I am fairly confident that in the future the consensus view will see this guy (along with Zuckerberg and few others) as the posterchild for a more dystopian, less wealthy, less healthy economy and society.

I broadly agree with the piece (though I don't necessarily agree with claim there that the Times' coverage helped decide the election; the voters who did likely don't read the Times.) I certainly don't want pro-Democrat coverage. Just cover Trump accurately!

I was at Michigan in 1989 and this team seems much more dominant.

I totally agree. I am still trying to work out how the Court overturns Humphrey's in a way that only helps Republican presidents. In theory, isn't the Court handing a progressive President the tools to implement a more robust regulatory framework? Or is the play to use Major Questions to block this?

Another way of putting this is that this might be akin to eliminating the filibuster: bad administrations like the current one will be exponentially worse but administrations that want to govern may be able to fully use the regulatory agencies.

Ah, clearly didn't read close enough. Thank you!

I just skimmed the piece but there seems to be no mention of my biggest gripe: the indirect and often passive framing when describing Trump's lawlessness. He's "testing the limits of his authority," not breaking the law. If the legal issues are not clear cut, the paper should explain. But it doesn't

The Harper's letter writers could always point to a few high profile anecdotes to justify their sweeping argument, and ordinary people could point to annoying shrill leftists online. But what is happening now is exponentially worse, and I wish the Harper's signatories would publicly admit it.

Great work, as always. This administration highlighted alleged Biden family corruption and then took power and exponentially increased the self-dealing and corruption. The voices decrying Hunter Biden's influence peddling have gone conspicuously silent.

Also by Douthat: How the cultural authoritarianism of the left ensured the rise of Nick Fuentes.

She comes very close to stating that it is better when federal agencies are under complete control by the President, which is a recipe for really bad government.

It's very aggravating to think you are probably right.

I am no fan of Garland, but he is not the worst AG in modern history. That would be Bondi, who enthusiastically allowed the Justice Department to be used as a partisan weapon. In contrast, Garland was too cautious and too bound by norms.

Most of the "Dems should keep fighting" takes ignore what the outcome of that would likely be. It wouldn't be compromise or support for the ACA, as you note. It would be the end of the filibuster (a good thing, as you note) OR a prolonged government shutdown, which many on the right welcome.

I really don't understand what the Times thinks its weasel wording will do for them. The language and the articles aren't going to please Trump (they strongly suggest a problem without stating it), and they just piss off readers who can see and state facts more clearly than the Times can.

If the courts let Trump leverage Medicare and Medicaid in this coercive way, I'd like to imagine a different president going in the opposite direction and punishing any provider who doesn't provide such care. I don't understand why Dems aren't threatening these kinds of things at every turn.

www.nytimes.com/2025/10/21/u...