Fred Trump III denounces uncle Donald for saying disabled people 'should just die'

Democracy Now! is joined by the nephew of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has endorsed Trump’s Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. Fred Trump III’s new memoir, All in the Family: The Trumps and How We Got This Way, shares fresh insights into the Trump family and acts as a platform to advocate for individuals with developmental disabilities. Fred Trump’s own son William has a rare genetic disorder that causes severe developmental and intellectual disabilities. He says Donald Trump once told him to abandon William, saying, “He doesn’t recognize you. Let him die, and move down to Florida.” After a meeting in the Oval Office about dedicating more resources to people with disabilities, Fred Trump says his uncle said, “Those people, the costs. They should just die.”

“How could one human being say that about any other human being, least of all your grandnephew?” says Fred Trump, who calls on the next president to support disabled Americans. “The Harris campaign and her positions are ones that I believe. Now, that being said, I have yet to hear anything regarding disability actions … and I will put their feet to the fire on this.”



This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, “War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman.

In this next segment, we’re joined by the nephew of the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has endorsed Trump’s Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. Fred Trump III is the son of the former president’s late older brother, Fred Trump Jr., who died of complications from alcoholism in 1981 at the age of 42.

Fred Trump writes about his [uncle], former President Donald Trump, in his new memoir titled All in the Family: The Trumps and How We Got This Way. On page one, Fred writes, quote, “I have a name — Trump — that is extraordinarily polarizing, and keeps getting more so. But there is more to my name than all that friction, and I am ready to use it for something good. A cause near and dear to my heart: advocating for individuals with developmental disabilities. But we’ll get to that in a bit,” unquote.

Fred Trump’s son William suffered from severe seizures when he was born in 1999 and has a rare genetic disorder that causes severe developmental and intellectual disabilities. He’s now living in a group home. But at one point when Fred Trump was lobbying his uncle Donald to replenish a medical fund for William, Donald reportedly told him, quote, “Your son doesn’t recognize you. Let him die, and move down to Florida.” Well, Fred Trump also says President Trump once told him as they sat in the Oval Office that disabled Americans “should just die.”

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump has referred to eugenics and the racehorse theory, suggesting he sees himself as genetically superior. Previously, Donald Trump came under fire for mocking a disabled reporter. In 2015, when he was running for president, Trump mocked Serge Kovaleski, a reporter who suffers from a congenital condition that impairs the movement of his joints.

DONALD TRUMP: Written by a nice reporter. Now, the poor guy — you got to see this guy. “Oh, I don’t know what I said. Uh, I don’t remember!” He’s going like, “I don’t remember! Ah, oh, maybe that’s what I said.” This is 14 years ago. He’s still — they didn’t do a retraction.

AMY GOODMAN: Trump is moving his hands spastically — for a radio audience that can’t see him — as he mocks this New York Times reporter. He later said he never met Kovaleski, but the reporter said he had spent a lot of time with Trump while working at the Daily News and covering Trump’s 1989 launch of an airline.

Fred Trump’s memoir also recounts how he witnessed Donald Trump using racial slurs decades ago, which Trump’s spokesperson Steven Cheung has called, quote, “fake news of the highest order.”

Well, to discuss all this, Fred Trump III joins us now here in our New York studio.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

FRED TRUMP III: Thanks, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Tell us about William. Tell us about your son, when he was born, and about his life. He’s now what? Twenty-five.

FRED TRUMP III: Twenty-five, which makes me about a hundred. Thank you for asking about William, by the way. It makes me feel great to tell him. He is the most courageous and inspirational person I have ever met.

As you mentioned, he was born with severe seizures as a baby in 1999. We found out — my wife Lisa is a tremendous detective. It took her 15 years of searching the internet to find out that he had a genetic mutation called KCNQ2. And the first years were really tough, especially the first. He was in hospital for seven total weeks. We didn’t know what his future would be like, but it certainly — certainly came to pass what it would. William is wheelchair-bound. He needs assistance with everything he does, like millions of people in this country.

What William’s condition has given me the opportunity to, if I do have some sort of national platform, is to go out and advocate on behalf of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. And I don’t know if I could draw any parallel with what we just heard with Arwa, but people ask, “Is he medically OK?” William is doing fine medically. He’s on very intense seizure medications still to this day. But we struggle with finding a meaningful day program for William. Many people don’t realize this, but when you age out of school, you’re pretty much left on your own in terms of therapies and stuff.

Again, to go back to Arwa, where she brought up the point when you were able to give these kids some — they had some hope. They had some meaning put back in their lives. That’s one of the things that we’re trying to do: give the complex disabled a reason to be part of the community and give something back, not necessarily a paying thing, but to do something that will help other people. It gives them such purpose.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, go back to when he was born. At the time, you were fighting with Donald to get him healthcare?

FRED TRUMP III: Yeah. In the beginning, the family was very supportive. Now, keep in mind, they never visited, and William was born in Mount Sinai Hospital on the Upper East Side. Everybody in the family, my aunts and uncles, lived within walking distance of Mount Sinai. They never visited. They really never called. But they did agree to put William on the family Trump Organization medical plan, which was very much appreciated, obviously. His expenses were out of control. But if you remember back then, Donald was in very bad financial straits. And when William finally came home after seven total weeks of hospitalizations in two different hospitals, we realized, from a letter that Donald’s attorney sent, that that medical care, the insurance would be cut, and we were, in essence, also taken out of my grandfather’s will, my sister Mary and I.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait a second, Trump’s lawyer told you that your severely disabled infant would be cut from the Trump Organization’s healthcare?

FRED TRUMP III: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, has Donald Trump ever met William?

FRED TRUMP III: Never.

AMY GOODMAN: In 25 years?

FRED TRUMP III: Never, never. Never asked him.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, you’re not estranged from him. You’ve been to the Oval Office. You’ve been with Donald Trump many times.

FRED TRUMP III: When Donald was elected, my wife — again, Lisa — knew we would have an opportunity to advocate on this very important cause. And Lisa reached out to Ivanka, my cousin, who was a — in the — I don’t know what her exact title was, but working in the White House. And she set up a first meeting with Ben Carson, with a group that we had been aligned with called Equally Alive. And for the next several years, we would go down periodically to meet Alex Azar —

AMY GOODMAN: Head of HHS at the time.

FRED TRUMP III: Head of HHS, and several other departments within the government, to see if we could move things along. And I had the pleasure of being an intern for Geraldine Ferraro in 1983, so I kind of knew what the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., was about. And we found that out the hard way, that not much was accomplished in the three-plus years that we attempted to.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what happened when Donald Trump was president? You met with Donald Trump and this organization in the Oval Office.

FRED TRUMP III: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And then they left, and you were with Donald Trump.

FRED TRUMP III: Yeah. So, we had been — the meeting lasted longer than I thought, about 45 minutes. You know, Donald has the attention span of about — I thought it was going to be five or 10 minutes. And we put forward some ideas, one of which was efficiency, prevention will lower costs — lower costs — for providing help to this community and give better services. The meeting ended. Everybody left, including myself, but I got a tap on the shoulder a minute later from Donald’s assistant, saying, “Your uncle would like to see you again.”

So, he greets me with the typical, “Hey, pal, how’s it going?” And I sit down, and Alex Azar is in there. And he said, “Those people, the costs. They should just die.” I was just thankful that the group of people were not in there to hear that. I don’t know how you — I keep saying this.

AMY GOODMAN: Those people being —

FRED TRUMP III: The Equally Alive —

AMY GOODMAN: — disabled people.

FRED TRUMP III: No, the advocates on behalf of — fortunately, there was nobody who was — I don’t think he would have let —

AMY GOODMAN: Who was he saying should die?

FRED TRUMP III: The disabled people, people with complex disabilities, because the costs to government were such that — you used the word “eugenics.” I have yet to use that in an interview. But yeah, I mean, that’s — to me, that’s what eugenics was. You know, you don’t measure up, you get slammed out, and that’s it.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, this is something that Donald Trump said to you as early — as late as just last year, is that right?

FRED TRUMP III: Yeah, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: When it came to William?

FRED TRUMP III: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: When you were trying — well, explain. You were trying to get support. And why do you have to keep turning to Donald Trump to get support, financial support?

FRED TRUMP III: I understand that. My uncle Robert had passed away in 2020.

AMY GOODMAN: There were five kids in the family.

FRED TRUMP III: Five kids: Maryanne, my father, Elizabeth, Donald and Robert. And for years, they were very, very supportive. Now, keep in mind, I won’t get in — I don’t think we have the time to get into the whole lawsuit issue and how, actually, that was my money that I was asking for, regardless.

AMY GOODMAN: You’re talking about with your grandfather, Fred Trump, after he died —

FRED TRUMP III: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: — instead of dividing it in five parts, the —

FRED TRUMP III: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: — family fortune, they cut out your father.

FRED TRUMP III: They cut out my father.

AMY GOODMAN: And that meant you and Mary, your sister —

FRED TRUMP III: Right, right.

AMY GOODMAN: — and divided between the four of them?

FRED TRUMP III: Exactly. So, the medical fund was set up in around 2009. Lisa and I went to Donald first, because I had the — I didn’t have any relationship with my aunts and uncles after the lawsuit. Donald, graciously, came to me, and we reconciled, if you will. So, yeah, the medical fund was being depleted because Robert’s widow didn’t want to do it anymore. Maryanne was balking at doing it. And what Maryanne says, Elizabeth went along —

AMY GOODMAN: Maryanne became the federal judge in New Jersey.

FRED TRUMP III: Maryanne, the federal judge, right. So, Eric — I went to Eric. Eric was really good with Lisa and me and sort of being the interface with William’s medical fund. But it was being depleted, and we really only had Donald to go to. So, Eric said, “Call up DJT.” And I call him up on the phone, and Donald always was great at answering the call for me, even when he was president. And I said, you know, “I need your help. We’re running out of money in the fund.” And he goes, as you said before, “He doesn’t recognize you. Let him die, and move down to Florida.” And it took me a couple of seconds to say, “No, he does recognize me.” And what I really wanted to say was, “You’ve never met him before. You never asked to meet him. So how would you know?” And you have to say, how could one human being say that about any other human being, least of all your grandnephew?

AMY GOODMAN: So, the title of your book is All in the Family: The Trumps and How We Got This Way. How did he, you all get this way? I mean, you’re talking about outright cruelty and discrimination.

FRED TRUMP III: Yeah. Yeah. My grandfather, Fred Sr., was a very driven guy, which is great. I mean, he created more apartment buildings in Brooklyn, second most in Queens. It wasn’t a very loving family. The word “love” was rarely thrown around, no hugs and kisses really. And Donald was, as I say, the obnoxious one in the family. My father was the caring, charismatic guy. Donald was the young bully, if you will.

And success meant everything to my grandfather. And my father was supposed to be the golden child. He was, again, young and good-looking and personable. But my dad didn’t want anything to do the family business. He tried it. He hated it. He wanted to be an airline pilot, and he became an airline pilot. And years later, I got my pilot’s license also, because of — not because of him. I admired him for that. And my grandfather and Donald did not like that. Donald called him a glorified bus driver. And my dad, unfortunately, took to heavy drinking, and in the end, that’s really what killed him.

AMY GOODMAN: And he died at the age of?

FRED TRUMP III: Forty-two. Yeah, I was a sophomore in college. Obviously, I remember that day like it was yesterday.

AMY GOODMAN: And amazingly, you flew back on the very kind of plane, TWA.

FRED TRUMP III: TWA 707 into JFK.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, Donald Trump was in the news once again this week because of an Arlington National Cemetery employee who was being targeted and pushed because Donald Trump wanted to be there with his videographers to take a picture in the cemetery, that isn’t allowed, in Section 60. This brought back memories of what he did and what a number of sources said he did when he was president, outside the cemetery in Paris, not wanting to — canceling a trip to a cemetery —

FRED TRUMP III: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: — American cemetery, because he said the soldiers who were buried there were losers.

FRED TRUMP III: Right. And he didn’t want to get his hair wet.

Just as an aside, my father, when he was at Lehigh University, joined ROTC. He also was in the Air National Guard, voluntarily, the only Trump family member to have served.

I was sitting right in front of Senator McCain during the inauguration. And Lisa and Andrea and Christopher, my two older kids, were there also. When the ceremony was over — and I remember the Frank Luntz interview with Donald. In fact, I was with Frank the other day, and I really wanted to get his take on what happened that day. Anyway, when the ceremony was over, I said, “Kids, I want to introduce you to somebody.” I don’t use the word “hero” often. I think we have cheapened the definition of “hero.” We definitely cheapened the definition of “patriot.” I said, “This man is an American hero.” And Senator McCain, after what Donald had said, I said, “Sir, Fred Trump. I just wanted to tell you, you’re a hero.” And if there was one proud moment with my kids and my wife of that inauguration, it was that.

AMY GOODMAN: You have endorsed Kamala Harris to be president.

FRED TRUMP III: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: What most concerns you if your uncle Donald Trump returns to the White House as president?

FRED TRUMP III: We’ve all heard, and some of us have read, Project 2025. And he will say he had nothing to do with it. And I sort of half-joke, “Yeah, that’s like him saying, 'I had nothing to do with building Trump Tower.'” His hands are all over that. It’s a dystopian, dangerous view of what the future might be, but it really is just going back decades to what this country could be. And I say it in the book that, you know, my family was sort of like a '50s sitcom. The ’50s weren't just Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley. They were lots of bad things.

And I believe it’s in the foreword where it talks about public education. That’s going to affect the disabled community in a bad way. It’s going to affect minority children in a bad way. I think it will be a very dangerous time if he’s reelected. And again, I believe in policy over politics, and that’s why I’ve always been a Democrat. But so did Donald, as you know. But the Harris campaign and her positions are ones I believe in. Now, that being said, I have yet to hear anything regarding disability actions that I deem, obviously, important, and I will put their feet to the fire on this.

AMY GOODMAN: Before we go, you talk about hearing Donald Trump use the N-word decades ago, your uncle, when he got mad.

FRED TRUMP III: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: He also, with this father, sued for discriminating against people of color, African Americans, being allowed in their housing projects in Queens.

FRED TRUMP III: Yeah. I mean, I was there that day. I was at my grandparents’ house, as I often was when I was a kid. I grew up in a Trump apartment building — no minorities, by the way. And I was kicking a soccer ball around, and I heard him just shout out twice the N-word. And I went back, and there was his white El Dorado, red —

AMY GOODMAN: This is Donald Trump.

FRED TRUMP III: Donald — red interior, black top with two slash marks. And he had a roll of black electrical tape. And —

AMY GOODMAN: We have 30 seconds.

FRED TRUMP III: Yeah. It’s kind of a pattern, where — the word was disgusting, but the fact that he didn’t know who did it was also disgusting. The fact — when you go back to Serge Kovaleski, the fact that he mocked that reporter was gross; the fact that the crowd yucked it up also, so I have to wonder what’s in their hearts. You know, they obviously don’t have a family member who has disabilities.

AMY GOODMAN: Fred Trump III is the nephew of former President Donald Trump, current presidential candidate. But Fred Trump is the author of a new memoir about his family. It’s titled All in the Family: The Trumps and How We Got This Way. That does it for our show. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks so much for joining us.

'Five-alarm fire for democracy': New GA rules could block election results in key states

New voting rules in key battleground states could impact the 2024 election results. In Georgia, Democrats are suing to halt a set of Trump-backed election rules which Democrats say could be used to block certification of election results if they win in November. “It appears that Georgia Republicans are laying the groundwork not to certify the presidential election if Kamala Harris wins,” explains Ari Berman, who is the voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones magazine. Berman also discusses Tim Walz and JD Vance’s voting rights records and a recent voting rights law out of Arizona that requires new voters to prove their U.S. citizenship.


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, “War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

We look now at how voting rules in key battleground states could impact the November election results, especially in Georgia, where the laws are Republican-led and backed by former President Trump, who is now running for reelection.

This week, the Democratic National Committee and the Georgia Democratic Party sued to halt Georgia’s new election rules, which they say could be used to block certification of election results if Democrats win in November. The new rules, passed by the Georgia State Election Board, allow election officials to conduct a, quote, “reasonable inquiry” before certifying election results and to investigate ballot counts. At a campaign rally earlier this month, Trump praised the Georgia State Election Board’s MAGA-aligned majority.

DONALD TRUMP: I don’t know if you’ve heard, but the Georgia State Election Board is in a very positive way. This is a very positive thing, Marjorie. They’re on fire. They’re doing a great job. Three members — Janice Johnson, Rick Jeffares and Janelle King — three people, are all pit bulls fighting for honesty, transparency and victory.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by journalist Ari Berman, voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones, who called this a, quote, “5 alarm fire for democracy in Georgia.”

Ari, welcome back to Democracy Now! Explain, first of all, who he’s praising there and exactly what Georgia has done.

ARI BERMAN: Good morning, Amy. Good morning, Juan. Thank you for having me back on the show.

So, Trump is praising three members of this State Board of Election in Georgia who were appointed by Republicans, by the Republican Party, in the Republican-controlled Georgia Legislature. And they made a series of rule changes earlier this month that are extremely concerning for democracy and voting rights, one saying that counties must undertake a reasonable inquiry before certifying an election, and another saying that counties are entitled to what they call all election-related documentation before certifying an election. I think the goal here is to make certification of an election optional, instead of mandatory, which is how it’s been understood for decades, not just in Georgia but around the country.

And the huge worry here, and why I said this is a five-alarm fire for democracy, is it appears that Georgia Republicans are laying the groundwork not to certify the presidential election if Kamala Harris wins. And they’re doing exactly what Trump wanted them to do in 2020. Trump made Georgia the epicenter of the attempt to try to overturn the election. He asked local and State Board of Elections and election officials not to certify the election. They refused to do so; they followed the law. But it seems like in 2024 they’re going to extraordinary lengths to try to implement the measures that failed in 2020 to try to rig the election for Trump.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Ari, there is also intra-Republican fighting over this rule, isn’t there? Could you talk about the role of Georgia Governor Kemp?

ARI BERMAN: There is intra-Republican fighting, Juan, because, remember, Georgia passed a sweeping voter suppression law in 2021 that made it harder to vote in a lot of different ways. One of the things that law did is it removed the Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who defended the integrity of the 2020 election and refused to find 11,780 votes, as Trump demanded, to overturn Biden’s victory. That law removed Raffensperger from the State Election Board, so he was no longer chair or a voting member of Election Board. Instead, it gave more power to the hyper-gerrymandered Republican Legislature to appoint a majority of board members. And so, the fact that there is this Trump-aligned majority on the State Board of Election in Georgia is a direct result of this voter suppression law that was passed by Republicans.

That said, some Republicans seem to have regrets over what has occurred here. The Secretary of State Raffensperger has criticized these rule changes, saying he doesn’t want 11th-hour changes. Democrats have demanded an ethics inquiry. And in response to that ethics inquiry, Governor Kemp, a Republican, has asked the attorney general of Georgia, another Republican, whether he has the power to remove the Election Board members. So, this isn’t playing well with establishment Republicans, because establishment Republicans were the ones who were purged from the State Board of Election in favor of this MAGA-aligned majority.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And Georgia is not the only battleground over this issue. Could you talk about what is happening in other states, specifically Michigan and Nevada?

ARI BERMAN: Yeah. So, we’ve already seen local election officials in other states, including Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, not certify local election results. We also saw that happen in Georgia, too, in the last presidential primary. And this is so concerning because these state and local election boards have been taken over, in some cases, by election deniers, by MAGA extremists. And what they’re doing is they are trying to institutionalize the insurrection through other means. So, Trump failed to overturn the election results, but in a lot of key battleground states, they didn’t just change the voting laws, they also changed who’s serving on these key state and local boards.

And the administration of elections matters so much because you can cast a vote, you can have your vote counted, but it doesn’t actually matter until votes are certified. We learned that in 2020. Nothing is final until the elections are certified. And we’ve already seen evidence that Republicans are preparing not to certify an election if it doesn’t go their way.

AMY GOODMAN: Ari, you wrote a piece for Mother Jones headlined “Tim Walz Has a Stellar Record on Voting Rights.” Can you talk about what that record is and how it compares, for example, with the vice-presidential running mate of Trump, with JD Vance, who wanted to overturn the November election of 2020?

ARI BERMAN: When he was governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz signed a number of really impactful bills on voting rights. He signed a Minnesota Voting Rights Act, which was meant to restore protections of the Voting Rights Act that were gutted by the Supreme Court. He passed laws making it easier to vote, through things like Election Day registration, preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, more early voting, restoring voting rights to 50,000 people with past felony convictions.

And this is a huge contrast to Trump’s vice-presidential nominee, JD Vance, who has basically said he would have used his power to try to overturn the 2020 election if he had been vice president, and has doubled down on election denial. So, you have one vice-presidential candidate in Tim Walz who has used the power of his office to try to expand voting rights, and you have another vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance, who said he would do everything in his power to try to undermine voting rights. And that’s a pretty stark contrast, particularly at a time when voting rights is emerging in Georgia and other states as a central issue in the presidential campaign.

AMY GOODMAN: [inaudible] you about Arizona, Ari. What just happened there around immigrants and voting rights, the right to vote?

ARI BERMAN: There was an emergency Supreme Court case that came before the Supreme Court in Arizona regarding proof of citizenship to register to vote, so having to show things like a passport or birth certificate to be able to register to vote. And the Supreme Court said that voters there have to show this documentation to be able to register to vote and to be able to vote in state elections.

And this is very concerning because this is a last-minute change. We’re in late August right now. Arizona is a vote-by-mail state, so ballots get sent out soon. And there’s a lot of confusion over what documents you need to register to vote. And it’s thrown a lot of the state into confusion, when they don’t just have a competitive presidential election, but they have competitive races for Senate, for state Legislature. They have a lot of prominent ballot initiatives, including a ballot initiative on abortion. There’s lots of important down-ballot races over who’s going to decide control of elections in places like Maricopa County, the largest county in the state.

And the interesting thing is, the Supreme Court has said, “Don’t change voting laws too close to an election.” Well, the Supreme Court just changed voting laws close to an election in a way that it appeared will help Republican candidates try to win the election. So it sets a very disturbing precedent both on the ground but also for voting rights more broadly.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Ari, you know, we just came from the Democratic convention, before that, the Republican convention. All the discussion of the battleground states, that these are the only ones that will determine what happens in November. Someone tweeted something like, ”DEI for white states.” Not all white states, but these are some of the — these include some of the whitest and least populous states. Explain why these states are what determine who is president of the United States, rather than the national popular vote. If you can explain the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and where it stands now?

ARI BERMAN: Well, the reason why we focus every year on six to eight presidential battleground states is because of the Electoral College. And the Electoral College is fundamentally undemocratic in two different ways. First off, it creates a situation where you can win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote, which just violates basic notions of “one person, one vote.” But it’s also undemocratic in that 80% of Americans have a vote that really doesn’t matter for presidential elections, because they live in states that are either too red or too blue to actually matter. And so, the focus is always on these battleground states that tend to be whiter and more conservative and more Republican than the country as a whole. And whether you live in a redder state like Texas or a bluer state like New York or California, nobody comes to your state to campaign, because you’re not one of these carefully curated battlegrounds. So the Electoral College is both undemocratic and also not reflective of the country writ large.

What the National Popular Vote Compact would do is, if states that reach 270 Electoral College votes sign onto it, which is what you need to win the presidency, therefore, they will assign their states’ electors to the winner of the popular vote. So it’s a way, essentially, to abolish the Electoral College without having to pass a constitutional amendment, which is much tougher to do.

AMY GOODMAN: Ari Berman, we thank you for being with us, author of Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People—and the Fight to Resist It. He’s voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones magazine. We’ll link to your recent piece, ”MAGA Election Deniers Are Going All Out to Rig Georgia for Trump.”

NOW READ: Robert Reich: Trump is a bully, but I'm fighting back

When MSNBC fired Phil Donahue for airing his anti-war views

The pioneering TV host Phil Donahue, who revolutionized daytime television by tackling major social and political issues in front of a studio audience, has died at the age of 88. The Phil Donahue Show, later renamed Donahue, ran from the 1960s through to 1996, and the affable host won 20 Emmy Awards and received a Peabody Award throughout his career. In 2003, Donahue was fired from his primetime MSNBC talk show for airing antiwar voices during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when most of the corporate media was cheerleading the Bush administration’s drive for war. Donahue spoke with Democracy Now! about his firing in 2013, describing it as a decision “from far above” in the network. “They were terrified of the antiwar voice,” he said. Donahue is survived by his wife Marlo Thomas, his four children and his grandchildren.



This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in breaking news, the pioneering TV host Phil Donahue has died at the age of 88. The Phil Donahue Show, later renamed Donahue, ran from the 1960s through to 1996 and tackled major social and political issues, including women’s rights, child abuse in the Catholic Church, prisons and racism. Among his notable interview subjects was Nelson Mandela, whom he spoke with shortly after his release from a South African prison in 1990. Over his career, Donahue won 20 Emmy Awards and received a Peabody Award.

AMY GOODMAN: In 2003, Phil Donahue was fired from his primetime MSNBC talk show during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It was the most popular talk show on MSNBC at the time. The problem wasn’t Phil’s ratings, but rather his views. An internal MSNBC memo warned Donahue was a, quote, “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war,” providing a, quote, “home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity,” unquote. In 2013, we spoke to Phil Donahue about his firing.

PHIL DONAHUE: I think what happened to me, the biggest lesson, I think, is the — how corporate media shapes our opinions and our coverage. This was a decision — my decision — the decision to release me came from far above. This was not an assistant program director who decided to separate me from MSNBC. They were terrified of the antiwar voice. And that is not an overstatement. Antiwar voices were not popular. And if you’re General Electric, you certainly don’t want an antiwar voice on a cable channel that you own; Donald Rumsfeld is your biggest customer. So, by the way, I had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I could have Richard Perle on alone, but I couldn’t have Dennis Kucinich on alone. I was considered two liberals. It really is funny almost, when you look back on how — how the management was just frozen by the antiwar voice. We were scolds. We weren’t patriotic. American people disagreed with us. And we weren’t good for business.

AMY GOODMAN: That was the groundbreaking TV host and journalist Phil Donahue. Following his firing, Phil went on to co-directed the documentary Body of War, that told the story of the U.S. Iraq War veteran Tomas Young, who was paralyzed after being shot in Iraq and came home to become an antiwar activist. Phil Donahue died on Sunday at the age of 88. He’s survived by his wife Marlo Thomas, his four children and his grandchildren. Our condolences to the whole Thomas-Donahue family. Phil Donahue, the pioneering TV talk show host.

Revered minister slams GOP 'unity' lie

Bishop William Barber, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, joins us as the Republican National Convention wraps up in Milwaukee. On the final night, Donald Trump’s invective-filled speech, coming just days after the attempt on his life, was promoted as an address about unity. But Barber says it was only “a unity of rejection” on offer — rejecting the rights of women, immigrants, workers, poor people, disenfranchised voters and more. “They may have toned down their voices, but they did not tone down their extreme policies,” he says.



This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Donald Trump accepted the Republican nomination on Thursday night, just five days after surviving an assassination attempt. Trump gave the longest acceptance speech in convention history, clocking in at over 90 minutes. He began by recounting what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday, when a bullet grazed his right ear as he was giving a speech. He went on to repeatedly demonize migrants who seek refuge in the United States. He also attacked President Biden by name, despite a claim by campaign aides that he would not do so during the speech.

DONALD TRUMP: And then we had that horrible, horrible result, that we’ll never let happen again. The election result, we’re never going to let that happen again. They used COVID to cheat. We’re never going to let it happen again.
And they took off all the sanctions, and they did everything possible for Iran. And now Iran is very close to having a nuclear weapon, which would have never happened.
This is a shame, what this administration — the damage that this administration has done. And I say it often: If you took the 10 worst presidents in the history of the United States — think of it, the 10 worst — added them up, they will not have done the damage that Biden has done. Only going to use the term once, “Biden.” I’m not going to use the name anymore. Just one time. The damage that he’s done to this country is unthinkable. It’s unthinkable.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Bishop William Barber, national co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, also president and senior lecturer at Repairers of the Breach, founding director of the Center for Public Theology and Public Policy at Yale Divinity School. He’s co-author of a new book, White Poverty: How Exposing Myths About Race and Class Can Reconstruct American Democracy.

Bishop Barber, welcome back to Democracy Now! Why don’t we start off with your response to the Republican convention of this week? I think one of the big takeaways of this convention, as Republicans talked about unity, is unifying people against marginalized communities, particularly throughout the week, speaker after speaker vilified everyone from immigrants to trans students.

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, Amy, thank you for having me.

I think you’re exactly right. It was a unity of rejection, rejecting people in this American society. It was a unity in those who are against women’s right to choose, even though they tried to hide that, because you have to read the whole platform. It was unity against immigrants. But it is also — what they didn’t say, there was no conversation about the poor, 140 million poor and low-wage people in this country. This was a unity against labor rights, a unity against voting rights, a unity against living wages, a unity against healthcare for all.

This was a very extreme, extreme convention, even though we had just gone through an attempted assassination, which I renounce violence and was praying for the president and his family and the [inaudible] and their families and all of them. But it was almost as though it hadn’t happened. What you saw is that they went to the podium and the mic. They may have toned down their voices, but they did not tone down their extreme policies.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Bishop Barber, if you could speak — your book that’s just out is titled White Poverty: How Exposing Myths About Race and Class Can Reconstruct American Democracy. Talk about what you think ought to have been said throughout this convention on the crisis of poverty in the country that transcends race.

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, when we talk about the book White Poverty, what we’re trying to say is that most of the time we talk about poverty in the media and other places, somebody puts up a Black woman on welfare, which is racist toward Black people, and it is dismissive of tens of millions of white people. There are 26 million poor and low-wealth Black people, about 58-60% of the Black population, and 66 million poor and low-wealth white people, which is 30% of the white population. But there is this attempt to marginalize poverty and not address it and suggest it’s a marginal issue, when, in fact, it impacts 140 million people in this country. Poverty kills 800 people a day, 295,000 people a year, the fourth leading cause of death. And we can solve it. It is abolishable. It is solvable through living wages and child tax credits and earned income tax credits and healthcare for all and fully funded public education.

But what we didn’t hear at this convention, that should have been heard, is: How are you going to address these issues? That was the real failure of the first debate. The poor and low-wage people are 30% of the electorate now, 40% in battleground states. The first debate didn’t ask either candidate, “What will you do about living wages? What will you do about earned income tax credit? What will you do about making sure people have paid family leave and healthcare? What will you do about social safety net programs for the disabled and the hurting and the poor among us? How will you address this American crisis? An American crisis. How will you address this epidemic of policy death that comes through poverty and not addressing poverty?” None of that was raised. How will you address voting rights?

In the Republican platform, it’s addressed by not addressing it or saying they’re against it. We will wait to see about the Democratic platform. But that is a very — that is a failure, a failure of our society to constantly have debate after debate after debate, convention after convention after convention, and write off over 43% of the adults in this country which are poor and low-wealth, and over 51% of our children.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Bishop Barber, you know, to go back to another point that you make in your book, you say, “The shared experience of poverty has the potential to unite a movement for genuine change.” And as you were saying earlier, the rhetoric through the convention has been one of division. But I’d like to ask you about one specific claim that Trump made in his speech last night about jobs, Americans losing jobs, American citizens allegedly losing jobs to migrants. He said, in fact, that 107% of those jobs are taken by “illegal aliens” — so, leaving apart the fact that 107% is impossible.

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Right.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: He goes on to make the distinction that it is the Black population and the Hispanic population — it is their jobs that migrants are taking. If you could explain what you think the effect and the purpose of this kind of rhetoric is, this constant division between groups?

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Yeah. Well, in White Poverty, we talk about how there is this mythology that you make poverty a Black issue or Brown issue, and you split people so that the greedy can work within the divisions, or I think they called it “positive polarization” in the so-called Southern strategy.

And what we are saying is that whether you’re in Appalachia and you’re poor, or whether you’re in the Delta and you’re poor, if you can’t pay your light bill, we’re all, in essence, Black in the dark. We need to bind people together.

What he did was a slick way of trying to pit people against one another, saying to Black people and Brown and others that you should be against immigrants, when, in fact, as you said, you can’t be 107. The percentage is off. His facts are off. It’s not true.

His policies cost us jobs. His tariff policies cost — the American people paid for it, according to economists, and we lost some 300,000 jobs. His refusal to support healthcare cost us jobs, because when you pass universal healthcare, not only does it keep people healthy, but it also provides jobs. His refusal to pass living wages hurt 55 million poor and low-wage people that make less than $15 an hour every day in this country. His refusal to raise the minimum wage — he actually in one speech said it was too high, $7.25 an hour, that it’s been since 2009.

So, what Trump was trying to do is play this division against one another, Black jobs versus white jobs versus Brown jobs, rather than uniting people together. And that’s one other thing about this convention. What we saw is, he’s never gotten a majority of the American people. He’s won through the Electoral College.

He said that God was on his side when he did not get killed. And thank God he did not get killed. We have to renounce that violence. And thank God something worse didn’t happen. But here’s the other theological side. If God is on your side, then how do your policies reflect that? Because God cares about the poor. God cares about the least of these. God, throughout the Scripture, cares about the worker and says the worker is worthy of his right. What he engaged in, after saying God was on his side, was he lied. He lied over and over again. He engaged in idolatry. “I, and I alone” — I’ve never heard the likes of idolatry. “I, and I alone, can fix the economy. I, and I alone, can stop war. I, and I alone, can prevent World War III.” He attacked President Biden with the lie that he’s worse than the worst 10 presidents combined. He did not tell the truth about how his policies actually hurt poor and working people. He’s against labor rights. He’s against union rights. He’s against living wages. And over and over again, you know, lie after lie after lie. And then he would not talk about what’s really in the platform so that the American people could hear what’s in the platform.

So, I’m deeply concerned when you say God is on your side — which we are thankful for the grace of God. But when Theodore Roosevelt was shot, after he was shot, he then promoted living wages and healthcare, environmental protection. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was almost assassinated, he supported the New Deal and Social Security and living wages. When Kennedy was shot and killed, Johnson then went on to push the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. The question is: What you do if you’ve receive grace? How does your policies reflect the grace that you claim to receive? And I didn’t see a lot of that or hear that in the speech that we heard last night.

AMY GOODMAN: Other speakers on the final night of the Republican National Convention included former Fox host Tucker Carlson. While he made no mention of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Carlson claimed Donald Trump is trying to restore democracy to the United States.

TUCKER CARLSON: From the famous escalator ride nine years ago until today of Donald Trump’s public life has been to remind us of one fact, which is a leader’s duty is to his people, to his country and to no other. That’s the point. That’s the only point. And another word for this is “democracy.” Democracy, in case you’re a little sick of being beaten in the face with democracy on television, actual democracy is the proposition that the citizens of a country own that country. They’re not renters. They’re not serfs. They’re not slaves. They are the owners of the country. And for that to be true, their leaders have to represent them, which is another way of saying they have to do what the people want them to do, or a close approximation thereof. But if they completely ignore what people want, not just one year, but generationally, say, for 50 years, then it may be — I don’t know what. It’s not a democracy. And so, I think the entire Trump project, paradoxically — he’s attacked as an enemy of democracy — is to return democracy to the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Tucker Carlson addressing the Republican National Convention. He was forced out of Fox News. Bishop Barber, can you respond to what he said?

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, I can see why he was forced out, because they — you know, I just call it lying. I mean, people try to say “twisting words.” You know, you had a lot of people speak at that convention that had called Trump everything from an “American Hitler” — that’s what J.D. Vance said, and Tucker Carlson and others of them had negative things to say. Now they’re saying he’s the holder, he’s the keeper of democracy.

You turn loose people on January 6 that lie about an election and caused an insurrection, and you’re protective of democracy? No. You claimed that there’s voter suppression — I mean, voter fraud, when there’s not. No. You put justices on the Supreme Court who uphold voter suppression rather than stop it. No. Your party has been the party that has produced over a thousand [inaudible] in statehouses to suppress the vote, and you claim you’re for democracy? No. You stand up and say you and you alone. That doesn’t sound like the people; that sounds like you. You push policies that are against what the majority of Americans want. Americans want living wages, but they’re not pushing living wages. Americans want universal healthcare; they’re not pushing universal healthcare. And the majority of Americans want those things.

And so, what you have here is the ability to engage in smoke and mirrors. My grandmother used to have a saying that you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. But the danger of that is this lie with such a straight face and to be actually the antithesis of one thing. For instance, to name something, as many extremists do who claim themselves to be Republican, a freedom party, but then you participate in the kind of policies that are against freedom. It is a lesson in hypocrisy at the deepest level of what we saw during this convention. And it doesn’t matter if your voice is easy and quiet, and you claim to do unity, and you’re just not screaming and hollering. The substance was so subversive to this experiment of democracy.

And, Amy, if I might say, you know, I’m praying for the Democrats now, as they are talking about what they’re going to do in their candidate, because many of us, as a private citizen, support the Biden-Harris ticket. But I’m concerned about how they are processing asking the president, those that are saying, “You ought to step down,” because they’re saying, “Because of the polls, you ought to step down.” Well, polls don’t vote. That’s not a part of our Constitution. They’re saying, “Well, because your age.” Well, we don’t have an age requirement, except you can’t be but so young. They are saying that “You ought to step down because of health.” Well, health, in itself, is not a cause to step down, because if that was the case, Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt nor Kennedy would have qualified for the presidency, been able to serve.

We have a process in place. One, if you want to be in, then run during the primary. Two, we have the 25th Amendment. Three, the president can step down, and the vice president takes over. That’s why we have a vice president. But this notion of calling someone to step out, opening up the convention, because folk threaten to take money back, threaten to — are talking about polls in July and in August, is very concerning, because of the way it undermines the democratic process. We have a process in place in this country. If you believe somebody should not be in office, they’re too old, too young, too inexperienced, to frail, then run against them. If they are incapacitated, 25th Amendment. If they resign, then the vice president takes over. And we’ve got to be careful in this moment.

What I think ought to happen is that we ought to support a ticket that is there and push issues, get away from just the candidate and promote the issues that they support, and then mobilize the biggest swing vote in the country, which is poor and low-wage infrequent voters, 30 million of them, and young people, and tell them what the issues are. And lay down a 100-day plan and let people vote for that, and then follow the processes that are already in our Constitution, because you have to be very careful that you don’t then, in an effort to do something, actually set precedents that are contrary to the constitutional provisions that we already have existing in this country.

AMY GOODMAN: Bishop William Barber, we want thank you for being with us, national co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, president and senior lecturer at Repairers of the Breach, founding director of the Center for Public Theology and Public Policy at Yale Divinity School, co-author of the new book, White Poverty: How Exposing Myths About Race and Class Can Reconstruct American Democracy.

J.D. Vance: More radical than MAGA?

Politico reporter Ian Ward interviewed Ohio Senator J.D. Vance at length for a recent profile and joins us to discuss Vance’s biography and ideology after he formally accepted the Republican vice-presidential nomination to run with Donald Trump, whom he once staunchly opposed.



This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The Republican National Convention is entering its final day. Donald Trump will accept the party’s nomination tonight. On Wednesday night, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance accepted the Republican vice-presidential nomination and gave his first speech since becoming Trump’s running mate.

Vance first gained fame as the author of the best-selling memoir Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis about growing up in Appalachia. Vance is a graduate of Yale Law School who served in the Marines and became a venture capitalist. He was elected to the Senate in 2022 in part thanks to billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel, who spent a record-breaking $10 million to support Vance’s campaign.

For years Vance was a vocal critic of Donald Trump. In 2016, he wrote in The Atlantic, quote, “Trump is cultural heroin. He makes some feel better for a bit. But he cannot fix what ails them, and one day they’ll realize it.” But on Wednesday night, Vance called Trump, quote, “America’s last best hope.”

SEN. J.D. VANCE: But, my friends, things did not work out well for a lot of kids I grew up with. Every now and then, I will get a call from a relative back home, who asks, “Did you know so-and-so?” And I’ll remember a face from years ago, and then I’ll hear, “They died of an overdose.”
As always, America’s ruling class wrote the checks. Communities like mine paid the price. For decades, that divide between the few with their power and comfort in Washington and the rest of us only widened. From Iraq to Afghanistan, from the financial crisis to the Great Recession, from open borders to stagnating wages, the people who govern this country have failed and failed again.
That is, of course, until a guy named Donald J. Trump came along. President Trump represents America’s last best hope to restore what, if lost, may never be found again, a country where a working-class boy born far from the halls of power can stand on this stage as the next vice president of the United States of America.

AMY GOODMAN: That was J.D. Vance speaking at the Republican National Convention last night here in Milwaukee for the first time as Republican vice-presidential nominee.

We’re joined right now by Ian Ward, Politico reporter who interviewed J.D. Vance at length over the course of a few months earlier this year for a Politico magazine profile headlined “Is There Something More Radical Than MAGA? J.D. Vance Is Dreaming It.” His new piece, just out, is “Are Republican Voters Ready for the Nerdy Radicalness of J.D. Vance? Donald Trump puts the New Right on the ballot.”

Ian Ward, it’s great to have you with us. You spent a number of weeks with J.D. Vance for this profile. Few journalists know him like you do at the national level. If you can respond to what he said last night on the stage of the Republican National Convention, and then talk about exactly who J.D. Vance is, his profile, his history?

IAN WARD: Yeah. I think we’ve seen that J.D. Vance can wear many hats as a politician. He can be the attack dog. He can be a sort of intellectual articulator of the nationalist populist right. He can be the memoirist that he was when he rose to national prominence with Hillbilly Elegy.

I think there was a question going into last night: Which version of him would we see? And I think we saw the memoirist come, come to the fore. He dug deep into his personal background. He rehashed some of the material that he first introduced in Hillbilly Elegy, talking about his childhood growing up in Ohio. And he struck a sort of more restrained tone than you’ve seen him strike in the past. I think it was maybe an indication that Trump can be his own attack dog during the campaign, and they might deploy Vance as a somewhat more restrained voice.

Politically, we expect to see Vance parked in the Rust Belt states — Michigan, Ohio, yeah, in the Midwest, in Wisconsin and some of the critical swing states. Of course, his background growing up in Ohio gives him some connection to those voters, so it’s unsurprising, I think, that we saw him leading into that element of his biography, but certainly something to keep an eye on going forward.

I think, in terms of his political trajectory, you know, you’re seeing his biography take center stage. That was not a given, you know? I think there was a world in which he wanted to turn the page and strike a new identity, now that he’s on the Republican ticket. But I don’t think we’re seeing that. I think we’re seeing him return very much to his Hillbilly Elegy roots as the basis of his political identity now.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, you said, Ian, that you were impressed — after having spent all this time with him and doing this lengthy interview, that you were impressed by the breadth of his knowledge and interests. If you could say a little about what he spoke of in the interview with you, and what that might indicate about how he’ll be as a vice president and what his interests and priorities will be?

IAN WARD: Yeah. I mean, I think there are a lot of Republican politicians, especially in Congress and on the Hill, who have taken up the Trumpian talking points without trying to dig deeper into a somewhat coherent philosophy or theory that pulls them all together.

You know, Vance is a smart guy, despite what you think of his politics, right? He is a memoirist. He’s very adept at spinning personal tales into political lessons. He’s educated at Yale Law School, right? He’s got a sort of writer’s mentality, and he brings a writer’s and thinker’s approach to politics, regardless of what you make of his political ideas.

You know, in our interviews, we talked about a shockingly broad array of things. He brought up he had been thinking about the French President Charles de Gaulle and his legacy in postwar France. We talked about rail safety reform, which was one of the legislative battles he took up in his first year in the Senate. We talked about his intellectual influences, which include a whole range of writers and thinkers within the conservative movement. We talked about his family life in Washington. Regardless, again, of what you think of his politics, he’s an interesting, smart guy. He’s got very far-ranging interests, and he’s willing to talk about those things with reporters and with constituents, which makes him a little bit different, I think, than the average politician who tends to be sort of one-dimensional.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Ian Ward, if you can tell us —

IAN WARD: I think what that says about his —

AMY GOODMAN: If you could tell us more about his background, because not everyone has read Hillbilly Elegy, and how important it is, and how the Republican convention is using, for example, his mother’s addiction, mainly raised by his grandmother? They are very much talking about fentanyl. They’re linking it to what they call and what he referred to as “illegal aliens,” talking about drugs being brought over the border, when the facts about who brings drugs over the border, what, 90% are brought by U.S. citizens at U.S. ports of entry. But tell us his personal story, about how he was raised, and how that shaped him as he made his way then to, as he said last night, the Ohio State and then Yale Law School, where he met his wife, who would then go on to clerk for two Supreme Court justices, one when he was a district judge — that was Brett Kavanaugh, a federal judge — and one when he was the Supreme Court justice, Roberts.

IAN WARD: Right, yeah. Vance grew up in Middletown, Ohio. It’s a small to medium-sized town about an hour north of Cincinnati in western Ohio. He claims to be descended from “hillbilly royalty.” That’s his term. A distant relative of his was allegedly involved in the beginning of the Hatfield-McCoy feud, the famous Appalachian feud in American history. But he had, you know, as he recounted in his book — and it’s important to take all this with a grain of salt, because memoirists have a way of taking poetic licenses with their past.

But he grew up in a sort of troubled, broken family. His parents got divorced when he was very young. His mother struggled with drug addiction. He was raised primarily, as he writes in the book, by his grandparents, who he calls Mamaw and Papaw. He spent his summers growing up returning to Kentucky, to coal country, where Mamaw’s family roots were. He says he felt like Kentucky was his sort of spiritual home, even though Middletown, Ohio, was his actual home. You know, and his mother’s struggles with drug addiction have become a central part of his political story, especially since he came to national prominence during the opioid epidemic.

I think the way that the Republicans have been using the opioid epidemic and tied it to immigration is sort of a good symbol for what they see as various assaults on national sovereignty — this is how they would put it — you know, that the United States has surrendered control of its borders and of its people to outside influences, to foreign invasions — to use a popular conservative term — that we’ve abandoned protecting our borders, and what that means is that immigrants, drug dealers, so on, like, are assaulting our American citizens and so on. So, you know, obviously, it’s a political riff that resonates with the Republican base. It’s also an interesting symbol, I think, for the way that Republicans think about the abdication of American sovereignty and the turning over of the governing of America to, you know, elites, whose allegiances are primarily to a cosmopolitan world untethered from American soil and American citizens and who have abandoned the American people to these nefarious forces that exist outside of us.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Ian, could you talk about this term that you’ve written about, “the new right,” of which Vance is supposed to be somehow the intellectual light. You explain that the new right, one of the central tenets is that, quote, “the developments liberals point to as signs of 'progress' … are in fact engines of civilizational collapse.” So, if you could explain how Vance views this, and how that might shape the way that he influences or determines Trump’s policy, if he is elected president?

IAN WARD: Yeah. Vance is often described as “illiberal” or “anti-liberal.” He himself has used the term “post-liberal.” I think what he means by that, and just using that as a neutral description of his beliefs, he doesn’t believe in the prominence of small-L liberal democracy, not liberalism as a term for the left, but liberalism as a political theory, right? This is the belief that economic liberalization, technological innovation and the expansion of personal rights and the leveling of unjust social hierarchies actually leads to a better world for everyone. He doesn’t think that’s true. He thinks that small-L liberalism is, in effect, a sort of ideological superstructure to protect the economic interests of a certain type of person, an elite person, a cosmopolitan person, you know, a professional — the professional class, what on the left might be called the professional managerial class. So, he does not buy into the promise of small-L liberalism.

You know, he thinks that economic liberalization has led to economic destruction for communities. He thinks that social liberalization and the destruction of social hierarchies has led to cultural degradation and chaos. He thinks that technological innovation — and this is a belief shaped in large part by his relationship with Peter Thiel — he thinks that technological innovation has effectively been perverted by feckless elites who can’t get their act together and use technology to consolidate their control and their economic interests rather than help other people. Thiel famously has this line about technological innovation, that we wanted flying cars, and we got 140 characters, meaning technology had the potential to revolutionize our lives, but instead it gave us Twitter, which makes us unhappy, anxious and jealous of each other, right? And Thiel blames that very directly on the perversity and fecklessness of political and cultural elites, right? So, when Vance describes himself as a post-liberal, I think, or embraces the term “illiberal,” I think that’s what he’s getting at.

AMY GOODMAN: And as we talk about billionaires, what about Elon Musk saying he’s going to be giving $45 million to the Republican efforts to elect President Trump, every month leading up to November, which would be nearly $200 million? And J.D. Vance’s relationship with these tech millionaire and billionaires?

IAN WARD: Yeah. Vance, of course, after he went to Yale and briefly practiced law, he went into Silicon Valley, worked for Peter Thiel’s venture capital firm, and eventually spun off his own firm. It didn’t last very long. But, you know, he lived in California. He worked in Silicon Valley. He was tied into this world of right-wing Silicon Valley money and political influence. They, of course, have consolidated behind him. Thiel funded his 2022 Senate campaign.

You know, this is a serious tension, I think, in the Republican campaign. They’ve been campaigning on economic populism, what they call economic populism, and promising to protect the workingman. At the same time, they’ve been accepting enormous checks from Silicon Valley billionaires and millionaires and plumbing them for donations and hosting fundraisers out there. I’m, to be honest, not entirely sure what Vance — or, what Musk and co. see in Vance and Trump. I think they think he will be friendly to their economic interests, to their technological interests. They’ll do traditional deregulation. They’ll leave Silicon Valley alone. They’ll do tax cuts for billionaires, you know. And that’s all entirely possible, based on Trump’s first term. But I’m not entirely sure how they plan to navigate this tension. They might just ignore it, that, on the one hand, they’re doing economic populism, maybe, on the other hand, they’re cozying up to billionaires. It certainly strikes most people as a pretty stark contradiction.

AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about J.D. Vance saying that Trump makes racial resentment worse by talking about rapist immigrants and banning all Muslims? He wrote in 2016, “Trump makes people I care about afraid. Immigrants, Muslims, etc. Because of this I find him reprehensible. God wants better of us,” he wrote in October of 2016 about President Trump. Ian?

IAN WARD: Yeah, yeah. I mean, the big question is to what degree Vance has undergone a genuine ideological transformation, and to what degree he has opportunistically molded himself into the Trumpian model for reasons of self-advancement and political advancement.

You know, his own explanation for his transformation is twofold. One is that he lived through the first Trump administration and saw that they were right substantively on the policy issues he cared about. The second is that he was radicalized by the liberal response to Trump’s presidency. You know, he at that point was ensconced in fairly rarefied liberal circles due to Hillbilly Elegy. And he says as he watched liberals respond to Trump and, in his terms, sort of lose their mind over what Trump was doing, he realized that he was not one of these people, and he went to active — took active measures to distance himself from that.

He gave an interview with Ross Douthat at The New York Times recently where he said, “I self-consciously burnt bridges with the liberal world that I had become so close with.” And part of how he did that was posting very inflammatory things to Twitter and on his various social media accounts and saying sort of nasty stuff on the campaign trail. So, it seems to have been a calculated strategy. Obviously, he’s embraced the GOP’s rather divisive rhetoric on immigration. But I think there’s a political calculation here that the more inflammatory he can be online and the more he can distance himself, in a sort of pugnacious way, from the Never Trump past that, you know, he had embraced at one point, the more he can ingratiate himself with the MAGA base. And I think, you know, we’ve seen that pay off: He’s the vice president now, so…

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Ian, if you could say — you know, your piece, the interview with him, “Is There Something More Radical Than MAGA? J.D. Vance Is Dreaming It.” So, what is more radical than MAGA? And how does he kind of embody that, I mean, starting perhaps with reproductive rights, his position on abortion?

IAN WARD: Yeah, well, he indicated to me in January that he supports a 15-week federal ban, with some exemptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. He since has waffled a bit on his abortion position. He’s come around to Trump’s point, Trump’s talking point, that abortion should be left to the states. So his abortion stance is somewhat unclear at this point, but he in the past has certainly expressed support for federal bans, and very restrictive federal bans at that.

I think what I mean when I say “something more radical than MAGA,” I think what distinguishes him from the Trump faithful, in some respects, is that he, even before he was considering being on the ticket, was thinking about the Trumpian movement in terms that transcended Trump. He never saw Trump, I don’t think, as the end-all, be-all of this movement. He sees Trump as a vehicle for a transnational populist nationalist revolution that could extend 10, 15, 20, a hundred years into the future. You know, he said to me when we spoke, “The country wasn’t screwed up in 10 years, and it’s not going to be unscrewed in 10 years.” So, he’s thinking of the populist nationalist project, to use his term, in a timeline of decades, not in a timeline of election cycles.

And I think, you know, we have some indication now that Trump has embraced that vision. He didn’t have to pick an heir apparent to the MAGA movement. He could have picked someone like Doug Burgum, who would have been a right-hand man for four years and then probably receded into the background. But he picked Vance, who people like Tucker Carlson, people like Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Roberts, people like Steve Bannon have all told to me that they see very clearly as the future of the nationalist right and not just a sort of extension of Trump.

AMY GOODMAN: Ian Ward, last night, J.D. Vance was introduced by his wife, Usha Vance, extremely accomplished lawyer, clerked for what ended up being two Supreme Court justices — right? — Kavanaugh and Roberts. And she met him at Yale Law School. She proudly talked about her Hindu heritage, that she’s a vegetarian, that he learned to cook as a vegetarian, and also his own conversion just a few years ago to Catholicism. Can you talk about his religious trajectory?

IAN WARD: Yeah. He’s written about his own religious trajectory, and it tends to date back to his introduction to Peter Thiel, which came while Vance was a student at Yale Law School in 2013, I believe. He attended a talk by Peter Thiel at Yale. The two became very close friends. Thiel, of course, has undergone his own spiritual transformation. But through Thiel, Vance was introduced to the writings of a philosopher named René Girard, who’s a French literary critic and philosopher, also a Christian apologist and a Catholic.

You know, over the course of 2013 to 2019, when he was accepted into the Catholic faith, he says he underwent this spiritual transformation. I mean, in the book, in Hillbilly Elegy, you can kind of sense this searching for a deeper spiritual foundation for him. You know, he grew up in Middletown, the descendants of these Scots-Irish folk who, you know, were generally Protestant in a sort of Protestant-lite way, you know, and he always was sort of disaffected at that — with that. He talks about, at one point in his teenage and college years, embracing atheism as a reaction to his — what he saw as sort of weak religious foundations of his childhood. And it’s landed him at Catholicism.

You know, I think it tracks a broader evolution on the right towards a sort of more muscularly conservative Catholic faith. He’s close with a handful of conservative intellectuals who themselves are very outspokenly Catholic and who juxtapose their own Catholic worldview to the liberal one that he rejects. And, you know, Catholic social teaching, which tries to infuse political and social life with Catholic theology, is right there. That’s an intellectual influence for him, as well. So I think his Catholicism is both a political story and a personal story.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you so much, Ian, for joining us. Ian Ward, Politico reporter who’s interviewed J.D. Vance extensively over a course of a few months earlier this year for a profile he did for Politico magazine headlined “Is There Something More Radical Than MAGA? J.D. Vance Is Dreaming It.” Ian’s new piece, out this week, “Are Republican Voters Ready for the Nerdy Radicalness of J.D. Vance? Donald Trump puts the New Right on the ballot.”

'Deeply offensive': Trump biographer slams new Cannon ruling

As the Republican National Convention opened on Monday, Donald Trump scored a major legal victory when a Trump-appointed federal judge in Florida dismissed the criminal case against the former president for illegally keeping classified national security documents after his presidency ended. Judge Aileen Cannon ruled Attorney General Merrick Garland had no power to appoint Jack Smith as a special counsel. Her ruling stunned many legal experts, and the Justice Department plans to appeal. This comes after the conservative-dominated Supreme Court recently granted Trump, and presidents more generally, almost complete immunity from prosecution for “official” actions taken in office. “This was an opinion in search of a result,” says Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist David Cay Johnston, who has covered Trump for decades. “This is just deeply offensive, and I suspect it will be overturned, but the real result is there is no prospect that Donald Trump will be tried before the November elections.”



This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, “War, Peace and the Presidency.” We’re “Breaking with Convention.” I’m Amy Goodman, broadcasting from Milwaukee.

As the Republican National Convention opened Monday, Donald Trump scored a major legal victory when a Trump-appointed federal judge in Florida dismissed a criminal case against the former president for illegally keeping classified national security materials and documents, after his presidency ended, in Mar-a-Lago. Judge Aileen Cannon ruled Attorney General Merrick Garland had no power to appoint Jack Smith as a special counsel. Her ruling stunned many legal experts. The Justice Department plans to appeal the ruling.

This all comes after the Supreme Court granted Trump immunity from prosecution for “official” actions taken as president. Donald Trump reacted to the news Monday by calling for all criminal cases against him to be dismissed.

We’re joined now by David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, co-founder of DCReport, the author of three books on Trump, including The Big Cheat: How Donald Trump Fleeced America and Enriched Himself and His Family. He’s a professor at Rochester Institute of Technology. He’s speaking to us from Rochester.

David Cay Johnston, welcome back to Democracy Now! First, if you can respond to the scene last night here in Milwaukee at the Republican convention as President Trump, with a bandage on his right ear after surviving an assassination attempt on Saturday at his speech in Butler, Pennsylvania, sitting next to J.D. Vance, the youngest vice-presidential candidate, former marine, author of Hillbilly Elegy, just a first-time senator — if you can respond to that picture? And then talk about the significance of these court decisions.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, Donald Trump has picked just one of the many Republicans who were against him on principled grounds — he’s unfit, he’s unqualified, he doesn’t know anything, he’s a con artist, he’s a criminal, he’s a judicially determined rapist — and now embrace him, because they don’t have any interest here except their own careers. And given that more than a million people have died for this country and the idea of America, being unwilling to stand up on principle should offend every single American, whether you support Donald Trump or not.

Now, the ruling by Judge Cannon will not stand, in all likelihood. It will be appealed to the 11th Circuit. And what Judge Cannon did was say that under the Constitution, the special prosecutor, Jack Smith, should have gone before the U.S. Senate to be confirmed, the way federal court judges are confirmed by the Senate. The problem is, there are at least five statutes that authorize the appointment of what’s known in the Constitution as an inferior officer, and that covers special prosecutors. If you follow the very faulty reasoning in Judge Cannon’s opinion, then the prosecution of Hunter Biden would also have to stop, since that was done by a special prosecutor without confirmation by the Senate.

This was an opinion in search of a result. And Judge Cannon, from her very first order, when she said Donald Trump should get special treatment — an absolutely offensive thing to say for any federal judge. No one in America under the law is to get special treatment. We are all to be treated equal, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in an opinion two years ago. This is just deeply offensive, and I suspect it will be overturned, but the real result is there is no prospect that Donald Trump will be tried before the November elections. And if he isn’t tried before then and Donald Trump gets back to the White House, he will stop the prosecution.

AMY GOODMAN: Many people saw this case, the mishandling of the documents, bringing them to Mar-a-Lago — and again, this was — dealing with and holding onto these documents was after he was president — as the most clear-cut, open-and-shut case, David.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: It absolutely was the strongest and easiest-to-prove case. And other people who have taken a single page from a secure facility have been prosecuted. Here, we’re talking about boxes and boxes.

But, you know, there’s another point, Amy, that hardly gets mentioned in the mainstream news. The special prosecutor, in defending his actions, has repeatedly given hypotheticals. Imagine if a former president were to have shared our secrets in return for payment to somewhere? Those hypotheticals were not made up out of whole cloth. We know that Donald Trump gave away one of our most closely guarded secrets: how close our submarines could get to Russian submarines without being detected. We know that he held up and read from documents to a group of completely inappropriate people working on a book.

And the clear implication — and I wrote about this August of 2022 — is that Donald Trump has, no doubt, sold or tried to sell national security secrets, because Donald doesn’t know anything about global diplomacy. He doesn’t know anything about the world. He couldn’t tell you the difference between a Sunni and a Shia. He didn’t know why we have a memorial at Pearl Harbor for the USS Arizona from Pearl Harbor Day. But he knows value. And super-secret things he learned as president, documents he took improperly, illegally, those have a lot of value. And Donald knows value.

AMY GOODMAN: Matt Gaetz, the Florida congressmember, talked about Aileen Cannon as a, quote, “Future Supreme Court Justice,” David Cay Johnston.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, if Trump did that, we could all clearly say, you know, “You’re effectively offering a bribe in return for favorable treatment.” But Trump doesn’t need to do that. He appointed Aileen Cannon, who was marginally qualified — and I’m being polite. And Matt Gaetz and many other Republicans, as Mitt Romney, the Republican standard-bearer in 2012, said, don’t believe in democracy. I mean, that’s the real underlying threat.

Your previous guest, Arlie, talked very clearly about how Donald Trump is succeeding because he keeps saying at every rally, “We love you.” Donald, who I’ve known for 36 years, doesn’t love anybody. He doesn’t even love himself. But he knows how to appeal to people who feel looked down upon. And that’s the sense that they have.

So, Joe Biden lets Republicans take credit for the infrastructure projects they voted against. And you know what surveys show? Lots of people believe all of this economic improvement was because of laws Trump got passed. They aren’t. They’re because of laws were passed at the direction of Joe Biden. But he’s not out there selling that. The Democrats aren’t there selling it. Instead, they’ve been engaging for two weeks in a circular firing squad, whose only beneficiary is Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, as you talk about J.D. Vance, tell us your reaction to him being the pick as Donald Trump’s vice-presidential candidate, what he represents, this man who himself described himself as a Never Trumper, who said, “I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical a—hole” — though he used the word — “like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler.” He went on to say things like — talking about the vilifying of people in this country, etc.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: You know, Margaret Atwood’s nightmare novel The Handmaid’s Tale is fiction, but it is moving towards reality in America. J.D. Vance wants to allow the tracking of women’s menstrual cycles. He asserts that daylight savings time is reducing fertility among the American population, which is as crazy as any crazy thing Donald Trump has said. He supports the Project 2025, which, among other things, would prohibit shipping contraceptives, whether it’s condoms or IUDs or the pill, by what’s called common carrier. That is, you could only ship if you had your own fleet of trucks that would go from manufacturing plant to store.

This is not a party promoting freedom. This is a party that wants to round up millions of people living in this country. And if you think only people who are here without permission would be rounded up, and no American citizens or green card holders, you haven’t thought this through very carefully. He wants to take away people’s ability to challenge things in the courts. He is anti-worker in numerous ways. And that’s what made, by the way, the speech by the Teamsters union president extraordinary, because everything he talked about is what the Biden administration is working to do and that Donald Trump opposes. Donald Trump and his vice-presidential candidate, they are anti-worker. They’re anti-individual liberty. They’re in favor of controlling women, right down to tracking the menstrual cycles of younger women — which is none of the government’s business.

AMY GOODMAN: David Cay Johnston, we want to thank you for being with us. We’ve expanded to two hours our daily broadcast. And in our other hour, people will hear specifically J.D. Vance’s views on abortion and also the whole labor record of Donald Trump, as we look at, with Robert Kuttner, the significance of Sean O’Brien’s first Teamsters president address to the RNC. David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, co-founder of DCReport, has written three books on Donald Trump.

How 'fake' J.D. Vance disguises his anti-worker views as economic populism

We speak with journalist Robert Kuttner about Donald Trump’s selection of Ohio Senator J.D. Vance to be his running mate in the 2024 election. Vance rose to fame in 2016 after writing the memoir Hillbilly Elegy about his upbringing in Appalachia. He was elected to the Senate in 2022 with the backing of right-wing billionaire Peter Thiel, who spent $10 million on his candidacy. While he was a vocal critic of Trump’s politics, once comparing him to Hitler, Vance has since embraced the MAGA movement and is now one of the most vocal defenders of the former president. Vance’s elevation is “very dangerous” because it lets Republicans pretend to care about working-class voters, says Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect. “Vance is much more effective at connecting Trump’s cultural and social and racist populism to what looks like pocketbook populism, except it’s a fake,” he says. “We are really screwed if we can’t find somebody who can beat this ticket — and the ticket is beatable. You just need a stronger candidate than Biden.”



This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! “War, Peace and the Presidency.” We are “Breaking with Convention.” I’m Amy Goodman.

Donald Trump has tapped freshman Ohio Senator J.D. Vance to be his running mate. Trump and Vance were officially nominated on Monday on the opening day of the Republican National Convention.

BERNIE MORENO: It is a great honor to move that J.D. Vance be nominated by acclamation by this Republican National Convention as its candidate for the office of vice president of the United States of America.

AMY GOODMAN: J.D. Vance, who’s 39, first gained fame as the author of the best-selling memoir Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis about growing up in Appalachia. The book was also made into a movie. Vance is a graduate of Yale Law School who served in the Marines and became a venture capitalist.

He was also a Never Trumper, who once called Trump “America’s Hitler,” “reprehensible,” “cultural heroin” — as in the drug — “noxious,” “a terrible candidate.” But Vance later shifted and became an ardent supporter of Donald Trump.

Vance won a close Republican Senate primary in 2022 in part thanks to billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel, who spent a record-breaking $10 million to support Vance’s campaign.

Earlier this year, J.D. Vance appeared on ABC and told George Stephanopoulos, if he had been vice president in 2020, he would not have certified the results of the 2020 election.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Would you have certified the election results, had you been vice president?
SEN. J.D. VANCE: If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors. And I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there. That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020. I think that’s what we should have done.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So, it’s very clear: You would have done what Donald Trump asked you to do there, not what Vice President Mike Pence did. You said that that’s about the past. But, of course, Donald Trump —
SEN. J.D. VANCE: No, no, George. George, it’s — no, no, George, it’s not about what —
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that’s what you just said.
SEN. J.D. VANCE: It’s not about what — it’s — George, it’s not about what Donald Trump asks somebody to do. It’s about: What do we do when you have a problem like what happened in 2020?

AMY GOODMAN: To look more at J.D. Vance’s record and economic policies, we’re joined now by Robert Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, his recent piece headlined “Trump’s VP Reveal.” Kuttner’s latest book is titled Going Big: FDR’s Legacy, Biden’s New Deal, and the Struggle to Save Democracy. He’s also a professor at Brandeis University’s Heller School.

Robert Kuttner, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you —

ROBERT KUTTNER: Thank you for having me.

AMY GOODMAN: — tell us who J.D. Vance is and the significance of Donald Trump choosing him, who would be the youngest-ever vice president if he were to win, at the age of 39, the former marine and venture capitalist?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, he’s a very dangerous fake. And his whole history, from writing Hillbilly Elegy to doing a 180-degree pivot from being a critic of Trump to being a loyalist to Trump, to pretending to be very favorable to working Americans, when in fact all of his votes have been the opposite, suggests both that he’s a fake, and he’s an attractive fake. He’s personally likable. I hate to say that. He’s an intellectual. He knows how to engage issues. He knows things that Trump is completely ignorant of. He’s young, whereas Trump is old. And when I wrote this piece yesterday morning, before Trump had made his selection, I wrote that if Trump is shrewd, he will name J.D. Vance, but I’m not sure that Trump’s own narcissism will let him do that, because the risk for Trump is that Vance will upstage Trump.

And let me say a word or two about Hillbilly Elegy, because this was a classic case of bait-and-switch. So, the story is that he’s got a dysfunctional family, they move from southern Ohio to Kentucky, and supposedly the book is expressing great compassion for his kin and his neighbors. But the actual message of the book is that if you’re not doing well in Kentucky, it’s because of your own bad behavior. You’re taking too many drugs. You’re selling your food stamps. You’re not able to hold a job. You’re not doing right by your children. It’s the old conservative narrative that poverty is the fault of the poor. It’s all behavioral. It’s not structural. It’s not industry being outsourced or the coal mines closing. No, it’s just your behavior is bad. And, you know, the right-wing foundations invested in a guy called Charles Murray, who wrote a book in the ’80s called Losing Ground, which basically said that poverty is the fault of the War on Poverty, and poverty is the fault of the welfare system, and poverty is the fault of spoiling the poor. And in the review that I wrote of his book, I described Vance as “Charles Murray with a [bleep]-eating grin.” And when I met Vance at a conference the following year, he quoted that line back to me and engaged intellectually and was very self-reflective and thoughtful and likable. And I said to myself, “Uh-oh, this guy is really going to be trouble.”

And so, what they did last night, they repositioned the Republican Party as the party that’s pro-worker, even though this is complete nonsense. But because Vance is so adept at these head fakes, and because he’s got this fake compelling life story, he’s the ideal guy to try and represent that. And they were so cynical, they even put Sean O’Brien on the program, who sort of threaded the needle between talking about what we needed to do to give unions a fighting chance, without quite mentioning that Biden was the one who was in favor of this, and it was the Republicans who were blocking this. This is very clever on the part of Republicans to reposition themselves, at least for the purpose of the convention, and maybe for the campaign, from being the party of hatred to being the party that cares about workers. It’s nonsense, but Vance is a very good symbol of that. And that’s why he’s so dangerous.

And, you know, normally, it really doesn’t matter who the vice president is. You have to go all the way back to 1960 to point to a vice president, Lyndon Johnson, who really made a difference in an election outcome. He helped Kennedy carry Texas and maybe won the election. But other than that, the vice president doesn’t matter very much. In this case, where you’ve got very closely fought races in Wisconsin and in Michigan and in Ohio — well, not Ohio, but Ohio where Sherrod Brown is concerned, anyway — and western Pennsylvania, Vance could actually make a difference.

The only silver lining — and I hate to call this a silver lining — is it makes it even more urgent for the Democrats to find somebody more effective than Biden who can beat these guys. And I think once the hoopla from the Republican convention dies down, you know, by next weekend, that’s going to be the takeaway, that we are really screwed if we can’t find somebody who can beat this ticket — and the ticket is beatable. You just need a stronger candidate than Biden.

AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned the Teamsters President Sean O’Brien. This was very significant. It was the first time a Teamsters president addressed the Republican National Convention. It was the first night of the convention. President Trump and his vice-presidential nominee, J.D. Vance, were sitting next to each other in the audience. The Teamsters president gave something like an 18-minute final speech. This is a clip.

SEAN O’BRIEN: I travel all across this country and meet with my members every week. You know what I see? An American worker being taken for granted, workers being sold out to big banks, Big Tech, corporatists and the elite. And I’m not the only one who sees this. Everyday families see it. The American people aren’t stupid. They know the system is broken. We all know how Washington is run. Working people have no chance of winning this fight.
That’s why I’m here today, because I refuse to keep doing the same things my predecessors did. Today — today, the Teamsters are here to say we are not beholden to anyone or any party. We will create an agenda and work with a bipartisan coalition, ready to accomplish something real for the American worker. And I don’t care about getting criticized. It’s an honor to be the first Teamster in our 121-year history to address the Republican National Convention.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Teamsters President Sean O’Brien in this rousing address to not the Democratic National Convention. Apparently, he asked to address both conventions. Only the Republicans, he said, got back to him. Robert Kuttner, you’re co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect. Your response, as he talked about what we just heard, he talked about economic terrorism, he called out corporations like Amazon? You say that J.D. Vance is anti-worker. Explain what the role of the Teamsters president is here. I know there’s a lot of dissent within the Teamsters for him giving this address.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, it was pretty cynical of O’Brien. I mean, on the one hand, it gave him a platform to give a very pro-worker speech. On the other hand, there’s no bipartisan coalition on behalf of raising the minimum wage or strengthening worker organizing rights or strengthening the NLRB or any of the other things on the pro-worker agenda. The only people who are supporting that are Democrats. And even someone like J.D. Vance, who does head fakes as a kind of a pro-worker guy, he’s not voting for this stuff, either.

So, you know, to some extent, this was in the Teamster DNA. You know, there were points when Jimmy Hoffa backed Republicans. And it’s a union over the years that’s been fairly opportunist politically. And I guess O’Brien is gambling that, A, this gives him a platform; B, if these guys get elected, he’s going to have some relationship with them — they sort of owe him a favor. I don’t think it was a great idea. But at least it tested out some themes on a Republican audience and demonstrated the awkwardness of Republicans claiming to be pro-worker, because if you dig a little bit beneath the surface, the Republicans are against every one of these things. And I’m hardly the only commentator who’s going to point that out.

AMY GOODMAN: But, Robert Kuttner, if you could say how they’re against it? Show, through their records — Vance, a senator, of course, Trump, former president, — how they’re anti-worker, because this right-wing populist appeal, the Teamsters president addressing, seeing the reactions of the presidential and vice-presidential candidate, was very powerful.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, you look at everything, from Biden’s executive orders that make it easier for workers to organize, to Biden’s executive orders requiring federal contractors to pay a living wage, to decisions by the NLRB on unfair labor practices, to raising the minimum wage, to defining Uber and Lyft workers as regular employees. I mean, you go down the entire litany of things that unions want, the Republicans have opposed every one of them, either in court or by statute or in reported votes or Republican appointees on regulatory commissions.

And although Vance once walked a picket line with the UAW, he has not done anything to support the labor agenda. It’s all image. It’s all fakery. It’s all political stunts. And the more that comes out into the open, the more people realize that the Republican effort last night to present itself as the pro-worker party is nothing but posturing. And they need to be held to account on that. It should be a very major issue in the campaign. The more Republicans try and make their alleged pro-worker stance a high-profile posture, the more they need to be held to account.

AMY GOODMAN: If people were just reading the script of Sean O’Brien’s speech, it could have been one given by, oh, independent Senator Bernie Sanders. Are the Democrats at risk here of dismissing this level of right-wing populism? And can you talk about why it appeals so much, especially in the states, the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where we are right now?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, what’s truly dangerous about Vance, if you compare Vance with Trump — so, the Trump of 2016 posed as a populist, but it was cultural or social or racist populism — it’s all the fault of Mexicans, it’s all the fault of immigrants, it’s all the fault of, you know, DEI. This was a kind of an attempt to play into the feeling of white working-class people that they have been disrespected. And it was a racist, nationalist, cultural brand of fake populism.

Now, what Vance brings to this is he tries to add economic populism: Not only are we going to seal up the Mexican border, but we’re actually going to help you earn a living wage. And Trump didn’t really do that, other than raising tariffs on Chinese goods and being anti-China. Trump didn’t follow through on that. It was left to Biden to complement the tariffs with a real industrial policy. Trump was opposed to that. Whereas Vance is much more effective at connecting Trump’s cultural and social and racist populism to what looks like pocketbook populism, except it’s a fake, so that if you’re a worker in Wisconsin or Ohio or Pennsylvania, and your living standards have gone to hell, and you can’t send your kid to college because your child would have to go into debt, and you can’t afford to buy a house, and your health insurance is going down the drain — those are pocketbook issues. And to the extent that Vance talks a good game on pocketbook issues, that shores up Trump’s rather thin cultural populism. So, it’s dangerous.

And I come back to the fact that the Democrats have got to do better than Biden, if they’re going to contest this. I mean, Biden has done great stuff, but the number of Americans who think he’s too old, he’s too fragile, he’s too feeble, the fact that he can’t keep his lines straight, and the fact that Vance, by the way, is an excellent debater. And we’ve got to do better than the current Democratic ticket, or these guys are going to win. And they’re cynical enough to carry out all their threats. And we really will cease to be a democracy, and you can change the title of your program to Democracy Then.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to a few of the responses last night. It was right after J.D. Vance was announced as the vice-presidential candidate. Again, he would be, if he won, the second-youngest vice president in U.S. history. I spoke to Republican House speaker, the former speaker, Kevin McCarthy of California, serving as a delegate to the convention.

AMY GOODMAN: Mr. McCarthy, your thoughts on J.D. Vance?
KEVIN McCARTHY: I think it’s a great pick. I mean, I think J.D. will be able to go places that you don’t really normally see Republicans. I think he’ll be great in Pennsylvania and in Michigan and in Wisconsin. And, you know, we’ve got to win one of those three to be able to win, where we are. I think his work as a — in the Marines, his economics, I mean, his youthfulness, I think it’s going to be a great addition. Great team.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of him having called Trump “America’s Hitler”?
KEVIN McCARTHY: I think that was a long time ago, and he’s learned something new. I think you’re going to find a lot of people that maybe voted against President Trump 2016 that are going to be supporting him now.

AMY GOODMAN: Not far from the former House Speaker McCarthy, I spoke to California Republican Delegate Lisa Moreno.

AMY GOODMAN: What is your name?
LISA MORENO: Lisa Moreno.
AMY GOODMAN: And where do you live in California?
LISA MORENO: Madera County.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the choice of J.D. Vance?
LISA MORENO: He’s going to represent our platform incredibly well. President Trump has chosen him, and we are going to support him 100%. That’s what we are. We’re a unified party. And we’re in it to win it. We’re taking care of business, and we’re taking our country back.
AMY GOODMAN: So, let me ask you something. J.D. Vance said, “Trump makes people I care about afraid. Immigrants, Muslims, etc. Because of this I find him reprehensible. God wants better of us.” Vance said this on Twitter a few years ago. What are your thoughts about that?
LISA MORENO: First of all, I proudly represent being Latina and being Republican. So, our party welcomes everyone, from all walks of life, from all backgrounds. I have heard so much rhetoric from other people that are not Republican say to me, “I don’t identify with my party anymore. They’re on the opposite side of the spectrum. I need to find a home.” And I say to them, “Our arms are open, and welcome. Why else do you want to come over?” And they say, “We’re tired of the last four years. We don’t like what it feels like. We want to go back.” And they’re not Republican. They’re Latinos. They’re Black. They’re Asian. They’re Indian. They’re coming to us without us having to go, well, ask them to come over and tap them on the shoulder. But we have our arms very much open to them.
AMY GOODMAN: But it’s J.D. Vance who was saying this, that “President Trump makes people I care about afraid,” like immigrants.
LISA MORENO: Right. It was Kamala Harris that said to Joe Biden on the debate stage that she was Black, and she was asked to go sit at the back of the bus, or there was discrimination in her time or segregation. And she’s his vice president.
AMY GOODMAN: What are you hoping will come out of this convention?
LISA MORENO: I’m sorry?
AMY GOODMAN: What do you hope will come out of this convention?
LISA MORENO: We’re already unified. We’re already ready to take our country back. What I’m hoping to see out of this convention is that the whole world to see a unified party like never before. After the attempted assassination of a husband, a father and a fearless leader, the world and the United States and everybody, from all colors, walks of life, saw the division in our country. And people that were not going to vote for Trump are now voting, because they’ve had enough. A lot of people have had it.

AMY GOODMAN: That was California Republican Delegate Lisa Moreno, straining over the music on the floor of the Republican National Convention here in Milwaukee at the Fiserv Center. Robert Kuttner, if you can respond, whether J.D. Vance was attacking Trump around discrimination against immigrants or had called him “America’s Hitler,” the response of the Republicans? And this goes also to the dissent within the Democratic Party right now and the pushing for Biden to step aside.

ROBERT KUTTNER: You know, there’s one interesting crack in the Republican unity. Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal tried very, very, very hard to discourage Trump from naming J.D. Vance. And I think the reason is that — twofold. First of all, Wall Street Journal is very neocon in its foreign policy. It’s kind of, you know, America needs to police the world. And secondly, The Wall Street Journal is very corporate. To the extent that Vance is something of an economic populist, or at least poses as one, he doesn’t represent the corporate wing of the Republican Party. And to the extent that he’s criticized America’s help of Ukraine to fend off Russia’s invasion, he is feared to be isolationist. So, the corporate wing of the Republican Party doesn’t like him. And he’s actually pivoted on a couple of interesting things. He defends Social Security. So, they’re very good at paying attention to the things that ordinary working people care about, without moving more than a couple of inches in that direction. And I think that’s what makes him so dangerous.

And that’s why the Democrats, once the hoopla of the Republican convention is over, you’re going to see this talk about, “Boy, do we have to get Biden out of there,” resume very, very quickly. For now, in the aftermath of the assassination attempt, there’s politeness. There’s unity. They pulled the commercials. But you’re going to see this roaring back to life. And I certainly, for one person — I certainly hope it does.

Raskin: Only a two-state solution can end 'nightmare' of Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Democratic Congressmember Jamie Raskin of Maryland says he may not attend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress in July, as some other Democrats have already vowed to boycott the speech. “My main commitment at this point is to see a ceasefire to end the bloodshed, to get the hostages returned and to surge humanitarian aid into Gaza,” says Raskin. He says Israel had a right to retaliate after the October 7 attack led by Hamas, but “only within the constraints of international law,” and says there needs to be a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and end “the nightmare that has been going on for decades now.”




This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: If you can comment today, switching gears to Gaza? Yesterday, Congressmember Ro Khanna, your colleague from California, said he will not attend Prime Minister Netanyahu’s joint address to Congress in July. He’s joining people like Senator Bernie Sanders and others. Are you going to be joining them, Congressmember Raskin?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Well, I haven’t figured that out yet. You know, my main commitment at this point is to see a ceasefire, to end the bloodshed, to get the hostages returned and to surge humanitarian aid into Gaza. And our focus has to be on that. I’m not even necessarily convinced that Netanyahu is coming. And I want us to keep the focus on ending the violence right now. But in terms of —

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean — what do you mean, Congressman Raskin, that you’re not convinced he’s coming?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Well, originally, there was another date given. That date was changed. Now the date that has been given, I think, is July 24th. Is that right?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes, that’s right.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Yeah, but, I mean, you know, there is a war going on, and I hope there’s a meaningful ceasefire process that’s taking place, and I think we should keep our focus on that. And then, obviously, I’ll have to confront the whole question of whether I can assist some tiny forward momentum in terms of making peace and bringing an end to the bloodshed by going or by not going. I don’t know the answer to that. But that’s the kind of calculus I would have to make.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Congressmember Raskin, are you for a permanent ceasefire?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Well, I’m for a permanent cessation of all military hostilities. We’ve got to end these brutal cycles of violence and warfare. And that means we’ve got to address the underlying political problems. And we need to get onto the path to a real two-state solution, which has been American policy and also the international consensus for decades.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Raskin, also, Bernie Sanders, the independent senator, has called for a cutoff of military aid to Israel. Are you in support of that?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: I have not called for a cutoff of all military aid to Israel. I did vote against the last package because of the way that this war has been prosecuted. And I said from the beginning that Israel has a right to defend itself against the kinds of terrorist atrocities that we saw take place on October 7th, but only within the constraints of international law and international human rights law. And if you step outside of it, then that is a disaster for humanity.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, President Biden is, you know, neck and neck with President Trump in running for president. There have been these “uncommitted” votes all over the country, where people are saying they don’t support President Trump, but they don’t support President Biden because of his support for Netanyahu and Israel’s war on Gaza. I’m wondering your thoughts, as young people overwhelmingly have fled the Democrats when it comes to voting for Biden right now. African Americans, you know, a thousand religious leaders, Black leaders, wrote to President Biden and said they’ve never seen anything like this since the civil rights movement, whole congregations criticizing President Biden for how he has supported Netanyahu in this war on Gaza. Your thoughts?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Well, look, Amy, we’re living in a time of extraordinary fanaticism and illegality and threat to democracy and human rights. And we’re obviously confronting that in America with the return of Donald Trump and his authoritarian movement, which traffics in racism, antisemitism, you name it.

And I believe that the Democratic Party must be on the side of the Constitution and the rule of law, and that includes international law and international human rights law, the laws of war. And I believe that’s where the vast majority of the people are. And I believe that the Biden administration is honestly and aggressively working for a ceasefire and for a return of the hostages that are being held by Hamas right now. And I think that’s where most people are. I think that people do not support a war that has resulted in lots of civilian casualties, a majority of them being women and children. And people do not support the terrorism of Hamas. People support the strategic defense and security of Israel. And people want to see progress out of the nightmare, which has been going on for decades now, these cycles of terror and war that leave lots of casualties, lots of death on both sides and lots of hopelessness.

And we know that Donald Trump offers absolutely no hope for progress there. And I believe that the Biden administration and the Democrats will be the way for us to get through this nightmare and to get to a ceasefire, and then meaningful negotiations so we can break out of this.

And in addition to the humanitarian imperative, which is so overwhelming on both sides, this war has also been an environmental nightmare. I mean, the world can’t afford more wars like this. We have got to get people together across the world to be dealing with the reality of climate change, which is now a dagger at the throat of all humanity.

AMY GOODMAN: Jamie Raskin, we want to thank you for being with us, a Democrat representing Maryland’s 8th Congressional District in the House of Representatives, author of the book Unthinkable. This is Democracy Now! Back in 20 seconds.

A 'window' into Sam Alito's conservative ideology

We speak with filmmaker Lauren Windsor, whose recorded conversations with U.S. Supreme Court justices have sparked the latest firestorm over how the country’s top jurists are ruling on consequential cases. Windsor posed as a conservative activist to speak with Justice Samuel Alito at a June 3 event of the Supreme Court Historical Society, where he appeared to endorse running the U.S. as a Christian theocracy and said he was doubtful about living peacefully with political opponents. In a separate recording from the same event, Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann Alito, complained about rainbow flags during Pride Month and made other incendiary remarks. Alito has refused to recuse himself from cases involving Donald Trump and the January 6 insurrection even after photos emerged of two flags associated with election deniers flying in front of his homes. “It wasn’t hard to speak with either of them,” says Windsor, who collected the recordings as part of her upcoming film Gonzo for Democracy and paid a total of $650 to get into the event. “These are individuals who have to operate professionally at the highest degree of discretion,” she says of Supreme Court justices. “It should tell you something that [Alito] felt comfortable enough to make these admissions to an almost virtual stranger.”




This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Republicans have blocked a bill in the Senate to implement a Supreme Court code of ethics after a series of reports of ethics violations, including that justices accepted unreported gifts and travel. This comes after Justice Samuel Alito refused to recuse himself from former President Donald Trump’s immunity case after photos emerged of two flags associated with election deniers flying in front of his homes. The “An Appeal to Heaven” flag flew at Alito’s New Jersey vacation house last summer. It features a pine tree and is found in far-right Christian circles. And an upside-down U.S. flag flew outside Justice Alito’s Virginia home in January 2021, a symbol used by election deniers.

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, newly published audio reveals Justice Alito questioning whether the United States can overcome its polarized political divide, appearing to endorse a Christian theocracy. Alito made the comments at the annual dinner of the Supreme Court Historical Society on June 3rd. The audio was secretly recorded by documentarian Lauren Windsor, who posed as a conservative activist. In the recording, Justice Alito agrees when Windsor says she hopes to, quote, “return our country to a place of godliness.” Justice Alito appears to rule out compromise between polarized political factions.

JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO: One side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So, it’s not like you’re going to split the difference.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: In a separate recording from the same event, Justice Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann, complains about rainbow flags during Pride Month, quotes at length from the Bible, assails feminists as “feminazis” and boasts of her “German heritage.” This is part of Lauren Windsor’s recording of Martha-Ann Alito.

MARTHA-ANN ALITO: You know what I want? I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag, because I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month.
LAUREN WINDSOR: Exactly.
MARTHA-ANN ALITO: And he’s like, “Oh, please, don’t put up a flag.” I said, “I won’t do it, because I’m deferring to you. But when you are free of this nonsense, I’m putting it up.” And I’m going to send them a message every day. Maybe every week, I’ll be changing the flags. There will be all kinds. I made a flag in my head. This is how I satisfy myself. I made a flag. It’s white and has yellow and orange flames around it. And in the middle is the word “vergogna.” “Vergogna” in Italian means “shame.”

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Martha-Ann Alito, wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, speaking in this secret recording to our next guest, Lauren Windsor, executive producer of The Undercurrent and the upcoming documentary film Gonzo for Democracy.

Lauren, welcome to Democracy Now! In a moment, we’re also going to be joined by Justin Elliott. But why don’t we start off, even before getting into the content of these recordings — can you talk about the scene there, how you got into the Supreme Court Historical Society event, that had so many of the Supreme Court justices? And if you can tell us who was there and how you ended up talking to the Alitos, as well as the chief justice?

LAUREN WINDSOR: Sure. Thanks for having me on, Amy.

So, I bought a ticket. I was a registered, dues-paying member of this society. So, I showed up. I walked in and, you know, into — straight into the cocktail reception. At first, it appeared as though Justice Alito wouldn’t show up. And just for some context, I had gone to the dinner the prior year, in 2023, and spoken with Justice Alito. I didn’t publish anything from that reaction at the — that conversation at the time, because it just wasn’t newsworthy. And so, I thought, in the intervening year, in 2024, that he might have some different responses, so I was hoping that he would show up. And he did. I spoke with him in the cocktail reception before the dinner, his wife after the dinner in the Great Hall upstairs, so there were two different, separate conversations. But it wasn’t hard to speak with either of them.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about who you presented yourself as to them, why they spoke to you?

LAUREN WINDSOR: I said my name was Lauren. They didn’t ask for any more than that. And, you know, I presented myself as a fan and a Catholic and asked them questions. There was very little questioning of me, really none whatsoever.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Lauren, could you explain the significance of the venue, at the Supreme Court Historical Society? What is this organization?

LAUREN WINDSOR: Well, so, it wasn’t at the Supreme Court Historical Society. It was at the Supreme Court, which I think makes this all the more compelling, when you have a sitting Supreme Court justice in the holy of holies of jurisprudence telling us that he can’t be impartial. This is bedrock. This is foundational to our democracy.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Lauren, talk about what most struck you about what each of them said. In fact, this was not your first conversation with Justice Alito.

LAUREN WINDSOR: Right. So, when I initially talked to him in 2023, I asked him, I said, “You know, everything is so polarized in this country right now, and I just wonder how we ever get beyond that. Do you see a way to repair that rift in this country?” And he said something to the effect of, “I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t think that’s our role.” So, at the time, it was about as expected.

And I certainly didn’t go into either of these conversations thinking that I would be able to obtain a newsworthy conversation with a justice. These are individuals who have to operate professionally at the highest degree of discretion. So it should tell you something that he felt comfortable enough to make these admissions to an almost virtual stranger. Yes, we had met in 2023, but that interaction, you know, was maybe a maximum of five minutes, probably less.

And, yes, I brought up that interaction to give him some level of comfort this year, in 2024, but to assure him, “We’re rooting for you. We’re fans. We want you to know that you have all of the grit, and you’re a fighter.” And the saying “grit” was a bit of a wink to a tweet that Donald Trump had put out, where he said, “More justices should be like Justice Alito. They should have the grit that Justice Alito has.” So, it was a way of just being coy with him, of, “Hey, we’re on your side. We’re Trump supporters.”

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Could you comment also, Lauren, on some of the comments that his wife made, Martha-Ann Alito, including about designing a “vergogna” flag, the Italian word for “shame,” in response to LGBTQ+ Pride flags?

LAUREN WINDSOR: I’m sorry. I’m losing the audio. I can’t hear what you’re saying.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Can you hear me now, Lauren?

LAUREN WINDSOR: Vaguely. The audio is really low.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, why don’t we go to —

LAUREN WINDSOR: I can hear you now.

AMY GOODMAN: Oh, you can hear us.

LAUREN WINDSOR: I can hear you now.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: OK. So let me repeat the question.

LAUREN WINDSOR: Sure.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Some of the comments made by Justice Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann Alito, about designing a “vergogna” flag, the Italian word for “shame,” in response to LGBTQ Pride flags, if you could comment on that and what else she said?

LAUREN WINDSOR: I found it pretty shocking that the wife of a sitting Supreme Court justice would be so comfortable having such a discussion. I was a stranger. I had never met Martha-Ann Alito before. When she said that it gave her satisfaction — “It satisfies me to imagine the flags that I would create” — it was shocking to me that she would feel that level of comfort. I think that it’s indicative of her level of being ideological, and also a window into her husband’s ideology, that she would be that, I think, aggressive in her antagonism of the LGBTQ community.

AMY GOODMAN: And I also wanted to go back to Samuel Alito, a very short clip that you recorded, when he agreed with you that people need to fight, quote, “to return our country to a place of godliness.” Listen carefully.

LAUREN WINDSOR: People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.
JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO: Oh, I agree with you. I agree with you.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Lauren Windsor, I’m wondering if you can comment. These secret recordings have launched a firestorm in the journalistic community, many saying that you shouldn’t have done this undercover. What is your response to having access to these justices?

LAUREN WINDSOR: Well, I think that it’s really cynical to attack me for a lack of ethics when we’re talking about a Supreme Court that, you know, we just saw Clarence Thomas have to refile his ethics reports because of ProPublica’s reporting exposing millions of dollars of gifts from GOP donors. I would ask journalists not be so credulous to the right-wing spin on this, that — what incentive structure do I have to lie about this? You know, this is a David-and-Goliath situation here. I’m really hitting a hornets’ nest, when you’re talking about a whole network. The weight, the heft of the conservative legal movement is coming after me. And if you think for a moment that I didn’t have to vet this thoroughly with my attorneys and with Rolling Stone's attorneys, my partner in distributing this audio, I need you to really think — read between the lines here and see who's attacking who, and why, and what they’re trying to protect, because at the end of day, you know, it doesn’t do me any good to torch my own credibility and also open myself up to these endless right-wing attacks from Leonard Leo and his associates. This is the Leo court at the end of the day.

AMY GOODMAN: And how easy is it to get to speak to justices of the Supreme Court, who make the — you know, who are ultimately responsible for so many of the laws of this land?

LAUREN WINDSOR: Well, if you have $150, you can become a dues-paying member of the Supreme Court Historical Society. Then you can buy a $500 ticket to this dinner. So it’s about $650 a year in order to rub elbows with the Supreme Court justices.

Deadly heat: Record scorching temperatures kill the vulnerable and worsen inequality

Deadly heat. As we enter the month of June, scorching temperatures are already gripping parts of Arizona, California, Nevada, as well as countries around the world. In Arizona, extreme heat sent 11 people to the hospital as thousands waited to enter a campaign rally with Donald Trump. In India, 33 poll workers died from heatstroke on a single day last week during India’s national elections. In Mexico, it’s so hot, howler monkeys are falling dead from the trees. Data confirmed last month was the hottest May on record, putting the Earth on a 12-month streak of record-scorching and -breaking temperatures.

Meanwhile, a new report has found the rate Earth is warming hit an all-time high last year, with 92% of 2023 record heat caused by humans. On Wednesday, the World Meteorological Organization announced there’s an 80% chance the average global temperature will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels for at least one of the next five years.

On the same day that report was released, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres gave a major speech on the climate crisis right next to the dinosaurs at the American Museum of Natural History here in New York City. The U.N. secretary-general said the world can still meet the 1.5-degree target if governments drastically speed up the phaseout of fossil fuels.

SECRETARY-GENERAL ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: Today is World Environment Day. It is also the day that the European Commission’s Copernicus Climate Change Service officially reports May 2024 as the hottest May in recorded history. This marks 12 straight months of the hottest months ever. For the past year, every turn of the calendar has turned up the heat. Our planet is trying to tell us something, but we don’t seem to be listening.
Dear friends, the American Museum of Natural History is the ideal place to make the point. This great museum tells the amazing story of our natural world, of the vast forces that have shaped life on Earth over billions of years. And humanity is just one small blip on the radar. But like the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we are having an outsized impact. In the case of climate, we are not the dinosaurs. We are the meteor. We are not only in danger. We are the danger. But we are also the solution.
So, dear friends, we are at a moment of truth. The truth is, almost 10 years since the Paris Agreement was adopted, the target of limiting long-term global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is hanging by a thread. The truth is, the world is spewing emissions so fast that by 2030 a far higher temperature rise will be all but guaranteed.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s the U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres in a major address on the climate crisis Wednesday to mark World Environment Day. Again, he was speaking at the Museum of Natural History here in New York.

For more on deadly heat and the climate crisis, we’re joined by two guests. Dr. Ruth Cerezo-Mota is a researcher at the Institute of Engineering at UNAM, the National Autonomous University of Mexico. She is joining us from the city of Mérida in the Mexican state of Yucatán. And joining us from North Carolina, Jeff Goodell. He’s covered the climate crisis for over 20 years at Rolling Stone magazine, the author of The New York Times best-seller, The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet. He’s got a new op-ed in The New York Times, “The Heat Wave Scenario That Keeps Climate Scientists Up at Night.”

What is that scenario, Jeff?

JEFF GOODELL: Well, that scenario is a look at what would happen if there were a five-day blackout during an extreme heat wave, looking at the kind of cascading consequences of these two events together. It was based on a study done by some researchers at Georgia Tech and Arizona State University. And it looked at — you know, we think of air conditioning as this sort of technofix for extreme heat. You know, often people will say to me, “What’s the problem with the planet heating up? We’ve just got to get more people air conditioning.” And this study really looked at the sort of false illusion of security that air conditioning has kind of provided for us.

It showed that in this blackout scenario where you had a total blackout for two days and then three days of restoring power, which is not kind of beyond the pale of kind of reality at all — we had a five-day blackout similar to that in Texas a few years ago. In that kind of a scenario in a city like Phoenix, where there’s virtually 100% penetration of air conditioning, you would have 800,000 emergency room visits and more than 13,000 deaths within 48 hours, which is hugely shocking and sort of disturbing findings.

And what’s interesting about this is the way that it shows that some of these — that technofixes, like air-conditioning and things, which are certainly important tools for living in hot climates, but they also amplify our vulnerability in ways that we don’t really understand or are not aware of. And so, air conditioning is sort of like this sort of sword of Damocles hanging over a city like Phoenix or a city like Austin or Houston or places like that, that are completely dependent upon it. And it just shows this sort of — our understanding of our vulnerability to extreme heat is far more complicated than we understand at first glance.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, it’s amazing, this report. In Phoenix, about 800,000 people, roughly half the population, would need emergency medical treatment for heatstroke and other illnesses. The flood of people seeking care would overwhelm the city’s hospitals. More than 13,000 people would die. That’s in Phoenix. And, of course, that’s a place that 99% of the buildings are air-conditioned. Then you go to a place like Detroit, that’s even older, much less AC, and the number of people that would be affected, especially older people. And, of course, AC causes more global warming. I was really struck in your piece by what you called not a Hurricane Katrina, but a “heat Katrina.”

JEFF GOODELL: Yeah, exactly. And in comparing — in this study, in comparing the three cities, the other — in Atlanta and Detroit and Phoenix, the emergency room visits and death rate as a consequence of this five-day blackout that I described are far lower in these other cities because of less dependence upon air conditioning. So, in some ways, one of our sort of favorite technofixes for a hotter world, air conditioning, is increasing our vulnerability to that extreme heat. We’re building buildings that don’t have natural ventilation, that you can’t open windows in. So, when the power goes out, they become like convection ovens, and people die.

And, you know, there are a lot of things that we can do to reduce this vulnerability, things like solar panels on rooftops, microgrids, battery backups, so we’re not so dependent upon the grid itself, and also building buildings that have passive cooling, that don’t require air conditioning, that have natural ventilations, that are built in ways that are suitable for the hotter world that we’re building for ourselves.

AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, most of the rest of the world doesn’t have that kind of access to air conditioning. I want to go down to the Yucatán, where our next guest is, Ruth Cerezo-Mota. We just read this report about howler monkeys falling dead out of trees. If you can go from monkeys to human beings and what it means for Mexico right now, which is also — and Yucatán experienced a major heat wave, and yet at the same time you’ve just elected your first woman president in Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, who is a climate scientist, like yourself. In Mexico, nearly 61 people died from a record heat wave that just ended. Can you talk about all of this?

RUTH CEREZO-MOTA: Yeah. Hi. Yeah, we are experiencing really extreme weather. And I just want to complement something that you were saying about the air conditioner. Yeah, we need to consider that we — it’s also an unfair situation, because there is many people that will not be able to afford an air conditioning, so it’s not really a solution, either. But in any case, yes, people is dying here because of the heat. Animals — there was this report of hundreds of monkeys falling just from trees. And before that, the week before that, there were parrots, as well. And, of course, here in Yucatán, most of the city has air conditioning, but not all the small towns. So, yeah, it’s a big problem.

And yeah, on a very hot Sunday, last Sunday, we had elections, and there was massive participation, and we got our first president. But I don’t think it means good news in terms of environment, at least not now. When she was a mayor in Mexico City, there was a couple of things that she did that clearly was against or was not eco-friendly, like, for example, she built a bridge for cars, and in order to do that, they destroyed part of a wetland that it was of the very last natural reserves in Mexico City, which — and it turns out, it didn’t solve the problems. It didn’t solve the traffic that was supposed to be the problem. And because it was done over the wetlands, when it’s the rainy season, it gets flooded. So, then, you have — now you have floodings. You destroyed part of the environment, of the reserve, and you didn’t solve the issue that was the traffic in that area.

Also, while she was in campaign, she promises to continue what López Obrador is doing. She’s talking about the Tren Maya, that we know it has several impacts on the environment. There has been deforestation of at least 10 million trees. They have polluted the water. They have injected concrete on waterholes. And we are here in the peninsula. We don’t have surface body — water surface bodies. We all depend on underground water. And now that water is polluted by concrete and metals that they have been injecting to build the railroad.

So, definitely, in terms of environment, at least now, it’s not a good news. So, maybe once that Claudia start her period, maybe she distance herself from López Obrador and all these programs that go against the environment.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go —

RUTH CEREZO-MOTA: But so far, it’s not a clear evidence of that.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to a clip, the heat wave also killing those 150 howler monkeys found dead on the forest floor, according to Mexico’s Environment Ministry, due to heatstroke, dehydration, malnutrition or the spraying of crops with toxic agrochemicals. This is Mexican biologist Gilberto Pozo in the Mexican state of Tabasco.

GILBERTO POZO: [translated] We have registered 83 dead specimens. There are also orphaned calves, because many adults, adult females, have died. Some offspring have managed to survive. That is the problem with this species’ mortality in this very hot season in the state. The temperatures have reached 123 degrees Fahrenheit. And the wildlife is suffering because of the lack of water. There has been a lot of habitat degradation, so there is more light penetration, higher temperatures and water scarcity. Above all, there has been an increase in the number of fires, that damage the few habitats or refuges for these species.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Ruth Cerezo-Mota, would you like to elaborate on that, the flora, the fauna, and how all life is affected?

RUTH CEREZO-MOTA: Yeah, definitely, these extreme events that are becoming more frequent and more intense. And we knew that before. We knew that. We have already observations all around the world in different regions that these extreme events will become more often and more frequent and more intense when they happen, and not only the heat wave, but floodings and extreme precipitation. So, we knew all this, and we have been saying this for many, many years now.

So, it takes a toll on everything. So it affects health. It affects biodiversity. It affects — at the same time that we experience a heat wave, we also experience a very dry season. We are coming from last year, as well. It was very low levels of precipitation that we have here in the country, partially because of El Niño, but partially because of this climate change. So, there is no water. We have experienced, as well, not only Mexico, but in very — in other parts of the world, fires. We are getting these compound events in which you have all the perfect conditions for fires, for events that wouldn’t happen otherwise. So, we have a dry environment, windy and a lot of organic material, so then you have the perfect conditions to start the fires. And because it’s so hot and because there’s so little water, it’s very hard to control those fires, so there’s a massive devastation. Plus, the animals there are dying, because they are not able to adapt to this heat that we are experiencing. It’s not normal.

So, even though here, the peninsula of Yucatán, normally we experience a hot weather, what we are experiencing right now goes beyond of what is normal. So, we are — plus, it has lasted for more than one month, where we have had these conditions of 45 maximum degrees centigrade, and the minimums of 38, 35, so really not — that minimum is not healthy anymore, not for humans, not for environment. And it doesn’t seem to — that it’s going to end soon. So, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to end with Jeff Goodell. If you could comment on climate refugees, as President Biden tries to shut down the border, the U.S.-Mexico border, limit the number of people who can come, the reasons people leave their countries, and what they’re affected by, and also the laws that prevent people, like in Texas, the attempt to stop people from even getting — workers getting water breaks?

JEFF GOODELL: Yeah. Well, one of the, you know, kind of rules of life is that when conditions get too intolerable — too hot, in this case — living things move on to find more suitable climates. That’s what humans do. That’s what, you know, plants do. That’s what animals do. We all have to, in order to survive, find our kind of what I call in my book our Goldilocks zone, where it’s not too hot, not too cold.

And, you know, what happens when it gets too hot, crops fail, water resources fail, people move on. And that is what’s happening at the U.S. border. Migration is a very complex topic. There’s lots of reasons why people are on the move. But certainly, climate change and crop failure and water scarcity is a big part of that.

And so, we’re going to see a more chaotic planet as the climate heats up. In my book, I call heat the engine of planetary chaos. And that’s what we’re talking about here. So we’re going to see more people trying to move across boundaries. We’re going to see more politics driven by that kind of resistance to migration. We’re seeing it in the United States right now. We’re seeing it in Europe. We will see more and more of that.

And in states like Texas, where I live, we have a governor who’s a hard-right MAGA Republican, who has decided that — you know, he has passed legislation or signed legislation that prohibits any city or municipality in the state from passing any laws that require shade breaks or water breaks for workers during extreme heat conditions. The politics of this are perverse. They are brutal. They are barbaric. But that is the way our world is moving. You know, the idea that Governor Abbott has is a loss of productivity by giving people shade breaks, but it’s really going back to the old kind of coal mining days where, you know, productivity is elevated above human life.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to continue to talk about this, of course, as we move into these incredibly hot summer months. And even those who have access to shade are determined by their wealth, particularly thinking of the unhoused population. Jeff Goodell, we want to thank you so much for being with us, New York Times piece, we’ll link to, that you just wrote, “The Heat Wave Scenario That Keeps Climate Scientists Up at Night,” author of The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet. And we want to thank Dr. Ruth Cerezo-Mota, climate scientist from the Institute of Engineering at National Autonomous University of Mexico, today speaking to us from Yucatán.


'This is the Republican Party': Historian says Haley’s slavery flub was no accident

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is facing backlash after she failed to cite slavery as a cause of the Civil War during a town hall event in New Hampshire last week. She later clarified that “of course the Civil War was about slavery,” but her initial reluctance to say so is indicative of how Republican leaders have long avoided reckoning with the country’s past, says Harvard historian Khalil Gibran Muhammad. “Nikki Haley has consistently denied the relevance of the history of racism in this country and the presence of racism in this country,” he says. “This is the Republican Party.”

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to talk about teaching and what we understand about history, and switch to a connected but different subject. Professor Khalil Gibran Muhammad, I want to ask you about the presidential race right now. On the campaign trail last week, Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley made headlines after she did not cite slavery when asked what she believed caused the U.S. Civil War. She was fielding a question from a participant in a town hall meeting in Berlin, New Hampshire.

TOWN HALL PARTICIPANT: what was the cause of the United States Civil War?
NIKKI HALEY: Well, don’t come with an easy question. Right? I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do. What do you think the cause of the Civil War was?
TOWN HALL PARTICIPANT: [inaudible]
NIKKI HALEY: I’m sorry?
TOWN HALL PARTICIPANT: I’m not running for president. I wanted to see your viewpoint on the cause of the Civil War.
NIKKI HALEY: I mean, I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are. And we — I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom. We need to have capitalism. We need to have economic freedom. We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way.
TOWN HALL PARTICIPANT: Thank you. And in the year 2023, it’s astonishing to me that you answered that question without mentioning the word “slavery.”
NIKKI HALEY: What do you want me to say about slavery?
TOWN HALL PARTICIPANT: No, you answered my question. Thank you.
NIKKI HALEY: Next question.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley. And again, let’s remember, she’s the former governor of South Carolina. Facing backlash over her comment, she later said, quote, “Of course the Civil War was about slavery. We know that. That’s the easy part of it.”

Professor Khalil Gibran Muhammad, you’re a professor of history, race and public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, author of The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America. It was described as a real gaffe on her part, that she misspoke, but explain exactly what she was voicing. This was not unusual to hear in a certain sector of U.S. society.

KHALIL GIBRAN MUHAMMAD: It was not a gaffe. Let’s be clear about that. Nikki Haley has consistently denied the relevance of the history of racism in this country and the present of racism in this country. Nikki Haley, running in a party who is led by a man known for serial discrimination against people of color, as well as harboring actual neo-Nazis both within his larger political close circle but also defending people, as was true in August of 2017 on the campus of the University of Virginia, chanting “Jews will not replace us,” and essentially giving them a pass as “good people.” This is the party. This is the Republican Party, the very party that led the witch hunt trial — or should I say hearing? — that took place on December 5th.

And so, when you put it all together, the serial denial of slavery — let’s be clear, the serial denial of slavery, that is absolutely responsible for how this country came to be an economic juggernaut in the 19th century because of cotton exports, which is not a secret. It is a simple fact. It was not just a Southern problem. It was embedded in both Northern institutions, in the financial sector, as well as in the larger European context. So, to deny slavery in 2024, to essentially say, “Wink wink, nod nod, it’s not that important. Let’s move on,” is precisely the mirror inverse of what Claudine Gay and those other presidents were being accused of, of somehow denying the saliency of antisemitism. But that actually isn’t true.

This is why fascism is such a threat in this moment, because it does not depend on facts. It is only about misinformation and propaganda and catering to people’s fears. And in this case, Nikki Haley is trying to compete for it. Ron DeSantis has already proven himself to have fascist tendencies, if not fascist plans, just like Trump announcing that he plans to be a dictator at least for the first day he’s in office. Trump, by the way, was mentioned in the hearing as someone who the questioners asked the presidents if they would be willing to invite to campus to prove their commitment to academic freedom. All of them said yes, of course. But this is the absurdity of the stakes of what we’re talking about. People who actually harbor neo-Nazis, people who actually deny slavery are leading a campaign so that people like me don’t get to teach the history of slavery, and presidents like Claudine Gay and Liz Magill and others don’t get to lead institutions that will be better than they have been for most of their histories.

AMY GOODMAN: Khalil Gibran Muhammad, I want to thank you for being with us, professor of history, race and public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, author of The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America.

Watch the segment below or at this link.


Trump’s escalating racist rhetoric and the far right’s plan for a slow civil war

As the 2024 presidential election campaign heats up, Republican front-runner Donald Trump is escalating his racist rhetoric, repeatedly saying in recent days that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” drawing comparisons to Hitler. Journalist Jeff Sharlet says, “Even more important than the substance is the spectacle, the drama, that makes him the exciting and, in fascist terms, the man of action.” Sharlet explains Project 2025, an agency-by-agency plan backed by a coalition of conservative groups for implementing fascism if Trump regains power, and how the former president is giving the far right the national stage they’ve always wanted.



This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We end today’s show looking at Donald Trump’s increasing authoritarian rhetoric on the campaign trail. Over the weekend, Trump claimed immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the country.

DONALD TRUMP: When they let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country, when they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done. They’ve poisoned.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Trump’s remarks sparked widespread criticism. Vice President Kamala Harris said Trump’s words were, quote, “similar to the language of Hitler.” On Tuesday, Trump doubled down during a campaign stop in Iowa.

DONALD TRUMP: It’s crazy, what’s going on. They’re ruining our country. And it’s true: They’re destroying the blood of our country. That’s what they’re doing. They’re destroying our country. They don’t like it when I said that. And I never read Mein Kampf. They said, “Oh, Hitler said that,” in a much different way.

AMY GOODMAN: Trump was standing between two Christmas trees.

We’re joined right now by Jeff Sharlet, award-winning journalist and author, professor of English and creative writing at Dartmouth College, author of several books, including The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War. Of course, Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary are the first two for the Republicans. The Democrats have changed their primary schedule.

Jeff, first respond to this “poisoning of the blood” and the comparisons to Adolf Hitler. His wife, Ivana Trump, the mother of his first three children, who died falling down the stairs a little while ago, had said that he had a book of quotes of Adolf Hitler on his bedstand. Take it from there, Jeff.

JEFF SHARLET: Yeah, I think it’s fascinating that Trump volunteers, “I haven’t read Mein Kampf.” And, in fact, the book he’s alleged to have had, and seems to recently have had, was a different book of Hitler’s. But what’s fascinating to me is he’s going out of his way to say that and to repeat that language, after it’s already — the comparison has already been made. And I think he’s invoking that because it’s chaos and it’s drama. And I think he’s counting that in his base he’s going to be more helped by the high drama of Hitlerian operatics in World War II than the comparison to the worst fascist dictator in history. I don’t think he’s dodging it. I think he’s going toward it.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, what do you think, Jeff, of the consequences of not taking these words of Trump’s seriously? And also, you know, is this likely to diminish his support or, in fact, increase it?

JEFF SHARLET: I mean, we can just — all we need to do is sort of look what’s happening. It’s increasing the support. Again, he’s understanding that drama and spectacle are what he purveys.

But in terms of not taking it seriously, I’m glad a lot of the press is still covering this race like it’s a horse race, as opposed to a last gasp of the closest thing we could — you know, let’s hold on to what we have of American democracy. We’re starting to look at something called Project 2025. This is a 900-page blueprint put together by Trump’s allies, the Heritage Foundation, funded by Koch money. Press has made a lot of Koch — about the Kochs endorsing Nikki Haley, but they’re covering their bets. A 900-page blueprint for day one. Remember, Trump says, from day one — “On day one, I’m going to be a dictator,” which is another bit of language that I think he’s kind of rope-a-doping the press. “I’m going to be a dictator. I’m just joking. No, no, on day one, I’m going to be a dictator. Just joking. What was that word I kept saying? Dictator.” Again, even more important than the substance is the spectacle, the drama, that makes him the exciting and, in fascist terms, the man of action. Then you’ve got this 900-page document that lays out, agency by agency, with every right-wing think tank on board, with the personnel, 20,000 personnel, already figured out, recruiting 5,000 lawyers to fight for this, with — talking about concentration camps, domestic surveillance, all the facets of a full-sized fascist government. He doesn’t have to have read that, just like he doesn’t have to have read Mein Kampf, to hit those notes.

AMY GOODMAN: So, in the 2025 document that people should understand, this 30-chapter, as you said, 920-page document funded by the Heritage Foundation, the Koch brothers, talking about defunding the Department of Justice, dismantling the FBI, breaking up the Department of Homeland Security, Departments of Education and Commerce — and your title of your book, the subtitle of The Undertow, Scenes from a Slow Civil War, can you tease that out as we move into 2024, what you mean by a “slow civil war”?

JEFF SHARLET: I think the slow civil war — I mean, first of all, we look at the casualties of — that are already happening, people, pregnant people, forced to have children or suffering physically, even dying, the epidemic of trans and queer suicide, all these facets of a growing concentration of fascist policy. But the slow civil war also takes place through lawfare, through the laws that prevent people from getting the things they need. They are casualties of that.

What we see in that document is the blueprint for a massive acceleration of it. It’s an eight — the plan is based around 180 days. And they go back to — Heritage Foundation made its name by making a similar document for Ronald Reagan in 1980, 60% of which was implemented within the first six months of his administration. They cite that, and they say, “OK, but that was for Reagan. Now we’re in the age of Trump. We need to go much further.” That’s the term that they actually use, “much further.”

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Jeff, how representative would you say this document is to the far-right conservative movement? And do you think, irrespective of whether Trump is elected or not, some of these policies will be carried through, or an attempt will be made to carry them through?

JEFF SHARLET: Yeah, I think that’s the other thing we have to remember. One, if, through some fluke of fate, it is, after all, Nikki Haley — a possibility I don’t take seriously, but if it does happen — this is ready-made for her, as well. But it’s also ready-made for right-wing activism. It’s putting the stamp of Trumpism. And that’s coming not from one group or another that’s been taken over, but Heritage Foundation, Alliance for Defending Freedom, which is the group arguably responsible for overturning Roe. We see the Christian right organizations. We see the libertarian big business organizations. We see the intellectuals, as it were, of the right-wing movement, Claremont Institute, Hillsdale College. It’s a convergence. The document represents 400 contributors, many, many of them former Trump officials, defense contractors. So, I think what it — it’s a document also meant to display, once and for all, the full sort of application of the competence of the wonks put to work for the fury of Trump’s fascism and to sort of say, “OK, everybody’s on board. This is the shape. This is the project.” The project is Trumpism, regardless of where the man is.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, you’re in New Hampshire, Jeff. Nikki Haley got the endorsement of the governor there, of Governor Sununu. The significance of this? And her response to President Trump, talking about the comments about the blood and the polluting of the blood of this country, she said, are simply not helpful. If you can end by talking about what this language does and how it shapes the entire discourse, and what you think the media needs to do in response?

JEFF SHARLET: I’ve been impressed, actually, that they have stepped up a little bit more than they have been recently with just — not only just that language, but “vermin” and this kind of exterminationist language. It’s important to remember that “poisoning the blood” doesn’t just come from Mein Kampf, but it runs like a very poisonous undercurrent through American right-wing rhetoric. I’m looking at a document from 1957, a call by The American Mercury, a right-wing publication, for citizens’ trials, and it reads like it could have been written yesterday, and it talks about poisoning the blood. This is this kind of low throne that’s always been there, and Trump is now putting it on the national stage, giving it that platform that the far right has always wanted and was just a little bit, I think, afraid to claim. They were worried, “If we say this out loud, maybe we’ll lose the people.” And now they’re discovering that the people they want are coming to them because they are naming the F-word, fascism, out loud.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeff Sharlet, we want to thank you for being with us, professor of English and creative writing at Dartmouth College, author of several books, including The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War.

That does it for our show. Democracy Now! produced with Mike Burke, Renée Feltz, Deena Guzder, Messiah Rhodes, María Taracena, Tami Woronoff, Charina Nadura. Special thanks to Julie Crosby. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Thanks for joining us.

'Hero' healthcare activist Ady Barkan dies at 39 of ALS

Healthcare activist Ady Barkan has died at the age of 39 of the neurodegenerative disease ALS. After his diagnosis in 2016, Barkan dedicated his life to the fight for single-payer healthcare. He continued to speak out even after ALS left him physically unable to talk, communicating with a computerized system that translated his eye movements into spoken words. In 2019, he used the device to deliver powerful opening remarks at the first-ever congressional hearing on Medicare for All. His story is told in the documentary Not Going Quietly. In 2021, Democracy Now! spoke with Ady Barkan just ahead of the film’s premiere.



Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Healthcare activist Ady Barkan has died at the age of 39 of the neurodegenerative disease ALS. After his diagnosis in 2016, Ady Barkan dedicated his life to the fight for single-payer healthcare. He continued to speak out even after ALS left him physically unable to talk, communicating with a computerized system that translated his eye movements into spoken words. In 2019, Ady used the device to deliver powerful opening remarks at the first-ever congressional hearing on Medicare for All.

His story is told in the documentary Not Going Quietly. In 2021, I spoke with Ady Barkan just ahead of the film’s premiere.

AMY GOODMAN: We end today’s show with one of the most remarkable healthcare activists in the country. His name is Ady Barkan. He’s a 37-year-old lawyer and father who’s dying of terminal ALS. Since his diagnosis in 2016, Ady has dedicated his life to pushing for Medicare for All. He’s continued to speak out even after losing his voice. He now uses a computerized system that tracks his eye movements and turns them into spoken words. Ady’s story is told in the new documentary Not Going Quietly. This is the trailer.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: Now, I want to have a chance to tell the story about my friend Ady Barkan.
JON FAVREAU: He’s been an activist and an organizer all of his life.
REP. JIM McGOVERN: With us today is Ady Barkan. I can’t do Ady’s story justice. I will let him tell it.
ADY BARKAN: After Carl was born, we felt like we had reached the mountaintop.
Say hi.
And then, out of the clear blue sky, we were struck by lightning.
I was diagnosed with ALS today.
The knowledge that I was dying was terrible, but dealing with my insurance company was even worse. I wanted to spend every moment I had left with Rachael and Carl, but then Congress came after our healthcare. I couldn’t stay quiet any longer.
BROOKE BALDWIN: My next guest made headlines when he confronted a Republican senator on an airplane.
ADY BARKAN: This is your moment to be an American hero.
All right, ready to rumble.
We decided to start a movement.
To urge people to stand up, confront the elected officials.
Paul Ryan, I’m going to knock on your door!
REPORTER: Did you just get out of jail? Are you going to keep protesting on Monday?
ADY BARKAN: [bleep] yeah!
PROTESTERS: What do we want? Healthcare!
ADY BARKAN: I am willing to give my last breath to save our democracy. What are you willing to give?
Liz, I’m having trouble breathing.
LIZ JAFF: I think we have to stop.
ADY BARKAN: Our time on this Earth is the most precious resource we have.
Carl, I love you so much.
Movement building allows me to transcend my body. And that’s the beauty of democracy, that together we can be more than our individual selves.
AUDIENCE: Ady! Ady! Ady!
ADY BARKAN: The paradox of my situation is, the weaker I get, the louder I become.
RACHAEL SCARBOROUGH KING: Who’s that?
CARL BARKAN: Abba!
AMY GOODMAN: The trailer to the new documentary Not Going Quietly. It premiered last night in Los Angeles and tonight at the Angelika theater here in New York.
On Thursday, just before the L.A. premiere, I had a chance to speak over Zoom with Ady Barkan, who was at his home in Santa Barbara, California.
AMY GOODMAN: Ady, I wanted to start off by saying this is one of the great honors of my life to be talking to you. So thank you so much for making this time, right before the documentary is airing about your life.
Let me start off by asking you about the enormous emphasis on healthcare in this country right now, even in the corporate media, because of the pandemic. Yet there is very little talk about Medicare for All, an issue you have dedicated your life to. Can you talk about why you have dedicated yourself to this issue?
ADY BARKAN: That is so generous, Amy. Thank you for your career of leadership.
Only a truly radical departure from our exploitative, for-profit model to one that guarantees healthcare as a right for all will ensure that we no longer live in a nation where people go bankrupt on account of their medical bills. Take this last year as a prime example of the breadth of cruelty possible in our for-profit healthcare system. COVID disproportionately devastated poor communities and communities of color. Death rates in Black, Indigenous and Latinx communities were over twice that of their white counterparts. Millions lost their jobs and, as a result, their health insurance. Hospitals that primarily serve Medicaid patients shut down, prioritizing profits over people. Meanwhile, private insurers saw their profits double, because Americans delayed much-needed care. A system that profits off of death and people forgoing medical care is a system that is beyond repair. We need Medicare for All now.
AMY GOODMAN: What gives you the strength, Ady, to be the relentless activist that you are?
ADY BARKAN: You know, building a progressive movement means having your heart broken all the time. This comes with the territory. We organize for a better world, not in spite of our own pain, but because of it. We push forward because we are faced with no other option but to struggle for our freedom.
These last five years have been really tough, both personally and also collectively as a society. But take a breath and look around. You will find evidence of the profound beauty that our society has forged from the depths of pain, especially this past year. Of course, there is a lot of work to be done. But placed in this context, it means there is also more community, more creation and more healing that is bound to emerge from our labor.
AMY GOODMAN: Ady, what gives you hope?
ADY BARKAN: I’ve learned that hope is not a lottery ticket that we cling to. It’s a hammer that we use in an emergency to break the glass, sound the alarm and spring into action. I am asked this question a lot, and so I want to be clear here. I don’t believe in latent hope. Hope, as I have come to know it, is the result of hard work. Hope is action in the face of despair. Hope is born out of our insistence that a better world is possible, and formed in our coming together in collective action to realize this better world of our imagination.
AMY GOODMAN: I’ll just say once again, Ady, what an incredible honor it is to be able to speak with you and to just say what an enormous difference you have made, not only in this country, but around the world, as the persistent, compassionate, brilliant and extremely funny activist that you are, about an issue of life and death, that you face every day. So, thank you so much.
ADY BARKAN: Thank you. I am grateful for your solidarity.

AMY GOODMAN: That was healthcare activist Ady Barkan in 2021. He died at the age of 39 of the neurodegenerative disease ALS. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.

Trump biographer outlines 'the most important thing to understand about Donald'

We get an update on Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial with Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter David Cay Johnston. New York Attorney General Letitia James is seeking to fine Trump $250 million and is asking for a permanent ban on Trump family members running a business in New York. The outcome of the trial could put the future of the Trump Organization in jeopardy. Trump himself has already been barred from posting or speaking publicly about the trial after his public comments about James, which she described as “race-baiting,” and about Judge Arthur Engoron. Johnston, the author of three books on Trump, including The Big Cheat: How Donald Trump Fleeced America and Enriched Himself and His Family, says that though this trial doesn’t carry with it the potential for incarceration that his criminal trials do, it is just as threatening to the Trump empire because “Donald Trump is his money.”


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we turn now to Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial here in New York.

Trump’s attorneys are expected to file a motion today to stay the trial, pending an appeal of a judge’s ruling last week that Trump and his two eldest sons, Eric and Donald Jr., had committed fraud by vastly overstating the assets of their company. The pretrial ruling puts the future of the Trump Organization’s real estate empire in jeopardy.

Trump voluntarily attended the first three days of the trial. During comments to the press, he repeatedly attacked New York’s Attorney General Letitia James for bringing the fraud case against him. On Monday, Trump assailed James, who is African American, as a “racist” and called the trial judge, Arthur Engoron, a “disgrace.” On Wednesday, James denounced Trump’s comments.

ATTORNEY GENERAL LETITIA JAMES: What they were were comments that, unfortunately, fomented violence, were comments that I would describe as race-baiting, were comments, unfortunately, that appeals to the bottom of our humanity. … I will not be bullied. And so, Mr. Trump is no longer here; the Donald Trump show is over. This was nothing more than a political stunt, a fundraising stop.

AMY GOODMAN: On Tuesday, Judge Engoron placed a gag order on Donald Trump, the first on a former president, after he falsely claimed on social media that the judge’s law clerk was the girlfriend of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. The judge barred Trump from posting, sending emails or making public remarks about members of the judge’s staff.

To talk more about the opening week of the trial, we’re joined by David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter who’s reported on Trump for decades. He’s the author of three books on Trump, including The Big Cheat: How Donald Trump Fleeced America and Enriched Himself and His Family. Johnston is also a distinguished visiting lecturer at Syracuse University College of Law.

David, it’s great to have you back with us. If you can start off by talking about the significance of this trial for Donald Trump? I mean, this is a civil trial. He didn’t have to show up, though he falsely alleged he was being forced off the campaign trail to show up for this trial.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, unlike the four separate criminal indictments, where Donald is at risk of incarceration, going to jail, this is a civil trial. But Donald Trump is his money. That’s the most important thing to understand about Donald. And, of course, his money is always being inflated, along with other things. You know, he claims buildings are bigger than they are. He claims more money. And in this case, the judge has already ruled that Donald committed repeated calculated frauds. The issue in this trial, the principal issue in this trial — there are some minor facts — is how much must he disgorge because his frauds resulted in ill-got gains that he must give up.

AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about why this is so important. I mean, another civil trial — right? — the sexual assault trial of E. Jean Carroll, he did not show up for.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, that’s right. And E. Jean Carroll similarly got a judge to rule there was such overwhelming evidence, there was no need to try the merits of the case. Donald Trump is a rapist. That’s been established by another judge. He already owes $5 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll, and now there’s a second defamation case that she’s brought, and there will be a trial only to determine, again, how much money he owes.

In this trial before Judge Engoron, Donald has had all of his business licenses revoked. The Trump Organization, his eyes-wide-open blind trust he created when he became president, and the at least 500 Trump legal entities, mostly limited liability companies, no longer have business licenses. And you cannot do business without a business license. The judge has appointed another judge, a retired judge, as a monitor to make sure that Trump, his sons and the two executives who are in the case don’t abscond with any of the money until it’s determine how much is there. Ultimately, we will see the Trump Organization, his umbrella group, turned over to a receiver. This is similar to bankruptcy when you dissolve a company, but it’s under New York state business law, it’s not a bankruptcy case. His properties will be sold. Creditors and the government will get paid first. And if there’s any money left at the end of the day, Amy, it will go to Donald Trump.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re talking about properties. That’s Donald Trump’s residence in the Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. That’s one of the buildings. Is that right, David Cay Johnston? One of the ones that also he, to say the least, inflated, from 10,000 feet to 30,000 feet. And why that matters?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Square feet.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, he claimed the building was three times the size it was, so he could justify an enormously higher value than it’s worth. And Donald does this all the time. Trump Tower is 58 stories; he’ll tell you it’s 68 stories He owns a mansion on a large wooded area in Westchester County, about a short drive from Manhattan. He’s claimed it’s worth as much as $291 million. The most generous appraisal was $30 million, roughly a tenth of that, and it was based on the idea that he could carve it up into smaller estates and sell them off. And the local authorities have said, “No, we are not going to allow you to carve it up.” So the property is more likely worth something in the order of, say, $10 million, and Donald’s claims are 29 times that much, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Samuel Bankman-Fried is on trial right nearby, here in New York. He was jailed before the trial for violating a gag order. President Trump has just had a gag order imposed, because, among other things, of what he just tweeted out in the midst of the trial, that the clerk, who was sitting just feet from him, right next to the judge, was having an affair with Chuck Schumer. Can you talk about the significance of what it would mean if the judge found him guilty of violating that gag order? Could he end up in the same position as Samuel Bankman-Fried?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: He absolutely could end up remanded to jail. Donald is, I believe, for political reasons, trying to provoke one of the judges in his criminal or this civil case to send him to jail, so that he can rally his supporters and say, “See, the system is rigged. They’re out to get me. I didn’t do anything wrong, but they’re going to shut me up.” He threatened General Milley, who just retired as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That’s not going to result in being remanded to custody, because General Milley, who was a valorous infantryman in combat, is not being intimidated by Donald Trump. But the —

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, he essentially said that Milley should be executed.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Absolutely, he said he should be executed. The judge’s secretary, however, or clerk — I’m sorry, the judge’s clerk — has nothing to do with the merits of the proceedings. And the judge made it clear that you write or say anything about any person on my staff, and there will be consequences. And I think he’s made it pretty clear that Trump might get one more chance. But if he does it twice, I assure you, then he’s going to be remanded by this judge.

AMY GOODMAN: And for people to understand how a decision has been made in parts of this trial — I mean, it is a bench trial; it doesn’t go to a jury — oh, and also President Trump lied when he said he had wanted a jury trial, because his lawyers never asked for one.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Right. Well, Donald, I’m confident, based on his public remarks, would be very concerned that a New York City jury, a Manhattan jury, could be very bad for him. They might rule very heavily against him. So his lawyers accepted a bench trial. Whether they did it by incompetence or intentionally, they agreed to this. So there’s no question about that. He’s been denied nothing by the judge. And the facts in this case are so overwhelming, that Letitia James put before the court, showing that again and again and again, every time the Trumps valued a property, they overvalued. If there had been a mixed bag — you know, now and then they overvalued things, most of the time they were reasonable — that would be different. And, you know, Amy, imagine you own a $300,000 house. Well, maybe it’s worth $270,000, maybe it’s worth $330,000. But if you go to a bank and say, “Loan me money. This house is worth $3 million, or $30 million,” that’s just fraud. So, all this trial is about — well, primarily what this trial is about is how much in damages does Donald Trump owe for his and his sons’ years of fraud.

AMY GOODMAN: So, David Cay Johnston, you have written several books on Donald Trump. Is this case more important to them — he also fell off the, what, Forbes billionaire list — than any of the other ones?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, it’s more important to Donald’s mind, because he grew up in a household with a father who was just a complete monster, who taught him and his other children that all that matters is getting the money. As long as you don’t get arrested, do whatever you need to do. There are no rules. You’re special. The rules of law, the rules of decency, they don’t apply to you. And so, to Donald, in his psyche, this is much more important. But the fact is that in the other cases, particularly the effort to overthrow the United States government on January 6th, he faces prison if convicted. But those are down the road a little bit. Right now he’s very concentrated on this. And as I said in the beginning, to Donald, Donald is his money.

AMY GOODMAN: David Cay Johnston, we thank you so much for being with us, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, co-founder of DCReport, author of three books on Trump, including The Big Cheat: How Donald Trump Fleeced America and Enriched Himself and His Family.

Next up, we speak to the attorney suing Columbia University and its affiliated hospitals on behalf of more than 300 more patients who say they were sexually assaulted by the former Columbia University gynecologist Robert Hadden over a span of decades. They say Columbia shielded the sexual predator. Stay with us.

How conspiracy culture benefits the ruling elite

We spend the hour with acclaimed journalist and author Naomi Klein, whose new book Doppelganger, out this week, explores what she calls “the mirror world,” a growing right-wing alternate universe of misinformation and conspiracies that, while identifying real problems, opportunistically exploits them to advance a hateful and divisive agenda. Klein explains her initial motivation for the book was her own alter ego, the author Naomi Wolf, for whom she has often been mistaken. Both Naomis entered public consciousness in the 1990s with books critiquing corporate influence, but in recent years Wolf has become one of the most prominent vaccine deniers and purveyors of COVID-19 misinformation — making the ongoing confusion about their identities a source of frustration. “It’s very destabilizing,” says Klein, who still urges people to seriously engage with the dangerous ideas propagated in mirror worlds, rather than simply look away. “It’s so hard to look at the reality that we are in right now, with the overlay of endless wars and climate disasters and massive inequality. And so, whether we’re making up fantastical conspiracy theories or getting lost in our own reflections, it’s all about not looking at that reality that is only bearable if we get outside our own heads and collectively organize.”
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Today we make a trip into the Mirror World. The acclaimed writer Naomi Klein has a new book out this week that delves deeply into the culture of conspiracy theories and a growing alliance between the far right and people who once identified as progressive.

The book comes as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. campaigns against Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination for president. Kennedy, who was once a prominent environmental lawyer, is now a leading figure in the anti-vaccine movement. In July, Kennedy made headlines after claiming, quote, ”COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people.” He went on to say Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese are most immune to COVID. One notable defender of Kennedy’s claims was the writer Naomi Wolf, who is best known for her 1991 book, The Beauty Myth. In a Substack post, Wolf defended Kennedy, writing, quote, ”RFK Jr. is cursed and blessed with a passion for actual truth,” she wrote.

Kennedy and Wolf have both been embraced by the far right. Republican megadonors are helping to bankroll Kennedy’s longshot presidential campaign, while Wolf is now a regular guest on Steve Bannon’s podcast, The War Room, where she spreads conspiracy theories about COVID vaccines and other issues. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has also praised Naomi Wolf, saying she is, quote, “one of the bravest, clearest-thinking people I know.”

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Naomi Wolf plays a central role in Naomi Klein’s new book, titled Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World. Klein examines how and why more and more people started confusing her with Wolf, as Naomi Wolf fell deeper into what Naomi Klein called the Mirror World, where facts no longer matter. Naomi Klein writes in the book, quote, “The trouble with the Mirror World: there is always some truth mixed in with the lies; always some devastating collective failure it has identified and is opportunistically exploiting,” unquote.

In a moment, Naomi Klein will join us live, but first, we play a short video produced along with the book.

NAOMI KLEIN: Hi. I’m Naomi Klein, and as some of you know, I have a doppelganger, a person who does many extreme things that cause strangers to chastise me, or thank me, or express their pity for me. I used to be horrified by this. But then something happened that I didn’t expect: I got interested — interested in what it means to have a doppelganger.
So, I decided to follow my doppelganger to a place I’ve come to think of as the Mirror World. It’s a strange mirror image of the world where I live. It’s a place where many ideas that I care about are being twisted and warped into dangerous doppelganger versions of themselves.
When I look at the Mirror World, I don’t see disagreements over a shared reality; I see disagreements about what is real and what is a simulation. And with AI generating more and more of what we see and hear, it’s only getting harder to distinguish the authentic from the synthetic. After all, artificial intelligence is a mirroring and mimicry machine. We feed in the cumulative words, ideas and images that our species has managed to create, and these programs mirror back to us something that feels uncannily lifelike. But it’s not life; it’s a forgery of life.
I shadowed my double further into the Mirror World, a place where soft-focused wellness influencers make common cause with fire-breathing far-right propagandists, all in the name of saving and protecting the children.
Not everyone is dogged by their doppelganger, but our culture is crowded with all kinds of doubling. All of us who maintain a persona or avatar online are kind of creating our own doppelgangers, forging a separate public identity that is both us and not us — a doppelganger. We perform for one another as the price of admission in a rapacious attention economy. And all the while, tech companies create digital profiles of us without our full knowledge, data doubles, or golems, that follow us everywhere we go online, carrying their own agenda, their own logics and their own threats.
What is all of this doubling and doppelganging doing to us? How is it steering what we pay attention to, and, more critically, what we neglect and ignore? Doppelgangers are often understood as a warning or an omen, a message that something needs our attention. Reality is doubling, multiplying, glitching, telling us to pay attention. Because it’s not just individuals who can flip into a sinister version of themselves; the Earth can transform into a menacing, uncanny twin of what we once knew. Whole societies can flip. That’s the reason many doppelganger works of art are ultimately about the latent potential for fascism within our societies, even within ourselves.
What I’ve learned by shadowing my double is that the forces that have destabilized my personal world are part of a much larger web of forces that are destabilizing our shared world. And understanding these forces may be our best hope of getting to firmer ground.

AMY GOODMAN: That video featured Naomi Klein, author of the new book Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World. Naomi Klein is an award-winning author and journalist. She’s professor of climate justice at the University of British Columbia, founding co-director of the UBC Centre for Climate Justice. Her previous books include On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. Naomi is also a columnist for The Guardian. She’s joining us now from Washington, D.C., as she begins her book tour around the country.

Naomi, welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us.

NAOMI KLEIN: Thank you. Thank you so much, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: And congratulations on the publication of this book. I like what the great artist and author Molly Crabapple said about your book: “a dazzling, hallucinatory tour de force that takes the reader through shadow selves and global fascism, leaving them gasping by the end.” So, Naomi, if you can explain more this journey you took through the pandemic into this Mirror World, who your doppelganger is, and then go back to 2011 and that moment in the loo where you talk about hearing women talk about you, or was it Naomi Wolf? Take it from there.

NAOMI KLEIN: All right. Well, first of all, Amy and Nermeen, thank you so much for having me back on the show. It’s such a pleasure to be with you. And thank you for airing that video. I just want to credit the director, Colby Richardson, who is an amazing video artist. So, those of you who were listening just to the audio, I really encourage you to watch the video version, because it gets really trippy.

Amy, you listed some of my previous books in that lovely introduction. My books, back to No Logo, my first book, which I wrote on the cusp of the new millennium, almost a quarter of a century ago, have been attempts to map our political moment. They’ve been attempts to make sense of moments of big shifts in our political world, our cultural world and, in the case of This Changes Everything, our physical world. And I would say that Doppelganger is an attempt to make a usable map of our moment.

The thing is, our moment is a lot weirder and wilder than any I’ve ever lived through. There are all kinds of strange happenings at work, all kinds of uncanny events. So I thought, in many ways, that I needed to write in a different way, a way that sort of mirrored the wildness of now. And so I let myself have more fun with the writing. I wanted to refind a voice that felt more like me, that felt more like the person who talks to their friends, that was more conversational.

But also, Amy, you know, this project began during the pandemic. And I’ve written about large-scale collective shocks. That’s what The Shock Doctrine was about. But I realized that in the past, you know, if I was covering Hurricane Katrina or the U.S. and U.K. invasion and occupation of Iraq or the Asian tsunami — I mean, these huge cataclysmic events — I was, you know, I think, as you are — right? — the journalist who comes in with a notepad, maybe a camera, and I’m interviewing other people about their shock, but really I’ve had a reportorial distance. COVID was different. Nobody was outside of that shock. It upended my world, as it upended all of our worlds. And in many ways, the world became uncanny and unfamiliar. Freud described the uncanny as that species of frightening in which that which was familiar becomes strange. I mean, think about Times Square during the pandemic. That is an uncanny apparition. It’s something familiar that looks completely different. It’s empty, one of the busiest places on Earth.

But I think there are many kinds of uncanny experiences that we have in the world today. You know, I now live in British Columbia. We had an extreme weather event a couple of years ago called a heat dome, and hundreds of people died. Millions of marine creatures died. But what was most uncanny about the heat dome is it was not our weather. It was like somebody else’s weather coming to a temperate rainforest. And so, I thought by using the uncanniness of having a doppelganger — you asked about my doppelganger — I am perennially confused and conflated with another writer named Naomi, Naomi Wolf, and having that identity confusion is an extreme form of uncanniness, because what becomes unfamiliar is you. You see people and hear people talking about you, but it’s not you. It’s very destabilizing. So I thought, “Well, this is an interesting technique.” And she really is less the subject of the book than a literary technique to get into these other kinds of uncanny forces. Should I tell the bathroom story, Amy?

AMY GOODMAN: Please.

NAOMI KLEIN: You really want me to do it? Yeah, so the first chapter begins telling the story where, actually, I was in New York City to be part of Occupy Wall Street. I was at a march through the Financial District at the height of Occupy Wall Street. And like other people at that march, I needed to use a public restroom. And I was in one of these skyscrapers, and I don’t remember exactly which building. But while in the restroom, I overheard a couple of people talking about me, being quite unkind, I must say, Amy. They were sort of drawling, like, “Did you read that article by Naomi Klein? Oh my god, she really doesn’t understand our movement. She doesn’t understand our demands.” And I was sort of frozen in fear. It brought back all of my terrible high school memories, you know, these mean girls who were talking about me.

But as I listened, I realized, “Oh, they’re not talking about me. They’re talking about somebody else.” So I came out of the stall, and I met one of their eyes, and I said words that I have had to say, unfortunately, too many times: “I think you’re talking about Naomi Wolf.” But in the end, that became quite fitting to me, because I think when we overhear people speaking about us on social media, we essentially are just reading the graffiti on the bathroom wall, which is not healthy, and we probably should stop doing that. So I think it’s fitting that the first time I became aware of the identity confusion in the real world, it was actually literally in a bathroom.

AMY GOODMAN: And let’s just say that this weekend is the 12th anniversary of Occupy Wall Street.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Naomi, I’d like to —

NAOMI KLEIN: So it’s been going for some time.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Naomi, I’d like to just join Amy in congratulating you on this book. I mean, I know that I’m not alone in thinking this, that when I read it, I realized that it’s actually the book that needed to be written. I mean, it’s amazing the way you’re simultaneously disclosive, funny, subtle and so insightful about our present historical moment. So I want to ask about the reasons that you — the doppelganger effect that you identify is of course not just with Naomi Wolf. Naomi Wolf is almost like incidental to what you come to identify, which is that you recognize, in seeing your doppelganger, that you were also seeing, quote, in your words, “a magnification of many undesirable aspects of our shared culture.” So, could you just enumerate or list what those undesirable aspects are, of which — I mean, you can select some because they’re so numerous.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, absolutely. You know, it definitely wouldn’t have been worth doing this if it wasn’t kind of a narrow aperture, to use a film image, that would allow us to see much larger forces at work. And I think we all know people who have changed dramatically in the past few years, who don’t really seem like themselves. I think it’s less interesting that Naomi Wolf is seemingly a doppelganger for me to a lot of people’s eyes than that she seems to be a doppelganger of her former self, right? That she was a prominent feminist, she was involved in progressive movements, and now here she is on Steve Bannon’s podcast, in some cases every single day. Like there have been weeks where she has been a guest every single day that he has been broadcasting. I think probably Democracy Now! listeners would be surprised to learn that they published a book together. They put out T-shirts together. So her role in Steve Bannon’s media sphere is almost like a co-host more than a guest. She’s a really important figure in this world.

But part of the reason we don’t know this has to do with this, what I call the Mirror World and the fact that while they see us, we have chosen, for the most part, not to see them. And I think that that’s very dangerous, because these are really important political movements. Steve Bannon is a very able political strategist. He got Donald Trump elected once, and he fully intends to do it again. And part of Steve Bannon’s strategy is that he is very good at looking at issues and people who have been abandoned by the Democratic Party or even by the left, people who have been mistreated, ejected, and saying, “Come on over to this side. Come on over to this side of the glass. And we’ll take a little bit of truth” — you know, you used that quote, that there’s always a little bit of truth mixed in — “and we’ll mix it up with all of these dangerous lies.”

But to me, as a lifelong leftist, what concerns me about that is that many of the issues that they are coopting and twisting are issues that I think the left should be more vocal about. You know, I had one of my most — I’d say, like a moment in the research where I was listening to hundreds of hours of Bannon’s podcasts, where I would say I felt most destabilized was when I would hear Bannon cut together a montage, an audio montage and a video montage, of intros and outros of major cable news shows on CNN and MSNBC — “brought to you by Pfizer,” “brought to you by Moderna.” And, you know, his point was to say, “You can’t trust these corporate media outlets because they are bought and paid for by the drug companies that are trying to get you vaccinated.” Right?

But for me, what was chilling about that was that that was a doppelganger of the kind of media education that I grew up in. You know, we all read Manufacturing Consent. We had these charts where we — and, I mean, Amy, they sounded a little bit like you, they sounded like me, they sounded like Noam Chomsky — except through a warped mirror. And what worried me about that is it really reminded me that I don’t think we’re doing that kind of systems-based media education anymore where we really are looking at these ownership structures. And if that doesn’t happen, then it’s going to be coopted in the Mirror World.

So, you know, I guess, Nermeen, thank you for your kind words about the book. I’m so glad that it resonated with you. It was a sort of risk. But I think maybe by being specific, we’re all thinking about the people in our lives and this phenomenon that’s affected us all. I think when I look at people who have made a similar political migration from liberalism or leftism over to the Bannonesque right, I think we often see some economic forces at work. Naomi Wolf has quadrupled her following because of this decision, this political decision of hers. She’s not the only one. You know, I’m sure people are thinking of other people. It’s actually a really smart business move. And this is happening within an economic system that has monetized attention. You know, people are trying to build their personal brands because they’ve been told that they’re not going to get a job, that this is the only way they can survive in these roiling capitalist seas. And there’s a lot of clicks over there. So I think that’s some of it.

You know, what are the other forces that get magnified? Well, this is a little tricky to say, because I do write — I don’t think this gives people a pass, but Wolf is one of these people who has experienced a lot of shaming and kind of pile-ons on left Twitter, or liberal Twitter, or X, or whatever it’s called. She’s really been, I would say, internet-bullied. People can say, “OK, well, for good reason. She’s spread conspiracies. She has made major factual errors in her books.” But I don’t think that’s necessarily a justification for cruelty. So I think that’s something else that gets magnified, because I think when people have an experience that is very, very negative in left or liberal circles, where they really get treated almost like they’re not human — and that’s partly because they’re performing themselves as a brand, which is saying, “Hey, I’m out here, I’m a commodity, I’m a thing,” and then people start thinking, “Well, if you’re a thing, I can throw things at you, and you won’t bleed” — you know, I think that that’s part of what is magnified here, and that becomes a justification for, I think, an unjustifiable political alliance with extremely dangerous figures who are building a network of far-right political parties, who take issues like rightful suspicion of Big Pharma, rightful anger at Big Tech, rightful anger at the elites, and flip it to transphobia, xenophobia, racism. And here I’m thinking about figures like Giorgia Meloni, who is a protégé of Steve Bannon’s.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Naomi, I mean, if you could elaborate on that point? I mean, one of the failures that you identify is, for instance, the Democratic Party or progressives generally not focusing on making, for instance, different social media platforms more equitable, more democratic, but, rather, when people are deplatformed, including Naomi Wolf, kind of celebrating their removal.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And you say that believing that once they’re deplatformed, they’ve effectively disappeared, is the equivalent of saying that children — children who think that once they close their eyes, the world has disappeared. If you could elaborate on that?

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah. So, I mean, like, when I would confess to people I knew that I was working on this book, sometimes I would get this strange reaction like, “Well, why would you give her attention?” And there was this sense that because she was no longer visible in the pages of The New York Times or on MSNBC or wherever, and because she had been deplatformed on social media, that — or on the social media that we’re on — that she just didn’t exist. And there was this assumption that we, whoever “we” are, are in control of the attention, and so if the spigot gets turned off, then there’s no more attention.

But because I was following this, what I was seeing was that she had a much, much larger platform than probably she had had since her star rose in the 1990s and she was advising Al Gore on his presidential run in 2000. You know, what Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon can offer her is more than what a lot of liberal media outlets can offer. And she’s been on Jordan Peterson’s podcast. And she’s also in these — I call it the Mirror World because there’s kind of a one-to-one replica of many of the social media platforms, the crowdfunding platforms. So, she was kicked off Twitter; she immediately got an account on Gettr. And Gettr, they call themselves “the Twitter killer.” So, I think it is really, really reckless to ignore this world, because it’s not like they’re just — you know, it’s not like it’s a hobby, what they’re doing there. As Steve Bannon says, the goal is to take power for the next hundred years. So not paying attention to this and not looking at what issues are getting traction there, I think, is really reckless.

In 2016, Steve Bannon successfully peeled away a portion of the Democratic Party base who had voted for Democrat after Democrat who promised them that they were going to renegotiate or cancel free trade deals that had gutted their communities and offshored jobs, and they didn’t do it. Many of them signed more free trade deals. And Steve Bannon saw an opportunity. I don’t think it’s about whether or not he personally believes this is an important issue or whether Trump did anything really meaningful in this regard. The issue is they picked up an issue that their opponents had abandoned, and used it to political effect. And that is now happening with opposition to Big Tech, opposition to Big Pharma, even standing up for free speech, right?

And so, I think that there need to be — and it’s wildly hypocritical, because they’re the same people who are banning books. But to me, like, we can’t control them. We can control ourselves and whether or not we are doing a good enough job embodying our own principles. And, you know, I think one of the things that happened during the pandemic is that the more misinformation was being spread by the likes of Wolf and Bannon, the more people who see themselves as progressive started just getting into a reactive position where we’re just defending the CDC, we’re just defending what the government is saying, when in fact the role of the left is to push for much more, right? Sure, yes, get vaccinated, wear a mask, but what about fighting for the right to indoor air quality for everybody? What about demanding that schools have smaller classrooms, more outdoor education, more teachers, giving essential workers the raises instead of just the applause? The right to — I mean, or lifting the patents on the vaccines. And I know you covered this on Democracy Now! consistently, but I think if we’re honest, it was the right that organized during the pandemic.

You know, I live in Canada now. I’m back in Canada, and we had the trucker convoy that shut down Ottawa for three weeks. And I’m not going to get into much about the trucker convoy except to say that one of the things that occurred to me is, what would have happened if there was a robust left that had shut down cities and demanded that before we got our fourth booster, everybody on this planet got their first COVID vaccine, you know, or made any of these other collective demands about truly funding public healthcare? Universal public healthcare would have been a good response to the pandemic. So, I think we have to be a lot more ambitious and a lot less reactive to just what “they’re” doing, the quote-unquote “they.”

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Naomi, very quickly, before we break — we just have a minute — if you could explain? You mentioned the truck convoy. You mentioned two truck convoys. What do you think, principally, why was that so important? What was misrepresented?

NAOMI KLEIN: Oh, that’s maybe a little bit tricky to explain quickly, but seven months before the famous trucker convoy, the one that made it on all the U.S. talk shows, and that was mainly an anti-vax event, there was a convoy that was in British Columbia that was in response to the unmarked graves whose presences were confirmed first at the site of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School, and then more unmarked graves confirmed at other — on the grounds of other former so-called residential schools. I say “confirmed” because the communities always knew that there were burial grounds on the grounds of these genocidal schools, but their presence was confirmed using ground-penetrating radar.

And there was such an outpouring of solidarity in the aftermath of that, that there was a convoy organized by truckers in British Columbia, hundreds of trucks that went and drove in front of the closed former residential school in Kamloops. It was called the “We Stand in Solidarity Convoy.” And, you know, it came from a place, as I say, and as they said, of solidarity, of wanting to say that this atrocity, this genocide, is not only an issue for First Nations to fight for justice, it should be everybody’s business.

So it was striking that there was this kind of doppelganger trucker convoy seven months later. But what I say in the book is that some truckers went to both. And so, what’s interesting to me is the way doppelgangers stand in for the fact that human beings are complicated. You know, I think my own doppelganger is complicated. I think she’s done some very good things in her life, and she’s done some really damaging things. That’s true for most people. So, what interests me as a political theorist is: What are the systems that encourage the best parts of ourselves, that support that impulse toward solidarity and compassion, as opposed to light up the most individualistic parts of ourselves?

AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein, her new book is out just this week. It’s called Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World. We’re back with her in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: “Lost in the Citadel,” by Lil Nas X. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh, and we’re spending the hour with Naomi Klein. Her new book is just out. It’s called Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World.

Naomi, I wanted to talk to you about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In July, the Democratic presidential candidate spoke at a press event in New York City and claimed the COVID-19 vaccine is a genetically engineered bioweapon that may have been ethnically targeted to spare people who are Jewish — Ashkenazi Jews — and Chinese.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: COVID-19, there’s an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately. … COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Robert Kennedy. Naomi, you wrote an article, before these comments, in The Guardian headlined “Beware: we ignore Robert F Kennedy Jr’s candidacy at our peril.” Now, you write extensively in this piece about his background. It was not just COVID-19 vaccines he was concerned about. He goes way back in his anti-vax attitudes and activism. Talk about the significance of this, and what you continually say throughout the book in that we ignore these views at our own peril.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah. So, I think, I mean, in a way, he is a doppelganger of his father and uncle. And it’s sort of — I see it as kind of a counterfeit politics. I’m sorry for RFK Jr. supporters who are listening — don’t know how many there are. I think that what he is doing is tapping into a lot of real fears, angers. You know, there are times when I listen to him when I can’t help nodding along, when he’s talking about regulatory capture of government agencies by the corporations they’re supposed to be regulating — that’s something I’ve covered for a long time — or when he’s talking about the military-industrial complex.

I think it’s really important — the reason why I call it a counterfeit politics is that although he is calling this out, if you look at what he’s running on, you know, this is not Bernie. He is not actually running on a platform of significant regulations that would address the crises that he is talking about. It’s kind of a libertarian platform. I mean, he isn’t even running on universal public healthcare. You know, if you’re worried about Big Pharma and profiteering, how about running on pharmacare, that we shouldn’t be leaving life-saving drugs to the market? But you’ll never hear him say something like that.

So, I think, for leftists who are frustrated with the centrism of the Democrats, it can seem like this is really an alternative. And I would really, really caution against it and look at what he is actually running on. Is he running on raising the minimum wage? No, he’s not. He’s tapping into these real critiques and these real issues, like an inflated military budget, but then his position on Israel, for instance, is just more militarism. Same thing with Steve Bannon, by the way. You know, he talks a great game about the military-industrial complex. He’s absolutely obsessed with China and positioning the U.S. for a Third World War with China. If you’re a serious critic of the military-industrial complex, you wouldn’t be as focused as Steve Bannon is on China-bashing.

So, RFK, obviously, with that clip that you played, is extraordinarily disturbing, dangerous. A lot of conspiracy culture starts ending up in this kind of antisemitic territory, though it’s the oldest conspiracy theory in the world. You know, I make the argument in the book that part of what we’re dealing with, with the rise of conspiracy culture — and I call it conspiracy culture, not conspiracy theories, because the theories so wildly contradict each other. It’s just a posture of mistrust and just throwing wild theories at the wall. So, one minute COVID is a bioweapon, perhaps, and the next minute it’s just a cold, so don’t even wear a mask. You really would need to choose, if you had a theory, between whether or not it was a bioweapon or whether or not it was a cold. If it were a bioweapon, presumably, you would want to do pretty much anything you can not to be infected.

But they never attempt to resolve these glaring contradictions, because the point of it is to throw up this kind of a distraction, so that we aren’t focused on the sort of what I would describe as kind of the conspiracies in plain view — the fact that the pharmaceutical companies turned COVID into this profit center; the fact that despite the fact that the vaccine development was funded with public dollars, all the initial orders were from the government, there are these outrageous patents on these vaccines, and they should never have been patented in the first place. And I think we need to be really wary of being overly credulous.

We know that there are real conspiracies in the world. You’ve been covering the 50th anniversary of the overthrow of Salvador Allende, and new documents come out every week that show us these behind-the-scenes meetings. But if we look at that conspiracy, it’s a good example. You know, what you see in the documents about the U.S. destabilization campaign of Salvador Allende, it wasn’t that there was some nefarious goal about depopulating the Earth or draining kids of adrenochrome, or whatever the conspiracy culture is claiming. It was to protect U.S. copper interests, you know, U.S. telecom interests. It was just capitalism doing its thing. And sometimes it takes a plot to do it, is the way I put it in the book.

But coming back to what I was saying earlier about an absence of basic political education, if people don’t understand how capitalism works, if we don’t understand that this is a system that is really built to consolidate wealth, and it will always have a massive underclass, and instead people have been told that capitalism is just Big Macs and freedom and rainbows and everybody getting what they deserve, then when that system fails them, they’re going to be very vulnerable to somebody going, “Oh, it’s all a plot by the Jews,” or whatever the conspiracy of the day is. And that’s why doing that basic political education and economic education is so critical, because it’s really our armor against this conspiracy culture.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Naomi, I mean, as I think you say in the book at some point, the use of the term “conspiracy culture” is also because one can’t call it a conspiracy theory because it’s a conspiracy with no theory. So, RFK and your own doppelganger are emblematic, really, of the number — especially during the pandemic, the number of conspiracies that proliferated and, of course, spread so exponentially, so quickly, both because, of course, everybody on the planet practically who was able to do it was online. So, if you could speak specifically? Conspiracies have always existed.

NAOMI KLEIN: Sure. Sure.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But talk about the power of conspiracies now, just because of their sheer reach, combined with, as you say, this lack of education on a structure within which to understand what’s being said.

NAOMI KLEIN: Absolutely. So, I think you’re absolutely right, Nermeen, that especially during times that are chaotic, during times of disaster, there are often these wild conspiracy theories that emerge, because they claim to make some sense of an event that seems senseless, especially when there’s just a huge amount of loss, so our minds reach for those kinds of easy explanations. I’ve seen that. I saw it after Hurricane Katrina. I saw it after the tsunamis. I saw it in Iraq. I’ve seen it again and again as a reporter.

This is different. And what’s different is the attention economy, because when all of this is playing out on platforms, private platforms owned by billionaires, that have created incentive structures that mean that if you — whoever puts out the most clickable content is going to get the most followers, is going to be able to turn those into subscriptions, be able to monetize them, it creates such a huge incentive structure to be that person first out of the gate making the wildest claim that you possibly can.

So, I would put conspiracy culture within the framework of the disaster-capitalism complex that we have talked about before. You know, we have seen in the aftermath of disasters that these players move in and just attempt to profit from disasters. Conspiracy hucksters and influencers are part of the disaster-capitalism complex, but it gets very confusing, because often what they’re talking about is other people profiting off of disaster. So, it’s a Mirror World. It’s trippy. And so you’ve got to get a little bit trippy to try to map it.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to ask you, first of all, like, what — before we end, what the main conclusions of the book are. But I’d also like to read, I mean, your own conclusion, one of the things that you say. Ultimately, it’s almost as if you express gratitude towards Naomi Wolf because of the reflection, the interest in her and what it revealed not just about our present moment, but also yourself within this social media world. And at the end, you quote John Berger, who you say taught you a long time ago that calm itself is a form of resistance. So, first of all, what should people take away, the main takeaway from the book? And that point itself — calm is a form of resistance — how is one to attain that calm?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I think maps help, right? And this is a very first — it’s a first draft of a map of the post-COVID world. You know, it’s just through one person’s eyes. And mapping is collective work, so it’s been really great to be out here talking to people, reading articles that people have written, adding to it and adding layers. So I think we’re sense-making. We’re making sense of the way we have changed, the way our world has changed.

But I think the big takeaway from the book is, all of this is about not seeing. You know, whether we are creating doppelgangers of ourselves online and performing perfected versions, that’s a way of distracting ourselves from the weight of our political moment. You know, listening to your headlines, Amy and Nermeen, to quote António Guterres, it’s an atlas of human suffering. It’s so hard to look at the reality that we are in right now, with the overlay of endless wars and climate disasters and massive inequality. And so, whether we’re making up fantastical conspiracy theories or getting lost in our own reflections, it’s all about not looking at that reality that is only bearable if we get outside of our own heads and collectively organize, you know, rebuild our social movements, so that they can offer people material improvements to their lives. That’s the only way we fight these surging conspiracies. It’s not going to be fact-checkers or content moderators; it’s going to be a robust left. And I feel I can say that on Democracy Now!

AMY GOODMAN: And we just have a minute, but let’s end where we started, with that term “doppelganger” and what more you want to say about it, and if Naomi Wolf has responded.

NAOMI KLEIN: You know, it’s interesting. She posted something this morning, actually, or maybe it was yesterday, casting this as some sort of a — like my work is some sort of — being part of a plot to attack her, which isn’t surprising. And she’s using it to — well, OK — I think that this must be very hard for her, is what I would say. And I have really tried to reiterate that she is a case study, an interesting one, but this is not about her. I personally think she has been treated quite cruelly. I’m not interested in adding to that. You know, I do think that we need to hold one another accountable, but that doesn’t mean that we have a right to be cruel. And I hope that if she were to actually read the book, she would see that it isn’t perhaps the way it’s been portrayed, as being like a book-length attack on her. It certainly isn’t. You know, doppelganger stories are always ways of —

AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there, Naomi. Naomi Klein, author of Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.