The Dictatorship
There’s one big, ridiculous reason Trump businesses are suing Capital One
Earlier this month, a collection of people and entities affiliated with President Donald Trump — specifically, the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, DTTM Operations LLC and Eric Trump — sued Capital One bank for having “unjustifiably” closed numerous Trump-associated bank accounts in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
The lawsuit pleads that “de-banking” — closing depositors’ bank accounts — was originally meant to stop fraudsters from having access to banking facilities but it morphed into a way to punish depositors for their political beliefs. The lawsuit explains that completely legal gun and ammunition dealers or payday lenders often found themselves de-banked by unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with the businesses’ political beliefs. The plaintiffs claim to have been damaged by this type of de-banking when Capital One closed Trump accounts because of the Trumps’ “political views.” The Trumps seek damages under an assortment of state consumer protection laws.
Just how many ways is this lawsuit silly? Let me count them.
As a purely legal matter, the Trumps don’t appear to have suffered any recoverable money damages. According to the lawsuit, Capital One closed the Trump bank accounts. Presumably, the bank returned the Trumps’ money to them — the lawsuit doesn’t say otherwise, and it’s inconceivable the bank would have stolen the Trumps’ money. (A representative for Capital One declined to comment for this article.)
It’s true that individual depositors with small accounts — such as gun shops — might have trouble setting up new banking relationships after they were “de-banked,” but a large real estate business, such as the Trump Organization, would have had no trouble on that score. So while we don’t know for certain, the Trumps’ situation was presumably this: Capital One closed the Trumps’ bank accounts, Capital One returned the Trumps’ money, the Trumps promptly found a new bank, and the Trumps, uninjured, went on with their business.
A fundamental element of any lawsuit is that a plaintiff must have suffered damages. Here, except perhaps for the inconvenience of changing bankers, the Trumps suffered none.
Where’s the case?
But that’s just the legal flaw in this lawsuit. Think for a moment about the practical flaws.
Just how many ways is this lawsuit silly? Let me count them.
Is any jury going to believe that Capital One stopped its banking relationship in the months after Jan. 6 because of Donald Trump’s political beliefs? Did the bank really think, “Donald Trump doesn’t like affirmative action and he opposes DEI, so we should close his accounts”?
Or is it far more likely — and in fact almost certainly true, and sure to be believed by a jury in a heartbeat — that Capital One closed the Trumps’ bank accounts because it didn’t care to be associated with a person who appeared to have incited an insurrection and then stood by silently for three hours as rioters ransacked the Capitol?
Just about everyone in America — all Democrats, and even some Republicans — knew that Trump was “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events” of Jan. 6, as then-GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell put it at the time.
This wasn’t a matter of politics; it was a matter of morality.
Capital One didn’t close the Trumps’ bank accounts because of Trump’s political views. Capital One has denied that it closed the bank accounts for political reasons, but it wouldn’t be unreasonable to surmise that the bank didn’t care to be associated with anyone — Democratic, Republican or independent — who tried to interfere with the counting of votes in a presidential election. Handling financial transactions for Trump both would have been immoral and would have posed a reputational risk for the bank. Ending that relationship wasn’t improper; it was sane.
Although many Americans seem to have forgiven Trump’s gross misconduct over the four years since the Jan. 6 riot, that misconduct could fully justify Capital One’s closing of the bank accounts.
But the practical flaws in the Trumps’ lawsuit don’t stop there.
In any lawsuit, the parties are permitted to take discovery — gather information — from each other. Capital One will thus have the right to request documents and take testimony from Donald Trump and others about Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6. As the House Jan. 6 committee proceedings made clear, there is nothing about Trump’s conduct in early January 2021 that is praiseworthy; there is much that should be condemned. Does Trump really want to relive, and again place in the public eye, the events of one of the most notorious days in his life?
There are many reasons for the Trumps to abandon this lawsuit. There is only one reason for them to pursue it: to get a financial settlement.
There’s no legal reason for Capital One to settle the Trumps’ newest lawsuit. The lawsuit is both defensible and embarrassing for Trump to pursue. But there are surely practical reasons — avoiding the wrath the federal government could inflict on a bank — for Capital One to cough up some dough to make this go away.
Is that justice? Not by a long shot.
But does it appear to be a recurring way for Trump to profit while he has the government on his side? Bank on it.
The Pentagon has told Congress the war in Iran cost $29 billion through mid-May. Outside experts think the real number could be two to three times higher — and so far, the Defense Department hasn’t explained why.
The conflict has led to the largest military buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with more than 50,000 American troops stationed in the region. Nearly four months after the war started, the U.S. has fired thousands of munitions, dramatically depleting weapons stockpiles.
Defense Department officials told lawmakers that the war cost $11.3 billion over the first six days of fighting, and later estimated that approximately $25 billion was spent by the middle of May. But experts on defense spending say that number likely undercounts the real total by tens of billions of dollars, with independent assessments ranging from $50 billion to $100 billion.
Munitions were the single biggest expense in the department’s projections. But outside experts note that the Pentagon’s public estimates left out the cost of repairing damaged assets and resupplying stockpiles to prewar levels. Asked for a more detailed accounting, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers: “When it’s relevant and required, we will share it.”
That response has drawn bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said the Pentagon is not being transparent about how the war is being funded.
A comprehensive analysis released Friday by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a national security think tank, found that munitions alone likely cost $25 billion, with long-range precision munitions and anti-missile munitions, like Tomahawks and Patriots, carrying the highest price tags. Repairing and replacing damaged military assets — along with rebuilding damaged U.S.-affiliated bases and facilities throughout the Middle East — could cost anywhere from $11 billion to $14 billion, according to the CSIS analysis. Separately, the Congressional Research Service reported that at least 42 fixed-wing or unmanned U.S. aircraft have been damaged or destroyed since the U.S. launched its strikes on Feb. 28.
The toll has been just as steep on America’s weapons reserves. The United States has now burned through one-third to one-half of its most critical munitions stockpilesraising fears that the country has entered a “window of vulnerability” that could compromise its readiness for a future conflict elsewhere.
“The problem is for a conflict in the Western Pacific against China,” said Mark Cancian, a retired U.S. Marine Corps colonel and senior adviser at CSIS’ Defense and Security Department. “We were low on all of these munitions before the war, and of course now we’re even lower.”
The long-term price tag may be even harder to pin down, according to Linda Bilmes, a public finance expert at Harvard’s Kennedy School. She notes that the Pentagon’s estimates left out veterans’ healthcare and disability benefits entirely.
“The amount of disability benefits — just disability benefits — that we owe to veterans from the Iraq, Afghanistan, Gulf and Vietnam wars was $7.3 trillion. That doesn’t count healthcare,” Bilmes said. “So these things are really expensive. We expect that at least half of those who are serving now and who are continued to be deployed will qualify automatically for benefits.”
Bilmes also argues that no full accounting of the war’s cost can ignore its ripple effects on American consumers — particularly through rising oil prices, which could carry consequences for the broader global economy.
As of Thursday evening, Brown University’s Watson School of International and Public Affairs estimates in its Iran War Energy Cost tracker that the total consumer burden as a result of the war with Iran is more than $60 billion — about $458 per household — driven largely by the jump in fuel prices.
Bilmes argues that no full accounting of the war’s costs can ignore that hit to household budgets — or the larger risks the war poses to the economy. “It’s certainly possible that we see stagflation or other long-term economic consequences from what has happened in the past three months,” Bilmes said.
Priya Sridhar is the Pentagon correspondent for MS NOW.
As President Donald Trump and Iran move forward with a memorandum of understanding to end the war, many congressional Republicans are expressing unease about what the emerging deal means for the United States.
But several Republicans have also expressed concern with what the agreement means for another country: Israel.
Several Republicans told MS NOW they are particularly distraught with a provision calling for an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” — language they fear could constrain Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah.
In recent weeks, Israel has continued strikes on southern Lebanontargeting Hezbollah there. Israel even struck Lebanon after the memorandum was announced.
When MS NOW asked Republicans on Thursday if the Iran deal was good for Israel, GOP lawmakers expressed a number of worries.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., took issue with the fact that Israel seemed to have been cut out of the negotiations, saying he’d like to find out what the Trump administration’s “thought process” was on that.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, similarly took issue with Israel getting cut out — going so far as to suggest that Israel should perhaps ignore the deal.
“They’ve got their own interests at stake, and you know, I would encourage them to continue to take the fight to Hezbollah,” he told MS NOW.
Like many other Republicans, Cornyn also took issue with the memorandum’s provision calling for up to $300 billion in reconstruction money for Iran.
“Unfortunately, now Iran is going to have hundreds of millions of dollars to support its terrorist proxies, including Hezbollah,” Cornyn said.
And Cornyn’s Texas colleague, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, was similarly concerned about forking money over to Iran.
“History demonstrates that sending billions of dollars to a theocratic lunatic who wants to murder us is a really bad idea,” he said.
Other Republicans were just as blunt with their criticism.
When MS NOW asked Rep. Don Bacon if the preliminary agreement was positive for Israel, the retiring Nebraska Republican was succinct: “No it is not.”
“Protecting … Hezbollah is not in Israel’s interests. The administration appeared desperate to get Iran to sign,” he said. “The MOU favors Iran significantly. They got their way with Trump.”
Bacon added that the U.S. had “significant military successes” against Iran.
“But Trump wanted an immediate deal too desperately and frittered away success,” he said.
Beyond the Lebanon provision, some of Israel’s top GOP allies are citing a tenet of the memorandum that says the U.S. “further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final Deal,” which experts say could allow Iran to say it drove the U.S. from the area.
Asked if he was concerned the deal may not be positive for Israel, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, responded in a text message: “Super!”
He said the clause about the U.S. retreating from Iran was “the most astounding.”
“Wow,” he wrote. “I am sure that Iran interprets this clause as the removal of U.S. forces from bases and facilities in the [Gulf Cooperation Council] states. Has there been a greater strategic defeat? As they say ‘The Devil is in the details.’”
And while Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., expressed concerns about what the deal means for Israel, he also took issue with the potential political fallout for Republicans domestically.
“I want to protect Israel for its own sake,” Tillis said. “But there’s also a compelling political reason not to send the message that we’re no better than the Democrats, who have, by and large, let their left wing turn their backs on Israel.”
The concerns are surfacing as the administration finally sends members of Congress the MOU, giving lawmakers their first official chance to review the 14 points.
Israel itself has received the memorandum with a great deal of skepticism, with Axios reporting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes the deal is a mistake.
But the White House is carefully warning Israeli leaders to choose their words carefully.
On Thursday, when Vice President JD Vance was asked about some of the pushback on the deal from Israel, he warned that “Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this point in time.”
“If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world,” Vance said.
The spat is putting Republicans — who have long sided with Israel — in a potentially uncomfortable spot.
One of Israel’s most outspoken defenders in Congress, Republican Rep. Randy Fine of Florida, notably gave the White House some breathing room when asked whether this was a good deal for Israel.
“Israel isn’t a party to the MOU, and I believe they will act in their best interest,” he texted MS NOW. “My focus is on whether it is a good deal for the United States.”
“A final deal could be bad for Israel; it could be great for Israel. Same is true for America,” he said.
Rather than outwardly cross Trump and the White House, many Republicans seem intent on deferring to Israel’s leaders.
“Israel is going to make their own judgment on that,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V. “I don’t have a comment on that.”
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. — who touts himself as a “vocal supporter” of Israel — said he wouldn’t want to “assess another country’s security interests.”
“So I just defer to them on that,” he said.
Other Republicans are preaching patience.
When MS NOW asked Sen. Lindsey Graham if this was a good deal for Israel, the South Carolina Republican pointed to the forthcoming 60 days of negotiations before a final agreement.
“It depends on how it all ends,” he said. “If it ends with a deal to contain Iran, it’d be a good deal for the region. If it ends where Saudi can go back to the peace table with Israel, it’d be a good deal. We just don’t know yet.”
“The MOU is not going to change history one way or the other,” Graham said.
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., was similarly willing to let the process play out.
“I would like to see the Israelis give the agreement 60 days to try to work,” he said. “And if it doesn’t work, we can go back to bombing.”
Jack Fitzpatrick contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
A Republican congressional candidate Jackson Lahmeyer has dropped out of a runoff for a U.S. House in Oklahoma following reports that he had sent intimate text messages to a woman who was not his wife.
“After prayerful consideration with my wife, Kendra, and my team over the last twenty four hours, I’ve made the difficult decision to suspend my campaign for Congress,” Lahmeyer, a candidate for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, said in a statement Wednesday.
“I do not want to be a distraction to my family, my church, and the great people of Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, who deserve a strong conservative voice representing them in Washington,” he added.
President Donald Trump initially endorsed Lahmeyer, whom he called a “MAGA Warrior,” in May but withdrew his support following the controversy. Soon after, Trump endorsed Lahmeyer’s opponentMark Tedford, who now becomes the Republican nominee by default.
“I greatly appreciate Jackson Lahmeyer’s hard work under difficult circumstances — He has always been with me, and I will always be with him,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday. “But, when it comes to the current Congressional race for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, I will be supporting America First Patriot, Mark Tedford. Mark is Pro Trump and MAGA all the way!”
Lahmeyer, a pastor Sheridan Church in Tulsa, centered his congressional campaign around his Christian faith.
Lahmeyer dropped out of the race after the Daily Mail reported Sunday that he had exchanged numerous romantic text messages with Caitlin Simmons Key, who worked as a fundraiser for his campaign. In one text message obtained by the Daily Mail, Lahmeyer allegedly invited Key into his hotel room. Key also alleged that Lahmeyer once professed his love to her.
“There’s a real problem with the fact that he’s married and a pastor,” Key told the outlet. “There is a responsibility when you are leading people in the name of Christ to hold yourself to a higher standard.”
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
- The Pentagon says the Iran war cost $29 billion. Experts say it’s far more.
- Republicans raise concerns that Trump’s Iran deal could come at Israel’s expense
- The clock is ticking on an Iran talks. Here’s what still has to get done.
- Steil pushes bill to ban lawmakers from political prediction markets
- Mamdani boosts congressional slate ahead of primary election
- Meta faces calls for Congress to probe scam ads targeting seniors
- Congress lays out path for final passage of housing bill
- AIPAC looms large ahead of New York primaries
- Steil pushes bill to ban lawmakers from political prediction markets
- Medication abortion restored in Missouri following court ruling
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words