US Politics

The US federal government shutdown was poised to move into record-breaking territory on Tuesday after the Senate rejected for the 14th time a funding package already passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.With the shutdown now in its record-equalling 35th day, frantic behind-the-scenes talks were under way to bring the standoff to a close amid expressions of alarm from Democrats and Republicans alike about its disruptive effects on millions of Americans.The shutdown threatened services such as the federal food stamps program and has seen employees furloughed or working unpaid. It will exceed the 35-day closure that occurred during Donald Trump’s first presidency, in 2018, if it continues past midnight tonight.With concerns over its impact mounting, the Trump administration moved on Monday to provide emergency funds that would keep the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) operating at 50% capacity following court rulings stating that it could not legally withhold financial backing. The program provides food aid to 42 million Americans and costs around $9bn a month.But Trump, who has hitherto made little effort to end the impasse, reopened the fears over Snap on Tuesday, by threatening to hold the program hostage until Democrats capitulate and vote in favour of the government funding package.He wrote on social media that Snap benefits “will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!”While the Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, Democrats are able to block the bill’s passage thanks to the filibuster, which needs the votes of 60 senators for passage. Trump has urged Republicans to use their majority to scrap the filibuster.The president’s latest threat over Snap seemed to be a sign of growing edginess over a shutdown that he has sought to blame on Democrats but which polls indicate a majority of the public believe is the responsibility of the Republicans and his administration.Unlike the earlier shutdown during his first term, when he fought Congress in 2018-19 for funds to build the US-Mexico border wall, the president has been largely absent from this shutdown debate.Republican and Democratic senators are quietly negotiating the terms of an emerging deal. With a nod from their leadership, the senators are seeking a way to reopen the government, put the normal federal funding process back on track and devise a resolution to the crisis of expiring health insurance subsidies that are spiking premium costs across the country.“Enough is enough,” said John Thune, the Senate majority leader and a South Dakota Republican, as he opened the deadlocked chamber.Labour unions have stepped up pressure on lawmakers to reopen the government.“We’re not asking for anything radical,” the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, said. “Lowering people’s healthcare costs is the definition of common sense.”With the House speaker, Mike Johnson, having sent lawmakers home in September, most attention is on the Senate, where party leaders have outsourced negotiations to a loose group of centrist dealmakers from both parties.Central to any solution will be a series of agreements that would need to be upheld not only by the Senate, but also the House and the White House.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSenators from both parties, particularly the powerful members of the appropriations committee, are pushing to ensure the normal government funding process can be put back on track.“The pace of talks have increased,” said Gary Peters, a Democratic senator from Michigan.A substantial number of senators also want some resolution to the standoff over Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at year’s end.However, the White House is demanding that Democrats vote to fund the government before talks over healthcare can begin. White House officials are said to be in close contact with GOP senators who have been quietly speaking with key Senate Democrats.The loss of federal subsidies, which come in the form of tax credits, are expected to leave many people unable to buy health insurance.Republicans, with control of the House and Senate, are reluctant to fund the healthcare program, also known as Obamacare. However, Thune has promised Democrats a vote on their preferred proposal, on a future date, as part of any deal to reopen government.That’s not enough for some senators, who see the healthcare deadlock as part of their broader concerns with Trump’s direction for the country.Democrats, and some Republicans, are also pushing for guardrails to prevent the Trump administration’s practice of unilaterally slashing funds for programs that Congress had already approved, by law, the way billionaire Elon Musk did earlier this year at the “department of government efficiency”. More

A top Democrat has demanded to know why the Trump administration “inexplicably killed” a criminal investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators as he accused the justice department of a “shameful and gigantic cover-up”.Jamie Raskin, a House judiciary committee ranking member and congressman from Maryland, claimed the decision to end the investigation in July had shielded an alleged network of “powerful individuals accused of enabling and engaging in the massive billion-dollar sex trafficking operation” while ignoring the accounts of women exploited by Epstein.In a letter to the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, on Monday, Raskin asked: “Why would the Trump Administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) kill an ongoing criminal investigation into a massive and decades-long criminal sex trafficking ring that preyed on girls and young women? Who exactly are you intending to protect by this action?”Raskin demanded to know why the investigation had abruptly ended despite the fact that nearly 50 women had provided information to prosecutors and the FBI as part of the years-long investigation into Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who was jailed in 2022. He claimed the women had identified to investigators at least 20 co-conspirators.“The information provided by this huge group of women was precise and detailed: they described how Mr Epstein, Ms Maxwell, and their co-conspirators orchestrated a sophisticated and clandestine sex trafficking conspiracy that trafficked them to at least 20 men,” Raskin wrote.“These survivors shared with the DOJ and FBI the specific identities of many of these co-conspirators, how this operation was structured and financed, and which individuals facilitated these crimes.”Efforts to pursue these leads appear to have been halted when Trump came into office, a press release from the committee claimed.The Epstein case has been under renewed scrutiny since the justice department and the FBI concluded in a memo in July that no secret client list of Epstein existed and no further charges were expected as investigators “did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties”. The memo contradicted previous claims made by Trump and Bondi, as well as conspiracy theories alleging Epstein was at the center of a larger plot.Raskin said the US attorney’s office for the southern district of New York had been running an investigation into the disgraced financier’s alleged co-conspirators until January 2025, when prosecutors were ordered to transfer the case files to the justice department’s headquarters in Washington DC.Since then, “the investigation into co-conspirators has inexplicably ceased, and no further investigative steps appear to have been taken”, Raskin wrote, citing information provided by lawyers representing Epstein’s accusers.He said the women had made clear to the justice department and the FBI that Epstein and Maxwell did not act alone. “Yet, the Trump Administration has inexplicably killed this investigation, declared these survivors ‘not credible,’ and falsely claimed no evidence exists to support charges against additional co-conspirators,” Raskin added.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe accused the justice department of abandoning promises made under the Biden administration to coordinate with victims in its pursuit of Epstein’s co-conspirators. “Your DOJ has abandoned those promises in pursuit of a shameful and gigantic cover-up,” he wrote.Raskin has asked Bondi for details of investigative steps relating to the case undertaken by the justice department since January 2025.In an email response, justice department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre blamed Democrats and the shutdown.“The Democrats have shut down the government and Congressional correspondence during a lapse in appropriations is limited. We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the Committee in pursuit of transparency, as we have already provided 33,000 pages to the House Oversight Committee – more than was ever requested by the committee when the Ranking Member’s party was in the majority, once the Democrats stop playing games with taxpayer dollars and vote to re-open the government.” More

Weeks before one of America’s best-known businessmen, Donald Trump, was sworn in as president on an overcast day in Washington DC, a different politician with a similarly familiar name took her oath of office elsewhere in the Capitol.Liz Cheney was then both a freshman congresswoman from Wyoming and a stalwart of the neoconservative philosophy espoused by her father Dick Cheney, the former vice-president under George W Bush who died on Monday. Trump had repudiated Bush’s invasion of Iraq in his campaign for president, but the congresswoman nonetheless went on to become an ally in bending Republican lawmakers to his will.It was only after the January 6 insurrection that Cheney broke with Trump, making what turned out to be a lonely stand against his dominance of Republicans that wound up ending her political career. The then-former president orchestrated her ouster, first from Republican leadership, then from the House of Representatives entirely. Liberals would lionize Cheney for her defiance as an emblem of the “good Republicans” they long hoped would one day expel Trump from the party, even though she never broke with her conservative Republican politics.The Cheneys’ view of American power may now seem farther from relevance than at any time since Bush left office, but signs of it linger in Trump’s new administration. Though he promised to be a peacemaker while campaigning for re-election last year, the president has ordered the first-ever US bombing raid on Iran, blown up boats he claims are carrying drugs off the coast of Venezuela and ordered a formidable naval flotilla to the South American country’s coastline, while mulling airstrikes on its territory.“Many of the people who are around him actually were in favor of the Iraq war, and I think with that influence, he’s being influenced towards regime change war in Venezuela,” the Republican senator Rand Paul told reporters last week.Liz Cheney is certainly excluded from that group. Rising to chair the House Republican conference just after winning her second term in office, Cheney’s time in leadership was brief. After a mob of pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol, she became the highest-ranking Republican to break with the president.“The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the president,” Cheney said, as she voted to impeach Trump over the violence.She would go on to serve as vice-chair, and one of two Republicans, on the House committee that investigated the attack. But her political fate was sealed. House Republicans voted to strip her from her leadership post in May 2021, and she lost her primary the following year, in both cases to lawmakers that have hewed closely to the president’s positions.Through it all, Cheney remained a conservative in the tradition of her father. As recently as 2021, she joined him in defending waterboarding, the brutal interrogation technique Bush’s CIA used against terrorism suspects, and restated her opposition to abortion and the Affordable Care Act. When Joe Biden’s priorities came up before the House, she mostly voted against them.None of that was enough to stave off Trump’s wrath. As Republicans moved to depose her from leadership, she took to the House floor to call the former president “a threat America has never seen before”.“He risks inciting further violence. Millions of Americans have been misled by the former president. They have heard only his words, but not the truth as he continues to undermine our democratic process, sowing seeds of doubt about whether democracy really works at all,” she said.Nor did her father hold his tongue.“He is a coward. A real man wouldn’t lie to his supporters. He lost his election, and he lost big. I know it. He knows it, and deep down, I think most Republicans know,” the former vice-president said of Trump in a television ad for his daughter’s failed bid for a fourth term in 2022.Both Cheneys would go on to endorse and, in Liz’s case, campaign with, Kamala Harris last year. Trump in turn blasted Dick Cheney as “an irrelevant RINO” or Republican in name only, and “the King of Endless, Nonsensical Wars”. Biden later awarded Liz Cheney the Presidential Citizens Medal and, in his final hours as president, issued her a pre-emptive pardon after Trump threatened her prosecution.When the president this year ordered seven B-2 bombers to fly more than 14,000 miles from Missouri to attack Iran’s nuclear sites, John Bolton, a neoconservative veteran of both the Bush and Trump administrations who has since become a bitter enemy of the president, praised him for taking a course of action he had advocated for decades.“I can say unequivocally, I think President Trump made the right decision for America in attacking the Iranian nuclear program,” he told Bloomberg Surveillance. “We could have done it in the first term, too.”Cheney, by contrast, remained silent. More

The former US vice-president is widely regarded as the driving force behind George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and the US War on Terror. More

He was the embodiment of America-first ideals before Donald Trump and his Maga movement hijacked the phrase.The principle of a strong president empowered to push through the agenda was core to his view of how US politics should function.Yet long before his death on Tuesday, Dick Cheney was deeply estranged from the Republican party that had been his life’s work and the person, Trump himself, who had single-handedly reshaped it in his own image.Along with his daughter, Liz Cheney, the former vice-president who was once synonymous with rightwing Republican neo-conservatism – became so disenchanted with the modern GOP and alarmed by the threat he believed Trump posed, that he endorsed Democrat Kamala Harris for president in 2024.He had earlier appeared with Liz (then a member of Congress and now one of Trump’s sworn enemies) on the steps of the US Capitol on the first anniversary of the January 6 riot by Trump supporters trying to overturn the results of the presidential election. The occasion, at which no other Republicans were present, produced the remarkable spectacle of Democrats warmly shaking his hand.The memories will inevitably soften the image Democrats are apt to have of him. Yet they are hard to reconcile with the picture his legions of critics held of Cheney in his prime.For an entire generation, Cheney was viewed unambiguously – and not inaccurately – as the driving force and architect behind the US invasions of Afghanistan following the September 11 terror attacks, and in 2003, of Iraq, on the fallacious grounds that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destructions and had ties to al-Qaida.As vice-president to George W Bush, Cheney was an emphatic propagator of both theories – and unapologetic when they were proved wrong.Both campaigns resulted in long, bloody occupations, that spawned bitter internal resistance, and cost hundreds of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi lives – as well as those of US and allied service personnel. The cost in national resources was immense.That Cheney was able to play such a defining role in America’s early 21st century foreign policy was down to the relative inexperience in international affairs of Bush, who consequently gave his vice-president broad – many said unprecedented – latitude, knowing that he had served as defense secretary under his father, George HW Bush.His influence in the second Bush administration was profound in other ways, being a key driving force to its unfolding “war on terror” that followed the 9/11 attacks and resulted, within weeks, in the USA Patriot Act. The legislation paved the way for a whole panoply of actions designed to counteract terrorism and prevent repeat attacks.The result was an anti-terrorism infrastructure that included the now notorious detention centre at Guantánamo Bay, secret rendition flights of suspects detained overseas, and “enhanced interrogation” techniques that human rights groups and others denounced as torture.Cheney may not have designed all of it – or been the sole instigator. But he was closely identified with it in a way that exceeded any other administration figure, barring perhaps Bush himself.Far from minding, the hawkish vice-president lapped it all up. He relished his publicly assigned role of being the administration’s “Darth Vader”, joking that his wife, Lynn, said it “humanized” him.Against that dark aura, the ironies of Cheney’s parting of ways with Trump and modern day Republicans are numerous.His forceful personality and willingness to push his own agenda in the Bush White House brought about the “forever wars” that Trump later denounced and promised his support base would be avoided under his presidency.Yet so much of what Cheney believed and fought for created the ground for Trump’s excesses.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe USA Patriot Act, for instance, may be now be used to justify the current administration’s actions against Venezuela, whose president, Nicolás Maduro, and leading officials have been designated by Trump as “narco-terrorists” potentially subject to the same lethal actions that befell al-Qaida figures like Osama bin Laden.Cheney was also an advocate of appointing some of the most rightwing figures to the US supreme court, including the current chief justice, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.As chief-of-staff to Gerald Ford in the immediate aftermath of Watergate, Cheney became deeply critical of the limitations placed on the presidency in reactions to the abuses that had occurred under Richard Nixon, believing it rendered the office holder impotent in many ways.He clamored for a more assertive executive, which he helped to implement – and exercise – during Bush’s presidency.Yet under Trump that vision has expanded in ways that Cheney could perhaps not imagine, helped in part by sympathetic rulings from the current supreme court that he played some role in shaping.Cheney lived long enough to see confirmation of the fears he experienced after the January 6 riot.“After the riot … he saw the dangers of an overly powerful president,” said Robert Schmuhl, professor in American studies at the University of Notre Dame.It seemed a strange turnaround for a man who – at least in Bush’s first term, when his impact was at its zenith – accrued more power and influence than any other vice-president in US history.Yet, said Schmuhl, it did not amount to a change of mind or heart. “He really worked to strengthen the presidency, but then recognized that you can only go so far, and that there should be guardrails,” he said.“Dick Cheney was a very consequential figure but was also a deeply controversial figure – and in retrospect, the controversy overshadows the consequence.” More

Dick Cheney, one of the most important figures in America’s neo-conservative movement, has died at the age of 84. Cheney had a long career in government and was considered by many as one of the most powerful vice-presidents in US history.

Cheney started his career in politics in 1968 in the office of William Steiger, a Republican representative from Wisconsin, before joining the staff of Donald Rumsfeld, who was at the time the director of the Office of Economic Opportunity. By 1974, Cheney was brought on to the team of Gerald Ford, who had assumed the US presidency that year following the resignation of Richard Nixon. He followed Rumsfeld as Ford’s White House chief of staff in 1975, at the age of 34.

Cheney then went on to spend over a decade serving as a member of the House of Representatives. He represented a district in Wyoming until 1989 when he was appointed secretary of defense by the then-president, George H.W. Bush.

This experience would prove critical to Cheney’s subsequent selection as running mate by Bush’s son, George W. Bush, for his 2000 presidential campaign as the Republican candidate. Bush Jr. went on to win that election, and his partnership with Cheney would ultimately prove incredibly significant in reshaping US foreign policy in the Middle East.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the neo-conservative movement gained momentum in Washington and found an ally in Cheney. He was a founding signatory of the so-called Project for the New American Century, which became a major forum for neo-conservative thinking. The goal was to promote US interests – namely spreading democracy abroad – through a bold deployment of military power.

This interventionist foreign policy culminated in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Considered by some to be a shadow president, Cheney had a huge influence over Bush Jr. He reportedly played a major role in convincing Bush to go to war in Iraq.

Cheney expressed no regrets about this decision, calling critics of the war “spineless” in 2005. But a majority of Americans considered this decision to be a grave error.

The war is estimated to have cost the US well over US$1 trillion (£800 billion), and as much as US$3 trillion when taking the wider regional conflict it sparked into account. The war also led to the deaths of as many as 600,000 Iraqi civilians, according to an estimate published by the Lancet medical journal.

American soldiers on patrol in Taji, Iraq, in 2008.
Christopher Landis / Shutterstock

There were also questions about whether Cheney had a conflict of interest. He had previously served as the chief executive of Halliburton, a company that won billions of dollars in US military contracts to restore Iraq’s oil sector – this included some of the biggest military logistics contracts in history. Cheney was even accused of coordinating preferential awarding of contracts to the company, though he and Halliburton denied it.

He was also accused of circumventing due process, constitutional checks and congressional oversight during his time as vice-president. A prominent example of this was his involvement in a programme to intercept domestic communications without a judicial warrant.

Cheney was also widely disliked in the intelligence community. Many of these people resented the way he undermined the CIA by, for example, instructing subordinates in the agency to transmit raw intelligence directly to his office.

Change of heart?

Given that Cheney believed executive power needed to be expanded, there was a degree of irony in his decision to endorse the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris, in the 2024 presidential election. The winner of that election, Donald Trump, also favours an executive unencumbered by institutions.

But Cheney clearly had his limits. While Bush Jr. was reticent to publicly attack Trump, Cheney became one of his harshest critics. This was especially so after Liz Cheney, his daughter and a now former congresswoman, voted to impeach Trump after the insurrection of January 6 2021, which made her enemy number one in Trump’s eyes.

However, some critics claim that it was Cheney’s shadow presidency that paved the way for Trump’s aggressive expansion of the executive power of the presidency. Along the way, he wielded the power of the vice-presidency in a way not been seen before or, arguably, since.

Cheney was not just powerful but prone to operating clandestinely, even creating an independent operation inside the White House. All of this helped fuel mistrust of the government.

As Cheney advanced in age, his stances seemed to be softening from the Darth Vader image he had embraced as vice-president. More than half of the multi-million fortune that Cheney gained from selling his Halliburton stock options, for example, was donated to the Cardiac Institute at George Washington University.

Cheney, who survived five heart attacks and eventually a heart transplant, was seen a political survivor. But the Republican party that he had led in the shadows has been transformed. Once a towering figure in the conservative movement, today his brand of conservatism is a relic of the past. More

Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigationView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenMost viewedMost viewed More

If you were hoping Jennifer Lawrence might be able to tell you who to vote for and why, you’re in for some disappointment. “I don’t really know if I should,” the actor told the New York Times recently when asked about speaking up about the second Trump administration – and she’s not the only one. “I’ve always believed that I’m not here to tell people what to think,” Sydney Sweeney recently told GQ, after a year in which she was the subject of controversy over a jeans ad and a possible Republican voter registration. This marks a shift from Donald Trump’s first term, when more celebrities seemed not just comfortable speaking out against the administration, but obligated to do so. Now voters will no longer be able to so easily consult with Notes-app-made posts on Instagram to decide who and what they care about before they head to the polls. The era of movie-star-swung elections has come to an end.Of course, this era didn’t really exist in earnest. Celebrity opinion doesn’t seem to hold much genuine sway over the public, with the possible exception of the segments of each that belong to Taylor Swift. (Call that an extremely vocal plurality, if not necessarily a majority.) If it did, the George Clooney/Jennifer Lawrence/Tom Hanks/Scarlett Johansson party would soundly thump the Dean Cain/Tim Allen/James Woods/Chuck Norris party in every contest. In her recent interview, Lawrence is speaking to precisely that point, albeit without invoking any catty status differences: “As we’ve learned, election after election, celebrities do not make a difference whatsoever on who people vote for,” she continues. “So then what am I doing [when speaking out against Trump]? I’m just sharing my opinion on something that’s going to add fuel to a fire that’s ripping the country apart.”Lawrence still isn’t actually shy about confirming her feelings (“The first Trump administration was so wild and just, ‘how can we let this stand?’” she says earlier in the interview, and she alludes to the dispiriting feeling when some voters actively chose a second term after seeing the results of the first). Sweeney, for her part, is more genuinely evasive. (“I’m just here to kind of open their eyes to different ideas. That’s why I gravitate towards characters and stories that are complicated and are maybe morally questionable, and characters that are – on the page – hard to like, but then you find the humanity underneath them.”) But the effect is similar: putting the work first and doing that shut-up-and-sing thing that has been thrown around, in some form another, for half a century or more but felt particularly amped-up around the George W Bush administration, when applied to the artists formerly known as the Dixie Chicks, among others.View image in fullscreenTo some extent, Lawrence is correct to advocate for her work as more potentially meaningful than issuing a statement that underlines her celebrity status, noting that her political views are pretty easy to read in terms of what her production company puts out into the world (including a documentary about abortion bans), and what she does as a performer: “I don’t want to start turning people off to films and to art that could change consciousness or change the world because they don’t like my political opinions,” she says elsewhere in the interview. “I want to protect my craft so that you can still get lost in what I’m doing, in what I’m showing.” In other words, it’s the artistic principle of “show, don’t tell” bleeding over into politics.More personally, who wouldn’t grow exhausted by the expectation that these opinions should be publicly expressed and available for judgment and nitpicking, and prefer instead to speak through art, if that alternate platform was available to them? Trump doesn’t consume art, but he does perform the old-media equivalent of constant name-searching, which means he is likely to name-check any celebrities with high-profile opposition to him – or even those he senses are somehow aligned with his movement, like Sweeney, whose jeans ad he nonsensically praised. Getting dragged into the Trump sphere is a real lose-lose proposition for anyone who wants a genuinely interesting career in the arts. If that sense of self-preservation spares us some cookie-cutter awards show speeches that don’t move the needle outside of the auditorium applause-o-meter, or Clooney relitigating the specifics of Democrats’ mistakes and pitfalls in the 2024 election, all the better.The other side of that strategy, though, is a form of quivery brand management that doubles as faulty market research, implying a tidy split between Trump supporters and those who oppose the president’s policies. In fact, 77 million voters pulling the metaphorical lever for Trump in 2024 out of approximately 258 million adults in the US equals a less-than-robust 30%, not 50 – a percentage his approval rating has rarely crossed. Currently, that number continues to sit below 40% by most estimates. Maybe that’s splitting hairs; 77 million voters is a hell of a lot of people, and 37% of 258 million is even more than that, even if it’s not a majority. But the gesture toward “lowering the temperature”, as so many including Lawrence allude to, feels less noble and more businesslike capitulation. Personal politics becomes a choice between allowing people to read between the lines (as Lawrence does) or an outright opacity (like Sweeney’s) that is, ironically, very politician-like. It also fits with an executive mindset that treats audiences more like shareholders than human beings.View image in fullscreenAs little as celebrity advocacy tends to move the needle on broad political decisions, and likely more effectively moved toward particular issues rather than tilting at the windmills erected by specific politicians, it’s also cathartic to see which folks aren’t backing down. It is telling, too, that some of the most outspoken figures are those closer to Trump’s advanced age. Harrison Ford, for example, had no compunction about telling the Guardian that he considers Trump one of history’s biggest criminals. Robert De Niro has gone further as an anti-Trump spokesperson, recently noting that he was “very happy” to see so many mobilizing against Trump at recent No Kings protests, and repeatedly bringing up his concern that Trump will not abide by the legal term limits on his presidency: “We cannot let up because he is not going to leave the White House. Anybody who thinks, ‘Oh, he’ll do this, he’ll do that,’ is just deluding themselves.”Does anyone need to hear this alarm sounded by De Niro in particular? Probably not, and surely some former fans will dismiss him as an anti-Trump crank. But at 82, the actor is too late in his career to spend much time calculating what is best for business, which also inures him from charges of empty virtue-signaling. He is clearly saying this stuff because he fully believes it. It’s not that De Niro needs Lawrence, Sweeney or whoever else to stand alongside him, but for all the strangeness of a legendary actor reinventing himself as a cable-news staple, it does seem like De Niro better understands his fellow baby boomer New Yorker. He especially seems to get that Trump is a poisonously ironic figure to inspire this kind of celebrity silence.This president is himself a celebrity first, a corrupt politician second, and an actual political strategist in a distant and possibly accidental third. He may well survey his presidency and secretly conclude that his greatest triumph was asserting that celebrity over others – to get away with literally telling people how to think and how to vote (or maybe in the future, that voting is no longer necessary) while cowing others from expressing their opinions on the matter. If celebrities had no political sway at all, Trump would be doddering and leering his way around a TV studio. Lawrence and Sweeney are right to aspire toward their work saying more than they do – but maybe not for the reasons they think. Celebrity without art is what gets you Donald Trump in the first place. For this administration, it’s not the singing that’s important; it’s the shutting up. More