By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill: Oct. 16, 2026

In early 2023, prominent Democrats were antsy about President Biden’s 2024 reelection prospects. A movement emerged to recruit primary challengers.

Prompted by a Hill op-ed advocating for a “superstar” to block then-former President Trump from being reelected, I proposed that Jeff Bezos could “make America Amazon.” “In these perilous times,” I wrote, “Bezos’s skills are needed. New technologies, artificial intelligence, and cyber warfare will rule the world, and China threatens.”

Over three years later, those technologies are spinning out of control, threatening a science-fiction scenario in which “AI could kill all humans.” Most worrisome is U.S. leaders’ inability to understand, legislate, regulate, and manage these fast-evolving, complex technological innovations. Americans are now helplessly watching a Ferrari race a 1908 Ford Model T.

Thus, on Oct. 5, I was fascinated to see a “President Bezos?” headline in the Drudge Report, linked to a Substack exclusive by Rob Shuter. He quoted unnamed sources, which suggests the story was either bunk or a well-placed strategic trial balloon, amplified by Drudge’s well-trafficked site.

Shuter’s sources said that Jeff Bezos’s wife, Lauren Sanchez Bezos, “loves the idea of President Bezos.” After attending the White House state dinner for China’s President Xi Jinping, “Lauren has become increasingly fascinated by Washington.” According to the source, “Lauren looks at Jeff and sees someone who conquered business, built a space company and became one of the most powerful men alive.” That leaves Mrs. Bezos asking, “What’s left?” because “in her mind the presidency is the ultimate final act.”

I would warn against underestimating Lauren Bezos’s drive and influence. In record time, she transformed her once-geeky-looking boyfriend, now husband, into an A-list celebrity. With hundreds of billions of dollars, nothing is impossible.

According to Forbes’ daily tracking of billionaires’ wealth, Jeff Bezos is, at this writing, the world’s second-richest man, worth $373 billion. That is far behind Elon Musk at $914 billion, but Bezos could yet catch up. Perhaps Mrs. Bezos won’t be satisfied until her husband is both the richest and most powerful man alive, not “one of” the most powerful, which explains why the “ultimate final act” is so appealing.

Surely, Bezos has the intellect, management skills, and gravitas to be president, and recent history shows that prior elected office isn’t required. Therefore, one could argue that because managing, taming, and utilizing technology is key to 21st-century national growth, global leadership, and political/economic survival, Bezos should run for president. Moreover, during a recent Fox News interview, Bezos revealed what could be construed as his futuristic policy platform.

A Bezos presidential campaign would start with high national name-recognition; not all of it is positive, but presidential campaigns are about branding yourself for the moment.

Most Americans already have a relationship with Bezos through the companies he personally owns and the corporations that Amazon owns. Bezos founded Amazon and still owns roughly 8 percent of it, making him the largest single shareholder with 879 million shares.

Amazon’s cash cow is Amazon Web Services, a cloud computing internet platform and AI behemoth making billions with corporate and federal contracts. It partners with the government — in fact, it is practically an arm of the government.

Let’s say Mrs. Bezos convinced her husband to enter a presidential primary; he wouldn’t need to fundraise. Bezos could easily spend $5 billion on his primary and general campaigns with no financial repercussions. Supporters could attend no-cost “Make America Amazon” receptions.

Amazon’s movie studios could produce his political ads — after all, Trump has normalized the blurring of lines between business and political interests. Amazon could sell “Bezos 2028” branded campaign merch, including watches, Bibles and sneakers, because Trump has set a precedent.

However, presidential candidate Bezos would face a perilous obstacle. In 2023, I assumed he would run as a Democrat. But now he wholeheartedly engages in Trump’s pay-to-play game, supporting the president’s vanity projects and the first lady’s movie. But if Bezos ran as a Republican and criticized Trump’s policies, he would risk losing untold billions in AWS government contracts and, for Blue Origin, Bezos’s space-travel company, his true passion.

He is already familiar with the consequences of Trump’s wrath. In 2019, Bezos lost a $10 billion Pentagon contract for AWS, allegedly because of Trump’s personal vendetta over negative reporting at the Bezos-owned Washington Post.

If Bezos were to run as a Democrat, the financial repercussions could be even greater, creating a no-win situation. Until Trump leaves office on Jan. 20, 2029, he will closely monitor who is with him and who is against him.

The consolation prize for rejecting a presidential run is that Bezos remains very powerful from outside the White House since money equals power. And his new corollary, “success is not villainy,” sums up the billionaire tech-bro era.

Still, if he wants it, and if Mrs. Bezos is interested in running for first lady, their campaign slogan could be, “It’s Prime Time in America!”

Myra Adams served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008. Read more from her archive at The Hill.

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill: Oct. 2, 2026

Midterm election polls suggest Republicans could lose control of the House and Senate. Meanwhile, President Trump, administration officials, and their media cheerleaders are identifying threats and offering scenarios that could justify a show of force or a national emergency declaration, potentially prompting the president to invoke the powerful Insurrection Act.

No president has ever invoked the Insurrection Act in connection with an election, but Trump could be the first. He already seriously considered invoking it twice, first in June 2020 during the George Floyd protests and again in January amid the ICE deportation confrontations and deadly shootings in Minneapolis.

The Insurrection Act authorizes the domestic deployment of the U.S. military or the federalization of the National Guard to suppress violent, out-of-control situations, such as rebellions, riots, protests, or insurrections. President George H. W. Bush last invoked it in 1992.

During his second term, Trump sought to normalize military deployments in six U.S. cities and threatened to do so in five more, citing the need to protect ICE agents during deportation arrests, secure federal property, and reduce crime, until courts repeatedly intervened.    

From Trump’s perspective, mounting Republican fears of midterm losses might present a historic opportunity to use force, or even federalize the elections. The president knows that if Democrats control Congress, they will launch probing investigations that could cripple his final two years and threaten his legacy. With so much at stake, might Trump trigger an event like the 2021 Capitol riot?

The overarching reality is that our president does not lose elections. Losing signals weakness, which is not in Trump’s DNA, and clashes with his persona as the strongest, most powerful man in the world. However, his 2020 reelection loss, which Trump still insists he won, led to the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. The fallout from that catastrophe, along with the “stolen” election, continues to nag at his psyche and shape his political actions.

Although he is not on the 2026 ballot, Trump has personalized the midterms by asking South Carolina voters, “What I want you to do is pretend, please, that I’m on the ballot.” Still, if Republicans lose Congress, a legal loophole could prevent or delay the seating of the newly elected Democratic majority, possibly provoking a Jan. 6-type reaction. 

Then consider a precarious pledge recited at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, with potentially dangerous consequences. President Trump led his loyal supporters in repeating, “I pledge to the greatest president in the history of the United States, …that I will go out [to vote] with my family, my friends. I’ll do it anyway, I don’t care if I’m registered or not, I’m going to try and cheat like hell like they [Democrats] do.”

Then Trump asked, “You know what happens if you don’t vote? You go to hell.” Concluding, “So please go and vote, because together we will defeat the communists.”

Has the significance of that pledge been downplayed? The president called all Democrats “communists” and urged cheating to defeat them. If the “communists” win, it would mean they cheated, and the election was rigged, stolen, or infiltrated by foreign voters, justifying Trump in declaring a national emergency, authorizing force, and potentially invoking the Insurrection Act.

No wonder state and local officials are preparing for election chaos. A July Gallup poll found 67 percent of adults are concerned about pressure on local officials to change election outcomes, 57 percent worry about properly handled ballots, and 52 percent cite fear of voter intimidation.

Throughout this year, the president has appeared cavalier about nationalizing voting, which could mean sending troops to secure voting places, protect ballot boxes, and oversee vote tabulation. In February, during Dan Bongino’s podcast, Trump said, “We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many — 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”

Also in February, MAGA influencer Steve Bannon said, “President Trump has to nationalize the election… You’ve got to call up the 82nd and 101st Airborne [Divisions] on the Insurrection Act.”

In May, on Truth Social, Trump proclaimed that he would deploy an “Election Integrity Army in every single State to preserve the sanctity of each legal vote.” Soon, the Department of Justice will deploy 1,000 poll monitors.

This week, a stern directive from the secretary of Defense to protect and defend the election from “foreign actors,” coupled with recent statements by the FBI director and the secretary of Homeland Security signals a willingness to secure the election by force if there is a “threat” or “violation of the law” — exaggerated, imagined, or manufactured by Team Trump.

From the military perspective, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine responded to questions from Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.). His answers, in part, read:  “The Joint Force has no plans to send federal military personnel or federalized members of the National Guard to polling places during the 2026 elections … no plans to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material. I have neither received nor anticipate receiving any unlawful order concerning the role of the Joint Force in the upcoming November 2026 midterm elections.”

Note that Caine does not vow to resign if he were to receive such an order.

Watch this patriotic general because Caine’s actions could be the earliest signs of America’s first militarized election.

Myra Adams served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008. Read more from her archive at The Hill.

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill: Sept. 11, 2026

In the 25 years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, our nation has undergone a series of tectonic shifts that have dramatically reshaped the political landscape. These five fundamental changes include the rise and entrenchment of social media, a revolution in traditional media, instant partisan blame games, a crisis of trust in government, and the widest economic disparity in three decades.

Together, these factors have fueled extreme polarization and perpetual disunity, casting doubt on whether Americans could unite as we did in the weeks and months after 9/11 if, God forbid, a similar seismic attack were to occur again. A data point that crystallizes the “then versus now” contrast is presidential job approval.

Two Gallup polls conducted between Aug. 24 and Sept. 10, 2001, showed President George W. Bush with an average approval rating of 53 percent. Gallup’s first post-9/11 poll found Bush’s approval rating had zoomed to 86 percent, and its next poll, conducted on Sept. 21-22, showed 90 percent. Moreover, on Oct. 10, 2001, an ABC News poll reported Bush’s job approval at 92 percent — a record-breaking presidential high for both Gallup and ABC News.

Bush’s approval remained in the 80s until March 2002, when it began to decline gradually.

In comparison, President Trump’s current average job approval is 38 percent, fifteen points below President Bush’s pre-9/11 approval. This gap underscores how unlikely national unity is after a monumental crisis or attack, given the five fundamental changes since September 2001.

The most significant change, and a major cause of disunity, is social media.

Today, anyone can be a reporter, creating and spreading unverified information, falsehoods and exaggerations. Moreover, social media engagement has surpassed traditional news consumption, to the point that many influencers have more followers than the audiences of broadcast and cable channels.

This media transformation is a mirror shattered into thousands of pieces. People learn about news through their own jagged piece, because we now live largely within information silos, receiving information filtered by self-selection that aligns with our political, cultural or economic standing.

Unfortunately, vastly different interpretations of the same event go viral. As a result, people believe what they want to believe, or worse, don’t know what to believe, breeding conspiracies that resist the truth.

Worse, social media fosters numerous us-versus-them mentalities, making it nearly impossible for even a catastrophic event to unite Americans.

Meanwhile, since 9/11, traditional media has been radically diminished, with cable news filtered through its “brand” of what its cultivated audience wants to hear and is accustomed to hearing. Watch how a President Trump-related news story is reported on MS Now compared to Fox News or Newsmax; that bipolar coverage is why disunity is America’s identity.

This disunity has led to the current blame game. When a significant event occurs, officials in both parties seek a partisan spin, amplified by their social and media allies. In this age of hyperpolarization, the president is blamed immediately, while leaders in the president’s party deflect with repetitive identical talking points. January’s Minneapolis ICE shootings are a recent example of instant blame and then the backlash.

In today’s blame-game environment, imagine how differently 9/11 would have been covered. Back then, Americans rallied around the president; today, I would fear a full-scale blame game, exacerbated by a crisis of trust in government.

This trust crisis is documented in a new study: According to the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, six adults in 10 now have “low trust” in information they receive from the federal government. Imagine how such a lack of trust in government would complicate and hinder national unity during a 9/11-scale attack or similar crisis.

For example, trust issues are dogging the Iran war. The Pentagon is accused of withholding detrimental information about casualties, damage to U.S. Middle East bases, weapons shortfalls, and the true costs of war from Congress and the public.

Our democracy depends on the public trusting our leaders and government, especially during perilous times. Now that trust has diminished, problematic consequences follow.

Finally, economic disparity is the widest in three decades. Data from the Federal Reserve confirms what we see: The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. The prevailing consensus is that the American Dream is increasingly out of reach. Although wealth disparity is not new, it has become more pronounced. Would Americans unify during a 9/11-type crisis, when record numbers are struggling daily to make ends meet amid glaring wealth? Let’s hope the answer remains unknown.

Today, as America remembers the shocking deaths, heroism, and unity felt by all on Sept. 11, 2001, we are a different nation. Fortunately, the post- 9/11 anti-terrorism guardrails have held, and we pray they continue. Yet, the fundamental changes in our media, politics, government and economy are not conducive to national unity.

However, this is America, where hope springs eternal and anything is possible. As proof, 25 years later, lower Manhattan is thriving after rising from the ashes.

Myra Adams served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008. Read more from her archive at The Hill.

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill: August 21, 2026

Here is an underreported story about a high-ranking official who has defied political gravity. Over the last 49 years, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R), age 79, has been elected and reelected to seven prestigious county, state and federal offices. Despite two setbacks, he kept moving on and up.

DeWine won his first election as Greene County Prosecutor (1977 to 1981). He then served in the Ohio state Senate (1981 to 1982), the U.S. House of Representatives (1983 to 1991), as Ohio lieutenant governor (1991 to 1995), and in the U.S. Senate (1995 to 2007), where he lost his first bid in 1992 and was later defeated in 2006, while seeking his third term. Undeterred, DeWine was elected Ohio attorney general (serving from 2011 to 2019) and then governor (from January 2019 to until this coming January, term-limited).

Outside Ohio, DeWine is barely known, but his electoral record is unlikely to be matched by any politician. He shared his lessons, telling me, “My biggest regrets are when I didn’t have all the facts or didn’t drill down deep enough before making an informed decision.” The governor cautioned, “It is important to acknowledge that you aren’t always the expert, find the experts who can give you the data you need, and listen to those you want to lead and encourage them to come up with ideas.”

It remains unclear whether DeWine will be succeeded this November by Republican businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, whom he has endorsed, or by Democratic physician Amy Acton. Even in Ohio, where President Trump won by 11 points in 2024, the political forecast is cloudy, with a chance of Republican defeat.

Moreover, the prospect of Republicans losing control of the Senate looms over a special election between Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) and former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D). DeWine has had his dealings with Brown, who walloped him in 2006 amid a tough year for Republicans nationwide and especially tough in Ohio.

This is a tangled saga. Then-Sen. Brown, running for his third term in 2024, was defeated by Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio). Today, Brown is fighting to win the Senate seat previously held by Vice President JD Vance, which Gov. DeWine filled in January 2025 by appointing then-Lt. Gov. Husted.

DeWine is known for his resilience. After 12 years in the Senate, he returned to Ohio and taught government at several colleges before seeking elective office again. In 2010, he narrowly won the attorney general’s seat — an atypical post-Senate career move. He served under Gov. John Kasich (R).

After regaining his political momentum, Attorney General DeWine was overwhelmingly reelected in 2014. His work to test and develop criminal profiles from the massive backlog of rape-kits held by the state’s local law enforcement agencies — which laid bare the existence of 300 serial rapists in the state, who were linked to more than 1,100 crimes — helped propel him to his 2018 gubernatorial victory. Impressively, DeWine was reelected in 2022 by a 25-point margin.

Given DeWine’s remarkable journey through Washington and Ohio politics, he understands the fundamentals of leadership and governance. “Your mission and goals should always be clear and based on your core principles,” he explained. “Then, paint a picture of that vision so that people understand the ‘why’ behind it — why it’s important, why it matters, and why it will make a difference.”

DeWine emphasized, “You should be transparent and communicate what you know -and don’t know — focus on just a few big things, and then, be willing to make the tough decisions.”

That philosophy of focusing on “a few big things” is reflected in a recent stunning achievement; CNBC named Ohio “America’s top state for business 2026.” In his news release, DeWine stated, “When I took office, I promised to ‘plant the seeds’ of long-term investments that will positively impact Ohio for years to come. Today’s announcement is proof that these seeds are growing, and Ohio has a bright future ahead.”

After nearly five decades of continuous service, current and aspiring leaders can learn from Mike DeWine, a bespectacled, diminutive man who shuns the limelight. He is a workhorse who speaks truth to power, not a showhorse — the current political model.

When I asked Ann O’Donnell, the governor’s longtime chief advisor, how he managed to keep getting elected, she replied, “Mike DeWine is a radical optimist who believes deeply in the potential of all Ohioans. He loves Ohio and genuinely cares about the well-being of the people he has represented or governed.”

“Public service is both an incredible opportunity and an awesome responsibility,” DeWine told me. His advice to young officeholders: “Don’t waste time; treat every day you are in office with urgency while focusing on the things where you can make a difference.”

The governor also revealed his successful leadership style: “I taught my team a long time ago what we call the ‘but for’ test. But for you taking this action or that action, this change or the result would not have happened. If others are already doing it, then focus on something else.”

Regarding his remaining months in office, DeWine said, “I don’t spend much time thinking about legacy. Instead, I intend to help all Ohioans reach their full God-given potential.”

Summarizing her boss, chief advisor O’Donnell said, “He is the real deal, one of the last of a rare breed of public servants.”

Showhorse politicians, take note.

Myra Adams served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008. Read more from her archive at The Hill.

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill: July 24, 2026

After President Trump’s July 16 address exaggerating U.S. election vulnerabilities to foreign operators, Senate Intelligence Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) was sharply critical. Warner called it “a whole series of falsehoods, accusations, I believe aimed at trying to undermine America’s confidence in our system.”

With November’s midterm elections fast approaching, Trump is driven by desperation, fearing that Republicans could lose control of the House and possibly the Senate. Therefore, anticipating misleading statements in his Oval Office speech, ABC, NBC, and CNN refused to cover it live. They are now facing authoritarian-like threats in the form of “future broadcast license proceedings.”

Along with a desire to quash dissent, Trump’s disinformation campaign mirrors a strongman’s playbook. Citing unverified data on noncitizens voting, the president made a sweeping, unsubstantiated claim, saying, “These disclosures reveal an election system so broken and so vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it. It is not defensible.” (Note that even in New Jersey, where 6,600 non-citizens were recently found to have registered to vote, only 400 of them actually cast ballots.)

Trump’s bombastic stance is undercut by his own two presidential election victories and one loss. Consider that in 2016, Donald Trump lost the national popular vote while carrying the Electoral College. Although it is an unpopular way to win, it proved that our system abides by the Constitution. Moreover, because elections are decentralized and state-run, our voting system is less vulnerable to widespread tampering.

Then, in 2020, for legitimate political reasons, Trump lost re-election. Despite his refusal to concede, which helped spark the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, our “broken system” held strong. Therefore, one must ask whether our election system was suddenly ‘unbroken’ when Trump overwhelmingly won a delayed reelection on Nov. 5, 2024?

Yet his repeated lies about winning in 2020 are accepted by many as truth. Among Republicans, 50 percent believe the 2020 presidential election was rigged, compared with 28 percent of Americans, according to one poll.

Trump is a master manipulator with a personality that cannot bear to lose, ever. When he does lose, manufactured reasons are repeated ad nauseam that most of his supporters believe. So now, given Trump’s low approval rating, America faces a no-win election.

In his July 16 speech, Trump’s strategy was to undermine electoral confidence and create widespread uncertainty. However, if Republicans retain control of Capitol Hill, Team Trump will boast that the election was free and fair. Conversely, if they lose, the election will have been stolen or rigged by illegal voters, foreign government interference, manipulation of voting machines, corrupt mail-in votes, Democrat cheating, media bias, UFOs or some combination of those things.

A day after Trump’s speech, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin was already threatening states, flagging several of these factors (not UFOs — yet) for anticipated Republican midterm losses, possibly as excuses for him to cut federal grant funds now or interfere later.

Nonetheless, elections are the responsibility of county boards that report to their state boards, with no federal meddling and protections against nationwide manipulation. But the president, who has expanded presidential power like no other, is now driven to exert federal control to protect “election integrity” through well-known authoritarian tactics such as fear, threats, and intimidation.

Trump is not shy about engaging in election intimidation. In a May 10 Truth Social post, he announced he will deploy an “Election Integrity Army in every single State to preserve the sanctity of each legal vote.” He warned this Army “will be much bigger and stronger” than it was in 2024. Believe him.

A revealing new study found that voters expect and fear widespread federal ICE deployment at polling places, while trust in elections has declined.

Americans will know that Trump has gone full authoritarian if he invokes the Insurrection Act, which authorizes him to deploy the military to suppress civil disorder or squelch rebellion against the federal government. Trump already threatened to do so in January, when a prescient Hill op-ed writer suggested it was a dress rehearsal for the midterms. Below are some possible scenarios, and after Jan. 6, 2021, anything is possible!

In one scenario, Trump declares a national emergency, announcing that the elections are “insecure” or “under threat,” thereby requiring armed federal supervision.

In another, Trump rejects the outcome of the midterm elections and orders the military to prevent Democrats from seating their majorities on Capitol Hill.

Another possibility is that Republicans retain control of Congress, but many voters come away believing that Team Trump rigged the election. Millions of Americans take to the streets, and Trump uses force to crush what he will call a “rebellion” or “insurrection.”

Trump’s strongman tactics could also include the U.S. Postal Service interfering with the delivery of mail-in ballots, an unresolved issue worth watching. And, leaving no watchdogs, Trump recently fired the remaining Democrats from the independent Election Assistance Commission. Worse, he decimated the high-tech agency that is charged with protecting the election’s cybersecurity infrastructure.

Given all the above, will voter participation decline or increase to fight back? Either way, America’s first authoritarian election will be epic.

Myra Adams served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008.

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill – July 10, 2026

The official start of the 2028 presidential election cycle is just four months away. Yet the race for the Republican nomination already feels stale and boring with only two choices: Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

This week, insider reports say Trump is favoring Vance, though neither is very popular.

Last month, two national polls showed Vance leading Rubio, 42 percent to 15 percent, among Republican primary voters. An end-of-June poll found Vance at 35.4 percent, compared with Rubio’s 16.5 percent. No other prospective primary candidates reached double digits.

Equally revealing was a mid-June Navigator Research study asking registered voters about “favorability.” Vance earned 52 percent unfavorable, compared to Rubio’s 40 percent. Although Trump stood at 58 percent unfavorable, given his dominance over the Republican Party and the MAGA voter base, expect the president to play a leading role in determining the unlucky winner of the first post-Trump-era GOP nomination.

“Unlucky” because Trump will gleefully, strategically, and artfully create situations that test Vance’s and Rubio’s loyalty to him and his policies. Inevitably, watch them dodge the roadblocks and hand grenades Trump throws into the primary race. Trump is already doing that, as a Hill headline last month read, “Trump jokes he’ll blame Vance if Iran deal doesn’t work out.”

In May, Vance defended Trump’s proclivity for fostering a succession rivalry between Rubio and himself, saying, “I just don’t think it sounds like the President of the United States to have a televised competition for who would succeed him as his apprentice.” Really? Trump relishes choosing his successor like “The Apprentice” show on steroids. Trump’s 2028 power move is whether he endorses Vance, Rubio or a team ticket. The timing of his action or inaction will shape the primary playbook.

The core problem is Trump’s addiction to power and his reluctance to surrender it as required by law. Therefore, his successor must mirror him — worthy, strong, and tough, never showing weakness. Ironically, Trump’s perennial weakness is his job approval rating, which has long hovered at or slightly below 40 percent, a level that history shows can be problematic. In November 1988, George H.W. Bush became the last vice president to win a so-called “third term” as President Ronald Reagan’s successor. The September and October 1988 Gallup polls averaged Reagan’s job approval at 52.5 percent.

Thus, 40 years later, the nominee tasked with winning Trump’s third term will need divine intervention. Because politics is unpredictable (ask Kamala Harris), the game-changing scenarios cited below could upend this “predictable” Republican nomination race, or non-race if Trump crowns Vance.

In one scenario, Vance becomes the 48th president before the November 2028 election. (No speculation about how.) Could President Vance leverage his status as the world’s most powerful leader to win a four-year term? History lesson: In 1976, an unelected Republican, President Gerald Ford, lost the presidential election to Jimmy Carter, a little-known former Democratic governor from Georgia. Voters wanted an end to the Nixon-Ford era.

Vance would select a vice president and name that person as his 2028 running mate. (But two different people could fill those two slots. In 1974, after President Nixon’s resignation, Ford selected Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president. Then, in 1976, Ford chose Kansas Sen. Robert Dole as his running mate.)

Returning to Vance, during the primary season, he could choose Donald Trump Jr. as his running mate in exchange for a secret early endorsement from President Trump. With Team Trump, anything is possible!

But Vance might also decline to run for president, to protect his wife and young children from a brutal campaign. Truthfully, the 1984-born Vance would rather wait for a presidential cycle when Trump does not dominate.

Perhaps in 2027, Marco Rubio will drop a bombshell by resigning from the Trump administration to run for president. Distancing himself from Trump, Rubio could pursue his political dream of becoming the first Hispanic president, a goal he failed to achieve in 2016.

What if the midterm elections are a disaster for the Republicans, leaving Trump acting more erratically as a weakened “lame duck?”Vance or Rubio, whether separately or as a team, would then be less palatable to Republican primary voters and even less popular among the majority of the general electorate that wants the Trump era to end.

The above scenario could usher in a host of primary candidates not tied to Trump. These wannabe presidents must appeal to loyal MAGA voters while distancing themselves from the president. Also, with much fanfare, a billionaire or celebrity enters the race.

Today’s conventional assumption that the 2028 Republican presidential ticket will include Vance, Rubio, or both is foolhardy speculation so early in a long presidential cycle. By contrast, no speculation is needed about the 80-year-old former “Apprentice” star, who is trying to turn the race to succeed him into a kingmaker game show he produces and stars in until the people say, “You’re fired!”

Myra Adams served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008. Read more from her archive at The Hill.

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill – June 26, 2026

Two hundred fifty years ago, our Founding Fathers signed a world-changing document that began “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,…”

Later in the second paragraph, it read: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” That was the Founders’ first grievance. In part, the king was preventing colonial legislatures from passing laws for the public good. It topped a list of grievances that made up most of the Declaration.

Interestingly, the “King of Great Britain,” George III, is not named in the Declaration of Independence. But at the time, he was nicknamed “Mad King George” and later known as the “mad king who lost America.”

This year’s 250th anniversary is marked by revolutionary irony. One could argue that President Trump is channeling King George by committing similar “usurpations,” such as impounding money appropriated by Congress and refusing to sign two bipartisan pieces of legislation that serve the public good.

First, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a key provision that leaders warn jeopardizes national security if not renewed. Second, Trump canceled plans to sign a housing affordability bill addressing the nationwide crisis.

After defeating the world’s greatest military, the Founders adopted the Constitution, which begins “We The People.” It established three equal branches of government with checks and guardrails to prevent future elected presidents from usurping power if they exhibit mad-king-like behavior.

One notable guardrail is the midterm elections, when the electorate can vote to remove the president’s party from control of Congress. New legislators and senators can then rein in the chief executive by defunding programs, blocking actions, and voicing discontent with unpopular wars initiated by the president, as dramatically unfolded this week. At its most extreme, Congress can remove the president through impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate. 

But after the midterm election, a twice-elected incumbent president becomes a “lame duck.” By law, his name will never again appear at the top of a national ballot. Given Trump’s record of nontraditional, unorthodox behavior, “We The People” can expect him to defy that denigrating label, which embodies his greatest fears: weakness and dwindling power. Now watch the president’s controversial pre-midterm meddling as lame-duck Donald poses a unique set of dangers nationally and globally.

Whereas Trump exhibits no filter in his actions and a messianic mindset, The Hill has reported that he “insisted there are ‘no limits” to his power … in a new interview about his takeaways from the Iran war.” 

In the past, if an incumbent president claimed there were “no limits” to his power, it would have prompted hearings on Capitol Hill. Elected leaders would have asked him to clarify that statement in relation to the legislative and judicial branches, which are constitutionally empowered to check and balance the executive branch. With Trump, there was no visible pushback from the other two branches.

Trump’s belief that there are no limits to presidential power aligns with his January statement, that there was “one thing” limiting his global powers: “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.’”

Tellingly, a new book reports that Trump believes his power exceeds that of history’s worst tyrants. “We The People” therefore ought to beware.

After the midterms, if Republicans lose control of the House, Senate, or both, Trump, as the face of the Republican Party, is likely to lash out and seek scapegoats. We can expect legal challenges to “rigged” elections and further campaigns of retribution against his enemies. Perhaps Trump will find or manufacture an excuse to deploy the military domestically by declaring martial law, anything to prove he did not lose. Americans have seen this movie before.

Conversely, if Republicans retain full control of the House and Senate, Trump will act on his no-limits-on-power mandate with epic fury.

Win or lose the midterms, expect the final two years of Trump’s term to be both frightening and historic. He will seek to play a major role in choosing his successor and to ensure Republicans keep the White House because he cannot bear to leave the stage.

I fear for our nation, given that 59 percent of Americans believe “Trump is mentally, physically unfit to serve effectively,” according to a Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll. In late April, a Fox News poll found that among registered voters, 60 percent thought Trump lacked the temperament to be president, 55 percent believed he lacked mental soundness, and 57 percent said he lacked the judgment to be president.

Especially after the midterm elections, watch how America’s foundation is tested by a lame duck who believes his power has no limits. Meanwhile, Trump appears increasingly unstable amid declining health. He commands the world’s strongest military and acts against his “subjects,” like the mad king our Founders rebelled against and designed a government to prevent.

I ask: Could revolutionary history repeat itself?

Tags: constitution Founding Fathers George III Midterm elections President Trump

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill – June 12, 2026

Wave both hands if you are celebrating America’s 250th anniversary. I am, but with one hand behind my back.

I am a patriot. As a Baby Boomer, I appreciated growing up in the world’s greatest country that positively impacted the planet. However, because of two megatrends — namely national debt and unprecedented population shifts since 1976 — I fear for our nation’s future and what lies ahead in the next 50 years.

National pessimism is also shared by 59 percent of adults — the share telling the Pew Research Center in December that “America’s best years have passed.” Furthermore, when asked to think about “what things will be like in the U.S. 50 years from now,” 44 percent of adults are pessimistic, 28 percent optimistic, and 27 percent neutral.

What follows is comparative data from 1976 to 2026, both eye-popping and worrisome.

First, how will our nation manage its impending, unstoppable financial death spiral? Uncontrolled national debt is straining the U.S. government’s budget, with an increasing share of your tax dollars going toward interest payments.

In 1976, the national debt was $629 billion, and annual interest payments totaled $61 billion.   Today, the national debt is $39.2 trillion, with debt service at $1.1 trillion and rising by $3 billion per day. Last June, when I wrote about this crisis, the debt stood at $36.9 trillion, an increase of $2.3 trillion in one year! Therefore, the fireworks at our 250th anniversary celebrations should symbolize the financial explosions our leaders are reluctant to address.

Most Americans are unaware that interest on the debt is the government’s third-largest budget item, exceeding the current $940 billion Department of Defense budget. Note that for 2027, President Trump has requested a $1.5 trillion defense budget, which would exceed the $1.1 trillion in debt service, but not for long.

The largest federal budget expense is $1.9 trillion for Medicare and Medicaid, with Social Security at $1.6 trillion in second place. This week, a critical “wake-up call” report warned that monthly Social Security payments will need to be reduced starting in late 2032.

As America celebrates July 4, citizens must recognize that the rapidly expanding national debt and its corresponding interest payments leave less money to “make America great.” Thus, your hard-earned tax dollars are not being used for a wide array of essential government services. Moreover, there is less money to build new 21st-century infrastructure and to pursue futuristic endeavors in which the U.S. must keep pace with our global competitors, both friends and enemies, on Earth and in space.

Another revealing comparative data point from 1976 was the U.S. gross domestic product, at $1.87 trillion. Today, it is $32.3 trillion. That is an impressive 50-year economic growth streak, except when compared with the even larger and faster growth of our $39.2 trillion debt. When people or nations owe more than they earn, a crash often follows.

Population shift is the second megatrend shaping America’s future. In 1976, the U.S. population was 221 million. This year, it is 349 million. Racial composition is a sensitive issue because demographic transformation is underway: by 2045, the white population will no longer be the majority. How the public and our government respond to and manage that dramatic change will determine whether the U.S. thrives or fails.

Since our nation’s founding, the white population has dominated. According to 1976 census data, whites were approximately 85 percent, Blacks at 11 percent, Hispanics about 4 percent, while Asians and other races were less than 1 percent.

Today, the Pew Research Center estimates that non-Hispanic whites account for 56 percent. Hispanics are at 20 percent, Blacks at 12 percent, Asians at 6 percent, mixed races at 5 percent, and others at 1 percent or less. Interracial marriage is occurring at a fast clip, so mixed races are a growing segment.

America’s accelerating racial diversity raises many questions. For example, are segments of the white population unwilling to accept a fully mixed-race America? Could large-scale racial strife erupt? How will the Black population respond to a Hispanic population twice as large by 2045? Will the gap between the rich and poor continue to widen? Most importantly, what happens if a white minority still controls 84.5 percent of total family wealth? How will all this play out amid inevitable cuts to government payments and services?

Between now and 2045, the majority-white population will age rapidly. This year, the first baby boomers born in 1946 turn 80; among them are President Trump and former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. As a result, a large swath of the population will require more health and social services, largely provided by non-whites. Visit any nursing home or senior care facility to see this firsthand.

America’s 250th anniversary is marked by mounting government debt and rapid demographic change. Over the next 50 years, we must unite to address the current financial crisis and embrace our racial diversity, which 75 percent of adults support; otherwise, the consequences will be untenable.

Myra Adams served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008.

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill – May 29, 2026

My mantra for November’s election night is to “expect the unexpected.”

Nationally, President Trump’s gloomy average job approval rating of 39 percent is linked to rising gas prices. Meanwhile, in his adopted home state of Florida, his approval is 43 percent, yet 70 percent of Floridians say they are “falling behind” the cost of living. These figures do not bode well for an easy Senate race, which is currently ranked “solid Republican” but likely to tighten.

In November 2024, Trump won Florida by a 13-point margin. Now, the appointed incumbent, Sen. Ashley Moody (R-Fla.), must appease the state’s irate electorate. Moody served as Florida’s attorney general until Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) tapped her in January 2025 to fill the Senate seat vacated by Marco Rubio when named secretary of State.

Last July, Trump gifted the MAGA-loyal Moody an early endorsement to keep primary candidates at bay. As a Florida resident, I rarely hear Moody’s name in national, state or local news, but the president can always count on her support. Nonetheless, given anti-Trump fervor and a shocking recent poll, Moody’s fealty to Trump might be risky.

Enter Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, running as a Democrat and ready to challenge Moody. Yesterday, a Politico Playbook headline read “The next Senate race to watch” after Vindman’s optimistic internal polling highlighted his strength and Moody’s weaknesses.

But first, the Aug. 18 Florida primary, where he is expected to defeat state Rep. Angie Nixon (D). With recent momentum from polling, Vindman has raised $8.1 million, compared with Moody’s $8.4 million.

Fox News reported that “recent polling suggests a competitive race between Moody and Vindman in right-leaning Florida.”

The Vindman versus Moody race pits a Trump “yes-woman” placeholder against an enemy of the president. Vindman suffered for what he believed was his patriotic duty. To his superiors, Vindman reported President Trump’s allegedly illegal demands made to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky while he served on the National Security Council staff at the White House.

Vindman, a Kyiv-born Ukrainian American citizen, was a decorated U.S. Army combat officer when Trump unceremoniously fired him in February 2020. Wearing his uniform at Trump’s first impeachment hearing, Vindman rose to fame as a whistleblower through his dramatic congressional testimony, only to lose his distinguished Army career.

Vindman’s unique story could resonate with voters as Trump slides toward authoritarian rule, unleashing the Justice Department to reward his allies and punish his enemies.

Florida is a red state, but Democrats have recently prevailed in several local races. For Vindman, the voter registration data is both challenging and hopeful.

There are 5.5 million registered Republicans — a misleading number since I am one of them, disenchanted with my former party. Democrat registration lags at 4 million, while the 3.3 million no-party-affiliation voters, along with 481,000 minor-party registrations, will be decisive.

About that voter registration and more, I contacted Senate candidate Vindman. He responded, writing, “I am running to represent all 23 million Floridians.” I was impressed that he campaigned in the Villages — a Republican Mecca for older white voters, often the first stop for Republican presidential and statewide candidates.

Vindman explained, “When I say we are not just going to blue districts, but ruby red, too, I mean it — it’s why I was in The Villages earlier this month, walking the line of people waiting to attend a Trump rally, connecting with registered Republicans who are also fed up with rising costs, corruption in D.C., and foolish wars of choice that are not just putting our service members’ lives at risk, but causing costs to skyrocket for families who are already struggling to get by.”

When a Democratic Senate candidate is connecting with registered Republicans at a Trump rally in The Villages, sound the MAGA alarms.

With Vindman’s new polling showing a statistically even race, I asked about Team Trump unleashing a shock-and-awe campaign against him and the worst message they could hammer home to Florida voters. He replied, “I am a 21-year combat veteran who has reported corruption at the highest level. Politicians have already thrown their worst at me, which is why Ashley Moody and her allies don’t faze me. I am focused on delivering for my community, which means lowering costs and fighting corruption.”

Vindman also mentioned that “while a sitting senator,” one of Moody’s “first acts was trading more than $2 million in stock while she had access to information only Congress has.” Vindman’s message strategically incorporates a recent poll in which 95 percent of Florida voters say, “Political corruption and unchecked money in politics is leading to higher costs.”

Wounded by an IED during the Iraq War, Vindman has faced a lifetime of challenges, especially on the national stage. In 2023, Vindman moved his family to Florida and is now preparing for battle against Moody and Team Trump.

Vindman is a fearless Trump enemy, so watch this race and expect the unexpected.

Myra Adams served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008.

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill – May 15, 2026

The midterm election is 172 days away. That is 172 years in political time, when any day can alter the election’s trajectory, triggering seismic shifts.

Given the previous volatility, my August 2025 Hill op-ed titled “7 reasons the 2026 midterms will be the most dramatic ever” needs updating, starting with adding “dangerous” to the headline.

The first reason on last summer’s list remains the overarching one: President Trump “fears that Republicans will lose control of Congress.” He knows the severe consequences his administration and the Republican Party face if they lose the House and possibly the Senate. Then the legislature can reassert itself as a coequal branch of government rather than serve as Trump’s yes-men.

Meanwhile, Trump is fighting history. Since 1938, only twice has the president’s party gained House seats: in 1998, President Bill Clinton’s Democrats gained five seats, and in 2002, President George W. Bush’s Republicans gained eight seats.

In the 2018 midterm, Trump presided over a Democratic net gain of 40 House seats. Notably, on May 16, 2018, his job approval averaged 43 percent; today his average is 40 percent, with dips to 38.5 percent. Then consider this startling majority opinion: in a recent poll, The Hill reported, 59 percent “indicated Trump does not have the mental sharpness it takes to lead the country.”

The second reason for midterm drama and danger is gerrymandering, the practice of redistricting. Although gerrymandering dates to 1812, it has spun out of control, resulting in an “uncivil war” initially fueled by Trump’s extreme fear of losing congressional control and recently accelerated by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. This anti-democratic practice, in which politicians pick their constituents, is a scourge that weakens our nation, undermining the integrity of the electoral process through rigged representation by design.

Such partisan design yields congressional “safe seats,” which, in theory, should not exist in a democracy. Thus, safe seats are the root cause of uncompromising polarization among House members. An April YouGov poll found that 71 percent of Americans say “states should not be allowed to draw congressional districts in a way that intentionally favors one party.”

In my August 2025 piece, citing redistricting, I noted a “possible revolt” if Republicans kept control of the House. Nine months later, with widespread extreme redistricting favoring Republicans, such a revolt is even more likely.

Third, America is on the cusp of its first “authoritarian” election. In his May 10 Truth Social post, Trump wrote about employing an “Election Integrity Army in every single State to preserve the sanctity of each legal vote.” Citing this “Army” as the reason he won in 2024, Trump continued, “We will be doing the same again in 2026, but it will be much bigger and stronger.”

On Tuesday, ironically, as the president was departing for Communist China, Trump was asked if “he would send National Guard or ICE officers to voting locations,” and replied, “I do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.”

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche also appears supportive of employing ICE. And recall what former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said about the midterms: “We’ve been proactive to make sure that we have the right people voting.” Therefore, Americans must be concerned about voter safety and potential authoritarian-style activity on Election Day.

Fourth, early signs point to 2026 being among the highest voter turnout in midterm history. Therefore, count on intimidation in Democratic areas as discussed above.

The fifth reason for midterm drama and danger is the dour mood among American consumers, in which worries about affordability are a staple of daily life. Trump’s sinking job approval is mirrored in gas prices, grocery receipts, health insurance premiums, and soaring utility bills. Yet he appears extremely cavalier, seemingly incapable of feeling the people’s pain.

Sixth, with artificial intelligence creating fake, damaging campaign ads and targeted miscommunications, voters must discern what is real, because fakes could determine the outcome of close elections.

Seventh, voters feel powerless. Few trust the government to improve their economic circumstances or curb inflation, as Trump promised to do in 2024. Moreover, Americans are paying billions for an unpopular war in Iran, which, in March, the president called an “excursion” to be over “very soon.” Furthermore, Trump is obsessed with getting even, engaging billionaires, enriching his family, and building a gilded ballroom, all while renaming and remaking Washington as if it were Mar-a-Lago.

In summary, Trump’s name will appear at the top of every midterm ballot, if only virtually. If Republicans lose control of Congress, he might claim the election was rigged. And, since Trump equates losing with weakness, he could respond aggressively, possibly activating federal forces. Alternatively, if Republicans retain control of Congress, vast numbers will claim the election was won through gerrymandering or voter intimidation and might take to the streets.

Buckle up for the most dramatic and dangerous midterm election in U.S. history.