President Donald Trump has earned a new moniker: “commander in thief,” writes New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who chastises the president for his efforts to engage in a “brazen, in-your-face attempted heist of the U.S. Treasury to benefit himself, his family and his political allies.” Those allies could include Trump’s supporters who were present at the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol — whom Friedman labels “phony defenders of freedom’s frontier.”

Friedman also accuses Trump of having “conspired with his own Justice Department, headed by his former personal lawyer, to use taxpayer money to create a $1.776 billion political slush fund.”

Having a president who “behaves like a commander in thief — not a commander in chief — is costing us dearly at home and abroad,” he writes. “This perversion of the American presidency is undermining the very alliance structure that won two world wars and the Cold War and generated one of history’s longest ages of peace and prosperity. Every day we tolerate such behavior we endanger our children’s future.”

Friedman argues those are just a few of several reasons why Trump has failed as commander in chief.

Trump has not even tried to get Democrats to support his war against Iran.

“Generally, when our nation has been at war, the commander in chief’s top domestic priority is to keep the country united,” says Friedman. “Because there is nothing more demoralizing for U.S. troops fighting abroad than to look back and see our country ripping itself apart at home.” And he warns that “seeing America at war with itself” just encourages the enemy.

Friedman also expresses alarm at how Trump’s actions toward America’s allies have forced them to engage in deterrence — not just against Russia, but against America.

“Our allies have watched Trump threaten to make Canada the 51st state and to seize Greenland from Denmark,” writes Friedman. “They have watched him start a war with Iran without consulting NATO and then demand that NATO help rescue us from what has turned into a mess. They have watched him slash U.S. financial assistance to Ukraine, put the Russian aggressor on the same moral footing as that country and then top it all off with reckless, ill-conceived tariffs on all our allies.”

Friedman also points to the early days of Trump’s second term, when the president “forced Ukraine to give the United States access to critical minerals in return for U.S. help against a Russian Army trying to overrun it. This is the real ‘Trump Doctrine’: Oppose America, and I will tariff you; depend on America, and I will extort you.”

Image via Reuters 

Graham Platner has survived a string of scandals in his run for Maine’s Democratic U.S. Senate nomination. But his latest one “looks different,” says CNN analyst Harry Enten.

Platner seemed to have survived his Nazi-linked tattoo scandal, his “angry and offensive” Reddit comments scandal, and the scandal surrounding him “amplifying a post by a notorious anti-semite on social media and appearing on a podcast with a different antisemitic conspiracy theorist,” as TIME reported last month.

Platner’s latest scandal involved his alleged sexually explicit texts to women who were not his wife, texts his wife reportedly told his campaign about last year.

Campaign aides “ultimately decided the texts were a private matter that was being handled by the couple in marriage counseling, a campaign official said,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

But now, Enten says, Google searches for “Graham Platner” and “Maine” have been up “significantly” over the past few days.

“We’re talking about up 275 percent over the last three days versus the three-month average, and more than that, more people searched for him on Sunday in Maine than at any point that I could find, even given the past revelations, about the tattoos, as well,” says Enten. “So it seems to me that this time may, in fact, be different where Mainers’ focus on Graham Platner is higher.”

Enten found that “one of our first glimpses into how this might affect Platner’s electoral fortunes is from the prediction market, so you can see that’s right here in the Kalshi prediction market, chance to win the Maine Senate race.”

“About 10 days ago, Democrats had a 70% chance — that’s essentially Platner — had a 70 percent chance of winning the general election. Now, that number has fallen. It’s fallen rather significantly.”

Platner has dropped from 70 percent to 59 percent against incumbent GOP Senator Susan Collins. Enten says that is now “well within the margin of error.”

“I dare say too close to call, although Platner is still favored, but his chances have gone down significantly and Collins’ have gone up significantly.”

Polls have consistently underestimated Collins, Enten noted.

Meanwhile, Puck News reports that Democrats are “fretting that their best chance in decades to unseat” Collins is being “jeopardized” by the latest Platner scandal.

Puck notes that “multiple Democrats have described a sense of resignation” that Platner “is the only candidate they’ve got.”

But Maine’s Democratic incumbent Governor Janet Mills, “who suspended her state’s Senate primary, has reminded voters her name is still on the ballot.”

Why this time could be different for Platner.

-Google searches for him are way up in Maine & hit all-time high on Sunday
-Market odds have moved ~10 pt in Collins’ direction
-Collins has long history of beating her polls by 8+ pt

Hard for Dems to win the Senate without Maine. pic.twitter.com/HcwtwDfyAX

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) June 2, 2026

Image via Reuters 

President Donald Trump said point-blank last week that he does not care about the midterms. His slate of endorsements, his campaign to purge Republicans he deems disloyal regardless of the fallout, and his stalled, near-invisible legislative agenda suggest he may not be bluffing.

For Trump, “there might be political upside regardless of who wins,” argues Bloomberg columnist Abby McCloskey.

After all, McCloskey notes, Trump endorsed Texas Republican Ken Paxton over John Cornyn for Cornyn’s Senate seat only at the last minute — when polling suggested Paxton had pulled ahead. Trump may simply have been going with the stronger candidate, despite possibly handing Democrats a red Senate seat in the November general election.

“I’m also not seeing any attempt to woo back voters worried about rising costs,” McCloskey writes. “There’s no legislative action on the horizon to address economic woes or bolster consumer confidence. Instead, Trump went on the record saying he doesn’t ‘think about Americans’ financial situation.’ What a gift for Democratic campaign ads.”

Trump, McCloskey argues, may have declared his midterms indifference after reading the tea leaves: prediction markets show Democrats have an 80 percent chance to flip the House to blue, and even a “coin toss” chance to flip the Senate. The president may simply be sensing what’s to come.

But there’s another reason why Trump may not care about Republicans winning the midterms.

Trump “losing control of Congress wouldn’t have much impact on his governing agenda.”

Aside from his One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer, “there’s essentially been no major legislative agenda to speak of that would require the support of Congress,” says McCloskey. “Trump has relied on executive action more than any modern president.”

Democrats taking back the House and the Senate gives Trump another advantage.

“Trump might actually benefit if the Senate and the House flip to Democratic control,” McCloskey writes. “A majority-Democratic Congress could become the scapegoat that Trump’s second term has been missing. Trump will blame any and all shortcomings on Congress’ new Democratic majority.”

That “could work in Trump’s favor by turning him back into either a victim of the elite or a protector against the progressive tide,” McCloskey says. “The president is at his political apex when he reminds the nation of what awaits on the other side: the woke agenda, the socialist agenda or worse.”

At some point, McCloskey concludes, “when the president says he doesn’t care about his party holding onto power, one has to wonder why.”

Image via Reuters