THE ATLANTIC – Politics | Politics & Government

The World Cup is nearly here! But so far, at least, no one seems all that excited.It wasn’t supposed to be this way. The biggest sporting event in the world is on the verge of returning to the United States for the first time in more than 30 years. Starting next week, teams from 48 nations will play 104 matches in 16 cities across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Some of the most famous people on Earth will be playing, each recognizable by a single name: Messi, Mbappé, Ronaldo, Salah. After years of buildup, soccer lovers were convinced that Americans were finally—finally!—ready to fully embrace the sport played and watched by far more people than any other around the globe.Yet a tournament that should be hotly anticipated—providing a joyful backdrop to America’s 250th-birthday celebrations—is instead surrounded by angst and even dread. Ticket prices are astronomical, demand for them has slumped, and hotels are half-booked. There is little buzz. The New York City area, which will be home to the World Cup Final next month, is far more focused on the Knicks. There is anxiety about fans traveling from the Democratic Republic of the Congo in light of the Ebola outbreak there. Some international visitors are barred by travel bans, and others are nervous about making the trip. Fans are anxious about the potential for ICE raids outside stadiums or terror attacks targeting gatherings of supporters. Hopes for a strong showing for the U.S. team have mostly faded. President Trump has, to the shock of no one, inserted himself into the proceedings. Hanging over it all is the war in Iran, particularly because it was started by the guy to whom the tournament’s organizers recently awarded a peace prize. The United States’ relations with its co-host countries have grown strained—as have its relations with just about every country that is slated to participate.Perhaps the situation can still be salvaged. Ahead of the previous World Cup, four years ago, there was extraordinary consternation about that tournament’s host, Qatar. Migrant laborers had died in building the nation’s stadiums and infrastructure. Accusations of corruption were rampant. The host country seemed to be an unlikely choice, and its summers were so hot that the tournament had to move to the fall. Plus, the Qataris didn’t even serve beer. All of those concerns were largely forgotten after the transcendent final, when Lionel Messi, of Argentina, triumphed… [TheTopNews] Read More.

As with pretty much everything involving California governance, discerning the state’s election results can devolve into a big, unruly mess. To wit, Tuesday’s primary—particularly the free-for-all campaign for governor to succeed Gavin Newsom—remains too muddled to call, with millions of outstanding ballots likely yet to be counted.At minimum, though, we can speak with some preliminary clarity, let’s call it, on the contest. California elections are consolidated via a “jungle primary” system, in which the top-two finishers, regardless of party, advance to November. As of today, the Trump-endorsed Republican Steve Hilton, a British transplant and former Fox News host, is the leading vote-getter. Two Democrats—the former California attorney general and Joe Biden Cabinet secretary Xavier Becerra and the billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer—are currently sitting in second and third place, respectively. And there’s still a chance both could come from behind to squeeze out Hilton.Democrats appear to have skirted a dreaded “Blue Armageddon” scenario in which their crowded field of middling-or-worse candidates cancel one another out, while the two middling-or-worse Republicans (Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco) advance to the final two. “Bullet dodged” seems to be the prevailing takeaway among Democrats. If Becerra or Steyer winds up facing Hilton, they will clearly be favored to win, given the state’s heavily Democratic makeup and what looks to be an overwhelmingly Democratic-friendly electoral environment across the country.Still, even if Team Blue will likely win in the end, the California governor’s race has been a fiasco for Democrats from the start—and in ways that reflect an ongoing dysfunction that has become a feature of the party in recent years. Even worse, California in 2026 could portend a larger and more destructive performance from the party in 2028.[Mark Leibovich: California’s Blue Armageddon]For starters, Democrats won’t have Donald Trump to save them in the future, as he seems to be doing this year. The president’s unhinged behavior, bungled policies, cartoonish overreach, and GOP-undermining impulses have pretty much been the single best asset that Democrats have had going for them since the end of 2024—rather than them having any actual popularity of their own. For all the hand-wringing, blame-tossing, and “autopsy” reports that followed their 2024 election disaster, the Democratic Party remains a deeply broken brand, lacking in ideological coherence, unifying figures, and a compelling message beyond “Billionaires are bad” and “Trump is terrible.”It’s also worth pointing out that Trump might have sabotaged his own… [TheTopNews] Read More.

We don't know what Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine, wrote in his sexually explicit texts with women other than his wife—six, according to his campaign; a dozen, according to an ex-aide—but do we need to? The glaring question that the texts pose to voters about the presumptive Democratic nominee at this point in a pivotal midterm race is: Are we really going to do this again?In 2016, voters were asked to choose between a populist candidate dogged by questions about his integrity, judgment, decency, civility, empathy, and respect for everyone from complete strangers to his own wife, and an overqualified, glass-ceiling-smashing woman. When voters opted for Donald Trump, Democrats were outraged. Now, faced with the choice between Platner and Governor Janet Mills, Maine Democrats have largely backed the populist themselves.Mills suspended her primary bid in April amid a cash shortfall and concerns that she’s too old and old-school to win. At age 78, she understandably gives pause to many Democrats still suffering from Joe Biden–related PTSD. But she’s also one of the few political leaders who have stood up to Trump. A former state attorney general and district attorney, she did it to defend the rule of law.[Mike Nelson: Condemning a Nazi tattoo shouldn’t be this hard]Mills, though, is an endangered species of American politician—one whose playbook the Democrats ought to be following, instead of the one they seem to have stolen from the GOP. In her first term as Maine’s first woman governor, she made a succession of unpopular decisions as she led the state through COVID. “It takes real guts to make decisions that have an overt negative political implication on the abstract proposition that it will save lives,” Angus King, Maine’s independent U.S. Senator and a former governor, told me in 2023. (I wrote a book that year about Mills and her COVID correspondence with a constituent, who sent her a weekly letter of support throughout the first year of the pandemic.) The governor’s tough choices paid off, and Maine emerged with some of the most successful health and economic metrics in the country. Mills won reelection by a historic margin.I was astonished that she allowed me to incorporate her unedited and candid journals from that time into my narrative. She is unusually at ease with herself in public and private, and has cultivated a relatable image, memorably wearing L.L. Bean duck… [TheTopNews] Read More.

You could be forgiven for ignoring the recent political goings-on in Iowa. The state, which was once a violet-hued hub of unpredictability, has lately elected and reelected Republicans.In last night’s primaries, though, Iowa Democrats nominated the kind of candidates the national party has struggled to find. Josh Turek, a two-time Paralympic gold medalist with a record of winning red areas, is the party’s nominee for the state’s open U.S. Senate seat. And Rob Sand, the affably idiosyncratic state auditor who didn’t have a challenger, is officially up for governor. Which means that national Democrats and Republicans are now wrestling with a development that, until this week, had registered as little more than a quiet observation in the broadcast-standard English of farm country: Iowa is competitive again.Let’s start with Turek, whose primary, in the end, wasn’t even close: He beat Zach Wahls, a 34-year-old Democratic state legislator, by more than 25 points. This isn’t because Turek is better-known or more beloved. It’s because he was perceived by Iowa Democrats as more electable. And the perception of electability is everything to Iowa Democrats right now, as they sense victory like sharks smell blood in the water.Turek was the Senate candidate that Iowa Republicans did not want, which is, of course, exactly why Democrats had to have him. Turek describes himself as a “poor, disabled kid from Council Bluffs,” a reliably red part of the state. He has previously run against and beaten Republicans in a state House district that also supports Trump. He’s also got a compelling backstory: The 47-year-old was born with spina bifida, caused by his father’s exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, and has said he underwent 21 surgeries as a child. Before entering politics, Turek was a wheelchair-basketball player, played in four Paralympic games, and worked at a mobility-technology company. During a visit to Iowa in March, I watched as he dragged his chair up hills and stairs to introduce himself to Iowans. “There’s something compelling about a man in a wheelchair making his way up a staircase,” Kurt Meyer, a state Democratic activist, told me. “It’s a visceral positive reaction when you see somebody that’s just that dog-determined.”The money helped: Even though Turek hasn’t served in the military, VoteVets, an organization that supports veterans, poured several million dollars into his campaign. Given the group’s alignment with Senate Democrats, Wahls attempted to frame Turek as a… [TheTopNews] Read More.

Across from the White House sits a museum called The People’s House: A White House Experience. Inside is a replica of the Oval Office, and interactive exhibits on what it’s like to attend a State Dinner or sit in on a Cabinet meeting. It’s about as close to the White House as you can get without actually being there, a wholesome reminder of how democracy is supposed to work.But early last Saturday evening, two bullets shattered the glass between displays of Christmas ornaments and dining plates. A 21-year-old gunman had opened fire on Secret Service agents who then returned fire, killing him.It was the latest reminder of how our democracy is actually working, how omnipresent political violence can feel, how inaccessible public buildings are becoming to the public. Three times in four weeks, gunfire has broken out as federal agents were protecting the president and vice president in the vicinity of the White House. Three months ago, a man was shot and killed after entering the Mar-a-Lago security perimeter with a shotgun and fuel can. Three months before that, two National Guard members were shot just blocks from the White House. The Secret Service, which says it has protections all around the building—some visible, some not—has a division that over the past year has been studying the rise in violent rhetoric and action to get at the question: What is driving the attacks—and can they be headed off in advance?The Secret Service has investigated 40 percent more cases this year than it did during the comparable period in 2025, the agency told me. It’s had seven times more cases involving people with mental-health issues over that same time period. The surge is putting the Secret Service in what longtime agents say is an unprecedented threat environment.“In the past, there have been some peak periods where we had maybe a really large uptick for a month or two,” Matthew Quinn, the deputy director of the Secret Service, told me. “But for us right now, it’s not a linear increase anymore. It’s really gone exponential.”With the growing threat has come greater fortification—so much so that the White House complex can be thought of as the new Green Zone. The 18-acre site is laced with fencing, sensors, jammers, cameras, armed guards, bunkers, drone interceptors, and surface-to-air missiles—all of which speak to how we now protect, and isolate, our leaders. Tourists can no longer… [TheTopNews] Read More.