The Only MAGA That Counts Is Trump’s
Josh Hawley tried to freelance on populist policy. Trump nuked him from orbit.
Earlier this week, we were nonplussed and repulsed at Donald Trump’s bizarre description of how Jeffrey Epstein had abused girls he first met in the spa at Mar-a-Lago: Epstein “stole people that worked for me,” Trump said.
As it turns out, the family of one of Epstein’s most prominent victims feels the same. “It was shocking to hear President Trump invoke our sister and say that he was aware that Virginia had been ‘stolen’ from Mar-a-Lago,” the family of Virginia Giuffre said in a statement. “It makes us ask if he was aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal actions . . . We and the public are looking for answers; survivors deserve this.” Happy Thursday.
Who Speaks for MAGA?
by Andrew Egger
Poor Josh Hawley! Missouri’s senior senator is a simple man: All he wants is to pass populist-posturing America First laws taking aim at our dastardly elites. That’s what Republicans are into these days, right?
Take congressional stock trading. Republican influencers have long shaken their fists (and not without reason) at lawmakers’ penchant for remarkably canny stock trades. So when Josh Hawley drew up a bill banning the practice, he surely thought he was hitting on both a policy and PR win. He even named it the PELOSI Act as a red-meat coup de grâce!
What he certainly didn’t expect was the Truth Social response he got from Donald Trump. Apparently outraged that Hawley’s bill would also ban future presidents from trading stocks beginning in 2029, the president decried Hawley as a “second-tier senator” who was “playing right into the dirty hands of the Democrats.”
“I don’t think real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, TARGETED,” Trump wrote.
It was a remarkable outburst against a guy who has spent more time than most sniffing Trump’s throne. But it also tells us something bigger about the current moment. The MAGA populism that both Trump and Hawley claim to embody has yet to crystallize around a shared policy vision. And the breakdown is not just about whether presidents should be scrutinized for the stocks that they trade.
Take two other bills that Hawley is backing. One of them he introduced this week. It would give a $600 “rebate” to most Americans, supposedly tied to the massive wealth being generated—in both Hawley’s telling and Trump’s—by the administration’s tariffs.
“Americans deserve a tax rebate after four years of Biden policies that have devastated families’ savings and livelihoods,” Hawley said in a statement. “Like President Trump proposed, my legislation would allow hardworking Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump’s tariffs are returning to this country.”
On the surface, this is a straightforward piece of propaganda, designed to give the impression that Trump’s tariffs are doing what the president insanely claims they do: generate incredible sums of free-lunch revenue for the U.S. at the expense of other countries, no drawbacks, no tradeoffs. In that way, it’s a lot like the “DOGE dividends” Elon Musk was floating earlier this year. The fact that such a DOGE rebate would have cost many times more than DOGE ever saved was irrelevant: the point was to give the impression that DOGE had saved enormous sums of money.
But below the surface, the bill tells a potentially different story. Hawley recognizes that there are costs to real consumers—in this case, the working class voters he wants to court—that come with the tariffs Trump is implementing. Pay no attention to the enormous costs of our new protectionist regime, he is suggesting. Please do not notice that you are actively paying higher prices. Instead, look over here at this pile of your money I’m preparing to hand BACK!
The other notable bill from Hawley came two weeks ago. It was, in the words of his office, to “invest in rural hospitals and prevent any future cuts to Medicaid hospital funding.” Those are certainly pursuits that fall under the banner of the new MAGA populist movement. But they also are in direct contrast to the “big beautiful bill” Trump pushed and congressional Republicans passed earlier this summer. Hawley voted for that bill, which makes dramatic cuts to Medicaid. But unlike the president, he’s not spending the subsequent weeks insisting it’s the world’s finest piece of legislation. He’s actively trying to undo the damage he has done.
Is this why Trump lashed out at Hawley yesterday? The White House didn’t respond to my request for comment.
But it’s hard to imagine that it didn’t factor into the president’s decision to go nuclear. You would think Trump would maybe admire Hawley’s bill to send tariff-generated rebates to voters. You could even make the case that, intellectually, Trump would support a bill to protect rural hospitals, too. At a minimum, you’d imagine that Trump might appreciate the years of servitude that Hawley has shown.
But the president’s outburst was a good reminder that if you’re a Republican lawmaker, you can’t ever stockpile a reservoir of goodwill with the guy. You can be a world-historical toady all your life, and Trump’s still going to nuke you from orbit if he decides your version of MAGA populism doesn’t align with his.
Mike Johnson’s Turn to Step in It
by William Kristol
Donald Trump took a day off yesterday from digging himself deeper into a hole on the matter of Jeffrey Epstein. But you’ll be glad to hear that one of his top aides as well as the speaker of the House stepped up to the plate.
The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, sought to assure us that Trump’s relationship to Epstein should give us no cause for concern: “The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees.”
Actually, the fact remains that Donald Trump remained a great “pal” of Jeffrey Epstein for years after Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein took a then-16-year-old Virginia Giuffre from his club, and—as Trump acknowledged Tuesday—other girls, as well.
Leavitt described Epstein’s behavior as “being a creep to [Trump’s] female employees.” That seems generous. Working in the Trump White House, Karoline Leavitt surely knows plenty of “creeps.” Epstein wasn’t a creep. He was a criminal sociopath.
But Leavitt’s description of Epstein is revealing. The fact is that deep down—and not so deep down—neither Trump nor his lackeys describe Epstein’s crimes with the severity they deserve. That’s because the thing they take seriously is the threat Trump’s previous relationship with Epstein—and his current coverup of that relationship—poses to his political well-being.
The Epstein coverup also poses a threat to Trump’s supporters. And so, yesterday, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson told Jake Tapper the following:
I want everything to come out about the Epstein evils. . . . I’m pushing aggressively for the full release of everything that is possible, and, by the way, so is the president. We’re using every mechanism within our power to do that, and to do it as quickly as possible.
This is Orwellian. Two weeks ago, Speaker Johnson recessed the House in order to avoid a floor vote on a resolution calling for the release of the files. On July 17, the Rules Committee passed with bipartisan support House Resolution 589, “Providing for the release of certain documents, records, and communications related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.” Johnson panicked and sent the House home early for summer recess. That hardly qualifies as “quickly as possible.”
And how’s that recess going for Mike Johnson? Well, earlier this week, a state representative from Johnson’s own 4th district of Louisiana, a fellow Republican, took the extraordinary step of issuing a statement condemning Johnson.
State Rep. Danny McCormick of Oil City pointed out that Johnson “shut down Congress early to dodge the vote.” He went on: “It’s one thing to be silent. It’s another to actively stand in the way of truth and justice. That raises serious questions about who he’s really protecting.”
Whoa.
The White House spin notwithstanding, Epstein wasn’t just a creep. The Speaker’s spin notwithstanding, so far Republicans in Congress have been part of the coverup.
And the issue isn’t going away. The August recess should be interesting.
AROUND THE BULWARK
Schumer’s Moment of Truth… The September government-shutdown deadline will show us how willing Democratic leaders are to take on Trump. And they’ll put a particularly big spotlight on Chuck Schumer, reports LAUREN EGAN in The Opposition.
‘The Naked Gun’ Review… The Naked Gun is as close as you’ll get to the gag-a-minute wordplay of classic ZAZ comedy, writes SONNY BUNCH.
What is Israel’s Plan? On Shield of the Republic, ERIC EDELMAN and ELIOT COHEN discuss the latest Pentagon missteps, Trump’s shifting stance on Russia, and the crisis in Gaza—trying to fairly assess blame amid conflicting claims from Hamas and the Israeli government.
An ICE Website Goes Full Fascist! Trump’s Personal Army? Epstein Excuse Blows Up! On The Next Level, SARAH, TIM, and JVL discuss ICE job postings for roles like “Deportation Officer” and “Criminal Investigator,” raising concerns that they signal a push to build a loyalty-vetted enforcement agency with minimal oversight.
His Name Is Jesus. He’s a Carpenter. ICE Arrested Him. In Huddled Masses, ADRIAN CARASQUILLO introduces us to Jesus Teran, a Venezuelan political refugee arrested by ICE in Pennsylvania.
Quick Hits
CRACKS IN THE FOUNDATION: By all accounts, the situation for the remaining Palestinians trapped in the Gaza strip is terribly desperate—so much so that it’s reshaping longstanding political lines around the conflict. First there was the White House’s surprising break this week from the Israeli government’s assessment of starvation in Gaza. Then, last night, a Bernie Sanders-led attempt to block $675 million in arms sales to Israel failed in the Senate. But 27 Democrats voted in support of the resolution, up from just 10 on a similar vote in January. Supporters included Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), whose vote, Axios noted, “helped open up the support of other moderates.” Shaheen is retiring, so that may have made her feel liberated to vote this way. But the trend lines are very clear here.
DE MINIMIS, RIP: The White House is doubling down this week on one of the most important trade changes you probably haven’t heard of: ending the de minimis loophole on foreign imports. Earlier this year, Trump ended the exemption for imports from China; this week, he is making the change worldwide.
This upends nearly a century of tax law. Beginning in the 1930s, Congress deliberately exempted small-dollar imports—initially, of items worth less than $1—from import taxes and substantial scrutiny by customs officials. But what was originally conceived as a small carveout for small-stakes trade has since ballooned into a massive sector, especially in the age of e-commerce. The current de minimis threshold is shipments worth $800 or less; last year, the U.S. brought in more than 1.3 billion such shipments.
There are lots of reasonable objections to the current state of the de minimis exemption. The White House has characterized it as widely abused, noting that 98 percent of narcotics seizures and 97 percent of intellectual property seizures stemmed from de minimis shipments. Others have long argued that the policy makes it easier for foreign exploiters of forced labor to evade scrutiny while selling illegal products in the U.S., especially in the apparel market.
Still, ending the policy will have costs. If you’ve shopped online much in the last few years, especially on direct-to-consumer sites like Shein and Temu, you’ve probably benefited from the sort of frictionless, small-package shipping the de minimis loophole enabled. All that is getting more expensive. Then there’s the massive logistical headache for customs officials who must screen this monsoon of smaller packages that, until now, weren’t seen as worth the hassle. And don’t forget that this isn’t taking place in a vacuum: It’s just another large brick in the wall the White House is building between America and its trading partners around the world.
SHE’S NOT GOING BACK [INTO POLITICS… FOR NOW]: Kamala Harris isn’t running for governor. Although the former California senator had been contemplating a bid to succeed term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom, she announced yesterday she isn’t ready to dive back into electoral politics… yet.
In her announcement, Harris echoed what we all pretty much know about the present moment: The current Democratic status quo ain’t working. “We must recognize that our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people, culminating in this moment of crisis,” she said. “As we look ahead, we must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking—committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook.”
All true enough. But the problem for Harris is that this dynamic will only become more apparent a few years from now. If she does decide to run for president in 2028 (a prospect she left unaddressed in her statement), she’ll have been out of public office for four years—and she’ll be asking Democratic voters for their support for a presidential bid for the third time in a decade. Who knows what surprises lie ahead as the Democratic party struggles to pull itself out of its current slump—but we’d be surprised if the strategy its voters land on is “third verse, same as the first.”
Cheap Shots
Josh Hawley, thinking he's a smart but finding out he's a mark (they're all marks)
"MAGA populism" isn't really populism. It's not about giving opportunity to those left behind. It's only about aggrandizing Donald Trump and punishing people who don't show complete and total devotion to Donald Trump. The PELOSI Act was well named to titillate the base, for sure, but it dragged Trump and Republicans into its net. I'll credit Hawley for proposing legislation that targets corruption on both sides, his despicable naming of the bill notwithstanding, but he does not seem to understand the nature of this movement. Corruption is fine when MAGAs do it, good, even, but not when others do it. And, when your political opponents are not corrupt, you must confabulate corrupt acts onto them, so that your corruption can either be swept under the rug or at least neutralized by breeding cynicism among the electorate.