It is a design problem. Safe fast agile micromobility systems should be able to provide solutions.

Will Trump Ever Have to Face the Music? Listen · 12:35 min 27OCT2026 By Thomas B. Edsall NYT Gift Article link nytimes.com/2026/10/27/opini… Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly essay from Washington on politics, demographics and inequality. President Trump’s repeated defiance of the law and the Constitution raises a question: Will he ever face criminal charges — or any kind of real accountability — for what he has done? Did the Supreme Court let him off the hook, especially with its decision on presidential immunity in Trump v. United States in 2024? Can the president pardon himself? If no congressional or federal case can be made, can state prosecutors bring this renegade to justice? Is there a kind of perverse legitimacy to Trump’s claim, made last year on both X and Truth Social, that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”? With the prospect that next Tuesday’s elections will deal a blow, perhaps a serious blow, to Trump and the MAGA movement — potentially provoking him to go still further to extremes — I sought out opinions from legal scholars. I started with Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill widely recognized for his expertise on these issues. He replied by email to a series of questions. His answers reflect the outrage in much of the legal community over the blatant illegality of Trump’s actions and the underlying, though often not directly expressed, fear that he will go scot-free. Has Trump committed any crimes that could arguably be classified as unofficial acts and therefore subject to prosecution once he leaves office? “Yes,” Gerhardt replied: Evidence shows that Trump could be prosecuted for several crimes that could be reasonably classified as unofficial acts, including payments he received in exchange for pardons or access to the administration; enriching himself and/or his family from self-dealing; and attempts to interfere with or undermine the electoral process; obstruction of justice. There are many other acts for which he (and others) could face legal sanction, such as insider trading that has benefited him personally. Has he committed crimes through his official acts for which the presumption of immunity might be overcome? Trump has committed official acts for which the presumption of immunity could be overcome, including but not limited to issuing pardons to business associates and others as recompense for their loyalty. How much does the immunity granted by the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States constrain the ability of prosecutors to get and present the evidence they need? The expansive immunity that the Supreme Court has vested in the presidency makes prosecution difficult because it incentivizes presidents to claim they were exercising their official powers when engaging in criminal or other misconduct. How much can Trump protect himself through a self-pardon before he leaves office? Trump has floated the idea more than once that he could pardon himself for federal crimes. He could even use President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter as a model for protecting himself and/or allies or family from federal prosecutions. There are compelling and persuasive arguments that a president does not have the authority to pardon himself and that any such pardon could be grounds for impeachment. Looking at these issues from a broader overview, Gerhardt wrote: Trump has abused power and engaged in misconduct in at least three general ways: First, he has engaged in self-dealing that has allowed him to add billions to his net worth in the first two years of his second term. Second, he has abused his powers to punish his political enemies, such as pushing for the prosecutions of former F.B.I. director James Comey and former chair of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell. Last but not least, he has told thousands of lies to justify inappropriate actions, such as ordering the National Guard into American cities, murdering innocent people on the high seas, and plans to use the military to intimidate voters. He has written the book on the many ways in which presidents can commit impeachable offenses. Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, pointed to a characteristic aspect of Trump’s corruption: He has initiated extensive maneuvers to personally profit as a private citizen while wielding the threat of his public power. “Donald Trump,” Litman said, has, to a greater extent than any president before him, traded on acting in his “individual” capacity while ostensibly gesturing to his “official” capacity in order to coerce entities to do his bidding. For example, he was able to obtain favorable settlements in some of his litigation against media companies that he initiated in his private capacity. Many of the settlements also paid money to him in his private capacity. Those are unofficial actions. Yet there’s also no question that an animating force behind the settlements were his official powers. So is that an official versus an unofficial act? It’s unclear — and that’s part of the issue with the immunity opinion — it’s failure to recognize the obvious fact that corruptly exercising official powers converts them from public/official/permissible powers to impermissible/unofficial/private ones. Another example of this: the crypto dinner. People paid him in his private capacity — and his press secretary said this was all in his private capacity. But why do you think those people attended the dinner? To purchase access/influence to the president, with all of his “official” powers. That is part of the dilemma the immunity opinion created. Litman expanded on this argument in “Unsettling the Presidency,” an article she wrote with Katherine Shaw and Melissa Murray, law professors at the University of Pennsylvania and New York University. “Whereas previously,” they wrote, “bargaining, settlement and other forms of dispute resolution happened in the shadow of the law, novel presidential settlements now happen in the shadow of lawlessness.” “Presidential encroachments on the courts’ prerogatives,” they argued, include the use of litigation — particularly in the context of the president’s lawsuits against, and the resulting settlements with, media companies — as a tool of presidential control and presidential power. They also include the president’s efforts to create shadow legal processes that mirror the formal legal process, but operate outside of it and under the president’s control. The president’s use of executive orders and other actions targeting prominent law firms and universities, and the resulting “settlements” and “deals” they have generated, are exemplary of this approach. The three went on to warn that “we have moved beyond the traditional account of a unitary executive that embodies all executive branch authority. Instead, what is ascendant is an unprecedented account of executive authority that occupies and wields the powers of all three branches of government.” Not all scholars and practitioners are convinced to the same degree as Gerhardt of the potential effectiveness of the criminal prosecution of Trump. Philip Allen Lacovara, a former deputy U.S. solicitor general and counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor, thinks the Supreme Court handed Trump a virtual get-out-of-jail card: Although the wholly unjustified and constitutionally unsound decision in the Trump immunity case in 2024 purported to leave open the possibility of prosecuting a president (1) for some official acts and (2) for any unofficial acts, these exceptions are largely illusory — at least so long as the current majority remains on the Supreme Court. The opinion in the case creates a virtually impenetrable barrier protecting Trump from being prosecuted for such things as corruption; complicity in unlawful, extrajudicial killing; selling pardons; soliciting contributions from prospective office seekers; awarding federal contracts to big donors; interfering with elections; and any of the other abuses in his rap sheet. Lacovara provided me with detailed citations supporting his critique of Trump v. United States, virtually a memorandum of law, unfortunately too long to reprint here. Lacovara pointedly noted that the court specifically exonerated Trump’s most egregious behavior, “allegations that Trump egged on the Jan. 6 rioters through his speech and tweets.” “The alleged conduct,” he added, “largely consists of Trump’s communications in the form of tweets and a public address.” But, Lacovara noted, As the sole person charged by the Constitution with executing the laws of the United States, the president oversees — and thus will frequently speak publicly about — a vast array of activities that touch on nearly every aspect of American life. Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the president believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the federal government — for instance, to comfort the nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. The court ruling, Lacovara wrote, would prevent prosecution in cases where “there appears to be significant evidence of quid pro quo financial transactions (bribery) using the president’s office to grant favors in return for personal financial benefits for himself and his family.” In other words, the hurdles prosecutors now face when determining whether to file criminal charges against Trump are not just high, but possibly prohibitively high. Darryl K. Brown, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, wrote that the problem in part is that there is so much we don’t know about what a president does or says behind closed doors. And even many conversations with others that might be part of a crime committed by unofficial acts, and that seem to a reasonable person to be private, might nonetheless be arguably official such that it would be covered by the immunity for official-acts crimes that the court granted in Trump v. United States. A theoretical example might be a conversation between an administration official who is also a business partner of Trump or a Trump family member. Even a presidential conversation with such an official about, say, bribes they would pay to win a contract to build a hotel in another country might be wrapped up with official acts if it occurs in the context of a larger diplomatic negotiation with that country. There have been widespread media reports, Brown continued, of Trump’s primary negotiators with Russia, Iran, Israel and other countries — Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff — talking about business deals in the same meetings in which they are acting as diplomats. The line between official and unofficial acts seems very muddy in the Trump administration, which probably works to Trump’s advantage under the court’s broad interpretation of presidential immunity. The court’s immunity decision is such a big barrier, Brown wrote, because the court stressed that nothing prosecutors do to obtain evidence can “chill” a president’s actions. The court’s majority fears that even, say, eliciting testimony from presidential advisers about statements and actions not in the public record could “seriously cripple” the president’s exercise of his official powers. Lacovara was the most outspoken of those I contacted, writing: The Supreme Court has licensed Trump to commit federal crimes as part of his sweeping array of “official” powers — anything within the “outer perimeter” of the functions that a president may do as president. Under the theory that the majority of the Supreme Court subsequently adopted, Trump would have legal immunity if he ordered SEAL Team 6 to murder a political rival whom he designated a threat to national security. That is the kind of power over life or death that many dictators over history have exercised. Trump continues to try to act like a dictator. He likes to govern by decree — with his “executive actions,” such as using federal funds for his own projects regardless of the reasons Congress appropriated them, and even in defiance of statutory constraints. His various projects on the White House grounds, the Trumpian triumphal arch and his concept for an elitist golf course in place of a public park are all intended as monuments to himself — much like a pharaoh, a Roman emperor. Beginning in his first term, Trump pointedly alerted both Americans and the world to his authoritarian and criminal aims. By the start of his second term, his vengefulness, venality, misuse of public power and inclination toward transgression were known by one and all, most especially the Supreme Court. Which makes the court’s decision to give this man criminal immunity in the first place all the more inexplicable. Inexplicable, that is, until you recognize the devotion of a majority on the court to an ideological agenda — the so-called unitary executive theory — at the expense of reality. In Trump’s case, the court’s commitment to unrestrained executive power amounts to giving a box of matches to a known arsonist. More on Trump Opinion | Maureen Dowd Trump’s Bubble Is About to Burst Oct. 17, 2026 nytimes.com/2026/10/17/opini… Opinion | The Editorial Board Trump Is Turning to an Old Tool of Authoritarian Repression Oct. 23, 2026 nytimes.com/2026/10/23/opini… Opinion | Jeffrey Toobin Even a Blue Wave Can’t Stop Trump Oct. 18, 2026 nytimes.com/2026/10/18/opini… Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to the Times Opinion section since 2011. His essays on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appear every Tuesday. He previously covered politics for The Washington Post. Will Trump Ever Have to Face the Music? Listen · 12:35 min 27OCT2026 By Thomas B. Edsall NYT Gift Article link nytimes.com/2026/10/27/opini… Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly essay from Washington on politics, demographics and inequality. President Trump’s repeated defiance of the law and the Constitution raises a question: Will he ever face criminal charges — or any kind of real accountability — for what he has done? Credit...Julia Demaree Nikhinson/Associated Press

Will Trump Ever Have to Face the Music? Listen · 12:35 min 27OCT2026 By Thomas B. Edsall NYT Gift Article link nytimes.com/2026/10/27/opini… Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly essay from Washington on politics, demographics and inequality. President Trump’s repeated defiance of the law and the Constitution raises a question: Will he ever face criminal charges — or any kind of real accountability — for what he has done? Did the Supreme Court let him off the hook, especially with its decision on presidential immunity in Trump v. United States in 2024? Can the president pardon himself? If no congressional or federal case can be made, can state prosecutors bring this renegade to justice? Is there a kind of perverse legitimacy to Trump’s claim, made last year on both X and Truth Social, that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”? With the prospect that next Tuesday’s elections will deal a blow, perhaps a serious blow, to Trump and the MAGA movement — potentially provoking him to go still further to extremes — I sought out opinions from legal scholars. I started with Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill widely recognized for his expertise on these issues. He replied by email to a series of questions. His answers reflect the outrage in much of the legal community over the blatant illegality of Trump’s actions and the underlying, though often not directly expressed, fear that he will go scot-free. Has Trump committed any crimes that could arguably be classified as unofficial acts and therefore subject to prosecution once he leaves office? “Yes,” Gerhardt replied: Evidence shows that Trump could be prosecuted for several crimes that could be reasonably classified as unofficial acts, including payments he received in exchange for pardons or access to the administration; enriching himself and/or his family from self-dealing; and attempts to interfere with or undermine the electoral process; obstruction of justice. There are many other acts for which he (and others) could face legal sanction, such as insider trading that has benefited him personally. Has he committed crimes through his official acts for which the presumption of immunity might be overcome? Trump has committed official acts for which the presumption of immunity could be overcome, including but not limited to issuing pardons to business associates and others as recompense for their loyalty. How much does the immunity granted by the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States constrain the ability of prosecutors to get and present the evidence they need? The expansive immunity that the Supreme Court has vested in the presidency makes prosecution difficult because it incentivizes presidents to claim they were exercising their official powers when engaging in criminal or other misconduct. How much can Trump protect himself through a self-pardon before he leaves office? Trump has floated the idea more than once that he could pardon himself for federal crimes. He could even use President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter as a model for protecting himself and/or allies or family from federal prosecutions. There are compelling and persuasive arguments that a president does not have the authority to pardon himself and that any such pardon could be grounds for impeachment. Looking at these issues from a broader overview, Gerhardt wrote: Trump has abused power and engaged in misconduct in at least three general ways: First, he has engaged in self-dealing that has allowed him to add billions to his net worth in the first two years of his second term. Second, he has abused his powers to punish his political enemies, such as pushing for the prosecutions of former F.B.I. director James Comey and former chair of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell. Last but not least, he has told thousands of lies to justify inappropriate actions, such as ordering the National Guard into American cities, murdering innocent people on the high seas, and plans to use the military to intimidate voters. He has written the book on the many ways in which presidents can commit impeachable offenses. Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, pointed to a characteristic aspect of Trump’s corruption: He has initiated extensive maneuvers to personally profit as a private citizen while wielding the threat of his public power. “Donald Trump,” Litman said, has, to a greater extent than any president before him, traded on acting in his “individual” capacity while ostensibly gesturing to his “official” capacity in order to coerce entities to do his bidding. For example, he was able to obtain favorable settlements in some of his litigation against media companies that he initiated in his private capacity. Many of the settlements also paid money to him in his private capacity. Those are unofficial actions. Yet there’s also no question that an animating force behind the settlements were his official powers. So is that an official versus an unofficial act? It’s unclear — and that’s part of the issue with the immunity opinion — it’s failure to recognize the obvious fact that corruptly exercising official powers converts them from public/official/permissible powers to impermissible/unofficial/private ones. Another example of this: the crypto dinner. People paid him in his private capacity — and his press secretary said this was all in his private capacity. But why do you think those people attended the dinner? To purchase access/influence to the president, with all of his “official” powers. That is part of the dilemma the immunity opinion created. Litman expanded on this argument in “Unsettling the Presidency,” an article she wrote with Katherine Shaw and Melissa Murray, law professors at the University of Pennsylvania and New York University. “Whereas previously,” they wrote, “bargaining, settlement and other forms of dispute resolution happened in the shadow of the law, novel presidential settlements now happen in the shadow of lawlessness.” “Presidential encroachments on the courts’ prerogatives,” they argued, include the use of litigation — particularly in the context of the president’s lawsuits against, and the resulting settlements with, media companies — as a tool of presidential control and presidential power. They also include the president’s efforts to create shadow legal processes that mirror the formal legal process, but operate outside of it and under the president’s control. The president’s use of executive orders and other actions targeting prominent law firms and universities, and the resulting “settlements” and “deals” they have generated, are exemplary of this approach. The three went on to warn that “we have moved beyond the traditional account of a unitary executive that embodies all executive branch authority. Instead, what is ascendant is an unprecedented account of executive authority that occupies and wields the powers of all three branches of government.” Not all scholars and practitioners are convinced to the same degree as Gerhardt of the potential effectiveness of the criminal prosecution of Trump. Philip Allen Lacovara, a former deputy U.S. solicitor general and counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor, thinks the Supreme Court handed Trump a virtual get-out-of-jail card: Although the wholly unjustified and constitutionally unsound decision in the Trump immunity case in 2024 purported to leave open the possibility of prosecuting a president (1) for some official acts and (2) for any unofficial acts, these exceptions are largely illusory — at least so long as the current majority remains on the Supreme Court. The opinion in the case creates a virtually impenetrable barrier protecting Trump from being prosecuted for such things as corruption; complicity in unlawful, extrajudicial killing; selling pardons; soliciting contributions from prospective office seekers; awarding federal contracts to big donors; interfering with elections; and any of the other abuses in his rap sheet. Lacovara provided me with detailed citations supporting his critique of Trump v. United States, virtually a memorandum of law, unfortunately too long to reprint here. Lacovara pointedly noted that the court specifically exonerated Trump’s most egregious behavior, “allegations that Trump egged on the Jan. 6 rioters through his speech and tweets.” “The alleged conduct,” he added, “largely consists of Trump’s communications in the form of tweets and a public address.” But, Lacovara noted, As the sole person charged by the Constitution with executing the laws of the United States, the president oversees — and thus will frequently speak publicly about — a vast array of activities that touch on nearly every aspect of American life. Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the president believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the federal government — for instance, to comfort the nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. The court ruling, Lacovara wrote, would prevent prosecution in cases where “there appears to be significant evidence of quid pro quo financial transactions (bribery) using the president’s office to grant favors in return for personal financial benefits for himself and his family.” In other words, the hurdles prosecutors now face when determining whether to file criminal charges against Trump are not just high, but possibly prohibitively high. Darryl K. Brown, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, wrote that the problem in part is that there is so much we don’t know about what a president does or says behind closed doors. And even many conversations with others that might be part of a crime committed by unofficial acts, and that seem to a reasonable person to be private, might nonetheless be arguably official such that it would be covered by the immunity for official-acts crimes that the court granted in Trump v. United States. A theoretical example might be a conversation between an administration official who is also a business partner of Trump or a Trump family member. Even a presidential conversation with such an official about, say, bribes they would pay to win a contract to build a hotel in another country might be wrapped up with official acts if it occurs in the context of a larger diplomatic negotiation with that country. There have been widespread media reports, Brown continued, of Trump’s primary negotiators with Russia, Iran, Israel and other countries — Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff — talking about business deals in the same meetings in which they are acting as diplomats. The line between official and unofficial acts seems very muddy in the Trump administration, which probably works to Trump’s advantage under the court’s broad interpretation of presidential immunity. The court’s immunity decision is such a big barrier, Brown wrote, because the court stressed that nothing prosecutors do to obtain evidence can “chill” a president’s actions. The court’s majority fears that even, say, eliciting testimony from presidential advisers about statements and actions not in the public record could “seriously cripple” the president’s exercise of his official powers. Lacovara was the most outspoken of those I contacted, writing: The Supreme Court has licensed Trump to commit federal crimes as part of his sweeping array of “official” powers — anything within the “outer perimeter” of the functions that a president may do as president. Under the theory that the majority of the Supreme Court subsequently adopted, Trump would have legal immunity if he ordered SEAL Team 6 to murder a political rival whom he designated a threat to national security. That is the kind of power over life or death that many dictators over history have exercised. Trump continues to try to act like a dictator. He likes to govern by decree — with his “executive actions,” such as using federal funds for his own projects regardless of the reasons Congress appropriated them, and even in defiance of statutory constraints. His various projects on the White House grounds, the Trumpian triumphal arch and his concept for an elitist golf course in place of a public park are all intended as monuments to himself — much like a pharaoh, a Roman emperor. Beginning in his first term, Trump pointedly alerted both Americans and the world to his authoritarian and criminal aims. By the start of his second term, his vengefulness, venality, misuse of public power and inclination toward transgression were known by one and all, most especially the Supreme Court. Which makes the court’s decision to give this man criminal immunity in the first place all the more inexplicable. Inexplicable, that is, until you recognize the devotion of a majority on the court to an ideological agenda — the so-called unitary executive theory — at the expense of reality. In Trump’s case, the court’s commitment to unrestrained executive power amounts to giving a box of matches to a known arsonist. More on Trump Opinion | Maureen Dowd Trump’s Bubble Is About to Burst Oct. 17, 2026 nytimes.com/2026/10/17/opini… Opinion | The Editorial Board Trump Is Turning to an Old Tool of Authoritarian Repression Oct. 23, 2026 nytimes.com/2026/10/23/opini… Opinion | Jeffrey Toobin Even a Blue Wave Can’t Stop Trump Oct. 18, 2026 nytimes.com/2026/10/18/opini… Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to the Times Opinion section since 2011. His essays on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appear every Tuesday. He previously covered politics for The Washington Post. Will Trump Ever Have to Face the Music? Listen · 12:35 min 27OCT2026 By Thomas B. Edsall NYT Gift Article link nytimes.com/2026/10/27/opini… Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly essay from Washington on politics, demographics and inequality. President Trump’s repeated defiance of the law and the Constitution raises a question: Will he ever face criminal charges — or any kind of real accountability — for what he has done? Credit...Julia Demaree Nikhinson/Associated Press

Trump Has Failed. Hold Him to Account. Listen · 13:07 min 27OCT2026 By The Editorial Board NYT Gift Article link nytimes.com/2026/10/27/opini… The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom. President Trump has encouraged voters to pretend he is on the ballot for the Nov. 3 midterm elections, and this time we can agree with his political advice. Americans should be thinking of the Trump administration as they vote for members of Congress and state officials. Voters should keep in mind Mr. Trump’s failure to keep his campaign promises, his attempts to undermine American democracy and his flagrant corruption. They should be thinking of the Republican Party’s acquiescence to this abuse of power, and they should hold Republicans accountable. Today’s Democratic Party has plenty of flaws, including a disappointing failure to present a coherent agenda of its own. Nonetheless, Democrats offer the only alternative this year to the damage that Mr. Trump and his party have inflicted on the nation. A vote for a Democratic candidate is the best way for Americans to repudiate the Trump administration’s performance over the past two years. If Democrats retake both houses of Congress, and more state governments than they now control, it will tell the world that Mr. Trump does not represent most Americans. It will demonstrate that a country that starts to slide toward autocracy can move back to normalcy, as happened in Hungary this spring. Most important, it will create a desperately needed check on Mr. Trump during his final two years in office. Take a moment to imagine how Washington could change if Democrats win control of the House of Representatives. Mr. Trump’s legislative ambitions will be largely ended; he will not be able to pass more tax cuts that worsen the national debt. Democrats can instead use must-pass spending bills to restore money that was improperly cut from Medicaid, schools, scientific research and disease prevention. And Congress will finally have committee chairs who seek to exercise their constitutional duty to hold the president and his appointees responsible for their actions, through the use of hearings, subpoenas and more. Even if Mr. Trump and his aides illegally defy subpoenas, the House can summon corporate executives and others who have enabled him. If Democrats take the Senate, they will be able to do more. As the body that confirms nominees for top administration jobs and the judiciary, the Senate can stop Mr. Trump from appointing unqualified cabinet members like Todd Blanche, Pete Hegseth and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and ideologues like Russ Vought. Senators can insist on federal judges who, while surely conservative, will uphold the law. Many judges appointed by previous Republican presidents have honorably done so in recent years, but some Trump appointees have failed to meet this basic standard. The Senate’s confirmation role will be particularly important if any Supreme Court vacancies arise in the next two years. Regardless, Mr. Trump will almost certainly continue to do damage in office. He will issue executive orders and conduct foreign policy, and he may defy congressional authority in ways that violate tradition or the law. Yet the difference between a government completely run by a political party in thrall to him and a government with an empowered opposition is profound. Americans now have an opportunity to register their displeasure with his conduct, and they should seize it. It is worth taking a moment to review the records of both Mr. Trump and congressional Republicans since he returned to office in January 2025. In a 21-month span, he has done more harm to democracy and the rule of law than any other president in the modern era and perhaps longer than that. He has broken his oath to defend the Constitution by trying to rewrite it on his own. He has refused to honor Congress’s power of the purse and misused national security laws for political ends. He has defied federal court orders on Medicaid funding, deportation orders and more. He has dismantled the Justice Department’s legacy as an impartial enforcer of federal law, turning it into an instrument of retribution against his adversaries while canceling investigations into his allies. He has appointed inept sycophants to oversee crucial government functions, including law enforcement, national defense and public health. He has sought to disenfranchise large numbers of voters, claiming fraud that cannot be found, and championed an extreme new approach to partisan gerrymandering. He has physically besmirched the White House by demolishing the East Wing and financing a garish renovation with donations from wealthy allies. In foreign affairs, Mr. Trump has wasted lives and military resources on a miscalculated and illegal war with Iran, a strategic blunder that has forced a global retreat of American power. He has left the United States less prepared for future conflicts. He has left the United States isolated and vulnerable, by alienating longtime allies. He has weakened Ukraine in its heroic fight against Russia and cozied up to President Vladimir Putin. On the economy, his policies have raised the cost of living, contributing to a decline in real wages. Interest rates are up. Economic growth and job growth are down. He has handed out billions to the wealthy and large corporations, leaving the rest of us with the tab, through a national debt that now exceeds $40 trillion. He has created a culture of corruption and avarice with no precedent. He has pardoned political cronies, violent felons among them. He has used the levers of power, including regulatory oversight and diplomacy, to bring in billions of dollars of profit for his family business and his closest supporters. In 2025 alone, the president’s business empire earned $2.24 billion, nearly two-thirds of it from cryptocurrency, which Mr. Trump’s executive branch is supposed to be regulating. What has the Republican-controlled Congress done to rein in these abuses? Virtually nothing. With only a few exceptions, the Senate has approved inept cabinet members and agency heads and then stood by as they rounded up legal immigrants, brought ludicrous criminal charges against political opponents, depleted the military of top talent and spurned the scientific consensus on the need for vaccines. No congressional committee has demanded an accounting for the destruction of the United States Agency for International Development, which is leading to needless misery and death in other countries. Nor has Congress fought back against the shrinking of other federal agencies that it created and that the Trump White House unilaterally defunded. No committee has investigated the Trump family’s enrichment and self-dealing, though it is vastly worse than Hunter Biden’s schemes of familial exploitation, which Republicans rightly denounced. A determined Congress could have tried to prevent the two presidential decisions most responsible for the inflation that has imperiled Republican political prospects: starting a war against Iran and imposing tariffs on global imports. Republican leaders didn’t even try. A handful of Republican legislators joined Democrats in passing resolutions against the war, but party leaders opposed the efforts and made sure they remained toothless. The Republican majorities in the House and Senate do not even seem to care when Mr. Trump casts aside laws that they passed themselves. In September, Congress passed a bill enabling tighter sanctions on Russia’s energy exports, and the president signed it. When he later changed his position and said he would not enforce the sanctions, only a small number of Republicans objected, none of them in leadership. The current Congress is the second least productive on record, passing fewer bills than any other save its immediate predecessor, the 118th Congress, in 2023 and 2024, when Republicans also controlled the House. The most significant piece of legislation that the 119th Congress passed is the law that Mr. Trump insisted be called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In truth, it is mostly a handout to the wealthy, which worsens both the national debt and economic inequality. The Republican congressional candidates on the ballot this year deserve to pay a price for both the damage their party has done and the damage it has failed to stop. In the face of a power-grabbing president, they have mostly shown cowardice. The Constitution envisions the legislative branch as the first among equals in the government’s power-sharing system; James Madison said that it “necessarily predominates.” This Congress has enthusiastically ceded its power. It is Congress that has the power of the purse, the power to declare war, the power to determine who enters the country, the power to levy duties and tariffs. Its current leaders have instead become bystanders to Mr. Trump’s assertions of executive supremacy. Having signed on to Mr. Trump’s cult of personality, a vast majority of congressional Republicans are now loath to break with it, fearing the president will destroy their political careers and subject them to harassment, as he has done to others in the party. Only voters can provide a counterweight. They have a chance to demonstrate next Tuesday that dereliction of constitutional duty can likewise end a politician’s career. Mr. Trump has become so unpopular that this year’s elections appear likely to be competitive across much of the country, including traditionally red Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio and Texas. But even Americans who live in reliably blue or red areas should feel motivated to vote. Beyond Congress, governors and state legislatures can also play an important role in constraining Mr. Trump’s authoritarian impulses. They can block his calls for extreme partisan gerrymandering, his efforts to restrict mail voting and his election meddling. Local officials can push back against the abuses of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They can go to court to block his illegal funding cuts and usurpations of state authority. They can act in the interest of the people even as Mr. Trump pursues his own interests at public expense. If any Republican officials on your ballot have consistently stood up to Mr. Trump on these matters, you should consider rewarding their political courage. In most state and local races, though, constraining his overreach will require voting Democratic. There are now 23 states where Republicans control both houses of the state legislature and the governor’s seat; several of those “trifectas” are at risk, including those in Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and New Hampshire. When a democracy begins to slide toward autocracy, legislative elections offer the most significant potential turning point. If voters endorse the new regime — or the party in power manages to subvert the popular will — the slide can accelerate. If voters successfully reject the regime, democracy can begin to recover. The United States will be stronger if the 2026 midterms are such a turning point. Even if Mr. Trump’s party loses badly, the country will face enormous challenges. Our political system, with its gerrymandered districts and unrepresentative Senate and Electoral College, was insufficiently democratic even before he weakened it. Our economy is grossly unequal. The planet is warming. China and Russia are newly aggressive. Artificial intelligence presents a threat that may define this century. Yet the best hope for addressing these challenges is a functioning government, rather than one befouled by corruption, incompetence and abuse of power. Mr. Trump has dominated American politics for more than a decade, and the Republican Party has been his eager accomplice in degrading the nation’s ideals. The American people have a chance over the next week to speak in a clear voice. If they do, they can allow the nation to glimpse the end of the Trump era and the start of something brighter. More on the midterms Opinion | Robert E. Rubin In Six Decades of Public Life, I Never Thought I Would Write This Piece Oct. 21, 2026 nytimes.com/2026/10/21/opini… Opinion | Michael Brendan Dougherty The Midterms Look Dark for Republicans. Their Future Looks Brighter. Oct. 19, 2026 nytimes.com/2026/10/19/opini… Opinion | Jeffrey Toobin Even a Blue Wave Can’t Stop Trump Oct. 18, 2026 nytimes.com/2026/10/18/opini… The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom. Trump Has Failed. Hold Him to Account. Listen · 13:07 min 27OCT2026 By The Editorial Board NYT Gift Article link nytimes.com/2026/10/27/opini… The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom. Credit...Illustration by The New York Times

Mamdani and Hochul break ground on $36 million flood-fighting project in Upper Manhattan By Barbara Russo-Lennon Posted on October 26, 2026 amny.com/environment/mamdani… New York officials and the Central Park Conservancy broke ground on a $35.7 million project designed to reduce flooding in Harlem and East Harlem while conserving millions of gallons of drinking water each year. Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Gov. Kathy Hochul and president of the park’s conservancy Betsy Smith announced the start of the North End Recirculation Project, which they said will modernize the park’s stormwater management system and improve water quality in three northern park water bodies. The project is expected to be completed in fall 2028. The system will connect the Harlem Meer, the Lock and the Pool, allowing water to circulate and be filtered between the three waters. It is designed to reduce the amount of stormwater entering city sewers during heavy rainfall while limiting the park’s reliance on the municipal drinking water supply.

Mamdani and Hochul break ground on $36 million flood-fighting project in Upper Manhattan By Barbara Russo-Lennon Posted on October 26, 2026 amny.com/environment/mamdani… New York officials and the Central Park Conservancy broke ground on a $35.7 million project designed to reduce flooding in Harlem and East Harlem while conserving millions of gallons of drinking water each year. Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Gov. Kathy Hochul and president of the park’s conservancy Betsy Smith announced the start of the North End Recirculation Project, which they said will modernize the park’s stormwater management system and improve water quality in three northern park water bodies. The project is expected to be completed in fall 2028. The system will connect the Harlem Meer, the Lock and the Pool, allowing water to circulate and be filtered between the three waters. It is designed to reduce the amount of stormwater entering city sewers during heavy rainfall while limiting the park’s reliance on the municipal drinking water supply.

Why exoskeleton systems may potentially be a transit game-change(?) NYT Gift Article link nytimes.com/athletic/7632788… How it feels to run 636 miles in six days: Sleep deprivation, 90F heat and ‘mourning’ the end In breaking the women's six-day world record, Megan Eckert went further than the U.S. men's one. Arcadi De Miguel Sanz By George Ramsay Sept. 30, 2026 Run636MilesIn6Days

Why exoskeleton systems may potentially be a transit game-change(?) NYT Gift Article link nytimes.com/athletic/7632788… How it feels to run 636 miles in six days: Sleep deprivation, 90F heat and ‘mourning’ the end In breaking the women's six-day world record, Megan Eckert went further than the U.S. men's one. Arcadi De Miguel Sanz By George Ramsay Sept. 30, 2026 Run636MilesIn6Days

Mayor Mamdani Holds a Press Conference to Make Stormwater Management and Water Conservation Announcement Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani @NYCMayor xitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1yxBePWLP… Started 17 minutes ago