By now it should be obvious: CNN is over. Not over in the literal sense — there will still be anchors, studios, chyrons, and breathless breaking-news banners — but over as a trusted institution, as a cultural force, as a meaningful driver of the national conversation. The pending sale of Warner Bros. Discovery, including CNN, to David and Larry Ellison is not a fresh start. It’s a confirmation that the long, slow decline is complete. This isn’t a pivot or a rebrand. It’s the final stage of a collapse that’s been years in the making. For decades, CNN sold itself as the grown-up in the room — the place you turned when the world was on fire and you wanted adults handling the facts. That identity once carried weight. But the erosion didn’t begin with the Ellisons. It began when CNN quietly traded credibility for access, clarity for spectacle, and confidence for appeasement. The shift was subtle at first. Bad-faith combativeness was reframed as “balance.” Lying was rebranded as “debate.” Performative obstruction was elevated to primetime programming. The (sometimes) MAGA-adjacent contributor Scott Jennings became the embodiment of that transition: not a serious ideological foil, but a volume machine. He does not engage so much as disrupt, substituting repetition and deflection for argument. And instead of challenging that dynamic, management has rewarded it by allowing him to spew lies, insult the network’s own anchors and guests, and otherwise make clear that he gets what he wants — viewers and the truth be damned. The result was predictable. What had once been a fact-oriented newsroom slowly became a noise factory. The network that prided itself on being sober and steady began chasing political favor. Credibility became secondary to positioning. Why did they do it and what does that have to do with what happened yesterday? ...
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
At last night’s State of the Union address, President Donald Trump went on offense, seeming to try to set the terms for the upcoming midterm elections. Although the State of the Union in the past was an opportunity for the president to tell the American people where the country stood with regard to foreign affairs, finances, the economy, the public lands, and so on, it has, over the years, become more about messaging and future plans rather than a summing up of the past year.
With his approval ratings under 40%, administration officials mired in corruption scandals, and every one of his policies underwater, Trump delivered a campaign rally. To answer Americans’ concerns about his economic policies, the slowing of economic growth, and rising inflation, he insisted that he had “inherited a nation in crisis” but had “achieved a transformation like no one has ever seen before.” He proceeded to claim that the economy is booming, using statistics that were either made up or staggeringly misleading, like his boast that “in one year we have lifted 2.4 million Americans—a record—off of food stamps.” In fact, Republicans cut food assistance from those people, so they are indeed off the rolls, but “lifted” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
In between his celebrations of what he assured the audience was a “golden age,” Trump turned the event into what appeared to be an awards show. “Our country is winning again,” he claimed. “In fact, we’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it. People are asking me, please, please, please, Mr. President, we’re winning too much. We can’t take it anymore. We’re not used to winning in our country until you came along, we’re just always losing. But now we’re winning too much. And I say, no, no, no, you’re going to win again. You’re going to win big. You’re going to win bigger than ever. And to prove that point, to prove that point, here with us tonight is a group of winners who just made the entire nation proud. The men’s gold medal Olympic hockey team. Come on in!”
Trump said he would be awarding the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to the goalie of that team, which had just won the gold medal at the Olympics.
He also presented two recipients with Purple Hearts, a military decoration awarded to service members killed or wounded in action; and one with the Legion of Merit award for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of an outstanding service or achievement. Trump awarded two recipients the Medal of Honor, the U.S. military’s highest decoration for valor in action. After awarding one, Trump mused: “I’ve always wanted the Congressional Medal of Honor, but I was informed I’m not allowed to give it to myself, and I wouldn’t know why I’d be taking it. But if they ever opened up that law I will be there with you someday.”
Trump did not serve in the military.
But the party atmosphere was selective. Trump did not acknowledge the Epstein survivors in the audience, invited by Democratic representatives. Representative Al Green (D-TX) was escorted out after holding up a sign that referred to the president’s posting of an image of former president Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama as apes, reading: “BLACK PEOPLE AREN’T APES.” And Trump’s descriptions of murders committed by undocumented immigrants—with apparent relish and with the victims’ family members in the audience—seemed to glorify cruelty and violence.
It seemed clear that Trump intends to try to persuade Americans who have soured on his economy and hate his immigration policies that they are wrong, and that both are, in fact, triumphs. He also appeared to try to answer concerns about the skyrocketing deficit on his watch by blaming immigrants for it, claiming that they are committing fraud that is “plundering” the country. He announced a “war on fraud to be led by our great Vice President J.D. Vance,” saying, “And we’re able to find enough of that fraud, we will actually have a balanced budget overnight.”
Trump’s tax cuts primarily benefited the wealthy and corporations, and pinning their effects on immigrants illustrates how Trump’s strongest calls were to his base. Not only did he portray immigrants as violent criminals, in a moment scripted for television, he then turned on Democrats in the chamber, setting them up to force them to back off their insistence on reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol by demanding that they stand to show their support for the statement: “The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”
It was a deliberate division of the country into “us” and “them,” a classic authoritarian move, that he followed up by calling the Democrats “crazy” and claiming that “Democrats are destroying our country.” Facing a midterm election in which voters appear strongly to favor Democrats, Trump went out of his way to try to define them, rather than his own administration, as dangerous extremists.
Shawn McCreesh of the New York Times noted that deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller, an adherent of the Great Replacement theory who is the key figure driving the administration’s crusade against migrants, made it “clear that the night’s performance had been built around this moment.” Miller posted: “0 democrats stood for the foundational principle of all government that leaders must serve citizens before invaders. Never has there been a more stunning moment in Congress.”
And he was right, in a way, because it was indeed stunning that Republican members of Congress cheered and applauded at the attacks on their colleagues. In his 1951 The True Believer: Notes on the Nature of Mass Movements, philosopher Eric Hoffer noted that once people are wedded to a strongman, they will cling to him ever more tightly as his behavior becomes more and more erratic. This loyalty is in part to demonstrate their own devotion to the cause, and in part to justify their own attacks on those the strongman has given them permission to hurt.
The behavior of the Republican representatives was really the only memorable part of the evening. Trump’s almost two-hour State of the Union—the longest State of the Union address in history—felt pretty much like a Trump rally, full of outrageous exaggerations, lies, game show promises, and attacks, and those are old hat by now.
In contrast, the response to the State of the Union—which is usually deadly—was a breath of fresh air. Delivered by Virginia governor Abigail Spanberger, the response was short and clean, and in a refreshing change from Trump’s constant focus on himself, it centered the American people.
Spanberger noted that she was speaking from the Virginia House of Burgesses, where “[b]efore there was a Declaration of Independence, a Constitution, or a Bill of Rights—there were people in this very room” who “dreamed of what a new nation…could be.” She continued: “The United States was founded on the idea that ordinary people could reject the unacceptable excesses of poor leadership, band together to demand better of their government, and create a nation that would be an example for the world.”
“Tonight,” she said, “we did not hear the truth from our President.” She asked, is the president “working to make life more affordable for you and your family,” is he “working to keep Americans safe—both at home and abroad,” and is he “working for YOU?”
She noted that the rising costs of housing, healthcare, energy, and childcare are pressing everyone. Trump’s trade policies, especially tariffs, have hurt small businesses, farmers, and everyday Americans, while the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is forcing rural health clinics to close, stripping healthcare from millions of Americans, and cutting food programs for children.
Turning to the excesses of federal agents from ICE and Border Patrol, Spanberger highlighted her own career as a law enforcement officer working money-laundering and narcotics cases alongside local and state police to note that law enforcement requires “an abiding sense of duty and commitment to community.” “And yet,” she said, “our President has sent poorly trained federal agents into our cities, where they have arrested and detained American citizens and people who aspire to be Americans—and they have done it without a warrant.
“They have ripped nursing mothers away from their babies, they have sent children—a little boy in a blue bunny hat—to far-off detention centers, and they have killed American citizens on our streets. And they have done it all with their faces masked from accountability. Every minute spent sowing fear is a minute not spent investigating murders, crimes against children, or the criminals defrauding seniors of their life savings.”
“Our President told us tonight that we are safer because these agents arrest mothers and detain children,” she said. “Think about that. Our broken immigration system is something to be fixed—not an excuse for unaccountable agents to terrorize our communities.”
At the same time, she said, the president “continues to cede economic power and technological strength to China, bow down to a Russian dictator, and make plans for war with Iran.” “[T]hrough [the Department of Government Efficiency], mass firings, and the appointment of deeply unserious people to our nation’s most serious positions, our President has endangered the long and storied history of the United States of America being a force for good.”
“In his speech tonight,” she said, “the President did what he always does: he lied, he scapegoated, and he distracted. He also offered no real solutions to our nation’s pressing challenges—so many of which he is actively making worse.” Who is benefitting from “his rhetoric, his policies, his actions, and the short list of laws he’s pushed through this Republican Congress?” she asked.
“He’s enriching himself, his family, his friends,” she said. “The scale of the corruption is unprecedented. There’s the cover-up of the Epstein files, the crypto scams, cozying up to foreign princes for airplanes and billionaires for ballrooms, putting his name and face on buildings all over our nation’s capital. This is not what our founders envisioned. So, I’ll ask again: Is the President working for you?”
“We all know the answer is no.”
“But here is the special thing about America,” she said. “[W]e know better than any nation what is possible when ordinary citizens—like those who once dreamed right here in this room—reject the unacceptable and demand more of their government.” She noted the power of the Americans taking action across the country to protest the government and to vote. “With their votes,” she said, “they are writing a new story.”
In November, Spanberger said, she won her election by 15 points, earning votes “from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and everyone in-between; because they knew as citizens, they could demand more. That they could vote for what they believe matters, and they didn’t need to be constrained by a party or political affiliation.” In that election, Democrats flipped legislative seats in Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, and Texas. Now “[o]rdinary Americans are stepping up to run…to demand more and do more for their neighbors and communities.”
“Those who are stepping up now to run will win in November because Americans know you can demand more, and that we are working to lower costs, we are working to keep our communities and country safe, and we are working for you,” she said.
“In his Farewell Address,” she concluded, “George Washington warned us about the possibility of ‘cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men’ rising to power. But he also encouraged us—all Americans—to unite in ‘a common cause’ to move this nation forward. That is our charge once more. And that is what we are seeing across the country.
“It is deeply American and patriotic to do so, and it is how we ensure that the State of our Union remains strong, not just this year but for the next 250 years as well.”
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_11.png?cache=1772224376978)
 | |
By Ben Jacobs | |
Supporters and members of the British Indian Ocean territory Chagos Archipelago hold placards and the territory's flag outside the Houses of Parliament in London on Jan. 7, 2026, to protest against a proposed plan by the British government to hand over the islands to Mauritius. | Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images | |
Greenland isn’t the only island where President Donald Trump’s proclivity for online posting is exposing new fractures in NATO. Trump’s repeated — and very public — criticisms of U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands treaty with Mauritius has sparked a diplomatic firestorm, leading to mixed messages from the British government about whether the deal would be put on “pause.” The British Indian Ocean Territory encompasses the collection of about 60 islands, most of which are tiny and uninhabited specks of coral peeking out through the waves. The exception is Diego Garcia, the location of a military base that is considered to be one of the most strategically important American outposts. After long, painstaking negotiations that began years before Starmer took office, the United Kingdom appeared to be on the verge of an agreement to hand over the territory to the former British colony of Mauritius and promptly enter a 99-year lease to maintain possession of Diego Garcia. The goal was to prevent international legal tribunals from claiming the British occupation of the territory is illegitimate — and the agreement had been backed by the State Department only days before Trump torched it on Truth Social. Forecast talked to Ben Judah, a former special advisor to British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, about why this territory matters and what this means for Anglo-American relations moving forward. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. What is so important about these islands? Well, there’s an old saying that they’re in the middle of nowhere, but they’re halfway to everywhere. The Chagos Islands are some of the most strategic pieces of real estate that exist in the world — if you want to be in a commanding position in the Indian Ocean, staring at Africa, the Middle East and, of course, right into Asia. Why is there suddenly a dispute about all of this? What made sense for the United States in the 1960s, which was to have the colonial power stay, has started to become a headache for both the U.S. and the U.K. And the reason is that the manner of decolonization has meant that the U.K.’s legal position is on the verge of collapsing. There’s been a non-binding resolution at the International Court of Justice. The U.K. Foreign Office and the State Department and every other legal department that matters around the world knows that a binding judgment is inevitable, and that will rule that the British Indian Ocean Territory is an illegal occupation of Mauritian territory. This means that this crucial Anglo-American super-base will, in the eyes of the rest of the world, be in illegally occupied territory. So why should we care about that? The hard-power reason is that there’s not just one island called Diego Garcia. There are 1,000 atolls around it, stretching across a huge swath of territory — from the edge of the Maldives deep into the Indian Ocean. If there’s no deal, and if there’s a binding judgment — which there will be — Mauritius will walk away. It will walk away not just from the deal, but it will walk away from the West. It’s a swing state in the great game for the Indian Ocean, and it will quite likely throw its eggs into the Chinese basket. It can then invite China into all of those other atolls. It might begin with a fishing fleet. It could develop into a research station. All of a sudden, there could be a Chinese base within striking and listening range of Diego Garcia, with the full force of international law behind it. [Dealing with this] would be a huge sink for cash and military resources for both the United Kingdom and the United States, which is why the Labour government set about negotiating a deal where, in order for everything to stay the same, everything changes. In terms of who gets to color it in the atlas, it goes from being Britain to Mauritius — but everything else stays the same. So why is Trump blowing this up? The prime minister’s mistake was to think that he was still living in a world of foreign policy, of Western unity and a deep consensus of the national interest. Sen. Arthur Vandenburg used to say politics stops at the water’s edge — when in fact we’re living in a world of foreign politics. And the British right has been mounting a diplomatic campaign in the United States to make the idea of British sovereignty over these territories, as some of the last remaining specks of empire, a kind of totem of what it means to be on the global right — of standing up to international law, of standing up to any kind of idea of giving up territory. And Trump, who sees himself as the leader, and is the leader, of the global right, has been influenced by this campaign from the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Nigel Farage. What lessons broadly do Starmer and other American allies both in Europe and outside of Europe take from this? The lesson being kind of drawn in London is that, in the 20th century, the Anglo-American alliance was capable of sort of subtle realpolitik, because there was a shared sense of the national interest on both sides of the aisle. It was the era of foreign policy. Now that’s gone. We’ve both become sort of emotional, turbulent, social media-driven societies who are simply not going to be as capable of the kind of subtle statecraft that we were in the Cold War days. That’s the lesson I’m drawing. And the lesson I think we need to draw is to know what kind of things our societies are going to be capable of — and not capable of — in the great game against China in the 21st century. |
No comments:
Post a Comment