The Dictatorship

My son is a disabled adult. The Trump White House has him in its sights.

Published

2 months ago

May 1, 2026

May. 1, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

ByDavid M. Perry

I have been writing about the politics and policies around disability in the United States for almost 20 years. My wife is the board chair for a Minnesota disability nonprofit organization. So when it comes to disability policy, I usually feel like I know what’s going on — in the abstract, that is.

And yet, when it comes to my son, a disabled adult, I often feel at sea. I never really know what he should apply for, what the process will be like or whether he’s likely to get the support he needs without a fight. And here’s the bigger problem: You’re not supposed to know what you or your loved ones qualify for. Otherwise, you might get what you are actually owed.

Complicated administrative systems, by their very complexity, do the work of shrinking social programs and promoting an anti-safety-net agenda.

On Tuesday, ProPublica revealed that the Trump White House is about to make this terrible system even worse, “according to four federal officials, internal emails and a federal regulatory listing.” More specifically, the administration is trying to shrink supplementary security income payments by changing two rules that benefit disabled adults who live with their families. My son lives with his family, i.e. me, my wife and his brother, and despite all the qualifications we bring to table, I really can’t say what these changes would mean for us. But I can say this: The confusion is a feature, not a bug.

Nico, my son, is autistic and has Down syndrome. He’s “functionally non-verbal,” which means that although he talks all the time, he does not communicate in a way that lends itself to truly independent living or working. He has considerable agency in his life, but he is vulnerable and always needs a responsible adult nearby. Not so long ago, government support for him likely would have required placing him in a large residential facility. But recent decades have brought landmark disability civil rights laws regulations and court decisions. We entered an era where, for a minute, there was a pretty broad bipartisan consensus around providing resources to adults like Nico that allowed them to choose where to livewho to live with and find the support they needed.

But to Republicans today, that seems intolerable.

Here’s what the administration is proposing (or at least what I think it is proposing): First, the value of disabled people’s bedrooms will now be deducted from the monthly payments under SSI. So if I let my son live in his bedroom for free, that will now be considered an asset that reduces his SSI payment. It’s possible that I can charge him rent to avoid this, but the whole goal of SSI (for me) is to give him a small steady income that lets him be independent. And to figure it out how to comply with this change, I can hire a lawyer, but most people don’t have those means. It’s not the first time some new disability services rule was designed to most impact people who can’t afford lawyers.

The second rule involves SNAP. Basically, if your family went through the process of qualifying for food assistance, then the federal government would also assume your family could not provide meaningful support to a disabled adult, thus ensuring they received the full possible SSI payment. The Trump administration is proposing changing this, making it harder for a household to qualify for aid, in the name of what the program listing calls “program integrity.” (A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget told ProPublica that its report was “false because it speculates about policies that have not yet been decided.”)

All of this falls under the rubric of what scholars Pamela Herd and Donald Moynihan long ago coined as “administrative burdens.” Complicated administrative systems, by their very complexity, do the work of shrinking social programs and promoting an anti-safety-net agenda, while avoiding the politically unpopular route of telling Americans that their benefits are being cut.

I should be able to reliably predict what my son’s financial, medical, housing, educational, employment and social opportunities will look like in the next phase of our lives.

At times, Democrats have created administrative burdens out of a misguided sense of fairness (such as means-tested benefits). But what’s coming from Republicans right now is much more cynical — cut programs in the name of “integrity.” By this, the administration means the change is being done to protect against unspecified fraud — a favorite tactic of this White House. It’s possible the administration will reverse course now that this proposal has been noticed, just as happened last fall with planned changes for aging workers’ disability benefits. But the confusion has already been sown, leaving families such as mine scrambling to figure out what’s actually happening.

We applied for SSI for our son about a year ago, not long after he turned 18. As chance would have it, the day I started drafting this essay, we got a call from the Minnesota Department of Human Services. The department said a decision had been reached and we would be contacted soon. I don’t know what that decision was. I do know that I should be able to reliably predict what my son’s financial, medical, housing, educational, employment and social opportunities will look like in the next phase of our lives. I want to be able to plan. Instead, I just wait for the next bad news to come from the White House.

David M. Perry

David M. Perry is a journalist and historian and the co-author of “Oathbreakers:The War of Brothers That Shattered an Empire and Made Medieval Europe.” His newsletter is Modern Medieval. Follow him on Threads.

The Dictatorship

Mitch McConnell’s office doesn’t want to talk about why he’s hospitalized

Published

2 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Mitch McConnell’s office doesn’t want to talk about why he’s hospitalized

When it comes to members of Congress and medical transparency, it’s been an unfortunate year.

Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey was away from his duties for nearly four months for reasons he only recently disclosed; Democratic Rep. Frederica Wilson of Florida missed roughly a month of work for a medical issue she disclosed after the fact; and Republican Rep. Neal Dunn of Florida, who’s struggled with health concerns he didn’t share, has been out for roughly a month and reportedly told GOP leaders that he won’t be voting at all unless party leaders really need him.

And then there’s Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The New York Times reported:

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the former majority leader, was hospitalized on June 14. Since then, his office has provided few updates about his condition.

The scant official statements have led to speculation around Washington and efforts to piece together information on what happened.

Questions about McConnell’s health are not altogether new. In recent years, the former GOP leader, who turned 84 in February, has been seen with unexplained bruises, has suffered unexplained falls and, in some especially unsettling moments, has frozen up and appeared unable to speak.

But as a related NBC News report noted, it’s now been 23 days since McConnell was admitted to the hospital, and if members of his team have information about why he was hospitalized or how he’s doing, they have kept those details from the public for reasons unknown.

The most recent statement from McConnell’s office, issued late last week, said the senator “appreciates the outpouring of support he’s receiving while he continues his recovery in the hospital” and that he “continues to improve, and is working closely with his staff on Kentucky and Senate matters while the Senate is out of session.”

That sounded vaguely encouraging, and people of goodwill can certainly hope he continues to recover from whatever it is that led to his hospitalization in the first place, but secrecy necessarily generates questions about why a prominent public official is not sharing basic details about his condition with his colleagues and constituents.

The Times’ report added, “Emergency responders the morning the Kentucky Republican was hospitalized reported performing CPR on an unconscious individual undergoing cardiac arrest at the senator’s Washington address, according to recordings of dispatcher calls that were widely reported by news outlets last week and obtained by The New York Times.”

The recordings did not specifically identify McConnell as the patient, and the senator’s office refused to say whether the calls were related to him.

As for the near future, in the event that McConnell’s Senate seat were to become vacant, state law in the Bluegrass State has changed a couple of times in recent years. In 2021, Kentucky’s Republican-led legislature approved a measure that would require Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear to fill a Senate vacancy by choosing one of three GOP options presented by state lawmakers.

In 2024, the Republican-led legislature changed state law again to remove the governor’s authority to fill a vacancy altogether: If Kentucky faces a Senate vacancy, the seat would remain empty until a statewide special election can be held.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

As the dam breaks on Graham Platner’s Senate candidacy, what happens next in Maine?

Published

2 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

As the dam breaks on Graham Platner’s Senate candidacy, what happens next in Maine?

When Democrats in Maine were introduced to Graham Platner last summer, the oyster farmer and combat veteran quickly started picking up the kind of enthusiastic grassroots support other Senate candidates can only dream of. It wasn’t long before his campaign events were drawing the crowds usually reserved for leaders such as Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.

But a couple of months into his candidacy, as his record started to face greater scrutiny, controversies came to the fore. They were followed by more controversies and more still.

Most of his backers shrugged off the revelations, insisting that his near future was more important than his recent past. In early June, Platner held a private meeting with members of the Senate Democratic conference, who heard the candidate offer assurances that the worst was behind him. There was no reason to expect another round of damaging headlines, he said, just days before cruising to an impressive victory in Maine’s statewide primary on June 9.

As this week got underway, however, everything changed after Politico reported that a woman he previously dated had accused him of sexual assault. MS NOW reported:

Jenny Racicot, 41, of Maine said that Platner — whom she said she had casually dated on and off from 2019 to 2021 — entered her home one night late in 2021, uninvited and deeply intoxicated, and forced her to have sex despite her telling him to stop, according to the news outlet.

Racicot also detailed the allegations in a lengthy interview with BLN’s Jake Tapper, describing the accusations after they were first reported by Blue Light News.

For his part, Platner called the allegations “troubling, serious, and false” in a written statement, adding, “Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically untrue.” The candidate nevertheless went on to post a video to social media in which he said, “[R]egardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people I love, the movement I belong to and the goal of defeating [incumbent Republican Sen.] Susan Collins.”

Democratic officials cannot force him to drop out of the race. Platner won his primary race fair and square, and if he decides to keep running despite the scandals, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

What the party can do, however, is pressure Platner to exit and make clear that his support in Democratic politics has evaporated. That is precisely what happened on Monday afternoon, as the state and national party completely abandoned Platner and urged him to stand down. The pushback was not limited to those who were already skeptical of his candidacy: Several prominent Democrats who had endorsed Platner reversed course after seeing the Blue Light News article, withdrew their backing and called on him to quit.

We’ll learn soon enough whether the candidate reads the writing on the wall, but in the meantime, there are two overarching questions to keep in mind: (1) How would Platner be replaced, and (2) who would Maine Democrats replace him with if he bows out?

As to the former, there is a limited window of opportunity. Under Maine lawDemocratic officials would have the power to choose a replacement candidate, but only if he withdraws before the second Monday in July. At that point, Maine’s secretary of state would declare a vacancy and state party officials would choose a new nominee before a July 27 deadline.

Platner, in other words, has a week to make up his mind.

As to the latter question, quiet whispers about possible Platner alternatives have lingered for weeks, but that conversation grew much louder on Monday. The jockeying to replace Platner began soon after the embattled candidate said he was reflecting on the race, with much of the focus turning to Democrats who ran in Maine’s recent gubernatorial primary, only to come up short against former state House Speaker Hannah Pingree. That list includes Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, former state Senate President Troy Jackson and Nirav Shah, former director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

There’s been related scuttlebutt about Jordan Wood, who recently lost a competitive U.S. House primary race in the northern part of Maine; Dan Kleban, who briefly ran for the Senate before exiting last year; and former state House Speaker Sara Gideon, who lost to Collins six years ago but who still has a fair amount of money left in her campaign account.

Outgoing Gov. Janet Mills, who suspended her own Senate campaign in late April, appears unlikely to gain serious consideration. Watch this space.

The Dictatorship

Trump’s attacks on Democrats as ‘communists’ only show he’s out of touch

Published

2 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Christmas. 7, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

President Donald Trump has a new favorite midterm strategy: painting the Democratic Party as a band of godless communists. It’s not going to pan out the way he wants.

During his speech Friday at Mount Rushmoreon the eve of Independence Day, Trump warned of a “resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success.” The line was an unsubtle reference to the election of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani in 2025 and successful left-wing candidates in recent House primaries, including a Mamdani-backed trio that won contests in New York City.

Trump described the growth of the leftists in American politics as an apocalyptic development: “These are not mere political disagreements like differences over taxes or regulations. Communism is a mortal threat to American liberty. It is the greatest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor or even 9/11,” Trump huffed. He added, “Communism is the exact opposite of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It’s death, tyranny and the pursuit of evil.”

The word “communist” is not the bogeyman it was during the 20th century or even the first decade of the 21st century.

During his remarks, Trump mentioned the term “communism” or “communist” 15 times. He invoked communism multiple times the following day in his July 4th speech. And the White House posted on X on Independence Day: “You can be a communist or you can be a patriot. You cannot be both.” Right-wing influencers and Republicans have also begun to use the term to attack the left more often in recent weeks. This effort is concerted, desperate and likely doomed.

It’s standard practice for a political party to use the opposition’s most ideologically radical members to paint the entire party with the same brush. Sometimes it can be effective as a messaging strategy. But trying to portray Democrats specifically as communist seems like a dead end.

The word “communist” is not the bogeyman it was during the 20th century or even the first decade of the 21st century. The Cold War has long been over. Millennials and Gen Z Americans either were not alive or were not politically conscious at a time when communism was seen in popular culture as a serious national security and economic threat. To them, communism is a historical term, not a haunting specter. The Communist Party U.S.A. exists, but it is a tiny and politically irrelevant organization. Trump, perpetually stuck in the 1980slikely overestimates the power of “communist” as a slur.

Trump’s “communist” agenda is also inaccurate in a way that a good chunk of the public is likely to understand. He falsely claims that democratic socialists are no different from communists. The most prominent communist projects of the 20th century in the Soviet Union and China involved authoritarian political organizations and centrally planned economies, and were known for massive human rights abuses and dysfunction in distributing resources. By contrast, democratic socialists believe in democratic political organization and reject central planning. (This is a broad delineation; there are nuances that extend beyond the scope of this brief article.)

American democratic socialists today are not proposing extreme upheavals of society and economy, but modest social democratic reforms. These ideas, like publicly funded healthcare and childcare, already exist and are proven to be wildly successful in other affluent democracies. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. — the most prominent living democratic socialist in America and consistently one of the most popular politicians in the country — isn’t associated with rationing food, but with taxing billionaires and demanding the popular idea of Medicare for All.

Finally, Trump’s panning of the democratic socialist insurgency as an assault on capitalism implicitly suggests that capitalism is worth defending wholesale. That puts him in the kind of position that doesn’t suit him: defending the status quo. Meanwhile, polls in recent years have indicated a declining approval of capitalism, and slowly rising approval of — or reduced negative feelings toward — socialism. Realistically speaking, not everyone who has a favorable opinion of socialism would not be able to define what it is. But they view it broadly as a program of social equality in a deeply unequal society, not as a portal to gulags.

Of course, it may very well be the case that most of the midterm electorate remains skeptical that the small democratic socialist bloc represents the future of the Democratic Party. The movement gets a lot of attention, but that’s not the same as power. What voters will know is that Trump is in power and has done nothing for the U.S. economy except make it more comfortable for the ultrarich and more expensive for everyone else. And no appeals to 20th century bogeymans can change that.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.