Tuesday, August 4, 2026

Park Service Delivers Brutal Verdict on Trump’s “Triumphal Arch”

Park Service Delivers Brutal Verdict on Trump’s “Triumphal Arch”

https://newrepublic.com/post/213883/park-service-trump-arch-verdict 

Park Service Delivers Brutal Verdict on Trump’s “Triumphal Arch”

The National Park Service is warning that Trump’s proposed “triumphal arch” would ruin just about everything near it.

An artist’s rendering of President Donald Trump’s planned Triumphal Arch
Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg/Getty Images
An artist’s rendering of President Donald Trump’s planned Triumphal Arch

President Trump’s giant “triumphal arch” project is not only going to be big and ugly, it’ll also be in your way.

According to a recent assessment by the National Park Service, the proposed arch design will irrevocably detract from Washington, D.C.’s carefully planned views and historic properties. The assessment lists, in detail, 37 significant historic sites in the capital city at risk for adverse effects.

“Adverse effects” means “you’re building something that will irreversibly harm the experience in these other locations,” National Parks Conservation Association vice president for government affairs Ed Stierli told The New York Times.

“These adverse effects are intentional and inherent in the design of the arch; it is intended to dominate the surrounding landscape,” Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer Roger W. Kitchen wrote in a letter to the Park Service in June.

The Memorial Avenue Corridor—the stretch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, which includes Robert E. Lee’s historic Arlington House and the Kennedy Gravesite—is most at risk, as the 250-foot triumphal arch will alter and obstruct views from each site, the assessment explains.

“The entirety of the corridor forms a major component of the monumental core of Washington, D.C. and was conceived as both a ceremonial gateway to the nation’s Capital and a symbolic landscape commemorating national unity and reconciliation following the Civil War,” the document reads. “The bridge alignment and associated ceremonial landscape were intended to physically and symbolically unite North and South through a coordinated monumental composition extending across the Potomac River.”

And now there will be a big Trump shrine smack in the middle of it.

This latest Park Service assessment on the proposed project’s impact on the surrounding landscape is an essential step in the administration’s mission to receive final approval for construction from the National Capital Planning Commission.

As a federal undertaking, the arch project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which mandates an adverse effects assessment, but does not require any particular outcome or changes to the project. Instead, the assessment is “meant to get agencies to pause, consult experts and the public, and consider alternatives or design changes,” The New York Times’ Emily Badger explains.

There have been alternative designs proposed—smaller arches, which were not considered sufficiently “representative” of the 250-year American independence milestone, and alternative locations beyond the historic heart of the city—but the project is expected to move forward as originally planned.

Incidentally, the Park Service assessment comes as the Trump administration pushes to dramatically overhaul the process under which construction projects in historical areas are reviewed—a thinly veiled attempt to make it easier for Trump to redesign the nation’s capital in his own image. Under the proposed rules, “visual, atmospheric, or audible” adverse effects of building projects would be of no consequence, and federal agencies would be empowered to approve projects without the input of historical experts or the public.

Lindsey Graham’s Sister Goes Rogue Over Trump’s Biggest Pet Peeve

Senator Darline Graham is breaking with Donald Trump.

Senator Darline Graham Nordone walks in the Capitol
Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Darline Graham is planning to take her late brother Lindsey Graham’s public office in a very different direction.

The temporary lawmaker received Donald Trump’s coveted endorsement last month to represent South Carolinians in the upper chamber after her 71-year-old brother suddenly passed away from heart issues. In the weeks since, Graham has decided that her short-term placement could be permanent, tossing her hat in the ring to formally run for South Carolina’s vacant Senate seat.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday evening, the younger Graham revealed that her campaign and legislative priorities would not line up with her brother’s legacy—or even with the White House’s interests.

“Lindsey was focused on national security, and I know that’s important, but I will probably be focused more on affordability and what matters to families in South Carolina, the struggling families,” Graham explained.

“I know what it is to struggle from week to week, paycheck to paycheck,” she said, referring to her and her brother’s tumultuous childhood. “So definitely affordability.”

She noted that her “first priority” would be to “fight for South Carolina and … help President Trump achieve his agenda.”

Graham also mentioned that she would like to get the Russian sanctions bill “across the finish line” because it was “extremely important” to her departed brother.

A focus on affordability would surely win over Graham’s recently acquired constituents, but it would also highlight the Trump administration’s myriad failures in that department.

Affordability is the chief concern for Americans heading into the midterm elections, according to an April Gallup poll. In January, a New York Times/Siena poll found that 65 percent of American voters felt that a middle-class lifestyle was out of reach, while 77 percent said that a middle-class life was more difficult to attain than it was a generation before. All in all, a majority of Americans feel that they’ve been priced out of a broad range of necessities, including education, health care, and having a family.

Those sentiments have surely only been exacerbated in the months since. The cost of oil and gas has skyrocketed since the onset of the Iran war; utility bills have continued to climb; health insurance premiums have drastically outpaced the growth of employee paychecks; and homeownership seems like an increasingly unattainable dream due to low market availability and astronomical prices.

Meanwhile, the White House has repeatedly detached itself from efforts that would aid America’s middle and lower classes. Case in point: Trump’s decision last month to divorce his office from a bipartisan housing bill. Trump did so in yet another futile attempt to force through his unpopular voter ID bill, the SAVE America Act.

FIFA’s Infantino Desperately Seeks Trump’s Help to Save His Job

Gianni Infantino is in a tough place after his World Cup sell-off plan blew up in his face.

Donald Trump sits at his desk in the Oval Office as FIFA President Gianni Infantino speaks and Secretary of State Marco Rubio listens. (Both stand behind Trump.)
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio look on as FIFA president Gianni Infantino speaks during a meeting with the White House Task Force on the 2026 World Cup, on November 17, 2025.

After FIFA president Gianni Infantino’s plan to sell off a stake in the World Cup fell through due to heavy backlash, he tried to get in touch with President Trump.

The New York Post reports that Infantino attempted to call Trump over the weekend several times because he was worried about losing his job following an avalanche of negative press over his idea, which led to the European and North American soccer associations, UEFA and CONCACAF respectively, threatening to boycott all FIFA events. Unable to reach Trump, Infantino instead reportedly held a private call with Secretary of State Marco Rubio Monday morning, hoping to enlist help in staving off pressure to resign.

“He wanted to get online with the secretary and talk about how soccer can be a form of soft power for America,” an unnamed source told the Post. “But we all know that it is about job protection. It is not about anything else at this point.”

Infantino’s plan was to create a commercial entity for broadcasting, sponsorship, licensing, and ticketing rights, and he enlisted financial backing from Thrive Capital, an investment firm led by Josh Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The plan was immediately attacked as yet another example of decades-long FIFA corruption, which has only gotten worse under Trump.

Now, if Infantino keeps his job, it will be seen as Trump further intervening in international soccer and cementing the corrupt relationship between the two. The threat of a World Cup boycott from major countries apparently didn’t scare Infantino enough, because getting Trump’s help will only increase soccer fans’ anger.

Editor’s Pick:

“It’s Called TALENT”: Trump Trashes Paying Members of His Golf Club

Donald Trump bragged about winning a tournament at his own golf club.

Donald Trump puckers his lips and looks down
Aaron Schwartz/AFP/Getty Images

President Donald Trump has his eye on the ball—a golf ball, that is.

The president took to Truth Social Sunday to trash-talk his opponents at a championship tournament at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

“I won with a score of 70, and am so honored in that, unlike the rest of the field, I’m given very little time to practice, because I’m focused on many other things,” Trump wrote. “It’s called TALENT, and I have it, and they don’t!”

Putting aside the fact that Trump just insulted all of the people who pay him thousands of dollars a year for membership at his clubs, the president’s talent for golf has long been disputed. In his 2019 book Commander in Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump, veteran sportswriter Rick Reilly claimed that when it came to golf, Trump “cheats like a mafia accountant.”

In any case, Trump’s victory was seemingly undercut by the small crowd of attendees who turned up to watch him play. No wonder he had to take to social media to share a video of his final stroke.

Trump’s latest golf triumph brings to mind a quote by Emmet Hughes, a political speechwriter and aide to former Presider Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Hughes asserted that as an intellectual, Eisenhower “bestowed upon the games of golf and bridge all the enthusiasm and perseverance that he withheld from his books and ideas.”

Nothing could be truer about Trump, who just put out an open call for “unconventional” new ideas to end his war in Iran. Maybe that will give him more time to work on his golf game.

Kentucky Governor Issues Clear Warning to Mitch McConnell—and Trump

Governor Andy Beshear pointed out that McConnell’s prolonged absence is only hurting his own party.

Senator Mitch McConnell sits with this hands folded by his chin during a Senate committee hearing
Nathan Posner/Anadolu/Getty Images

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear is backing off threats to replace Senator Mitch McConnell, noting that the Republican’s extended absence would hurt his party all the same.

Beshear announced Monday that the August 3 deadline to call a special election to replace McConnell had “no legal impact” on the governor’s options should there be a Senate vacancy.

“Worth a reminder, right now, there’s one less vote for the SAVE Act, Trump’s war with Iran, or the potential replacement of a SCOTUS justice,” Beshear wrote in a statement on X.

Beshear never had the power to force McConnell out of his seat.

Under Section 152 of the Kentucky state Constitution, McConnell needed to resign at least three months ahead of the vote in order to call a special election. Kentucky’s law on Senate vacancies, House Bill 622, eliminated the governor’s ability to appoint interim replacements for vacant U.S. Senate seats. That law remains legally untested.

Beshear has repeatedly called on McConnell to justify his absence from Congress or to step down in time for Kentucky voters to choose a replacement. Now, the Kentucky governor’s arguing that missing votes might be a punishment in and of itself for the Republican Party’s astounding lack of transparency.

Over the weekend, Beshear came under fire from Republicans for missing Kentucky’s annual Fancy Farm picnic. The Kentucky governor called them out for their obvious double standard.

“Funny how the Republicans are all mad I missed one political event to watch my son play baseball. But no outrage that Mitch McConnell has been nowhere to be seen for 50 days,” he wrote on X Saturday.

MAGA Turns Against DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin

The homeland security secretary has caught MAGA’s ire after appearing too friendly with Democrats.

DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin stands at a podium
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is on thin ice.

It’s only been four months since Mullin took over from Kristi Noem as head of DHS, and influential MAGA allies are already calling for him to be replaced.

The latest surge of anger came Saturday after Mullin delivered remarks about immigration reform at the National Governors Association Summer Meeting in Oklahoma City. In the meeting, Mullin made the mistake of distinguishing between immigrants pursuing legal status and those who aren’t, calling for changes to work visas and broader immigration reform to address American labor shortages.

A few hours later, Mullin attempted to walk back his statement on X, posting “NO amnesty for illegal aliens. Ever. We are a nation of laws. If you are illegally present in the United States of America—you will be detained and deported. Period.”

But the damage was already done.

Influential voices on the right quickly began attacking Mullin for being weak on immigration.

“Mullin is the wrong guy at the wrong time for the wrong job,” Steve Bannon told Politico Saturday. “At a time when we need focus on ‘mass deportations,’ we get an amnesty advocate.”

Bannon’s sentiments were joined by those of a slew of right-wing advocates, including Laura Loomer, Nick Sortor, Robby Starbuck, and MAGA podcaster Jake Posobiec.

Even former Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino got in on the action, posting that Mullin “celebrates your replacement as long as it’s done legally, without mentioning that 80% of legal immigrants will vote Democrat.… And we wonder why we’re going to lose the midterms?”

“It takes a lot to unite this administration around a cohesive point of view,” one senior Trump official told Politico. “Mullin deserves credit where credit is due. Everyone agrees he sucks donkey butt.”

Mullin’s tenure as DHS secretary has been dogged by a series of missteps and controversies, including his attempt to temporarily restrict Immigration and Customs Enforcement vehicle stops (there have been 11 fatal shootings by ICE agents since President Trump returned to office, many of which involved officers firing into vehicles), as well as his apparent willingness to interact civilly with the enemy across the aisle, including Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro and Democratic Maryland Governor Wes Moore.

Trump allies are already floating names for Mullin’s replacement, including acting Director of National Intelligence Bill Pulte and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.

Still, the administration is standing by its DHS secretary—at least for now.

“The President has confidence in Secretary Mullin and his entire Administration to carry out the agenda the American people voted for,” White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson told Politico.

Trump Admin Now Crowdsourcing for “Creative” Ideas on Iran

The Defense Department is out of options—and reaching out to others for suggestions on what to do next about Iran.

President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sit at a table side by side
Aaron Schwartz/AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

The Trump administration is running out of ways to pressure Iran, with its airstrikes failing to end Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz or force the country back to the negotiating table. So now the military is asking for “unconventional” new ideas.

CNN reports that an officer in the U.S. Central Command’s intelligence branch sent a message Wednesday to military analysts “looking for new creative and unconventional ways to pressure and punish Iran.” It’s an unusual thing to ask over email, according to CNN, and shows that President Trump knows his options are limited as the war with Iran enters its sixth month.

The email was sent before Trump threatened new airstrikes against Iran and then relented, over the weekend, after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and other Gulf leaders talked him out of it. Among the plans were attacking Pickaxe Mountain and other Iranian sites reportedly housing nuclear equipment or material.

Those sites are deep underground, however, and would have likely required deploying American ground troops, which Trump is trying to avoid. Eighteen American service members have been killed in the war, according to official counts, and the administration has been criticized for its lack of transparency on military casualties.

“At the end of the day, POTUS will want a deal, so he’ll continually look for ways to get tough and get out of this,” an unnamed source told CNN. “You need creative minds at times—especially if you’re running out of conventional options.”

But more bombing probably won’t change Iran’s negotiating position, according to the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency. Trump has effectively backed himself into a corner with his ill-advised war, and is having trouble with being able to walk away with anything he can call a victory. American missile stockpiles have dwindled, scores of civilians have been killed, and the global economy, including gas prices, has taken a massive hit. Trump needs a way out.

Iran Dumps Cold Water on Trump Peace Deal Claims

Donald Trump insisted he backed off of new strikes because Iran had agreed to resume peace talks.

Donald Trump looks back while boarding Air Force One
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Negotiations to end the Iran war do not seem to be going well.

The White House and Tehran are apparently not even on the same page when it comes to resolving the nearly six-month conflict. Iranian officials directly contradicted Donald Trump Monday by telling Reuters that talks were not currently underway and that there were no plans to resume them.

Trump called off another slate of attacks against Iran Sunday, backing down yet again from the threat of a major assault.

Speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One that day, Trump said that he had scrapped the “massive” attack after being lobbied by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.

“We were all set to go, but when our allies ask to call it off, you sort of have to say, ‘Well, let’s see,’” Trump said.

“And the reason they asked is they think there’s a deal. There’s a deal on Hormuz, and then there will be a deal on the nuclear—or you might call it the denuclearization of Iran. I call it the denuclearization of Iran,” Trump said. “So we’re holding it. We can do it anytime we want, but we were asked by the three primary groups, we were also asked by Iran very strongly actually. They said, ‘We’d like to make a deal.’”

The president then predicted that Tehran would turn around and say, “We don’t know what he’s talking about” with regard to a potential peace deal.

“Obviously they don’t want to be attacked,” Trump said.

The negotiations were set to take place Monday afternoon, according to the president.

Iran is currently in talks with Oman to establish a safe, temporary route for ships through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei.

“To avoid any ambiguity, it should be clarified who the negotiations are with. We currently have no negotiations with the United States; the negotiations are with Oman,” Baghaei told CNN Monday, adding that the tentative arrangement would not automatically reopen the strait. “Whether this stage and this process can be connected to another process that leads to a reduction of tensions in the region, we must wait and see.”

Baghaei also blamed U.S. officials for blowing up the memorandum of understanding in June, prolonging the unpopular and bloody hostilities.

“It violated all of its commitments, reinstated the illegal maritime blockade, revoked the authorization for the sale of Iranian oil, and effectively declared almost all of the other commitments it had accepted under the memorandum null and void,” Baghaei said.

Trump DOJ Blasted for “Gross Abuse” of Power in Reflecting Pool Case

The Department of Justice abruptly dropped the charges against former Olympian David Hearn.

A person holds their phone above the security fence to take a photo of the Reflecting Pool
Kevin Carter/Getty Images

The Department of Justice’s move to dismiss its criminal case against Olympian David Hearn exposed just how bad things have gotten inside the Trump administration.

In a new episode of his Justice Matters podcast, former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner argued that the DOJ’s motion to dismiss revealed just how shoddy its case was to begin with.

Kirschner noted that Donald Trump’s DOJ blamed the Department of the Interior for initially claiming that the damage was “entirely caused by vandals” and admitted that the DOJ hadn’t fully investigated the matter.

“Talk about finger-pointing,” Kirschner said. “Talk about the refusal to take responsibility for your botched indictment. That is ugly. That is unseemly. As a career federal prosecutor, including decades that I served in that very office, the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office, you don’t indict first and investigate later. Nor do you take the word of another agency of government.”

In its filing Friday, the DOJ acknowledged that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was caused by flawed installation by the contractor—contrary to the narrative Trump has been pushing for weeks.

In a statement Saturday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum scrambled to keep up the story. “The evidence is clear, vandals have repeatedly caused damage to the Reflecting Pool. Some of these acts were even caught on camera,” he wrote on X.

Kirschner also slammed the U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro for mounting prosecution before fully investigating her own case.

“That is not the way prosecution works,” Kirschner said. “Not in the ‘Before Times,’ but in the legal upside-down [world] courtesy of Trump and Todd Blanche and Jeanine Pirro, it is ready, fire, aim, and that is inexcusable. It’s horrific, and it is a gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion and power.”

Trump criticized Pirro’s decision to drop the case. In a Truth Social post Saturday, Trump admitted there “may have been some contractor difficulty” in the lining installation, but “the major damage was caused by VANDALS!”

“I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on the Reflecting Pool,” he wrote.

GOP Senators Fall for Todd Blanche’s Sneaky Ploy to Save His Job

Todd Blanche’s nomination had stalled in committee over his refusal to officially end Donald Trump’s slush fund.

Senator John Cornyn looks down while standing in an elevator
Win McNamee/Getty Images
Texas Senator John Cornyn

Texas Senator John Cornyn and North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis just caved to Donald Trump’s demands, paving the way for acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to move toward a full Senate confirmation.

The two Republican holdouts announced Monday that they had reached a deal with the Justice Department that they claimed satisfied their aims to end Trump’s $1.8 “anti-weaponization” fund.

“We are pleased that the Department of Justice has issued a formal order terminating the anti-weaponization fund,” the outgoing lawmakers said in a joint statement. “Additionally, the Department has acknowledged in a binding written order that the audit settlement is limited to the plaintiffs and the scope does not extend beyond the defendants in the lawsuit, the IRS and the Treasury, addressing concerns that multiple of our Republican colleagues share.”

Cornyn faced a barrage of criticism Sunday after he decided that Blanche’s vague assurances against Trump’s slush fund were good enough.

Cornyn had previously predicated his support for Blanche’s promotion on the fund’s end. But a tricky memo released by Blanche Sunday night seemed to have tripped up both senators’ offices—and their conditions.

On its face, Blanche’s note appeared to terminate the fund, specifying that the order was “rescinded and shall have no force or effect.” However, journalists were quick to comment that the language employed in the rest of Blanche’s memo not only suggested that the honey pot fund would be preserved in some form, but also failed to terminate Trump’s underlying IRS immunity arrangement.

But vague gestures at accountability were apparently all Cornyn and Tillis needed to get in line.

In his own comments addressing the backlash on X Monday morning, Tillis wrote that he and Cornyn had only sought a “written document addressing our concerns on the IRS audit agreement and the anti-weaponization fund” and “legally ending the anti-weaponization fund.”

“Additionally, the Department has acknowledged in a binding written order that the audit settlement is limited to the plaintiffs and the scope does not extend beyond the defendants in the lawsuit, the IRS and the Treasury, addressing concerns that multiple of our Republican colleagues share,” he added.

But attorneys responding to Tillis flamed the North Carolinian for his paltry litmus test.

“You cannot unilaterally alter a settlement agreement, and you know it,” responded lawyer Robin DesCamp.

The fund was the result of an unprecedented deal that Trump made with himself after he dropped his faltering $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. The arrangement included a curious addendum from Blanche, immunizing Trump from further federal prosecution. The government of the United States, Blanche wrote, would be “forever barred and precluded” from pursuing “any and all claims” against Trump, his family, or his business. The fund itself would be used as reparations, paid for by U.S. taxpayers through the Department of Justice, to virtually any right-winger that felt impugned by the previous presidential administration.

The idea of the fund fell apart following weeks of backlash, numerous lawsuits, and opposition from even Republican lawmakers, who felt the issue had gummed up party efforts to pass a reconciliation bill.

But Trump has refused to let the topic go, repeatedly affirming his support for the supposedly defunct fund.

“It is dead, but I wish it weren’t, to be honest with you,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting on Friday. “I think people were horribly treated, horribly abused.”

Trump doubled down on the fund while speaking with reporters on Air Force One Sunday. He said he wanted it to provide “a reimbursement for the pain” his supporters have supposedly endured.

“A lot of people like it. A lot of big supporters of Trump like it,” he insisted.

Blanche’s efforts to salvage the fund should be viewed as yet more evidence that the fund is not as dead as officials have publicly claimed.

“Let’s be clear: It’s more certain that Trump is still pursuing bounties for rioters today than when this started,” wrote legal journalist Adam Klasfeld on Monday. “Trump is openly stating that’s the goal, taking legal action to get there and refusing to do the one thing that would kill it.”

Cornyn and Tillis are in the twilight years of their last term in office, after their decades-long careers were cut short by Trump’s decision to endorse another candidate in Texas’s and North Carolina’s GOP primaries. The cut cord has granted the pair the breathing room to ignore larger party directives and push back harder against the Trump administration’s off-color orders, but apparently, they are only willing to take that so far.

This story has been updated.

 

Jerusalem’s most important Muslim religious site facing ‘imminent’ threat of Israeli takeover, says Jordan

 

Jerusalem’s most important Muslim religious site facing ‘imminent’ threat of Israeli takeover, says Jordan

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/04/jordan-convenes-emergency-meeting-israel-religious-conflict-jerusalem 

Israelis walk near the Dome of the Rock at al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem
On 23 July, more than 2,000 Israelis from the religious right stormed the area. Photograph: Ilia Yefimovich/AFP/Getty Images
 

Jerusalem’s most important Muslim religious site facing ‘imminent’ threat of Israeli takeover, says Jordan

Country convenes emergency meeting of ministers from Arab and Islamic world, fearing such a move could ‘trigger a religious conflict’

The meeting on Wednesday – and the Jordanian warning – follow an escalating pattern of government-backed incursions by Jewish religious extremists on the compound around al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock, in violation of a status quo treaty overseen by Jordan’s Hashemite monarchy, by which only Muslims can pray at the site.

On 23 July, more than 2,000 Israelis from the religious right – mostly settlers led by the national security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir – stormed the area, known to Jews as the Temple Mount. They prayed and performed rituals all around the compound in what Jordanian officials said was the worst violation in modern history.

Amman has also been alarmed at a recent recruitment drive for religious Jews for a special Temple Mount police unit, and is braced for more direct challenges to traditional Jordanian custodianship by extremist Israeli leaders in the major Jewish holidays in September. This year, those holidays will come amid an intense election campaign, in which the far-right coalition of the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will be fighting for survival.

“This is a constant threat, a dangerous threat that we’re trying to counter in every tool that we have possible,” Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, told the Guardian. “We warn that tampering with the status quo … could trigger a religious conflict that will reverberate beyond Palestine and Jordan into the whole Muslim world.”

Safadi, who will host Wednesday’s emergency meeting, bringing together his counterparts from Arab League countries, as well as Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan, said it was “something that the whole international community should be aware of. Jerusalem is a tinderbox.

“We’re trying to explain the danger. We’re protesting legally. We are trying to create awareness of the imminent danger in the continuation of those Israeli measures.”

Jordan’s custodianship of al-Aqsa compound dates back to Ottoman times, and the status quo encompassing the city’s religious sites was enshrined in the 1878 Treaty of Berlin. The Hashemite kingdom’s oversight in Jerusalem was expanded to cover Christian holy sites in the 20th century, and its custodianship was reaffirmed after the 1967 war, and in the 1994 Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty.

Infringement by Jewish extremists triggered riots in the British Mandate period between the world wars, and a 2000 visit to the compound by the rightwing leader Ariel Sharon, soon to become the Israeli prime minister, ignited more than four years of violence in the second intifada.

Safadi speaks at a summit. He has a short, neat grey beard and wears glasses. He is in a black jacket with white shirt and black tie.
‘Jerusalem is a tinderbox,’ said Ayman Safadi, Jordan’s foreign minister. Photograph: Salah Malkawi/Getty Images

Jordan is uniquely vulnerable to the impact of Israel’s broader ethnic cleansing campaign in the West Bank, which Amman fears may also escalate dramatically as the October elections loom. There is anxiety over what the Israeli government might do in the three months before the vote, as radical elements seek to change the geography of the region in ways which could be difficult to reverse.

For Amman, the worst-case scenario is an attempt at the mass deportation of Palestinians from the West Bank, which would destabilise Jordan in several ways, including economic costs, the political impact of an influx of an angry, dispossessed population, and threats to the country’s delicate demographic balance.

“Our position that this is a red line that we will not allow to be crossed. We have made that known to everybody that we will do whatever it takes to prevent any attempt at Israeli displacement of Palestinians into Jordan,” Safadi said. “Not only will that be a violation of international law and of the right of the Palestinians to stay on their land, but that will also be a tremendous escalation.”

Jordanians descended from previous waves of Palestinian refugees already represent more than half of Jordan’s 11.5-million population, and the country’s original residents, the “East Bankers”, are wary of what they see as a further dilution of national identity.

Israel has already refused to renew a 2021 water agreement under which it shared 100m cubic metres a year to its parched neighbour, one of the most water-scarce countries in the world. It reverted to the 50m cubic metres originally agreed in the 1994 treaty, which falls far short of the needs of a much bigger population than the Jordan of 32 years ago.

The Israeli government reportedly halved the water supply in retaliation for criticism from the Jordanian government of the mass killing of Palestinian civilians by Israel in the Gaza war, and officials have hinted that the taps could be turned back on if the criticism ended.

The Israeli government’s provocative actions in Jerusalem and the West Bank and over water raise the political cost to the monarchy of maintaining normal relations with its western neighbour.

Jewish visitors pray at an entrance of al-Aqsa mosque compound.
Jewish visitors pray at an entrance of al-Aqsa mosque compound. Photograph: Ammar Awad/Reuters

“Anti-normalisation sentiment here has grown even larger than before due to the Zionist state’s plans of annexation of the West Bank, the denial of Jordan’s share in the water agreement and also the daily challenges to the custodianship at al-Aqsa mosque,” said Dima Tahboub, a member of parliament and spokesperson for Jordan’s Islamist Umma party. “Every day there is penetration by settlers into al-Aqsa mosque and at the same time, [Palestinian] Jerusalemites are prevented from entering the mosque.”

Tahboub’s party is Jordan’s biggest political bloc, known as the Islamic Action Front (IAF) until earlier this year when it was ordered to adopt a less ideological name. Its rise has largely been driven by events on the other side of the River Jordan, and the Gaza war helped it win more than 22% of the available seats.

The surge in political Islam came as a shock to the monarchy, which slowed down its plans for political reform and the transfer of more power to parliament as a result. The Muslim Brotherhood movement was outlawed last year and IAF, which operates as its political arm, had its offices raided. It has, however, been allowed to continue as a party, under the name of Umma, which means “community” or “nation”.

Tahboub said there was more the government could be doing to rally international support to resist Israel’s encroachments.

“I think more pressure can be exerted. The issue is not being put to the table with the force that it needs,” she said, while stressing that the Umma party stood together with the Jordanian government in the face of its adversaries, and that it understood the limitations imposed by geography and economics which have left it significantly dependent on the US for its economic and security needs.

Unlike other Gulf monarchies, Jordan has not allowed the US its own military bases on its territory, but there is a US presence on Jordanian bases, which has grown significantly since the start of the US war with Iran. Amman has sought to play down the presence of US forces, planes and other equipment, but that has been made harder by repeated successful Iranian airstrikes, which have killed three Americans and injured scores at the Muwaffaq Salti base in the eastern desert.

For decades the US military presence has been seen as a security guarantee for Jordan, but it has also proved to be a political liability, especially as the Jordanian air force has found itself serving as Israel’s first line of defence shooting down Iranian drones and missiles heading towards Tel Aviv.

Last month, several hundred prominent figures from politics, the law and Jordanian cultural life signed an open letter calling for the withdrawal of US forces, in a rare direct challenge to the government.

The letter said: “We maintain that their presence exposes Jordan to security, political, and economic risks that serve no national interest and that it increases the likelihood of our country being dragged into a regional conflict to which it is not a party.”

Congratulations on being one of our top readers globally – you've read 274 articles in the last year
Article count

At this dangerous time

We hope you appreciated this article. Before you close this tab, we want to ask if you could support the Guardian at this dangerous time for journalism in the US. For the next several days only, we are offering 50% off our most impactful monthly support option.

According to a leading global watchdog, American democracy is now more imperiled than at any point since the 1960s, marked by a precipitous decline in press freedom – driven by mounting pressure from the Trump administration in the form of threats, criminal investigations, politicized regulation, frivolous lawsuits and, for public media, catastrophic funding cuts. 

Meanwhile, organizations that are supposed to be independent like the FBI and the FCC, our radio and television regulator, have also been targeting press freedom under Trump-aligned leadership, with the FBI raiding a reporter’s home and the FCC threatening ABC’s TV licenses after Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about Melania Trump.

The response from some ultra-wealthy and corporate media owners, keen to appease the president, has been chilling: CBS News has been taken over by a Trump ally; CNN may be taken over by the same billionaire; Jeff Bezos has continued to impose cuts and editorial interventions at the Washington Post; and multiple outlets have settled multimillion-dollar lawsuits from the administration to protect their business interests.

Democracy is best served by a robust, thriving free press. But when that freedom is under attack, it falls to a determined few news organizations to ensure the full truth still reaches the public. Owned neither by a billionaire nor a corporation, the Guardian remains dedicated to covering this administration with uncompromising moral and factual clarity – and to keeping trustworthy journalism paywall-free for the world.

Despite the risks of maintaining our fierce independence, what sustains us – and fills us with deep gratitude – is the unwavering support we’ve seen from readers. It is no exaggeration to say that we are here because of you: a majority of our funding comes directly from people like you responding to messages like this. Your support not only powers our work, but more importantly, it safeguards the financial independence that underpins our editorial freedom and courage.

We know our requests for support are not as welcome as our reporting, but without them, it’s simple: our reporting wouldn’t exist. Of course, we understand that some readers are not in a position to support us, and if that is you, we value your readership no less.

But if you are able, please support us today. All gifts are gratefully received, but for the next several days only, we are offering a 50% discount for six months off our most impactful monthly support option. (Among the great benefits you get in return: you’ll see far fewer annoying fundraising messages like this.) It takes just 37 seconds to set up. Thank you for considering.

50% off

More on this story

  • Abandoned by the US: Palestinian Americans trapped in a surge of Israeli settler violence

  • Trump meets his obstinate match in Iran’s hardball regime

  • Israel planning ‘extensive’ military operation in West Bank after settler attack

  • Trump backs down on Iran strikes in expectation of ‘rapidly’ reaching a deal

  • Iran strikes tankers under US escort in Hormuz strait as Trump gathers cabinet to discuss war

  • IDF accused of working with settlers after latest deadly West Bank raid

  • Israel threatens to seize ancient water reservoirs near Bethlehem

  • Iran’s war with the US is not its only conflict as internal crises mount

  • Israeli ministers announce plans for new illegal settlements in Gaza and West Bank

  • US hits dozens of targets in Iran overnight as peace efforts under threat

More from News

  • Middle East crisis live
    Rubio says he hopes US can reach Hormuz deal with Iran ‘very shortly’

  • Elections
    Michigan votes in key Senate primary as Democrats battle over party’s future

  • Todd Blanche
    Todd Blanche’s attorney general nomination will advance to full US Senate vote

  • Europe live
    Spain says 70,000 out of 72,000 migrants that entered Ceuta in mass border crossing have returned to Morocco

  • ICE
    US federal judge blocks New York’s ban on ICE officers wearing masks

  • Wildfires
    Man charged in Washington state with starting largest wildfire in the area

  • US military
    Wingtip from downed fighter plane flown by ‘ace of aces’ Richard Bong brought to US from South Pacific

  • Music
    Ariana Grande expands on decision to ‘step back from visibility’, telling fans it was ‘not reactive or impulsive’

 

Conservatives Perfected the Ideal Legal Tactic. It’s Time for Liberals to Use It.

Conservatives Perfected the Ideal Legal Tactic. It’s Time for Liberals to Use It.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/08/supreme-court-analysis-liberal-antonin-scalia-guns.html 

Conservatives Perfected the Ideal Legal Tactic. It’s Time for Liberals to Use It.

Antonin Scalia and snippets of case text from D.C. v. Heller
Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Mark Wilson/Getty Images, Getty Images Plus, and Library of Congress.

This is part of Amicus and Slate’s “By the People” series, which explores how the American people can reclaim the Constitution—and the law—from this monarchical Supreme Court.

In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger renounced the then-nascent push to reinterpret the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear arms. Appearing on PBS NewsHour, the conservative jurist condemned this campaign as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” Burger, a Richard Nixon appointee, was no outlier: Across the partisan spectrum, leading constitutional lawyers agreed that the Constitution did not create a personal right to possess guns. A year earlier, Erwin Griswold, solicitor general for Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon, said that the pro-gun argument “exceeds the limits of principled advocacy.” Shortly before that, the far-right Judge Robert Bork—formerly Nixon’s solicitor general and attorney general—said that the Second Amendment protects state militias, not individuals. Bork, whose own nomination for the Supreme Court was famously defeated over his extreme right-wing views, deemed all state gun restrictions “probably constitutional.”

Less than 20 years later, the Supreme Court announced in D.C. v. Heller that Burger, Bork, and their contemporaries had it all wrong: The Second Amendment had guaranteed an individual right to bear arms the whole time. Of course, the constitutional text remained the same. What changed was the nation’s understanding of it. Over decades, gun rights activists transformed a position dismissed by Burger and Bork into a cornerstone of conservative constitutional identity. They built a political movement around their ahistorical, atextual interpretation. Buoyed by lavish funding from the industries that stood to benefit, these activists elected lawmakers who embraced their view, then elevated judges who would translate it into law. By the time Heller reached the Supreme Court, the individual-right theory did not appear radical to the conservative majority. It looked inevitable.

Second Amendment advocates like to frame Heller as a triumph of originalism, and SCOTUS certainly sold it that way. But in truth, it is popular constitutionalism all the way down. Yale Law professor Reva Siegel laid out this fact in a renowned law review article months after the decision came down, and her observation has only grown more prescient with time. The Republican-appointed supermajority has spent the past four years steadily expanding the right it created in 2008, to the point that it now deems all restrictions on “armed self-defense” to be “presumptively unconstitutional.” Under Heller and its progeny, courts have struck down state laws that ban guns from zoos, libraries, and museums; that prohibit the removal of serial numbers from weapons; and that outlaw machine guns. SCOTUS has struggled to keep pace with the revolution that it unleashed and has sometimes seemed embarrassed by the consequences of its own rulings.

The modern Second Amendment has thus become both a paragon of popular constitutionalism and its own dark mirror. Gun rights advocates followed much of the popcon playbook, but never truly built majority support for their broader aims: Many of their legal demands today—like unlicensed public carry and easy access to assault weapons—are unpopular with the broader public. It seems fair to say that the average American who wants to keep a handgun at home did not sign up for unpermitted open carry of an AR-15 at the zoo. Heller is not just a case study in popular constitutionalism; it is also a warning that industry-backed interest groups can mimic a mass movement, then leverage it to create a constitutional right that extends far beyond anything the citizenry ever demanded.

Siegel’s early account of the Second Amendment’s rise remains unimpeachable as a straightforward chronicle of how moneyed interests can manufacture constitutional meaning. Beginning in the 1970s, insurgents within the National Rifle Association transformed the former sporting organization into an aggressive political machine. The reconstituted NRA began proclaiming that the Constitution bestowed a personal right to possess firearms, a notion that the Supreme Court had never come close to endorsing. It cultivated a disciplined cadre of activists who mobilized to warn “law-abiding citizens” that they needed a gun to defend their families against criminals. And it pushed lawmakers to dismantle firearms restrictions while punishing politicians who strayed from the cause.

At the same time, the gun lobby forced its way into the emerging “New Right” coalition. Conservative lawmakers commissioned dubious historical reports declaring that the framers had enshrined an individual right to bear arms. Republican presidents elevated sympathetic judges to the bench. All the while, NRA-backed advocates seeded the legal academy with bogus scholarship that supplied the movement with an originalist pedigree. Arguments that Burger and Bork dismissed as fringe advocacy became orthodox within conservative legal circles. Through these tactics, the gun movement fused with the Republican Party, and allegiance to an expansive Second Amendment became a litmus test for both the legal and political arms of the GOP.

By the time Heller reached the Supreme Court, then, the gun lobby had positioned every piece for checkmate. So many states had repealed so many firearm regulations that the District of Columbia’s stringent handgun ban looked like a true outlier. Public support for a total ban on handguns in the home had plummeted. Justice Antonin Scalia was able to frame his majority opinion as the vindication of a right so obvious that virtually the entire country already recognized it to some degree. He relied upon NRA-backed pseudo-scholarship to disregard the Second Amendment’s first clause (which links it to state militia service) then recast the right “to keep and bear arms” as a core component of personal liberty. And he rooted his holding in the alleged “original meaning” of the amendment through analysis that appeared to be steeped in historical texts.

In fact, many of Scalia’s historical claims in Heller have since been debunked by real historians. But even in 2008, any keen observer could see that the Supreme Court was not actually uncovering a right buried since 1791; it was ratifying a constitutional forgery that decades of well-funded lobbying had passed off as an ancient truth. It would be a mistake, however, to dismiss Heller as nothing more than an astroturfed simulation of popular constitutionalism. By the time it came down, Gallup found that 3 in 4 Americans believed that the Second Amendment bestowed an individual right to own a firearm. They overwhelmingly opposed total handgun bans—even though a supermajority of Americans wanted such bans in 1960. The gun lobby really had built public support for its revisionist reading of the Constitution. It had, in every sense, changed constitutional meaning through popular ratification.

But the limits of this consensus were already beginning to show. The same Gallup poll that showed supermajority support for handgun ownership found that 49 percent of Americans favored stricter gun laws, while just 11 percent preferred looser ones. Heller marked the culmination of one campaign that most of the country had rallied behind, but the beginning of another that it largely opposed: a broader legal assault on all manner of gun safety legislation. Most Americans, for instance, still favor stricter gun laws overall, including assault weapon bans, a higher minimum age for ownership, waiting periods between purchases, and states’ authority to require a special need before granting a public-carry permit. In recent years, federal courts have struck down all of these policies (though some were reversed on appeal). These rulings carried Heller way beyond public consensus, shedding the skin of popular constitutionalism to reveal a project of minority rule by judicial fiat.

What lesson should progressive proponents of popcon take from this trajectory? The most obvious takeaway is that, even if they refuse to admit it, conservatives relied on the same tried-and-true strategies as history’s great civil rights movements to elevate their conception of the Second Amendment into constitutional law. They did so because those strategies work. Defenders of Heller simply have no standing to mock the left for building constitutional meaning through mass mobilization when their own movement perfected the art.

The deeper lesson, though, is that a constitutional right’s popular origins do not guarantee a democratic afterlife. While Heller was built on phony history, it reflected a genuine, hard-fought shift in public understanding. But once an unelected judiciary took up the cause, the citizenry lost its power to define and limit the Second Amendment through the usual machinery of representative self-government. It became a weapon for the juristocracy to wield against communities seeking to protect themselves from the bloody epidemic of gun violence.

The hazard exposed by Heller is not merely that conservatives can practice popular constitutionalism, too; it’s that judges can capture popcon’s victories and weaponize them against democracy itself. An idea that mutates from a “fraud” to a precedent in less than two decades can metastasize into something much more dangerous than the public ever supported. Progressives must remember that the fight for constitutional meaning cannot end the moment a movement secures five votes at the Supreme Court. A whole new battle begins when the court claims the victory as its own.