candidate for president along with many other opponents of World War I. The argument from President Trump and some in his party is that Mamdani's opinions and policies are sufficient to merit denaturalizing the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City. Revoking a political opponent's citizenship from a country where he has lived since age 7 is tantamount to exile, a very czarist kind of thing to do. Those in power argue that only immigrants with desirable views should be allowed to stay, even those who have earned and maintained their citizenship. On one hand, we can assume that this is mostly trolling. Trump loves nothing more than saying what is supposed to be forbidden. And if it lets him leverage up another politician's social media heat, so much the better. But we must always remember the continuum of Trump rhetoric by which strange things become serious policy: It's a joke to own the libs; it's meant to be taken seriously but not literally; promises made, promises kept. So far, it's surely helping Mamdani in a city where, by some estimates, 40 percent of residents are immigrant. Trump is little loved in his hometown, so Mamdani being able to say that he is standing up to Trump and drawing Trump's ire is probably a very helpful thing politically. But we should keep an eye on this one. Republicans who complained about 'lawfare' targeting the former and future president after his 2020 defeat should be the most opposed to any such interventions, and yet, here we are. All best, c 'Have you read any Ross Thomas? His brand of wit and cynicism is, to me, unmatched in most of the political thrillers (the works of Charles McCarry notably excepted) from the 1960s to today. 'The Seersucker Whipsaw' (1967), about an American southerner sent to run (read: rig) an electoral campaign in Africa is my favorite, but the best title goes to 1970's 'The Fools in Town Are On Our Side,' which comes from a delightful Mark Twain quote in which he declares that that constituency 'is a big enough majority in any town.' Reading an old Ross Thomas paperback makes me feel weirdly comforted in our own wild political times.' — Drew Beardslee, Grand Ledge, Mich. Mr. Beardslee, I have not, but you can bet that as soon as I read your favorable comparison to McCarry it went right into my shopping cart! My love of what I still think of as 'detective stories' probably had deeper roots in my childhood, but I will never forget the summer in college that I discovered and devoured everything by James Ellroy. McCarry came later, but once I had finished 'Shelley's Heart,' I was off to the races. My quibble, though, is about the use of the word 'cynicism.' I don't see McCarry's Paul Christopher or McCarry's other 'good guys' as cynical, certainly not about themselves. These stories, like Ellroy's, are about people who are willing to do the right thing even when the rest of the world has gone wrong. They have codes and they live by them, even at great costs. If you want cynics, read John le Carré. Thanks much for the recommendation. I will report back! All best, c You should email us! Write to WHOLEHOGPOLITICS@ with your tips, kudos, criticisms, insights, rediscovered words, wonderful names, recipes, and, always, good jokes. Please include your real name — at least first and last — and hometown. Make sure to let us know in the email if you want to keep your submission private. My colleague, the star-spangled Meera Sehgal, and I will look for your emails and then share the most interesting ones and my responses here. Clickety clack! FOR DESSERT: HE APPLIED ONLINE TechRadar: 'A man has pleaded guilty to hacking multiple organizations only to promote his own cybersecurity services. Nicholas Michael Kloster, a 32-year-old from Kansas City, was indicted in 2024 for breaching three organizations, including a health club and a Missouri nonprofit organization. During the incident, Kloster emailed business owners claiming responsibility for the attacks, and offering consulting services to prevent future cyberattacks, and his fate will soon be determined. In one case, Kloster accessed a gym's systems by breaching a restricted area. He manipulated the system to remove his own photo from the member database before reducing his monthly membership fee to $1. He then explained to the business owner that he had bypassed login credentials for security cameras and accessed router settings.' Chris Stirewalt is the politics editor for The Hill and NewsNation, the host of 'The Hill Sunday' on NewsNation and The CW, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of books on politics and the media. MeeraSehgalcontributed to this report.
