Friday, May 29, 2026

Of Course We’re Fighting on the Lawn

By Kevin D. Williamson

Friday, May 29, 2026

 

Some stories do not need to include the disclaimer, “There was alcohol involved.” But this is High Journalism, friends and neighbors, and so, in case there is any doubt: There was alcohol involved.

 

And there was a fire.

 

My memory of most of these things, which happened when I was in elementary school, is fairly vivid and detailed, to such an extent that I sometimes suspect that I am filling in this or that element in a literary or cinematic way, but the dates are fuzzy: This would have been the very late 1970s or very early 1980s, no earlier than 1978 and no later than 1982.

 

I am not sure exactly how the fire on the sofa got started, other than that the proximate cause was, of course, a lit cigarette.

 

Ours was a very smoky house, to such an extent that after we moved out the film of tar clinging to every surface made the interior difficult to paint—the paint apparently just slid down the walls of the living room and kitchen. You will not be surprised to learn that both the kitchen appliances and the deep shag wall-to-wall carpet of the living room were “harvest gold,” which, along with avocado green, was the hallmark domestic shade of the 1970s. That carpet must have smelled like cancer.

 

Roy, my mother’s second husband, drank a great deal and tended to talk about ’Nam when he did, and very possibly had passed out with a lit Marlboro (full-strength reds) on the sofa (coarse polyester weave, floral pattern) in front of the television (fake wood old-style console, dial controls, convex CRT screen) drinking silver bullets, which he stacked in a neat pyramid and sometimes logged the quantity consumed. On the ugly nights, he would switch to mouthwash or Mexican vanilla or any other household goods containing alcohol—there were no packaged alcohol sales in Lubbock back then, and he may have worn out his welcome (or exhausted his credit) at the Stumble Inn or the Branch Office or He’s Not Here or one of the other creatively named local dive bars where my mother would sometimes go looking for him when he went missing. She once found him at a place called the Joy Motel, the precise character of which I am sure I do not need to explain to you gentle readers, mostly naked in a room with another man, also mostly naked, but it somehow still did not quite occur to her that her second husband just wasn’t second husband material. He was the kind of guy who got drunk and talked about ’Nam and who would, at his wife’s request, lay down in the back seat when she was bringing him home from jail to spare her the embarrassment of having the neighbors know that she had already taken him back, and who might pass out and accidentally set the sofa on fire with a Marlboro—and, who in Hell knows, who might very well have set the thing on fire with malice aforethought.

 

My brother and I ran out of the house. We may have been laughing. Little boys like fire. (God help me: I have four little boys.) We ran to our next-door neighbor’s house. Her garage door was open (it usually was, for some reason), and we were friends with her two little boys, which meant that we presumed free run of the place.

 

Fire! Exciting.

 

My mother came running out of the house, screaming, and Roy came running after her, bellowing and in a rage. My mother was not the most agile woman: She was overweight, for one thing, but also had recently (I do not remember exactly how recently, but maybe a year or so) undergone a gruesome series of surgeries after her poodle (RIP Pépé) scratched her and gave her a terrible infection that necessitated skin grafts (an “abdominal pedicled flap,” meaning her arm had been sewn to her abdomen for some time) and nearly cost her her right arm, which instead of being amputated was merely left partly paralyzed. She was in her early 40s but seemed older. Roy would have been right around 30 years old, plus or minus a year. He had been out of the Army for a while and the booze must have been hard on him, but he was active when sober and reasonably fit. It was not going to be a fair fight, but Roy was not the sort of man who was interested in a fair fight: He’d once hit me hard enough that I was disoriented for some number of days afterward.

 

My mother was running as fast as she could toward us when she must have had an all-too-rare moment of clarity: She was leading him to us. She had a history of—and a talent for—leading trouble into our lives in the persons of the men she lived with and married. She never got over that. I once spoke with her on the telephone from what we then still called Bombay and discovered that she had recently got married—her fourth husband—to someone I had never heard of, who hadn’t been a big enough presence in her life to have come up in any of our earlier telephone conversations. He turned out to be trouble, too, though not the kind of trouble you are in when you are living with a violent alcoholic and you’re 8, which is the kind of trouble Roy personified. I do not pretend to know what she was thinking. I never understood what she was thinking and have come to doubt that she ever really understood, either. But, in that moment, in the weird little interstice between the front yards of Eisenhower-era brick ranch houses built close enough together that you’d get a weird echo if you raised your voice while standing between them, something seems to have occurred to her. And she stopped, and turned, and fought, and, to her own surprise, even more than anybody else’s, beat the crap out of her second husband, there in the front yard as the neighbors popped their heads up out of their holes, prairie dog–style, to see what it was that family was up to now. Roy was on the ground by the end. I was pleased by the outcome, though I cannot say I was exactly proud of the scene.

 

Of course we had fights in the front yard—some of them incidents of domestic violence, some of them merely recreational. In almost exactly the same spot, our neighbor’s older son, who was younger than me and who had finally had enough of being bullied by my older brother, Darrell, gave him a richly deserved beating, taking a fence picket full of rusty nails to his ribs, which necessitated a tetanus shot and earned me a stern lecture for having advised the little boy on how best to deal with a remorseless bully. (It was excellent advice: Darrell never bothered him again. But I have spent a fair bit of my career getting in trouble for offering good advice.) In sixth grade, I fought another kid in the front yard of a different house on the same street (we had moved two doors down) for no other reason than that we were the two biggest kids in the class and somebody (I don’t know who) thought it was a good idea, maybe even necessary, that we should have a fight. (There was a little bit of half-assed boxing before each combatant declared himself the winner, and then we were friends.) Dodging bill collectors, staging weird personal psychodrama scenes in public, getting stupid drunk, facing eviction lawsuits, brawling while the neighbors look on and cringe—that’s what white trash does.

 

(And never mind that that other sixth grader in that desultory tussle was black—it was my yard.)

 

It does not matter whether you live in a trailer park or a brick ranch house or something more grand and getting grander, it is all the same: Tornado bait is tornado bait. When the Trump administration announced that it was staging a UFC fight on the South Lawn of the White House, I knew what I was seeing. It is as familiar to me as the taste of canned Ranch Style Beans on cornbread or the smell of cigarette smoke soaking into Dacron-upholstered office furniture and slick tallowy well-yellowed linoleum in the grim waiting rooms outside those weepy Al-Anon meetings my mother dragged me to for a while because she couldn’t afford a babysitter. I know my people. My people know what they like. And they will have what they like even if it harelips the pope—especially if it harelips the pope.

 

It took 250 years, but you got here. All the way down here. From Greatest Generation to White Trash Nation in the space of one lifetime.

 

Welcome to my world, America.

A Gay Vegan Pagan

By Nick Catoggio

Thursday, May 28, 2026

 

“Ken Paxton may be a sociopath who belongs in prison, but at least he’s not a gay vegan pagan.”

 

Memorize that line and you can skip the next five months of Republican messaging in Texas’ suddenly important Senate race.

 

Democratic nominee James Talarico is neither gay nor vegan nor a pagan (or so he claims). But he does have certain cultural preferences that the state’s right-wing majority is destined to find alien, and now that the general election campaign is upon us, he’s scrambling to walk them back. On Wednesday, he went as far as to use the word “cringey” to describe some of the choicer soundbites of his that the GOP has begun featuring in attack ads.

 

“I know there are two sexes, men and women,” he clarified in an interview. If you’re starting off a general election campaign in Texas by reassuring voters that you agree that sex is binary, you’re the underdog.

 

Republicans have hit on another way to make Texas voters suspicious of Talarico. Less than 48 hours into the campaign, they’re all-in on trying to define him as not merely a phony Christian but a phony man.

 

Paxton teed them up in his victory speech following Tuesday’s Senate runoff, dubbing his opponent “Tofu Talarico,” “Six-gender Jimmy,” “James Tala-freako,” and “low-T Talarico.” (The “low-T” jab has also popped up in ads.) Trump manservant Stephen Miller dubbed the Democrat the first transgender Senate candidate nominated by his party, while podcaster Clay Travis surmised that Talarico must be gay based on his posture in a photo. Meanwhile, Fox News host Jesse Watters innocently wondered why we haven’t met Talarico’s girlfriend yet.

 

If you can get past the cynicism and demagoguery, this is unremarkable retail politics at work. A sure way to turn voters off of a candidate is to persuade them that he’s not “one of us,” and in this race—and this state—it seems especially likely to work. Not only has Talarico gift-wrapped a ton of culture-war material for the right to use against him, he’s facing a mostly Republican electorate that’s spent 10 years being ruthlessly conditioned to view all politics as litmus tests between “us” and “them.”

 

Not really Christian, not really straight, possibly not even really male: Talarico isn’t “us.”

 

What’s interesting to me about this pitch is that it accepts that the sociopath in the race who belongs in prison is “us,” or at least meaningfully more like the right-wing “us” than a dorky woke seminarian is.

 

And of course that’s true. The most popular man in the party, whose every utterance defines what it means to be Republican for most of his supporters, is a criminal sociopath himself. Say what you like about Ken Paxton, but no GOP nominee on the ballot this year will reflect the spirit of his party’s grassroots more faithfully than he does.

 

In fact, in a few ways, I think calling James Talarico a gay heretic is the correct strategy for the GOP in Texas.

 

Culture war.

 

For one thing, as I’ve said, it will probably succeed.

 

Not everyone agrees. “Flabbergasted that the GOP’s plan to save Paxton is to have him run a campaign focused solely on culture wars. Just ask Governors [Daniel] Cameron and [Winsome] Earle-Sears how well that worked out for them,” one skeptic scoffed. “You can’t just cede [the] cost of living to your opponent and still expect to win.”

 

You can’t do that in a blue state like Virginia, where Earle-Sears was obliterated in last year’s gubernatorial race. But you absolutely can do it in a state Trump won by 13 points in 2024.

 

The best argument I can come up with for why the Republican culture-war attack on Talarico might fail is that persuadable voters are unlikely to be persuaded by it. If you’re open to voting for him for whatever reason—the cost of living, disgust at Trump, righteous shame over Ken Paxton’s existence—a bunch of fratty chuds chanting “low T” will not deter you.

 

But the point of calling Talarico a gay vegan pagan isn’t to win over swing voters. It’s to persuade the Cornyn conservatives I wrote about yesterday to swallow their contempt for Paxton and show up for him in November. The GOP has the numbers to win in Texas; all it needs to do is turn out its base. “You’re not going to let a queer represent cowboy country, are you?” is more likely to do that than debating Talarico on affordability would.

 

Republicans couldn’t engage on that point even if they wanted to. What could they say after tariffs, a needless oil-supply disaster in the Strait of Hormuz, and Trump signaling at every opportunity that he doesn’t give a flip how much Americans suffer for his agenda? A campaign fought over the cost of living is one Talarico can win. A campaign that amounts to little more than “transvestigating” him is not.

 

The GOP’s culture-war attack on the Democrat also feels right in that it’s an honest expression of right-wing priorities. Trump’s movement assuredly does care more about tribal markers like religion and masculinity than it does about housing or gas prices.

 

I wrote about MAGA’s obsession with machismo a few weeks after the 2024 election, when the new president-elect began stocking his Cabinet with accused sex pests. That wasn’t a coincidence, I argued:

 

Because populists detest liberal norms, they’re attracted to figures who are prone to showing contempt for traditional norms in other spheres of life. That leads them to dishonorable people, and dishonorable people tend to behave dishonorably in multiple respects—including in how they navigate sex. The result is a sort of anti-character test: A man willing to flout law, morality, or professional ethics to get what he wants sexually is potential leadership material insofar as his behavior implies he’d do the same with official power to get what the right wants politically.

 

 

By definition, postliberalism can’t and won’t succeed in dismantling the liberal order without leadership that displays an unusually high tolerance for transgression. And so it selects for leaders who have demonstrated that tolerance in their private conduct—criminals, perverts, con men, predatory sociopaths of all stripes.

 

That’s how you end up with Ken Paxton, Republican Senate nominee. Forced to choose between a philandering lowlife and a genial “low T” grandpa like John Cornyn, the modern right was destined to instinctively gravitate toward the lowlife. Postliberals yearn to dominate their opponents, not just defeat them, and amoral “masculine” behavior suggests a propensity to dominate.

 

To the extent they feel any vestigial Christian guilt for preferring a character like Paxton on those grounds, their interest in attacking Talarico as gay and trans makes sense. It’s easier to rationalize supporting a flagrantly immoral candidate if you convince yourself that his opponent is just as immoral, if not more so.

 

Faith and works.

 

Still, the most interesting element of the race has to do with faith. For once, the Democrat on the ballot is the more ostentatiously religious of the two candidates. And right-wingers of various stripes are very keen to neutralize that advantage.

 

Some of the flak Talarico has taken is of his own “cringey” making, like his infamous observation that God is nonbinary. Charitably, we might understand the backlash to that among Christian conservatives as an earnest rebuke to a misstatement of their faith. Less charitably, we might see it as an attempt to jealously guard the right’s political co-optation of Christianity. (Among whites, anyway.) The idea that earnest Christians can be leftists is a dangerous one for Republicans, something they’ll typically concede only if they’re confronted about it directly.

 

That probably also helps explain the needling of Talarico for allegedly being gay or trans. It’s not just a matter of impugning his masculinity, it’s a way to implicitly challenge his claim to be the better Christian in the race. How sincere can his beliefs be if he’s engaged in “sexual deviancy,” a religious voter may wonder? He’s a fraud. He must be.

 

But let’s be real. Most of the umbrage being taken by the party of Donald “Two Corinthians” Trump at Talarico’s religious ignorance is plainly designed to answer the Democrat’s insuperable moral case against his opponent. Ken Paxton isn’t merely an “imperfect person” with “personal baggage,” as some Republicans will delicately and elliptically tell you. He’s a full-spectrum scumbag who was impeached by his own party for egregious corruption, as grossly unfit a candidate for the Senate as America has ever seen.

 

There is no answer to that argument. And so, rather than try to answer it, the GOP is settling on this: Paxton might be a sinner, but James Talarico is a heretic.

 

To the modern right, trained by its leader to valorize cultish devotion, being a heretic is the most loathsome thing one can be. Whereas being a sinner, even a really thorough one like Ken Paxton or Donald Trump, isn’t very troubling at all, provided that one’s devotion to the cause remains pure.

 

Trumpism is an anti-morality of faith, not works. You are judged not according to how you behave but by how you worship.

 

An electorate that’s been primed to think that way is primed to find Talarico more offensive than Paxton. The former has dubious views about elements of Christianity, whereas the latter merely behaves as though he’s completely unacquainted with Christian morals. The former has the nerve to denounce right-wing heresies against Christianity while the latter would surely vote to designate Trump God-emperor if given the chance in the Senate.

 

Faith, not works: To the Trumpist right, there’s no crime Ken Paxton could commit that would make him the greater of two evils relative to a man who holds the wrong beliefs. And if you doubt that, just be patient. I’m sure Paxton will prove my theory in the fullness of time.

 

When I was young and Catholic, I struggled with the sense that forgiveness in the faith was a little too easy. Any sin would be forgiven provided that the sinner repented sincerely, which was comforting—but not the strongest deterrent against sinning to begin with. If absolution is assured, a certain kind of person might sin eagerly in the belief that he or she can atone later.

 

You might find that silly (someone who sins eagerly is unlikely to repent sincerely, right?), but many nominal Christians have embraced a perverted variation of it as the price of belonging to Trump’s party. Ken Paxton is free to sin in the knowledge that forgiveness is assured even if he doesn’t repent, provided of course that he keeps the Trumpist faith. Whereas James Talarico, a heretic to that faith, can never atone for his “cringey” pronouncements about a nonbinary God even if he repents publicly and sincerely.

 

That’s what anti-morality looks like.

 

Things to come.

 

We’ll return to the Texas Senate race many times before November, I’m sure, but we should all bear in mind three things as we go forward.

 

One: Republicans will spend the next five months burbling that Paxton, while lamentably flawed, is nevertheless the lesser of two evils in this race. When they do, remember that the reason he defeated John Cornyn in the first place is because he was the greater of two evils in the primary. Postliberal Republicans didn’t choose him in spite of his degeneracy. They chose him because of it.

 

Do not let these nihilistic cretins posture now as moral, civic-minded citizens in rationalizing their support for Paxton in the general election. If they insist on making America a kakistocracy, the least they can do is acknowledge their bad intentions.

 

Two: Many an anti-anti-Trump conservative who rallies behind Paxton will soothe their conscience by affirming that they would have much preferred Cornyn as the party’s nominee. We shouldn’t blame them, you see, for the fact that the GOP ended up with such an obnoxious candidate.

 

This too is nonsense, and you already know why if you read yesterday’s newsletter. Postliberal Republicans wouldn’t take the chance of nominating scumbags like Paxton if they didn’t know, to a metaphysical certainty, that partisan conservative chumps will always contrive excuses to turn out for those scumbags in general elections. Reaganites could have taught them a lesson about that years ago by boycotting races in which the GOP nominee was manifestly unfit for office. Instead, they enabled this hostage crisis, with predictable results.

 

If conservatives preferred John Cornyn to a fascist-enabling miscreant, they should have seized their many opportunities to make the cost of nominating fascist-enabling miscreants prohibitive. They didn’t. “Ken Paxton, Senate nominee” is the fruit of anti-anti-Trumpism.

 

Three: There are sound conservative policy arguments against wanting James Talarico in the Senate. It makes the unconscionable prospect of court-packing more likely in 2029, for one thing (although I wonder if a Democrat from Texas would dare support that). And it certainly increases the probability of bad economic policy, assuming economic policy can get worse than it is now.

 

But there is no way around this: The most urgent priority in American governance, not just at this moment but in my lifetime, is checking Donald Trump’s monarchical pretensions before they grow more ambitious. And one cannot do that by continuing to elect Republicans.

 

We’ve spent the last 16 months watching the Senate under his party’s control reduce itself to a Duma. Conservatives who were willing to resist that trend have either been chased into retirement, like Mitt Romney, or removed, like Liz Cheney. All that’s left are candidates who will happily facilitate our transition into a third-world autocracy. And among those candidates, no one but no one will do so as happily as Ken Paxton.

 

I doubt Paxton would even deny it.

 

To vote Republican this fall in any congressional race, but especially Texas’ Senate race, is to vote for Trumpist tyranny. I cannot imagine observing the last year and a half in national politics and concluding that unified Republican control remains preferable to divided government, yet that’s what “reluctant” Paxton proponents are arguing—inexorably. It’s bad enough to conclude that the president’s party should be rewarded for doing nothing while he wrecks the American experiment, but much worse is concluding that it should be rewarded with a new senator from Texas after his own rotten authoritarian heart.

 

It’s one of the sickest political impulses I can imagine. If you want to know how little “conservatism” means or has ever meant to most of those who claim it, watch the votes roll in for Paxton this fall.

The Blue-State Delusion Over Unions

By Nicholas Bagley

Thursday, May 28, 2026

 

What are public-sector unions for, exactly? What problem are they supposed to solve? That’s the question I found myself asking earlier this month, when the best-paid railroad workers in America went on strike for three days.

 

To be clear, I get what the unions understand their purpose to be. It’s to get the best deal for their members. That’s what they’re designed to do, and they do it well.

 

Salaries at the Long Island Rail Road—a commuter-train system that connects suburban residents to New York City—now average $121,646, which is 50 percent more than the median household income in New York City ($80,483). Work rules entitle engineers to double or even triple pay when they drive different types of trains on the same day or when they deliver a train to the maintenance yard after driving passengers. Last year, more than 300 LIRR workers each earned $100,000 in overtime—in addition to their base pay. Those extra wages in turn inflate their pensions, which they can take at the age of 55 after 30 years of service.

 

All of this is as good for union members as it is unimaginable for most American workers. But taxpayers and commuters are the ones who pay for those generous compensation packages, and it’s reasonable to wonder whether they are getting a fair deal.

 

To her credit, Governor Kathy Hochul pushed back on the LIRR unions. But she quickly settled the strike on still-to-be-disclosed terms that will keep in place massive overtime payments, expensive work rules, and bloated pensions. That’s business as usual in blue states and blue cities, where public-sector unions wield fearsome political power.

 

None of this is inevitable. Strong unions persist because roughly 30 states have passed laws requiring collective bargaining with public workers. If this process advanced the common good, all would be well. But the available research suggests that it doesn’t. To the contrary, unions routinely insist on pay packages and work rules that degrade the efficiency and effectiveness of the public sector.

 

Our laws aren’t doing a good job, in short, of aligning union incentives with the public interest. That’s a big problem, especially as our most vibrant cities struggle to provide good schools, effective policing, and high-quality transit. Reform is long overdue. Thankfully, it’s also achievable.

 

***

 

For many union members, it’s completely obvious why we have collective-bargaining laws. “The training process for this job is over a year long,” explained one LIRR engineer on the picket line. “It consists of multiple examinations. Some of the written ones are incredibly difficult. We are very qualified. And, you know, frankly we deserve this money.”

 

We deserve this money. What should the public make of this argument?

 

In a market economy, compensation isn’t normally keyed to what a worker deserves in the abstract. It’s linked, instead, to what an employer has to pay to attract high-quality workers. An employer that pays too little will find itself with too few workers or workers who are bad at their jobs. An employer that pays too much risks being driven out of business by more cost-conscious rivals.

 

There’s nothing intrinsically fair about the resulting wage distribution. Because, from an employer’s perspective, the goal isn’t fairness. It’s running a successful business.

 

In the private sector, unions temper that unfairness by pushing corporate owners to split profits with workers. But private-sector unions can push only so hard: If they insist on compensation packages and work rules that make the business go bust, they could find themselves out of a job.

 

Matters are different in the public sector. The Long Island Rail Road, for example, is owned and operated by the government, much like public schools and police departments. As a result, the unions representing public workers aren’t constrained by the possibility of corporate bankruptcy. They’re constrained instead by politics.

 

Which means that politicians have to decide how to compensate government workers. One approach, favored by unions, is to depart from the baseline set by the market and pay workers what they deserve. It’s an appealing idea. Public workers do crucial work and ought to be compensated fairly for it.

 

The trouble, of course, is that there’s no end to claims about deservingness. Pretty much everyone thinks they’re underpaid and underappreciated. Sometimes they’re right; sometimes they’re not. But I don’t know what a teacher or a cop or a railroad engineer “deserves,” nor does anyone else.

 

Giving public-sector workers what they think they deserve, moreover, clashes with how everyone else in the economy gets paid. Is it fair for one group to get special consideration just because they happen to work for the government? Especially when taxpayers—working people themselves—are picking up the tab?

 

During negotiations with the railroad union, Hochul suggested that the answer is no: “Workers deserve to be paid fairly for their work,” she said. “But at the same time, we must be responsible with public funds and the fares paid by Long Island residents.”

 

That’s the right approach. When the government supplies public services, its goal should be to supply those public services as efficiently as possible—not run a tax-and-transfer system to aid the relatively small number of people lucky enough to be union members.

 

***

 

There is a better argument for public-sector unions, which is that unions have the leverage to demand compensation packages and work rules that are necessary to attract excellent public workers. Here’s Randi Weingarten, the long-standing head of the American Federation of Teachers: “If we want to recruit and retain high-quality teachers, it starts with a fair wage, adequate working conditions, and the resources and support to succeed.”

 

There’s a lot to this. The public sector, like the private sector, is only as good as its workforce. If unions help attract better teachers and cops, collective bargaining might improve the quality of public services. We should be happy, on this view, that unions are fighting for government workers. We’re all better off as a result.

 

Except that’s not what the research shows.

 

Start with schools. Two comprehensive reviews of the available evidence, one from 2025 and one from 2015, find that teachers’ unions reliably increase school spending, especially on salaries for veteran teachers. In general, however, they do not appear to help kids. “Most often,” the 2025 review says, “teachers’ unions have no impact or a slight negative impact on performance.”

 

Recent experience in Wisconsin is revealing. In 2011, Republicans passed a law, Act 10, that curtailed collective-bargaining rights for teachers. In the immediate aftermath, student outcomes suffered, mainly because of a sharp increase in teacher turnover. But that dip was short-lived.

 

Since then, a series of studies have suggested that Act 10 has improved student performance. Barbara Biasi, an economics professor at Yale, found that test scores rose when districts ditched seniority-based pay in favor of a more flexible approach. Morgan Foy of the University of Illinois found similar gains in test scores and attendance even in districts that didn’t adopt a flexible pay scale—because, he suspects, teachers worked harder when unions couldn’t protect them from discipline. And E. Jason Baron at Duke has shown that the promise of higher entry-level wages enticed more young Wisconsinites to get a teaching degree, which has improved the talent pool.

 

Now consider policing. In 2003, sheriffs’ deputies in Florida secured collective-bargaining rights because of an unanticipated court decision. Researchers at the University of Chicago Law School took advantage of that natural experiment by comparing sheriffs’ offices with municipal police departments that were unaffected by the court decision. Collective bargaining, they found, caused a roughly 40 percent increase in violent misconduct in sheriffs’ offices relative to police departments.

 

That’s the opposite of what you’d expect to see if public-sector unions made public services better. But it’s consistent with the general run of the evidence about policing. One forthcoming study, for example, finds that the extension of collective-bargaining rights significantly increased the number of civilians killed by police, especially nonwhite civilians, and “can explain 14 percent of all non-white civilian deaths by legal intervention between 1959 and 1988.”

 

To put it mildly, these results are hard to square with the claim that public-sector unions improve the public sector. At least three factors seem to be driving those results.

 

First, unions often push for job protections that frustrate workplace accountability. In the study of Florida sheriffs’ deputies, for example, collective bargaining appeared to cause a rise in violent misconduct, because of “a reduction in expected sanctions.” In other words, sheriffs’ deputies knew they could get away with it.

 

Second, unions push to equalize pay among their members based on seniority and credentials, not on quality of performance. That makes recruiting talented young people difficult, and rewarding good workers impossible. The Wisconsin reforms, for example, “led younger and less credentialed teachers to earn more on average, and older, more experienced teachers to earn less.” That’s bad for aging union members, but good for students.

 

Third, public-sector unions avidly negotiate for compensation in the form of pensions, not wages. But pensions are a poor recruitment tool: Starting wages matter much more to young people than pensions that will be paid out decades down the line. When unions use their power to boost pension payments, they aren’t working to attract talented young people. They’re working to reward their members.

 

***

 

If we want unions that actually improve the quality of public services, we’re going to have to reform our collective-bargaining laws.

 

As matters stand, those laws require state and local governments to negotiate with unions. But they also establish what those unions are entitled to negotiate over—what is “bargainable.” And a very wide range of terms and conditions of employment are typically bargainable. That’s how you get demands for job protections, pay equalization, and hefty pensions.

 

None of that is graven in stone. The laws could be amended to limit the scope of what’s bargainable. Overtime, pensions, work rules, salary schedules—all of those would be off-limits. Unions would be left to negotiate over the one thing that is most likely to attract high-quality workers: base wages.

 

In that world, unions would still be powerful. They would still serve as a counterweight to local governments that might try to balance their budgets on the backs of middle-class workers. Their members would still receive job protections under civil-service laws. The unions just wouldn’t be allowed to make demands that frustrate the delivery of high-quality, cost-effective public services.

 

Reformed collective-bargaining laws would bring what unions want into better alignment with the public interest. Otherwise, we’re left with the LIRR engineer’s argument about what the unions are for: We deserve this money. The engineer may be right about what he deserves. Surely we all deserve better in this fallen world. But it’s no way to run a railroad.

Mamdani’s Plan to Socialize Housing

National Review Online

Friday, May 29, 2026

 

Zohran Mamdani, the socialist mayor of New York City, was elected last year on a promise to freeze tenants’ rents. But such a simple measure wasn’t nearly enough fun for this administrative enthusiast. He aims to go much bigger, cramming the city government into every nook and cranny of New York’s housing market.

 

The mayor unveiled his plan this week, ambitiously titled “Block by Block, a Housing Policy for a New Era.” To cut to the chase, Mamdani wants to be your landlord. He promised to spend $22 billion in taxpayer funds to build 200,000 new “affordable” (meaning subsidized) apartments over a decade.

 

Technically, those buildings will be owned and managed by private investors. But the city will foot much of the bill and, in return, layer on mandates that are sure to slow production and drive up costs. Developers will have to pay construction workers a minimum wage of $40, almost twice the industry’s national average. Once the buildings are completed, if ever, the city will keep rents capped.

 

Mamdani also plans to pour money into New York’s notoriously awful housing authority, which manages one-fifth of the nation’s public-housing stock. The $5.6 billion that he’s pledged pales in comparison to the authority’s projected $80 billion in capital needs. Far more effective would be to transfer dilapidated public housing to private hands — as many other cities have done since the 1990s — and have investors with skin in the game pay for improvements.

 

The most galling part of Mamdani’s scheme is to ramp up confiscation of private buildings. He is ordering officials to “take aggressive legal action” against landlords of chronically neglected buildings. In some cases, the city would “transfer ownership” of buildings to “responsible stewards” of Mamdani’s choice, including “community land trusts, nonprofits or even the tenants themselves.”

 

What the mayor declines to mention is why so many apartments are poorly maintained in the first place. Half of the city’s housing stock is subject to strict price controls, known as “rent-stabilization,” that keep rents thousands of dollars below market rates. Many landlords don’t receive enough in rent to cover maintenance on top of regular costs, and they have no financial incentive to reinvest in their buildings. Owners must renew tenants’ leases indefinitely and are generally restricted from repurposing their property.

 

Mamdani recognizes that rent-controlled landlords are struggling, as he is giving many of them a one-time exemption from his proposed rent freeze. However, that exemption will only apply to vacant units. For existing tenants, freezing rents despite rising costs will only worsen maintenance backlogs as owners are squeezed of their last pennies.

 

That may be a selling point for Mamdani, though. The more landlords that fail to maintain apartments to Mamdani’s standards, the more buildings he can seize and redistribute.

 

The mayor’s vision for housing is almost wholly government-run, leaving precious little room for the private sector: Most new homes will be provided by taxpayers. Developers can build, but only at the city’s direction and on the mayor’s terms. Landlords are a nuisance and need to be punished.

 

Some are calling the mayor “YIMBY” (Yes in My Backyard) for seeing the need to expand housing supply. Yet the YIMBY success story that Mamdani cites — Austin, Texas — succeeded at bringing down rents by unleashing private development, not through mandates and subsidies. Projects don’t have to be “affordable” to make living cheaper for low-income residents, as any new supply frees up older units for everyone else.

 

If Mamdani truly wanted to help renters, he would follow the proven playbook and simply allow developers to build more homes of all kinds.

The Brazenness of DOJ’s Reported Investigation of E. Jean Carroll

By David A. Graham

Thursday, May 28, 2026

 

No White House is immune to hypocrisy. What makes the Trump administration’s approach to justice so astonishing is not just the depth of the hypocrisy but its brazenness.

 

Last night, CNN reported that the Department of Justice is pursuing a criminal investigation against E. Jean Carroll, the writer who has accused Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s, and won nearly $90 million in civil judgments against him. The probe reportedly focuses on whether Carroll committed perjury during her testimony related to two civil lawsuits against him, both of which she won.

 

The news comes less than 10 days after Trump—putatively acting as a private citizen—announced an agreement with that same Justice Department to create a $1.8 billion slush fund to reward his political allies, potentially including those who sacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

 

“The use of government power to target individuals or entities for improper and unlawful political, personal, or ideological reasons should not be tolerated by any Administration,” the DOJ official Trent McCotter said while announcing the settlement. That quote came in a written statement, which mercifully freed him from having to keep a straight face while saying it. In truth, using government power to target individuals for political and personal reasons seems like an apt description of the probe into Carroll as well as many of the Justice Department’s steps in recent months.

 

Carroll’s lawsuits infuriated Trump. The president has been accused of sexual assault by many women; he has denied all accusations, although he also boasts about nonconsensual groping in the infamous Access Hollywood tape. Carroll, however, brought a case where a court actually found him liable for sexual abuse. Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote that although “Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law,” the jury found that Trump “did exactly that” in the common understanding of “rape.” Trump insulted Carroll repeatedly on Truth Social as well as on the stand during one of the trials. He insisted before the trial that he did not know her, despite a picture showing them together, and said she was not his “type,” but when shown the photograph in a deposition, he mistook her for his ex-wife Marla Maples.

 

Trump couldn’t beat Carroll in court (though ongoing appeals efforts mean he has not yet had to pay up), but he does have a Justice Department that has shown a willingness to bring preposterous cases against his political enemies, and an acting attorney general who appears determined to prove he can succeed at political retribution where his fired predecessor did not. (CNN reported that Todd Blanche, who holds that title, was recused from this case because of his previous work as Trump’s personal lawyer in Carroll litigation.)

 

The accusation of perjury centers on financial support for Carroll’s legal efforts from Reid Hoffman, a LinkedIn co-founder and major donor to liberal causes. In a 2022 deposition, Carroll said she did not have any outside support for her litigation, but two weeks later, her lawyers told a judge and Trump’s attorneys that they had secured funding from a nonprofit Hoffman leads.

 

There are a couple of reasons to be skeptical of claims of perjury here. First, Kaplan, the judge overseeing the civil cases, already considered and dismissed concerns over the testimony. Carroll’s lawyers said she had no communication with Hoffman or the group, but Kaplan allowed Trump’s team to question her once more. The judge then concluded that Carroll’s credibility was not in doubt and barred Trump’s attorneys from questioning her about the funding during the subsequent trial.

 

Second, the DOJ investigation is reportedly being overseen not by a U.S. attorney in New York, where the trial occurred, but by Andrew Boutros, the U.S. attorney in Chicago. Although this is legal, it is unusual (or it was until this Trump administration, during which DOJ has repeatedly assigned faraway offices to handle political cases). The track record of the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office is a red flag of its own: The office was recently in the news when prosecutors dismissed the only remaining misdemeanor charges against members of the “Broadview Six,” a group of people arrested at a protest at an ICE facility last fall. They had already moved to dismiss felony charges, which turned out to be a result of misconduct by prosecutors.

 

April Perry, the federal judge presiding over the case, said she was “incredibly shocked” by prosecutors’ conduct during grand-jury proceedings. “I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts,” she said. Prosecutors personally vouched for the credibility of evidence before a grand jury, which is impermissible. When they failed to get an indictment, they excused grand jurors who voted against charges and tried again. They also spoke with grand jurors outside of a courtroom. Later, they redacted transcripts to hide it all from Perry.

 

Perry summoned Boutros to her courtroom, where she scolded him. “Your sole goal is to do justice. Your client is justice itself,” she told him. “I do believe deeply in the presumption of regularity and that most government attorneys are doing the best they can to do the right thing. That trust has been broken.”

 

Any investigation into Carroll faces the same problem: Boutros and the Trump Justice Department as a whole no longer have the benefit of the doubt that their actions are fair and impartial, and that they aren’t just attacking Trump’s enemies, real or perceived. Even if the probe sputters, a spurious criminal investigation is a form of extrajudicial punishment. Defendants must spend time and money on attorneys; the Southern Poverty Law Center also recently found itself cut off from financial channels because it is facing a dubious indictment.

 

Trump ran for office decrying what he alleged was the “weaponization” of the Justice Department, and he promised to reverse it. But what was apparent then and is beyond dispute now is that Trump had no problem with politicized justice—he just wanted it on his side. The Broadview and Carroll cases show just how effectively he has achieved that.

Words of War

By Eliot A. Cohen

Thursday, May 28, 2026

 

Decades ago, it was a truism that the 24/7 news cycle exercised a malign influence on policy making. It kept senior leaders fixated on a flickering television screen when their time would have been better spent weighing evidence, debating alternatives, and considering opposing views. All true. But today we contend with 24/7 commentary, which is so ubiquitous that we barely notice it, even as it causes a kind of dry rot of our good judgment.

 

Supporters of the Trump administration’s war against Iran periodically complain that much of the criticism the administration faces is as ludicrous as denouncing Franklin D. Roosevelt’s war leadership in April 1942 would have been, before Midway, Guadalcanal, and the North Africa landings. They have no record of extending that sort of charity to previous administrations, but that does not invalidate the larger point.

 

The 24/7 commentary treadmill means that certain simplifying words get used over and over. But in war, above all things, realities are almost invariably complex. Take the very word war. Advocates and critics of the Iran conflict assume, without question, that this is a war that began on February 28, and that it was launched by President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

That is arguably the biggest strategic mistake of all: not knowing when the war you are in began, or even who started it. The past few months of bombing, blockading, and missile and drone strikes are but the latest campaign in a war that began at the inception of the Islamic Republic. American service personnel have died for nearly five decades at the hands of Iranian mines, IEDs, and missiles. The speeches of Iran’s leaders leave little doubt that they believe that they have always been at war with the United States and Israel. Their unprovoked missile attacks on Israel and acts of terrorism in the past few years alone—including the attempted assassination of Trump during the Biden administration—suggest that we should concede the possibility that they may be right.

 

Americans hate long wars, to the point that they frequently refuse to acknowledge their existence. Yet World War II did not begin at Pearl Harbor: Arguably it began in 1937, when Japan began its major onslaught against China. The Vietnam War did not begin in 1965, with the shift of American forces to conventional combat rather than advice and support; it had begun by 1946, and perhaps earlier. And although Islamists of various stripes think the Crusades are an interesting and important model to study, Americans blanch at the idea of a war lasting centuries, and fought over religious issues, no less. This current bout of fighting looks different, however, if one frames it as merely a particularly violent episode in a much longer conflict.

 

The words victory and defeat are often misleading. Even wars that seem exceptionally clear-cut in their outcomes can be ambiguous. The Japanese were vanquished by American naval and air power in World War II, but they achieved a major war aim, shattering permanently the European empires of East Asia. Hitler perished in the bunker in Berlin, but achieved much of his most vital war aim, the destruction of European Jewry. And although Britain was, in one sense, a victor in that war, it lost its vitality, empire, and sense of world power.

 

In some wars, everyone loses. In others, both sides may reasonably claim victory. At the end of the War of 1812 the British believed, correctly, that they had administered a thorough drubbing to the Americans, saved Canada from conquest, and demonstrated the supremacy of British naval power. The Americans, for their part, believed (equally correctly) that Britain could no longer project power into the North American heartland to block America’s westward expansion, and that they had taught the Royal Navy a healthy respect for America’s naval potential. Canadians celebrate today the formation of a distinct identity based on the cooperation of their varied peoples in fighting off American invaders. Native Americans, who were not formally parties to the war, were in fact its only real losers.

 

Sometimes the words winning and losing make little sense. Wars are composed, as Churchill once said, “of trends and episodes,” by which he meant the long-term pressures applied by such measures as blockade and bombing, and the sharp fighting of battles with a defined beginning and end. In the present case, is Iran winning by closing the Strait of Hormuz? In some ways, yes, but then again, its oil exports are equally strangled, and it has suffered a battering by the two most advanced air forces in the world, using the world’s most advanced munitions, guided by exceptional intelligence. Maybe winning the narrative counts as victory, but that does not make good hundreds of billions of dollars of damage. In the current war, both sides have had successes and failures; better to accept that this will not resemble a basketball game, with a single outcome based on points.

 

The most overused word is quagmire, easily found in foreign-policy periodicals, politicians’ speeches, and pundits’ sound bites. It is a lazy word. When you go into a quagmire, you are sunk, and will either die there or come out exhausted and filthy. It is a word that, like much of the commentary surrounding war, assumes away not only variable outcomes but the importance of operational choices, individual personalities, accident, fortune, and contingency—in short, the stuff of any real war.

 

Quagmire became particularly prevalent in American usage to describe the Vietnam War, and that is the implicit comparison lurking behind its use today, now compounded by the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan. Applying it to a war in which the United States has not sent (and is very unlikely to send) large expeditionary forces to fight a protracted insurgency, but rather is using air power and a naval blockade against a state, is ludicrous.

 

For decades after the Civil War, Republican politicians could guarantee reelection by “waving the bloody shirt,” reminding voters that a lot of Democrats had either been southerners or sympathized with the southern cause. It was a good way to avoid having to come up with solutions to the problems the country faced. So, too, waving the bloody shirt of Iraq, or harkening back to the jungles of Vietnam, fails to aid in understanding the particular problem of Iran, which all U.S. administrations have had to face since 1979, and none successfully.

 

None of this excuses the blundering and incompetence of the Trump administration’s entry into the war, and quite likely its conduct of it. The administration did not begin, as it should have, by occupying key islands around the strait, deploying such mine-hunting assets as the Navy possesses to the theater, devising schemes for war insurance, or, above all, securing the support of allies rather than spewing venom at them.

 

But it does suggest that we should be wary of lazy pronouncements, festooned with questionable analogies and tired catchphrases. That the administration is often simpleminded in its reasoning and outrageous in its rhetoric does not excuse any of its critics for behaving in the same way. Worse still, it is all too easy to slide from slipshod thinking into prophecies to which one clings despite disconfirming evidence. From there it is not that far to begin rooting, in effect, for your country’s enemies to prove you right.

Jill Biden’s Unbelievable Debate ‘Stroke’ Story

By Jim Geraghty

Thursday, May 28, 2026

 

Our problem is not just that we are misgoverned, and our problem is not just, as laid out in yesterday’s newsletter, that the top priorities of the president and his cabinet are not the top priorities of a majority of the electorate. (The president, further proving my point, yesterday: “I don’t care about the midterms.”)

 

No, our problem is that a significant chunk of our governing class is nowhere near as smart as they think they are, and in many cases, they’re quite dumb. And they think the American people, collectively, are dumb as well, and are easily fooled. This morning, we find that former first lady Jill Biden, who had the option of just enjoying a quiet retirement with her elderly husband, has instead chosen to emerge from private life to relitigate the notion that Joe Biden was going senile, and/or too old to serve another term.

 

Former first lady Jill Biden said she was “frightened” by her husband Joe Biden’s 2024 debate performance and thought he was having a stroke.

 

“I was frightened, because I had never ever seen Joe like that before or since. Never,” Jill Biden told CBS News Sunday Morning’s Rita Braver in an interview airing Sunday on CBS.

 

“I don’t know what happened,” she said. “As I watched it, I thought, ‘Oh, my God, he’s having a stroke.’ And it scared me to death.”

 

Bullcrap.

 

If you are genuinely concerned that the president of the United States is having a stroke or other medical emergency, you interrupt the debate. If the First Lady of the United States says, “stop the debate, I think my husband is having a stroke,” the debate will stop. Jake Tapper and Dana Bash were not going to insist that the president finish. The president travels with a top-tier medical team. They will check him out thoroughly. (Note that for the first time in history, the 90-minute debate featured two commercial breaks.)

 

We know that Jill Biden did not genuinely think that her husband was having a stroke, because surely even a non-medical doctor like herself knows that if someone is having a stroke, they need medical attention immediately. “With each moment that a stroke goes untreated, the nervous tissue in the brain is rapidly and irreversibly damaged. That is why it’s important to seek immediate medical attention if you or someone you know begins to experience stroke symptoms.” About one quarter of people who suffer a stroke die within one year.

 

When every second counts, you don’t keep the president suffering an ongoing stroke up on the stage, waiting until the end of the debate and hoping for the best.

 

What Jill Biden is unwittingly declaring in this implausible nearly-two-years-late spin is, ‘I thought my husband was suffering a medical emergency that risked permanent brain damage and possibly death, but I concluded that finishing the debate was more important.”

 

The post-campaign books made clear that former president Biden never finished one of his practice sessions. It is genuinely an open question of whether, in the summer of 2024, Joe Biden could still put together 90 consecutive minutes of sharp, attentive public performance. As those books made clear:

 

By the end of 2022, Biden was forgetting the names of National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Communications Director Kate Bedingfield, and the president’s speechwriters had adapted to a once infamously garrulous man who now found speaking a chore. “Everything got shorter: speeches, paragraphs, even sentences. The vocabulary shrank . . . they were slowly adapting to Biden’s shrinking capacities.”

 

By September 2023, Biden was at a Manhattan fundraiser, telling the donors the exact same story twice in a span of three minutes. That fall, he didn’t recognize DNC chairman Jaime Harrison, and Virginia Senator Mark Warner ended a phone call with Biden concluding that the president had no idea what was going on in his own counterterrorism policy. At a cabinet meeting that was likely the one held October 2, 2023, a cabinet secretary described Biden as “disoriented” and “out of it,” mouth agape.

 

Jill Biden thinks she can convince you that Joe Biden never looked as bad as he did on the debate stage before that night and never looked as bad since. Her contention is that the single time that in 81 years that Biden looked so utterly hapless, barely coherent, confused, and senile was the one time he was in front of television cameras with the whole country watching — an amazing coincidence. It’s the tired, “every time you can’t see him, he’s doing cartwheels down the hall” spin.

 

Of course, after the debate, Jill Biden did not merely insist that her husband was fine; she insisted he performed fine as well. “Joe, you did such a great job! You answered every question!” she said, in the tone of a kindergarten teacher addressing one of the slower kids in her class. That does not sound like a woman terrified that her husband has just had a stroke.

 

There is probably no one on earth who had more unfettered access to Joe Biden in his unguarded moments during his presidency than Jill Biden. No one had a clearer picture of his mental state, memory, physical health, ability to focus, ability to enunciate and speak clearly, moods, and overall capacity to perform his duties as president than the first lady. (If you’re married, think about how well your spouse knows you compared to everyone else in your life, particularly your co-workers.)

 

For what it’s worth, some unnamed former Biden administration official is texting reporters, saying “she’s lying.” I believe you, unnamed former Biden administration official, but your argument would be way more powerful if you would just come out and say so publicly.

 

And mark it down, because this is the rare day I agree with former Bernie Sanders press secretary Briahna Joy Gray: “Jill Biden expects the public to believe that Joe Biden had exactly one bad day ever—debate night? These people have no respect for voters. If you don’t want to answer real questions about your husband’s obvious cognitive decline, I get it. Just don’t do a book tour.”

 

And that’s the rub. Almost everyone in America is ready to leave the Biden presidency — a failure on many levels — in the rearview mirror and focus on the copious problems of the here and now. No one forced Jill Biden to write a memoir or release it now. She doesn’t need the money. The Bidens have a net worth of about $10 million and own two homes. Hachette purchased the rights to Biden’s presidential memoir for $10 million.

 

Someone out there is no doubt going to complain that Jill Biden isn’t newsworthy anymore and today’s newsletter should cover something really important, like “Trump administration officials have pressed the office responsible for printing the nation’s money to design a $250 bill featuring the president’s portrait.”

 

But even after all this, Jill Biden wants to re-litigate this argument. She was the architect of the giant failed effort to fool Americans into believing that Joe Biden was sharp and healthy enough to serve another four years as president. If you’re a Democrat, and you’re angry that Donald Trump is serving his second term, Jill Biden has a heck of a lot to do with how we ended up in this situation right now.

 

Starting next month, Jill Biden will be on an extensive book tour — New York, Washington, Nashville, Philadelphia. The publication date for the book is June 2. As far as I can tell, no one has reviewed the book yet, and I have not seen any early excerpts published in magazines. I suspect the audience for this book — what is likely to amount to an insufferable pile of lame excuses, implausible spin, blame-shifting and self-righteousness — is extremely limited. I am reminded of the title of Christopher Hitchens’ book about Bill Clinton: No One Left to Lie To.

 

ADDENDUM: In case you missed it yesterday, a House Democratic candidate in New Jersey, Adam Hamawy, volunteered in Bosnia during the summer of 1994 with a Chicago-based nonprofit called the “Benevolence International Foundation.”

 

Here’s what the U.S. Department of the Treasury had to say about the “Benevolence International Foundation” back in 2002:

 

Benevolence International Foundation (BIF) is a U.S. tax-exempt not-for-profit organization whose stated purpose is to conduct humanitarian relief projects throughout the world.  BIF was incorporated in the State of Illinois on March 30, 1992. Although BIF is incorporated in the United States, it operates around the world, in Bosnia, Chechnya, Pakistan, China, Ingushetia, Russia, and other nations.  BIF operates as Benevolence International Fund in Canada and as Bosanska Idealna Futura in Bosnia.

 

Enaam Arnaout, BIF’s Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of Directors, recently was indicted in the United States for operating BIF as a racketeering enterprise and providing material support to organizations, including al Qaida, that are engaged in violent activities.

 

Substantial evidence documents the close relationship between Arnaout and Usama bin Laden, dating from the mid-1980s.   An article in the Arab News from 1988, reporting on bin Laden’s activities at the al Masada mujahideen camp in Afghanistan, included a photograph of Arnaout and bin Laden walking together.  In a March 2002 search of BIF’s offices, Bosnian law enforcement authorities discovered a host of evidence linking Arnaout to bin Laden and al Qaida.  Among the files were scanned letters between Arnaout and bin Laden, under their aliases.

 

In one handwritten letter, bin Laden indicates that Arnaout is authorized to sign on bin Laden’s behalf.

 

Various documents also established that Arnaout worked with others — including members of al Qaida — to purchase rockets, mortars, rifles, and offensive and defensive bombs, and to distribute them to various mujahideen camps, including camps operated by al Qaida.

 

It remains unclear if Hamawy is promoting his candidacy by touting his “firsthand expertise about Islamist terrorist groups.”