Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty

Dear Commons Community,

Biographer Michael Wolff revealed yesterday that Trump was unhappy with his sparsely attended military parade over the weekend and blamed it on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, 

Wolff told The Daily Beast Podcast that Trump wanted a “menacing” show of force to celebrate the Army’s 250th anniversary and his 79th birthday on Saturday—but got a “festive” parade instead.

“He’s p—ed off at the soldiers,” Wolff said. “He’s accusing them of hamming it up, and by that, he seems to mean that they were having a good time, that they were waving, that they were enjoying themselves and showing a convivial face rather than a military face.”

As thousands of soldiers flanked by tanks made their way past empty bleachers along Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C., social media users pointed out that the soldiers were marching out of sync, and the muted atmosphere appeared to match the gloomy weather.

That didn’t escape Trump, who pointed the finger at his defense secretary, according to Wolff.

“He kind of reamed out Hegseth for this,” the Trump biographer said. “Apparently, there was a phone call, and he said to Hegseth, the tone was all wrong. Why was the tone wrong? Who staged this? There was the tone problem. Trump, he keeps repeating himself.”

“It didn’t send the message that he apparently wanted, which is that he was the commander in chief of this menacing enterprise,” Wolff added.

Publicly, Trump has insisted that his parade was a “tremendous” success even after it was overshadowed by “No Kings” demonstrations across the country, which drew in millions of Americans who protested against the president’s sweeping immigration agenda.

Trump’ parade showed the world that he is a crass individual who has not learned that respect and leadership is based on what is in one’s heart and brains not in military machines. And in Trump world, there has to be a fall guy and Hegseth was it.

Tony

Amazon.com Inc. Chief Executive Andy Jassy

Dear Commons Community,

To survive as artificial intelligence transforms the workforce, employees should get to know the technology well.

That’s according to Amazon.com Inc. Chief Executive Andy Jassy, who outlined yesterday the ways that AI will change how people work at the e-commerce giant — and more broadly.

“Want to keep your job at Amazon? We suggest taking Andy’s advice,” Baird analyst Colin Sebastian wrote in a note to clients. He pointed to Jassy’s recommendations that employees “be curious about AI, educate yourself, attend workshops and take trainings, use and experiment with AI whenever you can, participate in your team’s brainstorms to figure out how to invent for our customers more quickly and expansively, and how to get more done with scrappier teams.”

Amazon had about 1.56 million full- and part-time employees as of the end of 2024, according to its latest annual report. That was up from roughly 1.53 million at the end of 2023.

Jassy’s commentary comes as other companies are stepping up their AI efforts, and their talk around them. Duolingo Inc. recently shared to LinkedIn a note from its CEO, who proclaimed that the language-instruction company was becoming “AI-first.”

“We’ll gradually stop using contractors to do work that AI can handle,” CEO Luis von Ahn said in the post. He noted that Duolingo would also look for AI use when making hiring decisions, and allocate more headcount to teams only if they could show that they couldn’t automate more tasks.

That said, he later took to his own page to clarify the original post.

“I do not see AI as replacing what our employees do (we are in fact continuing to hire at the same speed as before),” von Ahn wrote. “I see it as a tool to accelerate what we do, at the same or better level of quality. And the sooner we learn how to use it, and use it responsibly, the better off we will be in the long run.”

As Amazon goes, so will many other companies!

Tony

Zohran Mamdani and Andrew Cuomo

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times editorial board has weighed in on the city’s crowded mayoral race, urging voters not to back state Assembly member Zohran Mamdani in next week’s Democratic primary despite not directly endorsing another candidate.

The Times’s editorial board, which announced last year that it would no longer endorse in local and state elections, made clear yesterday that despite its lack of formal endorsement, it believes voters should not rank Mamdani in any of the spots on the ballot. 

New York City elections use ranked choice voting, allowing voters to list up to five candidates in order of their preference to support. 

“Mr. Mamdani, a charismatic 33-year-old, is running a joyful campaign full of viral videos in which he talks with voters. He offers the kind of fresh political style for which many people are hungry during the angry era of President Trump,” the board said. “Unfortunately, Mr. Mamdani is running on an agenda uniquely unsuited to the city’s challenges.” 

The board argued the field, made up of 11 candidates, lacks anyone who seems likely to be the city’s “next great mayor,” but several candidates have “substantial strengths.” It acknowledged that polls seem to show the race is between Mamdani and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), who has been the front-runner since entering the race but whose lead over Mamdani has shrunk considerably.

The board criticized Mamdani’s lack of experience and policy proposals, saying he “too often ignores the unavoidable trade-offs of governance.” It argued his calls for rent freezes could restrict the housing supply, rejected his support for government-run grocery stores and accused him of minimizing the importance of police.

It also raised issues with Mamdani having never run a government department or a private organization previously and a lack of execution of his agenda as a state legislator, a role he’s held since 2021. 

“Mr. Mamdani, who has called [former Mayor Bill] de Blasio the best New York mayor of his lifetime, offers an agenda that remains alluring among elite progressives but has proved damaging to city life,” the editorial states. 

The Hill has reached out to Mamdani’s campaign for comment.

The board said Cuomo also has “significant shortcomings,” citing his resignation as governor after multiple women made allegations of sexual harassment or undesired touching against him. Cuomo has consistently denied the accusations. 

The board also noted the criticisms of Cuomo’s handling of nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic and oversight of public transit. But it acknowledged many seem to intend to vote for him because of his policy record as governor, including raising the minimum wage, implementing paid family leave, legalizing same-sex marriage in 2011 and overseeing renovations of the city’s airports and train station. 

The editorial states city Comptroller Brad Lander, who has been among the next tier of candidates in polling, is an alternative to Cuomo and Mamdani. It praised Lander for moderating on certain stances, showing a “welcome ability to learn from experience” and effectively managing his office. 

The editorial board said it sees arguments for ranking several candidates, including Lander for progressive voters and a candidate such as businessman Whitney Tilson for moderate voters. But given the polls, it noted if and where voters rank Cuomo and Mamdani relative to each other may be what decides the election.

“We do not believe that Mr. Mamdani deserves a spot on New Yorkers’ ballots,” the board said. “His experience is too thin, and his agenda reads like a turbocharged version of Mr. de Blasio’s dismaying mayoralty. As for Mr. Cuomo, we have serious objections to his ethics and conduct, even if he would be better for New York’s future than Mr. Mamdani.” 

But not ranking either candidate, it said, would be the equivalent of stating no preference between the two.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Matthew W. Finkin, emeritus professor of law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the author of For the Common Good: Principles of American Academic Freedom, had an essay in yesterday’s Chronicle of Higher Education entitled, “The Unraveling of the AAUP:  This organization no longer knows what it stands for.”  See:  Opinion | The Unraveling of the AAUP

Here is an excerpt.

“An article on threats to academic freedom on college campuses in last week’s New York Times Magazine touched on a running debate between the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The former has long been the expositor of the meaning of academic freedom; the latter is active in litigating free-speech cases. The quarrel between the two organizations raises some hard questions about the AAUP’s current role.

From its founding in 1915, the AAUP has gained the respect of the academic community and of the judiciary in explicating the meaning and application of academic freedom and tenure. Its work has had a significant impact on both. Its credibility has been earned by the consistent adherence to principle uninfluenced by exogenous policies or organizational ends, and by the sheer quality of its work. The latter was captured a half century ago by Judge J. Skelly Wright, who noted the “thoroughness and scrupulous care” in the AAUP documents placed before the court.

Recent actions have departed from these standards — and radically. The AAUP, acting through its Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, has, first, abandoned its prior position that systematic participation in the boycott of Israeli universities could threaten academic freedom and, second, declared that adherence to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) dictates as a condition of faculty retention can be consistent with academic freedom. These actions reveal a body now driven by considerations other than fidelity to principle. As a result, the deep well of communal respect has been drained dry; the AAUP’s credibility has been destroyed.”

Finkin’s conclusion:

“It seems inevitable that sometime, somewhere, one or more instructors will not be reappointed for no reason other than the failure to satisfy a DEI requirement. It seems equally inevitable that at least one housed in a public university will contest the decision on constitutional grounds; and, in that event, that the AAUP will appear before the court as amicus curiae. In that case, it would be expected that the AAUP will address the court much along this line:

‘We appear before this court as the repository of a century’s thoughtful engagement with the meaning and significance of academic freedom, to bring our considered judgment, expressed in the Statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Criteria for Faculty Evaluation, to the court’s attention and to argue in support of it.’

To which the only frank response a court could make is: “You are the successor in title, but no longer in principle, spirit, or scrupulous care.”

Finkin’s essay was adapted from an article originally published in Telos Insights.

Tony

Randi Weingarten

Dear Commons Community,

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten is departing the Democratic National Committee (DNC), citing disagreements with DNC Chair Ken Martin.

Weingarten told Martin in a letter dated June 5 and obtained by The Hill on Sunday that she was declining to be reappointed as an at-large member of the committee.

“While I am a proud Democrat, I appear to be out of step with the leadership you are forging, and I do not want to be the one who keeps questioning why we are not enlarging our tent and actively trying to engage more and more of our community,” wrote Weingarten, who has served as a DNC member for 23 years.

Weingarten backed then-Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler to serve as DNC chair during elections earlier this year. Weingarten was later removed by Martin from the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee. 

A source close to the DNC told The Hill they were not surprised by Weingarten’s move to step down, noting her differences with Martin. 

“Ever since the horse she bet on in the Chairs race lost, she has always been on the other side of the fence as Ken — this is no surprise,” the source said. 

A longtime Democratic strategist criticized Weingarten’s resignation for being poorly timed, alluding to the weekend “No Kings” protests across the country with large crowds turning out to criticize President Trump’s administration.

“Especially when the country just showed up by the millions across all demographic and geographic boundaries to take on Trump grassroots style it’s flabbergasting to me that a senior DNC member, much less one as supposedly committed as Randi, would take the moment to make it all-about-her,” the strategist said. “Today, party leadership should figure out how to not just ride a wave but lead a movement, not continue with internecine persona-driven drama.”

Weingarten is a powerful figure on the political left. The AFT boasts roughly 1.8 million members and has significant influence on the Democratic Party and its candidates. 

Her exit comes as the DNC has had to grapple with internal divisions being laid bare in recent weeks. Former DNC Vice Chair David Hogg has been vocally critical of the party’s leadership, writing in a post on the social platform X last week that the party’s leaders have been “asleep at the wheel.” 

The infighting has threatened to stall the party’s efforts to rebuild seven months after Trump won a second term.

Hogg faced backlash from many Democrats, including from within the DNC, for launching an organization that would primary incumbent House Democrats in an effort to bring about generational change within the party.

Hogg said he would not be vying for his spot as vice chair in the DNC after an overwhelming majority of DNC committee members voted to redo the vice chair elections of Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, who was elected again to the post on Saturday.

Weingarten’s departure from the DNC is just another indication that the national Democratic Party is in trouble.

Tony

Vance Boelter. Credit: FBI

Dear Commons Community,

The Associated Press is reporting that Vance Luther Boelter, the man accused of assassinating Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, held deeply religious and politically conservative views, telling a congregation in Africa two years ago that the U.S. was in a “bad place” where most churches didn’t oppose abortion.

Boelter, 57, was captured late yesterday following a two-day manhunt authorities described as the largest in the state’s history. Boelter is accused of impersonating a police officer and gunning down former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, in their home outside Minneapolis. Democratic Gov. Tim Walz described the shooting as “a politically motivated assassination.”

Sen. John Hoffman, also a Democrat, and his wife, Yvette, were shot earlier by the same gunman at their home nearby but survived.

Friends and former colleagues interviewed by AP described Boelter as a devout Christian who attended an evangelical church and went to campaign rallies for President Donald Trump. Records show Boelter registered to vote as a Republican while living in Oklahoma in 2004 before moving to Minnesota where voters don’t list party affiliation.

Near the scene at Hortman’s home, authorities say they found an SUV made to look like those used by law enforcement. Inside they found fliers for a local anti-Trump “No Kings” rally scheduled for Saturday and a notebook with names of other lawmakers. The list also included the names of abortion rights advocates and health care officials, according to two law enforcement officials who could not discuss details of the ongoing investigation and spoke to AP on condition of anonymity.

Both Hortman and Hoffman were defenders of abortion rights at the state legislature.

Drew Evans, superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, said at a briefing on Sunday that Boelter is not believed to have made any public threats before the attacks. Evans asked the public not to speculate on a motivation for the attacks. “We often want easy answers for complex problems,” he told reporters. “Those answers will come as we complete the full picture of our investigation.”

Friends told the AP that they knew Boelter was religious and conservative, but that he didn’t talk about politics often and didn’t seem extreme.

“He was right-leaning politically but never fanatical, from what I saw, just strong beliefs,” said Paul Schroeder, who has known Boelter for years.

Boelter, who worked as a security contractor, gave a glimpse of his beliefs on abortion during a trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2023. While there, Boelter served as an evangelical pastor, telling people he had first found Jesus as a teenager.

“The churches are so messed up, they don’t know abortion is wrong in many churches,” he said, according to an online recording of one sermon from February 2023. Still, in three lengthy sermons reviewed by the AP, he only mentioned abortion once, focusing more on his love of God and what he saw as the moral decay in his native country.

He appears to have hidden his more strident beliefs from his friends back home.

“He never talked to me about abortion,” Schroeder said. “It seemed to be just that he was a conservative Republican who naturally followed Trump.”

A married father with five children, Boelter and his wife own a sprawling 3,800-square-foot house on a large rural lot about an hour from downtown Minneapolis that the couple bought in 2023 for more than a half-million dollars.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Thank you to all of the dads, grandpas, uncles, godfathers, paternal figures, and other men in our lives who do so much for us!

I am spending this weekend in Kitsap Lake, Washington, with my wife, Elaine, my son, Michael, his partner, Lisa, my daughter, Dawn Marie, her husband, Bruce, and grandkids, Michael Anthony and Ali. I could not have asked for a better Father’s Day.

I also remember my dad, Amadeo, who died in 1973.  A day does not go by that I don’t think about him. 

God bless you!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Axios reported yesterday that several Israeli officials claimed they “had a clear U.S. green light” to attack Iran, despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s quick statement distancing the U.S. from the attack.

Axios’s Barak Ravid and Dave Lawler reported on the 8-month-long planning that went into the wide-ranging attack on Iranian nuclear sites, as well as military commanders.

“Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,” declared Rubio in a statement soon after the strikes began.

“Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel,” Rubio added.

Axiso reported, however, that “Trump and his aides were only pretending to oppose an Israeli attack in public — and didn’t express opposition in private,” citing the Israeli sources, who remained anonymous.

Trump himself changed tune a bit on Friday, following the apparent success of the Israeli strikes.

“Certain Iranian hardliner’s spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, adding, “They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!”

The Axios report added that Trump’s statements calling for diplomacy ahead of the strikes were all part of the plan. “The goal, they say, was to convince Iran that no attack was imminent and make sure Iranians on Israel’s target list wouldn’t move to new locations,” reported Axios of the Israeli claims, adding:

Netanyahu’s aides even briefed Israeli reporters that Trump had tried to put the brakes on an Israeli strike in a call on Monday, when in reality the call dealt with coordination ahead of the attack, Israeli officials now say.

The report notes, of course, that the “U.S. side has not confirmed any of that. In the hours before and after the strike, the Trump administration distanced itself from the Israeli operation in public statements and private messages to allies.”

Read the full report here.

Tony

(Photo by ANDREW THOMAS/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

Dear Commons Community,

In what’s expected to be a massive display of opposition to Trump’s brutal immigration raids and other policies, throngs of Americans are slated to turn out at “No Kings” protests today across all 50 states in communities large and small.

The event organizers ― which include Indivisible, the American Civil Liberties Union and 50501 ― say there are approximately 2,000 demonstrations in the works on the same day that Trump has arranged a military parade honoring the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, which happens to fall on his 79th birthday.

“No Kings is a nationwide day of defiance,” a website for the event states. “From city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, we’re taking action to reject authoritarianism — and show the world what democracy really looks like.”

Trump’s event is a “spectacle meant to look like strength. But real power isn’t staged in Washington. It rises up everywhere else,” it continues, adding: “We’re not gathering to feed his ego. We’re building a movement that leaves him behind.”

Trump dismissed the demonstrations in remarks Thursday.

“I don’t feel like a king. I have to go through hell to get stuff approved,” he said from the White House, adding: “We’re not a king at all, thank you very much.”

The protest’s website has an interactive map to help demonstrators locate events, each of which has an individual page with details about start times and locations. In Wyoming, the reddest state in the country, more than a dozen protests are planned.

People seeking to organize a protest in their area are asked to use this toolkit to register one, though there’s one city organizers have said won’t have protests: Washington, D.C., the site of Trump’s military parade.

“We’re making the center of gravity on June 14 everywhere President Trump isn’t,” organizers said. “So rather than coming to D.C. to conflict with his military parade, we’re going to be everywhere else to contrast against it.”

Philadelphia, which is expected to have one of the bigger protests, will host a livestream of the event, Leah Greenberg, co-founder of Indivisible, told The New York Times.

She wouldn’t say how many attendees were expected at the protests but did say the events had more RSVPs then Indivisible’s massive “Hands Off!” protests in April, which in D.C. alone drew an estimated 100,000 people.

The protests come as agents from Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement descend on immigrant communities around the country, rounding up undocumented people in raids. Those taken into custody include people showing up to immigration court hearings and young, asylum-seeking children.

YES to No Kings Day!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

“No Kings” protests are being organized to coincide with a military parade in Washington, D.C., celebrating  Trump’s 79th birthday and the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. The protests are framed as a response to what organizers view as authoritarian governance and a rejection of the spectacle of the parade, which they believe represents a display of power rather than true democratic values. As described at the No Kings website.

Date: June 14, 2025

Purpose

To protest against President Trump’s policies and the militarization of celebrations, emphasizing that the country does not belong to a king and advocating for civil rights and community empowerment.

Locations

Approximately 1,800 protests are planned across the country, with significant events in various cities. Notably, there will be no protests in Washington, D.C., where the parade will occur. Instead, organizers encourage participation in marches in nearby areas like Philadelphia.

Organizers and Participation

The protests are coordinated by a coalition of progressive groups, including Indivisible, the American Federation of Teachers, and Public Citizen. They aim to mobilize communities to stand against what they perceive as corrupt and authoritarian practices by the Trump administration.

Events and Activities

In addition to the protests, there are training sessions and town halls planned to prepare participants for safe and effective mobilization. These sessions will cover crowd management, safety protocols, and strategies for nonviolent action.

Conclusion

The “No Kings” protests represent a significant grassroots movement aimed at fostering community solidarity and challenging the current political climate. Participants are encouraged to join local events and contribute to the collective message of resistance against perceived authoritarianism in American politics. For more information and to find specific events, you can visit the official “No Kings” website. 

Tony