Trump Trad, the aesthetic that tells us where America is going
In today's edition:
Most of our Opinions columnists are squarely focused on the substance of President Donald Trump's actions, and justly so. But let me introduce you to Carolina Miranda, who is embarking on a series analyzing what the president seems to care about far more than his actions: his aesthetic.
'The aesthetics of a presidency might seem to matter little in comparison with actual policy,' Carolina imagines a reader thinking. But hear her out: 'Aesthetics define the battle lines in culture wars and provide the basis upon which leaders build their cults of personality.' Those are some mighty high stakes.
Carolina calls the president's look 'Trump Trad,' which manifests across his architectural, sartorial and tonsorial preferences. His 'clutter of historical styles' in home and club design, Carolina says, 'leaves no room for new ways of thinking'; the hyperfemininity of the women in his orbit ('body-hugging sheaths,' 'Utah curls') and the hypermasculinity of the men leave no room for anyone outside the gender binary. Haven't we already seen these aesthetic augurs take their policy form?
Carolina's piece is full of compelling visual examples, but what grabbed me most is her case that Trump Trad cops a lot of its language from another rich aesthetic: professional wrestling, especially the reality-blurring power of 'kayfabe.' Allow Carolina to explain.
Chaser: During Trump's first term, yours truly identified his aesthetic as something else: camp.
All right, back to policy, which these days seems to mean we're talking not about Trump but about his right-hand man, Elon Musk — or is it the other way around?
One worrisome checkpoint along Musk's asymptotic approach to omnipotence: He has your Social Security number now.
Natasha Sarin explains that agents of Musk's Department of Government Efficiency demanded access to the Treasury Department's sprawling federal payment system, which disburses Social Security checks and tax refunds, among other outlays. Putatively, this was to root out fraudulent payments, but this system doesn't identify fraud; that's the job of the IRS, which Republicans want to kneecap!
Natasha says we all ought to worry about what DOGE agents are up to: 'There is no legitimate reason for them to have this access.'
Basically everyone is wondering what DOGE is up to, to be fair. Matt Bai writes that Musk might be allowing the body to turn into a 'glorified IT consultant'; the opposite hypothesis is that Musk is gathering intel for an 'all-out assault on government spending.' (Matt walks through the hypothetical worldwide military withdrawal and elimination of 16 federal agencies; those don't get Musk even halfway to his savings goal.)
Maybe DOGE is wondering what DOGE is up to. But Matt is certain of one thing: 'Even if Musk doesn't have a coherent plan … right now, he eventually will. And whatever that plan ends up being, you can bet it will be good for Elon Musk.'
Chaser: On the latest 'Impromptu' podcast, Matt discusses Musk's seeming desire to destroy the government with Ruth Marcus and Dana Milbank. As they ask, can anybody stop him?
Bonus chaser: Philip Bump is skeptical that anyone can stop Trump. Our system isn't designed to police a president unwilling to abide by the law if the other branches roll over. One great quote: 'Violations of legal and precedential boundaries are about proving that no one can police the president, as much as revealing that no one can.'
On to Trump's imperial ambitions, a list to which you can now add Gaza. At a news conference Tuesday, Trump announced his desire to permanently remove all Palestinians from the Strip and develop it into the 'Riviera of the Middle East.'
Dana Milbank opens his column with a scolding of the Arab American voters who boosted Trump in response to Democrats' handling of the war in Gaza: ''Genocide Joe' never looked so good.'
Countries in the region immediately said they would take no part in this outrageous plan. But no matter, says Trump. 'I say they will.'
That's the bluster that characterizes Trump's vow to recolonize the Panama Canal, too — which isn't really about Panama at all, Marc Fisher writes in an analysis of Trump's obsessions.
'Panama just happens to be one of the few places around the world that Trump has been talking about for decades,' Marc writes, 'mainly because it was in the news as he entered his 30s and started paying a bit of attention to things beyond Queens.'
Chaser: Trump's threatened trade war with other members of the Western Hemisphere will undermine a bunch of domestic industries, including automaking, the Editorial Board writes.
It's a goodbye. It's a haiku. It's … The Bye-Ku.
Why work to rebuild
When gilding's cheap and easy?
Glittering Gaza
***
Have your own newsy haiku? Email it to me, along with any questions/comments/ambiguities. See you tomorrow!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
9 minutes ago
- NBC News
As Texas plows ahead with new maps, governors grapple with the prospect of mid-decade redistricting
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — As Texas Republicans plow ahead with a plan to redraw congressional maps ahead of schedule, many governors are increasingly grappling with an issue that they didn't think they'd have to confront until the end of the decade. Texas' unscheduled redistricting effort — which Republicans hope could help protect their narrow House majority during next year's midterm elections — has had a ripple effect, with governors across the country floating the possibility of following suit to either add to or counter or the plan, depending on their party affiliation. At the summer meeting of the bipartisan National Governors Association in Colorado Springs, Democrats largely condemned the efforts in Texas while cheering on efforts by members of their own party in other states. 'It's deplorable,' New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, said in an interview on the sidelines of the summit, referring to Texas Republicans' attempt. When it came to threats by Democratic Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and Kathy Hochul of New York to forge ahead with plans to redraw congressional lines in their states, Murphy added, 'I don't think we have a choice.' 'If they're going to play these games, we're going to have to be just as aggressive,' Murphy said, adding that 'we can't bring a knife to a gunfight.' Asked if he'd condone a redistricting effort in New Jersey, Murphy said 'all options are on the table in New Jersey,' though he acknowledged that there were major obstacles to doing so. 'I fear there are significant constitutional constraints here in our own [state] constitution,' he said. In New Jersey, like in many other states, an independent commission oversees redistricting. 'But we are looking at all options — and we have to, as Democrats. If this is the way the other guys are going to go, we have to respond forcefully,' Murphy said. 'We have no choice.' Hawaii's Democratic Gov. Josh Green called the actions by Texas Republicans 'really sinister,' 'unconscionable' and 'completely unethical,' and called on his fellow Democratic governors to 'fight fire with fire.' 'It's an obvious attempt to steal elections,' Green said, though he also said that 'the Democratic Party can't stand by and watch it happen.' 'It's very unfortunate, because two wrongs don't make a right. But we can't allow one party to break the rules and then consistently in the future break more rules,' he added. 'It's turning into a knife fight,' Green said. Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott kicked off a special legislative session on Monday, with congressional redistricting one of the topics on lawmakers' to-do list. The New York Times reported last month that members of Trump's political operation had privately urged Texas Republicans to redraw their maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. And Trump himself has publicly praised the efforts, urging Texas lawmakers to take actions that would help the GOP gain five House seats. Republicans currently control 25 of Texas' 38 congressional districts. The redistricting process typically occurs at the start of each new decade, when new census data is available. Texas' current maps were drawn in 2021, following the 2020 census, though they are still being fought over in court. The Republican effort in Texas has prompted some Democrats to fight back by threatening their own mid-decade redistricting schemes. Most prominently, Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, has raised the idea of redrawing California's maps. But that effort would come with major obstacles: An independent commission controls the redistricting process in California, not the governor. On Thursday, Hochul entered the fray as well, responding to a question about redistricting in New York by saying: 'All's fair in love and war,' according to Politico. While not promising action, she added that she'd 'look at it closely with' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. Elsewhere, Illinois' Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker responded to a question about whether his state should pursue redistricting to counterbalance Texas' push by accusing Republicans of trying to 'cheat' ahead of the midterms. And a spokesman for Maryland's Democratic Gov. Wes Moore told The New York Times this week he will 'continue to evaluate all options.' On the other side of the aisle, just days after the state Supreme Court upheld the state's newest congressional map, Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said that 'there may be more defects that need to be remedied.' He added that population shifts in the state since the census has led him to believe the state is 'malapportioned' and that it 'would be appropriate to do a redistricting here in the mid-decade.' And in Ohio, state lawmakers are required to draw new congressional maps before 2026 because their current lines passed without bipartisan support. Republicans control 10 of Ohio's 15 House seats. Other Democratic leaders at the NGA did not urge their party's fellow governors to move forward with their own redistricting plans. 'I would really call upon Texas Republicans to not yield to the temptation and to stick with the map that they themselves drew that benefits Republicans in the Texas delegation and continue with that until the normal redistricting period occurs at the end of the decade,' Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said in an interview. In Colorado, like in California, redistricting efforts are overseen by an independent commission. Meanwhile, some Republicans at the NGA expressed displeasure with the redistricting threats from both parties. 'I'll be perfectly honest. I only think about it once every 10 years,' Utah GOP Gov. Spencer Cox said in an interview. 'Obviously, there's concerns about gerrymandering, and both sides are doing it — you know, nobody has clean hands.' 'I don't love it. I wish there was a better way. I wish there was a nonpartisan way. Lots of states have tried,' Cox added. Former Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, said he'd refuse to condemn Texas' efforts, even though he himself helped Colorado advance its own independent redistricting commission. 'So long as so many Democratic states still redistrict the old-fashioned way, so will Republican states. So I have no criticism for Texas, given that they're working within the same rules that have governed so many states — Democrats and Republicans — in the past,' Owens said. He added that his own approach, if he were still governor, 'would be to try to do redistricting in a bipartisan fashion.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Democrats' approval rating craters to 35-year low: WSJ poll
Democrats' approval rating with registered voters has plunged to a 35-year low, while Republicans maintain an edge on most of the top issues Americans care about, a new poll found. A whopping 63% of registered voters view Democrats unfavorably, dramatically eclipsing the 33% who had a positive impression, marking the lowest rating they scored since 1990, according to a Wall Street Journal survey. That abysmal rating for Democrats comes against the backdrop of lackluster figures for President Trump and Republicans. Trump's approval rating sits at 46%, with 52% who disapprove of the commander in chief. The figure is higher than this point during his first term, which was 40%. Republicans' approval rating clocked in at a net seven points unfavorable. If congressional elections were held today, 46% of voters indicated they'd back a Democrat, compared to 43% who would support a Republican. 3 The poll suggests that House Democrats have their work cut out for them to ensure they can flip control of the lower chamber. AP 3 Democrats are also carefully eyeing pickup opportunities in Senate races. AP A majority, 51%, also said the change Trump is bringing has resulted in dysfunction and chaos, compared to 45% who agreed the president was making positive adjustments. Still, across the board, voters preferred the GOP approach over the Dem position on a range of key issues. Voters trusted Republicans over Democrats on inflation by about 10 points; on immigration by 17 points; and handling illegal immigrants by 17 points, the survey found. In one unique finding, respondents disapproved of Trump's tariffs by 17 points and Republicans still scored 7 points higher than Democrats on that issue. 'The Democratic brand is so bad that they don't have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party,' John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who helped conduct the survey, told the outlet. 'Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they're for and what their economic message is, they're going to have problems.' Anzalone teamed up with Republican Tony Fabrizio, Trump's trusted pollster during the 2024 campaign cycle, to conduct the survey for the Wall Street Journal. 3 President Trump's approval rating was underwater but higher than at this point during his first term, the poll showed. REUTERS One area where congressional Democrats topped Republicans was vaccine policy and healthcare, per the poll. Democrats are still reeling from their 2024 election loss, and key figures within the party have openly vented that the party doesn't have a strong message or sense of direction. Typically, the party out of power in the White House is favored to have a strong performance in the midterm elections, which is why many observers believe the Democrats are well-positioned heading into 2026. However, the Wall Street Journal poll shows Democrats are still remarkably anemic as the party struggles to find its footing. Around this time in 2017, voters called themselves Democrats over Republicans by 6 percentage points, per the poll. Democrats later went on to flip 40 House seats in the 2018 midterm elections. This go-around, Republicans have a 1-point edge in party identification over Democrats. Republicans have a threadbare 219 to 212 House majority and are scrambling to defy history by retaining control during the 2026 midterms. The Wall Street Journal poll sampled 1,500 registered voters between July 16–20 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
