There was an unexpected delay in finishing up today's page. We regret that.

We have gotten a lot of e-mails in the past few hours, some of them snippier than others, so let us explain something. The questions, and the other material, get completed at some point, and get posted immediately thereafter. Then, the answers get completed at some point many hours later, and are posted immediately thereafter.

To those readers who are complaining that we should stop posting just the questions, we can certainly do that. But the only thing that would change is that the questions would not be posted early. It would not cause the answers to be posted any earlier.

Trump Takes a Hatchet to the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Donald Trump has continued to remake the federal government in his image, such as it is. Although appointees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff usually serve the full terms to which they are confirmed, often spanning multiple presidential administrations, that is not the current president's style. And so, he and his organ grinder monkey, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, just fired a bunch of high-ranking officers. As per usual, you can tell that the moves are totally normal, totally unproblematic, by the fact that they were executed late on Friday night.

Far and away the most prominent person to lose their job is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. C.Q. Brown. He's a former fighter pilot, and has had a distinguished career in which he's been appointed to high commands by presidents of both parties. But he was put in place by Joe Biden, which is strike one, and he is too "woke," which is strike two. In this case, it's two strikes and you're out. We don't know exactly how one is deemed to be excessively "woke," but—just spitballing here—it might have to do with the fact that Brown is Black.

The white fellow that Trump has nominated as Brown's replacement is Lt. Gen. Dan "Razin" Caine (ret.). Caine was, at least until yesterday, working for a venture capital firm called Shield Capital. Caine is also a former fighter pilot, but has held no particularly prominent commands, having topped out as leader of the 113th Maintenance Group. In fact, Caine is not legally qualified to be Chair of the Joint Chiefs, as the U.S. Code says:

The president may appoint an officer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff only if the officer has served as (A) the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; (B) the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, or the Chief of Space Operations; or (C) the commander of a unified or specified combatant command.

Caine has held none of these positions and, indeed, has never occupied a job within 3-4 rungs on the ladder of any of them. That said, Congress also granted itself the power to waive the above law, and is expected to do so here. One wonders why they even bother with these restrictions, since they always end up waiving them.

So, what might have caused Trump to pick someone who is not only unqualified, but also retired, and relatively obscure (as far as three-star generals go)? Well—and again, just spitballing here—it could have to do with an encounter that Trump had with Caine back in 2019. According to a story Trump has told many times, Caine told him: "I love you, sir. I think you're great, sir. I'll kill for you, sir." And then, in a pretty serious violation of military protocol, Caine donned a MAGA hat.

We recognize that Trump sometimes tells lies. However, when he's making up stories out of thin air, he is usually very vague, saying things like "I talked to someone" or "Some people say." He isn't usually this specific. It's also possible that some parts of the story are basically true, but others are in error (say, the MAGA hat part). However, what is beyond question is that, whatever did or did not happen, Trump most certainly believes he's found a loyal lackey to run the Joint Chiefs.

Also fired last night were Air Force Vice Chief of Staff James C. "Jim" Slife; Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti; and the Judge Advocates General for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The reason given, in all cases, was "wokeness." Again, we don't know exactly what that means, though it is the case that the firings resulted in the two highest-ranking women in the U.S. armed forces (Franchetti, Navy JAG Lia M. Reynolds) being relieved of their jobs.

Cashiering so many high-ranking military officers at once is unprecedented, and Hegseth has suggested that more removals are coming. Whatever the plan here might be, one cannot feel good about it. (Z)

Saturday Q&A

We thought this week's headline theme might be tricky. Here's hint #2: All the search engines and AI in the world won't help with the solution. However, if you have the headlines and the first paragraph of each item, you have everything you need.

Current Events

C.S. in Santa Cruz, CA, asks: It seems to me that the average uninformed voter and the non-MAGA Republican voter will not pay much attention to what the Co-Presidents are doing until they start feeling the pain. My question is when do you think that will happen?

(V) & (Z) answer: The stock market crash that happened on October 24, 1929, got the ball rolling on the Great Depression. By mid-1930, Americans were beginning to feel the pinch. By early 1932, the White House was beginning to suffer serious political blowback. Using this as a basic guideline, we'd say there's a decent possibility that the U.S. will be seriously disrupted by September or October of this year, and that the White House could really be feeling the pain by April 2026.

---

J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: It might be too soon to ask this question, as we're only one month into potentially four years of harm to very fabric of this country's government. But is it irreparable harm? My friend Jake seems to think so. He posted to Facebook: "It feels like everyone thinks this will be over in four years. It won't. Even if Trump doesn't do a full fascism and just leaves peacefully, the damage they're doing to the government will last for generations." How correct or incorrect do you think he is about that?

(V) & (Z) answer: We would say he is more correct than not. In terms of the United States' relationships with other nations, both economic and diplomatic, how can they really trust the U.S.? Even when Trump is replaced by a Democrat or a normal Republican, there's a very good chance that the U.S. will eventually elect another Trumpy president. Electing him once can be dismissed as an anomaly, but electing him twice is a pattern. Countries that have previously leaned heavily on the U.S. are going to start building partnerships that exclude the U.S., and that is not something that is easily reversed.

On the domestic front, we'll note two things. First, Trump is going to spend 4 more years pouring fuel on the fire that pits his base (45% of America, or so) against the rest of America. The MAGA/non-MAGA divide is not going to fade anytime soon. Look for an item on this sometime this week.

Second, Trump is changing the structure of the federal government (albeit by building on trends that have been underway for several decades, if not more). It is hard to say exactly where things will stand once the dust has settled and his term is over, but there's certainly one general truth that we can get behind right now: Congress, which was supposed to be "first among equals" in the three branches of American government, is becoming more and more irrelevant. Because of the sizable number of highly partisan members (a product of gerrymandering and of the U.S. population self-sorting itself by political philosophy), and because of parliamentary obstacles like the filibuster, the legislature is either paralyzed, or is just a rubber stamp, most of the time. In turn, that leads to governance by executive order, by presidential fiat, and by getting lucky/unlucky with what federal judge you happen to draw when the inevitable lawsuits come to pass.

---

T.B. in Waterloo, IA, asks: If SCOTUS wanted to tie themselves into a knot to give Trump a victory on the Fourteenth Amendment by saying that a president has the authority to rewrite a part of the Constitution with an XO, wouldn't that set a precedent for a future Democratic president to do the same thing? Like, say, the Second Amendment, perhaps? I know the right-wing media would have an absolute fit, but it would take a while for it to get back to SCOTUS I would think. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, the Supreme Court is now, and will be for the foreseeable future, controlled by conservatives. Further, Democrats do not generally have the stomach to take things to the absolute limit. Both of these things will serve to limit the extent to which the next Democratic president follows Trump's model.

However, that doesn't mean that the next Democrat won't follow Trump's model at all. The fact is that certain bells have been rung. And once a precedent is set, Democrats are generally willing to follow it, if cautiously. This will be doubly true if the next Democratic president runs on a platform of "I will use the full powers of the office, just as Trump has, to implement my agenda."

---

R.D. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: Will all these firings and layoffs at the various governmental agencies effect the jobs report or the unemployment rate? Seems to me if you lay off enough people, it has to have an effect.

(V) & (Z) answer: Maybe, but it probably won't be appreciable. At the moment, there are 6.4 million Americans who are looking for work, but don't have a job, for an unemployment rate of 4%. Nobody knows how many federal workers the Trump administration has laid off—not even the Trump administration—but USA Today has been trying to track the figure and guesses it might be in the range of 100,000 people. If so, and if they remain unemployed for some lengthy period of time, it means the unemployment rate would be increased to... 4.1%.

---

R.C. in Eagleville, PA, asks: In conversations—both face-to-face and in comments on social media—I have been saying that TCF has thrown more hard working citizens out of their jobs than he has thrown hard working undocumented immigrants out the country. This draws withering fire from the MAGA faithful. So, am I on solid ground?

(V) & (Z) answer: You are on very solid ground. As we note above, the best guess is that Trump has fired around 100,000 federal workers. Meanwhile, in his first month in office, the federal government has deported 37,660 people. This is well below the average month for the last year of the Biden administration (57,000 people/month), and is low enough that Trump already removed the person that he had put in charge of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

---

P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: At the moment, all signs are pointing to Donald Trump ignoring court rulings, at the very least for making payments. Regardless of how forcefully and clearly a judge makes their ruling, is there anything they can actually do? When they hold the administration in contempt, they can't exactly put someone in jail or realistically expect a fine to be paid, so it looks like as much as we rely on the Judicial Branch to provide a check and balance, they are effectively powerless.

(V) & (Z) answer: They are not powerless. In the end, Trump does relatively few things by himself; he's reliant on many, many underlings to give this order, or fill out this form, or push that button, or transfer that money, or whatever. And so, while a judge cannot impose much in the way of consequences on Trump himself, that judge can order the appropriate federal employee, or the employee's manager, to do [THING X], or be found in contempt of court and sent off to jail if they do not comply. For example, "If the $10 billion that Congress has earmarked for Ukraine has not been transferred in 72 hours, then Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent will be held in contempt, and will take up residence in a jail cell until the money is transferred."

---

C.W. in Carlsbad, CA, asks: Is there any reason to pay federal taxes now? We're certainly not experiencing the representational/constitutional system that we're supposedly paying for.

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. If you don't pay your taxes, you'll eventually be charged with a crime, and either you'll have to pay up with penalties, or you'll go to prison.

People have been making the "the government isn't doing what I want it to do" argument to avoid paying income taxes ever since there's been an income tax, and it never flies. We suppose it's possible that there could be some sort of mass tax revolt, depending on how things unfold in the next few years, but we would not bet on it. And, more importantly, we would not want to be among the first to participate in it. Wait until 10-20 million OTHER people have stuck their necks out.

---

M.L. in Simpsonville, SC, asks: Like many others from my fair country, I have grown weary of the "jokes" about the 51st state. It's not a joke. So what do you think is the purpose here? Is it to move the Overton Window on the idea of annexing Canada? Is it about the water? Why is he so obsessed with us?

Thanks again for all you do. It's been a very upsetting few weeks with the "jokes" about annexing Canada. Especially since this week I'm teaching about the Mexican-American War in my U.S. history class...

(V) & (Z) answer: It is because Trump is a bully, and because much of his base responds to bullying.

He knows that he can punch below the belt and that Canada won't respond in kind, in part because their economic and military position is weaker than that of the United States, and in part because the people who lead Canada are grown-ups who won't get down in the gutter. So, Trump can say nasty things, and puff out his chest, and he and his base think that means he is "tough." They don't realize that what it actually means is that he is an a**hole who is embarrassing much of the country.

---

J.M. in Arvada, CO, asks: The U.S. is scheduled to host the two biggest sporting events in the world in the next 4 years, the 2026 World Cup with Mexico and Canada and the 2028 Summer Olympics in L.A. What are the chances FIFA or the IOC looks at what's going on in the U.S. and decides to move their event, possibly due to other countries saying they're not coming? Or, more likely I think, what are the odds that the events go on as planned but athletes from whatever country is on Trump's bad list at that point in time suddenly have visas denied? "I'm sorry Denmark, did you want your team playing in the World Cup? Well, if you would just sell us Greenland, then I'm sure we could work something out."

(V) & (Z) answer: The 2018 World Cup and the 2014 Winter Olympics were both held in Russia. The 2022 Winter Olympics and the 2008 Summer Olympics were both held in China. The 2022 World Cup was held in Qatar. Clearly, the organizing committees responsible for these events, and the nations that participate in these events, are willing to tolerate bad actors with very troubling records when it comes to human rights, freedom of expression, corruption, and the like. The 2026 World Cup and/or 2028 Summer Olympics are not going to be moved or altered just because FIFA and/or the IOC and/or some of the participating nations of the world think Donald Trump is a bad guy.

There are two ways we could see this changing, however. First, if Trump were to do what you propose, and to try to use the events to blackmail other countries, then that would fundamentally undermine the integrity of the competition, and would probably force a change in venue. Second, if Trump were to initiate a war of territorial expansion, it is plausible that some sizable number of nations might boycott a U.S.-hosted event, as happened with the 1980 Summer Olympics in response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan.

---

J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương, Vietnam, asks: I've looked and can not find the answer. Why does social security stop at age 115? This is a new rule. There are only 30 Americans who have ever reached this age. Why would our government do this? You reach 115, you still need SS, and... our government pulls a Goldfinger and is all, "I want you to die!"?

(V) & (Z) answer: They picked a number that, while not round, is a "cleaner" cutoff point than 114 or 116 would be, and that is also 99.999% likely to indicate an error and/or fraud.

That said, if an American does reach 115, they can provide proof that they are still alive, and that they are who they say they are, and they will continue to receive benefits. In late September of this year, assuming she hangs on, a woman named Naomi Whitehead will get to put that to the test.

---

S.N. in Sparks, NV, asks: How much of the information that will be disseminated by the federal government over the next 4 years should be trusted? I am especially concerned about data on political hot-button issues like health and the environment. For example, will doctors be able to trust guidance put out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration?

(V) & (Z) answer: You know the old Russian proverb: "Trust, but verify."

Most of the information that comes through the federal government is being produced by non-corrupted people, and is not going to be re-edited into RightThink by ideologically motivated people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., because those folks only have time to get involved with a few high-profile things. But if there's a new NIH-funded study that just so happens to "confirm" that the only things more deadly to Americans than vaccines are seed oils and chem trails, we'd run as fast as we can in the other direction.

The good news is that the things that really matter will largely be evaluated by professionals (e.g., physicians), who know very well how to evaluate evidence. Your doctor isn't going to start using some quack procedure or medicine because the Kennedy-led HHS suddenly decided it was OK.

---

L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID, asks: You wrote: "What [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] could do, though, is declare that states that require vaccinations for kids to go to school won't get any more federal funds from HHS" and other similar statements. How many states do NOT require vaccinations for students? I thought the answer was ZERO. Maybe it changed.

(V) & (Z) answer: It is true that, at the moment, all 50 states require some level of vaccination for public school students. However, now that there is an anti-vaxx sheriff in town, it's not impossible that some of the red states will change their rules.

That said, the REAL chink in the armor is this: vaccine exceptions. Every state allows students to skip vaccines with a doctor's note that says they cannot handle the shots (although some states have a higher bar for this that others. And 45 states also allow students to skip vaccines for personal reasons, or for religious reasons, or both. The Kennedy-led HHS could declare that if a state wants federal funds, it must allow all students to be allowed to skip vaccines for personal reasons. That would, in effect, make the vaccine laws meaningless.

---

M.I. in Jenkintown, PA, asks: You wrote: "...Kennedy, along with masculinity influencers Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson, are sworn enemies of seed oils."

Uhhhhh... what?

(V) & (Z) answer: The kooky idea has taken hold that seed oils cause "inflammation" of the tissues, and thus are worse for human beings than things like butter and lard. This is not true, but "inflammation" is such a vague symptom that it's hard to persuade a believer (like Kennedy, Rogan and Carlson) that they are off the mark.

Politics

R.A.G. in Seattle, WA, asks: I was looking to see the exact number of votes that would have been needed to change the 2024 Presidential election. No, not the number of "electors," but the minimum number of actual ballot-casting U.S. voters needed to change their votes from Trump/Vance to Harris/Walz to get to 270 electors.

(V) & (Z) answer: We'll start by telling you that if the Democrats had found 29,398 more votes in Wisconsin, 80,104 more votes in Michigan, and 120,267 more votes in Pennsylvania, for a total of 229,769 more votes, that would have flipped 44 electoral votes, and would have produced a final total of 270 EVs for Kamala Harris and 269 for Donald Trump.

However, you have created a very specific condition here, asking not for additional votes, but for flipped votes. So, if the Democrats could have converted 14,699 Trump voters in Wisconsin, 40,052 Trump voters in Michigan, and 60,134 Trump voters in Pennsylvania, for a total of 114,885 flipped votes, then Harris would have won.

---

M.C. in Drogheda, Ireland, asks: Many people say "All politicians lie."

So... what's the difference between Trump/MAGA lies, and other politicians' lies? Why is it important? What can be done about them (the lies, that is)?

(V) & (Z) answer: Most politicians, most of the time, limit themselves to politician lies. That is to say, they're not quite telling the full, unvarnished truth, but they are providing a version of the truth. Just a very favorable one. Trump, by contrast, regularly says things that are outright, baldfaced lies, and have no basis in truth.

Consider, for example, the tallies kept by Politifact, which picks notable statements that seem questionable and evaluates them for accuracy. You can see their numbers for Joe Biden here and their numbers for Donald Trump here. If you click through, you will see that for both presidents, the site found 19% of the statements to be scrutinized to be mostly false. However, at the next step up on the ladder, which is "false," it's 20% for Biden and 38% for Trump. And at the top step on the ladder, which is "pants on fire" (definition: not only completely inaccurate, but also makes a ridiculous claim), it's 2% for Biden and 19% for Trump. This is the highest pants-on-fire figure for anyone in Politifact's database, by far (although Elon Musk is doing his best to catch up).

And even the raw numbers don't entirely capture the full essence of things. Many of Biden's "false" statements are clearly more like spin. For example, the last claim of his that was deemed "false" is his declaration that the ERA is the law of the land. Well, he wasn't lying there, he was giving his interpretation of things. On the other hand, Trump's most recent "false" statement was that 60 Minutes manipulated the Kamala Harris interview because they were trying to promote her candidacy. Whereas Biden's "false" statement represents a potentially valid interpretation of the facts, Trump's is just a fantasy, and is much closer to being in "pants on fire" territory.

Further, there are percentages, and there are raw numbers. The site felt that about 300 statements from Biden were worth looking at, and so his 2% "pants on fire" figure means he issued forth with a total of 7 laughably absurd falsehoods over the course of nearly 20 years (they tracked him from 2007-2025). That's one every 2 or 3 years. On the other hand, over 1,000 statements from Trump were evaluated, which means he issued forth with 205 laughably absurd falsehoods over the course of nearly 15 years (they tracked him from 2011-25). That's more than one per month.

So, in short: Trump lies more egregiously, and at a much more rapid pace, than any other politician.

---

D.O. in Sudbury, MA, asks: In addition to your soothing responses: advising us not to worry about the Treasonous Traitor running for a third term, you could do an enormous service to your readership by advising us how you feel about the likelihood of the 2026 and 2028 election results being reported accurately.

Given MAGA's infiltration of local and state election committees, what is your level of concern that when Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) wins 53% of the vote in all seven swing states in 2028, that we will never hear this, because the MAGAt infested election boards will lie and report that the GOP nominee carried each state by 51-52%?

I cannot be your only loyal reader who will sleep infinitely better at night if you tell us this is extremely unlikely?

(V) & (Z) answer: Under current circumstances, it is extremely unlikely.

Recall that elections are run by the states, and with multiple layers of accountability. The seven swing states, as generally understood, are Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona. All of those states, save Georgia, currently have a Democratic governor. All of them, save Georgia and Pennsylvania, have a Democratic state secretary of state (and the two Republican SoSes have both demonstrated a commitment to election integrity in high-profile fashion). These various folks are not going to sign off on fraudulent election results.

The difficulty in perpetrating such a scheme is why, in 2024, some Republican-dominated communities in swing states were looking to throw a wrench into the works by simply withholding their city's or their county's results. They knew full well that they could not actually flip their states through chicanery, but they hoped they could somehow take their states' EVs out of play. It would not actually have worked, but it was the best they could come up with.

Of course, as you will note, we say this is true "under current circumstances." The statewide offices in each of these seven swing states, save North Carolina, are up in 2026. So, it is at least possible that one or more of them could end up with corrupt Republicans controlling all the levers of power. It is not likely, but it's possible.

---

P.L. in Denver, CO, asks: I know that in normal times, former presidents do not typically interfere with a current POTUS. However, we are way past norms, rules and laws. It was encouraging that Mike Pence actually commented on our new alignment with Russia. What are your thoughts: Why won't the Bushes, Clintons, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, etc get vocal about what is going on? And do you see that changing?

(V) & (Z) answer: We can come up with two explanations, which are not mutually exclusive. The first is that these various presidents are keeping their powder dry, concluding that the 2026 elections will be won in spring and summer of 2026, not winter of 2025. The second is that at least two of them, if not three, are of middling popularity right now, and may think that speaking up would be counterproductive (e.g., "If Joe Biden doesn't like [X], then Donald Trump must be doing something right").

It is likely that when the 2026 campaign shifts into high gear, Obama will be front and center. The Clintons are a maybe, because they are both divisive, albeit for different reasons. Biden might hit the hustings, but it could depend on how mentally sharp he is—it's still not clear exactly how far gone he is, much less how far gone he'll be in another year. Bush will presumably remain on the sidelines, because that's what he's done for every election since he left office.

We will concede that it is possible, if Trump's predations are too great, that all of the living presidents will come together to do some sort of message in which they unite to speak out against their successor.

---

R.M. in Norwich, CT, asks: You wrote that you are wondering if Secretary of State Marco Rubio is regretting giving up his safe senate seat for this gig. I've always wondered about members of Congress giving up their seat for an administration job. Marco Rubio and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) are both fairly young and are in a safe state/district. They would have their job for life if they so desired. At best, their new position will last for 4 years. And given Donald Trump's mercurial nature, they are one misstep or public comment from being out on the street. What do you think is motivating them?

(V) & (Z) answer: It's different in each case.

As a member of the House, even as part of Republican leadership, Stefanik doesn't really have that much power. She aspires to much bigger things, specifically being the first woman to be president of the United States. And so, she needs to develop her résumé. The Representative is just at the beginning of her sixth term, and while there are 18 presidents who spent some time in the House before moving into the White House, there are only five who served as long as Stefanik already has: James K. Polk James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Gerald Ford. The lower chamber is a stepping stone to bigger things, but it's not generally a direct gateway to the promised land.

As to Rubio, he's pretty famous for not wanting to put in the work, and for not particularly enjoying being a U.S. Senator. Remember, he already announced his retirement once before, but then changed course. He is also somewhat well known for mishandling his personal finances, and carrying more debt than his salary can support comfortably. So, he took the Secretary of State gig because it's a different kind of challenge, with more power (usually), and with fewer committee meetings and other hoops to jump through. And once he departs, whether in a month, or a year, or at the end of Trump's term, he'll land a fat private-sector gig that pays many times what he was making as a Senator/Cabinet member, and will finally get those credit cards paid off.

---

D.H. in Boulder, CO, asks: I've been watching the various nightly cable news (mostly CNN and MSNBC, with a smattering of Fox to keep myself on edge) and have seen a variety of politicians coming on to give their points of view. How are they selected and why? Do the politicians offer themselves up for interviews because they want screen time for their particular point of view? Do the news channels have to root around to find willing interview subjects? It is easy to see the basic biases and orientation of each of the cable networks, but delivering that curated content on a regular broadcast schedule must require having interview candidates ready to espouse their opinions on the conflict de jour, and in the right ratio of for and against. Any insight here?

(V) & (Z) answer: The candidates (or, more precisely, their staffs) do reach out when they want to get some face time to talk about some issue or some development. In addition, each news outlet (whether print or television) develops a list of go-to people they utilize on a regular basis, usually folks who are reliable, and reasonably good on camera, and who have a strong point of view. There's a reason you rarely see someone like Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) on TV, but Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) practically lives in the studios of Meet the Press.

---

D.C. in Fayetteville, AR, asks: I greatly value public media, particularly PBS and NPR, for their commitment to fair and balanced reporting. There have been ongoing efforts by Republicans to defund these vital services. If such efforts succeed, what do you think will happen to NPR? Do you believe there is enough public support to sustain it, perhaps through increased contributions—like, if I were to double my current $10/month donation?

(V) & (Z) answer: NPR may have to evolve, but it's not likely to disappear.

As you point out, the NPR stations get much of their funding from non-governmental sources. Further, the organization has an endowment of more than $300 million. The interest on that helps pay the bills, and the principal gives them an insurance policy against rough times (even if they would really prefer not to use it). These things make it unlikely that NPR will go anywhere anytime soon.

However, it may well be the case that the NPR business model, with several flagship stations producing content, and the others paying to broadcast that content, doesn't make sense anymore. Broadcast radio is going the way of the dodo, in favor of apps and podcasts. So, it's plausible that the near future will see a more centralized NPR; something along the lines of network TV, where most of the programming is national, and is served up through an app of some sort, and just a few broadcast windows are blocked off for local content.

---

S.S. in Toronto, ON, Canada, asks: I wonder what you (and readers) think about Elon Musk's penchant for bringing Little X along to many public events where no one else would dream of doing such a thing. I can think of a few possibilitie: (1) He just gets a charge out of having a little sidekick; it makes him look like a doting dad and it amuses him; (2) It gives him a "human" aspect and makes him appear likeable; (3) Having the tot on his shoulders makes him taller than anyone else; (4) It's a camera magnet and soaks up all the attention; (5) He uses X as a deterrent against a potential assassin. It's less likely that a shooter would be willing to risk killing a child while aiming at the adult.

I find the whole charade appalling and very scary.

(V) & (Z) answer: Your theories sound pretty reasonable. We can only add a couple of things. First, some people don't know this, but he has at least 13 kids. Second, he's got a poor relationship, or no relationship, with many of his older kids. From this, we infer that there is something about raising very young children that he likes, but that he tends to lose interest as they age.

Civics

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: The Republican Party under Donald Trump has gone to great lengths in the past few years to undermine trust in elections. If Democrats win seats in the House of Representatives, could Republicans refuse to certify results from certain states, citing unproven election fraud, and not seat any new Democratic representatives? I don't want to sound like Chicken Little, but in 2021, the majority of house Republicans refused to certify electoral votes for that reason.

(V) & (Z) answer: This is not a concern. First, while the House used to have somewhat wide latitude in deciding who could take their seat, and who could not, they lost that latitude in Powell v. McCormack (1969). Now, the only reasons the House can deny a duly-elected member are the ones listed in the Constitution (i.e., they are not the correct age, or aren't a citizen, or don't meet the residency requirement).

Further, every single member of the House is technically "out of office" at the start of a new term. It's not 380 members who have to "seat" the 55 new members; it's 435 members who all have to be seated. And the first thing they do is elect a speaker, who then swears everyone in so they can commence their new terms. If it's a Democratic majority, they are going to elect a Democratic speaker, who is obviously not going to deny a bunch of Democrats their seats. And if it's a Republican majority, there's no real need to undemocratically disenfranchise a bunch of duly-elected Democratic members, especially since voters would punish the Republicans at the next election, and the Democrats would then return the favor upon taking over the majority.

---

E.S. in Maine, NY, asks: Can you provide a short primer on needing to pass a budget versus a reconciliation bill?

(V) & (Z) answer: These really aren't different things.

Over the years, the senators have decided that while they like the filibuster, it's also an unacceptable barrier to certain things that need to be done. So, they decided that the filibuster would not apply in some circumstances. One of those is approving judges. And another is adopting the annual budget.

A budget bill that is passed via reconciliation is not subject to being filibustered. However, there are some pretty strict limits to keep reconciliation from being abused. First, it can only be done three times per budget cycle—once for spending, once for revenue, and once for raising the debt limit. As a practical matter, these things are usually combined into one bill, with the result that there is generally a maximum of one use of reconciliation per year. In addition, to be passed via reconciliation, something has to be legitimately budget-related (in the judgment of the Parliamentarian of the Senate). If a member tries to attach an amendment to the budget reconciliation bill that, for example, prohibits the shipping of abortifacient pills across state lines, that amendment would be stripped out because it's not budget-related.

Because of these limits, the majority party tries to get a budget bill through without using reconciliation. However, they can't generally pull it off, so they have to bow to reality and use reconciliation.

---

S.C. in Geneva, Switzerland, asks: Why, when the Democrats had the chance (2021-22) did they not make Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, states?

(V) & (Z) answer: Because, unlike judges and budget reconciliation (see above), the bills that would confer statehood are subject to filibuster. And there was no way that 10 Republicans would have supported a move that would net between two and four Senate seats for the Democrats (DC would surely elect two Democrats, while Puerto Rico would either go 2 D, 0 R or else 1 D, 1 R).

---

G.B. in Collin County, TX, asks: In countries that have both a prime minister and a ceremonial president, what does that office usually entail? Are they as impotent as the British monarch has become over time? I've thought for a long time that separating the head of state from the head of government was a sound idea that America could benefit from.

(V) & (Z) answer: In general, the ceremonial presidents mostly serve as figureheads, and have no actual power, very much like the British monarch or Secretary of State Marco Rubio. However, because they are "above politics," ceremonial presidents are sometimes given duties that are seen as more appropriate in non-partisan hands. For example, in Israel, the (mostly ceremonial) president is the decider when it comes to granting clemency. In Portugal, the (mostly ceremonial) president can veto laws passed by Parliament.

History

A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: You wrote: "At a certain point, there were not two valid points of view in pre-World War II Germany, or the Civil Rights-era South, or South Africa during apartheid."

Were there ever really two valid points of view in the Civil Rights-era South or in South Africa during apartheid?

I omit pre-World War II Germany from the question because people could be forgiven for supporting a nationalist movement early on, given the economic straits Germany was in and given the unreasonable demands of the Treaty of Versailles that were both oppressive and shaming to the people of the Fatherland. As soon as it became a violent, immoral, antisemitic movement above the law, that acceptability immediately changed, of course.

I am hard-pressed to think of any similar such periods of acceptability the other two eras.

I am no historian, though. Were there such times?

(V) & (Z) answer: We will start by pointing out that there were many people, in those past eras, who believed that the "natural" status of Black people was a position of subservience to whites. Anyone who felt that way might well struggle to reach firm conclusions about which side was in the right in these struggles.

Beyond that, however, the anti-apartheid forces in South Africa used violent tactics that, for example, caused the U.S. government to formally label Nelson Mandela as a terrorist for more than 20 years. And the pro-civil rights forces in the American South used tactics that, while non-violent, were extralegal. And so, there was a period of time where a person, even if they were not a white supremacist, might say: "I understand what the anti-apartheid/pro-civil rights forces are trying to do, but I don't agree with the means by which they are trying to do it."

---

D.D. in Hollywood, FL, asks: I'd love to know what the resident historian thinks about the musical Hamilton.

(V) & (Z) answer: Allowing for the constraints that it is a musical, delivered mostly through freestyle verse, it's really quite good. Most people undoubtedly have a better understanding of Hamilton and his times after seeing the play than they would after a lecture of similar duration.

---

T.D. in New Bedford, MA, asks: I'm trying to read a biography of all of the presidents, in order, and have arrived at Andrew Jackson. I typically like works that cover the whole life, not just their time in office. The problem with Jackson is trying to find a book that will not only be accurate and readable but won't whitewash the more horrific parts of the man. I find that many of the books I have looked at lean towards the glorification of the man and I'm not interested in that.

I am also a high school History teacher and any book that gives me more facts and stories that I can use in class is a bonus.

What say you? What would be your go-to book for someone looking to learn about Jackson?

(V) & (Z) answer: The standard work, even if it's now multiple decades old, is Robert Remini's biography, which was published in three volumes and then was abridged down to one volume. If that doesn't seem to be to your liking, the somewhat more recent runner-up is Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times, by H.W. Brands. There is also American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House, by Jon Meacham, which was justly awarded the Pulitzer for biography. However, as the title makes clear, it covers only the presidential years.

---

E.W. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: When, how, and why did the donkey and the elephant become Democratic and Republican Party symbols?

(V) & (Z) answer: There had been some vague association between the respective parties and their animals before the Gilded Age. For example, his opponents called Andrew Jackson a "jackass," and to spite them, he adopted that as his symbol. However, what really set the symbols in stone was the work of Thomas Nast, America's first great political cartoonist. Working primarily for the New York City-based Harper's Weekly, he developed a visual vocabulary for his cartoons that was adopted by both other cartoonists and by the two major parties.

---

C.S. in Guelph, ON, Canada, asks: Would it be accurate to refer to the President as Donald Chamberlain?

(V) & (Z) answer: We would say it is not.

It is true that, like Nevile Chamberlain, Trump appears to be appeasing a power-hungry dictator. The difference is that Chamberlain, by virtue of the ongoing Great Depression and post-World War I demilitarization, had limited options. Trump, by virtue, has other paths open to him, and is apparently choosing to ignore them.

---

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: You gave several reasons for why Franklin D. Roosevelt put the kibosh on Winston Churchill's desire to invade Europe via the Balkans in 1942-43. But why didn't the U.S. and the U.K. invade via Italy instead of Normandy? I mean, they already conquered Sicily and Naples in 1943. So why not invade Italy first, then France and then Germany?

(V) & (Z) answer: The U.S. and the U.K. did invade via Italy, but they got stuck when they hit the Alps, and could make no further progress. The famous book Catch-22 is about a squadron of bomber pilots assigned to try to soften the Germans' Gothic Line, without success.

The invasion of Normandy was commenced because Roosevelt and Churchill concluded, almost certainly correctly, that they would not be able to break through in Italy before the Russians were able to conquer and occupy all of Germany, and very possibly all of France.

Fun Stuff

J.A. in Woodstock, VA, asks: I have failed to persuade my daughter—known to you as C.A. in Tucker, GA—that the Beatles were the greatest band of the last few generations. The Beatles arrived in the U.S. when I was in high school. Yes, I am very old. The world changed from the dull gray of Annette Funicello's "Beach Blanket Bingo" and Perry Como to a world of full panoramic color. It was more than just their new lyrics, sound and techniques, but also their social message, giving young people a voice, being a catalyst for cultural change, and opening the door for many subsequent innovative bands.

My daughter, not having lived through their impact, agrees that some of their music is OK. As she is an avid reader of Electoral-Vote.com, perhaps you can do better than I have in explaining the importance of the Beatles. Or is my memory of their impact completely off-kilter?

(V) & (Z) answer: The show I Love Lucy is still on in reruns. That is because, 70-75 years later, it still connects with some people. That said, many people today—particularly those under the age of 30 or so—just don't get it. Part of that is that the show is black and white. Part of that is that it exists in a cultural context that is long gone (particularly in terms of gender relations). And part of it is that things that were fresh and new and innovative are now old hat, because while Lucy did them first, they've since been done by a thousand other performers on a thousand other shows.

Similarly, it is entirely understandable that some people would not really "get" the Beatles' music, particularly if they were not a part of the band's cultural context, and if the listener was more attuned to the work of artists who borrowed from/built upon the work of the lads from Liverpool. That said, you don't have to love Lucy to recognize that her show changed the face of television. And you don't have to be a Beatlemaniac to recognize that they changed the face of popular music. Here are three particularly important ways in which they did so:

1. Singer-Songwriters: Before the Beatles came along, writers wrote, singers sang, and never the twain shall meet. Elvis Presley's name was on most of his songs as a songwriter, but that was just a fiction so that he could collect songwriting royalties. Mae Boren Axton and Tommy Durden are the ones who actually wrote "Heartbreak Hotel," not Presley. On the other hand, the songs that bear the Beatles' names were actually written by them. They were the first pop musicians to be both songwriters and performers; now that's the standard arrangement.
   
   
2. Albums Over Songs: Similarly, before the Beatles, albums, at least for rock and pop musicians, were just conveniences for people who wanted multiple singles on the same piece of wax. Generally, the playlist would have 2-4 hit singles, maybe a couple of covers, and some junk to round things out. Once they had enough power to make this happen (specifically, when they recorded Rubber Soul), the Beatles decided that every song should be an original, and should be something they were proud to release. Again, this is now the standard arrangement for musicians when they create albums.
   
   
3. Studio Magic: Before the Beatles, the studio was just a necessary evil for musicians who wanted to sell their music to a mass audience. Paul McCartney, in particular, with the encouragement of producer George Martin, saw that the studio created opportunities to do things that could not be achieved in any other way. This is part of the reason the Beatles stopped touring; it was no longer practical to perform their new songs live. Yet again, this is an area where the Beatles' approach has become the standard approach. That means that, yes, they are technically partly responsible for autotune.

Again, a person doesn't have to like the music. But the historical significance is undeniable.

---

E.S. in Providence, RI, asks: What television comedy, past or present, made you laugh the hardest on a week-in/week-out basis?

For me, it would be Veep.

(V) & (Z) answer: (V) is not much of a TV watcher, and (Z) is a particularly tough audience when it comes to humor. That said, he can recall The Golden Girls, the early seasons of The Simpsons, Family Guy, Arrested Development and 30 Rock having some meaningful number of laugh-out-loud moments. Saturday Night Live and Monty Python's Flying Circus, too, if those count.

---

D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: With the 50th Anniversary of Saturday Night Live being celebrated this past week, who would you regard as the top 10 greatest cast members? Just to add a twist, limit the players to their SNL tenure contributions.

(V) & (Z) answer: OK, in reverse order:

1. Al Franken: An unconventional choice, but "The Al Franken Decade" op-eds were brilliant, and so were the Stuart Smalley sketches. And that it to say nothing of "The Franken and Davis Show."
   
   
2. Mike Myers: Yes, he's from the Great White North, and so must be viewed with a skeptical eye. Still, "Wayne's World" is one of the all-time great recurring sketches, and "Sprockets" is not too far behind.
   
   
3. Kate McKinnon: Sometimes her humor was a bit broad for our taste, but she did some of the best impressions in the show's history, with her Theresa May being a particular favorite (even if McKinnon's very good Ruth Bader Ginsburg is more famous).
   
   
4. Will Ferrell: He carried the show for at least a few years, and maybe remained in the cast a bit too long. Still, his George W. Bush alone is pretty much enough to make the list. And, of course, he has a long list of other winners, from Robert Goulet, to Harry Carey, to the Spartan Cheerleaders to the over-the-top post-9/11 work attire.
   
   
5. Tina Fey: Gilda Radner is generally regarded as the greatest female cast member in the show's history, but while she was clearly brilliant, her latter-day Lucille Ball just isn't our particular cup of tea (even if we do quite like Emily Litella). We are much more attuned to Fey's work, which is more cerebral, more ironic. She was the best "Weekend Update" anchor of them all, and sketches like "Meet Your Second Wife" were inspired.
   
   
6. Kenan Thompson: He's been on the show for 20 years, and has been the "glue" the way that Will Ferrell was, or Phil Hartman was, or Dan Aykroyd was. They probably can't re-air the Louis C.K. "Lincoln" sketch anymore, because C.K. was canceled, but Thompson was brilliant in it. "Black Jeopardy" is one of the highlights of the show's history. And Thompson's Bill Cosby is spot on. Hmmm, that's another lech; maybe the actor somehow draws energy from association with sleazeballs.
   
   
7. Dana Carvey: Carvey has a certain kind of brilliance that has no parallel among the 150 other cast members. His characters are not only spot-on, but anyone can replicate them. That is to say, anyone can do a pretty good imitation of the Church Lady, or George H. W. Bush, or Ross Perot, or Garth Algar. We don't know what this means, exactly, but we would guess it indicates that he's better at breaking things down to the basics than any of his colleagues.
   
   
8. John Belushi: Maybe the best physical comic the show ever had (sorry, Chevy Chase). Such a talent; too bad he fell victim to his demons.
   
   
9. Phil Hartman: He could play any character needed, in any sketch, and just crush it. It is hard to believe that Bill Clinton, the Anal Retentive Chef, the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, Charlton Heston and Frankenstein are all the same guy.
   
   
10. Dan Aykroyd: Not a conventional choice for the #1 slot, but he nailed surreal humor, in the Monty Python tradition, better than any other cast member, ever—from Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute to the Bass-o-Matic to the bleeding Julia Child to Leonard Pinth-Garnell. We like surreal.

---

K.G. in Columbus, OH, asks: What is your opinion of the use of "impact" and all its variations (especially "impactful")? It seems as if it is becoming ubiquitous in writing today. Personally, I can't stand it. Interestingly, when I was testing AI with an unrelated question, it used "impactful" in its answer. When I replied that it would be better to use "effective," it responded, "You're right in pointing out that 'effective' can be a better choice. Thanks for the correction."

(V) & (Z) answer: Language evolves, and generally does so to fill needs that (apparently) needed to be filled. We have found that it's easier to accept that than to try to resist it.

Gallimaufry

A.S. in Black Mountain NC, asks: You wrote: "Is this offer now obsolete, and the new plan is for the U.S. and Russia to partition Ukraine (see above)? Who knows? Things move so fast. One complication is that most of the rare earths that Trump wants are located in eastern Ukraine—the part that would become absorbed into Russia itself. Would Trump accept a deal in which the minerals he and his co-president, Elon Musk, want would suddenly be inside Russia?"

This is something I think is not in your "bank" of general knowledge based on what I know about your careers. Correct me if I am wrong. If not, please tell us your sources for facts not in your general knowledge. Does AI play a role in researching such questions?

(V) & (Z) answer: At risk of sounding immodest, we do have a rather broad knowledge base, often extending well beyond our actual academic disciplines. Beyond that, by virtue of our profession, we have very strong research skills, and know how to find information we don't have. And finally, some percentage of the detail we include in items comes from the articles on the subject that we read. Sometimes that means one of the articles we linked. Sometimes it's something we read, but didn't link.

Reader Question of the Week: Old Sheriff in Town

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

M.R. in Atlanta, GA, asks: I was talking to an old friend (actually Sra. Wilson, my 9th grade Spanish teacher... I'm in my 50s and we're still close!). We were commiserating about the state of the country, and started talking about how to clean up the mess we've got now. So the question: Which president from history would be the best choice to walk in and put the federal government back on track?

And here some of the answers we got in response:

M.J. in Oakdale, MN: First in war, first in peace and first in our nation's heart: George Washington.

Any other president would inevitably be claimed by one party or the other, and in our divisive political environment would be rejected by whoever the "opposition" party was. Only George could right this ship and meet with general (if not universal) concurrence. And then, once again, the American Cincinnatus could return to Mt. Vernon and rest in peace, watching over his nation.

---

J.M. in Norman, OK: I don't know enough about James Madison to guess how he might handle this moment in history, but I would absolutely delight in any disagreements he might have with the originalists on the Supreme Court.

---

S.P. in Tijeras, NM: Seems obvious to me: the original Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.

---

Q.F. in Boulder, CO: Teddy Roosevelt, one of my favorite liberal progressive presidents. He'd forge ahead like a bull in a china shop, calling out the filth and corruption that is today's Republican cult. He'd kick butt first, and never ask questions. If we are going to have government remade, let's do it with a forceful, action-oriented Rough Rider. I don't want diplomacy, I want victory.

Side note: Have you ever noticed that all of our great presidents—Washington, Lincoln, Mt. Rushmore, all of them—were liberal, progressive, or both?

---

N.O. in Olathe, KS: I can think of no one better than Franklin D. Roosevelt, provided he was able to enjoy some of the congressional majorities he enjoyed in his administration. He was a skilled politician who was able to do the necessary cat-herding, and was still able to stand up to the bigger power-brokers in the U.S. at the time. He also had the vision to help craft solutions to a lot of systemic issues in the U.S. during the 1930s, many of which still exist in some shape today. Finally, he was quite good in foreign policy, and was able to leverage the U.S.'s considerable resources to oppose dictators when necessary.

---

E.W. in Silver Spring, MD: We need a president who can handle building a new world order after the old one resets. A president who can build the government to support people abandoned by it. Someone who can subtly push back against racism and other hate, without pissing off the racists, because they are too large a voting bloc. We possibly will also need a president who can rebuild the economy after tariffs wreck it. We need a president who can communicate clearly to the American people directly.

There can only be one: FDR.

---

T.B. in Leon County, FL: FDR. We'll need 12+ years of continuity for the required make-over.

---

D.C.B. in St. Louis, MO: I would say either Franklin D. Roosevelt or Dwight D. Eisenhower. Both were good politicians and great organizers. Fixing up the government after Trump will not require a roadmap—Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson provided two good ones. The job will be more about restoration and bringing good managers back into government to repair everything Donald Trump, Elon Musk and J.D. Vance have vandalized.

---

J.T. in Philadelphia, PA: The realistic answer is, of course, no president from history could put the government back on track because the world has changed, the nation has changed, and politics has changed too much.

But as this is a fantasy, so I'll try to go with that. It would have to be someone from the loosely defined "modern era," so someone since FDR. In terms of getting things done, it seems LBJ would be able to get the Congress to act, but he could only do that because of all the relationships he had forged over the years, so he'd have no luck with the current legislators.

Also, not only would the government have to get back on track, but somehow a significant fraction of the citizenry would have to back the president, so that means it would have to be a Republican, because in the current environment no significant number of Republicans are going to look favorably on any Democrat.

Thus, it would have to be Ike. All the other Republican presidents have too much baggage. True, Eisenhower's popularity came from his success as a general in World War II, and that seems to have faded from most people's memories. Still, he was a Republican, so he'd automatically get the support of most of those who favor the R's. And the Democrats would just need to be reminded of this passage from a letter that he wrote:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

---

M.D.H. in Coralville, IA: LBJ. He was very, very good at twisting the arms of legislators and generally used that skill to make them do things that were good for the country.

My late father, who was a history professor, said no other President understood how Congress really works better than LBJ did. He once parodied LBJ's approach: "Young man, I am not telling you how to vote, you do what you think is best for your district. But if you don't vote for this bill, your district won't get a cent of highway funds next year and the next county over will get all the bridges they want. You decide."

---

K.F. in Berea, KY: I'd go with Lyndon B. Johnson. He would've put Joe Manchin and that other one over his knee, showed his johnson to Mike Johnson, and wouldn't let Fox bully him into not going for what he wanted done.

---

M.B. in Ward, CO: My choice would be Bill Clinton. I didn't agree with a lot of his outcomes, such as an increased police state. And I'm still amazed that the workplace sexual violation that was the Lewinsky Affair was labeled by the American people as "consensual." But I'm a process kind of guy. If the process is good, then the outcome is just politics, and politics is better than the alternative, or worse than anything except any of the alternatives.

I thought, and still believe, that if W. had appointed Bill Clinton, instead of L. Paul Bremer, to run Iraq post-war, then history would be very different. Ol' Billy Bob Clinton would have been able to (could?) clean up Elon's and the Donald's messes better'n about anyone else, I'd say.

---

B.J. in Arlington, MA: Joe Biden. He already demonstrated the ability to do it.

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY: I don't think there are any presidents from history well suited to "put the federal government back on track." Washington led an army in the field against the Whiskey Rebellion, and Lincoln eventually was able to put down a Civil War, but neither of them would be prepared for our current situation where the insurrection is coming from inside the White House. If there is a lesson to be learned from history here, it is that other nations will ally with each other against us if we take this nonsense outside our borders, and a superpower might decide to meddle in our affairs the way the U.S. did in various other countries during the Cold War. That'll be the end of our republic we've been working on for the past 2.5 Centuries, so it's up to us to put our own house in order. We are the heroes we've been hoping for. Next up, 2026 Midterm Elections. See you there.

Here is the question for next week:

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: Since it seems Trump v2.0 is just Trump v1.0 with a new label, which Cabinet or Cabinet-level officers do you think will resign or be forced to resign first, and why? Elon doesn't count.

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Job Insecurity"!

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger