Donald Trump is a loser in the Iran war's "on again and off again" quasi peace talks. JD Vance is acting like a passenger on the Titanic

A very unpopular war, fought very badly: 

Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial

Donald Trump cheat and lies about everything.  Trump has no idea what he is doing in the Iran war that he created. So he invents stuff on a daily basis with a "ground-hog day" demented style deeply-flawed mentality. Obviously, JD Vance is unqualified to handle the negotiations.

With the Iran bombing paused yet again (on-again and off-again) and negotiations beginning for the umpteenth time, Donald Trump’s war has finally accomplished something considered unthinkable.

It has united red and blue America because everyone can find something in the Iran treaty proposal to detest.
America did not declare war on Iran. Trump did❗ Americans never had a chance to debate putting American blood and treasure at risk. Trump made sure of it.

Congress was kept in the dark. Trump wanted it that way. Now, Trump owns the war that claimed the lives of 13 American service members and many scores of Iranian schoolgirls.

He owns the still-unfolding economic havoc it created. He owns its unpopularity. A June AP-NORC poll showed 65% of Americans were displeased with his handling of the war, with only a majority of Republicans that are politically forced into being supportive.

A one-sided capitulation

He also owns the justifiably reviled terms of a treaty that might — or might not — end it.

Anyone who reads the outline of those terms knows that despite Washington’s lipstick-on-a-pig posturing, if America can exit this war at all, it will do so as the biggest loser.

Iran will be gifted a $300 billion reconstruction fund paid for by the U.S. and unspecified partners.

It can start selling its oil again at market rates, a massive win after being squeezed for years by U.S. sanctions. Other tankers can now freely transit the Strait of Hormuz, just as they could before the war, with no tolls.

But that’s only for 60 days. Once unthinkable, Iran now knows how to make money by blocking access to the crucial waterway, and despite the treaty talks, is already making plans to do so.

No limits on missiles

There are no restrictions on Iran building new missiles, either❓

It would not be fair to say no to Iran on that, Trump explained. Besides, he said, the Iranian leadership he once derided as “deranged scumbags” and “animals” were now “nice to deal with.”

Perhaps that is why he believes Iran will commit to not building a nuclear weapon, although it had already pledged not to do so in President Obama’s 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

Ever the narcissistic showman, Trump famously ripped it in two, paving the way for increased enriched uranium stockpiling, which, he once said, was the reason for this war.

As for helping the Iranian protesters that Trump once declared America would rescue? Well guess what❓

That’s not even on the table.

Living under the constant threat of Iranian-supported terrorism, Israelis have more reason to attack Iran than America, and more experience in recognizing a treacherous deal. And 92% of Israelis believe Iran has won.

True to form, the Trump administration responded to Tel Aviv criticism with a threat.

Israelis, said Vice President JD Vance, should not attack “the only powerful ally (they have) anywhere left in the entire world.”

But Trump’s war showed the world that America is not the all-powerful friend of any Mideast country.

We could not protect Iran’s neighbors and our allies from bombardment by Iran. Cheap drones rendered our battleships ineffective at keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, despite daily chest-thumping about how many bombs we were dropping.

We have fought a bad war badly, not because of our skilled and brave troops, but because of the men who led them.

That’s why Vance is not actually in Switzerland negotiating a treaty to end Trump’s war.

He’s negotiating how much money America will have to pay to make it all go away before the midterms.

The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board

Donald Trump is in political quicksand with his failed Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz status is uncertain

Trump Acknowledges His Iran War Isn’t Really Over (Ya'think❓)

Obviously, the Iran cease-fire is dead. Long live the cease-fire.

Echo report published in New York Magazine Intelligencer by Chas Danner.

(So, has Iran surrendered yet ❓)

So, guess what❓The U.S. and Iran are striking each other again, and there is at least some concern that the tit-for-tat status quo may turn back into a full-blown hot war despite both sides signing the much heralded but actually crappy memorandum of understanding less than a month ago, at Versailles, where the World War One armistice was signed and Germany surrendered.  

On Tuesday, Iran tried to reassert its dominion over the not-totally-reopened Strait of Hormuz by striking some commercial ships near Oman — whose territorial waters are being used for a U.S.-backed route which avoids dealing with Iran. The U.S. responded with air strikes on targets in Iran and by reimposing sanctions on Iranian oil exports. Iran responded to that with air strikes targeting, it said, U.S. bases in Gulf nations. 

Now the price of oil is back on the rise while everyone waits to see if this remains a measured back-and-forth or suddenly spirals out of control. In a rare admission of reality, as it pertains to this conflict, Donald Trump on Wednesday said the cease-fire was over and that ongoing negotiations were a “waste of time.”

“To me, I think it’s over,” he told reporters at the NATO Summit (when he was not sleeping) in Ankara, Turkey, on Wednesday. “I don’t want to deal with them,”🙄 😬he said, referring to Iran’s regime, whom he called “scum” and “sick,” “violent” people.

😖😓
As far as I’m concerned, it’s over. I’ll speak to our negotiators. They want to negotiate. They’re good people, Steve Woodkoff, Jared Kushner, but they have to come back to me. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a waste of time dealing with them. They’re liars.

And he also suggested reinstating the U.S. naval blockade and warned of another wave of air strikes soon:

We hit them very hard last night. Very, very hard. Probably hit them hard again tonight. I’ll give them a little warning, we’re going to hit them hard again tonight.

And Trump again threatened to blow up Iran’s bridges and energy and water infrastructure, and again suggested the U.S. might take over Kharg Island, Iran’s critical oil-export hub. Iran still has almost no missiles left, he insisted. 

Plus, Trump claimed the U.S. has already killed two sets of Iranian leaders while emphasizing how they have never been able to kill him.

We took out their first set of leaders, we took out their second set of leaders. They want to take out the U.S. leader, me. I’m on every list. I saw things this morning. I’m on every single one of their lists. And so far I guess I’ve been a little bit lucky, but that maybe doesn’t last very long. Because that’s the way it goes. We have great people. But these are evil, sick people, and we have to rid — they’re cancer, they’re cancer, and you know what you do❓You got to cut out cancer early. And that’s the way I feel.

We’ll probably find out soon enough whether or not this escalation of violence will lead back to full-blown war. Trump stressed how much harder and tougher U.S. strikes were compared to Iran’s, while U.S. officials noted that they were punishment strikes, not proportional ones. If that is the new mentality on both sides, a return to full-blown war may be inevitable.

Trump disagrees. He said Wednesday that he didn’t think the war was going to start again. “I think it’s going to go very quickly,” he explained, suggesting the violence was in fact still a tit-for-tat, with the U.S. no longer just responding in kind.

But in order to move forward, as INSS analyst Danny Citrinowicz points out, the U.S. must reckon with the fact that Iran clearly has no intention of giving up its control over the Strait of Hormuz:

We keep coming back to the same fundamental question: What does the U.S. administration actually want❓ If Washington’s priority is reaching a durable agreement with Iran, it will have to accept that there is no realistic return to the status quo that existed in the Strait of Hormuz before February 28. From Tehran’s perspective, the rules of the game have changed, and it is unlikely to reverse course simply because of additional pressure.

If, however, the administration’s priority is restoring the previous maritime status quo, then it should also recognize that the chances of a U.S.-Iran agreement decline significantly, while the risk of renewed escalation increases. The administration cannot pursue both objectives simultaneously. It must decide which one matters more.

The current memorandum of understanding, much like previous interim arrangements elsewhere, was negotiated quickly in order to preserve diplomacy. (I.O.W. it was a U.S. surrender signed for the purpose of opening the Strait of Hormuz, but it has flopped❗)

In fact, the core disputes, including Lebanon and the Strait of Hormuz, remain unresolved. Those are not peripheral issues; they are central to both sides’ strategic calculations.

Trump also once again called the war “a tremendous military success” on Wednesday, so there are clearly still limits to his recognition of reality.

International outrage on the record about corrupt Donald Trump and his incompetent administration

 Fara Kaufman  @justfara

BREAKING: (Published on X/ - formerly Twitter) French Senator Claude Malhuret TORCHES Donald and his alcoholic, drug-addicted administration on the floor of the Luxembourg Palace: "Every time the Epstein affair resurfaces, bombs explode somewhere in the world and cause a distraction!" This might be the greatest MAGA takedown of all time. Nobody was spared... "A year ago, here in France, I compared Trump's presidency to Nero's Court. I was wrong. It's the miracle court. 

An anti-vaxxer, former heroin addict as Minister of Health," he said, referring to RFK Jr. Malhuret's comparison to the mad Emperor Nero is fitting. It's said that he fiddled while Rome burned. In Trump's case, he's building a ballroom while the entire world goes up in flames. "A climate-skeptic Minister of Economy. 

An alcoholic (a.k.a.Hegseth) and TV host, Minister of the Armed Forces," Malhuret continued, referring to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "An old Qatar agent, Minister of Justice. A groupie of Putin, Minister of National Security," Malhuret went on, referring to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Bondi previously worked for the Ballard Partners firm which raked in $115,000 a month by lobbying on behalf of Qatar. 

"A Turkish proverb says 'When a clown settles in a palace, he does not become king, it is the palace that becomes a circus'," said Malhuret. "His fine team has decided to create a competitor to the UN. Since the creation of the Board of Peace, Trump has triggered more military strikes than Biden during his entire term." 

"Every time the Epstein affair resurfaces, bombs explode somewhere in the world and cause a distraction," he continued. "Bomb more to win more." This is how the world now sees the American president: as a pedophile desperately exploiting his role as commander-in-chief to obscure the fact that he preyed on children with his long-time pal Jeffrey Epstein. "There isn't a single country where Trump did not take advantage of the situation to enrich himself without ever forgetting his family. 

A Boeing plane offered by Qatar," he said, referring to the 💲400 million jet that Qatar "gifted" to Trump. "Investment in all Gulf projects or elsewhere. Stock market manipulation that only a few insiders benefit from." "Any one of these conflicts of interest would have caused an immediate procedure of impeachment here," Malhuret. "But we are not here. We are in MAGA's America where public business is conducted in favor of private interests." 

Rarely have we heard such an exhaustive yet succinct distillation of the Trump administration's rampant criminality and incompetence. By focusing on individual Cabinet members and what makes them uniquely unfit for office and then expanding the aperture to the broader patterns of corruption and malignancy, Malhuret delivered a master class in political messaging. 

Every mainstream outlet in the U.S. should be running this speech to show Americans what the world thinks of our leaders. 

Since they won't, please make sure to like and share to spread this far and wide❗

Graham Platner's accusers never gave interviews under oath with risk of perjury but the Maine Democrat was subjected to well funded opposition research

All The Women They Didn't Believe (In all honesty, women who testified under oath about Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Thomas were also not believed.)

A Graham Platner Fiasco Post-mortem

Maine's Democratic Party is responsible for this political mess but the Republicans set the stage with well funded oppositional research.

“The vetting firm, which was paid 💲6,250, according to federal disclosures, followed up days later with additional limited vetting. They didn’t do a candidate interview or questionnaire.

On June 10, Platner won the Maine Democratic primary with more than 70 percent of the vote.  (Maine Writer- A massive grass roots social media campaign pushed Mr. Platner to an overwhelming margin of victory in the Maine Democratic primary, even though the vetted candidate Governor Janel Mills kept her name on the ballot even after stepping down from the primary. His margin of victory was astonishing to Republicans.  Opposition research leaped in and took over all the campaign messaging.  Instead of the focus being on the terrible Senator Susan Colllins voting record, the story because an AI generated negative campaign against Mr. Platner. The amount of dark money poured into destroying Mr. Platner will never be known.)

Charlie Sykes Jul 8.

Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but the war in Iran seems to be back on, at least for the moment. 

Taking a break from berating and alienating our NATO allies, and fantasizing about Greenland, Donald Trump suggested that the peace “deal” is “over” as the two countries unleashed a new wave of strikes on Tuesday. "They're scum. They're ​sick people. They're led by sick people," Trump said of the mullahs he was praising just days ago.

(IOW Trump is batshit 💩crazy)

 "As far as I'm concerned, it's just a waste of time dealing with them." Oil prices surged and we’re just learning that the Pentagon is running out of money.

Lessons from Maine's Graham Platner Fiasco

As we wait for Graham Platner to drop out of the Maine Senate race (TBD whether it be timely, gracious, or bitter)¹ it seems worthwhile to take a moment to sift through the wreckage. You undoubtedly know the arc of the narrative so far: Frustrated with the sclerotic “establishment” and their desire for a beer-track, working class “fighter,” Democrats embraced Platner’s image before they got to know the man himself. (Maine Writer:  Democrats in Maine are so anxious to remove Senator Susan Collins, we were willing to back her polar opposite to defeat her.  Platner had a clear path to achieve this goal but the Maine Democratic Party did not provide for a thorough vetting.) 

That deafening roar you hear now is the collective mea culpas of the punditocracy and political class fiercely back-pedaling from their rationalizations and defenses of the candidate who now faces credible allegations of sexual abuse and rape.

So, an autopsy of this clusterfuq seems in order, don’t you think?

How did Democrats find themselves embracing such a flawed candidate❓ Why were so many red flags missed or ignored❓ And how did a party that often declared we should “believe the women,” decide to ignore so many of them❓

How did this go so terribly wrong? Let us count the ways.

The “consultants” who recruited Platner without vetting him. (See: “The ‘Mad Scientist’ Behind Graham Platner’s Scandal-Plagued Rise” - WSJ / And for your daily dose of cringe: “The Strategist Behind Platner’s Rise Explains His Vetting Process.”

Donald Trump and maga Republicans are causing harm to people with disabilities by changing their rights to education

Just a harshly cruel reminder about how the Nazis also targeted people with special needs. 

Echo Letters to the Editor: 'Trump's policies strip disabled Americans of their rights' Los Angeles Times Opinion

It's been said that you measure the degree of civilization of a society by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Using this standard, how will America be judged❓

Donald Trump recently moved the education of disabled Americans from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services ("Trump's actions signal a move toward institutionalizing people with disabilities, advocates warn," July 2). This threatens the rights of the disabled by promoting a "medical model" of disability and reducing government obligations to provide community-based services.*

Moving education of the disabled to a health agency frames disabilities as medical defects to be "cured" or "treated," rather than acknowledging the "social model," in which differences are accommodated and students learn alongside their peers in the least restrictive environment. 

This move would isolate disabled students, separate them from mainstream classrooms and result in less tailored educational goals. Further, a recent Justice Department memo questioned decades of civil rights protections under the Supreme Court's Olmstead vs. L.C. decision, suggesting states are not required to provide the home- and community-based services that keep disabled Americans out of institutions.

Trump's policies strip disabled Americans of their rights. Los Angeles public schools provide excellent education for disabled children and those with special needs in the community. 

Do not let America be judged as a people who stripped the most vulnerable among us of their rights.

From Thomas Keens, in La Cañada Flintridge

*Nazis targeted people with disabilities for forced sterilization and mass murder, deeming them a financial burden and genetic threat. Beginning in 1939 with a secret operation called Aktion T4, at least 250,000 individuals with mental or physical disabilities were murdered in specialized killing centers and asylums using gas chambers and lethal injections

Donald Trump created a war with Iran to remove the Epstein Files from headlines but he is stuck with the consequences

Donald Trump has failed to bring a peace agreement with Iran because he is stupid❗ He caused a war and cannot get out of it.

Trump’s reckless threats are sabotaging his own Iran negotiations

Echo opinion published in PennLiveLetters:

Donald Trump has as much self-restraint as a raging bull, and his tough talk may sabotage any possibility of a deal that would finally end his ill-advised war. The mouth that roared just can’t shut off the flow of vindictive threats that he will resume bombing even amid critical negotiations.

Does Trump not understand that the negotiations are, for the time being, keeping the Strait of Hormuz open❓ What possible 🥺good is he doing by running his mouth and messaging the world and Iran’s leaders that he is in charge—which he clearly is not. 

Is the growing criticism Republicans are giving our kingly dealmaker, whose reputation for reneging on promises is well documented, “seller’s remorse”❓

#ImpeachTrumpNOW❗

Donald Trump and maga Republicans do nothing to push back on the inflationary impact of illegal Trump tariffs

Donald Trump insists he will never repeat Herbert Hoover's economic mistakes. 

In fact, Donald Trump repeatedly stated that he does not want to be remembered like Herbert Hoover, the president who took office right before the Great Depression. He has expressed this sentiment on several occasions, including a July 2026 CNBC interview where he emphasized, "I always said I don't want to be a president with a depression on his resume. I don't want to be Herbert Hoover". In fact, Donald Trump emphasized this again when he explained why he signed the surrender document called a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), for the purpose of engaging with Iran about opening the Strait of Hormuz. Iranians closed this free and open avenue of commerce when Donald Trump launched the illegal war against Iran.  Although Donald Trump said the reason for his illegal war was to prevent Iran from creating a nuclear bomb, the Memorandum of Understanding signed at the French Palace of Versailles, was agreed to because Trump wanted to open the Strait of Hormuz, and had nothing to do with preventing Iran's nuclear capabilities. Keeping the Strait closed, when it had been opened before February 28, 2026, was the only reason why Donald Trump surrendered.  He did not want to be responsible for a world wide Great Depression caused by his illegal war.

 

Is Trump unaware that he has already repeated one of President Hoover's mistakes❓ tariffs. Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs. Trump initiated and continues to expand a similar program of tariffs. Is Trump unaware that he has already repeated one of those mistakes: tariffs❗ Echo opinion letter published in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and in Yahoo.com

Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs. Trump initiated and continues to expand a similar program of tariffs.

Trump's tariffs have contributed to inflation and increased everybody's cost of living. 

Were it not for that inflation, the Federal Reserve policy would likely favor lowering interest rates, which would lower the cost of living and promote economic expansion.

From Jim Rosenbaum, Whitefish Bay, in Wisconsin

Senator Susan Collins has caused financial harm to Maine because her vote to support the Big Ugly bill cut health care for thousands)

COLLINS’S PORK BARREL BALANCE SHEET DOESN’T ADD UP - ….and besides, it’s just more deficit spending

(Op-ed in the Press Herald) Maine can’t afford Senator Susan Collins’ earmarks: The numbers and the reality on the ground don’t lie. 

Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins

Wayne Clark, of Durham, is an eighth-generation Mainer, a retired public relations and marketing executive and author of The Blue Yankee on Substack.

Sen. Susan Collins keeps reminding us how much money she brings into Maine. That money comes from congressional “earmarks” (sometimes known as “pork”). She says she has brought in $1.5 billion over the past five years.

There’s another side to the ledger, though: how much has Sen. Collins’ subservience to Donald Trump and the GOP cost Maine?
Collins (and to be fair most of her colleagues) did not lift a finger to stop DOGE, 😡illegal tariffs, illegal wars, deteriorating foreign relations and the One Big Beautiful (Ugly❗) Bill Act. Nor has she tried to rein in Trump. Can we afford the cost of her votes and inaction❓ First, let’s do a numbers check.

Collins brought in 💲200 million worth of pork in 2022, $308 million in 2023, 💲576 million in 2024, 💲0 in 2025 (no earmarks for anyone that year due to the continuing resolution) and 💲428.6 million in 2026. So, the average per year over the past five years is roughly 💲302 million. Against that 💲302 million number, let’s look at how much Collins’ and Congress’ inaction and obedience to Trump has cost Mainers.

The Maine Center for Economic Policy reports that the total tariffs collected by Trump in the first year equal about 💲1,100 per household. In Maine, that translates to a total of 💲677 million. And that’s just one year. Most of that has been paid by Mainers in the form of higher prices.

The budget bill imposed new work requirements on Medicaid recipients (even though most already work). Maine DHHS estimates that 30,000 Mainers are expected to lose coverage in the first year alone because they can’t navigate the reporting requirements. Just administering the work requirement paperwork will cost Maine $8 million in year one, and 💲5.5 million per year thereafter.
Trump and the GOP declined to extend the tax subsidies that made coverage under the Affordable Care Act actually affordable for many people. A report from Defend America Action says that Mainers who buy health insurance through the ACA exchange will see their coverage costs for next year increase as much as 💲900 per month.
The budget bill adds a work requirement to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and reduces the federal contribution to the costs of running the program. Total loss of money to Maine❓= 💲145 million per year.
Those people who are losing Medicaid covera(ge and many of the ones losing their ACA subsidies will be uninsured. That hits our hospitals: the loss of coverage will cost Maine hospitals 💲66 million per year, and free care is expected to go up by 💲86 million per year by 2034.

Canadian tourism is down (-) 40％, as a result of tariffs and Trump’s insulting behavior toward Canada. In 2024, Canadians spent about $500 million in Maine. So that means Trump and the Congress that let him get away with tariffs and bad behavior cost our tourism sector about $200 million in just one year.

The combination of tariffs and the Iran war have skyrocketed our costs. Coffee is up, beef is up. Gas is up by nearly a dollar in Maine, and it has been up as much as 💲1.40 a gallon. The war Collins didn’t vote against nine times has cost everyone at the pumps.
Now, I wouldn’t add up the numbers above and pretend to have an accurate, defensible total. But it doesn’t take long to overtop Collins’ 💲302.5 million of pork. In fact, the Maine Center for Economic Policy totals the cost to Maine just from the budget bill at 💲400 million per year.

That’s a lot of money talk. The human costs are harder to quantify, but they’re very real. It seems to me we simply can’t afford six more years of this. Pork or not, we can’t afford Susan Collins.

Donald Trump has zero understanding about history but has an ugly genetic motivation for being an emperor

Echo opinion interview published in The New York Times;

Mary Beard Looks at Trump and Can’t Not Think of Ancient Rome

Making American like ancient Rome again. 

It is called the (gross❗) imperial presidency. For decades, presidents of both parties have pushed to expand the power of the office — Donald  Trump has pushed very, very hard, and in ways that might leave some people wondering what year it is.

One of the people who may be wondering is the classicist Mary Beard, who knows better than most that wielding imperial power has a very long history. She reflected on how the political realities of ancient times still resonate today in a written conversation with John Guida, an editor in Times Opinion. It has been edited for length and clarity.

John Guida: Perhaps ancient Rome can help us think about, and try to make sense of, structures of power in today’s politics. When you see in Washington today plans for a hulking triumphal arch or a version of a gladiatorial fight on the lawn of the White House, what do you think?

Mary Beard: It is hard not to see a reflection of ancient Rome here. That goes without saying in the case of the grotesque triumphal arch. The whole tradition of these arches goes back to Rome itself (sometimes erected to commemorate a special victory, sometimes to commemorate Roman success more generally), and there are several ancient examples still standing (the Arch of Constantine, by the Colosseum, is one of the best known). They were copied by kings and dynasts in the West ever after, from boastful permanent monuments in marble to temporary structures in plaster put up to mark a particular festival.

It’s worth remembering, though, that the original Roman versions would have probably been showier than what the president plans, vulgar as that seems to me. The rather austere ancient monuments we now see have lost their gilding and gold fittings, their paint and the gilded sculptures often perched on top (rather outbidding Trump’s lions — don’t tell him!). It’s worth remembering, too, that the president isn’t the first to have wanted an arch in Washington. We only narrowly missed one originally planned in the 1980s to be part of the Navy Memorial. And of several others proposed, the only one that got built was a temporary plaster version over Pennsylvania Avenue to mark the end of World War I.

Guida: And then the Ultimate Fighting Championship spectacle at the White House marked the president’s 80th birthday.

Beard: Yes, hideous cage fighting on the White House lawn really is reminiscent of Roman gladiatorial combat, hosted by emperors on a vast scale in the Colosseum, and more modestly at their own homes. Once again, though, the emperors outbid the president. I don’t just mean that some gladiators really did fight to the death. Many Roman emperors leaped into the arena to fight with the gladiators (probably in a very carefully staged way). The first “Gladiator” movie was right on that score — another thing we should probably keep from Trump.

Guida: So what role does spectacle play in holding or expanding power❓ How would you explain the difference, if you think there is one, between a Roman emperor’s attending fights at the Colosseum and a U.S. president’s planning a triumphal arch❓

Beard: There are strong similarities between Rome and many later political systems, not only the modern United States. The emperor has to be seen, has to leave his mark (sort of like a dog at a tree❓), has to outbid earlier emperors. So Trump’s ostentatious arch is planned to be a tiny bit higher than any other arch in the world. The Column of Marcus Aurelius, still standing in Rome, was designed to be a tiny bit taller than the earlier Trajan’s Column.

But spectacle could be risky, too. Why did emperors want to compete as a gladiator in the arena❓ Because they were frightened that the popular spotlight was on the gladiators, that they were being upstaged by gladiators … so the only way was to risk looking an idiot by joining them.

Guida: If we compare political systems: The Constitution structures the American version and features a system of separation of powers. There is now intense conflict about the relative strength (particularly the presidency) or weakness (Congress) of those powers.

Is it fair to say that the Roman Republic period — what you have described as a “sort-of democracy” — featured a very early version of separation of powers❓ Can you talk about how that was structured, and how that arrangement built an empire?

Beard: The fact is that the notional division of powers in Rome was often controversial and fought over. I call the Roman Republic (which was such an inspiration to the American founders) a “sort-of democracy” because the power of the individual ordinary man (and I do mean man) was formally defined as less than that of the individual aristocrat. Under very complicated voting arrangements, the votes of the poor counted for less than the votes of the rich. That said, major decisions of war and peace, elections and lawmaking were in the hands of popular assemblies (with all their inequities). The question was how the power of people related to that of the elected magistrates (consuls, etc.) and the Senate. 

By definition, the magistrates were all chosen from among the elite, and the Senate was nothing more than a council of all ex-magistrates that had no formal power, but a huge amount of authority.
Guida: How much do we actually know about that system❓

Beard: This kind of government grew up in a period for which we have very little evidence. Later ancient writers themselves struggled to get their heads around this, and the best they came up with was the idea that Rome was a “mixed” constitution (part democracy, part aristocracy, part monarchical — they were thinking there of the powers of the magistrates). For us the weakness of the system is obvious. It was all very well when there was broad consensus at Rome. But conflict exposed the fault lines. What if the people wanted to flout the (ultimately informal) authority of the Senate❓

It was partly this kind of conflict that brought about the fall of the Republic. There was a symbolic moment in the final conflict between Julius Caesar and his rival Pompey in the 40s B.C.E. The Senate tells both of them to disband their armies. They just ignore the instruction — because in the end, all the Senate had was authority, not power.

Guida: How did that evolve into rule by emperor❓

Beard: The internal fractures that I have just been talking about are part of the story of the evolution of one-man rule. But an even bigger factor was empire. Rome’s vast empire was “acquired” (to put it euphemistically) during the period of the Republic. The emperors inherited the empire; they didn’t acquire it.

The central problem here was that the kind of governmental organization I have just described was fine for a small city-state, but very ill suited to governing a vast empire. For example, the magistrates (who were also military commanders) were elected for only one year at a time. By the first century B.C.E., it might have taken months just to reach conflicts at the margins of empire. And the sheer size of what was now “Rome” produced problems that were too big to be solved by very temporary officials. The Roman Republic began to give some individuals extra powers to deal with those problems. Pompey, for example, was given a huge command to deal with pirates — the Roman word for terrorist — across the Mediterranean.

But those powers in the end surpassed the traditional forms of government, and it was soon clear that the big politicians of the first century B.C.E., with the vast riches of empire behind them, were fighting to become one-man rulers. Julius Caesar was only the last of several attempts.

Guida: You have said that one-to-one comparisons of a contemporary president to an emperor don’t really hold up. What about discrete aspects❓ Does anything about Trump give off emperor vibes and remind you of certain strategies or characteristics of one or another emperor❓

Beard: Comparing Donald Trump to a particular Roman emperor is a good party game, but no more. Nevertheless, you can see similarities between the practices of the current administration and the rule of the Roman emperors, and of many other dynasts through history.

One thing that strikes me is the habit of changing your mind. It is easy to take that as mere vacillation — why can’t Trump just make his mind up about tariffs, Greenland or whatever❓ But it is a classic tactic of the power play of autocrats. Mind-changing is a form of control. It means that everyone, including your own advisers, have to keep listening to you, have to keep adjusting to your new view. There is a wonderful story along those lines told of the emperor Caligula, who in the first century C.E. decides to invade Britain, gets to the shores of the Channel, then says he has changed his mind, has his soldiers collect some seashells and goes back home. That’s power.

Guida: Was character important to the rule of an emperor❓ Was there any connection between good or bad character and the well-being of the empire?

Beard: The character of individual emperors is almost impossible to gauge. The simple reason is that the reputations of these rulers were in the hands of their successors. If an emperor died in his bed and was succeeded by his son and heir, he generally went down as a “good” emperor (it was in the interests of his successor to paint him as such). If he was assassinated, he was usually painted as a monster (he was so awful, the idea was, that he had to be overthrown). 

Some of those assassinated may have been monsters, but not all: They were seen as monsters because they were assassinated, not assassinated because they were monsters.

In general, though, the supposed characteristics of “good” emperors remained remarkably constant throughout the first centuries of imperial rule. They were generous, but not extravagant; they scored notable military victories; they erected buildings for the good of the community; and they were hospitable to the elite (nice, simple suppers up at the palace). “Bad” emperors were the reverse.

Guida: In the Trump era, longstanding arguments over American identity have re-emerged. In short, are we a creedal/propositional nation (unified by beliefs and ideals) or a nation defined by ethnic or religious identities (heritage, or blood-and-soil)?

You have written that ancient Rome was a (surprisingly) inclusive society, and Romans were willing to bring new members into their community and share the privileges of citizenship. Was that inclusivity contested — did “heritage” Romans define a much more narrow ideal of what it meant to be Roman?

Beard: This is one of the most striking and unexpected features of Rome. Now, Romans were not modern liberals, and there was plenty of nasty ethnocentricity. Greeks were often said to reek of perfume; emperors from “abroad” — and they increasingly came from outside Italy — were satirized for their odd accents.

But the basic principle of Rome was that you could become Roman. That was an idea that went back to the myths of Rome’s origins. One mythical founder of the city, Aeneas, was a refugee from Troy; the other more famous mythical founder, Romulus, made Rome an “asylum” welcoming all-comers. One of the central factors here is that you didn’t have to do much to express your Romanness (there’s no saluting the flag). And crucially it was always assumed that a Roman could have two “homes”: Rome and wherever their ancestors came from. The orator Cicero, for example, was Roman and from the little town of Arpinum.

Guida: The Trump Treasury Department would like to print a new 💲250 bill that could feature a portrait of him (federal law prohibits printing money with the image of a living person, so Congress would have to get involved). The department has also announced that his signature will appear on future U.S. currency.

How did Roman emperors use currency as a political tool, and did that shape citizens’ views of power and the powerful❓


Beard: Coinage was crucial in Roman perception of imperial power. Julius Caesar was the first leader in the West in 44 B.C.E. (just before his assassination) to have his living head systematically on the coinage (plenty of the dead were portrayed on earlier coinage, but not the living). It was controversial, seen as a marker of excessive power, but it became absolutely standard after him. Even Brutus, one of his assassins, had his own head on coins a couple of years later.

The point was that forever after the inhabitants of the Roman Empire carried the emperor’s head around in their pockets (and we in Britain still do). One question for the Roman emperor was how to get his image out there. Coinage was one answer to that.

There were also written slogans on coins. How effective these were, we don’t know. Sometimes they seem a bit desperate, or hopeless wishful thinking. I think particularly of “The Harmony of the Armies,” which regularly appeared at times of civil war.

Guida: How did the role of elites — political, business, military — shift in the Republic versus the emperor eras of ancient Rome❓
Beard: There was a lot of nostalgia among the elite for the Republic. But it was mostly no more than that. We like to think that the old elite would have been actively working to undermine the system of one-man rule, but they didn’t. Instead, they conspired against individual emperors, but not against the system of one-man rule itself. After the mid-first century C.E. (at the end of the rule of Caligula), we have no evidence for any publicly expressed desire at Rome to return to the Republic. It’s a regime built on collaboration.

Guida: Did citizens have any means of holding the powerful to account❓

Beard: There was no longer any electoral system of all the citizens to hold the emperor to account, but the venues of popular entertainment were places where the general public could very clearly express their discontent. It’s no substitute for real power, but it was clearly quite frightening for the emperors. The Circus Maximus (where the chariot races happened) could hold over 200,000 spectators, perhaps 250,000, bigger than any modern sports stadium. When the crowd demanded changes there, emperors were wise to give in.

Guida: When Augustus cast a new imperial scheme, he did so, you said, “in the words and slogans and ideas of the old.” How do you separate rhetoric from the evolution, and reshaping, of power❓ What rules or norms that previously constrained power — perhaps particularly with the Senate❓ — were discarded or redefined, and how❓

Beard: That’s exactly Augustus’ point: You can’t separate rhetoric from the reshaping of power. So far as the Senate was concerned, in some ways its power increased under the emperors. Its decrees had used to be merely advisory (“authoritative”). From Augustus on, they had the force of law.

But that is rather overshadowed by other factors, pulling in different ways. So, for example, you could paint the imperial regime as a military dictatorship. The emperor controls the army (for the first time all Roman soldiers were under a single commander). But an awful lot of power between emperor and Senate was negotiated face to face, in a dance of rhetoric and manners. In this the emperor was always the boss, but he could be exposed.

There is a nice story about a legal trial taking place in the Senate, of a man accused of treason. When it comes to a vote, one senator asks the emperor (who is part of the proceeding) whether he will be casting his vote first or last: If last, he said, he fears he might “vote the wrong way by mistake.” It’s a packed story: It is partly ostentatious deference. It partly exposes the power of the emperor. But the senator gets his own way, because the emperor is put in the position of being effectively forced to vote first and to vote for acquittal, to show his mercy — as the senator wanted.

Guida: We’ve heard a lot about flattery in the halls of power — often as applied to dealings with President Trump, whether it’s members of his own cabinet and sycophancy in the G.O.P. or as applied by global leaders. When it is noted, it is generally to criticize.

But you have suggested that in ancient Rome, flattery was an effective tool in interactions among the powerful, including the emperor. Does flattery get a bad rap today❓

Beard: The anecdote I have just told is one answer to that. Paradoxically, flattery can be a means of power. That is not how we tend to think of it. We think of the need to flatter the person in power as demeaning. And so in a way it is, and it has always had a bad rap.

But it is also always more complicated. Flattery can always be ironic (showing up the person at whom it is directed) or, as in the senatorial anecdote, it can be used to get your own way (also showing that person up). But the bottom line is that flattery can disempower the flattered, not just the flatterer. Just imagine it: The emperor is the one person in the palace who knows that no one is ever telling him the truth.

Guida: Is it true that Rome’s administrative state was small by contemporary standards — that it lacked, in today’s terminology, state capacity❓ If so, did alliances help keep the state secure❓

Beard: The administrative footprint of Rome was tiny by any modern standards. So, absolutely right, it ruled with the collaboration of the local elites — and for many of them the prospect of closer links with Rome, of Roman citizenship and the incorporation into the Roman elite itself was a clear incentive. The Roman emperors who came from “elsewhere” — for example, Trajan around the turn of the second century C.E. from Spain, Septimius Severus a century later from North Africa — were a symbol of that incorporation. Rome was essentially an empire of collaboration.

Guida: In the United States, Christopher Nolan’s new film “The Odyssey” opens soon. Why do you think this story remains compelling to contemporary audiences❓ Does Odysseus not having GPS to guide him home have anything to do with it — or the lack of technology more generally❓

Beard: “The Odyssey” shows us that a GPS system will get you “home” only in the most limited sense❗ “The Odyssey” is compelling because it faces so cleverly all kinds of questions that we still face and ensures that we don’t overlook them: What does “home” mean❓ How do you grow up❓ What makes a good leader❓ How do you define the difference between civilization and barbarity❓Is that as easy as we might think❓

Mary Beard is the author, most recently, of “Talking Classics: The Shock of the Old” and a presenter (with Charlotte Higgins) of the podcast “Instant Classics” (and its companion, Bookclub). She is also classics editor of the Times Literary Supplement and professor emerita of classics at University of Cambridge. John Guida is an editor in Times Opinion.

Excellent history review essay describing who is an American and the value of birthright citizenship supported by SCOTUS

Echo opinion essay published in the Business Standard*. 

By Howard Chua-Eoan:  Once upon a time, the French were the most enthusiastic aspirational Americans. 

Magical realism of the American dream: 

Birthright, belonging and hope

Inspired by the revolution of 1776, as well as the victory of the Franco-American alliance over the British in the 1781, battle of Yorktown, French polemicists, patriots, philosophers and plebs waxed idealistic about migrating to the brand new nation to share in its promise — la félicité publique of the Enlightenment transformed into “the pursuit of happiness” of the United States (US) Declaration of Independence. The vast possibilities of the future compelled one enthusiast to rhapsodise, “What then is the American, this new man❓” 💜💗☆

The question has been asked again and again in the 250 years since July 4, 1776. On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court rejected the Trump Administration’s attempt to place curbs on the 158-year-old 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which gives anyone born in the country citizenship by birthright. The debate seems to renew with each generation, if not with each year. By naturalization, the US adds about 800,000 new citizens annually — over a decade, a cohort bigger than the population of Hong Kong. 

In fact, the US produces far more freshly naturalized citizens than any other nation.  That’s apart from the estimated 3.5 million baby-citizens delivered each year. There is a metaphysical dimension to being born American in America. It means you are as American as anyone else born anywhere else in America. From Manhattan to Miami to Montana, Americans — as the late 18th century French pondered with awe — are privileged with geographical equality, and enter the world carrying an identity founded on place, not blood, with possibilities as immense as their landscape. Each is a plurality of one.

For now, though, let’s put aside the magic for realism. Americans have always been at odds with each other — often viciously — over who belongs to their promised land. Indeed, despite this week’s ruling, the US has become a much less welcoming place because of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) assaults on migrants (and almost anyone actually) driven by the populist rhetoric of Donald Trump and his (evil❗) acolytes. 

Today, even some newly-naturalized citizens advocate pulling up the ladder to curb immigration. Lawyers for skilled foreign job-seekers are now counselling their clients not to come to the US, reversing advice they’d provided for years.

And yet the American dream continues to draw people from around the world. Government statistics substantiate that magnetic power — in a backhanded way. Applications for immigration visas based on employment and family are backlogged for years, if not decades, as Bloomberg News notes. Depending on the applicant’s country of origin, the H-1B visa — which has been key to cheaper high-tech labor for Silicon Valley — continues to be heavily oversubscribed, in spite of lawyerly advice. It was perhaps the swiftest and most meritocratic way to prove your worth to a country you weren’t born in, but wanted to belong to. No longer. “It is far easier to obta-in any other type of major visa than an H-1B visa,” says a March 2025, report by the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonprofit research group focused on immigration, international trade, globalization and the economy.

Well, not quite every other type. Most family-sponsored would-be immigrants are stuck in the torturously long process for “green cards” that designate legal residents and put them on the road to naturalization. There’s an annual cap of 226,000 for those who aren’t immediate relatives of their sponsors; with about 7.1 million people currently waiting in that queue, many may not live to see the land they yearn for.

Moreover, the other evidence of America’s continuing pull is anecdotal. Even with the toll of (evil❗) ICE, people are still drawn to the US, even from supposedly blasé Europe. I track the restaurant industry on both sides of the Atlantic, and I know of cooks, sommeliers and servers in the United Kingdom (UK) who will jump at the first opportunity to show what they can do for an American kitchen. The continuous flow of Japanese chefs is evidence that economic powerhouses in East Asia are not immune to American magnetism. Often, the Brits try a short stint, an informal pop-up or hang around as unpaid stagiare (a controversial type of culinary internship) — all in the hope of convincing a US outfit to sponsor them through the costly paperwork required to win a long-term visa, perhaps even an O-1 for “individuals of extraordinary ability.”

It’s a long shot, but those from the 40-some countries in the US Visa Waiver Program (VWP) (including Japan, the UK and most members of the European Union) can use its provisions to enter and stay for as long as 90 days per visit. The VWP is meant to ease tourist travel but it also allows business-types to attend conferences and engage in dealmaking — just not paid labour. That’s leeway enough for anyone — not just restaurant folk — to make professional contacts. But there are limits: If the Border Control Protection agency decides there’s a pecuniary pattern to your travel, you may be served with a long-term ban.

From my perspective as an American abroad, I also find it revealing that the politics and events back home are often central to ordinary conversations in the UK as well as Europe and Asia. Mine are fully caught up in the latest developments as if related to their own well-being. It’s almost personal and domestic. It’s also bipartisan. While there is umbrage about the administration, there is also approval among the more MAGA-ty citizens of the world, who see a country finally aligned with their political proclivities. The recent run of right-wing victories in Latin America is an indicator that Trumpist America has become the spiritual promised land for a growing audience.

In fact, the US was also both beacon and caution back when there were only 13 states of the union. The Frenchman who asked wondrously about “the new man” was once an immigrant farmer in upstate New York and was appalled by slavery. The supposedly class-free republic wasn’t that at all and had embarked on the segregation of society by race. 

Indeed, the 14th Amendment was inspired by the dilemma faced by the children of slaves in the wake of emancipation and the Civil War. Speaking in all-encompassing language, it declared with constitutional authority that every child born in the US was a citizen. It was a remarkably judicious act for a country that would cruelly continue to impose racial identity — and thus social and economic status — based on “a drop of blood” well into the 20th century.

And the sequel was just as momentous. In 1898, the US Supreme Court decision upheld the language of the amendment to apply to the case of Wong Kim Ark, born in California to migrant Chinese parents. He sued after he was barred from re-entering the US after visiting China. This took place at the height of violent pogroms surrounding the imposition of the Chinese Exclusion Act. His victory ensured that citizenship was available to immigrants and their offspring, not just to the established communities of the country — and once again affirmed by the Supreme Court this week (in 2026).
Wong would work as a cook and vanish into obscurity after an itinerant life. The pursuit of happiness did not guarantee dreams would come true. That’s the irony of the “American Dream,” which was coined by the historian James Truslow Adams in The Epic of America. Writing amid the Great Depression, he said the notion isn’t just about prosperity “but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

Tensions about who gets to be American are unabated. In the wake of this week’s SCOTUS birthright decision, Trump declared he’d try to get his way via legislative sleights of hand. For now, it is the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, that hold sway: “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in this land. We keep that promise today.” That is an appropriate gift to the country on this momentous birthday: the dream, and the chance, are continued.

Howard Chua-Eoan is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion covering culture and business. He previously served as Bloomberg Opinion's international editor and is a former news director at Time magazine

*Business Standard is an Indian English-language daily edition newspaper,[5] also available in Hindi. Founded in 1975.