In this episode of the Politics in Question podcast, the team discusses thermostatic politics to explain what it means and how it works.
Podcast: What is thermostatic politics?
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
A former Navy Lieutenant Commander warns that Trump and his associates are profiting from the Iran conflict through defense contracts, crypto ventures, and prediction markets while putting American troops and taxpayers at risk.
Getty Images, gopixa
The Blood Money Presidency
May 12, 2026
Trump is running a war racket. Between arms dealing, prediction markets, and crypto, the war in Iran is looking more and more like a not-so-elaborate scheme to rake in blood money for himself and his cronies. Even his own Defense Secretary attempted to buy defense stocks on the eve of the war. At least, if you have been wondering what we’re still doing at war with Iran, then Trump’s financial dealings may offer an explanation.
The Trumps are war dogs. Powerus, a startup based in West Palm Beach, was founded only last year, specializing in counter-drone tech tailored for none other than Middle East operations. Then, in March, just after Trump started a war in the Middle East, the company went public–and Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump joined the board with sizable equity stakes. The conflict of interest may be their entire business model. Just weeks after the brothers came aboard, the Air Force gifted Powerus its first military contract for an undisclosed number of interceptor drones. At the same time, the company is pitching drone demonstrations to Gulf countries that know buying from the President's sons is sure to curry favor. As former chief White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter put it: “This is going to be the first family of a president to make a lot of money off war — a war he didn’t get the consent of Congress for.”
Now, the Trump family is propping up and profiting from an industry that allows Americans to essentially gamble on blood: prediction markets. Airstrikes used to require strategic necessity, and ones that harmed civilians used to be called tragedies; now, they are “event contracts” for a young man–and a Trump insider–to trade. And regardless of who places the bet, the prediction markets benefit through transaction fees. Lo and behold, Don Jr. just became a paid adviser of Kalshi and an investor in and an unpaid adviser to Polymarket. What’s he doing there? Bet you can piece it together. The First Family’s cozy relationship with these prediction market platforms has turned geopolitical instability into a tradable asset–and they get a cut.
A chaotic global landscape is good for business in other ways too. Trump and his associates stand to see immense financial gains from increased black-market transactions using a digital financial system that allows our enemies to bypass our sanctions. I’m talking about crypto. While many call crypto worse than a Ponzi scheme, its main selling point is that it is decentralized and untraceable. That opacity is useful if you smuggle drugs, arms, oil, or humans (by the way, Epstein had unsurprisingly deep ties to crypto). Sanctioned regimes stand to benefit from backdoor crypto dealings. Now, so does the President of the United States, and so do his friends.
Trump won the 2024 election with the help of crypto megadonors and has been returning the favor ever since, with his family even co-founding the cryptocurrency company World Liberty Financial. Now, a new report just revealed that “the same exchange that holds the vast majority of Trump's USD1 stablecoin has now facilitated billions of dollars in transactions for Iran and designated terrorist organizations.” Iran is charging $1 per barrel of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz, in crypto. Trump wants to talk about crushing terrorists, but he is creating the conditions that fund them. He doesn’t mind, though, because he’s also getting a payout.
Our own Department of Commerce is being led by Trump-appointed and Epstein-affiliated Howard Lutnick, whose connections to the stablecoin Tether, the primary vehicle Russian oligarchs use to move sanctioned Iranian oil to China, are well-documented. Meanwhile, Trump continues to send Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff to negotiate peace deals. But Witkoff was a co-founder of World Liberty Financial with the Trump family! Why would any of these guys want to end the war when they’re getting a piece of the action, making billions of untraceable money? Clearly, they don’t. Saying “the arsonists are selling fire extinguishers” doesn’t quite cover it when the fire extinguishers are filled with more fuel.
Ultimately, the Trump regime is running a vertical integration of war where the policy, the weaponry, the financial bypasses, and the outcomes are all controlled by a small group of people enriching themselves at each step. American tax dollars are being funneled into a drone company owned by the President’s sons, who are profiting off a nouveau-gambling trend where users can cash in on casualties, all while the war feeds industries that strengthen our adversaries. They are turning the war, and our service members, into one big short. And they have the audacity to ask the American taxpayers to foot an ever-growing bill.
I got out of the Navy in June as a Lieutenant Commander. I crossed the Strait of Hormuz for the first time in 2013 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom; it was a stressful exercise even when we weren’t at war with Iran. Now, the President is putting American troops in harm’s way (and gutting programs Americans rely on to pay for it) to serve his bottom line. It is viscerally sickening.
Our military deserves a government that isn’t checking its stock options while indefinitely extending deployments. The American people deserve a government that doesn’t use their tax dollars as a personal checkbook. And the global community deserves stability unthreatened by the greed of a gang of billionaires. Congress is asleep at the wheel, and if the American people don’t get more involved soon, we’re all gonna crash. It’s time to investigate the entanglements at the highest levels and end the collusion–for the sake of our resources, our morality, and our hope for a peaceful future.Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
President Donald Trump speaks during an arrival ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 28, 2026.
(Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)
Trump’s petty pursuit of his ‘enemies’
May 09, 2026
When the history books write about Donald Trump, they’ll have a lot to say — little of it positive, I’d be willing to wager.
His presidencies have been marked by rank incompetence, unprecedented greed and self-dealing, naked corruption, ethical, legal and moral breaches and, as we repeatedly see, a rise in political division and anger. From impeachments to an insurrection to who-knows-what is still to come, the era of Trump has hardly been worthy of admiration.
But don’t tell that to his loyal supporters, for whom no one stands in higher esteem, despite Trump’s obvious shortcomings. Where we see an embarrassment, they see the fulfilment of a promise. Where we find horror, they find jubilation. We are truly living in two different Americas.
It’s remarkable that Trump can so clearly be two opposing things depending on whom you ask, and that stark contrast is often revealed in moments where he’s waging war on perceived enemies.
This week, Trump’s Justice Department, under the leadership of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, announced it had indicted former FBI Director James Comey over an Instagram post in which Comey had photographed seashells on a beach to spell out “86 47.”
To be clear, “86” is common restaurant jargon to “nix” a menu item, and “47” refers to Trump. Blanche’s DOJ is claiming that this amounted to a threat of violence.
If that sounds silly, it’s because it is. But Trump’s got it out for Comey, and he tried this once before. This indictment, like the last one, isn’t likely to result in a prosecution.
But the indictment was met with predictable praise from MAGA loyalists, for whom Trump’s revenge campaigns are a titillating projection of his strength and a righteous use of presidential power.
For the rest of us, they are just another humiliation for Trump and the country — a weaponized and compromised DOJ that’s already seen one AG fired for failing to throw enough Trump opponents in prison, and a president who is pathologically consumed with old and irrelevant grudges.
Trump fans love it when he’s playing the bully and swinging at the people he’s told them to hate, from Jimmy Kimmel to Sen. Mark Kelly to New York Attorney General Letitia James.
For all of his efforts at projecting strength, Trump never looks weaker than in these moments, when he’s pursuing these personal vendettas — and losing.
Just in the past year, Trump’s DOJ has lost numerous high-profile cases it sought to use to appease the president’s bloodlust.
It failed to get an indictment against six Democratic lawmakers, including Kelly, over a video they released regarding illegal orders.
Grand juries rejected cases against protesters in Washington and elsewhere, including trying to charge a man with felony assault for throwing a sandwich at an officer.
Attempts to prosecute James, former CIA Director John Brennan, and Fed Chair Jerome Powell have thus far failed.
Trump has also failed to successfully sue a number of opponents, from Hillary Clinton to the DNC, the New York Times to CNN.
Judges have overruled his attempts at silencing news outlets, blocking a Pentagon policy limiting reporter access, ordering the White House to lift restrictions on the AP after Trump had banned the news agency for refusing to use the term “Gulf of America,” and blocking an executive order to cut funding for NPR and PBS.
Trump has lost so many of these petty fights, it’s hard to imagine why he keeps going back to the trough, only to suffer more humiliating losses.
And yet somehow, his fans don’t read these abject failures the same way the rest of us do. Where we see impotence and incompetence, they still see power and strength.
I can’t make it make sense, but I’m fairly confident that the history books, at least, will get it right.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Keep ReadingShow less
Agents draw their guns after loud bangs were heard during the White House Correspondents' dinner at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., on April 25, 2026. President Trump is attending the annual gala of the political press for the first time while in office.
(Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)
Whenever political violence erupts, Washington starts playing the blame game
May 02, 2026
A heavily armed California man was caught trying to storm the White House correspondents’ dinner Saturday with the apparent intent to kill the president.
It didn’t take long for Washington to start arguing. Democrats denounce violent rhetoric from the right, but the alleged assailant seemed to be inspired by his own rhetoric. President Trump, after initially offering some unifying remarks about defending free speech, soon started accusing the press of encouraging violence against him. Critics pounced on the hypocrisy.
The argument about hypocrisy isn’t about mere inconsistency. The point of the accusation is to say that condemnations of violence are insincere. “Your team says it’s against violence” or “your side says my side encourages violence” but just look at what your language inspired!
The hypocrisy is bipartisan.
Indeed, for two decades now, it seems that whenever political violence erupts, there’s a moment where partisans wait to learn the motives of the perpetrator so they can start blaming the other side for inciting it. Sometimes they don’t even wait. Jared Loughner, the man who shot former Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed several others, was instantaneously labeled an agent of the tea parties and Sarah Palin. The truth is he was such a paranoid schizophrenic, a court found him incompetent to stand trial.
I don’t have the space to run through the dozens of examples — the congressional baseball shooting, the Charleston AME church slaughter, the El Paso Walmart massacre, the recent murder of Minnesota lawmakers, the Jan. 6 riot or the failed attack Saturday night. But in the wake of these bloody crimes, partisans of left and the right will scour the killer’s social media or read their “manifestos” and place the blame on the rhetoric of the team closest to the assailant’s ideology.
Now, my point isn’t to say that blaming the rhetoric of nonviolent people for the crimes of violent people is wrong. It is wrong, of course, particularly as a matter of law. If I quote Shakespeare and write, “Let’s kill all the lawyers,” I am not responsible for someone who actually shoots a lawyer (nor is the Bard). But that doesn’t mean violent, extremist rhetoric is laudable, healthy or blameless for the sorry state of American politics or society or that it never plays a role in inspiring wrongdoing.
However such rhetoric might encourage violence, it certainly encourages the sense that something is broken in American life. More specifically, it fuels the idea that our political opponents are existential enemies.
“Outgroup homogeneity” is the term social psychologists use to describe the very human tendency to think the groups you belong to are diverse and complex, but the groups you don’t belong to aren’t. A non-Asian person might think all Asians are alike, but for Asians the differences between — or among! — Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indian people are both obvious and significant.
American politics right now are almost defined by outgroup homogeneity. Many Democrats and progressives think all Republicans and conservatives are alike, and vice versa. That would be bad enough, but the problem is compounded by the fact that each side tends to think the consensus on the other side is defined by their worst actors and spokespeople. This is sometimes called “nutpicking.” You find the most extreme person on the other side and hold them up as representative of all Democrats or Republicans.
Partisan media amplifies this dynamic at scale. Pew finds that Republicans (who watch Fox News) are more familiar with the term “critical race theory” than Democrats, the supposed devotees of it. Democrats recognize the term “Christian nationalist” more than supposedly Christian nationalist Republicans do.
Consider the recent debates over Hasan Piker and Nick Fuentes, both prominent social media influencers, one far left the other far right, who say grotesque, indefensible and stupid things. The arguments within the two coalitions are not over whether they should be spokesmen for their respective sides, but whether their “voices” (and fans) should be welcome inside the broader Democratic or Republican tents. Few accommodationists endorse the worst rhetoric from Piker or Fuentes, but they oppose “purity tests.”
On the merits, I think both should be shunned and condemned. But even if the question is purely a political one, they should still be ostracized. Why? Because people outside the respective coalitions will — however fairly or unfairly — hold up the extremists on the fringe as representative of the whole. The only way for either party to prove it opposes extremism to people outside the tent is by opposing it inside their own tents first. Otherwise, their hypocrisy will continue to define them.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
soldiers in truck
Photo by Diego González on Unsplash
Fulcrum Roundtable: ‘Chilling Effect’ on Dissent
Apr 30, 2026
Congress and the Trump administration are locked in an escalating fight over presidential war powers as President Donald Trump continues military action against Iran without congressional authorization, prompting renewed debate over the limits of executive authority.
Julie Roland, a ten-year Navy veteran and frequent contributor to The Fulcrum, joined Executive Editor Hugo Balta on this month's edition of The Fulcrum Roundtable, where she expressed deep concerns regarding the Trump administration’s impact on military nonpartisanship and the rights of service members.A former helicopter pilot and lieutenant commander, Roland has used her weekly column to highlight what she describes as a systemic attempt to stifle dissent within the armed forces.
- YouTube youtu.be
In her March article, “Speak Now or Forever War,” Roland examined how the administration’s rhetoric creates a "chilling effect" on those still in uniform. She emphasized that while service members take a sacred oath to the Constitution, they also have a legal obligation to refuse unlawful orders.
"If you are given an order that's unconstitutional or that you believe to be illegal, the rules are stated as that you must in fact disobey that order," she said. Roland noted that this duty becomes an "impossible burden" for young recruits who may lack the legal background to identify unconstitutional commands in high-pressure situations.
Roland was particularly critical of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, accusing him of using "violent rhetoric" that does not represent the broader military culture. She argued that Hegseth and the President have actively worked to exclude the media to avoid accountability.
"I think there's enough evidence to suggest that between Secretary Hegseth and Trump, there's been an active effort to push the media out in order to reduce transparency and accountability of what the military is doing," she stated.The interview also touched upon the "unprecedented" deployment of troops to American cities like Los Angeles and Minneapolis. Roland argued these actions delegitimize public trust by making the military appear as a "political arm" of the Trump administration.
This perceived politicization, combined with low public confidence, poses a long-term national security risk by damaging recruitment and retention. Roland warned that soldiers who joined to defend the nation may become "disenchanted" when sent to deploy in American neighborhoods."The press are doing their jobs to try to have transparency... while the Pentagon seems to be, at least Secretary Hegseth seems to be, deliberately trying to not let us know exactly what's going on," she concluded.Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t