View in browser

Item one: How in the hell does he get away with this? Here’s the answer.

Nicolle Wallace had Scott Galloway on her MSNBC show Thursday. She began by asking him what he makes of this moment in which we find ourselves. Galloway, a business professor and popular podcaster, could have zigged in any number of directions with that open-ended question, so I was interested to see the direction he settled on: "I think we essentially have become a kleptocracy that would make Putin blush. I mean, keep in mind that in the first three months, the Trump family has become $3 billion wealthier, so that’s a billion dollars a month."

Stop and think about that. A presidency lasts, of course, 48 months (at most, we hope). Trump has been enriching himself at an unprecedented scale since day one of his second term—actually, since just before, given that he announced the $Trump meme coin a few days before swearing to protect and defend the Constitution.

And now, we know that he’s having a dinner at Mar-a-Lago in two weeks for his top $Trump investors, whose identities we may never know. How might these people influence his decisions? This whole arrangement is blatantly corrupt. And The New York Times had a terrific report this week about Don Jr. and Eric going around the world (Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia) making deals from which their father will profit.

I read these stories, as I’m sure you do, and I think to myself: How on earth is he getting away with this? It’s the right question, but we usually concentrate on the wrong answer.

For most people, they think first of the Democrats, because they’re the opposition, and by the traditions of our system they’re the ones who are supposed to stop this, or at least raise hell about it. Second, we might think about congressional Republicans, who, if they were actually upholding their own oaths to the Constitution, would be expressing alarm about this.

They both shoulder some blame, but neither of those is really the answer. Every time I ask myself how he gets away with this, I remember: Oh, right. It’s the right-wing media. Duh.

After the election, I wrote a column that went viral about how the right-wing media made Trump’s election possible. Fox News, most conspicuously, but also Newsmax, One America News Network, Sinclair, and the rest, along with the swarm of right-wing podcasters and TikTokers, created a media environment in which Trump could do no wrong and Kamala Harris no right.

Think back—I know you’ve repressed it—to that horror-clown-show Madison Square Garden rally Trump held the week before the election. It was, as the Times put it, a "carnival of grievances, misogyny, and racism." A generation or two ago, that would have finished off his campaign. Last year? It made no difference. No—it helped. And it helped because a vast propaganda network—armed with press passes and First Amendment protections—spent a week gabbing about how cool and manly it was.

Newsflash: They’re still at it.

First of all, Fox News is basically the megaphone of the Trump administration. In Trump’s first 100 days in office, key administration officials, reports Media Matters for America, appeared on Fox 536 times. That, obviously, is 5.36 times per day; in other words, assuming that a cable news "day" runs from 6 a.m. to midnight, that’s one administration official about every three hours. I’ve seen occasional clips where the odd host challenges them on this point or that, but in essence, this is a propaganda parade.

I tried to do some googling to see how Fox is covering the meme coin scandal. Admitting that Google doesn’t catch everything, the answer seems to be that it’s not. On the network’s website, there was a bland January 18 article reporting that he’d launched it; an actually interesting January 22 piece summarizing a critical column by The Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell, who charged that it was an invitation to bribery; and finally, an April 24 report that the coin surged in value after Trump announced the upcoming dinner—"critics" were given two paragraphs, deep in the article. (Interesting side note: Predictably, other figures on the far right have aped Trump by launching their own coins, among them former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and "QAnon Shaman" Jacob Chansley.)

But it’s not just Fox, and it’s not just on corruption. It’s all of them, and it’s on everything. You think any of them are mentioning Trump’s campaign promise to bring prices down on day one, or pointing out that all "persons" in the United States have a right to due process? Or criticizing his shambolic tariffs policies? I’m not saying there’s never criticism. There is. But the thrust of the coverage is protective and defensive: "Expert Failure & the Trump Boom" was the theme of one recent Laura Ingraham segment.

So sure, blame Democrats to some extent. A number of them are increasingly trying to bring attention to the corruption story, but there’s always more they could be doing. (By the way, new DNC Chair Ken Martin announced the creation one month ago of a new "People’s Cabinet" to push back hard against Trump. Anybody heard of it since?)

And of course, blame congressional Republicans. Their constitutional, ethical, and moral failures are beyond the pale, and they’re all cowards.

But neither of those groups is the reason Trump can throw a meme coin party and nothing happens; can send legal U.S. residents to brutal El Salvador prisons; can detain students for weeks because they wrote one pro-Palestinian op-ed; can shake down universities and law firms; can roil the markets with his idiotic about-faces on tariffs; can whine that bringing down prices is harder than he thought; can empower his largest donor, the richest man in the world, to take a meat-ax to the bureaucracy in a way that makes no sense to anyone, and so much more.

It’s all because Trump and his team operate within the protective cocoon of a media-disinformation environment that allows just enough criticism to retain "credibility" but essentially functions as a Ministry of Truth for the administration that would have shocked Orwell himself.

And just remember—a billion dollars a month.

Item two: The one thing I’d love to see Leo XIV do

Coverage of new popes always tends toward puffery and heavily accentuates the positive. But I will say that as soon as I heard that Robert Prevost had decided to call himself Leo XIV, I was intrigued.

Popes usually choose their names with great care and precision, and as you’ve surely read by now, the last Leo, the XIII, back in the late nineteenth century, was a pretty progressive fellow for those times. He made the Church wrestle with modernity for the first time, acknowledging that faith could coexist with science. His 1891 "Rerum novarum" made then-radical (for the Catholic Church) pronunciations about capital and labor and spelled out principles such as the dignity of the person (especially the poor and working classes), the common good, and subsidiarity (the idea that federal governments should act when smaller and more local entities could not adequately provide for the common good) that really moved the clock forward.

In addition to that, we have the new pope’s social media record, which is at least faintly encouraging from a progressive point of view. He’s bashed Donald Trump and JD Vance and spoken up for immigrants and the poor. Right-wingers like Laura Loomer are already calling him "Marxist."

Hopes tend to get a little out of proportion at moments like these. But if we have a pope who is genuinely committed to a modernized version of Leo XIII’s idea of social justice, that would be a great thing for the world. I admit I was expecting much worse, merely because most things these days are.

The one thing I’d like to see him do, more even than anything directly on the social justice front? Allow priests to marry. This, to me, would spark the revolution the Church needs more than any other. It wouldn’t end the sex scandals; married men can be pedophiles too. But it would probably vastly reduce them. And in general, it would represent a fundamental doctrinal change that could have extensive ramifications.

For many years, poll after poll has shown that American Catholics, at least, support such a move strongly. A Pew survey from last month found that 63 percent said priests should be allowed to marry; 68 percent said women should be able to become deacons; 59 percent even said women should be able to become priests. Respondents’ views on a range of social issues were similarly impatient with the conservative status quo. For example, 60 percent said priests should be able to bless same-sex couples (on this and other questions, those who attend mass weekly show lower levels of support for change).

Expecting one pope to alter all these things is unrealistic. This is an old and lumbering institution. And I am not Catholic and not anywhere near an expert, so this is just my two cents, if it’s worth even that. But I do know how politics works, and this is not dissimilar: A leader does one dramatically symbolic thing, and his followers somehow start thinking differently about a lot of things. Allowing priests to marry would undoubtedly fling open other doors.

Next Week: Resisting the Authoritarian Takeover

On May 14, TNR’s editor, Michael Tomasky, and staff writers Matt Ford, Timothy Noah, Tori Otten, and Greg Sargent will host the next in our series America in Crisis, live and livestreamed from the Atlas Performing Arts Center in Washington, D.C.

With Trump’s antidemocratic rampage underway, this event will bring together influential political figures and commentators to explore what we can do to fight back. Guests will include Senator Amy Klobuchar; Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees; Leah Greenberg, co-founder and co–executive director of the Indivisible Project; Representative ​​Raja Krishnamoorthi; Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward; Representative Veronica Escobar, and many more.

RSVP before it sells out:

Quiz time!

Last week’s quiz: You’re called a what?! Weird things that people from a certain place are called, and yes, there’s a word for it: demonyms.

1. What do you call someone from Manchester, England?

A. Manchugian
B. Manchesterian
C. Mancunian
D. Bobbin

Answer: C, Mancunian. It’s Latin. Explanation here. It’s pretty cool, I think.

2. And how about someone from Oxford, England?

A. Oxon
B. Oxnard
C. Oxonian
D. Boater

Answer: C, Oxonian. Same basic idea. Although—is this people affiliated with the famous university or just people from Oxford generally? Last week, I thought the latter, but reading around now, I’m not sure. Anyone know? Either way, it’s the answer.

3. Finally, before we leave the sceptered isle, what are people from Leeds called?

A. Ledsians
B. Loiners
C. Leodensians
D. Yorkies

Answer: B, Loiners. It’s true, and apparently there are three working theories. While Leeds is in Yorkshire, Yorkies are dogs.

4. Why are people (and things) from the Netherlands called Dutch?

A. It goes back to a proto-Germanic word meaning "of the people."
B. It comes from basically the same place as the English word "dutch" meaning going alone or paying one’s own way ("going dutch").
C. It comes from an Old Dutch word for a herring breakfast that was wildly popular in the Middle Ages.
D. No one really knows.

Answer: A, "of the people." Kinda boring and obvious, I guess, but hey, now you know.

5. Match the slang demonym to the U.S. state:

Answer: Sunflower = Kansas, Cheesehead = Wisconsin, Woodchuck = Vermont, Corncracker = Kentucky. I didn’t go with the obvious ones here, like Buckeye or Volunteer, but I thought this was still easy. Corncracker you could get because they make rye. A Woodchuck is small and kinda cute, like Vermont itself. The other two seemed straightforward enough.

6. Which college athletic mascot below doesn’t really double as a demonym for a person from that state?

A. North Carolina Tar Heel
B. Iowa Hawkeye
C. West Virginia Mountaineer
D. Idaho Vandal

Answer: D, Vandal. Or maybe it does, I don’t know. I’ve never been there. But I kinda doubt people from a certain state refer to themselves as Vandals. Pretty groovy mascot name, though. Here’s the story of how it came to be, and a photo of Joe Vandal himself.

TNR Travel: New Dates Added

Explore Cuba!

Join a special group of readers and supporters on a lovingly designed, all-inclusive tour of one of the most spellbinding places in the world. Drawing on The New Republic’s special contacts among local historians, artists, and chefs, we’ve created a first-class experience that will immerse you in Cuba’s colorful and unique history, politics, and culture.

This week’s quiz: "Arrivederci, Roma …" With all eyes on Rome, at least until yesterday, a quiz on La Città Eterna.

1. According to legend, Rome gets its name from Romulus, the city’s founder and first king, in the 750s BCE. As infants, Romulus and his brother, Remus (whom Romulus ultimately killed), were suckled by what animal?

A. A lioness

B. A female fox (vixen)

C. A Palomino mare

D. A she-wolf

2. Around when was the Colosseum built?

A. Around 500 BCE

B. Around 200 BCE

C. Just after the time of Christ

D. Around 400 C.E. (or A.D.)

3. In what region is Rome located?

A. Abruzzo

B. Lazio

C. Umbria

D. Campania

4. Who is the God who occupies the central place in the Trevi Fountain?

A. Oceanus

B. Neptune

C. Jupiter

D. Janus

5. Which of these classic films was not set in Rome?

A. Bicycle Thieves

B. Light in the Piazza

C. La Dolce Vita

D. Nights of Cabiria

6. Which of these dishes did not originate in Rome?

A. Fettucine Alfredo

B. Pasta carbonara

C. Vitello saltimbocca

D. Trenette al pesto

By the way—it just occurred to me the other day, for the first time in my life, to wonder what "Sistine" means. It means of or relating to any of the popes named Sixtus. ’Twas Sixtus IV who commissioned La Capella Sistina. So, again, now you know. Answers next week. Feedback to [email protected].

—Michael Tomasky, editor

Update your personal preferences for [email protected] by clicking here.

Our mailing address is:

The New Republic, 1 Union Sq W , Fl 6 , NY , New York, NY 10003-3303, United States

Do you want to stop receiving all emails from Fighting Words?

Unsubscribe from this list. If you stopped getting TNR emails, update your profile to resume receiving them.