On Saturday, a friend and I were comparing notes on the events following the U.S. raid on Venezuela. Setting apart all the questions about just what the White House is trying to accomplish in Venezuela, my most basic takeaway from the events of the last week is this: as President Trump’s popularity and power erode domestically he will respond with more aggressive assertions of power in those areas where his executive and prerogative authorities remain unbounded, where his domestic popularity matters the least. (This applies most obviously, though not only, to his military powers overseas.) Anything else wouldn’t be consistent with Trump’s character, which is inflexible and unchanging, though perhaps hardening with the progress of advanced age. The current situation between the U.S. and Venezuela shows how jagged, unstable and uneven this may become.

I’ve been getting lots of your emails about Artificial Intelligence and its place right at the center of so many inflection points — alliances in the new world of oligarchs, the global authoritarian movement, the Gulf princes and their money and more. One of those emails was from TPM Reader AO. AO’s central point was that this is principally a technology, productivity and economics question, and really not a political one. People may hate it but mostly because they don’t know what it is. And in any case it doesn’t matter. Because this is a transformative technology being driven by private capital investment and it’s a change that’s coming regardless of what anyone thinks. With that roll out you may think we were off to a bad start. But it was an interesting conversation and it continues. I reiterated various points I’ve made in posts here, etc. But there was one point that I realized I hadn’t made explicitly enough in those posts.

As I’ve said before, I think it’s really important to distinguish between the actual technology — LLM-based AI — and the political formations forming around it. They’re not the same thing. They’re both really important on their own terms. It’s important to give both sufficient room in a discussion of either topic.

So here goes.

Chris Geidner flags today an appearance by CBS News’ Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford’s attacking Supreme Court critics who call the Court and its current jurisprudence “corrupt.”

“There is a narrative the Supreme Court is corrupt,” she told Face The Nation. “We saw that emerge in the wake of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and now we see it that they’re in the tank for Trump. Not only is that narrative over-reported, it is patently false, and it is dangerous for the institution and the public’s faith and confidence in the rule of law.”

Chris has more of Crawford’s quotes. And he makes clear the most telling thing about Crawford’s defense is that she doesn’t even address the arguments against the Court’s practices and behavior. She just asserts it in a ‘the King can do no wrong because he’s the King’ kind of fashion. But this one passage is enough to make the point. Not only is the Court demonstrably not corrupt, Crawford claims, it is also dangerous for the Court to have itself be called “corrupt”. And, she claims, what is dangerous or threatening to this Court threatens the rule of law itself. In other words, you might say, the danger to the state is that child in the third row saying the King is naked.

In a number of recents posts I’ve been trying to make sense of the climate of drift and enervation that now seems to suffuse the Trump administration and, in a way, the country. Making sense of these things isn’t just interesting in the abstract or an opportunity to dunk on the administration. It’s important to know just where we are, what’s possible now that might not have been possible in the Spring or even a few months ago. And that’s important because we’re all kind of worn out. It’s not just the Trump administration. In a way the opposition to Trump is, too, albeit in a very different way. It’s been a really long year.

I first proposed my DOJ-in-Exile idea back in April. If you’re not familiar with the DOJ-in-Exile concept, this post explains the idea. But the main points I’m about to make don’t require knowing those details. As I’ve mentioned a few times here and to a number of you in email correspondence, it was harder going than I anticipated. For a mix of reasons, I did not want to run it myself or even be involved. I wanted to find a group that wanted to do it and hand the idea and the name off to them. But people were scared. Without my really asking, various TPM Readers came forward with soft pledges totaling probably upwards of a million dollars. So money wasn’t going to be a problem. But the kind of people who would run it or take responsibility for it were scared. People in the key do-gooder groups were scared. People who are hard-chargers were scared. Sometimes they wouldn’t quite say as much in calls but I could read their intonations and I realized a conversation wasn’t going to go anywhere.

I got a host of very interesting responses to yesterday’s post about the tech platforms force-feeding the mass consumer market AI. I learned a lot from your responses, which included both direct personal experiences and expert perspectives on different dimensions of the topic. What is important to me about this moment is distinguishing two or three different very real things happening at once.

The first is a genuine critical mass in the development of LLM-based machine learning. This is a much better description than “AI” to my thinking, since the latter contains a vast range of meanings from simple and accurate to triumphalist and grandiose. But machine learning is real, and in recent years it’s developed real capabilities that are at least transformative in various areas of work and technology. I’m skeptical of what we’ve developed beyond this at this point but really don’t know. It could be a lot. And it will increase. I think this is the best way to understand the technology itself at this moment now.

I just got a new iPhone. I didn’t need a newer version. But my old one was broken in a way that wasn’t easily fixed. So I submitted myself to the hard wheel of planned obsolescence. I’m always happy for ever-improved image quality. Otherwise, for me, it was just a need for a new, undamaged phone. But this is one of the models which Apple tells you very frequently has their AI bundled into the device. Which I’m told is awesome. Or that’s what they’re telling me. A lot. And my sense generally is that Apple is the least over-the-top of the big techs in this regard.

As I’ve been using the new phone, I’ve noticed that the Apple texting app now takes suggested phrases and completing your words to the next level — as in kind of an absurd level.

I’ve been under the weather. That partly explains missing two days of posts. But another reason is a feeling of repetition. Everything I see in our politics right now — or at least at the pinnacle where Donald Trump dominates all the visuals and attention — has a feeling of drift, spectacle and fragmentation. Trump’s ballroom epitomizes it — crass, stupid, vulgar, unacceptable and yet ultimately meaningless. It’s the full-size version of having his stacked Kennedy Center board, of which he is the chairman, rename the institution after him. That was, I believe, Wednesday, though the days run together. Then there’s his new hall of presidents, a sick-burn tweet storm embedded on a wall of what remains of the White House. These all have the feeling of a man who is bored, tapped out, losing coherence and energy and who others are trying to keep distracted.

Today, I want to share some additional thoughts with you on this ranging topic of tech lords and predators, the conquistadors and pirates in our midst. It’s a point that is perhaps the most visible part of the current moment, but because of that, paradoxically, hardest to see clearly. It’s been more than a century since the men at the highest pinnacles of the American economy so visibly and directly intervened in the country’s politics. An element of that is the highly personalist nature of the big tech monopolies. Mark Zuckerberg isn’t just a CEO or plurality owner. He is Facebook. He’s the founder, the driving mind since the beginning. I believe that voting rights are structured in such a way at Meta that in terms of control as opposed to equity stakes he is in total control. Meta cannot be taken away from him. Whether or not voting rights are precisely the same, a similar story prevails at Amazon, Google, certainly X and all of Musk’s companies. We haven’t seen anything like that since the Gilded Age and the Robber Barons, when big names like Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan and Rockefeller similarly owned, drove and personified the great corporate behemoths and monopolies of the day.

For many decades, certainly since the Second World War, even the more politically- and ideologically-minded corporations kept their political spending and their exertions in the background. Perhaps they gave most of their money to Republicans but they’d give to Democrats too just to keep them mostly on side.

What we began to see in the late Biden administration and then to an almost mind-boggling degree through 2025 is not just the big tech titans cozying up to Trump and doing so visibly, but making themselves what we might call main characters in the American Political Cinematic Universe. There’s really nothing like it in our history. I know many friends who are into MMA and the UFC. My sons are into it. Not my thing. But great if it’s yours. But if you’re Mark Zuckerberg and you take ringside seats at a UFC match with Trump friend and UFC CEO Dana White, you’re sending a very clear and specific message and you’re sending it far outside the channels where most traditional political messaging takes place. Even more if you put White on your board. And the same applies to going on Joe Rogan’s show and talking about a rights movement for “high testosterone males.” Yes, Zuckerberg got into MMA before the so-called “vibe shift.” But not in this politics-inflected way. We’ve seen countless examples of this in so many different contexts, starting with that unforgettable inauguration image where the seats of greatest distinction were reserved for the centi-billionaire tech titans. Government of, by and for them.

I got a fascinating array of responses to my Tuesday post about the 21st century nabobs, striding over politics and society with their unheard of wealth and indifference to the rules we once imagined bound us. One of the big questions was, What happened to the original nabobs? Were they brought to heel? And several of you asked, Okay, so what are we going to do about this? I wanted to discuss these and other topics.

I’ve noted many times the central role of Supreme Court reform to any civic democratic future. If you’re a regular reader, you know my arguments. So I won’t recapitulate them here. I’ve also noted how very few Democratic officials seem at all ready for this and a huge amount of work is required to get them here. Luckily there’s time: The first chance to do anything like this is 2029. But there’s another, even more critical, underlying need. A lot of the Democratic public still sees the idea as disconcerting or extreme. And we shouldn’t run away from this perception. Because it is extreme. It is a remedy only justified and really necessitated by a basically unprecedented development in American history which is robbing the public of its right to self-government. (The question is whether there is any precedent is complicated. There are arguably two similar instances in American history. But we can return to that later.) The point is that there is a lot of work to do. Inherently resistant Democratic politicians certainly aren’t going to be brought along if a substantial number of their own voters, perhaps a majority of them, are spooked by the idea.

So this requires a substantial campaign of public education — activist/political groups dedicated specifically and focusedly to the issue, ones that are political activist in nature, ones that draw from the elite legal world. An entire language of explanation is required.