The Dictatorship
Trump has no issue burning bridges. But he should think twice about this one.

NATO is in serious trouble, and with it, the post-Cold War international order. For the first time in the alliance’s 75-year history, its most powerful member is pulling back and may be effectively pulling out.
In Brussels, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth lectured that the United States could not be “focused on the security of Europe,” because “consequential threats to our homeland” mean the U.S. must focus “on security of our own borders.” But countering Russia in Europe and managing the U.S.-Mexico border are not trade-offs; the U.S. can and should do both.
America is effectively switching sides, from helping Ukraine resist Russia’s attack to helping Russia gain concessions.
Hegseth’s statement makes more sense as an excuse — one that might play with the MAGA base back home, but with few elsewhere — signaling a broader strategic shift away from alliances with rule-of-law democracies. Under the new Donald Trump administrationthe United States will be friendlier to, and act more like, authoritarian governments such as Russia and China.
The first big impact will be in Ukraine. America is effectively switching sides, from helping Ukraine resist Russia’s attack to helping Russia gain concessions.
Hegseth declared that the United States not only refuses to be part of any force providing security guarantees to Ukraine in a war settlement, but also won’t come to the aid of a NATO member whose forces backstopping a settlement get attacked by Russia. At best, that is a bad negotiating strategy. Even if the U.S. did not provide security guarantees, the strategic ambiguity of potential U.S. support for a NATO ally that does would discourage violations of the peace, and create future leverage.
While Hegseth was dressing down NATO allies, Trump was conducting talks with Russian leader Vladimir Putin about the future of Ukraine without including the Ukrainians or Europeans. That makes it less likely they’ll accept any agreement and means any deal the U.S. and Russia force on them will be less likely to last. Ukraine is already wary of taking Putin’s word, considering that Russia first attacked in 2014, failed to fully honor ceasefire agreements, then returned with a bigger attack in 2022.
But Trump and Hegseth forfeiting Ukraine’s bargaining position in advance — rather than showing a unified front, starting high and being willing to move down in exchange for concessions — is more than poor negotiating. When a reporter asked Trump if he views Ukraine “as an equal member of this peace process,” Trump responded“I think they have to make peace. That was not a good war to go into.”
In reality, Ukraine got into this war because Russia invaded it, demanding it give up independence. The only way for Ukraine to not go to war was bowing down to Putin and forfeiting freedom.
That’s apparently what Trump thinks Ukraine should have done at the start. Trump reacted to Russia’s February 2022 invasion with gushing praise, calling it “savvy” and “genius.” Three years of Ukraine’s NATO-backed resistance has not only thwarted Russia’s main goals and weakened Russia overall, it also calls into question Trump’s worldview that bullying readily yields gains.
Ukraine got into this war because Russia invaded it, demanding it give up independence. The only way for Ukraine not to go to war was bowing down to Putin and forfeiting freedom.
So now Trump’s position appears to be that Russia deserves something for its aggression. Asked if there’s any possible future where Ukraine returns to its pre-2014 borders, Trump could have taken a negotiators’ stance that everything would be worked out in talks. Or he could have gone for hard-hearted realist, saying that realities on the ground mean Ukraine will have to make some tough concessions if Russia does as well. Instead, he said it’s “unlikely,” explaining that Russia “took a lot of land and they fought for that land and they lost a lot of soldiers.”
The fact that Ukraine has lost a lot of soldiers fighting to keep its independence does not appear to be a relevant factor in the U.S. president’s calculus.
After his call with Putin, Trump said the Russian leader “wants peace.” That, too, is upside down.
Putin could get peace at any time by ordering Russian forces to leave Ukraine. Instead, he tells them to keep attacking, including with drones and missiles that deliberately target civilians. Putin wants peace only in the sense of military theorist Carl von Clausewitz’s quip that “the aggressor is always peace-loving … he would prefer to take over our country unopposed.”
Trump negotiating one on one with Putin as if Ukrainian territory were America’s to give away, and Hegseth telling Europe it’ll have to uphold any peace agreement on its own, puts the Western alliance on shaky ground. With America’s commitment uncertain, it’s weaker already and could cease to be effective.
NATO’s biggest benefit is deterrence. Risk of war with the entire alliance — including nuclear-armed France, Britain and America — kept the Soviet Union from attacking NATO territory, including impossible-to-defend West Berlin. This decade, deterrence has proven its value in Russia menacing and invading non-NATO neighbors while refraining from attacking any NATO country, even countries transferring weapons to Ukraine to fight Russians.
But deterrence depends on credibility, and NATO’s rests on a belief in European capitals and especially Moscow that attacking any NATO country, even the smallest, means war with the United States. The U.S. does a lot to make the treaty commitment credible — stationing troops in Europe, conducting joint exercises, consistent verbal assurances, etc. — and has gained a lot as a result.
NATO has prevented a third World War after the first two killed over 350,000 Americans in the European theater alone. And the only time the alliance has invoked its provision that “an attack on one is an attack on all” was to assist the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11 attacks.
At that point, the world’s most powerful alliance will be effectively dead, even if it persists on paper.
The Trump administration pulling back on U.S. commitments to European security means Russia will probably test the alliance in the coming years, with cyberattacks, assassinations, small incursions and eventually a land grab against a NATO member, such as Estonia. The menaced country will ask its treaty allies for help, and America won’t provide it. Making things worse, the U.S. president will probably take Putin’s side, at least rhetorically.
At that point, the world’s most powerful alliance will be effectively dead, even if it persists on paper. And it will cast doubt on America’s other treaty commitments, especially to allies facing threats from authoritarians whom Trump praises. Democratic U.S. allies and partners, such as South Korea and Taiwan, should be nervous and are probably already working on security strategies that, at minimum, hedge more against America.
The U.S.-led network of voluntary alliances among democracies has helped make America the world’s most powerful country and kept the international system more stable and less violent than the first half of the 20th century. Picking fights with longtime friends instead of working with them against shared adversaries is a recipe for American weakness and global instability, but it might make Donald Trump and his friends feel big and give them more opportunities for corruption. We all have our priorities.
Nicholas Grossman is a political science professor at the University of Illinois, editor of Arc Digital and the author of “Drones and Terrorism.”
The Dictatorship
The two words Democrats are avoiding in praising the Israel-Hamas peace deal

Democrats are heaping praise on the peace deal struck between Israel and Hamas, which unlocked the release of all living hostages in Gaza. But there are two words most Democrats are omitting when discussing the peace agreement: “Donald” and “Trump.”
In statement after statement, Democrats on Capitol Hill lauded the end to the fighting, the liberation of hostages and the hope of a new chapter in the Middle East, applauding “all involved in succeeding to broker the ceasefire agreement” and touting the “power of diplomacy” for getting the globe to that moment.
“After two years of abduction and torture, every living hostage is finally home. Those who were taken on October 7th will outlast the terrorist organization that tore them from their families and homes and unleashed a war of untold suffering,” Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., wrote on social media. “Against all odds, the timeless call to ‘Let My People Go’ has been answered.”
Notably, however, there was no mention of Trump.

The same could be said for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
Jeffries called the agreement “an extremely welcome development.”
“The world will be a better place with a safe and secure Israel living side by side in peace and prosperity with the Palestinian people able to achieve the dignity and self-determination they deserve. We must all recommit to achieve that outcome,” Jeffries said.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., eventually gave Trump a shout-out Monday afternoon, after ignoring the president’s role when the deal was first announced.
In a 175-word statement, Schumer commended “the enormous advocacy of the tireless hostage families, President Trump, his administration, and all who helped make this moment happen.”
While he didn’t necessarily avoid Trump, he was careful to bookend his praise within a statement that celebrated the living hostages coming home and a call to build a lasting peace in the region.
And the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., posted on X that he was “deeply relieved to see the living hostages released from Gaza today.”
“May their freedom mark a process of healing for them and their families, and the beginning of a durable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians,” Meeks said.
There was no mention of Trump.
The divide between celebrating the deal while ignoring the man who helped broker it highlights the politically tricky terrain Democrats find themselves in. They want to laud the potentially historic peace agreement without giving credit to Trump, a figure they and their voters largely loathe and whose actions throughout the war have drawn criticism.
It’s the latest flashpoint in the long-simmering debate within the Democratic Party over Israel, which has pitted pro-Israel Democrats against progressive lawmakers who sharply criticized the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza — a discourse that has played out publicly.
Republicans, for their part, are taking note of the lopsided reaction. On Monday, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., criticized Democrats for not explicitly giving Trump “any credit,” accusing them of being fearful of the blowback from their base.
“They’re afraid, again, as I said in the press conference, of their Marxist base,” Johnson told reporters. “They’re afraid of the radical left, the growing number of radical leftists in the Democrat Party who will attack them if they say anything positive or affirmative about President Trump and his work, and it is a great shame and a great danger to the country.”
The speaker noted that he was “heartened” by the comments of some Democrats, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Trump’s rival from the 2016 election. In an appearance Friday on CBS News, Clinton said, “I really commend President Trump and his administration, as well as Arab leaders in the region for making the commitment to the 20-point plan and seeing a path forward for what’s often called the day after.”
Of course, some congressional Democrats have joined Clinton in calling out the president.
Sen. Jon Ossoff — who faces a tough re-election next year in Georgia — praised the White House. “I commend the efforts of the Trump Administration and international partners to achieve this moment and will vigorously support the hard work ahead necessary to secure peace, security, and freedom for all people in the Middle East,” he wrote in a statement.

In a post on social media, Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., called it an “amazing day for the families” of returned hostages. “And for @POTUS and all the negotiators who made this day possible,” he said.
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., a vocal supporter of Israel, also congratulated Trump the day he announced the peace deal.
And asked during a Sunday appearance on BLN how much credit Trump deserves for the deal, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said Trump “should get a lot of credit.”
“This was his deal,” Kelly added. “He worked this out.”
Of course, Trump has played into the stewing domestic political divide over the situation in the Middle East, criticizing his Democratic predecessors as recently as Monday during his speech before the Knesset.
“All of the countries in the Middle East could have — what we’re doing now — it could have happened a long time ago, but it was strangled and set back, almost irretrievably by the administrations of Barack Obama and then Joe Biden,” Trump said in his hour-plus remarks.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for BLN. He previously served as Washington correspondent for Spectrum News NY1. A graduate of George Washington University, he grew up in Pennsylvania. When he isn’t roaming the halls of Congress, you’ll find Kevin singing with a local choir.
Mychael Schnell is a congressional reporter at BLN, where she covers all happenings on Capitol Hill involving both Democrats and Republicans. She previously covered Congress at Blue Light News. She graduated from George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs with a bachelor’s degree in journalism and mass communication and political science. She is a native New Yorker, Billy Joel’s No. 1fan and a Rubik’s Cube aficionado.
The Dictatorship
Washington state waters down child abuse law after pressure from Trump administration


Officials in the state of Washington have agreed to water down a child abuse law after pressure from the Trump administration and local Catholic leaders.
Catholic bishops and the Trump administration had filed lawsuits seeking to overturn a bill signed by Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat and a Catholic, that required faith leaders of all denominations to report allegations of abuse they received in private religious settings — including confession. Though the Catholic Church has a documented history of enabling child sexual abuse, the sponsor of Washington’s bill said the legislation was inspired by reports of abuse within Jehovah’s Witness churches.
Catholic leaders have argued that being forced to report admissions made during a confession amounts to religious discrimination. And after a federal court temporarily blocked the law in July, Washington’s attorney general said late last week that the law will be pared back:
Clergy in Washington will remain mandatory reporters under stipulations filed today by the state Attorney General’s Office and the plaintiffs in lawsuits against the state over Senate Bill 5375. Under the stipulations, however, the state and county prosecutors have agreed — as the court ordered — not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths. The stipulation now awaits approval by the court.
Most states have so-called clergy-penitent privilege laws that effectively shield religious leaders from having to report child abuse claims they hear in confessional settings. A 2022 report by Boston’s NPR station, WBUR, detailed how this loophole has protected churches from prosecutions and civil lawsuits from victims seeking accountability. Washington had sought to join the few other states without such protections.
In Washington, the governor had denounced the lawsuit filed by Catholic bishops in his state, with Ferguson saying that he was “disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids.”
Jean Hill, executive director of the Washington State Catholic Conference, said in a statement last week that “preventing abuse and upholding the sacred seal of confession are not mutually exclusive — we can and must do both.”
The Dictatorship
Trump administration eyes higher food prices as a result of the immigration crackdown

About a month after Election Day 2024, as Donald Trump prepared to return to the White House, the Republican appeared on “Meet the Press” and explained his victory to NBC News’ Kristen Welker.
“I won on groceries,” he saidadding: “I won an election based on that.” Looking ahead, Trump concludedin reference to food prices for consumers: “We’re going to bring those prices way down.”
After returning to power, the president began boasting about his successes on the issue, assuring Americans that he had lowered the cost of groceries — despite the administration’s own data, which shows grocery costs have gone up this year, not down.
Complicating matters, the president’s own team fears that the problem will soon get worse, as a direct result of the Republican White House’s own agenda. The Washington Post reported:
The Trump administration said that its immigration crackdown is hurting farmers and risking higher food prices for Americans by cutting off agriculture’s labor supply. The Labor Department warned in an obscure document filed with the Federal Register last week that ‘the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens’ is threatening ‘the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.’
According to the Labor Department’s assessment, which was first reported by The American Prospectthe administration needs to act “immediately” to prevent the problem from getting worse.
The Post’s report noted that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has predicted that, in the aftermath of Trump’s mass deportation agenda, the U.S. farm workforce will become “100% American.” Trump’s Labor Department doesn’t see that as realistic, since Americans lack the will and skills to replace migrant farmworkers.
“The Department concludes that qualified and eligible U.S. workers will not make themselves available in sufficient numbers,” the agency said.
In other words, the president who claimed that he won a second term based on food prices, and who vowed to bring consumer costs at grocery stores “way down,” is already lying about his recent record. But making matters even worse is the fact that his own administration expects the problem to get worse, as food production slows as a result of the White House’s campaign against immigrants, which is likely to reduce supply, pushing prices up.
At that point, Trump will have to choose between competing campaign promises: Will he let immigrants stay and help stabilize food costs, or will he deport these workers and risk the fury of consumers who’ll see prices at their local grocery store climb?
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an BLN political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
-
Uncategorized11 months ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics8 months ago
Former ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Josh Fourrier Show11 months ago
DOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship8 months ago
Pete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship8 months ago
Luigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics8 months ago
Blue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Politics11 months ago
What 7 political experts will be watching at Tuesday’s debate
-
Politics8 months ago
Former Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid