Asking Democratic Leaders to Try Opposing Trump with the Same Urgency They Fight the DSA

Here are six stories I wanted to share from my recent surfing around the internet.

Indeed. We will win. I’m glad you’re here.

#1: Who’s The Enemy Anyway?

• Hakeem Jeffries Doesn't Get It (Denny Carter, Bad Faith Times, Link to Article)

I had some thoughts while watching House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries reject popular liberal policies and embrace harmful Republican frames during his Meet the Press appearance.

What if Democratic leaders and donors tried fighting the Trump regime with the same urgency they use to attack policies popular with the Democratic Party’s base and groups like the DSA?

After all, it takes some kind of political courage to go out of your way on national television to reject a policy that 90 percent of Democratic Party members would like to see the party focus on (according to a CBS News/YouGov poll in August 2026; see question 38E on page 64 of this pdf).

Jeffries used to co-sponsor Medicare for All legislation. He could have said we need to find a path forward to providing health care coverage for all Americans without using that specific phrase. Maybe even start with a Medicare buy-in option for people without insurance?

But that wasn’t his only punch to the left. He also shared how he opposed an issue 86 percent of Democratic Party members support (according to a CBS News/YouGov poll in August 2026; see question 38D on page 63 of this pdf).

It’s not like we have a rogue agency literally killing people—protesters and detainees—while holding tens of thousands in concentration camps. We already know they can’t be trusted to take off their masks, use body cameras, and get proper judicial warrants. The Trump regime is using ICE as a personal police force.

There’s no reforming that. ICE needs to be replaced with something new.

And then Jeffries whiffs on a question he should have known was coming. There has been too much chatter about democratic socialists not to anticipate a question about them.

Oh, come on now, Mr. Leader.

One could just say “yes” while noting that in a large coalition no one—including DSA members or rich donors—gets all they want. He could have said—without reservations—how he welcomes anyone who opposes what the Trump regime is doing to join with Democrats.

But notice what Jeffries did instead: he answered with a Republican framing of controversial issues. Welker did not ask him about defunding the police, open borders, or abolishing the Senate. He brought up those talking points on his own.

Why do that? It’s a political messaging felony.

Denny Carter writes at Bad Faith Times that Jeffries, like the Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, continues to operate like these are normal political times. Democratic leadership appears to be trying to convince some mythical centrist voters to just trust us this time.

It's all a reminder, as I wrote back in December, that Jeffries has no grasp of our current moment or how the Democratic Party base has changed over the past 20 years. This is not the electorate that swept Democrats into power in the 2006 midterms. This is something entirely different: A party base bent on ramming through policies without a single negotiation with Republicans, one bent on vengeance for those who have ignored constitutional rule of law for the past 18 months and engaged in world-historic levels of corruption. Today's Democratic Party base is one that is (finally) finished with the niceties of Clinton-era politics.

Jeffries and his ilk are playing it safe in an era where playing it safe gives the edge to your more volatile opponent.

Voters want fighters. They want change. Democratic leaders would be more popular if they were visibly fighting back against the Trump regime at every opportunity, rather than helping pass legislation to fund ICE or confirm Trump’s radical election-denying nominees.

Democratic leaders—and the people funding groups like Third Way—need to decide who their opponent is during this perilous time. Is it the people to their left or President Trump and his anti-constitutional regime?

I am skeptical of any Democrat who was in power while Donald Trump was elected president twice and the reputation of the party slid so far that we have to run independents in some states. Things are different. I need to see leaders act like they understand these dynamics.

#2: Catering Carts and Continuity of Government

• The Five Scandals Within the “Air Force One” Scandal (Garrett Graff, Doomsday Scenario, Link to Article)

We have to talk about how President Trump took a decoy plane after the NATO summit in Turkey last month.

I didn’t have Trump using a catering truck to sneak off a plane on my 2026 bingo card. That’s not a sign you are winning, Mr. President.

But there’s an existential problem with the situation, beyond the Qatari plane and who Trump selected to join him in the catering cart.

It comes down to Continuity of Government. Garrett Graff (whose outstanding book Raven Rock goes into how much effort goes into ensuring there is a functioning U.S. government even during a nuclear emergency) highlights the dangers Trump’s subterfuge created.

But here we have an instance where (a) the White House press pool were actively misled about the president’s whereabouts; (b) used as human decoys to fly aboard a plane that the Secret Service and military deemed too dangerous for the president himself to travel on; and (c) the ruse continued and both of those facts were kept secret for an extended period of time thereafter, long after the initial security window of vulnerability was over.

The White House’s subterfuge is so shocking because it belies a complete misunderstanding about the importance and role of the press pool that follows the president everywhere: They’re there, in part, for the security of the United States itself — to provide, if necessary, an independent and transparent proof of life and proof of presence in the event of a crisis or uncertainty about the president’s status.

The whereabouts and status of the U.S. president is an incredibly important national security and geopolitical issue — one with immense implications for financial markets, military command and control, foreign adversaries and allies alike — and here, for the first known time in US and world history, you had the president of the United States on a plane that no one outside of the US government knew about, traveling internationally over foreign territory, amid what the US military and Secret Service apparently believed was one of the most serious threats to presidential security since 9/11 itself.

That’s so reckless. It’s inexcusable.

Graff explores the other times when decoys were used to ensure presidential safety—and how in those instances at least a portion of the press pool knew the details and accompanied the president.

If something had happened to President Trump on the decoy plane, there could have been a period of time when it was unclear who was the president or acting president during an active armed conflict. That’s not just an attack from Iran. What if the president had a health emergency when only a few people knew where he was?

There are ways to ensure the president’s safety while also ensuring the nation’s need to know who is its head of government. I hope Democratic leaders put this situation near the top of their oversight topics list.

#3: What’s Natalie Harp Sharing?

• Natalie Harp Is a Security Risk (Julie Roginsky, Salty Politics, Link to Article)
• More Than Just a Human Printer! (Jay Kuo, The Status Kuo, Link to Article)

Why did the Trump regime decide to Streisand Effect the story about Special Assistant to the President Natalie Harp this week? If they had ignored the comment made in a speech by Senator Jon Ossoff, there wouldn’t have been such a focus on Harp’s relationship with the president this week.

That said, I am glad we are finally talking about Harp. I’m not interested in any salacious reasons—and, for what it’s worth, Ossoff’s comment didn’t go there.

I care because we need to understand just how much power Harp has with her exceptional access to President Trump and what impact it has on the president’s decision-making.

As Jay Kuo writes:

The moment illustrates how Harp was one of a small number of people with access to Trump’s Truth Social account. A Wall Street Journal analysis published in May found that Harp brings Trump “stacks of printed-out draft social-media posts for his approval.” She became known as “the human printer” during the 2024 campaign, as the Times reported at the time, because she carried a portable printer to quickly get positive news to Trump.

If you’re wondering who is scouring the internet looking for wild content Trump will like, look no further than Harp. Per the Journal, Harp provided Trump with proposed posts that “often recycle content from other accounts that Harp or advisers think would appeal to Trump.” Harp then logs into the president’s account, at times outside normal work hours, to post batches of Trump-approved messages. (Trump also posts some content himself.) The Journal found the account had posted at least 8,800 times since the start of Trump’s second term, including one stretch of 55 posts between 10:14 p.m. and 1:12 a.m., and another of nearly 160 posts in under four hours on Dec. 1. It’s unclear if Trump is posting these himself, if Harp is posting them for him, or if it’s some combination of both.

Worse, we now know that Harp delayed completing the national security clearance process for more than a year. Julie Roginsky explains why that’s so problematic:

Harp, who has been glued to Trump’s side virtually 24/7 since the day he walked back into the White House, was certainly in a position to overhear all kinds of intelligence before she received clearance.

Based on all this, why would Harp refuse to begin the vetting national security process for over a year? Why would White House officials allow her refusal to coexist with extraordinary presidential access for that long?

The answer, of course, is that Trump wanted her by her side. This raises all sorts of questions about top secret information in this White House. If the president wants someone without vetting to have it, that person automatically gets it — national security be damned. After all, without clearance, what exactly did Trump know about Harp when he allowed her to trail him everywhere he went, other than that she caught his eye by playing into his Jesus complex by landing a spot on his favorite news network to lie that he practically raised her from the dead? Some men are honeypotted by a pretty face. This man could very well have been honeypotted by someone playing into his autotheistic, egomaniacal tendencies.

Harp communicates directly on behalf of the president. She attends meetings where officials share classified information. World leaders contact her to try to get the president’s attention. She shares information with Trump that has not been vetted by anyone else in the regime. That makes her one of the most important and powerful people in our government.

So let’s not get distracted by salacious stories. Why did Harp delay getting a security clearance? And how much does her dynamic with Trump explain the president’s refusal to acknowledge the reality of many situations, from the Iran War, the impact of his policies, and even his popularity?

#4: Don’t Take Advice From Your Enemies

• Don't Take Advice From Your Enemies (Hamilton Nolan, How Things Work, Link to Article)

Hamilton Nolan provides a vital warning about the dangers of taking advice from people who do not share your interests. It’s one of the more popular bad-faith arguments pundits make. So many column inches of space are filled by people who oppose the Democratic Party offering their supposed advice to its leaders.

Please. Do we really believe a MAGA Republican or a centrist pundit really has the Democratic Party’s best interests in mind? Nolan shares recent examples of this genre from people like David Brooks, George Will, and Karl bleeping Rove.

As Nolan explains why we need to ignore all of that:

Do I, on the opposite side of the political spectrum from these pundits, have opinions about what Republicans should do? I sure do. They should fall to their knees, grovel before their false gods, beg forgiveness from the oppressed people of the world, and reverse all of their political beliefs. It is fine for me to share all of these correct thoughts. But I hardly expect Republicans to consider this to be advice. I do not share their goals. I want their entire political project to fail. Imagine me pretending to strike the pose of Analytical Observer Whose Guidance Should Be Considered Valid Because It is Purely Strategic in Nature. Why the fuck would I do that? And why would they ever believe me? I could never have a genuine thought about what Republicans should do in order to help Republicans. I do not want to help Republicans. Such a thought would be contrary to my entire nature. And if I ever did have a useful idea to empower Republicans, why would I ever share it? I might as well write “A Burglar’s Guide to Breaking Into My Home While I am Out of Town This Weekend.” The very act of writing such a piece would reveal me to be either an undercover cop or a moron.

That is exactly what you are getting when you read a piece by David Brooks or Bret Stephens or any Wall Street Journal columnist about what the Democrats should do. (And I am only using the strictest definition of this dynamic here. In reality, it should be expanded to include all essays about What the Left Should Do by corporate Democratic officials, mewling centrists, “common sense” Democratic operatives who now write for the Free Press, and so on. In all of these cases, people who fundamentally disagree with your goals are allegedly giving you good faith tips on what you should be doing.)

It’s a trap. We shouldn’t spend a moment reflecting on such punditry. These are bad-faith arguments designed to move the Democratic Party in their preferred direction (rightward).

And speaking of all that, the New Republic’s Jason Linkins explains how Third Way and its leaders aren't concerned about the Democratic Party’s success. Be wary when you see when these people getting airtime and op-ed space.

#5: Pushing Deicide

• Johnson Gave Netanyahu a Pamphlet Saying Israel Killed Jesus (Jonathan Larsen, Link to Article)

I focus so much on Christian (sic) Nationalism because these beliefs have so much of an impact on important policymakers.

Like Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.

Because why else would the Speaker give this kind of pamphlet to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? As Jonathan Larsen reports:

Less than a month after the June 2025 strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) in Johnson’s Capitol Hill office.

In their private meeting after the photo above was taken, Johnson gave Netanyahu a Bible study pamphlet that contains Jewish tropes and proclaims the foundational antisemitic blood libel of deicide: The claim not just that some Jews were involved in Jesus’s crucifixion, but that all Jews are culpable.

Although the pamphlet and accompanying videos are supportive of Israel, they repeat the antisemitic claim, long renounced by major world religions, that Israel, the Jews, killed Jesus.

The two-part Bible study was a treatise urging U.S. politicians to take Israel’s side. The two lessons had been distributed to congressional and White House Bible-study groups starting the day after Israel launched a sustained attack on Iran last year, when the push was on for the U.S. to join in.

The reason many U.S. Christian (sic) Nationalists support Israel so strongly is the role they believe Israel plays in the end times. It does not end well for those Jews who do not convert.

These extreme religious views are shared by many prominent members of the Trump regime. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought are among those who participate in Bible studies related to this theology.

#6: Disabling Flock’s Mass Surveillance

• Flock’s Spy System Has To Die (Rick Wilson, Against All Enemies, Link to Article)

Rick Wilson offers a timely warning about Flock after watching the faux-apology statement made by the company’s CEO.

It isn’t easy to explain away the recent revelations about law enforcement officers abusing the system to spy on exes, romantic interests, and the American people (the Fourth Amendment be damned). So Flock CEO Garrett Langley did what he could do to manage the crisis. As Wilson writes:

Because behind the soft lighting and delicate piano music track is a hell of a story: an Atlanta venture-backed startup has built a substantial piece of the infrastructure for an American surveillance state, sold it to roughly 7,000 police agencies without a national vote, meaningful federal regulation, or much public debate, and is now spending heavily on lobbyists and crisis communications to keep local governments from taking it away.

<snip>

Today’s Flock ALPR camera isn’t a camera. It’s a beta test, a first-gen database-entry generator for an authoritarian state. That isn’t a bunch of cameras on poles: it’s a tool set building a searchable index of where Americans drive, shop, eat. It’s a record of their attendance at political rallies and their infidelities.

Every passing vehicle becomes a timestamped record: plate, location, make, model, color, damage, bumper stickers, roof racks. Multiply that by 120,000 devices across roughly 7,000 agencies, most importantly ICE and DHS.

Built without warrants or without notice, absent any national law authorizing the architecture. Authoritarianism in America won’t necessarily arrive by decree. It will arrive with an API and a dashboard of metrics.

You don’t need some new Stasi if the search box finds you regardless.

This is a tool that may have uses in limited circumstances. But these kinds of surveillance programs never stop at limited. Whether it is more powers granted through mission creep or misuse by people with access, privacy is the victim.

Useful Websites and Information Trackers
I Wanted to Share

Watching the Oligarchs

• Is Elon Musk a Trillionaire Right Now? (Jason Sattler, LOLGOP Studios, Link to Article)

Election Data

• 2026 Election Calendar (The Downballot, Link to Article)
• Ultimate Data Guide (The Downballot, Link to Article)

Iran War Consequences

• Strait of Hormuz Shipping Trackers (hormuztracker.com | hormuzstraitmonitor.com)

Trump Regime Authoritarianism

• Trump Action Tracker (Making Sense of US Politics, Link to Article)
• Executive Watch [Trump Abuses of Power] (Institute for the Study of Modern Authoritarianism, The Unpopulist, Link to Article)
• ICE Warehouse Tracker (Project Salt Box, Link to Article)

Trump Regime Corruption

• Kleptocracy Tracker Timeline (Anne Applebaum, SNF Agora Institute, Link to Article)

Follow me on BlueSky to see the stories I’m finding and the stories I’m sharing throughout the day.

Craig Cheslog (@craigcheslog.com)

GenXer against fascism. Talking politics, women’s soccer, WNBA, Manchester United men and women, USWNT, USMNT, Green Bay Packers, Boston Celtics, Chicago Cubs, and Taylor Swift. (he/him/his) My newsletter: https://thelongtwilightstruggle.com/.

Bluesky Social