Editorial Roundup: United States

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

The Washington Post says Congress should cut off Trump’s “weaponization” fund

The Trump administration’s creation of a $1.776 billion fund of taxpayer money under the president’s control to pay favored individuals outside the judicial process is drawing bipartisan condemnation. “From all outward appearances, this doesn’t pass the smell test,” said Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah). “We’re considering legislative options,” added Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pennsylvania). “You can’t do that.”

When Republican members of Congress grouse about the president’s excesses, it’s usually just talk. But not always: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) used his power over confirmations to force the Trump Justice Department to drop its frivolous criminal probe into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell. Perhaps this will be another instance where congressional Republicans assert themselves. They’d be doing a favor not just for taxpayers but their own party.

The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” announced this week is part of the “settlement” of President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns by a contractor in 2019 and 2020. That leak — which affected thousands of taxpayers — was a serious crime, but it’s not appropriate for the president to dictate the terms of a settlement in his own case. That’s essentially what Trump is doing because he controls the officials in the Justice Department and IRS who signed off on the terms.

The fund will make payouts to people the administration considers victims of government “weaponization.” It’s a loosely defined category expected to primarily include political supporters of the president who have been subject to investigation or prosecution. Congress never approved such a program, so the administration will tap the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund for paying settlements — a pot of money subject to relatively few controls that has been misused in the past.

Even a small number of Republican members of Congress offended by this extrajudicial arrangement have the power to limit or stop it. The Trump administration is pursuing, and Congress has been advancing, a $72 billion reconciliation bill to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol. The bill is intended to circumvent the Democrats’ filibuster with only Republican votes.

The House or Senate could pair that money with language tightening control over the “Judgment Fund.” They could limit payouts to third parties from the fund in a way that would also constrain future Democratic administrations.

Congress doesn’t need to acquiesce to executive endruns around its power of the purse. As Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a recent dissent that was praised to the heavens by Trump: “Importantly, the House, the Senate, and the President annually approve most appropriations. As a result, each House of Congress and the President independently possesses de facto veto power over particular appropriations.”

Just a handful of Republicans in either chamber can stop Trump’s fund from going forward. Trump could veto the legislation Congress passes, of course — but would he really hold up funding for vital government functions over a much smaller pool of money for allies? That certainly wouldn’t be a good political look heading into the midterms.

Two police officers who experienced the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, filed a lawsuit to stop the fund based on the expectation that it will be used to pay defendants in riot cases. But their claim to legal standing is shaky. The courts aren’t the best venue for checking the executive’s misallocation of resources — Congress is. The presidential cynicism on display here just might be enough to create a bipartisan legislative majority.

The Wall Street Journal says President Trump has lost the plot on governance

Republicans don’t want to say this publicly, but privately they do: President Trump’s personal political obsessions are hurting his Presidency, harming the chances for further policy gains the rest of this year, and putting control of the House and Senate in jeopardy.

That’s the backdrop to the GOP revolt this week in Congress on war powers and funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Trump’s unrelated priorities are handing Democrats gift after gift and forcing Republicans to take difficult votes that could cost them in November. His desire for political revenge is also alienating Members of Congress he will need this year.

The trigger for the Senate revolt Thursday was Mr. Trump’s insistence on his $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund.” This is allegedly part of his settlement, if you want to call it that, with the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. It’s an agreement between Mr. Trump and the Justice Department which reports to him—he is on both sides of the deal—to pay Jan. 6 riot participants and others Mr. Trump claims were unjustly targeted by Democratic officials.

Democrats planned to offer amendments to the DHS funding bill that would put Republicans on record for supporting a taxpayer payout to convicted rioters and Mr. Trump’s friends and allies. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, hardly a GOP faint heart, said someone had called it a “galactic blunder,” and “that’s probably true.” Mr. Trump has already pardoned the rioters but now he wants the rest of us to pay them.

GOP leaders pulled the entire funding legislation when it appeared they might lose the weaponization vote and went home on recess. But Democrats will be back again with the same amendments if the bill returns with the same payout.

Then there’s Mr. Trump’s East Wing ballroom fixation, for which he wants $220 million from Congress. He has a point about hardened security for the new White House area, but he had said when he first tore down the old East Wing that it would require no public money.

The parliamentarian struck the ballroom funding from the DHS bill under budget reconciliation rules, so now the GOP will need 60 votes (not 51) to pass ballroom funding. Mr. Trump naturally berated GOP Senators for not firing the parliamentarian.

Senate GOP frustration is also boiling after Mr. Trump’s campaign against two Senators running for re-election. First he helped defeat Lousiana’s Bill Cassidy in a primary, and this week he endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over Sen. John Cornyn. Mr. Trump’s motives in both cases were largely personal—he wanted revenge against Mr. Cassidy for thinking his behavior on Jan. 6, 2021, was an impeachable offense, and Mr. Cornyn didn’t endorse him for President with enough alacrity to suit his loyalty test.

In both cases, he’ll get slavish replacements—that is, if Mr. Paxton wins the primary and then doesn’t lose in November. But meantime there are governing consequences for alienating allies. Mr. Cassidy provided the swing vote that allowed the Democrats’ war powers resolution to advance, and he was a likely no on ballroom funding too. Mr. Cornyn is such a class act that he won’t take gratuitous votes that hurt his party, but he’ll have no incentive to bow to Mr. Trump’s demands either.

By the way, GOP House leaders pulled a war powers vote Thursday when it appeared Mr. Trump would lose that too. That will also come back again. Mr. Trump can always veto the resolution, but the erosion of support for the war is a sign of overall eroding political support.

Mr. Trump’s politics has always been largely personal, but in his second term it has become self-indulgent even by his standards. The Trump name on everything, the Beltway “arch” and other monuments to French-like grandeur. And most of all the politics of retribution and lawfare as he seeks to ruin anyone he thinks has wronged him. He seems incapable of rising above, even as voters care much more about the economy and prices and his job approval falls to new lows.

Mr. Trump’s Presidency will be all but over—except for impeachment 3.0—if the GOP loses control of Congress in November. If he wants to accomplish more legislatively, he has only a few months to do it. Does he want his remaining legacy to be a ballroom, an Arc de Trump, and payoffs for his friends from a fund that Republicans would denounce if a Democratic President tried it?

Mr. Trump needs a second-year reset, or he is headed toward a second-term failure.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch says Congress is ignoring the national will

Americans don’t agree on much today, but overwhelming majorities agree that President Donald Trump’s war in Iran was and is a mistake.

Never popular to start with, the war has done nothing but lose public support in the almost three months it’s been underway. The latest polls show opposition by well over 60% of the public. While there is predictably sharp disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on the issue, almost three-quarters of nonpartisan independents oppose the war, according to a recent New York Times/Siena poll.

Not only is this aimless and economically damaging war deeply unpopular, but it is now arguably illegal. The War Powers Act of 1973 says the president must end any unilateral military operation within 60 days of the start of hostilities unless Congress specifically authorizes it to continue. The current hostilities began at the end of February — 80 days ago at this writing.

Yet congressional Republicans have repeatedly turned back attempts to invoke the Act, most recently with a tie vote in the House last week.

Some Republicans have started crossing over to demand accountability from the administration. But not Missouri’s six GOP House members and both its senators. They are putting their loyalty to Trump ahead of adherence to the law and service to their own constituents. Those constituents, straining under gas prices inflated by Trump’s war, deserve better.

From the day Trump attacked Iran without a word to Congress or any ally but Israel, he has failed to offer a consistent rationale for it. Early on, the explanation shifted constantly: Spawning regime change, protecting Iranian civilians, confronting proxy terrorism, protecting the world’s oil supply, defanging Iran militarily and promoting Israeli interests all were on rotation, often daily or even hourly.

The administration lately has settled on the argument that the war is necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. That would certainly be a valid reason to attack a violent theocracy like Iran, but for one inconvenient fact: Trump announced on social media less than a year ago that an earlier U.S. military operation there had already “COMPLETELY DESTROYED!” Iran’s nuclear capabilities and that any suggestion to the contrary was “FAKE NEWS.”

Meaning, we guess, that Trump’s current rationale for the war is … fake news?

Such incoherence, typical from this president, is especially dangerous in the arena of war. In addition to spawning sky-high gasoline prices because of the standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, this debacle of a war has damaged America’s relations with its appalled allies and eroded its global standing with everyone. And that’s before you even get to the thousands of war fatalities — more than a dozen Americans among them so far.

Not since World War II has Congress fulfilled its obligation to decide when to send U.S. forces into wars, abdicating that power to presidents of both parties in a way the Constitution never envisioned.

The War Powers Act has at least provided a backstop to prevent ceaseless presidential warmongering with no accountability. But now this personality-cult of a Congress is abdicating that, too.

For its part, the administration claims that the current, fragile ceasefire doesn’t count toward the 60-day limit after which the president must seek congressional approval to continue hostilities. That’s nonsense. Section 5 of the War Powers Act states plainly that such approval must be sought “within sixty calendar days” of the start of a military campaign, and contains not a word about pausing or resetting that clock with a temporary ceasefire.

Trump also claims (as other presidents have) that the Act itself is unconstitutional. If he wants to make that claim in court, then make it. In the meantime, he doesn’t get to just ignore a federal law that is currently in force.

Sens. Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, and Reps. Ann Wagner, Bob Onder, Mark Alford, Eric Burlison, Sam Graves and Jason Smith, are all supposed to work for the people of Missouri, not for a rogue president with an itchy trigger finger. Members of Congress, do your jobs, already.

The Boston Globe on President Trump’s “monument to nothing”

In the nation’s capital, this Memorial Day will be like no other.

The once unbroken vista across the Potomac River leading to Arlington National Cemetery, the final resting place of 400,000 American veterans, last week became something of a construction zone — as plans proceed apace for President Trump’s triumphal arch on Memorial Circle.

What the arch is supposed to celebrate — what “triumph,” real or imagined — is itself a matter of controversy and conjecture. What is certain is that nothing — not a lawsuit brought by veterans nor a federal court order halting its construction — will stand in the way of a president more obsessed with monuments than with honoring the fallen service members this day was set aside to honor more than 150 years ago.

Having set his sights on Memorial Circle near the entry to the military cemetery for his 250-foot arch, topped by two gilded eagles and a gold-plated Lady Liberty — all with wings extended — Trump apparently wasn’t waiting for Congress or the federal courts to give him the go-ahead.

No, exactly a week before Memorial Day 2026, the fencing went up at Memorial Circle, along with an industrial drilling rig and pink flags used by surveyors.

It was days after Interior Secretary Doug Burgum had testified at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing. And according to Representative Jared Huffman of California, “there wasn’t a project. Not even a proposal. Just a discussion,” Huffman posted on Instagram.

Asked at that hearing, “Who is the arch being built for?” Burgum responded, “For the American people.”

However, when asked last year by a CBS reporter what the monument was for, Trump pointed to himself and answered, “Me.”

And who are we to not take Trump at his word?

The design was reportedly inspired by Trump’s fascination with the Arc de Triomphe, which began during a visit to Paris in his first term for a ceremony marking the anniversary of the end of World War I. But the Parisian landmark, its construction begun during the reign of Napoleon, is, however, only 164 feet high. It would be dwarfed by Trump’s proposed 250-foot monument — a figure that’s supposed to represent the nation’s 250th birthday and originally slated to be completed by July 4, 2026.

The arch would be more than double the size of the Lincoln Memorial and the equivalent of a 25-story office building, the lawsuit filed against its construction notes.

“Its location on Memorial Circle would situate the monument on an axis between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, obstructing a line of sight that was designed to represent the unification of the Nation following the Civil War and that has existed for nearly a century,” the suit says.

The lawsuit also charges the construction is illegal because it lacks congressional approval and ignores a host of “statutes impos(ing) procedural requirements” for construction in the area.

But mostly, the Vietnam vets and the architectural historian bringing the suit argue it “would dishonor their military and foreign service and the legacy of their comrades and other veterans buried at Arlington National Cemetery, and would degrade their personal experience when visiting Arlington Cemetery or traveling around Memorial Circle and on the Memorial Avenue Corridor.”

And could there be a more stark contrast to the row upon row of simple white gravestones than this proposed gaudy monument to nothing more than the enormous ego of the current occupant of the White House?

It speaks volumes about the offensiveness of this project — and its location — that the administration simply couldn’t wait for this Memorial Day to pass before the very pathway to Arlington National Cemetery was desecrated with fencing and drilling equipment.

People, of course, will still come to Arlington, will still place the flags that honor loved ones, brothers and sisters in arms, fallen heroes, as they have since this sacred place was opened to honor the service of those who fought on opposite sides in a war that nearly tore this nation apart. Arlington became part of the healing process — as it was on that day in May 1868, when some 5,000 men and women walked among the then 20,000 graves of Union and Confederate soldiers, decorating them “with the choicest flowers of springtime,” former Union General John A. Logan insisted.

“We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance,” he added. “Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.”

The Guardian says Miles Davis still impacts modern music 100 years after his birth

The space reserved for Miles Davis in the pantheon of 20th-century music is not simply because he mastered jazz, but because he refused to let it stand still. As musicians and fans mark the centenary of his birth , Davis’s work still feels limitless. “I always thought that music had no boundaries,” he wrote in his 1989 autobiography, “no limits to where it could grow and go, no restrictions on creativity.” Davis repeatedly dismantled the sound he had helped invent – embracing the electric age in 1968, much as Bob Dylan had in folk.

Davis moved to New York as an 18-year-old after hearing Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker. While bebop prized speed, Davis preferred restraint and precision – spearheading cool jazz. By 1988, now the grand old man of jazz, he was playing trumpet with Prince, whom he remarked could be the “new Duke Ellington of our time if he just keeps at it”. Such was his refusal to be pigeonholed, he hated the word “jazz”. Whatever it was, Davis reasoned, had to evolve: absorbing funk, rock, African rhythms and electronica to emerge altered again.

Davis believed innovation was how tradition survived. In 1949, with the Birth of the Cool sessions, he filtered bebop through a softer lens; a decade later came the modal masterpiece Kind of Blue, which the Guardian’s jazz critic rated as Davis’s greatest work. Part of that rebirth owed much to his marriage to the dancer Frances Taylor. She helped transform Davis from a heroin-ravaged sideman, overshadowed commercially by the photogenic Chet Baker, into a figure of elegance and control. Yet the reinvention didn’t last. Taylor eventually left, worn down by Davis’s violence and addiction.

His second great quintet – with the saxophonist Wayne Shorter and the pianist Herbie Hancock – saw out the 1960s. Then came the breathtaking In a Silent Way before the swirling avant garde Bitches Brew blew apart musical convention with its 26-minute improvised title track.

Davis retired in 1975. Famous for his silences in performance, this seemed like a full stop. Davis would not pick up his trumpet for almost five years, disappearing into drug use in a grim New York brownstone full of sex workers and drug dealers. The house, he acknowledged, was “filthy and real dark and gloomy, like a dungeon” and “the roaches had a field day”.

Davis’s genius coexisted with brutality. He was deeply scarred by American racism, especially police violence and an industry that he said favoured white performers over black innovators. While Davis claims that “I didn’t hate women; I loved them, probably too much”, his own admissions reveal a long history of physical abuse, exploitation and chronic infidelity.

Davis had his critics – purists who believed in “real jazz”. Their standard-bearer was the dazzlingly gifted trumpeter Wynton Marsalis, who dismissed Davis as a sellout for covering pop songs in eye-catching outfits. At just 21, Marsalis sneered that Davis’s music was a “letdown” that would have Charlie Parker “rolling in his grave”. The two never reconciled; the divide between apostate and true believer was too wide. Yet after Davis’s death, Marsalis offered a graceful, if belated, concession, writing that “ few in jazz or any other music have been as good as he was at his best ”. Marsalis wanted jazz preserved. Davis wanted it alive. History has largely settled the argument.

Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.