No friendship with Donald Trump can last for very long. We’ve seen plenty of examples: Michael Cohen, “Sloppy” Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, Elon Musk—and now Vladimir Putin. “We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,” Trump said yesterday. “He’s very nice to us all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.”
So weird that Trump is the first person to figure this out!
Happy Wednesday.
One Cheer for Elon?
by William Kristol
Last week, when Elon Musk started talking about forming a third party, several friends and acquaintances got in touch to ask: Wasn’t this an opportunity for us Trump critics?
I was skeptical.
I doubted Musk was serious. He has a long history of making promises and then not following through. To say the least, Elon Musk isn’t someone you can count on.
He’s also not someone with whom you want to associate. Musk is a loathsome person who’s done a lot of damage to this country and the world, both as part of the Trump administration and otherwise. He’s certainly no reliable ally in the fight for a decent liberal democracy.
And many of my correspondents are centrist types yearning for a new centrist third party. I’m dubious about such an enterprise. But even if there’s more of a case for this than I’m inclined to think, I didn’t see how Elon Musk could help such an effort.
I believe my skepticism was reasonable. But to some degree I’m rethinking it. I’m not rethinking my judgment about Musk’s deplorable character, nor the fact that he can’t be the person who spearheads a responsible and centrist-oriented third party. But it does now seem that Musk may be more serious about this initiative than I expected. And it very much seems that this party would be attacking Trump not from the responsible center but from the extremist and conspiracist right.
Which brings us to Jeffrey Epstein. The fact that Musk joined enthusiastically in the complaints from MAGA true believers about the betrayal of the promise to release the Epstein files is important. (More on that in Quick Hits, below.) If Musk had just kept complaining about the budget deficit, I’d have remained skeptical that he is serious about hurting Trump. But Musk does seem to have figured out that the best way to go after Trump is to embrace Trumpist conspiracy theories, and ask why Trump is abandoning his conspiracist promises. To hurt Trump, you have to go hunting where the MAGA ducks are. And they don’t dwell in the budget spreadsheets. They paddle around in the conspiracist pond.
Prying some of those extremist and conspiracist voters away from Trump, and from Republican candidates in the midterms, would be a good thing. It would help increase the chances that more Democrats, who believe in liberal democracy, would win.
Is it an unfortunate reflection on the situation we now face that such an expedient may be needed?
Perhaps. But the current situation, an ongoing authoritarian takeover of our government, is grave.
Is it an unfortunate reflection on human nature itself that such an expedient may be necessary, or at least useful? Yes. But it may simply be a fact that sometimes it takes a conspiracist to pry away some conspiracist voters. It takes an extremist to pry away extremists. It takes a bigot to pry away bigots. Such devices aren’t pleasant. But they could be helpful.
After all, as Federalist No. 51 teaches us—admittedly in a somewhat different context—“It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of the government.” Preserving free government depends on supplying “the defect of better motives.”
One tip-off that Musk is on to something is that Donald Trump seems worried.
“I think it’s ridiculous to start a third party,” Trump told reporters Sunday evening. “It’s always been a two-party system, and I think starting a third party just adds to confusion. . . . Third parties have never worked, so he can have fun with it but I think it’s ridiculous!”
A little later that evening, Trump seemed to move from pity for Musk’s effort to alarm about it, writing on Truth Social:
I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely “off the rails,” essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks. He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States – The System seems not designed for them. The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS, and we have enough of that with the Radical Left Democrats, who have lost their confidence and their minds!
Make no mistake: Trump doesn’t fear disruption and chaos in general. Trump fears disruption and chaos in his coalition. We should welcome disruption and chaos in Trump’s coalition. It would be a very good thing.
Don’t get me wrong. I loathe Elon Musk just as much as I loathe Donald Trump. Indeed, given his apparent lurch over the last 24 hours, via his AI Grok bot, from mere longstanding sympathy to fascism into flat-out pro-Hitlerism, I’m open to the proposition that Musk is more loathsome than Trump.
But Trump controls the federal government. The threat to our liberal democracy comes from him and his administration. Trump can deploy the National Guard and the army. Musk cannot. Trump controls DHS. Musk does not. Trump can use the Justice Department to go after his enemies in a way Musk cannot.
Elon Musk won’t save us. Ultimately, he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. But first we need to deal with the present. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” Sufficient unto today is the damage Elon can do to Trump.
What Does ‘Obliterated’ Really Mean, Anyway?
by Benjamin Parker
Axios reported earlier this week that one of the subjects discussed by Israeli and American officials at the recent meeting in Washington was the possibility of further strikes on Iran’s nuclear program. The Israeli understanding is apparently that the Trump administration would give them the green light to hit Iran again in case of “an Iranian attempt to remove the highly enriched uranium inside the damaged facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan,” and/or “if the Iranians start rebuilding their nuclear program, particularly enrichment facilities.”
The report added: “Israeli and U.S. officials say the material is currently ‘sealed off’ inside the three nuclear sites. The U.S. and Israel assessed that those sites were significantly damaged, but that not all nuclear material or infrastructure was destroyed.”
If this all seems wildly out of alignment with President Trump’s statements about the state of Iran’s nuclear program, that’s because it is. Let’s break it down.
First, Trump repeatedly claimed that Iran’s nuclear-enrichment sites were “obliterated.” Now, not to get all semantic, but a review of several different dictionaries leaves no doubt that the word “obliterated” leaves no room for any remnant, trace, remainder, or surviving piece. And “obliterated” was the term Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth repeated when he denounced any question about whether any part of the Iranian nuclear program remained as tantamount to treason.
But the possibility that some uranium might be removed from the bombed sites means that something must still be intact. It’s possible that the combined effect of the American and Israeli strikes was to render the sites unusable for a long period of time—an American intelligence estimate reportedly says about two years. But that’s not the same as obliteration.
Trump also stated confidently that Iran would not resume or restart a nuclear program: “They’re not going to be doing it anyway. They’ve had it.” Telling the Israelis they have a green light to attack Iran again should they restart their program suggests that, maybe, you do think they might restart it? Confusing, we know.
Mentioned in the Axios story is Ron Dermer, a longtime adviser to and ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the current minister of strategic affairs. Dermer’s not a joker. He and Netanyahu don’t want to publicly contradict Trump. Both understand (at least sometimes) that the truth is an important ingredient in successful policy. And the truth in this case is that it may become necessary for Israel—and possibly the United States—to strike Iran again, perhaps even during Trump’s term.
If that happens, Netanyahu—if he’s still prime minister—will be able to tell his people that his government was prepared for all contingencies and never underestimated the Iranian threat.
What will Trump be able to say? That he lied? That he was wrong? That he never actually used the word “obliterated”—or that he had a different meaning in mind?
The attack on Iran was a major victory for Trump. But his political handling of its aftermath is creating the possibility of an embarrassing defeat.
AROUND THE BULWARK
-
Did you miss… Hip young, Gen Z-er Bill Kristol making his FYPod debut? BILL and CAM KASKY talk about Elon Musk’s bizarre attempt to shake up the GOP.
-
Patriotism Pro and Con… On Just Between Us, JVL joins MONA CHAREN to offer a behind-the-scene glimpse of The Bulwark’s mission, mark the milestone of 100,000 members, and reflect on building a thriving community amid a collapsing media landscape. Plus, a discussion of patriotism and the Fourth of July.
-
Dems Must Really Fix Medicaid, Not Just Undo Trump’s Damage to It… The party should use this as an opportunity to build toward universal coverage—working from these seven principles for reforming health care, writes EZEKIEL EMANUEL.
-
When Moderation Becomes Appeasement… If your chief goal is to find a middle ground with the far right on social issues, you’ll end up condoning its values. Just ask Keir Starmer, argues TOBY BUCKLE.
Quick Hits
THE FILES ARE IN THE COMPUTER: Donald Trump’s Jeffrey Epstein problem isn’t going away. In fact, it might be getting worse after his Tuesday remarks admonishing reporters for asking questions about his onetime friend, the notorious pedophile.
“I can’t believe you’re asking a question on Epstein, at a time like this!” Trump said to the press at a cabinet meeting.
The comments set off a frenzy on the right, where folks were already stewing after the Justice Department made the surprise decision to end the Epstein investigation and block any future disclosures. Even some of Trump’s most devoted conservative media allies weren’t buying it. Liz Wheeler, a Republican pundit close enough to the administration to have received one of the infamous “Epstein binders,” complained on X that Trump’s stonewalling “could cost him the midterms.”
On her podcast, Megyn Kelly literally slapped her forehead in dismay, though she appeared to be frustrated as much by Trump’s technique as by his public lack of interest in the alleged pedophile ring. “The dodge should not be obvious!” Kelly said. “It should be subtle.”
Such criticisms of Trump are extremely rare in MAGA media. And they may be driven by the sense that their core audience views Epstein as a key issue, one that may even transcend the need to show loyalty to the president.
But other motivations appear to be at play when it comes to Elon Musk, who, as Bill notes above, may be enjoying the Epstein fallout more than anyone. The erstwhile Trump adviser has claimed Trump himself is in the Epstein files. And he was gleefully posting again on Tuesday.
“How can people be expected to have faith in Trump if he won’t release the Epstein files?” Musk tweeted. He went on to say that releasing Epstein evidence would be a key plank for his new “America Party.”
If Trump is looking for an off-ramp here, there are few available outside of releasing some actual Epstein information. But if a scapegoat is needed, it looks like it’ll be Attorney General Pam Bondi. Ominously for Bondi, right-wing memesters have started to target her. On Tuesday, commentator and binders-recipient Jack Posobiec gave Bondi the MAGA kiss of death: He said her defenses of the decision to close the investigation sounded like Hillary Clinton’s defense of Benghazi. On Wednesday morning came the grim reaper itself: Musk unfollowed Bondi on Twitter.
—Will Sommer
OSBORN AGAIN: Dan Osborn, who ran an impressive independent campaign against Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) last year, announced yesterday that he plans to run again against the other Nebraska senator, Republican Pete Ricketts, next year.
Part of what helped Osborn’s campaign rocket from nowhere to real competitiveness in a red state was the Nebraska Democratic Party’s decision not to nominate a candidate, effectively clearing the way for Osborn to absorb all of the non-Fischer vote. (The Utah Democratic Party made a similar decision in 2022, tacitly supporting independent Evan McMullin against Republican incumbent Mike Lee and helping make the race more competitive than it would otherwise have been. These two races may inspire a new tactic among Democrats, at least in the Great Plains and Mountain West.)
Just how competitive was Osborn? He didn’t exactly come close to winning, but almost certainly did better than anyone else could have. In Fischer’s two Senate elections before 2024, she won with about 58 percent of the vote. Against Osborn, she got only 53 percent of the vote—and because Osborn was a) not a Democrat and b) the only other candidate, he topped 46 percent of the vote, more than any of Fischer’s previous challengers.
All that said, Ricketts, in his two runs for governor, earned 57 and 59 percent of the vote. In his one Senate election so far, he earned 63 percent of the vote against a lone Democratic opponent. So he will likely be a tougher competitor than Fischer, even if midterms are traditionally bad for parties in power.