A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



September 22, 2026

Fake accomplishments

Trump criticizes the press for failing to report fake accomplishments

Analysis by Daniel Dale

President Donald Trump, defending his decision to ban CNN and two other media outlets from the White House, argued Monday that the press has “an obligation” to report on his accomplishments.

But Trump immediately cited two supposed accomplishments that do not actually exist.

We don’t report that he “settled eight wars” because he didn’t. We don’t report that there is “$21 trillion pouring in” to the United States because there isn’t. Both numbers are wildly inflated.

In other words, Trump’s examples of the great news the press is supposedly failing to cover are actually examples of why an independent press is necessary to provide the facts when public officials won’t. CNN, Politico and MS NOW, the three outlets subject to Trump’s ban and now suing the White House over it, have all published stories pointing out the holes in the president’s assertions about wars supposedly ended and investments supposedly secured.

Trump’s false claims

Trump spoke about the White House ban during a Monday press conference in New York City with Mayor Zohran Mamdani. When Trump was asked why he announced the ban, he said, “I’m only doing it because I think the press also has an obligation. And, you know, I won in a landslide, I won the election in a landslide. I’ve done great things, I’ve done a lot of great things. I’ve settled eight wars. We have the best economic numbers for the country, in the history of our country. We have $21 trillion pouring in.”

He criticized media coverage of himself and of the war with Iran, which he described as overly negative given that “we’ve done so well.” Then, after deriding CNN and MS NOW, he said, “I think that these outlets have an obligation to be fair.”

Trump’s claims about having won a “landslide” victory, having “the best economic numbers for the country” and that “we’ve done so well” with Iran are some combination of too subjective and too vague to debunk, though it’s clear all three can be reasonably challenged. But his claims that “I’ve settled eight wars” and “we have $21 trillion pouring in” are incorrect, as CNN has repeatedly noted when he has made the same or similar claims on numerous previous occasions.

Trump’s list of eight wars supposedly settled includes two situations that were never actually wars during his tenure: a diplomatic dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia and a mysterious supposed situation between Serbia and Kosovo. The list also includes a war, involving Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, that has not ended despite a peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration.

In addition, the list includes the war between Israel and Hamas even though Israel continues to conduct frequent attacks in Gaza despite a US-brokered ceasefire agreement. And it includes the brief 2025 conflict between Israel and Iran, though Israel proceeded to join the US in starting another war against Iran in 2026.

As for the “$21 trillion” Trump says is pouring into the US?

That figure is fiction. The White House has never been able to substantiate it.

When the president said it Monday, the White House’s own website claimed there had been “$11.2 trillion” in “major investment announcements” during Trump’s second term, not “$21 trillion,” and even the White House figure was a major exaggeration of the actual investment occurring. A detailed CNN review in 2025 found the White House was counting trillions in vague investment pledges — pledges that were about “bilateral trade” or “economic exchange” rather than investment in the US — and vague statements that didn’t even rise to the level of pledges.

The White House figure includes pledges from US-based companies as well as foreign entities. Federal data shows that new foreign direct investment in the US was about $232 billion in 2025.

"And no one will ever be able to use Pluto as a base against america.... "

US will "immediately begin" to establish large military presence on Greenland, Trump says

By Catherine Nicholls

The United States will “immediately begin the process of developing a large military presence” on Greenland, including “two very major military bases,” US President Donald Trump said.

Trump’s comments came days after he reached an agreement with Denmark and Greenland that he said gives his country “permanent control” over the island’s security.

“We will have the complete ability to do what is necessary to defend the American continent and also Europe and other places,” Trump told world leaders at the UN General Assembly in New York.

“No US adversary will ever be permitted to establish a military presence in Greenland anymore, or make sensitive investments there without our express written approval,” he continued.

The agreement on Greenland will be signed later today, Trump said.

“By expanding America’s footprint in the Arctic and North Atlantic, this deal also protects Europe, in addition to America, and greatly protects them. It also very much enhances NATO,” he added.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was seen nodding in the audience as he said this.

To eat his shit or just shit....

Trump says he faces a “big decision” on Iran

By Maureen Chowdhury

President Donald Trump said that he has a “big decision” to make on Iran — casting it as a choice between striking a deal after the midterm elections and annihilating Iran.

“Will a deal be made with Iran that let’s them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world?” Trump asked.

“Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?”

Trump said he believed he’d make a deal after November’s midterm elections in the US, suggesting that Tehran is holding out.

“They’re waiting to see how I do in the midterm election. What they don’t realize is that I’m not running,” Trump said.

“The Republican Party is running, and I’ll be helping them. But I am not running. I gave absolutely no credence — and will not give credence — to the election when it comes to Iran. It doesn’t even enter my mind. The only thing that does is that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon,” he added.

The president also thanked the UN Security Council “for voting overwhelmingly to pass a resolution condemning Iran’s despicable terrorist attacks on commercial shipping.”

“Now we must be equally united in maintaining pressure,” he added.

So so stupid....

trump does not specify how he wants the Iran war to end

Analysis by Stephen Collinson

While President Donald Trump said he had to decide whether to annihilate Iran or make a deal, he offered no clarity on his goals in any peace agreement.

He speaks in generalities about preventing Tehran from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But what kind of guarantees is he looking for on the nuclear program? Is he willing to end the war without receiving assurances on Tehran’s missile and drone programs?

Or would he settle for an unlimited reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — which wouldn’t be a huge concession, given the critical waterway was open before the war started?

The president’s openness to meeting an Iranian delegation in New York could mean he’s looking for a classic big moment to spin a win. Iran’s delegation will be wary of offering him such an opening.

Brushed off dire warnings

Trump has previously brushed off dire warnings about AI and regulation

By Kevin Liptak, Kit Maher, Alayna Treene and Hadas Gold

US President Donald Trump also addressed artificial intelligence in his speech.

He has previously strongly defended artificial intelligence and data centers as the industry faces a high-stakes legislative and political crossroads over regulation.

Headlines this month have placed a growing spotlight on AI containment failures and warnings from some industry leaders, who have called for guardrails to be put in place.

Trump asserted in a social media post last week that a “SICK conspiracy” was afoot to undermine AI, and claimed his oversight alone was enough to prevent models from going rogue. In another post that afternoon, he called concerns a “HOAX.”

Also last week, Trump called Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang while he was speaking at a summit in Los Angeles. “I also have common sense about AI,” Trump said, on speakerphone to the crowd. “The robots will not be taking over. The AI will not be taking over the rest of the world. The whole thing is a hoax.”

The president has been a strong defender of data centers, saying on social media at the end of August: “let Data Reign.”

Some background: In July, OpenAI says some of its experimental AI models left a test environment with no human direction and hacked their way onto a different company’s real production systems while trying to “cheat” on a cybersecurity test. And earlier this month, Anthropic says it has blocked multiple accounts that used the company’s AI models in ways that could support the development of biological weapons.

Some AI employees who’ve recently left their companies over safety concerns have publicly shared worries that the technology is moving too quickly. For now, AI companies are largely policing themselves.

Trump administration officials are considering a meeting with executives of major technology and artificial intelligence companies later this week, on the sidelines of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s state visit to the White House, sources said.

Desperate for TV

Trump’s Desperate for TV Cameras Until They Tell the Truth

ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC halted their TV coverage of presidential events after Trump banned some outlets from White House access for unfavorable reporting.

Alex Nguyen

President Donald Trump, who loves a media hit, may no longer get his moments of glory on television after major news networks ABC, CBS, Fox News, and NBC announced on Monday that they would pause TV coverage of presidential events.

The four networks’ decision comes after Donald Trump banned CNN and other outlets “from the White House” on Friday for “constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” 

“The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting,” ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC said in a joint statement of solidarity. Those five networks belong to the White House television press pool and rotate daily to provide reporting, video, and audio of the president’s daily events to share with other outlets around the world. 

Along with CNN, Trump banned reporters from Politico and MS NOW. Reporters from all three publications were denied access to the White House on Saturday. The three outlets filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in federal court earlier on Monday morning, alleging violations of First Amendment free press rights and Fifth Amendment due process. 

According to CNN and others, Fox News Washington Bureau Chief and acting TV pool chair Bryan Boughton wrote in a Monday email to TV pool subscribers that “there will be no replacement pool put in place” and “all other pool coverage will continue as normal, including Congress, VIPs, and selected events in Washington and around the country.”

CNN was scheduled to be the TV pool on Monday and would have gone with Trump to New York City for the annual United Nations General Assembly this week. According to CNN, the White House’s Sunday night press schedule listed Hearst, which owns local newspapers and TV stations across the country, as the “secondary” TV crew in DC and Real America’s Voice, a right-wing streaming channel, as the “secondary” crew for the New York trip. These “secondary” teams can typically ask questions to the president at pool events but don’t provide all the pool reporting to other media organizations.

Later on Monday, Trump held a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new White House helipad—only most of the audio sounded like static and led at least one Newsmax reporter to blame the inability to hear the president on a lack of pool access.

The Associated Press sent an update on Monday, acknowledging the ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, and saying “no network travel pool is expected” to accompany Trump. “The Associated Press will cover the president at the United Nations, with journalists on the ground providing coverage, including live video, images and reporting.”

With uncertain coverage of future events like the United Nations General Assembly and Chinese President Xi visiting the US later this week—the latter of which Trump seems to care about after reportedly spending up to $875,000 to accelerate construction of the same helipad unveiled Monday on the White House lawn ahead of the visit—his decision looks to have backfired.

Trump-Russia Collusion

Time to Revisit Trump-Russia Collusion

Or better yet, complicity.

David Corn

The recent news from ProPublica that a Russian oligarch attended Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding celebration on a private island in the Bahamas and covered hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs for the lavish affair was not a surprise to anyone familiar with the main thrust of my new book, How Russia Won: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the Fight for America. The book chronicles the decade-long covert operation Putin has waged against the United States to sow discord, influence elections (to benefit Trump), and court Trump and his crew. An important fact in the wedding story is that Umar Kremlev, this oh-so generous oligarch, is not just another Russian billionaire who has to make nice with Putin to keep his fortune; he has been a key member of Putin’s security apparatus—truly the inner circle—and became an oligarch (and head of a corrupt international boxing organization) because of that. In essence, a Putin operative infiltrated deep into the Trump clan.

This is not the first time Russia has attempted to squirm its way into Trump Jr.’s world. During the 2016 campaign, Junior received a message from an associate who worked with the son of another Russian oligarch. That contact informed Don Jr. that Moscow was plotting to secretly help Trump and wanted to send an emissary who had dirt on Hillary Clinton to meet with the Trump campaign. Trump Jr. replied, “If it’s what you say I love it.” The meeting soon happened, with Trump Jr., campaign chair Paul Manafort, and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner present. When the meeting was revealed—eight months after the election—Trump Jr. first lied about it, saying it was not related to the campaign, and then later claimed the emissary (who was tied to Russian intelligence) provided no useful derogatory information on Clinton.

What was most important about the meeting was that it signaled to Moscow that the Trump camp was a-okay with Putin meddling in the election and that it made the Trump gang aware that the Kremlin intended to covertly mess in American politics to assist Trump. Still, Trump, Trump Jr., Manafort, and other Trumpers would loudly assert throughout the campaign and in the years afterward that Putin had not interfered. That is, they knowingly lied.

Which brings us to collusion.

Collusion has been the buzzword at the center of the Trump-Russia scandal for 10 years. Trump and his minions have contended that there was no collusion and, thus, no scandal, meaning the whole Russia investigation was a “hoax” and a Deep State “witch hunt” orchestrated to destroy Trump.

Their definition of collusion basically rested on whether Trump or his lieutenants were in the same room with Russian hackers as they pilfered the documents from Democrats that would later be made public by WikiLeaks. No evidence of such collaboration emerged. So, they have vociferously argued ever since, there was no collusion. And, therefore, no scandal.

The issue of collusion, naturally, has come up, as I’ve been doing media interviews about the new book. It has long seemed to me that the meeting Trump Jr. set up and the subsequent denials from him and other Trump players—which echoed and affirmed Putin’s denials of interfering in the election—were a form of collusion. Team Trump was colluding with Putin’s attempted cover-up. Maybe Trump and his lieutenants weren’t involved in the hack-and-leak operation. But they deliberately lied and provided cover for Putin. Smells like collusion.

In the stretch following the 2016 election, Democrats and Trump critics were too fixated on collusion. But it was the complicity, stupid.

As I’ve been discussing all this in media interviews, I’ve made the point that perhaps the better term is complicity. For 10 years, not just in 2016, Putin has been attacking US elections—the book details all this—and throughout that time, Trump has incessantly maintained that Moscow was doing nothing and that all claims otherwise were part of the Deep State’s bogus “Russia, Russia, Russia” conspiracy against him. Consequently, Trump has been complicit in Putin’s ongoing information war against the United States. That’s an act of profound betrayal.

Now let’s go back to collusion.

My book does have a chapter titled “Collusion,” and it digs into a 966-page bipartisan report on the Russian attack on the 2016 election that was produced by the Senate Intelligence Committee and released in August 2020. This investigation offers the most comprehensive account of what transpired in 2016. One of the most intriguing portions of the report zeroes in on Manafort. (Another very interesting section looks at whether the Kremlin obtained any compromising material on Trump. Read the book for that.)

In the Manafort passages, the committee—led at the time by a Republican senator named Marco Rubio—revealed that while he was chairing the Trump campaign, Manafort was interacting with and passing sensitive internal campaign data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a close business associate who was also a Russian intelligence officer. And, the report noted, Kilimnik had connections to the Russian military intelligence unit that ran the hack-and-leak operation that targeted the Clinton campaign. Moreover, the report noted that committee investigators had uncovered “two pieces of information” that “raise the possibility of Manafort’s potential connection to the hack-and-leak operations.”

The report’s description of this information was redacted, as was much text about Kilimnik. In my reporting for the book, I learned that the redacted portions disclosed that Kilimnik was an agent for the GRU, the Russian intelligence outfit that ran the hack-and-leak attack—a fact buttressing the possibility that Kilimnik was involved in or aware of that operation when he was in communication with Manafort.

Because of all the redactions—the intelligence community did not want to reveal too much of what it knew about the Manafort-Kilimnik connection to protect sources and methods—the public has never learned the full story. It appears there’s a chance that there was indeed collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian operation via Manafort.

In any event, the fact that Trump’s campaign chair was in direct contact with a Russian agent—they communicated through means that left no traces—ought to have triggered a major scandal. Yet this Republican-backed report—which affirmed that Moscow intervened in the 2016 election to help Trump and that Trump actively exploited the Russian attack and “publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia”—had little impact on the public view of the Trump-Russia affair.

It was released during the Covid pandemic in the summertime, when the two political parties were holding their presidential conventions. By then, most of the political-and-media world had moved on from all that Russia business, particularly after the final report of special counsel Robert Mueller noted he had found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump and Russia. (He did point out he had amassed plenty of evidence that Trump committed multiple acts of obstruction of justice.)

So Trump and those within MAGA-land could continue to peddle the narrative that collusion was a bogus charge that had been concocted by the Deep State, the media, and nefarious Democrats.

Trump Jr.’s wedding should prompt a reappraisal of the collusion question, as it illuminates what I try to convey in the book: Putin has been running an extensive covert action against the United States for a decade, and Trump and his crew have both colluded and been complicit.

The Largest Theft of Labor in Human History

AI Exec: We May Have Pulled Off “The Largest Theft of Labor in Human History”

Documents from our lawsuit reveal how tech leaders talk when they think no one is listening.

Monika Bauerlein

The world is freaking out about the dangers of artificial intelligence, and no wonder: Every day brings news of AI agents breaking out of containment, hacking their way through the internet, and conspiring to evade humans. And the AI companies are responding that a) their systems could kill us all within a few years, but b) they should be allowed to keep going, if maybe just a tad more slowly.

Can they be trusted? On that, we here at Mother Jones have some relevant experience. Two years ago, we sued OpenAI and Microsoft for training their model on copyrighted content from our newsroom and many others. And now, documents from that lawsuit have provided an extraordinary window into how executives at these companies think about the rules, the law, and the rights of others. 

Our lawsuit (which is similar to others filed by The New York Times, The Intercept, and other publishers) argued that the companies built their immensely valuable product via “astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions” and perhaps “the largest theft of labor in human history.” 

Actually those were not our words. They came from Microsoft’s director of applied science, Brent Hecht, and we were able to uncover his statements and many other instances where tech executives talk in unfiltered terms, through the lawsuit. You can read the full document—a brief we and the other plaintiffs filed on September 4—here. But in case you don’t have the stomach for 84 pages of legalese, here are a few of the most amazing bits. (No one except the lawyers is allowed to see the original documents from which these quotes were taken—but we are also petitioning the judge to let us uncover those, so stay tuned!) 
  • “Millions of people around the world will soon consider large models ‘hoovering up’ all their work to be an astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions,” an internal Microsoft document warned before acknowledging that “almost no one intended for content they created to be used in this fashion, nor are they compensated for its use.” 
  • The companies know full well that by ingesting content and training the AIs to spit it back out again, they are destroying the audience for publishers and other creators. OpenAI policy director Jack Clark wrote that the company was “creating systems that substitute for the labor of the people that define the culture of society.” Microsoft’s own research found that when people used AI search versus traditional search engines, there were 90 percent fewer clicks to news articles. Microsoft’s lawyer said that chatbots are “designed to answer your question” rather than “giving you a series of links to things you can go look for yourself.” Another expert found that referral traffic to publishers from Google Search and Google Discover has dropped by at least 30 percent since Google introduced AI overviews. 
  • They also knew that, ultimately, destroying the economic foundation for humans making content while also making it easy to generate slop by the bucketful, would wreck the internet—and, thus, their own content supply chain. Hecht warned that AI had started a “doom loop” that would “threaten the economic foundations of its essential suppliers” and eventually make the internet infinitely worse (a process for which the media critic Cory Doctorow has created the term “enshittification,” and that you may recognize from searching for… pretty much anything on the internet).
  • Greg Brockman, who started OpenAI with Sam Altman and serves as its president (he is also one of Silicon Valley’s most generous donors to Donald Trump and his PACs, giving $50 million in the last two years) excitedly told his colleagues about how good the company’s products were at spitting out publishers’ content. “[It] seems to be particularly good at predicting text of news articles like whenever i have it complete in the middle of a sentence in a NYT article, it seems to complete the sentence on point.” When a fellow executive told Brockman about “a hack to get around nytimes paywall” to help the company scrape the Times’s site, Brockman responded “ah nice.” (OpenAI also hosted custom tools its users had made using ChatGPT to get around the Times’ paywall.)
  • The AI companies didn’t just randomly grab text from the internet. In one version of their training data, they specifically zeroed in on quality content—and news articles ended up being the most prevalent type of content in that dataset. OpenAI also said its goal was to “crush freshness…in the domain of real-world news.” They also downloaded existing datasets, such as one intended for linguistic research that contained countless articles from paywalled news sites, even though its terms of use expressly prohibited using it for commercial purposes. 
  • Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified that AI companies should not “access data in violation of a term of service.” Glen Weyl, who founded a key Microsoft research unit, noted that compensating creators is “in the best interests of my employer, of my country, and of many other groups I belong to.” And yet, when the companies created their datasets, they systematically stripped out data that would indicate who actually owned the content—copyright notices, author information, terms of use, and so on. As another Microsoft document noted, “most LLMs (including those from OpenAl) are built on millions of scraped webpages and other large text datasets, and almost none of this content has been obtained with its owners’ knowledge or consent.” 
  • Right after the lawsuits were filed, OpenAI built a special filter to stop its models from spitting out the content of the news organizations suing it. As the legal brief notes, “OpenAI did not suppress the output of content from any entity that had not sued it…The purpose […], in other words, was not to prevent OpenAI’s models from infringing copyrights, but to stop Plaintiffs from gathering evidence of OpenAI’s copying for use in litigation.” This probably explains why, when a Columbia Journalism Review writer ran an experiment last year to get all her news from ChatGPT, it refused to cite content from the Times, Mother Jones, The Intercept, or any other publication that had sued it. Hecht, the Microsoft executive, warned that this filter could result in an “accidental cover up” because it would result in “people who have a right over the content having less visibility into what was used for training.” 
  • This one was surprising to me, even after being involved in this lawsuit for two years: OpenAI took 20 million ChatGPT responses and had one of its experts search for chunks of text—specifically “25-grams,” aka chunks of 25 words in a row, that were identical between ChatGPT’s responses and a news article. They found more than 400,000 of these 25-word overlaps between ChatGPT and Mother Jones articles—just about the same number as for the New York Times. (Not every one of those overlaps might constitute a “regurgitation” of our content—if one of our articles quoted something, and the AI quoted the same thing, that would show up as an overlap.)
In the legal filings, we and the other news organizations argue that the AI companies created their product by disregarding the rights of humans to their creativity and content—and that the companies themselves are now trapped in their own cycle of accelerating enshittification. AI is creating vast amounts of garbage content on the internet, while at the same time making it hard for news organizations like Mother Jones to stay afloat. “Yet AI companies remain powerless to break out of this ‘doom loop’,” the brief argues, “because, while the industry as a whole would benefit if every company paid… each individual company is better off taking content for free while others pay.” 

Seem familiar? This is the same prisoner’s dilemma we’re watching play out as the AI agents go rogue: It would be better for everyone, including the AI companies, if everyone slowed down and figured out the technology. But for each individual company, the incentives are to plow ahead while waiting for others to slow down. 

Bottom line: We cannot leave these decisions to the AI executives. Not when it comes to stealing content, and not when it comes to the fate of humanity. Left to their own devices, they will make the wrong choices—even when they know those choices are bad for them, too.

Bernie Sanders Lets Loose

Bernie Sanders Lets Loose on the Democratic Party, the Midterms and 2028

The 84-year-old progressive champion built a movement. Could it survive without him?

By Will Steakin

David Sirota has a way of thinking about Bernie Sanders’ career that he’s been kicking around for years.

Sirota worked for Sanders in the House in the late 1990s and again on his 2020 presidential campaign, serving as a senior adviser and speechwriter for the progressive champion. And more than a decade after Sanders launched his first presidential run, improbably transforming from Vermont’s independent gadfly senator into an insurgent political rock star, Sirota has settled on a surprising historical analog for his old boss.

“Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party could be Barry Goldwater to the Republican Party,” Sirota told me earlier this year. “That’s how I’ve thought about him for a very long time.”

Goldwater was a firebrand with a crystal-clear ideology, hard right in his case, who seized his party’s presidential nomination in 1964 and lost the election — only to see one of his star campaign surrogates and ideological torch carriers, Ronald Reagan, go on to win the White House 16 years later and preside over a conservative realignment. “If 2016 is Bernie’s 1964,” Sirota said, “we’re 10 years into that trajectory.”

It is a literary, almost biblical, framing of Sanders’ career: the prophet who toils for years but never gets to the promised land himself.

Just don’t ask Sanders about it.

“It’s interesting,” Sanders told me when I asked about Sirota’s analogy, in a way that meant he didn’t find it interesting at all. “But you know what? It’s not something I stay up nights thinking about.”

What Sanders has been up thinking about is ensuring the movement he jumpstarted, and most importantly its policy agenda, has been winning primaries across the country — and right now, that fight is going better than it ever has. As the 2026 midterm primary season wraps up, it has already produced a wave of astonishing progressive victories: insurgents ousting incumbents, first-time candidates toppling the party’s stalwarts and democratic socialists winning in states the establishment swore they couldn’t.

Much of the credit for this string of political success belongs to Sanders, who turns 85 in the coming days and has spent the last year campaigning like he’s 35. Since the start of last year’s “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Sanders has spoken at 63 rallies and events to more than 300,000 people around the country. He has endorsed more than 90 candidates up and down the ballot this cycle, from the U.S. Senate to state legislatures, and has worked to build up the farm team — scouting candidates, meeting with them privately, coaching them, then barnstorming the country to drag them across the finish line.

For progressives, there is still, 10 years later, no other figure on the American left who commands the same excitement, and no endorsement more sought after. And he is still planning to campaign through Election Day, and will likely be back on the campaign trail in October, a person familiar with the plans said. The dynamic in some ways mirrors President Donald Trump’s endorsement power on the right, but while Republicans fret over the conspicuous absence of their own movement’s leader from this primary season, Sanders has employed the opposite strategy: omnipresence.

But the triumph arrives at an inconvenient moment in other ways. Sanders, midway through perhaps his final Senate term, has ruled out another presidential campaign, leaving the movement he built to confront a question he has little interest in entertaining: What comes after Bernie Sanders?

For a decade, Sanders promised a political revolution. Now the revolution may finally be arriving, at precisely the moment its architect is confronting how long he can lead its next phase. The irony is obvious to some around Sanders, but he wants little to do with it. He has no interest in anointing an heir or talking about an heir and rejects the very premise that the movement he built should belong to any one person after him.

And yet the Democratic Party’s future, at least in the near-term, will be determined by the battle for the 2028 presidential nomination and whether a potential Sanders acolyte is victorious. Many on the center-left are wary that Bernie-ism will win out, either because of opposition to his policies or merely fear that Democrats will go down to utter defeat in the general election. But with a wide open field and momentum building in the midterm campaign, progressives have their best shot in years to take control of the party and try to carry out Sanders’ vision.

While Sanders scoffs, deflects, even throws an insult or two when asked about his legacy or the future of the movement he ignited, nearly everything he has done this cycle — the down-ballot endorsements, the candidate training, the organizers embedded deep in Republican districts — amounts to a succession plan.

The seeds of what would bloom into the 2026 primary romp were planted more than a year ago, in early 2025 — before most of the candidates Sanders would go on to endorse had even decided to run. Sanders had a hunch about where the fight would be, and placed full-time organizers in Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, with part-time staff scattered across other swing seats around the country. His staff in those states held weekly meetings, organized town halls, passed out signs and built lists, and reported back to the senator and his team what they were seeing on the ground, which ultimately shaped the operation’s primary strategy and its endorsements.

“We were laying the groundwork before the candidates even jumped in the race,” said Jeremy Slevin, Sanders’ communication director and senior adviser.

One of the candidates who emerged from that early investment was Rebecca Cooke, running in GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden’s western Wisconsin district, where Sanders’ operation had an organizer on the ground starting that spring. Sanders was holding a town hall alongside Cooke in Viroqua, Wisconsin, more than a year before her primary win.

Sanders’ team realized they could harness the energy bubbling up around the country following Trump’s return to power and launched the “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, a series of arena-scale rallies that drew crowds as large as 35,000. Internal numbers from the Sanders team showed 40 to 50 percent of attendees weren’t Democrats at all — roughly 30 percent were independents and 10 percent were Republicans.

That tour also doubled as a talent pipeline. Sanders’ team worked each stop to feature working-class speakers, people they would like to see represent the future of the movement — and several of them went on to become candidates themselves.

In April 2025, at a Fighting Oligarchy rally in Missoula, Montana, the campaign invited local union leaders to address the crowd. One of them was Sam Forstag, a National Forest firefighter and smokejumper, who told the 9,000 people gathered there how Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE had just fired thousands of federal employees, including many in Montana. The crowd’s response was electric — enough that Forstag, who had never run for public office in his life, decided to run for Congress. On June 2, with Sanders’ backing, Forstag won the Democratic primary in Montana’s 1st District.

As the primary season went on, Sanders’ endorsees saw major wins across the map: El-Sayed in Michigan after being outspent 10-to-1, Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota’s Senate primary, Melat Kiros in a Colorado House race. And dozens of down-ballot endorsees in statehouse and local races across the country. Sanders talks to every federal candidate personally before endorsing and keeps in touch afterward; he speaks with El-Sayed regularly.

“I don’t know how to phrase it, whether it’s a Tea Party moment or not,” Sanders told me. “I think that progressive candidates are speaking to the needs of working families.”

But the results, according to Sanders, suggest the long-running argument over where Democratic voters want the party to go is settled. “I think so,” he told me.

Not everyone in the Democratic party agrees with Sanders and some feel the movement he is pushing, and the wins it produced this primary season, spell trouble for Democrats heading into November and beyond.

“What Bernie’s people do very, very effectively is turn blue places bluer,” said Matt Bennett of the centrist Democrat-aligned think tank Third Way. “They have won nothing, nothing in places where we’re trying to turn red to blue. So when they start helping build majorities, I will be a little more impressed.”

Bennett, whose group launched a $15 million effort to target the Democratic Socialists of America ahead of 2028, calling DSA a “mortal danger,” said that he’s already seeing moderate candidates being impacted by progressive wins during the primary. “These DSA candidates are being used against Democrats in swing districts. It was inevitable that this would happen.”

“I just think that Bernie declaring victories without having flipped a single seat is laughable,” Bennett said.

Still, despite the left’s wins and all of Sanders’ campaigning, it hasn’t been enough for some progressives, who view Sanders’ decision to stay out of certain races as playing it too safe when the wind is at their backs. That criticism was on full display when Sanders declined to endorse Francesca Hong in the Wisconsin governor’s race. Hong, after a damaging news cycle over past comments — including about Thanksgiving — lost by less than half a percentage point, a margin some progressives argue she could have overcome had Sanders’ operation gotten behind her.

Sanders has said, in response to the backlash, that he can’t be everywhere. But when I pressed him on whether there was also a political calculation involved — whether he worries about spending capital on a race that he might lose, knowing any major defeat will be spun as a verdict on where the party is headed — he rejected the notion.

“I beg to differ with you,” he said. “We are putting political capital. For example, we just announced our support for Angie Nixon, who’s running for the U.S. Senate in Florida. Does anybody think she is — to say the least, a real underdog?”

“If I wanted to be 100 percent in my selections, I could do that,” Sanders said. “But that’s not what we do.”

One of the other sharper criticisms of this year’s Sanders-backed primary winners: that some of the democratic socialists breaking through, particularly in New York, come from privileged, Ivy League backgrounds — that the movement is not yet as working class as it claims to be, or needs to be. Sanders said it’s something they’re working on.

“I want to see more of that,” Sanders said. “I want to see people from the trade union movement, young people, working-class people get involved in the progressive movement. Absolutely.”

But ask Sanders about the future of this movement — who inherits it, where it goes when he’s gone — and the conversation changes entirely. It becomes an exercise in watching a man swat away question after question.

When I asked who he sees taking up the mantle in the next generation, he accused me of “sounding like an inside-the-Beltway media pundit.”

“That is precisely the wrong question,” he said. The right question, he insisted, is how many good people the movement has already produced, before naming a few he views as standouts of the movement: Rep. Greg Casar, now chairing the Progressive Caucus; Rep. Pramila Jayapal; Rep. Rashida Tlaib; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; progressive mayors in New York, Seattle and Washington.

“The media is focused on personality,” he grumbled. “‘Oh my God, what will Alexandria do? Is she going to run for president? Run for the Senate? Stay in the House? Let’s talk about that for 14 years.’ How often do we talk about the fact that we’re the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people?”

Ocasio-Cortez, of course, has told POLITICO’s Adam Wren that she hasn’t ruled out a 2028 run. It’s an enormous decision, one Sanders happens to have made twice himself. And he has apparently reconciled himself to the fact that there will not be a third.

“Well, I am 40 years of age now,” Sanders deadpanned, “and I think having reached the golden age of 40, it’s hard, you know. So yeah, I think it’s unlikely that I will become president of the United States.”

As for whether he and Ocasio-Cortez have discussed her decision: “Do I talk to Alexandria? Yes, I do. Am I going to tell you what we talk about? Of course I won’t.” Does he want her to run? “No comment. That’s her decision.”

It was as close as Sanders gets to acknowledging what he won’t discuss: that the movement’s future will eventually belong to someone else who will carry it into 2028 and beyond. Yet he lights up when talking about the generation of political talent he has inspired.

“One of the things that gives me, I think, more satisfaction than almost anything else, is I go out around the country and somebody who’s in the state legislature somewhere says, ‘You know what? I got inspired by your race in 2016 or in 2020,’” he said.

Sanders’ operation has reached out to hundreds of would-be candidates and put them through a kind of political boot camp. “How do I run for office? How do I run for state legislature? What is a press release? How do I raise money? Kind of basics, politics 101,” Sanders said. “A lot of those folks are now getting their feet wet. Many of them are winning. And in a few years, you’re going to be hearing from them as they run for Congress or Senate or whatever.”

So, I ask him, it’s a bench, built to ensure the movement continues beyond his own career?

“Well, that’s exactly it,” Sanders said.

Hasan Piker, the leftist streamer who emerged this cycle as arguably the movement’s most influential independent voice, told me Sanders’ campaign influenced him and gave him a proof of concept.

“I realized that there was an opportunity to convince Americans on the argument of socialism because of his electoral success against an establishment figurehead like Hillary Clinton,” Piker said. “That there was appetite for this kind of thing.”

A decade later, Piker has become a version of what Sanders proved possible — a socialist with a mass American audience who put his platform to work this primary season by helping to get progressive candidates elected across the country. And he still looks up to Sanders. “I hope I can make him proud with the things that I am trying to do,” Piker said. (Piker’s own influence has grown so much, in fact, that he has become a lightning rod in the Democratic Party, for his staunch criticism of Israel and past controversial comments.)

When asked who was in line to take over Sanders’ movement after he leaves the stage, Piker bristled at the question. “It’s not his movement, nor my movement, nor Zohran [Mamdani]’s movement,” he said. “It’s all of our movement.”

It’s a similar view, not surprisingly, in the close-knit Sanders world. Ari Rabin-Havt, Sanders’ former deputy campaign manager, said the entire framework of succession, of a torch being passed to a chosen one, misunderstands the man.

“Bernie just doesn’t believe in dynasties,” Rabin-Havt said. “He doesn’t believe you get to inherit your power. If you want Bernie’s movement, go out and earn Bernie’s movement.” The image of Sanders anointing an heir, he said, would be “so antithetical to who he is as a person.”

There is a similar aversion to any discussion of Sanders’ legacy, even in private. Aides have learned not to discuss it as he will quickly dismiss the topic. “He’s not looking back and reminiscing about his own accomplishments,” one Sanders aide, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, said.

When I suggested that Sanders seemed to be running through the tape, the aide quickly pushed back: “I don’t think he thinks the tape is there yet.”

The Goldwater comparison lands the same way. “It’s for the historians and the pundits to interpret,” the aide said. “He’s like, ‘I’m Bernie Sanders. I’m in the battle. Other people can interpret.’”

And yet there is a wistfulness among Sanders’ team, a feeling that he is at the peak of his game — stronger at messaging and campaigning and organizing than he ever has been and would be well positioned to finally seize the presidency if he were just 10 or 15 years younger.

Yet he’s not. So sometimes even those close to Sanders can’t help but speculate: If Sanders does indeed turn out to be the Democrats’ Goldwater, then who will be their Reagan?

“That’s the big question,” Sirota told me. He pointed to the candidates already jockeying in what he calls the populist lane, familiar names like Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ro Khanna chief among them, while cautioning that the eventual standard-bearer may be someone “we’re not thinking of yet.” He also sketched how even some ambitious Democrats with more establishment résumés — name-checking Pete Buttigieg, Chris Murphy and Chris Van Hollen — might try to reposition themselves as populists after sensing where the wind is blowing this primary season. Whether voters would buy it is another matter.

Rabin-Havt similarly said the mantle is up for grabs. Ocasio-Cortez, if she runs, “obviously has a lot of love, respect, admiration and support among Bernie world — but I think it would be underselling her to suggest that is the limits of her support.” Khanna, he added, “has done a lot of work building himself as a progressive leader” and taken courageous stands on pushing a wealth tax and advocating for strict conditions or cuts on U.S. military aid to Israel.

Piker said “AOC seems to be the one with the highest likelihood of taking that mantle, but there could be a dark horse. You never know.” What matters between now and then, in his telling, is proving “to the broader electorate that we’re here to stay.”

The evidence is easy to find, Rabin-Havt argued. Before 2016, he said, the last genuine left candidate to seriously contest a Democratic presidential primary was Jesse Jackson — a nearly 30-year gap in which the party’s “left” flank was played by the likes of center-left types like Howard Dean and Bill Bradley. Medicare for All, he noted, has gone from a bill Sanders sponsored essentially alone to legislation co-sponsored by roughly a third of the Senate Democratic caucus and more than half of House Democrats. Sanders’ first Senate resolution restricting arms sales to Israel drew 11 votes; the most recent drew 40. Taxing the wealthy, once a leftist tell, “is now pretty middle of the road in the Democratic Party,” Rabin-Havt said.

“The window has moved.” The movement, as Rabin-Havt put it, “is entering its teenage years.”

At the end of our conversation, Sanders acknowledged the party’s ongoing shift, in the nearest thing to a victory lap he permits himself.

“I think over the years, for a variety of reasons,” he said, “more and more people are saying, ‘You know, Bernie was right.’”

Answers to Trump’s media ban

Top House Oversight Dem demands answers to Trump’s media ban

“The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, not freedom from criticism,” Robert Garcia writes.

By Jalen Beckford

The ranking Democrat on the House Oversight committee is demanding the White House answer questions related to President Donald Trump’s decision to ban CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO from the White House, calling it the president’s “most blatant, assault on press freedom.”

In a letter sent Monday to White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) requested that Cheung provide by Oct. 5 a detailed account of when and how he was informed of the ban, how he responded, who was consulted before the decision, the legal justification for it, the facts the White House relied on and whether the outlets had any opportunity to respond.

“The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, not freedom from criticism,” wrote Garcia. “The American people need to understand what consideration—if any—the White House gave to this serious and unprecedented decision to protect the President’s ego.”

Garcia also asked for all White House staff documents and communications about the ban and for any other relevant materials to be preserved.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump on Friday announced that he was seeking to block journalists from POLITICO, MS NOW and CNN from the White House, complaining about “constant ‘reporting’” of what he called “FICTION and LIES.” The Trump administration first denied the media outlets entry into the White House grounds on Saturday morning.

The three news organizations are now jointly suing Trump, Cheung and two other top advisers in a bid to immediately restore access for their reporters, calling the ban a “direct assault on the First Amendment.”