Welp. President Donald Trump is suing the New York Times. Am I surprised? No. Is the legal fight gonna go anywhere? Perhaps not — it should be thrown out, in Stephen L. Carter’s opinion. But that’s not the only battle he’s inserting himself into. In a letter to NATO members, Trump said he’s ready to “do sanctions” against Russia — a potential game-changer in the war in Ukraine, which, in the words of the president, “is not TRUMP’S WAR ... it is Biden’s and Zelenskyy’s WAR.” Marc Champion says “it’s hard to know whether Trump is genuine, or by setting the bar so high is just looking for another way to avoid responsibility for his de facto abandonment of Ukraine.” Meanwhile in Gaza, Israel launched a major ground offensive, which the Bloomberg editorial board has argued could prove disastrous. Between two wars and the upcoming battle to retain control of the House and Senate, the president has a lot on his plate. Does he really need to pick a fight with the Times? “It should be exceptionally difficult for those who serve in government to sue their critics; for presidents, it should be hardest of all,” Stephen writes. After reading the lengthy complaint, which seeks $15 billion in damages, Stephen found very little rationale in the president’s litany of grievances: “Nearly everything cited is either fair comment, opinion, or for other reasons not actionable.” On a day that the president sues the press, I find it ironic that David M. Drucker has written a rather favorable analysis of how “Trump is not as unpopular as his opponents think.” Not getting a lawsuit with that one, phew!! In all seriousness, reading Trump’s complaints, you’d have thought his reputation was toast — and it is in some circles — but David says his overall approval rating is hovering around the mid-40s, which is not too shabby, especially in such a polarized political climate. “There is zero doubt that Trump is in a better position now than he was at this point in his first presidency,” CNN polling expert Harry Enten told David. Even so, David says “this November’s key off-year contests and the 2026 midterm elections may not go well for the Republican Party; historically, the president’s party loses ground in both. But it’s not necessarily a shellacking, or a thumping, in the making.” Trump appears to understand his party’s precarious situation. On Tuesday afternoon, he announced the GOP’s newfangled “Midterm Convention,” which sounds like a Temu version of the RNC to me. Alas, such an event would need to compete for airtime with the many wars going on. All This Drama Over One Meeting? | The one mildly amusing aspect of Trump’s crusade against Fed Governor Lisa Cook is that all this drama has boiled down to a single meeting, which feels like an absurd use of legal resources and time. I know, I know — her job is on the line, as is the entire concept of central bank independence. But when the DC Circuit Court of Appeals denied the White House’s bid to fire Cook before today’s meeting, the big takeaway wasn’t any of that: it was simply that she could attend the big rate-cut meetup. Now that we know she’s attending, John Authers wishes he could be a fly on the wall for a meeting that “had an element of suspense like few others in history. With only hours to go, there was genuine uncertainty over who would vote. This drama was never going to have more than a minimal impact on the outcome — but the longer term implications are profound,” he writes. The other variable was Stephen Miran, who was appointed late Monday. Having previously insulted his new colleagues, one imagines his first day on the job was no walk in the park. As for Cook, her governorship is far from secure. After the DC Circuit’s rejection, the administration intends to take the case to the Supreme Court. If the justices want to preserve the Fed’s agency, Noah Feldman says they “should recognize this challenge to the court’s authority for what it is and deny the request.” Bonus Fed Day Reading: Stagflation is the Fed’s worst nightmare, and it could be on the way. — Bloomberg editorial board |