power

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s signature plan to impose import taxes on products coming from countries around the world ran into sharp skepticism at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Most of the justices, conservative and liberal, questioned whether the president acting on his own has the power to set large tariffs as a weapon of international trade.

Instead, they voiced the traditional view that the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise taxes, duties and tariffs.

Trump and his lawyers rely on an emergency powers act adopted on a voice vote by Congress in 1977. That measure authorizes sanctions and embargoes, but does not mention “tariffs, duties” or other means of revenue-raising.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he doubted that law could be read so broadly.

The emergency powers law “had never before been used to justify tariffs,” he told D. John Sauer, Trump’s solicitor general. “No one has argued that it does until this particular case.”

Congress has authorized tariffs in other laws, he said, but not this one. Yet, it is “being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product from any country for — in any amount on any product from any country for — in any amount for any length of time.”

Moreover, the Constitution says Congress has the lead role on taxes and tariffs. “The imposition of taxes on Americans … has always been a core power of Congress,” he said.

The tariffs case heard Wednesday is the first major challenge to Trump’s presidential power to be heard by the court. It is also a test of whether the court’s conservative majority is willing to set legal limits on Trump’s executive authority.

Trump has touted these import taxes as crucial to reviving American manufacturing.

But owners of small businesses, farmers and economists are among the critics who say the on-again, off-again import taxes are disrupting business and damaging the economy.

Two lower courts ruled for small-business owners and said Trump had exceeded his authority.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal on a fast-track basis with the aim of ruling in a few months.

In defense of the president and his “Liberation Day” tariffs, Trump’s lawyers argued these import duties involve the president’s power over foreign affairs. They are “regulatory tariffs,” not taxes that raise revenue, he said.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.

“It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax,” Sotomayor said. “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

Imposing a tariff “is a taxing power which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress,” Kagan said.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch may hold the deciding vote, and he said he was wary of upholding broad claims of presidential power that rely on old and vague laws.

The court’s conservative majority, including Gorsuch, struck down several far-reaching Biden administration regulations on climate change and student forgiveness because they were not clearly authorized by Congress.

Both Roberts and Gorsuch said the same theory may apply here. Gorsuch said he was skeptical of the claim that the president had the power to impose taxes based on his belief that the nation faces a global emergency.

In the future, “could the President impose a 50% tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?” he asked.

Yes, Sauer replied, “It’s very likely that could be done.”

Congress had the lawmaking power, Gorsuch said, and presidents should not feel free to take away the taxing power “from the people’s representatives.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she was struggling to understand what Congress meant in the emergency powers law when it said the president may “regulate” importation.

She agreed that the law did not mention taxes and tariffs that would raise revenue, but some judges then saw it as allowing the authority to impose duties or tariffs.

Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Samuel A. Alito Jr. appeared to be leaning against the challenge to the president’s tariffs.

Kavanaugh pointed to a round of tariffs imposed by President Nixon in 1971, and he said Congress later adopted its emergency powers act without clearly rejecting that authority.

A former White House lawyer, Kavanaugh said it would be unusual for the president to have the full power to bar imports from certain countries, but not the lesser power to impose tariffs.

Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court’s six Republican appointees have voted repeatedly to set aside orders from judges who had temporarily blocked the president’s policies and initiatives.

Although they have not explained most of their temporary emergency rulings, the conservatives have said the president has broad executive authority over federal agencies and on matters of foreign affairs.

But Wednesday, the justices did not sound split along the usual ideological lines.

The court’s ruling is not likely to be the final word on tariffs, however. Several other past laws allow the president to impose temporary tariffs for reasons of national security.

South Asians have played a prominent role in President Trump’s universe, especially in his second term.

Second Lady Usha Vance is the daughter of Indian immigrants who came to California to study and never went back. Harmeet Dhillon, born in India and a devout Sikh, is currently his U.S. assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division. And the head of the FBI, Kash Patel, is (like potential New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani,) of Indian descent by way of Uganda.

Some Republicans have taken pride in this kind of diversity, citing it for the gains Trump made in 2024 with Black and Latino voters.

But these days, the MAGA big tent seems to be collapsing fast.

Last week, MAGA had a total anti-Indian meltdown on social media, revealing a deep, ugly racism toward South Asians.

It comes amid the first real rebellion about rampant and increasingly open antisemitism within the MAGAverse, creating a massive rift between traditional conservatives and a younger, rabidly anti-Jewish contingent called groypers whose leader, Nick Fuentes, recently posted that he is “team Hitler.”

Turns out, when you cultivate a political movement based on hate, at some point the hate is uncontrollable. In fact, that hate needs to be fed to maintain power — even if it means feasting on its own.

This monster of white-might ugliness is going to dominate policy and politics for the next election, and these now-public fights within the Republican party represent a new dynamic that will either force it to do some sort of soul searching, or purge it of anything but white Christian nationalism. My bet is on the latter. But if conservatives ever truly believed in their inclusive talk, then it’s time for Republicans to stand up and demand the big Trump tent they were hailing just a few months ago.

Ultra-conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who opposes much of Fuentes’ worldview, summed up this Republican split succinctly.

Fuentes’ followers “are white supremacists, hate women, Jews, Hindus, many types of Christians, brown people of a wide variety of backgrounds, Blacks, America’s foreign policy and America’s constitution,” Shapiro explained. “They admire Hitler and Stalin and that splinter faction is now being facilitated and normalized within the mainstream Republican Party.”

MAGA’s anti-Indian sentiment had an explosive moment a few days ago when a South Asian woman asked Vice President JD Vance a series of questions during a Turning Point USA event in Mississippi. The young immigrant wanted to know how Vance could preach for the removal of nearly 18 million immigrants? And how could he claim that the United States was a Christian nation, rather than one that valued pluralism?

“How can you stop us and tell us we don’t belong here anymore?” the woman asked. “Why do I have to be a Christian?”

Vance’s answer went viral, in part because he claimed his wife, although from a Hindu family, was “agnostic or atheist,” and that he hoped she would convert to Christianity.

“Do I hope eventually that she is somehow moved by the same thing that I was moved in by church? Yeah, I honestly do wish that,” he said.

Vance later tried to do some damage control on social media, calling Usha Vance a “blessing” and promising to continue to “support her and talk to her about faith and life and everything else, because she’s my wife.”

But many South Asians felt Vance was dissing his wife’s heritage and attempting to downplay her non-whiteness. They vented on social media, and got a lot of MAGA feelings back.

“How can you pretend to be a white nativist politician who will ‘bring america back to it’s golden age’ … when your wife is an indian immigrant?” wrote one poster.

Dhillon received similar feedback recently for urging calm and fairness after a Sikh truck driver allegedly caused a fatal crash.

“[N]o ma’am, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that sihks and hindus need to get the hell out of my country,” one reply stated. “You and your kind are no longer welcome here. Go the [expletive] home.”

Patel too, got it, after posting a message on Diwali, a religious holiday that celebrates the victory of light over darkness. He was dubbed a demon worshipper, a favorite anti-Indian trope.

Perhaps you’re thinking, “Duh, of course MAGA is racist.” But here’s the thing. The military has been scrubbed of many Black officers. The federal workforce, long a bastion for middle-class people of color, has been decimated. Minority cabinet members or top officials are few. Aside from another South Asian, Tulsi Gabbard, there’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez‑DeRemer and HUD head Scott Turner.

South Asians are largely the last visible sign of pluralism in Republican power, an erstwhile proof that the charges of racism from the left are unfair. But now, like Latinos, they are increasingly targets of the base.

At the same time anti-Indian hate was surfacing last week, a whole load of MAGA antisemitism hit the fan. It started when Tucker Carlson, who in his post-network life has re-created himself as a hugely popular podcaster with more than 16 million followers on X, invited Fuentes on his show.

In addition to calling for the death of American Jews, Fuentes has also said women want him to rape them and should be burned alive, Black people belong in prison and LGBTQ+ people are an abomination.

Anyone who is not his kind of Christian “must be absolutely annihilated when we take power,” he said.

Turns out far-right Charlie Kirk was a bulwark against this straight-up American Nazi. Kirk’s popularity kept Fuentes — who often trolled Kirk — from achieving dominance as the spirit guide of young MAGA. Now, with Kirk slain, nothing appears to be stopping Fuentes from taking up that mantle.

After the Fuentes interview, sane conservatives (there are some left) were apoplectic that Carlson would support someone who so openly admits to being anti-Israel and seemingly pro-Nazi. They demanded the Heritage Foundation, historical backbone of the conservative movement, creators of Project 2025 and close allies of Tucker, do something. The head of Heritage, Kevin Roberts, offered what many considered a sorry-not-sorry. He condemned Fuentes, saying he was “fomenting Jew hatred, and his incitements are not only immoral and un-Christian, they risk violence.”

But also counseled that Fuentes shouldn’t be banished from the party.

“Join us — not to cancel — but to guide, challenge, and strengthen the conversation,” Roberts said.

Are Nazis really all bad? Discuss!

The response from ethical conservatives — Jewish and non-Jewish alike — has been that you don’t politely hear Nazis out, and if the Republican Party can’t clearly say that Nazis aren’t welcome, it’s got a problem.

Yes, the Republican Party has a problem.

The right rode to power by attacking what it denigrates at “wokeism” on the left. MAGA declared that to confront fascism or racism or misogyny — to tell its purveyors to sit down and shut up — was wrong. That “canceling,” or banishment from common discourse for spewing hate, was somehow an infringement on 1st Amendment rights or even terrorism.

They screamed loud and clear that speaking out against intolerance was the worst, most unacceptable form of intolerance itself — and would not be tolerated.

You know who heard them loud and clear? Fuentes. He has checkmated establishment Republicans with their own cowardice and hypocrisy.

So now his young Christian white supremacists are empowered, and intent on taking over as the leaders of the party. Fuentes is saying what old guard Republicans don’t want to hear, but secretly fear: He already is dangerously close to being the mainstream; just read the comments.

Roberts, the Heritage president, said it himself: “Diversity will never be our strength. Unity is our strength, and a lack of unity is a sign of weakness.”

Trying to shut Fuentes up or kick him out will likely anger that vocal and powerful part of the base that enjoys the freedom to be openly hateful, and really wouldn’t mind a male-dominated white Christian autocracy.

The far right has free-speeched their way into fascism, and Fuentes is loving every minute of it.

So now this remaining vestige of traditional conservatives — including senators such as Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell — is faced with a painful reckoning. Many mainstream Republicans for years ignored the racism and antisemitism creeping into the party. They can’t anymore. It has grown into a beast ready to consume its maker.

Will they let this takeover happen, call for conversation over condemnation to the glee of Fuentes and his followers?

Or will they find the courage to be not just true Republicans, but true Americans, and declare non-negotiable for their party that most basic of American ideals: We do not tolerate hate?

Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein” didn’t exactly wow audiences and critics when it premiered at the Venice Film Festival, and when it landed at the Telluride Film Festival a day later for a pair of late-night screenings, the response was even more muted. Leaving Colorado, the airport gate was full of hushed conversations between people registering their disappointment with the movie.

“Frankenstein,” the talk went, had three strikes against it — a plodding story, computer-generated imagery that looked appalling and was employed to often ridiculous effect and, outside of Jacob Elordi’s affecting turn as the monster, acting that seemed wildly excessive (Oscar Isaac) or hopelessly lost (Mia Goth). In short: a mess.

But then “Frankenstein” traveled to the Toronto, a city Del Toro regards as his “second home,” and finished as runner-up to “Hamnet” for the festival’s People’s Choice Award. Now playing in a theatrical limited release ahead of its Nov. 7 Netflix premiere, the movie has found favor with the filmmaker’s devoted fan base, selling out theaters, including dates at Netflix’s renovated Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood, where admission lines wrapped around the block. And some prominent critics, including my colleague Amy Nicholson, have written some thoughtful reviews of the movie, praising Del Toro’s lifelong passion project. Amy calls it the “best movie of his career.”

So in this update to my post-festival Oscar power rankings for best picture, you’ll find “Frankenstein,” a movie that’s hard to place on this list but harder still to ignore. Previous rankings are parenthetically noted.

Falling out of the rankings since September: “A House of Dynamite,” “Jay Kelly”

10. ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ (Unranked)

A scene from 2022’s “Avatar: The Way of Water.”

(20th Century Studios)

The last “Avatar” movie grossed $2.3 billion and, yes, earned an Oscar nomination for best picture. Yet I’m hard-pressed to find anyone who’s truly excited about devoting half a day to see the next installment, which clocks in at 3 hours and 12 minutes. Just because the first two movies were nominated doesn’t mean this one will be. But underestimating James Cameron’s ability to connect with audiences — and awards voters — seems dumb. So here we are, No. 10, sight (still) unseen.

9. ‘Bugonia’ (10)

Emma Stone in “Bugonia.”

(Atsushi Nishijima / Focus Features)

Better than “Kinds of Kindness” but not nearly the triumph of “Poor Things,” this is mid Yorgos Lanthimos — off-putting, punishing and misanthropic but also featuring another showcase for Emma Stone’s bold, creative energy. There are a number of movies that could displace it as a nominee. Park Chan-wook’s “No Other Choice” offers a more humane — and funnier — look at ugly things people can do when desperate. But I’ll stick with “Bugonia” for now. After all, how many movies inspire people to shave their heads for a ticket?

8. “Frankenstein” (Unranked)

Oscar Isaac in “Frankenstein.”

(Ken Woroner / Netflix)

Netflix has four movies arriving during the awards season window — the meditative stunner “Train Dreams,” Katherine Bigelow’s riveting, ticking-clock thriller “A House of Dynamite,” the George Clooney meta-charmer “Jay Kelly” and “Frankenstein.” (That’s how I’d rank them in terms of quality.) One of these movies will be nominated. Maybe two. At this moment, nobody, including the awards team at Netflix, knows which one(s) it will be.

7. ‘It Was Just an Accident’ (7)

Mohamad Ali Elyasmehr, left, Madj Panahi and Hadis Pakbaten in “It Was Just an Accident.”

(Neon)

Jafar Panahi’s Palme d’Or-winning thriller possesses a withering critique of the cruelty and corruption of an authoritarian regime, combined with a blistering sense of humor. Panahi (“The Circle,” “Taxi”) has been imprisoned by the Iranian government many times for criticizing the government, and his courage has been celebrated for its spirit of artistic resistance. He has been a ubiquitous presence on the festival and awards circuit this year, eager to share both the movie and his story. As the Oscars have thoroughly embraced international movies the last several years, “It Was Just an Accident” feels like it’s on solid ground.

6. ‘Wicked: For Good’ (6)

Ariana Grande, left, and Cynthia Erivo in “Wicked: For Good.”

(Giles Keyte / Universal Pictures)

An academy member recently expressed some reservations about this movie to me — not about the sequel itself, but about the prospect of seeing stars Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande embark on another tear-soaked promotional tour. Whatevs. The first “Wicked” movie earned 10 Oscar nominations, winning for production design and costumes. With the added casting category, the sequel might just surpass that number.

5. ‘Marty Supreme’ (8)

Timothée Chalamet in “Marty Supreme.”

(A24)

Josh Safdie’s wildly entertaining, over-caffeinated portrait of a single-minded ping-pong player premiered on its home turf at the New York Film Festival and people left the Lincoln Center’s Alice Tully Hall caught up in the rapture of the movie’s delirium. It might be the movie that wins Timothée Chalamet his Oscar, though he’ll have to go through Leonardo DiCaprio to collect the trophy.

4. ‘Sentimental Value’ (3)

Stellan Skarsgård, left, and Renate Reinsve in “Sentimental Value.”

(Kasper Tuxen / Neon)

Neon won best picture last year with Sean Baker’s “Anora,” and it’s not unreasonable to think it could run it back with “Sentimental Value,” Joachim Trier’s piercing drama about a family reckoning with the past and wondering if reconciliation is possible — or even desired. The three actors cast in familial roles — Stellan Skarsgård, playing a legendary director angling for a comeback, and Renate Reinsve and Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas as his daughters — are excellent, and Elle Fanning has a choice role as an A-list actor who becomes entangled in the family drama. And like “Anora,” this movie ends on a perfect, transcendent note. That counts for a lot.

3. ‘Sinners’ (4)

Michael B. Jordan in “Sinners.”

(Eli Ade / Warner Bros. Pictures)

“Sinners” made a lot of noise when it was released in April and, months later, belongs in any conversation about the year’s best movie. The job now is to remind voters of its worth at events like the American Cinematheque’s upcoming “Sinners” screening with filmmaker Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan. With the level of its craft, it could score a dozen or more nominations, with only “One Battle After Another” as a threat to best that count.

2. ‘Hamnet’ (2)

Paul Mescal in “Hamnet.”

(Focus Features)

Since its tear-inducing Telluride premiere, Chloé Zhao’s tender portrait of love and loss and the cathartic power of art has been hitting regional film festivals, racking up audience awards and proving that people love a good cry. Stock up on tissues now for the film’s theatrical release later this month.

1. ‘One Battle After Another’ (1)

Leonardo DiCaprio in “One Battle After Another.”

(Warner Bros. Pictures)

The Gotham Awards did away with its budget cap a couple of years ago, allowing indie-spirited studio movies like “One Battle After Another” to clean up and, one supposes, the show’s sales team to move more tables at its ceremony. It was no secret that Paul Thomas Anderson’s angry, urgent epic would score well with film critics groups. (Panels of critics vote for the Gothams.) It’s just a question of how many dinners Anderson will have to eventually attend for a movie that has easily become the most widely seen film of his career.

Of course Luka Doncic made the one that didn’t count.

On a frigid shooting night when the star guard made just one three-pointer on 11 attempts, Doncic swished a 40-footer on a dead ball that elicited a roar from the Crypto.com Arena.

He instead made his impact in other ways.

Doncic overcame his bad shooting to still collect his first triple-double of the season, notching 29 points, 10 assists and 11 rebounds in the Lakers’ 130-120 victory over the Miami Heat on Sunday. Fellow guard Austin Reaves was also struggling with his shot, making just four of 14 three-point attempts, but rallied for 26 points and 11 assists to just three turnovers.

Although their stars slogged through concurrent off nights, the Lakers (5-2) still shot 50.5% from the field. They tallied 33 assists to 11 turnovers. They won their third consecutive game.

“We did a lot of really good things and it could have been even better if me and Luka would’ve made a shot,” Reaves deadpanned. “But supporting cast and everybody around that played really well.”

Forward Jake LaRavia, who turns 24 on Tuesday, scored in double digits for the third consecutive game off the bench, finishing with 25 points — two shy of his season high — and eight rebounds. He’s averaged 21.7 points per game in the last three games.

Doncic, who missed three games with minor finger and leg injuries, scored 40 points in each of his first three games this season. Only Wilt Chamberlain had ever started a season with three consecutive 40-point games. But Doncic was happy to sacrifice the scoring streak Sunday.

“We get a win,” Doncic said, “[it] doesn’t matter how many I scored.”

Doncic and Reaves struggled in the first quarter, shooting a combined two for seven from the field. Yet the Lakers still led by seven as the star duo combined for eight assists.

Center Jaxson Hayes was one of the main beneficiaries in that span, scoring 11 points on five-of-five shooting. He had a ferocious one-handed dunk off a Doncic assist that got Hayes so amped up that he head-butted the basket stanchion in celebration. He sank his first three-pointer since March 27, 2023, stepping confidently into a shot that put the Lakers up 23-13 and forced the Heat to call an early timeout.

Hayes finished with 15 points and five rebounds in his first start of the year as Deandre Ayton was held out because of back spasms. Ayton’s back flared up during the Lakers’ win in Memphis on Friday, causing him to sit out the entire second half. He was available to return in the fourth quarter, coach JJ Redick said after the game, but with the Lakers feeding off Hayes and Jarred Vanderbilt at center, the team didn’t want to risk further injury.

The Heat (3-3) finished the third quarter on a 20-7 run to pull within four points heading into the fourth quarter. Former UCLA star Jaime Jaquez Jr., playing in front of his hometown crowd, cut the lead to two with an emphatic one-handed put-back dunk 58 seconds in the fourth quarter. A hush fell over the Lakers crowd.

But Reaves helped quell the comeback effort.

He stumbled while trying to dribble behind his legs, but recovered to shoot a fadeaway mid-range jumper with 1.6 seconds left in the shot clock that put the Lakers up by six with 5:13 remaining in the fourth quarter. Less than 20 seconds later, Reaves threw a lob from just inside mid-court to a soaring LaRavia, who brought the crowd to its feet with a two-handed dunk.

The novel “Violet Project” aims to test whether success in politics is achieved through ethical values ​​or pragmatic approaches. The project is the product of a philosophical debate between three old friends—idealist academic Dr. Thomas Wan, morally committed businessman John Mendoza, and results-oriented car salesman Christopher Hamilton—who meet after many years at an Orlando restaurant. The tension between Hamilton’s assertion that “in politics, all means are justified” and Mendoza’s belief that “ethical values ​​pay off in the long run” will be tested through an unusual social experiment devised by Wan.

Dr. Wan chooses two of his former students from the University of Central Florida, James Frank and Gary Metros, to implement the project. These two young people are polar opposites in character. Ambitious, unruly, and down-to-earth James Frank is offered a campaign in Crystal Lake, Illinois, where he challenges ethical boundaries. Meanwhile, honest, introverted, and idealistic Gary Metros is asked to run for office in Southaven, Mississippi, adhering to ethical principles. Both accept the offer in exchange for a lucrative salary and a potential $150,000 prize.

James Frank’s Crystal Lake Adventure: The Triumph of Pragmatism

James takes quite ambitious steps as he launches his campaign. First, he brings on former mayor Roy Jimenez, who struggles with alcoholism, as an advisor. Roy’s sordid political experience will prove an invaluable resource for James. With the addition of seasoned strategist Michael Benson, a campaign driven by dirty tactics under the guise of “honesty” despite Crystal Lake’s calm and uneventful demeanor is waged.

James’s team employs various manipulation tactics throughout the election process. After Roy discovers that incumbent mayor George William has a secret relationship with a Ukrainian immigrant and aids illegal immigrants, he blackmails him into withdrawing his candidacy and directing his supporters to James. Furthermore, other independent candidates, Brian Harris and Aaron Rivera, are manipulated with money and personal accounts to James’s advantage, forcing them to withdraw just before the election.

James faces a difficult time in a televised debate due to his inexperience. Despite being outmatched by his rivals (Warren Collins and George William), thanks to the team’s backroom operations, he wins the Crystal Lake mayoral election with 6,179 votes. This victory is presented as proof that pragmatic approaches to politics can work in the short term.

Gary Metros’s Southaven Adventure: Constructive Change with Ethical Values

Gary, however, pursues a completely different strategy. He works with a professional team consisting of sociologist Dr. Lawrence Travis and urban planner Dr. Nelson Vincent. They act in accordance with Travis’s philosophy of “reviving social happiness and unity by creating a common ideal and enemy.”

Gary’s campaign in Southaven quickly evolved into a comprehensive socio-economic development project. First, he took steps to reduce unemployment by establishing a startup center. Then, he strengthened the city’s sense of belonging by establishing the New Southaven sports club and encouraging residents to attend matches frequently. His campaign, which is driven by public engagement, transparency, and positive promises, established him as a trusted leader in the eyes of Southaven voters.

Gary’s uncompromising approach to ethical values ​​led him to achieve long-term and sustainable success, and he won the Southaven mayoral election with 12,127 votes. This victory demonstrates that adhering to ethical values ​​in politics can also lead to success eventually.

Final Meeting and Project Evaluation

After both candidates are successful, they meet with the project’s funders at a luxurious restaurant in Orlando. Dr. Thomas Wan explains the criteria established at the project’s inception: the winner will be the one receiving the most votes and will receive a $150,000 prize.

James Frank is declared the official winner because he received a higher percentage of votes than Gary Metros. This result supports Christopher Hamilton’s thesis that “the end justifies the means.” However, Wan also emphasizes that both young men performed exceptionally well.

The novel’s finale presents a profound moral question. While James’s victory is based on blackmail, manipulation, and dirty tactics, Gary’s victory is based on a model that is sustainable, strengthens society, and leaves a more solid legacy in the long term. “Project Violet” demonstrates that short-term gain in politics can be achieved through pragmatism, but true lasting success and social trust can be built through ethical values.

Both young politicians have begun their new careers, but which of them will truly be considered successful will be revealed later in their political careers. The novel concludes by inviting the reader to consider the true meaning of “winning.”