by Elwood Watson

The abhorrent comments directed at former First Lady Michelle Obama by UFC fighter Josh Hokit are part of a troubling pattern endured by Black women in America for generations.

The disgusting comments made by Hokit were not simply about politics. They reflected a long-standing pattern in which accomplished Black women are denounced as less feminine, less refined, or less worthy of respect than their white counterparts. From elected officials and businesswomen to educators and community activists, Black women have routinely endured vile attacks that expand well beyond policy disagreements and often land in the category of personal degradation and denigration.

What is particularly disturbing is such an offensive comment was made in such a public setting, with the White House in the background. Regardless of whether you concur or disagree with her politically is not the issue. The level of civil discourse in society has plummeted in our current political climate, and retrograde situations such as this further contribute to the destruction of such a standard.

Politically motivated conspiracy theories about Obama started during her husband’s presidency and have repeatedly been debunked. Transphobic bullies continue to post photos of the former first lady sinisterly distorted to make her features appear more masculine. Others claim former President Obama is gay, and that their children, Malia and Sasha Obama, now 27 and 25, were conceived by surrogate parents. The nonsense is par for the course in the frequently mentally challenged and debased right-wing blogosphere.

Equally outrageous is that almost a decade after leaving the White House, both Barack and Michelle Obama continue to face enormous hostility and resentment from their political detractors. Unlike previous first ladies, Obama evokes rabid passions among her supporters and detractors alike. There appears to be no middle ground. Her proponents see her as intelligent, classy, elegant, no-nonsense, charismatic, and socially conscious. Her opponents denounce her as arrogant, aloof, unpatriotic, racially bigoted, and anti-American.

Things for Michelle Obama reached a fever pitch in the 2008 presidential campaign, when she stated for the first time in her adult life she was really proud of America. Although many reasonable people totally understood what she meant, including former First Lady Laura Bush, other Republicans wasted no time in perversely exploiting a sincere statement, misconstruing it to imply Obama was an anti-American who harbored Black nationalist sentiments.

Truth be told, on more than a few far-right wing websites, the rhetoric used to describe both Michelle Obama and her husband is often so inflammatory and intolerant that some website moderators suspend activity until they can get things under control. I will not repeat such incendiary rhetoric here, especially since they’re largely a work of fiction.

Some people argue there have been other first ladies, such as Hillary Clinton and Nancy Reagan, who have undergone critical and hostile scrutiny. Although true, neither were subjected to acerbic racial overtones. They were criticized for certain excesses, but never were the attacks, especially in the case of Nancy Reagan, so racially charged or personal.

Race has undoubtedly been a factor in such treatment. However, like many strong, radiant, and viable Black women before her, Michelle Obama has managed to admirably shrug off such criticism and resentment and focus on the goals that are important to her. In essence, while her critics have continually gone low, she has perennially taken the high road.

Despite pockets of naysayers, the reality is Michele Obama has numerous admirers across the political spectrum. Many individuals see her diverse, flexible, and sincere personality as refreshing.

The truth is that many of her most strident, bigoted critics, who would rather have seen the Obamas cooking and cleaning in the White House rather than residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as they did for eight years, have been unable to successfully demonize either of them.

Michelle Obama will remain true to herself and to her constituencies. She is indeed one classy, resilient, and intelligent former first lady. And clearly, the nation’s first Black first lady still lives rent-free in the minds of Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters.

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

The post The enduring resilience of Michelle Obama appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

An inevitable press briefing a few days from now:

(Trump is hydraulically lowered into his seat.)

“Mr. President, are you planning to drain the Reflecting Pool and start over? There are reports – ”

“Quiet, Piggy! I know you’ve been down there stealing patriotic paint chips. Maybe we oughta cuff you. And gimme a smile for a change. You’re a terrible reporter by the way, like the rest of the Fake News, which keeps saying very terroristically that my beautiful pool restoration is a ‘met-a-phor’ for something about me. That’s a big word, a lotta people don’t know it. I bet Hussein Obama uses it.

“But that word has nothing to do with me because the real news, which of course you won’t report, is that in truth I love the algae!

“I love it very strongly. This is my Green New Deal – you didn’t know that, did you? – it’s a new marketing campaign the likes of which nobody has ever seen before. And look at Marco and JD over there, nodding so strongly. They love it too.

“Some very fine people, big strapping men with tears in their eyes, came up to me today when I was resting my eyes not sleeping, and they said, ‘Sir, we think that MAGA really stands for Make Algae Grow Again,’ which is why starting now I’m selling lawn signs with that very strong slogan for only $99 apiece, and I promise to send all proceeds to a charity I’ll choose in maybe two weeks.

“The lunatic Dumb-o-crats who hate America don’t realize it was always my concept of a plan to make the pool green. Real Americans are saying to me, ‘Sir, it’s so brilliant the way you keep playing three-dimensional checkers,’ or whatever it’s called. Truth is I’ve always loved the color green. The money I’m making on this job is very green. I always kick my golf ball onto the green. Hitler’s Wehrmacht wore green. Vladimir’s troops wear green.

“And lots of fish are green – the radical left never tells you that – and my fish’ll love the algae I’m growing. Sick deranged ‘scientists’ keep saying that algae can be dangerous for fish to eat, but we’re gonna look into those people. And we don’t need to worry about what the birds might do, because they’re all somewhere else getting killed by the windmills.

“Despite what the haters say, I knew all along exactly what I was doing. Nobody knows more about water than I do. To grow my algae, I decreed that the beautiful pool project would begin at the hottest time of the year – the best time for blue-green algae to flourish – and I decreed that the cement would be painted a patriotic American blue, to make sure that the water got heated to the maximum temp for more algae growth very strongly – “

(Pause for brief nap.)

“So, uh, yeah, the algae. I love the algae. What I don’t love is the vandals. ICE oughta look into the vandals who’ve shown up dead of night with barrels of hydrogen peroxide to ruin my American blue paint job. Nobody knows more about hydrogen peroxide than I do. It’s supposed to be used at low concentrations to lighten women’s hair, turn ‘em into beautiful blondes with a rating of 10. Nobody has dated more peroxide 10s than me.

“The disgraceful vandalism is a scandal the likes of which we’ve never seen, but we’re gonna monetize it by selling Trump Paint Chips for 50 bucks apiece. Get ‘em while they last, limited supply, a blue chip that’s better than a blue-chip stock – that’s great messaging for real Americans, you’re welcome.

“And by the time I finish this answer to your question, my true patriots will be pumping algae into their backyard pools. It’s called sol-i-dar-it-y, a big beautiful word bigger than met-a-phor. And for July 4, I’m hereby announcing the first annual algae endurance swim, broadcast live from the Reflecting Pool, with inaugural breaststrokes from Bobby Kennedy Jr. He thinks a pint of algae is a great energy drink and I’ve ordered the FDA to agree.

“Excuse me, darling, I did answer your question. I’m done for today. Anyone know how to work this hydraulic lift? Forget it. Marco and JD, carry me outta here.”

Copyright 2026 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Dick Polman, a veteran national political columnist based in Philadelphia and a Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvania, writes the Subject to Change newsletter. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com

The post Donald Trump’s green new deal appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

According to Encyclopædia Britannica, Pride Month commemorates years of struggle for civil rights and the ongoing pursuit of equal justice under the law for the LGBTQ community.

The post Pride Month appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Congressman Dan Goldman represents New York’s 10th Congressional District, a district uniquely shaped by the legacy of September 11. Few congressional districts were more directly affected by the attacks, and Goldman has played an important role in supporting constituents who continue to live with their aftermath.

Goldman has been a leading advocate for securing permanent funding for the World Trade Center Health Program, which provides care to more than 140,000 responders and survivors suffering from cancers, respiratory illnesses, and other conditions linked to exposure from the September 11 attacks.

Among his efforts, Goldman helped introduce the 9/11 Responder and Survivor Health Funding Correction Act, legislation designed to help ensure funding for the World Trade Center Health Program through its scheduled expiration in 2090. He also worked alongside Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Chuck Schumer, and Mike Braun, as well as Representatives Andrew Garbarino and Jerrold Nadler, to secure $676 million to address funding shortfalls within the program. Without congressional action, the program faced the prospect of being forced to turn away eligible participants, including 9/11 survivors and first responders, beginning in 2028.

Goldman’s work on behalf of those affected by September 11 extends beyond health care funding. He also helped introduce the American Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act, legislation intended to ensure that tens of thousands of American victims of terrorism (including the families of more than 3,000 individuals killed on or after September 11) receive the compensation to which they are entitled. The legislation would provide annual compensation payments to eligible victims, increase congressional oversight of the fund’s operations, and expand staffing to ensure the program can effectively serve claimants.

September 11 is not the only terrorist attack whose victims Goldman has sought to assist. He has also been active in supporting law enforcement officers injured during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Goldman has frequently criticized what he views as inconsistencies among those who publicly support law enforcement while minimizing the experiences of officers who defended the Capitol on January 6. He has highlighted the stories of individual officers, including Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, both of whom sustained injuries during the attack.

In addition, Goldman has advocated for honoring the officers who protected the Capitol. When efforts emerged to delay or prevent the installation of a commemorative plaque recognizing their service, he publicly challenged those efforts. He has also spoken extensively about the handling and release of Capitol surveillance footage. In media appearances, including on CBS, Goldman argued that safeguards established by the January 6 Committee were necessary to protect Capitol security and expressed concerns about releasing footage without appropriate review procedures.

The impact of international threats is also reflected in New York’s 10th District through institutions such as the Museum of Jewish Heritage, which is dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust and educating future generations at a time when concerns about antisemitism have grown nationally and internationally.

Another aspect of Goldman’s record is his role during the first impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. Before entering Congress, Goldman served as lead counsel for House Democrats during the impeachment investigation, a position that elevated his national profile and established him as a prominent figure in congressional oversight efforts.

Despite these accomplishments, Goldman faces a serious primary challenge. During a recent debate, the candidates were asked who should be the Democratic nominee for president in 2028. Brad Lander answered that it should be Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Goldman offered a different response, stating that the nominee should be “whoever the people choose.” This exchange illustrates a key difference between the candidates. Goldman emphasized that voters, not party insiders, should determine the future direction of the Democratic Party. His supporters view that approach as evidence of an independent streak, while they argue that Lander represents a more traditional, party-aligned approach.

Only registered Democrats are eligible to vote in the impending primary. This relatively small group of voters will effectively determine who represents the entire district in Congress. In this election, primary voters will not only choose a nominee; they will decide whether Congressman Dan Goldman remains in office.

Because New York’s 10th District contains communities deeply connected to both September 11 and issues of democratic accountability, the outcome of this race carries significance beyond a single congressional seat.

If primary voters deny Goldman the nomination, and therefore his congressional seat, 9/11 families, survivors, and the officers who fought on January 6 would lose a major advocate. The House of Representatives would also lose a member whose work has focused on accountability, oversight, and support for victims of terrorism and political violence.

The post Congressman Dan Goldman: More Than One District at Stake appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Nicholas Dickinson, University of Exeter

Keir Starmer has resigned as leader of the Labour party, and so in time as the UK’s prime minister. In the end, despite his numerous assurances that he would fight on, after Andy Burnham’s resounding win in the Makerfield byelection, the pressure on Starmer became too great to withstand. It makes him the sixth British PM in a decade to stand down.

The immediate cause of his decision was the final collapse in support for him in the party and in cabinet, clarified in private conversations over the weekend. In setting out his plans, Starmer has avoided the avalanche of resignations that toppled Conservative PMs Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.

The overall aim seems to be a more orderly transition – “with good grace” – than those under recent Conservative governments. Yet his emotional statement reflecting on his time in the highest office still highlights a leader who knows he has failed.

Starmer was not popular the day before he walked into 10 Downing Street. On the eve of the 2024 general election, his net satisfaction rating with Ipsos stood at minus 21. This was a historic low for an incoming prime minister. While 31% of the public said they were satisfied with his performance, 52% were dissatisfied, marking the first time a leader had secured a parliamentary majority while holding a significantly negative approval rating.

Yet in the environment of British politics since the Brexit referendum, such figures hardly seemed unusual. Starmer’s predecessor Rishi Sunak entered the 2024 campaign with a net satisfaction score of minus 56, according to YouGov.

At the time, I argued that Starmer would likely see an upsurge in popularity having actually achieved a Labour victory after 14 long years. In 1997, Tony Blair enjoyed a record-breaking honeymoon with satisfaction ratings soaring to plus 60 in the months following his victory. Even David Cameron saw his approval leap to plus 21 shortly after forming the coalition in 2010. The office of prime minister typically confers a halo of competence on its new occupant.

Starmer’s popularity did indeed improve. But only to a kind of tepid neutrality. In the immediate aftermath of the election, his net favourability rose to plus 3 in Opinium’s first post-election poll, while YouGov recorded a similarly rapid recovery to roughly break even. Unlike the sustained euphoria of the Blair years, Starmer’s “bounce” was in absolute terms a shallow recovery that barely lifted him above the water line before the tides turned once again.

At the same time, measured by his majority, he seemed in an unassailable position. Yet the same could have (and indeed was) said of Boris Johnson. Following the 2019 election, talk was of the Conservatives securing a “decade of dominance”, arguing that the structural realignment of the “red wall” had created a near-permanent Tory majority that would keep Labour out of power until the 2030s. In the event, Johnson was out just over three years later and the talk now is of Conservative extinction.

A dangerous pattern

Where did it go wrong for Starmer? Paradoxically, the answer may be found in the fate of his predecessor as Labour leader. Jeremy Corbyn’s record now looks similar to Starmer’s. Between 2017 and 2019, Corbyn’s personal ratings plummeted from a competitive minus 11 during the 2017 campaign to a disastrous minus 44 by the time of his 2019 defeat. By then, the strategic ambiguity that once held his coalition together collapsed under the pressure of Brexit.

Starmer’s rise and fall took almost exactly the same period of time. And it happened for a set of reasons uncomfortably similar for either side of the Labour party’s ideological divide to admit. In both 2017-2019 and 2022-24, Labour’s fragile polling lead was driven less by enthusiasm for the opposition and more by a collapse in government competence. As data from the 2024 “loveless landslide” illustrated, Labour secured around 64% of seats on just 34% of the vote – the lowest share for any majority government in history.

Just as Corbyn was squeezed by the populist-right Brexit party and pro-EU centre party the Liberal Democrats in 2019 over its middle-of-the-road position on Brexit, Starmer faced a similar pincer movement in the mid-2020s. On one flank, Reform UK eroded the Labour vote in post-industrial heartlands; on the other, the Green Party and pro-Gaza independents successfully targeted urban progressives. The Greens ended up quadrupling their MPs in 2024 and independent candidates secured historic wins in Labour strongholds.

Labour’s electoral results in office reflected this – byelection losses to both Reform UK and the Greens, disastrous local election results in England, and failing to dislodge a struggling and scandal-plagued Scottish National Party north of the border.

Fittingly, this latest resignation took place almost exactly ten years to the day of the 2016 Brexit referendum. Make no mistake, the divides created and solidified as a result of the Brexit moment are still at the heart of British politics – even if many people have forgotten the details of that dispute.

As Professor Tim Bale has recently argued, British politics is best seen as an example of two-bloc polarisation. Voters are locked into broad identity-based camps and Brexit position is the key underlying variable. Yet this reality is obscured by the fact that these blocs are internally fragmented and only occasionally address the issue directly.

While voters may occasionally unite against a common enemy, they remain deeply divided on other aspects of policy, leaving leaders like Starmer (or Corbyn, for that matter) trying to hold together a sandcastle coalition that crumbles the moment the tide comes in.

Nicholas Dickinson, Lecturer in Politics, University of Exeter

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ID 521088 | Britain Flag ©
Wrangel | Dreamstime.com

The post Keir Starmer resigns: can anyone survive as prime minister in today’s Britain? appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Would you excise something from your portfolio that was earning $24 for every dollar you had invested? Neither would I, but that’s what the GOP did the summer of 2025 when they slashed the Brand America matching funds by 80%.

The budget cut was part of the summer 2025 budget reconciliation bill, which passed the Senate 50-51 and the House 215-214 initially and 218-214 on Senate concurrence. Brand USA, a public-private partnership, receives no tax dollars; its federal funding comes from fees collected from international travelers.

Travel is important to the economy. The domestic and international travel industry contributed $3 trillion to the U.S. economy in 2025, according to the U.S. Travel Association. That was 2.4% of the value of goods and services (GDP) produced in the U.S.

Brand USA was created under the bipartisan Travel Promotion Act of 2009 to promote international travel to the U.S. Slashing its budget less than 12 months before the World Cup came to the U.S. makes the hatchet feel even more shortsighted.

As if cutting Brand USA’s matching funds by 80% wasn’t on-brand enough, Trump followed it five months later by creating a competitor: the country’s first-ever “minister of tourism,” a position with no precedent and no qualifications required other than a good relationship with the White House.

The man holding the title is Nick Adams, a self-described “alpha male” influencer from Australia whose previous government experience consists of a failed nomination to be ambassador to Malaysia. Trump withdrew the nomination after Malaysian officials objected to Adams’ record of anti-Muslim remarks.

It is, nonetheless, his job to convince the world that the country he represents is open for business. After all, worldwide international tourist travel was up 4+% in 2025, according to U.N. Tourism.

The U.S., on the other hand, saw a 6% plunge in international tourism travel compared to 2024 ($).

When put in context, 2025 was the worst year for international tourism in the U.S. in 20 years, outside of Covid-19. The drop in international visitors was bigger than that of the global recession of 2008. Shockingly, Canadian travel to major U.S. cities may have dropped by 42%, according to The Daily Beast, citing Cuebiq.

This year is looking worse.

In April, international travel to the U.S. was down as much as 14% when compared with 2025. Also in April, U.S. hotels began slashing rates by as much as a third.

Now it’s June, and the World Cup — 48 teams and 104 matches — is being hosted by 16 cities across Canada, Mexico and the U.S. Hotel bookings in Canadian and Mexican cities are outpacing U.S. bookings according to an analysis of 14 of the 16 cities. The top five cities in terms of average booking percentage are in Canada and Mexico: Guadalajara, Monterrey, Vancouver, Toronto and Mexico City. Cities six–fourteen are in the U.S.

And the hotels in Canada and Mexico are also making more money per room. Their hotel rates are up +92% and +114%, respectively. In Vancouver, prices have almost tripled. In the U.S., rates are up only about 50% compared to the same period last year.

The American Hotel & Lodging Association pointed out that in the U.S., “domestic travellers (sic) are outnumbering international visitors – an imbalance that threatens the overall economic impact the World Cup was meant to generate.” The event runs from June 11-July 19.

Despite missing hotel booking promises, some host cities like Dallas and Houston are seeing a year-to-year increase in flight bookings. That gain is uneven; it has failed to materialize for Seattle and the three Mexican host cities, however.

There is a ripple effect when tourists fail to arrive. Their absence negatively affects local businesses, restaurants, theme parks, tour operators and the broader economy.

Brand USA’s federal match — the government’s contribution, which is tied to visa-waiver fees, not a blank check, and is capped — was cut by 80%, from $100 million to $20 million. And we can’t point at that $80 million shortfall as the primary culprit for lost hotel and airline demand. Nope, there’s additional self-mutilation going on.

In no particular order:

• In early 2025, the Trump Administration narrowed visa-interview waiver eligibility and added new in-person interview requirements.
• Visitors from 42 visa-free countries (which includes the UK and most of Europe) may soon be required to “provide five years’ worth of social media history in order to enter” the U.S. Others already must supply this information.
• The Administration imposed two travel bans and visa bonds while shortening visa validity periods for various nationalities.
• The Administration has increased the cost of a visa from $250 to $435, making it one of the most expensive visas in the world.
• The Administration increased the number of prohibited countries to 39 from 12.
• In addition, Congress has stalled on the bipartisan VISIT USA Act, introduced in November 2025, which would have restored funding to Brand USA.

That’s just travel-specific friction. There’s more.

“The current situation seems to treat Europe more as an opponent than an ally, whether it’s the tariffs, the NATO rhetoric or the broader tone towards European countries,” Johan Konst, the founder of EUSA PR, told the BBC.

Juliette Kayyem, faculty chair of the Homeland Security Project at the Harvard Kennedy School, told CNN that “the long-term harm is that the world will not know America … the narrative of the United States is now a country that is at best, not to be respected, and at worst, a democracy that is floundering.”

It’s not a surprise, then, that 46% of international travelers “said they were less likely to visit the U.S. in 2025 specifically because of Trump,” Fortune reported.

That’s the sobering outlook for the World Cup, an event that was supposed to be America’s audition for the world’s sports stage; a dry run for the 2028 Olympics; a chance to show off 16 renovated stadiums; manna for a hospitality industry hungry for business; and a six-fold increase in World Cup revenue over Qatar in 2022.

The World Cup is a stress test. It reveals a Congress that is nonchalant about marketing the country to international tourists. It spotlights a White House that seems determined to generate more and more friction for international travelers while double-crossing the official, Congressional marketing body, Brand USA. None of this happened by accident. You don’t accidentally narrow the visa-waiver program; almost double the price of entry; and give short shrift to the one entity whose entire job is convincing skeptical foreigners to visit.

Somewhere between the travel bans and the empty stadium sections, “Visit America!” became “Visit America, Eventually, Maybe, If You Can Get and Afford a Visa and Give Up Your Privacy.” With those impediments, why would you even want to try?

This post first appeared at Substack.
 

The post How Washington deterred the world from visiting appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

At the risk of getting canceled by readers who passionately love or hate Graham Platner – the Democratic macho bro running for the Senate in pivotal Maine – I’ll try here to assess him with a wee bit of nuance on a wee patch of middle ground. This is risky because our polarized political climate does not abide shades of gray.

Since the long road to a 2027 Democratic Senate goes through Maine, the big question is whether an oysterman with no elective record, a military vet with a Nazi-style tattoo who has treated women badly, “a smart guy with poor impulse control” (as a Maine Dem told me), is nevertheless capable of beating five-termer Susan Collins, who has long abetted MAGA and bears heavy responsibility for the erasure of Roe v. Wade.

My answer is: He has a shot, baggage and all.

Mainers have spoken and told us something important. Platner’s 72 percent share in the June 9 primary was stunning, but more noteworthy was the fact overall turnout was 40 percent higher than when Dems picked a Senate candidate back in 2020. Whether you like Platner or not, it’s clear he has galvanized left-leaning Democratic voters who’ve been longing for a two-fisted fighter. They think, with good reason, there are far bigger issues plaguing America right now than Platner’s less-than-saintly character.

It can be argued Platner is running with the wind at his back. Trump’s national poll numbers are in the toilet, the MAGA brand is circling the drain in Maine, and Susan Collins may be ripe to take the fall for all the havoc Republicans have wrought. Excoriating Platner for his past behavior seems irrelevant at a time when so many Republicans of supposedly good character have been shoveling billions to ICE, slashing food stamp funds, plotting to kick people off Medicaid and Obamacare, and, at virtually every turn, indulging the whims of a fascist convicted felon.

And Collins was Exhibit A in the Brett Kavanaugh debacle. Before casting the key vote to put him on the high court, she was either dumb as a rock or willfully naive to believe his vow to respect Roe as the law of the land. Platner can make a credible case she should be held responsible for the fallout from the 2022 court ruling, for the damage it has done to women. And she doesn’t regret her Kavanaugh vote.

Ditto her Machiavellian maneuverings on Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” which cut programs for the needy while slashing taxes on the rich. She cast a key vote to bring the draconian bill to the Senate floor, then voted against it once it was clear there were sufficient Republican votes to pass it. This is how she rolls.

Platner has a golden opportunity to expose her shell game during an election year that seems to favor outsiders. He has already proven on the stump he’s good at skewering insiders. I suspect that many people who are focused on Platner’s baggage have never heard his eloquent progressive message about economic squeeze on the average working stiff. It’s worth the time to hear him out.

One can argue “character” is a dead issue these days, thanks to Trump’s bottomless degradations. One can argue, quite plausibly, Platner’s personal flaws are minor when compared to, say, the serial corruptions of the billionaire class. (As he likes to point out, he never visited Jeffrey Epstein’s island.) But Collins is a viciously seasoned attack dog – she won re-election in 2020 after repeatedly saying her opponent falsely sought to “defund the police,” and her affiliated PACs are already resurrecting stupid stuff about women Platner wrote on Reddit years ago.

“There’s no end to her money hose,” one Maine Dem told me privately, referring to her well-heeled attack team. At last count, over the past year roughly 100 billionaires and their families have donated to Collins’ network. And her attack ads are designed to buttress support from a key Collins constituency: older white independent women who typically vote blue in presidential races but split their tickets for her. They stuck with Collins in 2020 even though she’d voted to acquit Trump in the first impeachment trial and had declared that he’d learned “a pretty big lesson” about abusing his powers.

Platner probably can’t win unless he woos many of those women his way. But the fear, among many Democrats, is they won’t give Platner’s progressive pitch a fair hearing because their perception of Platner will be colored by how Collins paints him.

Maybe that’s not fair to him, but nobody ever said life in politics is fair. He says he has changed for the better, that the past is past. We’ll see if his claim holds up. But the question he asks most often is arguably most relevant: Are his character flaws more important than Trump and his toadies running rampant in the Senate for another two years?

Copyright 2026 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

The post A nuanced assessment of Graham Platner appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

The post THE LEGACIES OF TWO PRESIDENTS appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Every year, the panel overseeing the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare publishes its annual financial report. And every year, its members make clear that the programs’ reserves will be exhausted by the time Gen X retires – meaning they will no longer be able to pay full scheduled benefits by the mid-2030s.

While many media outlets cover this news as a one-day story, this year’s report should be seen as a much more ominous warning. The latest projection, released on June 9, 2026, is that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2032, at which point incoming revenue can pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits. For the 1 in 5 Americans who receive Social Security, that means a potential across-the-board benefit cut of roughly 22% unless Congress acts.

What makes this year’s warning especially troubling is that the deterioration isn’t driven by a temporary downturn but by deeper demographic and policy changes: Fewer expected births, lower immigration, slower growth in the workforce and reduced future revenue from the taxation of Social Security benefits.

The fundamental challenge, though, has been obvious for years. There are too few current and future workers to support the growing number of retirees. And now, there are fresh headwinds that make the math even more daunting. Record debt levels and elevated interest rates are reducing the fiscal resources available for lawmakers to implement solutions, while declining immigration and birth rates mean that the supply of current and future workers is even smaller than previously projected.

These pressures don’t mean Social Security will disappear. It will always exist as long as workers and employers pay into the program. But for anyone who expects to retire starting in the early 2030s, the potential for a cut to benefits is real.

As a scholar of public finance, I argue that this looming deadline recalls the crisis policymakers faced in the early 1980s. Once again, the issue of reform is about to move from a distant worry to an immediate political problem. And failure to reach a bipartisan compromise will bring both economic pain and political damage.

Fresh pressures

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill struck their historic bipartisan compromise to extend the life of the program by raising taxes and the eligibility age. This time, the challenge will be far harder.

To start with, the federal government now carries a much higher debt burden, topping 100% of annual GDP, compared to about 35% in the early 1980s. And the Congressional Budget Office projects large deficits adding to that debt in the coming decades, with the annual budget shortfall rising from US$1.9 trillion in 2026 to $3.1 trillion in 2036 under current tax and spending laws. Public debt is projected to rise to 120% of GDP by 2036, leaving less and less fiscal room to patch Social Security.

Servicing that debt is also becoming more expensive. Although the Federal Reserve trimmed interest rates in 2024 and 2025, the cost of borrowing remains elevated as concerns over inflation grow, exacerbated by oil price spikes and the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. Markets now expect the Fed to hold rates steady for a while, and some investors are betting it may even raise them later this year.

The demographic picture is also unforgiving. Baby boomers continue to retire, Americans are living longer, and birth rates have fallen sharply. Since 2007, the U.S. birth rate has fallen by 23% and has remained below replacement level for years. The result is fewer future workers paying payroll taxes, even as the number of retirees grows.

A final factor is immigration.

While other aging countries have turned to immigration to shore up public finances and revitalize their labor force, the U.S. has taken the opposite approach. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, net migration to the U.S. is estimated to have fallen by 2.4 million between 2024 and 2026, amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on unauthorized migrants and its efforts to discourage green card applications.

The new report referenced these challenges, noting that lower immigration and fertility estimates will have “a negative projected effect on Social Security’s financial status.” It also addressed the effects of the massive policy bill that President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress pushed through in 2025, which among other things cut the income tax that retirees pay on Social Security benefits.

The near-term economic changes of that legislation will “have a positive effect,” the report said, but in the longer run it will also weaken the program’s finances.

A slow-motion crisis

It’s important to remember that before the 1983 deal was sealed, Social Security was far closer to insolvency than it is today. The program was nearing the point where it could no longer pay full benefits on time.

The problem was caused by a mix of high inflation, weak wage growth, the recessions of the 1970s and early 1980s, and mounting demographic pressure. Americans were living longer, birth rates were falling, and the number of workers supporting each beneficiary was declining.

The 1983 reform was negotiated under Reagan, a Democratic-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate, with help from a bipartisan commission led by future Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan. It addressed the program’s immediate financing crisis by accelerating scheduled increases in the payroll tax and phasing in a higher full retirement age, from 65 to 67. It also anticipated the retirement of the baby boomers and the growing burden they would place on future workers.

The historic overhaul, which came only after months of wrangling, bought the country time. Just as important, it showed that with bipartisan support, a Social Security deal is possible. But it also underscored the danger of waiting too long. When policymakers delay, the menu of options gets smaller, the required changes get larger, and the economic and political pain increases.

Social Security’s next crisis won’t arrive suddenly. It’s arriving in slow motion. The question isn’t whether the program can be fixed, but whether elected officials will act while they still have room to choose among less costly options. I believe the real lesson of 1983 is that waiting until the last minute will turn a chance for reform into a political emergency, and little good comes from governing by crisis.

John W. Diamond, Director of the Center for Public Finance at the Baker Institute, Rice University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post The Social Security trust fund will run dry in 2032 — what that means for retirees and workers who hope to retire appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Vice-President J. D. Vance delivered a slap to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a day after President Donald Trump signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Iran in France’s glamorous Versailles Palace.

Speaking to White House reporters, Vance declared: “Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment. 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.”

This sudden insult to Netanyahu, who has long been joined at the hip to Trump and favored by every US president for over three decades, tells many world leaders that fully trusting Washington can be perilous. Trump’s ire is understandable because Netanyahu manipulated him into a war in which the mighty American military machine was brought to an inglorious stalemate in just 108 days by a regime that is barely able to stand upright.

But Vance’s outburst is not quite accurate. Netanyahu and Israelis have a steadfast friend in Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. On February 25, just before the February 28 Iran war, he became the only Indian leader to address the Knesset and was awarded the ‘Speaker of the Knesset Medal’, its highest honor. During a 2017 visit, he had declared: “I for I. Which means India for Israel and Israel for India!”

India openly champions its ties with Israel because both strongmen firmly emphasize national identity, cultural sovereignty, zero-tolerance for terrorism and uncompromising national security. India provides significant military-industrial support to Israel as a critical manufacturing and supply chain partner for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Importantly, Delhi provides a scalable production hub for Israeli arms makers, geographical space for long range missile and interceptor testing, and resources for deep intelligence and cyber cooperation.

At the Knesset, Modi expressed absolute “moral clarity” about Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attacks. “We feel your pain; we share your grief … Nothing can justify terrorism”, he said. Connecting civilizational values, he cited Tikkun Olam (the Hebrew phrase for “repairing the world”) alongside Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the Sanskrit phrase for “The World is One Family”).

He noted that for millennia “Jewish communities have lived in India without fear of persecution or discrimination”. India stands as a safe haven for Jews who first arrived c. 562 BCE during the reign of King Solomon. Larger waves sought refuge in 70 CE fleeing Roman persecution after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Later waves came after expulsion from European countries and the Ottoman Empire because of religious bigotry.

Many Jewish families gained fame and helped to build Indian prosperity, including the Sassoons of Bombay, Ezras of Calcutta, Cochin’s Judah, Elias, Koders and Rahabis, and the Currimbhoys and Sopariwalas of Maharashtra. Many Jewish women and men served in the highest ranks of Indian government, science and medicine.

Jewish generals and other high ranks have fought in royal armies through centuries right up to each war since India’s independence in 1947, including with Pakistan and China. Major General Jacob Farj Rafael Jacob, Chief of Staff of the Indian Army’s Eastern Command, accepted the unconditional surrender of Pakistan’s Lieutenant General A.A.K. Niazi and 93,000 military personnel on December 16, 1971, when India birthed Bangladesh.

India declared war after Pakistani operatives committed alleged genocide in the then East Pakistan over a nine-month period in 1971. Pakistan contests the allegations but independent historians estimated deaths at 300,000 to 500,00 while Bangladesh authorities estimated three million killed.

Major General Jacob is credited with planning and leading the lightening 13-day war and famously gave Lieutenant General Niazi a 30-minute ultimatum to publicly accept unconditional surrender. He remains a revered national hero and received India’s highest military award; Israel engraved a commemorative plaque with his name on the Wall of Honour at Jerusalem’s Ammunition Hill in 2019.

Above all, India never forgot Israel’s prompt help during the May 1999 Kargil war with Pakistan, fought at heights of 11,000 to 18,000 feet. Taken by surprise, India suffered severe equipment shortages because of US and Western sanctions following its 1998 nuclear tests. Only Israel stepped up to speed weapons directly to the frontlines despite intense adverse pressure from Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and Brussels.

India decisively won the 84-day war because Israel immediately delivered laser-guided munitions, surveillance drones and heavy ammunition. It then became India’s second-largest weapons supplier with Delhi buying 34% of its military exports. This year, Modi signed $8.6 billion in new arms contracts, including joint production of an anti-missile shield similar to the Iron Dome and Arrow systems. He established an unprecedented “Special Strategic Partnership” despite Israel’s growing international isolation.

India’s efficient Unified Payments Interface (UPI) has been fully integrated into the Israeli banking matrix, allowing instant, mobile-to-mobile cross-border remittances. A free-trade agreement has been fast-tracked to buttress both countries against world trade volatility.

Delhi is deeply engaged in the I2U2 group (India, Israel, UAE, US) and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) to link South Asian supply lines directly to the Mediterranean. At their 2026 summit, both leaders began looping India, Israel, Greece, and Cyprus into a coordinated security grid to police maritime shipping and counter regional threats. This is especially important for consolidating Israeli influence in its oil and gas-rich Mediterranean waters and empower India to dissuade Turkey from giving anti-India diplomatic or military support to arch-enemy Pakistan.

India’s Adani Group is the majority owner of Israel’s strategic Port of Haifa, which handles nearly half of Israel’s containerized cargo. It is developing massive commercial real estate in the area and radically modernizing the port as a key hub of IMEC.

These relationships have not wavered despite Israel’s growing international isolation. Surprisingly because of them, Delhi has tighter relationships with the Gulf kingdoms and Iran while also providing a helping hand for Tel Aviv’s outreach to developing countries in the global south.

ID 147194082 | Israel India Flag ©
Svershinsky | Dreamstime.com

The post Trump and Vance have rebuked Israel but it has another friend. appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

A breakdown of ticket holders by nationality or team affinity at Sunday’s Ecuador-Ivory Coast World Cup match at the Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia is, of course, not available. However, judging from the sea of bright yellow and blue, the vast majority of the nearly 70,000 fans were certainly passionate fans of Ecuador, wearing some form of their team’s “home jersey.” Among them my sister, Norma Colyer, and her beautiful granddaughter, Emily Colyer, proudly wearing Ecuador’s colors (below).

Wearing or displaying one team’s colors — whether in soccer, baseball, football or chariot racing — to show team pride, support or loyalty is not new.

Back in ancient Rome, fans wore blue, green, red or white colors to show support for their favorite chariot racing teams — the Blues, Greens, Reds, and Whites.

Soccer fans have been showing their team loyalty since the early 1900s using scarves, ribbons and other items in teams’ colors.

As soccer became an international sport, especially after the World Cup’s first tournament in 1930, shirts and hats resembling teams’ uniforms and reflecting on both the team’s and the fan’s national identity became more popular worldwide. The World Cup jersey has now become one of the most recognizable symbols of football culture.

At Fantasy Names Aura, Elton Philip explains “Why Football Fans Love World Cup Jerseys.”

“Wearing a jersey allows supporters to feel connected to their favorite teams and players…[jerseys] symbolize…represent their homeland and football heritage,” he writes.

Philip adds that wearing these jerseys makes fans feel connected with their football heroes, gives them a sense of belonging, helps them feel part of a larger soccer family.

Today, the Word Cup jersey phenomenon has evolved not only into a booming industry that produces millions of stylish, colorful jerseys and other clothing articles for soccer fans, but also into a fashion statement that is now influencing fashion outside the soccer field, shaping what millions will wear long after World Cup fever has subsided.

Sportswear giants such as Adidas, Nike and Puma, along with scores of smaller companies, try hard to meet the growing demand for authentic and replica national World Cup jerseys and “team kits” (the primary “home” uniform a national football team wears during matches).

A demand that is clearly reflected in a report that there has been “a 652% jump in searches for World Cup jerseys in the last five weeks, and a 26% increase in sales week over week.”

As mentioned, the demand for soccer style clothing extends beyond the soccer stadium stands.

The Spanish global retailer Sivasdescalzo (SVD) says this about the connection between soccer and style, “Football references no longer belong exclusively to the stands — they are now fully embedded in the global fashion conversation.”

Some say this trend started in the 1980s and 1990s when British football aficionados “began incorporating their team’s colors and logos into everyday attire…the beginnings of blokecore.”

Today, blokecore is alive and well and has become more mainstream. However, it is more than a retro-style jersey, baggy bottoms and scuffed-up sneakers.

World Cup team uniforms are now seriously swaying everyday fashion trends with famous designers and major design houses embracing the new blokecore look in their collections.
.
SVD describes it this way:

Today, [the World Cup] also shapes how we dress, which sneakers we wear, and which cultural references dominate the conversation. From vintage football jerseys to technical boots reinterpreted as fashion objects, as well as collaborations between brands and designers directly inspired by the pitch, football culture has become one of the most influential languages in contemporary fashion…

Interestingly, high fashion has also arrived for the uniforms of World Cup teams and players, with luxury fashion houses deeply involved in designing and producing team uniforms that not only make a fashion statement, but also reflect the team’s country’s culture, history, traditions and colors.

For example, Ecuador’s 2026 World Cup “home” jersey’s primary color is a vibrant yellow, the major color of Ecuador’s flag. It is embossed with geometric patterns and textured lines drawing from Ecuador’s rich culture and biodiversity. Below the rear collar, the phrase “Soñar Trascender y Hacer Historia” (“Dream, Transcend and Make History”)…exactly what Ecuador hopes to do in the 2026 World Cup.

The post World Cup Fashionistas appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Trump has been adamant about climate change being fake for many years and has ended measures that would have helped moderate it. He removed the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords for the second time after Biden had rejoined it. He has been against renewable energy and has allowed the Chinese to dominate the field. Stopping the building of wind farms that were partially completed, companies are awaiting rulings on these actions by the judiciary. However, the administration paid the energy companies almost $900 billion to kill their wind projects and invest in fossil fuels. Seven Democratic states that were expecting more and cheaper energy from wind are suing the Trump administration. Besides hurting energy production, cutting wind farms will eliminate huge numbers of jobs and damage the economy. The President has also stopped federal subsidies for electric cars and essentially killed the electric vehicle industry in the United States, ceding the field to China. Trump supports unlimited use of fossil fuels for transportation and energy, including coal, the dirtiest of these substances. In fact, he wants to stop almost all closures of coal plants. Taxpayers have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to keep these aging coal plants open on Trump’s orders. Some of his biggest supporters and donors are fossil fuel magnates, and it is uncertain whether this convinced him to oppose renewable energy, which is cheaper for consumers, healthier and more efficient. The scientific data on global warming is clear, but Trump has never paid much attention to science or experts. An administration proposal in May 2026 would add a new annual fee on electric vehicles for road usage, since there is no payment of federal fuel taxes. Recent evidence suggests that the time course for global warming to wreak havoc on our planet may be longer than previously believed, but its effects will still be devastating. And aside from global warming, the use of fossil fuels themselves is unhealthy, with particulate matter in the air from gasoline and coal causing respiratory problems in many individuals. Coal is particularly unhealthy, both for miners (black lung disease), and the population at large (respiratory problems from polluted air). This is also true of the smoke from forest fires that has become more frequent with global warming. And the storms, hurricanes and flooding that have resulted from climate change are also responsible for death and damage all over the planet. Growing crops has been impacted as well, with famines and starvation as desertification occurs in some areas. But Trump is unconvinced of the significance of climate change and the role of fossil fuels in its production. The EPA headed by Lee Zelden ruled in February 2026 that climate change did not endanger public health despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary. Trump is fully in agreement with this decision, his administration rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding that the six greenhouse gases were driving climate change, including carbon dioxide and methane. The EPA also reversed regulations that limited hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired plants, including mercury, other heavy metals and toxic substances. Under Trump’s aegis, the EPA has abandoned its legal obligations to protect Americans’ health and the environment. 546 polluting facilities have been given exemptions from Clean Air Act rules, permitting toxic air pollution to be uncontrolled. It is estimated that 4.6 million Americans could be exposed to higher cancer risks, some of whom already have air-pollution risks 80 times greater than existing EPA standards. Some of the companies that Zeldin excluded from EPA pollution rules have provided funds for Trump or MAGA related organizations.
The reasons the Trump administration is ignoring climate change and clean air is not important. There must be realization of the health hazards these impose on the American population.
www.robertlevinebooks .com

ID 33349670 ©
Elnur | Dreamstime.com

The post Trump and Climate appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Are we now seeing the unfolding of the latest manifestation of Donald Trump’s second term retribution campaign? It seems we are:

Major Democratic Trump critic California Governor Gavin Newsom says Trump’s Justice Department is investigating him and his wife. And he’s throwing down the gauntlet.

Federal agents have questioned friends and associates of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and his wife, Mr. Newsom said on Monday in a video in which he accused President Trump of using the Justice Department to punish a political enemy.

The full scope of any investigation remains unclear. But Mr. Newsom’s aides say part of the federal investigation appears to focus on his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Former employees of the governor and people affiliated with his wife’s nonprofit groups are among those who have been questioned by agents, according to the governor’s office.

A person familiar with the matter confirmed that multiple federal investigations were underway related to the governor, including one looking at his wife’s finances. But the person disputed Mr. Newsom’s assertion that the investigations were politically motivated, and said they had been initiated by federal law enforcement officials in California, not launched by officials in Washington. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Mr. Newsom, a Democrat who is widely seen as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, the last year of Mr. Trump’s term, described the investigation as a fishing expedition in which federal agents had started sifting through “years and years of random documents” and knocking on the doors of family friends and associates of the Newsoms to try to find evidence of an unspecified crime.

“Donald Trump isn’t just coming after me because of my mean tweets,” Mr. Newsom said in the video. “He’s coming after me because I am considering running for president.” He added, “To get me, he’s coming after my wife.”

Several people associated with the Newsoms have been contacted by federal agents in the past week, according to the governor’s office. Mr. Newsom’s aides believe the agents have also subpoenaed banking records, but said they had seen no written evidence of that.

Siebal Newsom is also speaking out:

Ms. Siebel Newsom said Mr. Trump would stop at nothing to try to punish those who stand up to him.

“This is not presidential behavior, and the Governor and I will continue to speak truth to power because the American people deserve so much more,” she said in a statement.

Ms. Siebel Newsom, who calls herself California’s first partner, is a documentary filmmaker whose work focuses on the social impacts of sexism. She founded a nonprofit organization called the Representation Project that advocates for gender equity, in part by developing educational materials based on Ms. Siebel Newsom’s documentaries.

Ms. Siebel Newsom also owns a film production company called Girls Club Entertainment. It is listed as a contractor of the Representation Project on the nonprofit’s tax returns. Tax records show that the Representation Project makes annual payments to Girls Club Entertainment. In 2024, the nonprofit paid Girls Club Entertainment $161,250 for film production work.

Ms. Siebel Newsom is also a co-founder of the California Partners Project, a nonprofit that works to get more women onto corporate boards, address the gender pay gap and make technology safer for children. Some of the donors that support the California Partners Project are groups with business before the state government.

For years, critics have raised the possibility of self-dealing, but no public evidence of wrongdoing by any of the entities tied to Ms. Siebel Newsom has surfaced, and it remains unclear what precise issues and actions investigators have been asking questions about.

MADDOW: “Just in case you needed a window into who the Trump Administration is worried about as a potential democratic presidential candidate for 2028 — I would say this investigation into Newsom is as good an indication as any.” pic.twitter.com/ZuTP89H0gr

— Newsom News (@NewsomNews) June 16, 2026

NYT'S @GlennThrush: “It is uncanny… It is a heck of a coincidence that the only investigations that we keep hearing about involve Democrats and President Trump's targets. There don't seem to be any allies of President Trump's on these lists of investigative targets." pic.twitter.com/5MBN4HXqMQ

— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) June 16, 2026

?HUGE scoop from @CarolLeonnig.

MS Now confirms the Trump administration has been pressuring career civil servants to “COME UP with a case against Gavin Newsom.” pic.twitter.com/Y6HJauSQBS

— Izzy Gardon (@iGardon) June 15, 2026

SPOT ON perspective from @anitachabria: "This attack on Siebel Newsom is something much darker in our slide into authoritarianism…. it has all the appearances of the Trump admin seeking to stop a political rival who has a real shot at knocking MAGA out of the top office."…

— Izzy Gardon (@iGardon) June 16, 2026

This attack on Gov. Newsom represents a dangerous escalation by Trump.

The President frequently calls for the jailing of his perceived enemies, but his playbook of weaponizing the Department of Justice as a personal attack dog is another level of corruption.

This must stop. https://t.co/71AudfK87S

— Governor JB Pritzker (@GovPritzker) June 15, 2026

BREAKING NEWS: Gavin Newsom just filed a FOIA request demanding DOJ emails, texts, memos, and Signal messages mentioning him or his wife.

The request specifically names Pam Bondi, Emil Bove, and Todd Blanche.

Why?

Because Newsom says federal agents have been contacting… pic.twitter.com/VJRLws1eWI

— P a u l ? (@SkylineReport) June 16, 2026

Gov. Newsom: "I'd like to say something to my wife: These times are not normal. They are not ordinary. I love you. I am sorry he is doing this. You have not earned a single one of the indignities that he is trying to inflict on you and our children." https://t.co/cjYWGvcdXN

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 15, 2026

MADDOW: “Just in case you needed a window into who the Trump Administration is worried about as a potential democratic presidential candidate for 2028 — I would say this investigation into Newsom is as good an indication as any.” pic.twitter.com/ZuTP89H0gr

— Newsom News (@NewsomNews) June 16, 2026

MATTHEWS: "I mean, it's basically a badge of honor for Gavin Newsom. And it's an in-kind donation to his 2028 presidential campaign. I think that trump is going after him because he sees him as a threat, and it's only going to help him with voters" pic.twitter.com/gD8NQxqaea

— Newsom News (@NewsomNews) June 16, 2026

After Trump called for Gavin Newsom’s arrest, Trump’s DOJ began to investigate the Governor’s wife. SICK!

CNN: “The investigation into Newsom's wife appears to have begun LAST YEAR and we know that there's been recently a flurry of activity outreach to his associates.. . It’s… pic.twitter.com/m0QGG8fiAr

— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) June 16, 2026

MSNOW's @ProfMMurray nails it: Trump's investigation isn't about finding a crime. It's about sending a message.

Go after Donald Trump and he'll send the DOJ after you, your family, and anyone else who stands in his way.

"Gavin Newsom is someone who has brought the fight to the… pic.twitter.com/xG4WXOoOr8

— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) June 16, 2026

Donald Trump has forced the Department of Justice to launch a sham investigation into Governor Newsom and his family solely because he's a political enemy. They don't have any evidence, and they aren't even looking for a particular crime. All while Trump continues to commit… https://t.co/HLm78QBHzR

— Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (@RepKamlagerDove) June 16, 2026

BREAKING: In a stunning moment, CNN just broke down how Donald Trump's efforts to weaponize the Department of Justice against Gavin Newsom will backfire spectacularly. This is amazing. pic.twitter.com/Js8PVr5PB6

— Democratic Wins Media (@DemocraticWins) June 15, 2026

Trump has made no secret of targeting his political enemies. It’s wrong. It’s unAmerican. It’s corrupt. https://t.co/m2aU4hlXps

— Alex Padilla (@AlexPadilla4CA) June 15, 2026

My office is demanding the Trump Administration release any and all records on the Trump DOJ’s politically motivated, baseless fishing expedition.

The American people deserve to know who ordered this abuse of power and how far it goes. pic.twitter.com/9zzT6DW1aX

— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) June 16, 2026

Trump is really doing a good job of elevating Gavin Newsom in the ‘28 presidential sweepstakes.

PS, whomever Democrats nominate is going to win, so giving Newsom a big boost early is a BFD.

— Jon “Bowzer” Bauman (@JonBowzerBauman) June 15, 2026

The President’s abuse of the Justice Department continues, with new targets every day.

The Governor won't be silenced. Nor will my Senate colleagues. Nor will I. In the face of vindictive and baseless investigations, we are defiant and unbowed. https://t.co/h14CPilIm3

— Senator Adam Schiff (@SenAdamSchiff) June 15, 2026

Gov. @GavinNewsom: To Donald Trump, who I know is watching because he watches everything, I have a message for you. You can subpoena my records, you can investigate me, you can harass me. Put my name on every and any enemies list you have, but leave my wife and family out of your… pic.twitter.com/fm0SwVQyvj

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 15, 2026

The post GAVIN NEWSOM SAYS TRUMP’S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS INVESTIGATING HIM AND HIS WIFE appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Shehbaz Sharif, the prime minister of Pakistan, which served as the key negotiator between the U.S. and Iran, announced on June 14, 2026, that the two sides had agreed on a deal to end the war. It will be officially signed on June 19 in Switzerland.

President Donald Trump announced it on Truth Social as a triumph, claiming that the Strait of Hormuz is open for everyone, the U.S. blockade has been lifted, and the oil is flowing again. What Trump did not mention was Iran’s nuclear program and what happens to its enriched uranium stockpile, one of the main reasons cited for starting the war.

The nuclear issue – along with core issues such as ballistic missiles and Iran’s proxies – has been deferred for 60 days.

This raises two important questions: What was the war actually for? And what did the U.S. achieve?

As an international and nuclear security expert, I believe the answer is nothing – and in the process the U.S. lost credibility as a negotiating partner.

Why the nuclear question is the hardest

The “rationalist theory of war,” as developed by political scientist James Fearon in 1995, identifies three problems that drive states to war when they would prefer to reach a deal: incomplete information about each other’s resolve; the inability to credibly promise a deal or commitment; and what international relations scholars call the indivisibility problem – when the thing in dispute cannot be split or shared, because it leaves no middle ground to settle on.

The war clarified the first reason. Each side saw what the other would actually do – how much force the U.S. was willing to use and what Iran could absorb while still staying in the fight.

What the war could not solve was the nuclear commitment problem. And this goes far back between the U.S. and Iran.

Iran adhered to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the landmark nuclear deal that restricted Tehran’s nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency verified that Tehran kept uranium enrichment to 3.67% and its stockpile under 300 kilograms – a concentration used to fuel a power reactor but far too low for a weapons program.

But the U.S. walked away in 2018, and Trump later called it “the worst deal ever” over its sunset clauses and on its silence on Iran’s ballistic missiles.

Iran returned to negotiations in 2025, and the U.S. and Israel bombed Iran while those talks were still taking place. Similarly, in February 2026 the negotiations were ongoing and a deal was within reach when Israel and the U.S. struck Iran – killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and lead negotiator Ali Larijani.

The U.S. has demonstrated a record of reneging on its deals and breaking the negotiating process. Which is why Iran now insists on guarantees and demands sanctions relief before signing a deal, and not just good faith.

A state that previously kept its commitments and was still bombed has little reason to accept promises of relief in the future. For this reason, I believe the 60-day deferral is a window for Tehran to watch whether the U.S. and Israel will hold the ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon.

The third problem of indivisibility – when the thing or issue in dispute can’t be split or shared – is why the nuclear question is the hardest.

Most disputes can be split. Sanctions, for example, can be lifted by degrees. Even a nuclear program can be split, which the world saw in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action deal, with centrifuges counted, enrichment capped and a stockpile metered.

What cannot be split is the U.S. demand for zero uranium enrichment and Tehran calling uranium enrichment a sovereign right.

A deal, a war and a ceasefire

The 2015 nuclear deal also limited Iran’s centrifuges – the machines that do the enriching – and placed Iran’s nuclear program under the most intrusive inspections, all in exchange for sanctions relief.

The nuclear question was not part of the 2015 deal – it was the actual deal.

During the June 2025 negotiations with Iran, and again in February 2026, the U.S. position was about the nuclear program, but in the opposite direction from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It was not about limits but the total elimination of Iran’s nuclear program.

In both rounds of talks in 2025 and 2026, Washington’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, demanded zero enrichment and the dismantling of Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan – Iran’s three most important nuclear sites. Iran called enrichment a sovereign right and refused.

Both rounds of negotiations ended in bombings.

The current deal to be signed on June 19 does not put a cap on Iran’s enrichment, nor does it discuss the elimination of its nuclear program. It ends the fighting, reopens the Strait of Hormuz and consigns enrichment, the stockpile, missiles and Iran’s regional proxies to 60-day negotiations.

In a recent New York Times interview, Trump said he was in no rush to remove the near-bomb-grade fuel still buried under the bombed sites. He claimed Iran would suspend enrichment for 15 or 20 years and enrich only for nonmilitary purposes.

In the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action deal under President Barack Obama, the nuclear question was addressed where 97% of Iran’s stockpile was shipped out of the country and the cap was a verified fact.

Because it doesn’t address any of these issues, the Trump deal is a ceasefire agreement, not a nuclear agreement.

A costly return to the status quo

Going back to the bargaining theory, we know the war settled the information problem – it revealed what each side would endure.

The commitment problem remains. Neither side can yet make a promise the other believes, least of all an Iran whose negotiators were killed.

And I believe the indivisibility problem is now worse. The question of zero enrichment versus a sovereign right cannot be split. The current 60-day deferral is not a resolution. It is the same unsolved problem with a clock attached.

The one thing that could change is American restraint. If Washington holds Israel from striking Iran and Lebanon, it can slowly rebuild its credibility that was destroyed by the two wars. And that is a real challenge for the Trump administration.

Even as the deal was being finalized, Israel struck Beirut, the kind of action that can derail any talks.

In my view, the 60-day window should be read not as the path to a settlement but as the interval or pause before the next one fails.

I argued in April that this conflict would not end in a clean settlement but in a series of contested pauses. The deal to be signed on June 19 is the first of them.

Iran emerges with its enrichment knowledge intact, its stockpile buried and fresh reason to believe that only a nuclear weapon would have deterred the U.S.-Israel attack.

But Iran also knows that it stood its ground and was able to strike U.S. bases and allies in the region. It has discovered leverage it did not previously know it held. The Strait of Hormuz has proved a better deterrent than the nuclear bomb.

The strait is open, the oil is flowing, and the question the war was fought over sits exactly where it began. Thousands of lives were lost to arrive back to square one. Nobody has won, though both sides will say they did.

Farah N. Jan, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Trump’s US-Iran ceasefire deal is a costly return to prewar conditions — and resolving nuclear questions will run into the ‘indivisibility problem’ appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

The post IRAN PEACE DEAL KOOL AID SERVED UP AT G7 appeared first on The Moderate Voice.