Transcript:A passenger flying from Los Angeles to Palm Beach, Florida, on Monday was shocked to hear a JetBlue employee thanking President Donald Trump during a special President's Day in-flight message on the plane. Photographer James Weir posted his reaction to the announcement on JetBlue Flight 2010 on Threads, describing the moment an airline flight attendant tried to show gratitude for the Trump administration — and why he found it so outrageous. "@jetblue The fact that the pilot or flight attendant chose to begin the flight by specifically thanking President Trump and his cabinet for all that they do means this will be the last time I choose your airline," Weir wrote. "My flight 2010 LA to Palm Beach just landed. The comment about Trump was made as part of a 'It’s Presidents’ Day…' announcement," Weir added. "I spoke to the flight attendant in the back who said it was the number 1, as in head flight attendant, that decided to do that and that they also disagreed with the decision. The person I spoke to then spoke to said person about not making a similar announcement on the return flight."Other users and JetBlue customers fired off scathing responses. "@jetblue I’m Mosaic with 350k miles logged in the past 3 years. I fly into the Palm Beach airport regularly. If I had been on this flight, and we were still on the ground, I would’ve asked to get off. The flight attendant making this announcement is not safe for me to be around. Your manuals prohibit political speech from staff while on duty. I want to hear that this person’s employment was terminated. You owe every passenger on that flight an apology," attorney Karen Myatt wrote on Threads. "@jetblue, forcing political views on paying customers isn’t a good look. I’m going on vacation to escape the f---ery going on in this country. I don’t want it shoved down my throat on a flight," user kmr71170 wrote on Threads. Raw Story reached out to JetBlue for comment.Our Analysis:A Turbulent Flight of Political ProclivitiesIn an incident that soars far beyond the expected airline announcement protocols, a JetBlue employee decided that President's Day was the opportune moment to express gratitude towards President Donald Trump and his administration. This act, performed aboard JetBlue Flight 2010 from Los Angeles to Palm Beach, has ignited a firestorm of controversy and backlash from passengers and onlookers alike.The Incident UnfoldsPhotographer James Weir's experience, as shared on Threads, encapsulates the shock and dismay that many felt upon hearing the announcement. Weir's declaration that this would be his last flight with JetBlue over the politicized message underscores a broader sentiment of betrayal and discomfort among the airline's clientele. The decision by the head flight attendant to specifically thank Trump, bypassing a neutral celebration of President's Day, not only polarized passengers but also violated JetBlue's own policies against political speech by staff while on duty.Customer BacklashThe reactions from JetBlue customers, including attorney Karen Myatt and user kmr71170, reveal a deep-seated opposition to the imposition of political views in what should be a neutral space. Myatt's readiness to disembark if given the chance, and her demand for the termination of the flight attendant's employment, speak volumes to the severity with which these passengers view the breach of protocol. Similarly, kmr71170's desire for a politics-free journey reflects a broader desire for escapism amidst the charged political climate.Analysis: The Crossing of an Unspoken LineJetBlue's silence in the face of inquiries, as indicated by Raw Story's outreach for comment, is deafening. It suggests an underestimation of the grave implications of allowing employees to use the airline's platform for political endorsements. This incident not only disrupts the expected neutrality of the travel experience but also raises questions about the enforcement of company policies designed to prevent such occurrences.The implications are clear: when employees of a service industry, especially one as intimate and enclosed as an airline, decide to voice personal political beliefs, it places the company at risk of alienating a significant portion of its clientele. The fact that this was done so blatantly, with apparent disregard for company policy or passenger comfort, is both astounding and unacceptable.Moreover, it reflects a misunderstanding of the role that service providers play in the lives of their customers. People choose airlines for convenience, comfort, and reliability — not for political discourse. When they are subjected to unsolicited political opinions, especially in a space where they cannot easily remove themselves from the situation, it constitutes a breach of the implicit contract between service provider and consumer.Conclusion: A Lesson in Customer RespectThis incident should serve as a stern warning to JetBlue and other companies about the importance of maintaining neutrality in customer interactions. The backlash is not merely about differing political views but about the right of consumers to receive services free from unsolicited and divisive political endorsements.As this story unfolds, JetBlue has an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to customer comfort and neutrality, ensuring such incidents are relegated to the past. Failure to do so not only jeopardizes its reputation but also signals a dangerous precedent for the intrusion of politics into spaces traditionally designed for escapism and neutrality.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:A year and a month into his second term, Donald Trump’s presidency appears to be fracturing, most immediately thanks to a self-inflicted Department of Homeland Security shutdown and a looming Supreme Court decision on his global tariffs. Trump has also clashed with lawmakers over loyalty, with Republicans from Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) to Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) calling him out over the racist Obama video Trump posted online. Then there’s the fallout from the immigration crackdown in Minnesota, which has triggered a collapse in support among the young men and Latinos who put Trump back in the White House. Caught between adverse judicial outcomes and alienation from traditional allies — Marco Rubio’s Christian nationalist speech at the Munich Security Conference was particularly off-putting — Trump faces a mounting crisis that threatens to derail him before he can even attempt to address pie-in-the-sky promises such as lowering grocery prices and ending the war in Ukraine. And yet the real danger may come from a trio of scorned women: Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO), and Marjorie Taylor Greene, the former congresswoman from Georgia. They are none too pleased — frankly, they are pissed off — about how Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi bungled the Epstein files release. Like Trump, their former idol, they are brash, unpredictable, and unapologetic. (Well, MTG is sort of apologetic, if you believe her.) That’s what makes their rising anger over Epstein so combustible. In a party where loyalty to Trump is sacrosanct, these three firebrands broke ranks. And they didn’t just murmur dissent. They torched it. Over the weekend, all three erupted at Bondi’s absolutely stupefying memo announcing the “end” of the Epstein files release. Their reactions were harbingers of trouble. Mace warned: “I think we ran out of patience a long time ago, and we’re honey badgers, and so I hope that … there will be more of us that will speak out.”Greene fumed: “All of you MAGA influencers and the rest mocking the seriousness of women who were trafficked and raped as teenagers and young women look like cult fools. Good luck trying to get women to vote for Republicans in the midterms, you insensitive clowns.”Boebert railed: “Terrifying language in the Epstein Files I viewed yesterday … Emails about torture. Frequent talk of ‘consumption’? A restaurant called ‘The Cannibal’… These are sick, sick people.”Last year, when Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) filed a discharge petition to force a House vote on releasing the Epstein files, the Trump administration called it a “hostile act.” The affair was supposed to die quietly. Instead, Mace, Boebert, and Greene were among the few Republicans willing to sign on early and force the vote into daylight. Trumpworld launched an intense pressure campaign, including private meetings urging the three to back off. They refused. In November, the House vote passed 427–1, and Trump signed the legislation. The DOJ rollout of the files, however, has been deplorable. Deadlines have been missed and victims’ names and personal information left unredacted, while alleged Epstein co-conspirators, Les Wexner among them, have been given a shield. On Saturday, Bondi sent a letter to Congress claiming the DOJ had fulfilled its obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act by releasing more than 3 million pages. Case closed? Not according to lawmakers. Not according to victims. And certainly not according to Mace, Boebert, and Greene. If the Epstein saga is a book, we’ve only seen the intro. Survivors and members of Congress argue that key internal memos remain withheld and names of alleged abusers are still redacted. Bafflingly, Bondi’s memo included long-dead celebrities on a list of “politically exposed” individuals, Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe alongside figures disgraced by association with Epstein including former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, former Paul Weiss CEO Brad Karp, and Hollywood heavyweight Casey Wasserman. Here’s the thing: as with the rest of this mangled release and botched attempt to squash the story, inserting names like Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain, and Pope John Paul II looked suspiciously like another smokescreen, another “look over here” moment, another distraction designed to blur relevant connections to Epstein. Beyond the shenanigans was Bondi’s cold, crass refusal to apologize to Epstein survivors seated directly behind her in a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week. For many, that was the final betrayal. The three GOP women are hardly known for sisterhood politics but they are now resoundingly advancing just that. Mace has promised to go “full-blown scorched earth,” in pursuit of accountability. That doesn’t suggest capitulation. Trump likes to dominate women, or so he thinks, and he likes to humiliate them too. Does “Quiet, Piggy” ring a bell? But what makes Mace, Boebert, and Greene tricky is that they are his people. They speak the language of the base. They helped build it. And when they accuse his DOJ of hiding the truth about Epstein, it perks up the ears of MAGA conspiracy theorists. Trump signed the release bill under enormous pressure. But the DOJ has turned a festering wound infectious. The redactions, the unredacted names, Bondi’s bonkers memo, and her refusal to apologize all feed the perception that the powerful are being protected. Greene has positioned herself as a leading outside voice calling for the “full-blown scorched earth” approach Mace promises too. As the Epstein fiasco unfolds, Greene’s voice will only grow louder, a counterweight in MAGA, demanding answers. These three women are set to continue reading names into the Congressional Record, demanding jail time, going to war with the DOJ, tightening the screws on Trump. He has survived indictments, impeachments, insurrections. But surviving scorned women, allies turned insurgents, fighting for victims, may prove a more grievous challenge altogether. John Casey was most recently Senior Editor, The Advocate, and is a freelance opinion and feature story writer. Previously, he was a Capitol Hill press secretary, and spent 25 years in media and public relations in NYC. He is the co-author of LOVE: The Heroic Stories of Marriage Equality (Rizzoli, 2025), named by Oprah in her "Best 25 of 2025.”Our Analysis:Trump's Tumultuous Terrain: A Fracturing PresidencyIn an era where the absurd often masquerades as the norm, the ongoing saga of Donald Trump's second term presidency unfolds with a predictability that would be comedic if the stakes weren't so tragically high. The latest chapter in this farcical odyssey is a concoction of self-inflicted wounds, ideological clashes, and a trio of scorned women lawmakers, illustrating not just a presidency in peril but a broader systemic failure within American politics.Self-Inflicted Wounds and Ideological ClashesThe article starts with a scene all too familiar in Trump's America: a presidency teetering on the brink of chaos. A Department of Homeland Security shutdown—a move so strategically inept it borders on self-sabotage—paired with a Supreme Court decision on global tariffs threatens to unravel the already fraying edges of Trump's administration. Yet, as if economic instability and governance through crisis were not enough, Trump's penchant for alienating his allies takes center stage. Senators Tim Scott and Roger Wicker, among others, have publicly condemned Trump, particularly over a racist video about Obama—a move that not only demonstrates Trump's unyielding commitment to divisiveness but also his utter disregard for the ramifications of his actions.The Fallout from Immigration and Nationalist RhetoricTrump's immigration policies, specifically the crackdown in Minnesota, have eroded his support among the very demographics that bolstered his re-election bid. This, coupled with Marco Rubio's Christian nationalist rhetoric at the Munich Security Conference, highlights a presidency caught between its own extremist policies and the alienation of its traditional support base. Trump's administration has consistently played with fire, stoking the flames of nationalism and xenophobia, only to find itself scorched by the very blaze it ignited.A Trio of Scorned WomenEnter Representatives Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. This trio, once loyal foot soldiers in Trump's political army, have turned their backs on the former idol over the mishandling of the Epstein files release. Their outrage is not just a personal vendetta; it signifies a deeper rot within Trump's administration—a blatant disregard for transparency, accountability, and the very rule of law. The DOJ's "deplorable" handling of the Epstein files, as described, is indicative of a government that operates with impunity, prioritizing the protection of the powerful over the pursuit of justice for the victims.The Epstein Files FiascoThe article sheds light on a particularly egregious example of governmental malfeasance: the botched release of the Epstein files. Despite the House's overwhelming vote to release these documents, the DOJ's execution was marred by missed deadlines, unredacted victims' names, and the shielding of alleged co-conspirators. Bondi's memo, claiming the DOJ had fulfilled its obligations by releasing over 3 million pages, is mocked as a transparent attempt to close the case without real transparency or accountability.The Political ImplicationsThe fallout from this saga is more than just a momentary blip in Trump's presidency; it's a symptomatic manifestation of a broader ailment afflicting the body politic. Mace, Boebert, and Greene's rebellion is not just about Epstein; it's a battle cry against a system that allows men like Trump to wield power without accountability. Their promise of a "full-blown scorched earth" approach is a significant threat to Trump's already precarious position.Conclusion: The Bigger PictureAs this article vividly illustrates, Trump's presidency is not just fracturing; it's emblematic of a political system in crisis. A system where loyalty to party trumps principle, where governance is conducted via Twitter tirades and executive orders, and where the most vulnerable are sacrificed at the altar of political expediency. The saga of Trump's second term, with its self-inflicted crises, ideological extremism, and the fallout from the Epstein files, is a stark reminder of the dangers of placing power in the hands of those who see leadership as a means to personal vendetta rather than public service. In the end, the real victims are not just the women trafficked by Epstein, but all Americans who must live under the shadow of a fracturing presidency and the systemic failures it represents.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:A prominent House Republican who successfully advanced bipartisan legislation to release the Epstein files is predicting there will be more GOP "defections" once the primaries are over. U. S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) told Politico that because Speaker Mike Johnson's majority is so thin, "on any given day, I would just need one or two of my own co-conspirators to get something done" that goes against the Trump administration's agenda. He said that "what’s happening is that the retirement caucus is growing and primary days are coming up and passing. Once we get past March, April and May, which contain a large portion of their Republican primaries, I think you’re going to see more defections."Massie added that "quietly and privately, people are telling me they agree with me."In a surprising revelation, Massie said that House Republicans "are being told every week to stand down, bite their tongue, sit on their hands, do what they’re told, be part of the team and put their brain in neutral."Massie also offered several other pointed remarks. He noted that after President Trump called him a "moron" at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this month, pastors were "not impressed and I don’t think anybody was impressed by his performance at the prayer breakfast. It was completely political."The Kentucky Republican further directed strong criticism toward Attorney General Pam Bondi after being the only member of his party to, as Politico reported, "spar" with her at last week's contentious congressional hearing."When the attorney general is reduced to a stack of pre-prepared insults to deliver, and when the DOJ is responding to my every tweet with additional unredactions, I don’t think I’m going to change what I’m doing just yet,” he said. Massie described Bondi as looking "weak and frustrated" at the hearing "when she started talking about the Dow Jones, which has literally nothing to do with her job.""I thought that looked bad," he said. He also pointed to her "stack of insults that were pre-prepared — in politics you might call it oppo research — and you could see her shuffling through them to try and find which one matched the person who was trying to ask her a question at the time. She found my card like right at the end, as you can see she was looking for it."

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Critics are demanding the censure and even expulsion of a Republican US congressman after his latest bigoted remarks against Muslims. The firestorm began on Sunday when Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) responded to a sarcastic social media post by Palestinian American activist Nerdeen Kiswani, who jokingly suggested that New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s election meant that “NYC is coming to Islam,” and it was time to consider banning dogs as pets because “like we’ve said all along, they are unclean.” “If they force us to choose,” Fine wrote, “the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”Kiswani insisted that her post was not meant to be taken at all seriously, and was rather her attempt to satirize some Americans’ fears about having a Muslim elected to lead the largest US city. “If Americans cared as much about abused children as they do about posts joking about dogs,” she wrote, “we might actually be facing a national reckoning. Instead watching some of the same politicians who resisted transparency around the Epstein files discover their outrage over this is telling.”Many Democratic lawmakers were quick to condemn Fine for suggesting that the US expel Muslims.“We must call this what it is. Disgusting bigotry,” wrote Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). “Fine must be censured. It’s about morality and decency, not politics.”Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) joined Khanna’s call to censure Fine.“This is genuinely one of the most disgusting statements I have ever seen issued by an American official,” she wrote. “It should not stop shocking us that the Republican Party openly embraces this. Fine should be censured and stripped of committees. To ignore this is to accept and normalize it.”Rep. Rob Menendez (D-NJ) argued that Fine’s statement “is what it looks like when Islamophobia and outrage are the only two items on your political agenda,” and demanded that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) issue a formal condemnation. Jennifer Jenkins, a Democrat running against Fine in Florida’s 6th Congressional District, said that censuring the Republican lawmaker was not enough.“Randy Fine has spent years spewing hate: attacking entire faiths, calling for violence, targeting kids and families, and dehumanizing Americans,” she wrote. “He’s only escalated. Congress must act now and expel Randy Fine immediately.”Fine appears undeterred by the condemnation he’s received, appearing on Newsmax Tuesday morning to push false claims about Democrats wanting to ban pet dogs.“People should know Democrats like [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] are saying ‘we are going to get rid of your dogs,’” Fine falsely claimed. “Americans need to keep that in mind when they go and vote in November.”

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Donald Trump might like to hope that he and his allies are now in the clear, but according to a new analysis from The i Paper, he remains in "maximum danger" amid the Epstein files fallout, and his fate could be sealed by testimonies given in the wake of the midterms. Writing for the outlet on Tuesday, political editor James Ball argued that Trump and his attorney general, Pam Bondi, "will almost certainly find that moving the world’s attention on is easier said than done" when it comes to the Epstein files." Despite Bondi claiming that all of the Department of Justice's files on Jeffrey Epstein have been released, the continuing testimonies from major figures are set to keep the story in the public eye for the foreseeable future. So far, with Republicans in control of Congress, "Trump’s close associates are probably safe," Ball argued. Billionaire and close Epstein confidant Les Wexner is set to testify next week. GOP leaders are considering a subpoena against Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates if he refuses to testify publicly. Conversely, Bill and Hillary Clinton are fighting to give public testimony as Republicans have insisted on a closed-door deposition instead."Hillary in particular is punching back hard on the story, claiming she has nothing to hide and accusing the White House of engaging in a 'cover-up' over the Epstein scandal," Ball wrote. Despite the efforts of Republican lawmakers to keep a lid on testimonies that might embarrass Trump, Ball argued that things are liable to get much worse for him on that front in the likely event that Democrats take the House majority in November's midterms. With that kind of power once again, the party will be able to compel testimony that could be much more damaging for Trump, and keep the Epstein story in the spotlight for the rest of his second term."At the moment, Republicans control the House, and so they have control over the Epstein witness list," Ball explained. No one can be made to testify without Republican say-so, meaning that in the short term, Trump’s close associates are probably safe. But the midterms are just months away, and Democrats are heavily expected to take control of the House – which would give them the power to demand evidence from anyone the Republicans leave out."He added later: "The White House is caught in a trap of its own making. During the election, it thought it could use the Epstein story to embarrass Democrats, and then drop it without anyone noticing once in power. That hasn’t worked, and their obvious desperation to move the story on only makes it harder for them to do so. That means the story is likely to drag on, not just for weeks, but for months or years. Some of Epstein’s victims have waited decades already for justice. They are not about to let it go."The Epstein files scandal, Ball noted, is one of the few issues that unites both Democrats and Republicans against Trump. Keeping the story alive, therefore, could continue to erode Trump and the GOP's overall support with voters, helping Democrats gain an edge as they fight to retake the White House in 2028.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:For those of us who grew up watching the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has died at 84, he didn’t just march for freedom and rights. He charted a deeper path. For six decades, the man who stood on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis and watched his mentor, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., struck down by an assassin’s bullet, carried King’s message of the “Beloved Community” for the rest of his life. King’s Beloved Community was a vision of a society rooted in justice, unconditional love, and nonviolence, a place where poverty, hunger, and hate are replaced with reconciliation and inclusivity. For the stubbornly determined Jackson, it was not a fantasy. It was achievable through collective action to dismantle systemic inequality and promote peace. Those were Jackson’s causes. His dying wishes. He never wavered. For a long time, he was the moral compass in America. But now, as we mourn him, we find ourselves in a country that isn’t just losing its way — it is actively ripping apart the Beloved Community. Jackson believed in the Beloved Community. Donald Trump pushes “America First” and “Us versus Them.” A town square where Black, brown, and marginalized people don’t belong. Consider the nature and temperament of these two men. The contrast is stark. Jackson’s life was defined by sacrifice that included arrests, threats, and racism, the grinding work of coalition-building among people who didn’t always agree but believed in shared dignity. He was steeped in a theology of service. He was convinced leadership meant standing last in line and speaking first for those with no voice. Trump’s public life is defined by vilification of others and glorification of self. He looks down on the downtrodden. He denigrates marginalized communities, mocks the disabled. He stokes division, hoards wealth, exalts power. After brushes with death, he suggests God spared him so he could impose policies that cause suffering. Jackson absorbed blows for the powerless. Trump deflects responsibility to them. One saw public office as a crusade for morality. The other treats it as a platform for retribution and enrichment. History will record that one man bent over backward to widen the circle of American democracy while the other narrowed it to fit the dimensions of his own: white, straight, nationalistic, shielded by phony Christianity. Where Jackson possessed moral courage, willing to lose elections but win ground for justice, Trump has shown the instinct to dominate rather than persuade, to mock rather than minister. Jackson accepted defeat. Trump calls losses “rigged” and a “hoax.”Jackson’s masculinity was rooted in empathy. Famously, he cried when Barack Obama was elected president. He prayed with striking workers and linked arms with immigrants, laborers, civil rights marchers, and LGBTQ+ Americans, long before it was politically safe. Trump’s brand of strength is transactional, not transformative. He uses ferocity as proof of toughness, a barrage of insults to telegraph a dark vision. To Jackson, the marginalized were people. Trump calls them threats. In the measure that matters, character, Jackson towered. Trump stands diminished by the smallness of the ideals he champions. Trump is unforgiving. He is beyond imperfect — lecherous, unrepentant, remorseless. This is not to canonize Jackson. He was flawed. He fathered a child out of wedlock, made antisemitic remarks, could be vindictive. But when he was wrong, he apologized. When last week Trump posted a grotesque video depicting the Obamas as apes, he refused to say “I’m sorry,” one of countless wrongs left unacknowledged. On Tuesday, Trump used his tribute to Jackson to aggrandize himself and take a pointless swipe at Obama. The timing of Jackson’s death is more than tragic. It is darkly ironic. He leaves as the “Rainbow Coalition” he painstakingly built, synonymous with the Beloved Community, is being dismantled, color by color, by an administration that treats civil rights not as a moral imperative but as “woke,” discrimination against white men. Consider the blatant assault on civil rights enforcement. Jackson spent his career forcing corporate America to reflect the nation’s diversity. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an order effectively criminalizing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the federal government. This administration has deployed the Justice Department against institutions that prioritize diversity. Trump’s siege extends to the ballot box. Jackson’s life was defined by voter registration drives and barrier-breaking campaigns. Now we witness the most aggressive rollback of voting access since Jim Crow. By championing restrictive voter ID laws, gutting the Voting Rights Act, and redistricting Black seats, the Trump administration is ensuring the Rainbow Jackson envisioned is systematically clouded over, voting turned into a laborious chore for the marginalized. Perhaps most heartbreaking is the calculated dismantling of the social safety net and Jackson’s dream of economic justice. He understood that freedom is hollow if the poor go hungry. That belief is being trampled by Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” that slashed Medicaid and SNAP benefits for the most vulnerable. While Jackson fought for health-care access and student debt relief, the Trump administration moves to cut aid and strip protections. Trump tells the poor poverty is their own fault. Even the basic protections for the “outsiders” Jackson embraced are being incinerated. ICE deportations tear families and communities apart, the antithesis of Jackson’s call for a path to citizenship. The reinstatement of bans on transgender service members and the removal of protections for LGBTQ+ people are not mere policy shifts. They reject the inclusive rainbow humanity Jackson preached from every pulpit. It is no coincidence the LGBTQ+ flag is a rainbow too. The tragedy of Jackson’s death in the Trump era is that the Rainbow is being bleached white. The man who told us to “Keep Hope Alive” is gone. The man in the Oval Office demands surrender to despair. There will never be another Jesse Jackson. If there is justice in history, there will never be another Donald Trump. John Casey was most recently Senior Editor, The Advocate, and is a freelance opinion and feature story writer. Previously, he was a Capitol Hill press secretary, and spent 25 years in media and public relations in NYC. He is the co-author of LOVE: The Heroic Stories of Marriage Equality (Rizzoli, 2025), named by Oprah in her "Best 25 of 2025.”

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:A former foreign policy official who served under Republican President George W. Bush warned in a Tuesday editorial that the foreign policies of the current Republican president, Donald Trump, will cost America its “greatness.”“History will brand the U. S. failure to ensure Ukraine’s victory and prevent Taiwan’s fall as the time when America fell from greatness and her ‘cunning’ but miscalculating enemies plunged the world into a new global conflict,” wrote Joseph Bosco, who served as China country director under the Secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006, in The Hill. Critiquing the Defense Department’s recent National Defense Strategy, Bosco observed that its “muscular” tone belies a “much more restrained” approach toward international affairs.“Shockingly to students of American history and tradition, [Trump] has openly sided with Russia’s position demanding major concessions of Ukrainian territory and sovereignty,” Bosco wrote. Even as the strategy faults Democratic President Joe Biden for having “enabled” America’s “cunning adversaries,” Bosco points out that “Trump seems not to include Russia among the traditional quartet of ‘cunning adversaries,’ along with China, Iran and North Korea, bent on drawing the U. S. into a two-front or three-front war.” This is especially odd because if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine, “history’s lessons teach that such a drastic scenario is far more likely with an appeased but still unsatisfied Russia moving from a partially defeated and weakened Ukraine to the Baltics or Poland. It is not peace through strength.”Bosco also elaborated on the document’s implications for Taiwan, which relies on US military support to protect it from Chinese aggression much as Ukraine relies on it against Russia.“The lack of U. S will in Ukraine to defend a strategic and democratic partner against a relentless aggressor that offers economic advantages and personal leadership blandishments,” Bosco wrote. “It is doubtless manipulating geopolitical circumstances to discourage or strategically delay U. S. intervention in a Taiwan contingency.”Other foreign policy experts from both sides of the aisle have sounded the alarm about Trump’s increasingly transactional and partisan foreign policies. For example Gen. Stanley McChrystal (Ret.) told The New York Times that “once lost, the legitimacy of a military that reflects and represents all Americans will be difficult to recover." Rep. Jason Crow, (D-Colo.), who is a former Army Ranger, similarly told the Times that "the message being sent to those younger soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines is that politics can and should be part of your military service. It’s a dangerous message."MS NOW's Steve Benen recently wrote about Trump's partisan speeches to the military, "When he delivers the same message to active-duty military personnel, it's a qualitatively different kind of story. An apolitical military is a foundational, bedrock principle of the United States. Partisan, ideological and electoral considerations must be utterly irrelevant to what the military is and how it functions. It is nevertheless a principle for which Trump appears to have no use, creating an untenable dynamic."A former high-ranking military officer shared Benen’s critique."The very first sentence of Secretary Pete Hegseth's cover memo…. is retrospective and retributive, rather than prospective and mission-oriented," wrote retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling for The Bulwark in January about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's stated policies. "Strategy documents…. are not vehicles for settling political scores; they are meant to speak to a professional force tasked with executing national objectives under extreme risk."

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Former federal prosecutor James D. Zirin on Tuesday lambasted Donald Trump for failing to clear a legal hurdle deemed so easy by the legal profession that it is the subject of a famous joke. Writing for The Hill, Zirin said that Trump is coming off of "a bad week" after a grand jury in Washington D. C., declined to level criminal charges against six Democratic lawmakers who took part in a video reminding military members of their obligation to ignore illegal orders. Despite Trump declaring the video "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH," in a social media post, the jury found that there was no probable cause to charge the Democrats under a law that targets individuals who "interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States.”Zirin spent three years as an assistant U. S. Attorney in Manhattan years ago, and said that during his time in the office, grand juries had already become somewhat infamous as a "rubber stamp" for the government's legal pursuits. He shared a famous joke about them, which claims that "a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich," due to the threshold for an indictment being low and because prosecutors do not have to share conflicting evidence during the grand jury process. Even with this low legal bar, Trump's administration has, for months now, been dealing with a trend of grand juries refusing to sign off on its desired criminal charges. Former judge Jon E. Jones III called the idea "aberrational" and "unprecedented" in the world of law. Zirin, conversely, said that grand juries have "frequently" declined indictments since Sol Wachtler coined the "ham sandwich" joke in the 50s, even if it is remarkably rare in modern times."A grand jury has great power. It is one of the few institutions that can tell the government to go to hell," Zirin explained. "If a grand jury fails to indict, a criminal prosecution cannot proceed. Of course, prosecutors are free to present the evidence again to another grand jury if they do so within the statute of limitations."He later added: "Although the bar is so low that grand juries almost always return the indictment the prosecutor desires, the Trump administration’s vengeful attempts to harass his political opponents have been so shockingly anti-democratic that grand juries have repeatedly refused to go along."Both the most recent slate of failed indictments and the headline-grabbing failure to indict a man for throwing a sandwich at a law enforcement official have occurred under the jurisdiction of Trump's U. S. Attorney for Washington D. C., former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro. Her office's escalation in charges has also been accused of clogging the city's court system, with sources close to the matter calling it a "nightmare" and a "real mess" last summer.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Donald Trump appears to have made a major mistake with his purge of top lawyers from the Department of Justice, as many of these "all-star" professionals are now joining the institutions fighting back against his presidency, in a turn of events one former attorney dubbed "idiocy."On Tuesday, CBS News' top justice correspondent Scott MacFarlane shared a video to X and BlueSky detailing this trend, likening it to a sports team trading its best players to rival teams."It's hard enough to get by without your best players on the field, but you certainly don't want to play against them, and have huge adversaries when you play your opponents," MacFarlane explained. The Trump administration, he argued, "has been getting rid of some of its all-stars" in the DOJ, and it is starting to become a huge "problem" as they join the efforts to "challenge the administration," essentially "joining the rival team." That is on top of the severe drain of professional experience and "institutional memory" that these hiring purges have cost the government across every department. As MacFarlane laid out in the video, Trump's purge of these top lawyers was driven primarily by political motivations and a desire for personal retribution. Many of the attorneys who got the ax when Trump returned to the White House were the ones who had worked to convict Jan. 6 rioters, whom he gave a mass pardon early on in his term. He also cut many individuals who took part in the federal investigation of him during his time away from Washington, D. C."Some have been fired, some have been pushed out, some have said, 'You know what? I've had about enough of this politicized Department of Justice, I'm out of here,'" MacFarlane said. "I'm moving on to greener pastures."MacFarlane gave the example of Mike Romano, a "storied, prolific" former DOJ lawyer known for his "incredible record" prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants. Since leaving the federal government in 2025, he has joined a firm handling "labor cases, among other things." He also recently testified before the Senate last week in a hearing where he "reinforced the truth about Jan. 6, that it was a righteous prosecution and an important prosecution, pushing back on the administration's false claims and lies."He also highlighted the Washington Litigation Group, a nonprofit staffed with many individuals who previously worked with Jack Smith on the criminal cases against Trump. This group is now taking part in the fight against such things as Trump's effort to add his name to the Kennedy Center and the closure of a "key civil rights division" within the DOJ."These nonprofits and firms are capitalizing on the Department of Justice's idiocy," one anonymous former prosecutor told MacFarlane.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:President Donald Trump announced a new agreement with Japan on his Truth Social platform Tuesday — and attributed it all to his controversial tariff policies."Our MASSIVE Trade Deal with Japan has just launched!" wrote Trump. "Japan is now officially, and financially, moving forward with the FIRST set of Investments under its $550 BILLION Dollar Commitment to invest in the United States of America — part of our Historic Trade Deal to REVITALIZE the American Industrial Base, create HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of GREAT American Jobs, and strengthen our National and Economic Security like never before."He continued: "Today, I am pleased to announce three TREMENDOUS Projects in the Strategic Areas of Oil & Gas in the Great State of Texas, Power Generation in the Great State of Ohio, and Critical Minerals in the Great State of Georgia. The scale of these projects are so large, and could not be done without one very special word, TARIFFS. The Gas Power Plant in Ohio (A State I won THREE TIMES!) will be the largest in History, the LNG Facility in the Gulf of America will drive Exports, and further our Country's Energy DOMINANCE, and our Critical Minerals Facility will end our FOOLISH dependance on Foreign Sources.""America is building again. America is producing again. And America is WINNING again," Trump concluded. "This is a very exciting and HISTORIC time for the United States of America and Japan. Congratulations to all! Thank you for your attention to this matter!"Trump has frequently claimed to have secured $18 trillion in foreign investments into the United States, a figure that doesn't have any data supporting it. This comes as America waits for the Supreme Court to hand down a decision in a massively consequential case that could severely curtail Trump's ability to issue tariffs without an act of Congress, and as even many House Republicans start to threaten action against tariffs.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com