Donald Trump, Revenge Junkie

President Donald Trump at the White House on Sunday. Jose Luis Magana/AP

Almost a decade ago, when Donald Trump was making his first serious bid to become president, I thought a valuable exercise would be to review the various speeches he had delivered over the years on the secrets of his success. After becoming a fake-reality television celebrity, Trump cashed in on the lecture circuit, booking high-paid speaking gigs around the world. The audiences were filled with people looking to pocket a piece of advice they could use in their pursuit of achievement and fortune. Realizing that, Trump often talked about the practices that led to his supposed triumphs. After watching several of these performances, I noticed he often made the same point. His No. 1 rule for being a successful businessperson was simple: revenge.

In these speeches and public talks, Trump repeatedly expressed his fondness for retribution. In 2011, he addressed the National Achievers Congress in Sydney, Australia, and noted there were lessons not taught in business school that successful people must know. At the top of the list was this: “Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it.”

In a 2007 speech, he said that his top business strategy was called “Get Even.” He explained, “This isn’t your typical business speech. Get even. What this is a real business speech. You know in all fairness to Wharton, I love ’em, but they teach you some stuff that’s a lot of bullshit. When you’re in business, you get even with people that screw you. And you screw them 15 times harder. And the reason is not only because of the person that you’re after, but other people watch what’s happening. Other people see you and they see how you react.”

I found many other instances when he included a riff like that in a public presentation. In a 2013 tweet, he shared the same sentiment: “‘Always get even. When you are in business, you need to get even with people who screw you.’ – Think Big.” The following year he tweeted this quote: “‘Revenge is sweet and not fattening.’ – Alfred Hitchcock.”

Prior to the 2016 election, I wrote an article noting that “revenge seems to be embedded in his DNA” and wondered how Trump would seek vengeance should he lose that election. That question, it turned out, didn’t have to be answered. Through his first presidential term, Trump sought retribution by firing FBI Director Jim Comey and lashing out at aides who defied him. And every so often during those years, I penned a piece reminding readers that Trump’s three top psychological motivations appeared to be revenge, revenge, and revenge. Yet Trump’s maniacal obsession with payback never became much of a political liability for him. (It’s possible he first ran for president to get even with then-President Barack Obama for having mocked Trump at a fancy Washington dinner in 2011.)

Now that he’s back in the White House—after his humiliating 2020 defeat—Trump has embarked on a revenge-a-thon that goes beyond what we might have expected even from a vengeance junkie. He has removed security protection from past aides who pissed him off—including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mark Milley—exposing them to serious danger. Angry at the National Archives for its role in the stolen documents case in which his Mar-a-Lago home was raided and he was indicted, Trump booted out the leadership of that agency. He moved to revoke the security clearance of a private Washington, DC, lawyer who represented the whistleblower at the center of the first impeachment of Trump. He did the same concerning Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and others.

Trump has tried to freeze out media outlets that draw his ire, particularly the Associated Press, which would not follow his lead and refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” FBI officials and Justice Department prosecutors who worked on the January 6 investigation—which led to the convictions of more than 1,000 Trump supporters who rioted at the US Capitol—have been dismissed or demoted. And Trump’s antagonistic treatment of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy—calling him a “dictator,” blaming him for the war that Russia launched, and berating him on live television during a White House meeting—is likely rooted, in part, in Trump holding him and Ukraine responsible for that first impeachment. (During the infamous call with Zelenskyy that led to the impeachment, Trump referred to a bonkers conspiracy theory that held that Ukraine, not Russia, was involved in the computer hacking during the 2016 election that was blamed on Moscow.)

Trump’s vengeance crusade is not likely to end anytime soon. It’s not far-fetched to imagine tax audits or criminal prosecutions targeting his foes and detractors. None of these need to have a basis in reality.

Look at a little-noticed action Trump took last week. He issued an executive order that targeted a prominent, DC-based law firm, Perkins Coie. It called on government agencies to withdraw national security clearances from any of its lawyers and to terminate any contracts they have with the firm, and it instructed all federal contractors to disclose any business they do with Perkins Coie. The executive order also told departments to limit access to federal government buildings for Perkins Coie employees and to refrain from hiring people who work at the firm. The order slammed Perkins Coie for running a diversity program and instructed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether large law practices are operating DEI programs that discriminate.

This was a sweeping and unprecedented step that reeked of revenge. The reason for it was spelled out in the first paragraph:

The dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP (“Perkins Coie”) has affected this country for decades. Notably, in 2016 while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false “dossier” designed to steal an election. This egregious activity is part of a pattern. Perkins Coie has worked with activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws, including those requiring voter identification.

It was all about the Trump-Russia investigation.

With this order, Trump was pushing a false narrative. Perkins Coie did represent Clinton during the 2016 campaign, and one of its lawyers at the time, Marc Elias, did retain Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm, to investigate Trump. Fusion GPS subsequently hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, to examine Trump’s ties to Russia—an obvious move, given Trump’s long and curious history of positive remarks about Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin. But this was not part of a scheme to manufacture false information to “steal” an election. At the time, Russia was hacking Democrats and leaking material to hurt Clinton and help Trump, and Trump was aiding and abetting Moscow’s assault by denying it was happening. This was highly suspicious.

Trump has never acknowledged his 2016 victory was aided by Putin, and he has tried to deflect attention by focusing on the Steele dossier, which did not become public until after the election. (I was the first journalist to report on the existence of this collection of memos, with a story posted on October 31, 2016, which revealed the FBI was investigating its allegations of Trump-Russia ties. But I did not disclose the specific and unsubstantiated details in the dossier, and this news did not impact the election results.)

The Steele dossier was published by BuzzFeed shortly before Trump took office in 2017, and the unconfirmed allegation that he had consorted with prostitutes in Moscow (the pee tape!) and provided the Russians with blackmail material that could be used against him was splashed across the internet. It was an embarrassing moment for Trump and a reminder that his electoral victory was tainted by Russia’s covert intervention. Since then, he has nurtured a massive grudge. And now he is striking back at the law firm once connected to this episode. (Elias hasn’t worked there in years.) A week earlier, Trump signed a similar executive order targeting another law firm, Covington & Burling, which provided pro bono assistance to Jack Smith, the special counsel who investigated Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2016 election and his alleged pilfering of top-secret documents.

Trump’s assault on these two law firms is alarming. With these actions and other recent moves, he has demonstrated he is eager to abuse the vast power of the federal government to settle his personal and political scores. This is not the least bit shocking. Just ask the guy who has been writing for years about his addiction to retribution.

There was never any question that Trump would seek revenge should he return to the White House. Now that he has repeatedly acted in accordance with his “get even” rule, Trump critics, as the New York Times reported in a front-page story, are keeping their mouths shut. This includes Republican senators and House members who fear Trump’s political threats, as well as physical threats from his extremist supporters. Others on his hit list ought to be nervous.

Trump’s crusade to screw his foes is not just a matter of hardball politics. It is creating an atmosphere of intimidation and fear within American politics. And it will corrupt the government. Imagine an FBI agent, a Justice Department prosecutor, or Securities and Exchange Commission investigator who comes across possible wrongdoing committed by Trump, a Trump family member, a Trump donor, a Trump business associate, or any Trump ally, foreign or domestic. You’d have to be crazy to pursue the case. You’re five years from retirement, you have a mortgage, a kid or two in college. Doing your job and initiating an inquiry would likely end your career. Better to find a drug dealer, or a Democrat, to focus on

Trump’s campaign of vengeance will stifle opposition from some quarters and protect him and his crew from accountability. His lust for payback is obviously the product of his twisted soul. But for Trump it is also a valuable political tool. A wannabe autocrat who can intimidate would-be detractors and insulate himself from investigation is much closer to the power he craves.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

There’s too much to cover these days. Too many outrages are emerging from the Trump-Musk administration and its war on democratic governance and decency for the media to keep up with. Big stories seem to come and go in nanoseconds, as ever-shortening news cycles never stop churning. Each Sunday, the New York Times runs a page listing all the significant actions and statements of the Trump administration of the past week. The most recent roster totaled 57 stories. I would bet the mortgage that no one—not even the most devoted newspaper reader or obsessive cable news viewer—would be familiar with every item. Such as this one: The Trump administration issued a directive to eliminate positions in the US military in which people work to prevent civilian casualties from airstrikes and other military operations.

Sunday’s list missed at least one major outrage: Trump threatened the Palestinians in Gaza with genocide. In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump warned Hamas to release all the hostages or “THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY.” This statement received a dose of media coverage and did make the New York Times' end-of-the-week list. But the newspaper, like other news outlets, did not cover Trump’s post accurately. The Times reported it this way: “Warned Hamas militants to immediately release all the hostages held in Gaza or face death.” But Trump’s threat went beyond Hamas. He addressed the “People of Gaza” and declared, “A beautiful Future awaits, but not if you hold Hostages. If you do, you are DEAD!”

This certainly could be read as a threat to wipe out the civilian population of Gaza, if the hostages are not released. That sounds like genocide.

So much went flying by this week. Here’s another outrage—less outrageous than a threat to commit genocide, but still notable. On Thursday, Trump signed a proclamation marking National Consumer Protection Week that stated that “consumer rights are a cornerstone of American freedom” and that the Trump administration was renewing “our commitment to protecting the American consumer.” This was ludicrous. Trump and Musk basically shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Board, which in the last 15 years has helped consumers recover $21 billion from rapacious financial firms that have screwed their customers. More absurd, this proclamation boasted that the Trump administration has protected consumers by taking “action to halt aggressive regulatory overreach that has stifled the growth of cryptocurrency.” This was Orwellian nonsense: Trump claiming he is defending consumers by weakening safeguards that prevent crypto firms from fleecing the public.

What’s been especially hard to track is all the ongoing corruption of the Trump-Musk gang. From crypto-grift to contracts for Musk’s companies, there’s been a tsunami of sleaze. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tried to sum it all up during a Senate floor speech. It took him 28 minutes. It’s worth a watch. I have yet to see any media outlet match his completeness.

To get a taste, look at the chart Murphy displayed to make it easier to follow along. And remember, this is just what we know, not all that has happened.

Jay Bhattacharya ought to thank Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The anti-vax conspiracy theorist whom Trump picked to head the Department of Health and Human Services drew so much opposition from the public health community and Democrats that there was not much left for Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor of medicine and economics, chosen by Trump (presumably with Kennedy’s input) to run the National Institutes of Health. During his confirmation hearing, he faced a few tough questions, as he called for new research to examine whether there’s a link between vaccines and autism (a matter most scientists considered settled) and refused to address the Trump-Musk effort to slash the NIH budget and funds for medical research facilities. Yet no Republican senator has signaled he’s a nay on Bhattacharya. And there has not been much public opposition to his appointment.

But there should be. Bhattacharya, as I wrote recently, blew the call on the most significant public health crisis in the past century. At the start of the Covid pandemic, he declared it was “likely” that the outbreak would be of a “limited scale” and cause 20,000 to 40,000 deaths, not the million or more then predicted by public health officials. (Covid deaths have so far totaled 1.2 million.) Propelled by this misguided view, Bhattacharya strongly opposed countermeasures advocated by government officials and public health experts, such as lockdowns and social distancing. Instead, he pushed for herd immunity through mass infection, with a focus on sequestering particularly vulnerable populations, such as older Americans. Public health organizations declared this approach dangerous and unworkable. Given how wrong Bhattacharya was about the lethality of Covid, there’s plenty of reason to wonder whether his strategy of herd immunity, if adopted, would have turned out to be disastrous.

What’s more worrisome is that Bhattacharya refuses to acknowledge he was way off on his estimate of Covid deaths. Regular readers of this newsletter might recall that last December I got into a public spat with him, when I noted on X that he had dramatically misjudged the pandemic, and Elon Musk chimed in to defend Bhattacharya. Both Bhattacharya and Musk falsely claimed he had said at the time that Covid deaths would fall between 40,000 and 4 million. He had not. Bhattacharya had clearly stated that the lower figure was far more probable and, thus, there was no need to overreact. His unwillingness to admit his error is troubling, considering he will be managing the world’s largest funder of biomedical research and oversee a wide range of scientific research.

Digging further into Bhattacharya’s background, I recently discovered that during Covid Bhattacharya became an adviser to a South African group that denied that Covid was a pandemic and that pushed a conspiracy theory that Covid and climate change are “fabricated global crises” orchestrated by elites to implement “centralized control.” And when vaccines were introduced, this outfit insisted vaccination was “unnecessary” and “dangerous.” This suggests that Bhattacharya’s contrarian nature can cloud his judgment and land him in bizarre company. Again, not a good trait for an NIH director. This alarming association did not come up during his confirmation hearing.

Within the large group of Trump’s disturbing appointments, Bhattacharya hardly stands out. But by placing him in charge of a government agency that is essential for our collective health and well-being, Trump threatens us all. This appointment deserves much more attention.

This is Gavin Newsom. I’m going to be unfair. I’m going to write about a podcast without listening to it—that is, without listening to the whole thing.

For a while, I’ve believed that California Gov. Gavin Newsom could make a fine Democratic presidential contender. Last year, when it became clear that Joe Biden was not up to the task of a reelection bid, I wondered whether Newsom might have a better shot than Vice President Kamala Harris. In any event, I thought he was a strong prospect down the road. I know he’s not that popular in California, one complaint being he’s too glib and not tethered tightly to a strong set of values. But he struck me as a savvy pol and a fierce fighter who could go toe-to-toe with the demagogues of MAGA.

Scratch that.

In the past six weeks, Newsom has not been at the forefront of the battle against the Trump-Musk crusade to oligarchify America. That’s understandable. He was pinned down by the horrendous fires in Los Angeles and the surrounding area. But his first post-fire initiative—a new podcast he’s hosting— indicates he’s not a solid vessel for Democratic hopes. The premiere, which dropped last week, shows that rather than confront the forces of fascism and kleptocracy that are running wild, Newsom wants to have a conversation with their adherents. His stated goal is to use this platform not to rally voters but to converse with people on all sides—to play nice. It’s fine to be polite and strive for constructive political dialogue. But you must be careful when it comes to platforming extremists. His podcast’s first booking—Charlie Kirk—was a sign Newsom is in this more for himself than the fight.

Kirk is a rabid pro-Trump fanboy whose Turning Point USA organization, which aims to win over young voters for Trump and MAGA, is a home base for the alt-right and Trump radicals. Kirk has posted racist comments on his X account, including this beaut: “"If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'" He dismissed the murder of George Floyd as unimportant, calling Floyd a “scumbag.” He has been leading fearmonger about critical race theory. He has hosted white nationalists on his own podcast. Kirk also has supported Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him. In a social media post, he bragged that Turning Point USA sent buses of “patriots” to Washington, DC, on January 6—and then deleted the tweet.

To be clear: Kirk is a racism-exploiting MAGA celebrity who joined Trump’s attempt to destroy American democracy. He’s a champion of a lying authoritarian who demonizes his opponents and perverts public discourse. And Newsom is delighted to yak it up with him. At the start of the podcast, Newsom opens with a “no BS” story, informing Kirk in gee-wiz fashion that Newsom’s 13-year-old son wanted to skip school that day so he could meet Kirk. The governor then tells Kirk, “You are making a damn dent…The reason you’re here is because people need to understand your success.”

I was able to listen to about 10 minutes of the 100-minute podcast. Newsom oohs-and-ahs as Kirk describes his political success in motivating young voters for Trump and slams Democrats for being in-a-bubble, college-educated elitists. Maybe at some point, the governor challenges Kirk. But I couldn’t bear to stick around for that. A Democrat who should be leading the opposition to Trump and Musk’s blitzkrieg was legitimizing one of its most prominent cheerleaders.

Newsom’s chummy interview with Kirk drew media attention because at some point Newsom remarks that the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports is “deeply unfair.” But the podcast is more revealing of Newsom’s transactionalism. He handed Kirk—a racism-spouting foe of democracy—a publicity windfall because he thought that would make him look like a cool, open-minded guy who can chat it up with the other side. Kirk probably benefitted more than Newsom from this encounter—an indication the governor is not as sly an operator as he thinks he is.

Silo, Season 2. The essential ingredient for science fiction is the suspension of disbelief. Can a spaceship truly fly faster than the speed of light? Can alien life forms in a galaxy far, far away really speak English? And how can giant sandworms speed through the ground faster than a Maserati? The key to good sci-fi and fantasy is to make sure bothersome questions do not distract from a gripping tale. One TV series that nails this is Apple TV+’s Silo.

Now in its second season, the show presents a world several hundred years in the future in which 10,000 people live in an underground bunker of 144 levels, with the outside environment apparently so toxic that any encounter with it leads to quick death. Something bad happened a long time ago, much of humanity was annihilated, and survivors ended up in this subterranean tube. Worse, about 140 years earlier than the present timeline of the show, during a rebellion, much of the silo’s history and much of the knowledge retained from the Before Time were erased. Now the silo’s inhabitants are looking for answers—what’s out there? is it really dangerous? what the hell happened?—and they want to know why the folks in charge are not being straightforward with them. This fuels a burgeoning uprising, with much of the story centered on Juliette Nichols (Rebecca Ferguson), an engineer from the lower (in location and status) levels who’s a whiz at keeping the generator going. When she starts pursuing the truth, the foundations of the silo are shaken.

The show is engaging, especially for how it depicts this gritty, dystopic, self-contained society. And this is where the suspension of disbelief comes in. Much of the silo’s workings are explained. Its greenhouse produces food. A filtration system provides clean air. Procreation and the population level are controlled by the government. Everything that can be recycled or repurposed is recycled or repurposed. This world makes sense on its own terms. Unless, of course, if you really start to think about it. How do they get new lightbulbs? Why is the water supply uncontaminated and not a problem anyone ever thinks about? Is there an endless supply of replacement parts for the generator and other crucial machinery? Yet none of that matters. This is such an intriguing world that you want to see how people behave in it.

In the second season, which came out recently, Nichols—spoiler alert—leaves the silo and discovers it is one of many. She manages to make it to another silo that a few decades earlier was struck by a calamity that killed almost all its resident, and she appears to be stranded there. There are a few survivors (with one played by the always wonderful Steve Zahn), and what she learns from them convinces her that she must quickly return to her own silo to prevent a similar disaster. She’s an inventive and ingenious person, a veritable MacGyver, who can rig together any device or contraption she needs. But it’s not easy fixing a broken-down silo to reach the equipment she requires to get back home.

Silo is a good yarn that explores power dynamics in human society. (Bravo for Tim Robbins, who plays the conniving leader of Nichols’ silo.) I do have a complaint. The plot advances slowly. Thus, the pace of the reveals is a bit infuriating. There are so many secrets—large and small—in Silo. To the creators’ credit, you ache to know them. But there’s a fine line between suspenseful teasing and aggravating annoyance. Also, at the end of season 2, there’s a flashback to present-day Washington, DC, and a slice of explanation about how humans ended up stuck in these silos. This episode seems to promise that the next season will reveal what happened. My worry is that this backstory will be tough to believe. Perhaps it might be best to not tell us how and why the silos came to be. I can suspend disbelief about a world that doesn’t exist. It’s tougher to do so about one that does.