

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Insane rulers rarely stop themselves: they’re stopped when the people around them decide the country matters more than the crown.
When Louise and I lived in Germany in the 1980s, we visited Neuschwanstein Castle, the fantasy palace perched on a Bavarian cliff that looks like it escaped from a fairy tale. Tour guides will tell you about its beauty and its role as an inspiration for Disney, but they’ll also share a more unsettling story that today echoes Donald Trump.
Neuschwanstein was built by King Ludwig II, a ruler who withdrew from reality, governed through spectacle instead of policy, ignored his ministers, and bankrupted Bavaria by indulging his own grandiosity and a never-ending stream of construction and renovation projects. (Neuschwanstein was only one of three castles he built.) Bavaria eventually dealt with Mad King Ludwig: his own government declared him mentally unfit to rule and removed him from the throne.
That memory of Ludwig and his architectural obsessions has been haunting me lately, and it’s frankly astonishing that more people in the media aren’t asking the same question I’m bringing up here (and people are constantly calling into my radio/TV show about): “Is Trump losing his sanity?”
I’m not talking about his well-documented lifelong narcissism, his sociopathic inability to feel or even understand the pain of other people, his bullying, or even his compulsive lying, greed, and lechery; this is about whether he’s fit for the job he’s holding or is losing his touch with reality in a way that endangers both our nation and world peace.
When Trump held his press conference announcing the invasion of Venezuela and the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, a reporter asked the most basic question imaginable: Who is running Venezuela now and going forward?
Trump first claimed that he was in charge, but then when other reporters asked for details he waved his hand toward the men standing behind him and said, “They are.” Marco Rubio, Stephen Miller, General Dan Caine, and Pete Hegseth.
The expressions on their faces told the real story: Surprise, confusion, and even alarm. This was clearly, visibly news to them. Shocking news, even.
Did he just decide to BS his way through the press conference like he’s done so much of his life? Didn’t he realize this was a violation of both international law and the US Constitution? Did he think for a moment that he’s the king of the Americas? Or the world?
The next day we discovered the truth their expressions revealed; there was no plan for governing Venezuela, or even trying to via an occupation Iraq-style. There was no congressional authorization; in fact, he told the oil companies before the raid but didn’t bother to inform Congress until yesterday. (Although the oil companies now say he’s lying.)
There was no public debate and no involvement of any visible constitutional process involved in this invasion and body-snatch. Under our federal system, the president doesn’t get to just improvise an occupation or administration of a foreign nation from a podium.
Even Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Bush didn’t try to pull that off; all sought congressional authorizations for their wars and each gave explanations that at least gave a hat-tip to the traditional American values of democracy, peace, and the rule of law.
Congress, after all, declares war under our Constitution, as well as controlling the purse that makes that war possible. Even the idea of “running” another country would require massive legal, diplomatic, and military frameworks, and now we discover that none of that stuff existed. Instead, apparently, Trump had an impulsive thought or idea and just blurted it out.
That moment should have set off loud alarms throughout Washington and should have shot across our media like a meteorite. Instead, it drifted by as simply another strange episode in a presidency that’s taught us to pretend the abnormal is now normal.
Democrats (and a few Republicans) condemned Trump’s claim that he was running Venezuela; Republican politicians are now twisting themselves into pretzels to try to justify it. Reporters were simply confused. It’s nuts.
And in just the few days since then, Trump has openly threatened to seize Greenland, Cuba, Colombia, even Mexico. These aren’t policy proposals. They also aren’t rooted in American or international law, military or political strategy, or diplomacy.
They are, instead, Mad King Ludwig-like expressions of personal fantasy, of imperial imagination, of a man who appears increasingly convinced — who actually believes — that all power in America and perhaps around the world flows from his will alone.
And then there’s Trump’s bizarre online behavior, like posting over 100 times a night, and promoting a tweet saying that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz had hired a hit on State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, close personal friends of Walz’s.
Or his refusal to consider the last Venezuelan election winner, María Corina Machado, to run the country because she “stole” the Nobel prize from him.
Rachel Maddow last night on her television program suggested that the real reason Trump invaded Venezuela was simply because he could. Like a child, or a mad king, he wanted to play with his soldiers, watch them kill people and blow things up, and he doesn’t want anybody to tell him that he can’t.
And, I would add, eventually he plans to turn them on people like you and me. Once he’s made sure they’ll do anything he demands, no matter how bizarre, no matter how wrong, no matter how illegal. That’s why he’s now going after Senator Mark Kelly and other members of Congress for telling soldiers they don’t have to follow illegal orders.
Lev Parnas, who once worked closely with Trump and still hears from people inside his orbit, writes that Trump is receiving regular intravenous infusions of a new Alzheimer’s medication, administered through veins in his hands, whose known side effects include “sleepiness” during the day, “poor judgment,” and “impaired impulse control.” It could explain the bruises, the CT scans and MRIs, and the regular cognitive tests that the medication requires.
Not to mention the increasingly bizarre and grandiose behavior.
I’m not diagnosing Trump, but I am watching — a shocked world is watching — a pattern of behavior that is becoming more erratic, more impulsive, and more detached from constitutional reality week by painful week.
This also isn’t a partisan observation; I’m describing precisely the scenario the Framers and a later Congress worried about when they designed safeguards for presidential incapacity. The 25th Amendment wasn’t written for removing villains but rather for those moments when a president can’t or won’t reliably discharge the duties of his office but doesn’t have the good grace, insight, or ability to step down himself.
But constitutional tools are only as strong as the people willing to use them.
Bavaria in the nineteenth century had fewer options than we do. It had no elections to depose Mad King Ludwig, and no amendment laying out a clear procedure for replacing him.
For years, Ludwig had ministers serving him who watched how crazy he’d become but nonetheless delayed, rationalized, and hoped the problem would solve itself. It wasn’t until the damage became so great, as the state trembled on the verge of bankruptcy, that it was impossible to ignore any longer.
Modern America, on the other hand, has elections, courts, and a theoretically independent Congress. And we have the 25th Amendment. What we lack right now, however, is courage in the GOP and Trump’s cabinet.
Republican members of Congress know that a president can’t unilaterally invade or administer foreign nations on his own whim or impulse. They know that threatening annexation destabilizes the entire world, and Trump’s handed both Putin, Netanyahu, and Xi the rationalizations they all crave to expand their own empires.
Even Republicans know that governing by impulse isn’t strength but, instead, represents a very real danger to our republic. And yet they remain silent, calculating that confronting Trump is riskier to their careers than indulging him is to the country.
That GOP calculation is the real threat.
Trump’s love of military spectacle also fits perfectly — and dangerously — into this pattern. Like Ludwig staging operas and medieval fantasies in his version of the Kennedy Center, Trump treats America’s armed forces as props in his own pathetic personal drama. Rallies, salutes, parades, flyovers, and dramatic announcements substitute for deliberation, applause substitutes for legitimacy, and the human costs, the constitutional limits, and the long-term consequences are all fading into the background.
Neuschwanstein still stands today, beautiful and empty, a monument to what happens when fantasy replaces governance. Bavaria survived despite Ludwig, not because of him. Twenty-first century America, however, doesn’t have the luxury of turning its current ruler into a picturesque lesson (complete with a Ludwig-style ballroom) after the damage is done. A nuclear-armed superpower can’t afford indulgence that’s pretending to be patience.
The Constitution isn’t self-enforcing and doesn’t rise up on its own when norms are trampled. It instead relies on people in positions of authority to choose responsibility over fear; that’s why federal officials and our soldiers pledge their allegiance to our Constitution rather than to our government or any particular administration or person.
We hold the rulebook sacred, not the rulers.
If Republicans continue to refuse to even acknowledge the danger in front of them, history suggests the reckoning will come anyway, just at a far higher cost.
Bavaria eventually acted, not because it was easy but because delay had become more dangerous than dealing with a psychologically incapacitated and emotionally stunted ruler. The question facing the United States today is whether we’ll learn from that history or insist on repeating it.
Mad kings rarely stop themselves: they’re stopped when the people around them decide the country matters more than the crown.
Let your elected officials, particularly the Republicans, know your thoughts on the issue. The phone number for Congress is 202-224-3121. And pass it along…
Trump’s blatant lawlessness will haunt America and the world for a long, long time.
Trump’s domestic and foreign policies — ranging from his attempted coup against the United States five years ago, to his incursion into Venezuela last weekend, to his current threats against Cuba, Colombia, and Greenland — undermine domestic and international law. But that’s not all.
They threaten what we mean by civilization.
The moral purpose of civilized society is to prevent the stronger from attacking and exploiting the weaker. Otherwise, we’d be permanently immersed in a brutish war in which only the fittest and most powerful could survive.
This principle lies at the center of America’s founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. It’s also the core of the post- World War II international order championed by the United States, including the UN Charter — emphasizing multilateralism, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
But it’s a fragile principle, easily violated by those who would exploit their power. Maintaining the principle requires that the powerful have enough integrity to abstain from seeking short-term wins, and that the rest of us hold them accountable if they don’t.
Every time people or corporations or countries that are richer and more powerful attack and exploit those that are not, the fabric of civilization frays. If such aggression is not contained, the fabric unravels. If not stopped, the world can descend into chaos and war. It has happened before.
We now inhabit a society and world grown vastly more unequal. Political and economic power are more concentrated than ever before. This invites the powerful to exploit the weaker because the powerful feel omnipotent.
Every time people or corporations or countries that are richer and more powerful attack and exploit those that are not, the fabric of civilization frays. If such aggression is not contained, the fabric unravels. If not stopped, the world can descend into chaos and war. It has happened before.
The wealth of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Charles Koch, and a handful of others is almost beyond comprehension. The influence of Big Tech, Big Oil, and the largest aerospace and defense corporations extends over much of the globe. AI is likely to centralize wealth and power even more. The destructive power of the United States, China, and Russia is unmatched in human history.
Trump — enabled by cowardly congressional Republicans and a pliant majority on the Supreme Court — has turned the U.S. presidency into the most powerful and unaccountable agent of American government in history.
Put it all together and you see the threat.
A direct line connects Trump’s attempted coup five years ago to his capture of Nicolas Maduro last weekend. Both were lawless. Both were premised on the hubris of omnipotence.
That same line extends to Trump’s current threats against Cuba, Colombia, and Greenland.
You see much the same in Putin’s war on Ukraine. In Xi’s threats against Taiwan. In global depredation and monopolization by Big Tech and Big Oil. In Russian, Chinese, and American oligarchs who have fused public power with their personal wealth.
But unfettered might does not make right. It makes for instability, upheaval, and war.
History shows that laws and norms designed to constrain the powerful also protect them. Without such constraints, their insatiable demands for more power and wealth eventually bring them down — along with their corporations, nations, or empires. And threaten world war.
Trump’s blatant lawlessness will haunt America and the world — and civilization — for years to come.
It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes.
There has been much heated discussion of the United States Navy’s attacks, ordered by the President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, against numerous unidentified boats and their unidentified occupants. Many have characterized these lethal strikes as crimes under international law, which is valid position. However, what is less understood and more relevant is that the attacks are crimes under United States law and that they also constitute “international terrorism” as that term is defined in United States law.
Title 18 USC §2331 defines international terrorism as “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life” that:
The first, third, and fourth of those conditions are clearly met by the attacks off the coast of Venezuela because:
It is the second condition, i.e. whether the attacks (a) are a crime under United States law wherever they are committed or (b) would be a crime if committed in the United States, that determines whether they meet the definition of international terrorism under the law. If either or both are true, the condition is met.
As to the first alternative, i.e. whether the attacks are a violation of federal criminal law that applies regardless of where the attacks occur, the relevant federal criminal law is 18 USC § 2280. It provides that a person “who unlawfully and intentionally… performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship" or who "destroys a ship" commits a crime punishable by a fine or a prison sentence of "not more than 20 years, or both,” and if a death results from the violence or destruction, by a sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law’s definition of “ship” includes “a vessel of any type whatsoever,” i.e. the boats are ships within the meaning of the law. Finally, there is jurisdiction under the law when a person who commits the action is a “national of the United States.”
It is indisputable that the attacks constitute acts of violence against the people on the boats and that all of the boats have intentionally been destroyed. And even though Trump, Hegseth, and others have claimed that the attacks are lawful, their arguments do not stand up to even mild scrutiny. Their claim of lawfulness is based on a fictional state of war against the US, but there is in fact no war, no direct threat to the United States or its citizens, and no authorization by Congress for use of deadly force. Therefore, the attacks are clearly unlawful. Finally, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command who participated in ordering and commission of the attacks are nationals of the United States, so they fall within the jurisdiction of USC § 2280. Because the attacks have caused the death of those on the boats, the maximum penalty is death or life imprisonment, which means it is a Class A felony per 18 USC § 3559. Therefore, the attacks are a crime under United States law.
The attacks on the boats also meet the alternative standard that they “would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States.” That is, the intentional killing of people without due process, i.e. unlawfully, is the crime of murder pursuant to 18 USC §1111(a).
It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name.
The conclusion is that the attacks clearly constitute crimes of violence against maritime navigation and murder under United States law. Therefore, the attacks are acts of international terrorism per 18 USC §2331. That is, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command that furthered the implementation of these attacks are international terrorists. And because the attacks are being made by the United States armed forces in the name of the United States government, it follows that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism.
Even though the Supreme Court has given Trump immunity and impunity, and even though the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi will never prosecute Hegseth, et al., under 18 USC § 2280 or for murder, that does not affect the conclusion that the attacks on the boats are acts of international terrorism as defined by 18 USC §2331, and that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism. The facts speak for themselves.
I believe it is important that the American people recognize that the attacks on the boats constitute international terrorism under United States law and that the United States has thus become a state sponsor of international terrorism. The United States government has condemned, and continues to condemn, foreign governments, e.g. Iran, as alleged state sponsors of international terrorism. That the United States government has now become the world’s most egregious state sponsor of international terrorism makes those condemnations of other countries utter hypocrisy.
It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name. It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes. Only then can the United States begin to expunge the stain of being a state sponsor of international terrorism.
Every one that goes up incrementally reduces the attractiveness of the oil that underlies so much conflict and tyranny, including Trump's latest attack on Venezuela.
It’s far too early to prophesy the effects of the American attack on Venezuela, though recent history provides plenty of ugly warnings.
And it’s a thankless task to list all the reasons for the attack, from Epstein distraction to a sphere-of-influence carve up of the planet (watch out Taiwan) to the basic idea that President Donald Trump opposes any and all restraint on his power. (The United Nations charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The US constitution: "The Congress shall have the power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”) Also, so much fun playing Army: Here’s the president of the US Saturday morning: “I watched it literally l like I was watching a television show. If you would've seen the speed, the violence—it was an amazing thing."
(I think we can take it for granted that the stated charges from the attorney general are not the reasons, since pretty much everyone agrees that that Venezuela is not a big drug exporter to the US and the president just pardoned the president ofHonduras who actually was a serious pusher. Oh, and “Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns” is something we now encourage for Americans.)
But the following chart is certainly suggestive.
Those are the countries on Earth with the biggest oil reserves, and they are almost without exception the same places we’ve been involved in endless fighting or, in the case of Canada, endless threatening. (Greenland, by the way, also has significant oil reserves; it put them off limits in 2021, banning oil exploration on climate change grounds). We probably don’t care much about human rights violations in Venezuela, because human rights are not currently on the top (or the bottom) of our State Department’s concerns (except for white South Africans). But we almost certainly care deeply about that oil. In fact, it’s not exactly hidden—here’s what Trump said in mid-December.
"They took our oil rights—we had a lot of oil there. As you know they threw our companies out, and we want it back."
And as he said Saturday morning on Fox News, regarding the Venezuelan oil industry:
“We’re going to be very strongly involved in it.”
I do not, in the short run, know of a way to rein in this kind of imperialism. Congress as currently constituted will not stand up to Trump, and we don’t get a chance to start reconstituting Congress till November; even if the Democrats controlled the House and Senate and even if they grew some serious spine, it’s not clear how they’d prevent this kind of overreach. Without the two-thirds of the Senate needed for impeachment, it’s become increasingly clear that the Constitution is a nominal document.
But I do know how to dramatically reduce the motivation for this kind of grab, and that’s to convert the planet off oil as fast as possible. Oil is unique in being extremely valuable, extremely dense, and hence relatively easy to hoard and control, and extremely concentrated in a few places around the world. It is a curse to those places—look again at the list above, and with the exception of Canada ask yourself how well they’ve been governed. (And Canada’s oil wealth may yet be its undoing, as Alberta threatens over and over to disrupt the nation unless it gets its oily way). And it is a curse to the planet—because of the climate crisis, obviously, but also because anything worth this much money will inevitably destabilize international relations. As the late Richard Cheney, then the head of oilfield-services giant Halliburton, remarked in a 1998 speech:
The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is.
But what it it the business wasn’t there any more? What if we could, simply by supporting an environmentally and economically sound transition to clean energy, remove the reason for the fighting? I don’t know how to stop the bully from beating people up for their lunch money—but what if lunch was free, and no one was carrying lunch money? Not for the first time, and not for the last, I’m going to make the observation that it’s going to be hard to figure out how to fight wars over sunshine.
What I’m trying to say is, if you’re for peace and democracy, then a solar panel is a valuable tool (and a valuable symbol, a peace sign for our age). Every one that goes up incrementally reduces the attractiveness of the oil that underlies so much conflict and tyranny. Right at the moment treaties and charters and constitutions offer limited protection at best; we should work to restore the national and global consensus that makes them valuable, but we should also work to push out the kind of energy that can’t be hoarded or controlled.
Why does Trump hate solar and wind energy so passionately? It’s because they’re somewhat outside his or anyone else’s control. A nation that builds its prosperity on oil makes itself a target; a nation that depends on imported oil to survive makes itself a vassal. A nation (say, China) that rapidly builds out its own supply of energy from the sun—energy that can’t be embargoed or effectively attacked, energy that is by its nature decentralized, energy so spread out that no particular bit of it is all that valuable—is a nation that can go its own way.
America is, by any definition, a rogue nation as of Saturday morning. It does what it wants, without effective constraint by anyone. It, in the image of its leader, is a bizarrely destructive and absurdly oversized toddler, unable to reason beyond its own wants and impulses. We should try to teach it some manners, but we should also childproof the planet.