loves

WASHINGTON — As President Trump zigzags across the country in the final weeks before the midterm elections, he has made California his favorite foil as he tries to fire up his base.

On Monday, he blamed the Golden State for the rising cost of gas prices, claimed without evidence that its elections are rigged, and at a Nebraska rally suggested Iran could “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego.

“It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe,” Trump said. “They can take out a city, let them take out Los Angeles, let them take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay.”

The president’s team on Tuesday said his remarks were misunderstood, arguing the president “clearly” stated that U.S. cities would have been threatened “if a nuclear Iran hadn’t been stopped.” Trump declined to clarify what he meant by his statements when asked by a reporter Tuesday.

But by then, Trump’s remarks had already drawn fierce condemnation from California leaders, including Republican Jim Desmond, a Navy veteran running in a highly competitive race that is key to helping Republicans retain control of the House.

“I vehemently disagree with President Trump’s comments,” Desmond wrote on social media. “America must stand up to Iran and defend our interests, but the first responsibility of our Commander in Chief is to protect the American people and our homeland.”

The backlash exposed the risk of Trump’s closing midterm strategy. Bashing California is a reliable applause line in red states like Nebraska, Alabama, Texas and Oklahoma, where the president has been holding rallies trying to ensure his supporters get out to vote. But in this modern era, an incendiary comment can travel fast online and leave Republicans running in competitive districts in awkward spots, trying to distance themselves from Trump.

Overall, political observers see the episode as an example of how the president’s political strategy can be unpredictable at a time when Republicans are trying to control the message the most.

“Whether you like Trump or not, he is good at getting his message out and coming up with a message that can resonate and catch fire,” said Mindy Romero, founder and director of the nonpartisan Center for Inclusive Democracy. “I think the question now is: Is he starting to fail himself when it comes to his messaging?”

California Democrats were quick to use Trump’s remarks as a line of attack against him. Gov. Gavin Newsom called him “deranged and dangerous” and opened the state emergency operations center to assess potential threats. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria told Trump to “keep our city out of your reckless war talk.” And Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said his comments could “potentially compromise our safety.”

Trump’s remarks about the California cities on Monday were the most striking example yet of the president using California as a foil to rally a base in GOP strongholds.

In Nebraska and other red states in recent days, Trump has repeatedly cast California as a political boogeyman as a means to motivate voters to cast their ballots for the GOP candidates.

At an Oklahoma rally last week, Trump told the crowd that Republicans need to keep the party in control of Congress so that his administration can continue the work of combating fraud in blue states, like California. The administration’s efforts, led by Vice President JD Vance, have sometimes been overestimated or nebulous.

But Trump tells supporters that in places like California, the administration is seeing “billions and billions of dollars of fraud.”

In a social media post Monday, Trump began blaming the cost of fuel — a defining issue for voters this election cycle — on states like California.

“What’s driving up Gasoline is no longer the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump wrote. The issue, he said, is refineries being “closed up in Blue States, like California, by the Dumocrats.”

Hours later, while rallying in Nebraska, Trump seemed to contradict himself as he promised the crowd that fuel costs would go down once the war in Iran was over.

“That will end very quickly, one way or the other, very soon, maybe a little after the election, maybe a little before, but it is going to end very soon,” Trump said. “When that happens, the oil will come tumbling down.”

Trump’s messaging underscores how the war with Iran, which has gas prices topping $6 a gallon, has emerged as a potential liability for Republicans that the president is trying to address in subtle ways.

Polling on Trump’s handling of the economy has remained low, even among Republicans. A University of Massachusetts Amherst poll last month found that only 22% of Americans perceive the economy in a good or fair state.

In California, a poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that 70% of California voters disapprove of Trump’s decision to go to war in Iran, including 1 in 5 Republicans.

The softening of Trump’s approval even among those who still support his performance could translate into lower GOP turnout in the state’s few competitive races, the poll’s director, Mark DiCamillo, said.

Trump’s strategy in the final stretch before the midterms has largely focused on rallying the base in hopes that they will turn out to vote. Part of that strategy includes using California as a punching bag.

One particular line of attack has been disparaging the state’s voting systems. He suggested Monday that Democrat-led cities are trying to cheat in November as he touted the fast count of ballots in foreign countries.

“In Detroit, Philadelphia, California and numerous other U.S. Cities and States, the results, with much smaller numbers, will often take weeks to Rig, I mean, calculate,” Trump wrote on Monday. “Voting in America is CORRUPT!!!”

In another social media post, he said: “California: Took 38 days with 16.1 million ballots in 2024.”’

Trump using California as a foil for any given issue could be a risky strategy, Romero said.

“He’s expanding the types of things that he’s blaming California for, like the gas crisis,” she said, arguing that such statements could “start to lose credibility with those people that he has credibility with.”

For Republican voters in California, the ploy may be even riskier, especially when Trump suggests Iran could “take out” their cities.

“I don’t think that message necessarily plays well here because Californians are Californians,” DiCamillo said. “There is a certain pride in being a Californian, certainly not held by everybody … but I would think that the mainstream would be defending the state.”

Donald Trump Jr. has a lot more in common with his dad than just a name, sharing the president’s penchant for shady dealings and for kleptocratic Russians. Sometimes the two proclivities go together. That was the case in May, we learned this week from ProPublica, when Don Jr. married his second wife during a three-day Bahamian bacchanal bankrolled partly with hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Putin-allied oligarch the Trump scion met only recently.

I had to wonder — recalling Don Jr.’s response in 2016 on learning Russia helpfully wanted to dump dirt on Hillary Clinton — whether he replied in kind when his new Russian friend, Umar Kremlev, offered the wedding grift, er, gift: “If it’s what you say I love it.”

My second thought was that Don Jr. is just like his dad in wanting to spend other people’s money, even as the Trump family has accrued billions since President Trump has been back in office. (Cue the continued silence from the sleuths of Hunter Biden’s laptop.)

Just days before ProPublica’s exposé, at last week’s midterm Republican convention in Dallas, the elder Trump proffered a gift of $5,000 to every one of the roughly 270 million adult Americans. But the eponymous “Trump dividend” would come only if Republicans keep their House and Senate majorities after the November midterm elections.

The tab? More than $1 trillion, roughly $1.3 trillion. How generous Trump is with the U.S. Treasury, despite the news just last month that rattled bond markets and raised interest rates: The United States’ gross debt has exceeded $40 trillion. As Trump told CNBC in 2016: “I love debt. I love playing with it.” We can’t say he didn’t warn us. Even before his proposed 5K giveaway, Trump was on track to break his first-term record for adding to the unsustainable U.S. debt ($8.4 trillion).

Trump’s unprecedented offer of a post-election payout provoked predictable cries of “bribery” from Democrats and other critics. But legality aside, even the appearance of a bribe isn’t what bothers me most about the proposal.

For one thing, it won’t happen. No one will be receiving a $5,000 Trump dividend, just like no one received the DOGE dividend or $2,000 tariff refund he previously promised. Even if Republicans pull off a miracle and retain control of Congress, those in power show no zeal for his budget-buster, not after their complicity in adding trillions to the debt since last year with tax cuts, war costs and this, that and the other Trump pet project. And Congress indeed would have to act, under the Constitution, despite suggestions from the obsequious Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, that Trump could act alone. (But “I’m not ready to discuss it at present,” Bessent told a House committee on Tuesday.)

No, what bothers me most about Trump’s idea — what outrages me — is the damnable fiscal irresponsibility of it.

Trump has turned much of historical Republican orthodoxy on its head, including on immigration, trade and policy toward Russia. But his utter disregard for annual deficits — a record $2 trillion for this fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 — and his shameful profligacy with taxpayers’ money is something Americans haven’t seen in their lifetimes, in either party. Worse, Trump implies otherwise, that he is fiscally responsible, and he does it with lies that are so easily refuted, so often contradicted by his own words, that it’s a marvel that even such a chronic prevaricator as himself can utter them.

This week Trump is still claiming that the $5,000 dividend will be paid for because “we’re taking in trillions and trillions of dollars” in revenue from his inflationary tariffs on more than half of the goods imported into the country. The actual number isn’t even close to that, and he should know it: The data that nonpartisan analysts are crunching are from the government he supposedly runs.

In 2026, tariff revenue through August was just under $200 billion, but more than half of that already has been spent on refunds to big corporations including Amazon, Walmart and Home Depot, in keeping with a Supreme Court ruling against some of Trump’s tariffs. And as if Trump’s dividend proposal weren’t mendacious enough, in making it he seems to have forgotten his claim in his State of the Union address in February that he would use the tsunami of tariff revenue to abolish the federal income tax.

And one last thing: Even if each adult American got $5,000, subtract from that the nearly $2,000 that each household has paid, on average, because of higher tariffs since Trump took office, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

In this one dumb idea, in sum, the giveaway manifests just about all that is wrong with Trump as president: The lying, of course. Fiscal recklessness. The trashing of commendable Republican doctrines. The Trump bubble of sycophantic yay-sayers. And, in turn, the seat-of-his-pants policy idiocy, from war-making to White House demolishing.

The lack of any actual policy deliberation behind Trump’s $5,000 shocker was clear in his lackeys’ flailing and contradictory reactions — not just Bessent’s specious claim of presidential authority, but also Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s inane insistence the administration could somehow “earn the money that Donald Trump wants to pay out” and National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett’s comment, contrary to Bessent’s, that the White House is indeed looking to Congress for funds.

The good news? Americans get it. Recent polls have the percentage approving of Trump’s handling of the economy as low as 28%. Significant majorities say they are worse off since he became president again.

Such numbers portend an election result that isn’t likely to be changed by a promise of $5,000. Especially from a serial promise-breaker.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

The biggest news to come out of two film festivals this week stemmed from documentaries about tech moguls gone bad.

When Alex Gibney’s film production “Musk” premiered at the Venice Film Festival on Tuesday, it received a five-minute standing ovation, shouts of “thank you” from the audience and endless play across social media. The nearly four-hour production chronicles the rise of the world’s first trillionaire out of the dot-com boom, and lays bare the dangers that the Tesla and SpaceX chief executive now presents as a plutocrat with questionable judgment and unchecked power.

Closer to home, at the Telluride Film Festival, it was comedian Nathan Fielder (“The Rehearsal”) and Lance Oppenheim’s “You Can See Everything” that made breaking news. Their film features unfettered access to former Theranos Chief Executive Elizabeth Holmes in the weeks before she reported to federal prison to serve a sentence of 10 years and three months. She rode the early 2000s wave of venture-capitalism consumer-tech hype, defrauding investors and the public with a bogus new way to test blood. By 2014, she was the world’s youngest self-made female billionaire.

A couple of decades ago, films about Musk and Holmes probably would have framed the pair as forward-thinking entrepreneurs and architects of a new era. Today, the pitchforks are out, and who else better represents the hubris and greed of late-stage capitalism?

There’s plenty of buzz around both films ahead of their October releases, yet the richest man in the world is helping promote the “Musk” doc by incessantly posting about Gibney and his “hit” piece.

Musk’s X posts have referred to the filmmaker as a “horrible human” and a “bitter old man” and declared, “Dogs— is worth more respect.” Always looking for a conspiracy to explain away the perfectly explainable, he wrote that the film was a “psy op.” He included in the post an image of Gibney as a puppet of the Democratic Party and George Soros. Musk also offered Trumpian prose: “Gutless Gibney’s fatal flaw of fabricating a false film.”

“Musk” is due for a theatrical release in the U.S. on Oct. 16 followed by a streaming launch on HBO Max.

Musk’s attorney Alex Spiro is threatening a lawsuit. He sent a letter to the Gibney-led Jigsaw Productions accusing the filmmaker of misrepresenting facts about the mogul. Spiro says the filmmaker suggested that Musk used his Starlink satellites to bend the 2024 election in favor of his friend and ally Donald Trump.

“You are … on notice, before release, that the insinuation is false, that the material refuting it is public, and that you chose not to be told the rest,” Spiro wrote. Spiro claimed he contacted the production “multiple times” and “requested an opportunity to present the facts in the normal fact-checking process that is the hallmark of ethical journalism. You have refused to engage.”

Gibney says Musk declined to be interviewed for the film. In his absence, the documentarian created a digital avatar of the Tesla CEO and used statements pulled from decades worth of the entrepreneur’s interviews and public appearances. The film chronicles his childhood in South Africa and his time in Silicon Valley, and suggests that Musk’s genius is not as an inventor but as an investor. His talent, the film contends, is stock-pumping.

“Musk” also reportedly explores how the trillionaire had access to sensitive techno-surveillance data when he ran the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under President Trump in 2025. Geoffrey Hinton , often referred to as the Godfather of AI, is interviewed in the film and explains why Musk’s potential access to the data is such a problem: “It’s fairly clear to me that Trump is hell-bent on corrupting the midterm elections,” Hinton says. “If you wanted to corrupt those midterm elections and you wanted to use AI, all you needed to do was get detailed information on U.S. citizens. And what DOGE did looked like just what you would do.”

Gibney in interviews about the film has warned that Musk’s widespread, unchecked power is “extremely dangerous to world democracy.”

“What I discovered was that the story of Musk was not [a] new tech story,” Gibney said in a news conference at the Venice Film Fest. “[It’s] really the story of an old wine in a new bottle. His story turns out to be the story of the confidence man, the stock pumper, his wealth and power comes from inflated stock, and so I had told that story before with Enron and with Elizabeth Holmes, and so it was a story that was oddly familiar to me.”

Gibney is renowned for taking on big money, corruption and anything else that reeks of injustice. He’s tackled Wall Street, big pharma, Scientology, Guantanamo, and even Theranos founder Holmes.

The new film about Holmes, “You Can See Everything,” offers a quirkier, up-close take on Holmes. Produced by A24 and set for an Oct. 16 theater release, it follows the disgraced CEO post-conviction, and she appears more than comfortable in front of the filmmakers and their cameras. Audiences at Telluride were surprised by the access she gave to the filmmakers, and that Holmes spoke openly about her plans to launch a biotech comeback and revive Theranos from her cell in a Texas prison camp.

Forget the celebrity glitz of high-profile film festivals. In these eat-the-rich times, it’s the dark side of wealth, fame and alleged genius that satiate audience appetites. Enter two new documentaries that feed the beast.