.png){kind=logo}
I have spent a lot of time lately wondering when basic accountability became so controversial.
Not partisan accountability. Not the kind where we reflexively blame the other team for everything that goes wrong. I mean the normal, adult version of it: when you hold power, you own your decisions. You explain yourself to the public. You respect the law. You admit when you were wrong. And you do not spend every day blaming the people who came before you for problems you now have the authority to address.
That used to be the job.
Instead, the Trump administration seems to treat responsibility like a political weapon. When the economy is strained, it is Biden’s fault. When the national debt crosses another impossible threshold, it is Democrats’ fault. When prices rise, it is somebody else’s fault. There is certainly enough blame to go around. Democrats have made their share of fiscal mistakes, and the Biden administration did not leave behind a perfect economy. But Trump has been back in office long enough that he cannot pretend he is merely a commentator on the government he runs.
At some point, the buck has to stop somewhere.
The federal debt has reached $40 trillion, and the White House response has been to pin it on Biden-era mismanagement. That is convenient, but incomplete. COVID spending, tax policy, military expenditures, and years of bipartisan unwillingness to make difficult fiscal choices all helped put us here. The Trump administration does not get to demand credit for every economic positive while outsourcing every failure to its predecessor. That is not leadership. That is an excuse with a press office.
The same habit was on full display in the bizarre prosecution of former Olympian David Hearn, who was accused of deliberately sabotaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. The Department of Justice ultimately dropped the case after acknowledging that its evidence did not support the accusation. The government’s own filing said the damage was likely caused by a rushed and flawed contractor installation, not vandalism by Hearn.
Think about that for a second. A man was publicly accused of attacking a national monument, only for the government to later admit that the case did not hold up. That should bother every American, regardless of political party. If the Justice Department can rush to frame an individual as a criminal based on a story that falls apart under scrutiny, then somebody needs to be held accountable for the rush.
A correction is not enough after someone’s name has been dragged through the mud. An apology matters. Oversight matters. Consequences matter.
And yet, this administration often seems more interested in building spectacle than earning trust.
The White House ballroom dispute is a perfect example. Trump wants a massive $400 million ballroom and underground complex added to the White House grounds. His administration says the project involves legitimate security upgrades. Maybe some modernization is needed. The White House is a working building, not a sacred object that can never be repaired or improved.
But the lower courts made a reasonable point, Congress has authority over major changes to federal property and federal spending. The D.C. Circuit ruled that the administration could not simply proceed with above-ground construction without congressional approval. Chief Justice John Roberts then temporarily allowed work to continue while the Supreme Court considers the administration’s emergency request.
That is exactly why the Supreme Court’s so-called emergency docket deserves more attention. “Temporary” orders can create permanent realities. Once a historic structure is altered, demolished, or built over, a later ruling may be technically meaningful but practically useless. This is not just about a ballroom. It is about whether a president can treat the people’s house like a private renovation project, then dare Congress and the courts to stop him after the work has already begun.
Power needs limits, especially when the person holding it is impatient.
The question of limits also applies to the people surrounding the president. There has been a growing wave of reporting and discussion around Natalie Harp, Trump’s executive assistant and one of his closest aides. Independent outlets have published letters attributed to Harp that use language far more personal than what most Americans would expect in a normal workplace relationship. She reportedly called Trump her “Guardian and Protector,” wrote that he was “all that matters” to her, and expressed longing for a time when they could talk about “everything and nothing.”
Let’s be responsible here, those letters do not prove an affair, and I am not going to state an unconfirmed allegation as fact. The White House denies wrongdoing. But the public is not stupid, either. When a taxpayer-paid aide has extraordinary access to the president, travels closely with him, serves as a gatekeeper, and has written letters that appear intensely personal, it is reasonable to ask questions about boundaries, influence, access, and ethics.
The public should not have to choose between believing every rumor and acting like no question is worth asking. That false choice is how powerful people avoid scrutiny.
Then there is Mitch McConnell. His case is more personal and, frankly, more painful.
McConnell has been absent from the Senate since a June hospitalization. His office says he is recovering at home. He deserves privacy about his medical details, and nobody should mock an elderly person for being sick. But he is also a United States senator. Kentucky deserves to know whether it has an active, capable representative who can independently understand and vote on consequential legislation.
Recent video reported by multiple outlets shows McConnell appearing confused and needing direction from colleagues or Senate staff during votes shortly before his health crisis. That does not give any of us the right to diagnose him from a distance. It does, however, justify a serious public conversation about whether he can continue to serve.
Medical privacy and public representation are not mutually exclusive. McConnell deserves dignity. His constituents deserve clarity. If he cannot reliably do the job, he should resign. That is not cruelty. It is democracy.
The dangers of political denial do not stop at Washington’s marble buildings. They show up in the choices being made about artificial intelligence, data centers, energy, and the environment. We keep hearing that the United States must “win” the AI race, as if winning only means building more server farms, consuming more electricity, and extracting more water faster than China or anyone else.
But data centers are not invisible. They require land, transmission lines, backup power, enormous cooling systems, and often huge volumes of water. A recent congressional report warned of water-quality and supply concerns tied to data-center cooling. Another recent policy analysis highlighted pressure on power grids, land use, local communities, and the environment.
In Florida, experts have warned that large AI data centers can use between 1 million and 5 million gallons of water per day, threatening drinking-water supplies, aquifers, and sensitive ecosystems, including the Everglades.
That should stop us cold.
I am not anti-technology. I use it every day, as most of us do. AI could help diagnose disease, improve accessibility, find security vulnerabilities, and make difficult work easier. But we cannot call ourselves innovators while allowing private companies to drain public resources with little transparency, limited local consent, and no meaningful guarantee that ordinary people will not pay more for water and electricity.
Progress without guardrails is not progress. It is extraction with better branding.
This is why Trump’s historically weak approval ratings matter. Reuters/Ipsos polling has placed his approval at 33 percent, with 64 percent disapproving, the lowest point of his current term. Democrats currently hold a meaningful generic-ballot advantage heading into November, particularly in the fight for the House. That does not guarantee a Democratic takeover of Congress. Elections are not decided by headlines, and Democrats still have to earn every vote.
But the numbers do tell us something important. Americans are tired of being told not to believe their eyes.
They are tired of paying more while being told the economy is somebody else’s problem. They are tired of leaders treating oversight as an insult. They are tired of government agencies making accusations first and admitting mistakes later. They are tired of watching powerful people demand blind loyalty while offering very little transparency in return.
We do not need a perfect president, a perfect Congress, or perfect technology. We need leaders who understand that power is borrowed from the public, not owned by whoever happens to win an election.
We need laws that matter, courts that take their own temporary decisions seriously, journalists who keep asking questions, local communities with a say over their water and land, and public officials who know when it is time to step aside.
That is not radical. It is the bare minimum.
And right now, the bare minimum would be a good place to start.
