With the midterm elections less than a month away, it would seem to be an absurd time to suffer a thought for the next election cycle and the challenges that any would-be Democratic presidential victor would have to tend to on day one. Unfortunately, sometimes current events intercede with a potent reminder of just how rough the road to recovery and post-Trump renewal will be. One such story broke this week in the pages of The New York Times, which detailed some of the Trumpian luminaries who have recently ascended to important positions at the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, run by Trump acolyte Harmeet Dhillon.

The piece wastes no time: In short order, we’re introduced to “a former prosecutor forced off a high-profile murder case for peeking at the defense team’s strategy documents,” a “onetime gambling executive” with a sideline in promulgating “conspiracy theories about the Las Vegas massacre in 2017,” and a “Florida activist” whose “activism” included being jailed for several weeks for “hacking a local election system.” The long and the short of it is that the agency, once stocked with skilled professionals, is now chock-full of people who ordinarily wouldn’t pass the smell test for public service. Somewhere, a pool is missing its cess, and they might want to check whether it ended up at the DOJ.

Much has been made of the way the Trump administration, returning to power with Project 2025 as its guiding manifesto and Elon Musk as its chainsaw-wielder, went to war with the civil service in the hopes that it could be ground down by purging the dedicated civil servants who’d previously staffed whatever posts were relevant in keeping us free of cyclospora. This Times story is covering the other side of the equation: The full Trumpian takeover isn’t just about firing people en masse. Frankly, it’s not merely about placing people loyal to the cause in top positions. It’s about stationing borderline lycanthropes in powerful positions.

Daniel Flickinger, who began working on the division’s education cases earlier this year, was forced out of his job at a Birmingham, Alabama, law firm in 2020 after suggesting—to the disgust of his bosses—that George Floyd was fortunate to have died in a “fentanyl- and methamphetamine-numbed strangulation” because “it meant being worshiped in a nationwide funeral.”

Peter Feaman, a veteran lawyer from Florida hired in early 2025 as a senior counsel, has a history of far-right political statements. In a May 2021 post on social media, he accused the “diabolical” Democratic governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, of forcing citizens into getting the “mark of the beast” (a coronavirus shot).

This isn’t going to be a temporary problem by any means. The idea that the Trumpers who’ve come to Washington might take their leave if and when the federal government comes under Democratic control is a hopeful notion, but I worry that some of the true believers aren’t just here visiting; they intend to stay. That’s certainly the sense that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—who’s gone to great lengths to stuff the agency under his control with all manner of cranks and quacks—strove to convey at last week’s MAHA Summit in Washington, D.C. As Mother Jones reported, Kennedy “proclaimed the changes he’s wrought to HHS are permanent, and praised his allies in the movement for helping to make them happen.” “Even if I got hit by a truck tonight,” he bragged, “HHS will never go back to what it was before.”

When it comes to government agencies that have suffered the most from this Trumpian takeover, none are as complete or as concerning as the Department of Homeland Security. On its best days, DHS is a walled garden of cops all hotboxing themselves with reactionary politics. Under Trump, it’s essentially become a hive of outlandish herrenvolk propaganda, pumping neo-Nazi memes into the social media bloodstream—the better to recruit the sort of person who might want to inflict terror on the streets of American cities.

As The New Republic’s Melissa Gira Grant documented, DHS’s tainted origin as a post-9/11 agency with a monomaniacal focus on Muslim extremism—and with a storied history of downplaying the threats of white nationalism—has only grown even more corrupted by the second coming of Trump. “We are doubling back around the same circular path,” Grant observed, “where agencies such as DHS downplay white nationalist violence, both potential and actual, while they draw recruits from those same ranks.”

For a future Democratic president, the challenge of righting the ship of state will not simply be a matter of reviving the federal workforce and bringing competent professionals back to the perches they once occupied. It will be a matter of fumigation, as well—or, to use a better term, lustration, which Yale Law professor Dina Francesca Haynes, writing immediately after the first Trump administration, defined as “the process of vetting and removing from public service those who engage in or support extremism or seek to undermine democracy.”

Lustration, Haynes explained, “has been carried out or proposed in many countries attempting to pull themselves from the wreckage of fascism, genocide, and nationalism.” As Haynes described, the idea is that for a country to successfully “move forward” from its authoritarian past, “it must rid itself of corrupt public servants by vetting them, and potentially dismissing from employment and cancelling pensions of those who harbor such deep bias that it would be impossible for them to fairly and impartially exercise the discretion they have been granted by virtue of their position in public service.”

This is something that those of us at The New Republic have already begun considering as a necessary bridge back to a functioning democracy. In fact, as The New Republic’s Matt Ford pointed out as he gamed out what a future president could do to gut ICE, Trump himself has already provided the working blueprint for a quick and effective purge of any Trumpian fifth column that might remain gummed in the gears of government after the president leaves office. A future president can claim the same “vast powers to decide the fate of federal agencies,” including terminating employees, cutting funding, and transferring staff and programs to other agencies.

Elsewhere, Ford also suggested that a future Democratic president make use of the power Trump claimed for himself to “reduce headcounts through a reduction in force, perhaps by firing every agent hired since 2024.” As Ford opined at the time, the administration’s “decision to drastically reduce hiring standards for incoming ICE agents would more than justify such a sweeping action.” That the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is studded with people who shouldn’t be managing a Pizza Hut, let alone prosecuting civil rights offenders, suggests there is ample room to expand these principles of lustration throughout a Trump-tainted civil service.

As I’ve said before, the right way to think about the Trump administration and its wholesale operations across the federal government is to accept the fact that it is essentially a criminal syndicate, dedicated to self-enrichment and political corruption. The next Democratic administration should have accountability on its mind, and a commitment to rooting out the Trumpian rot that’s infected the civic architecture of this great nation. It might be that the most useful thing the Trump administration has accomplished in its odious lifetime is to provide the playbook to right its wrongs and dismantle Trumpism permanently.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.

This week, one of the most talked-about stories has been President Donald Trump’s decision to spend taxpayer money on campaign ads that the administration is misleadingly characterizing as “public service announcements.” The move is vintage Trump in that the ads are both staggeringly corrupt—the administration is spending $20 million of the Department of Homeland Security’s money on them, in violation of the Hatch Act—and propagandizing slop. One ad, which uses a song without the artist’s permission, has Trump asking people, “Love me.” Another warns of a “final battle.” So far, the administration has only spent a fraction of the money that’s been allocated to this endeavor, so you can count on seeing many more iterations of these fake PSAs, which Trump is said to be guiding.

But rather than think of this as some kind of flex, or one more scandalous abuse of the public trust, I want to suggest that what these ads represent is desperation—an acknowledgment that if Trump’s goose isn’t cooked yet, the pot is at least boiling. I also think, if anything, this fusillade of propaganda will likely backfire.

These ads haven’t generated good news for Trump; very few people outside of the administration and its obvious sycophants have tried to defend them. Moreover, the media seems resistant to give this story the “both sides” treatment. As with Trump’s 25-minute prime-time ramble last July, the political press seems wise to what’s going on. Of that aforementioned speech, TNR editor Michael Tomasky said, the overall reaction to the president’s attempt to shine us on “tells us that that power he had over people and institutions a year or 15 months ago has evanesced.” I think these PSAs do little else than advertise that fact.

I am not sure that Republican lawmakers necessarily agree with that assessment, but their own appraisals range from avoidant to withering. As MS NOW reported this week, “even congressional Republicans are expressing concern that the ads may violate the laws governing PSAs.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune is quoted in the piece as saying that he didn’t mind the message of the ad but believed “it shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars.” That’s about the nicest thing any Republican who made their way into the story had to say about it, with Senator Mike Rounds saying, “It’s not something I would have done” and the outgoing Thom Tillis comparing it to Viktor Orbán. “I hate it,” said Tillis, bluntly.

Trump’s midterm activities aren’t limited to these controversial ads. According to reports, the president is planning to spend 32 of the next 35 days on the road campaigning for Republicans. As Politico notes, many of his intended destinations suggest the GOP is in tremendous peril. Instead of swing states and traditionally competitive districts, Trump is visiting “bastions of conservatism” like Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Texas. He’s even going to trek out to Alaska, “a significant commitment of time and presidential resources that underscores how dire the situation is for Republicans.” As one GOP donor told Politico, “The problem is that the fires are everywhere right now.”

The biggest question is whether Trump’s growing effort to further inject himself into the midterm cycle is going to help or hinder the electoral hopes of Republican lawmakers. In at least one contentious race, the Republican candidate is calling Trump an albatross. According to leaked audio obtained by The New York Times, Texas Senate candidate Ken Paxton told a room full of donors that Trump’s weird midterm convention in early September—which was held in Texas, in the hopes it would boost Paxton—had the opposite effect. “So to be honest with you, the numbers—when we did that convention—it dropped our numbers. Everybody’s numbers dropped. Right now, yeah, not good.” (As Lawfare editor Eric Columbus pointed out, it’s also not good “when your 12-person private fundraiser includes someone who hates you enough to leak damaging audio.”)

The Paxton audio is a potent snapshot of some larger trends. All across the country, we’re seeing stories of GOP strongholds edging toward collapse as onetime Trump voters bear the weight of his administration’s incompetence. There are daily reminders that other Republicans are trying to create distance between the president and their campaigns, and even defying him on key matters. On Wednesday, in fact, West Virginia Senator Jim Justice broke with Trump on the matter dearest to the president’s heart—his mass deportation machine. “Maybe we’re doing something wrong here or there,” he said. You think?

Over the course of the year, as Trump’s approvals hit new lows and began to decimate the GOP’s midterm ambitions, I’ve tried to figure out what Trump and his fellow Republicans could do to reverse or even just arrest those trends. For a brief mad moment, I thought that the negotiated Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Iran might provide a springboard Trump could use to extricate himself from his crazy war. This didn’t come to fruition. The truth is, to save their bacon, Republicans would have to do things they are genetically incapable of doing: improve people’s lives and fix the economy. As I pointed out two weeks ago, Republicans—despite their misgivings about Trump—are still touting their One Big Beautiful Bill Act: a document that says the wealthiest among us deserve thousands of extra dollars, and the rest of us deserve some measure of pain.

It’s all adding up to defeat. The Cook Political Report says a Democratic takeover of the House is a “done deal” and that winning the Senate is “very realistic.” The Quinnipiac generic poll of the House has Democrats opening up a 51 percent to 39 percent lead, which are bloodbath numbers. The only headwind Democrats face is that while voters seem willing to give them their vote this year, they’re not as ready to give them their affection. Still, you’d rather be the Democrats right now than the GOP, who like Vice President JD Vance have been left begging voters for a “second chance” without understanding that they’ve already received that second chance—and they’ve blown it.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.

One of my many cataloged memories of the Trump era is from the run-up to the 2016 election, when one of my colleagues related to me what one of his sources in Brazil, fretful about Donald Trump’s rise, told him. “It’s OK for the world for Brazil to occasionally be a basket case nation,” he said. “But the thought of the U.S. becoming one is really disturbing.” This week, Trump addressed the U.N. General Assembly, cast in the role we once reserved for people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Muammar Qaddafi: the batshit egomaniac dictator (only this time, with nukes). It seems to me that we’ve well and truly failed the basket case test. But a new poll has given me some fresh worries on this front—and a concern that maybe too many of us have developed a little taste for misrule.

The survey was published this week by Liberal Currents and it sought to catch the mood of the Democratic electorate as Election Day looms. Much of what the poll found was downright anodyne: A plurality of respondents favor Kamala Harris as the presidential nominee in 2028; “economy, inflation & cost of living” wins as the respondents’ biggest issue they want a future Democratic president to tackle. But one result made me do a double take. Under the section, “Feelings about Trump leaving office,” respondents were asked, “If you woke up tomorrow morning and saw the following news headlines, how would you feel?”

One of the choices, “To ‘safeguard the Constitution,’ a group of U.S. military leaders have removed President Donald Trump from power and assumed control of the United States” earned a net approval of 31 percent, with 59 percent approving and 28 percent saying no. That’s not good! Now the reason I’m not completely disassociating is because the ways respondents answered the other choices were more rational: Impeachment was by far the favored choice of removing the president, at 80 percent net sentiment, followed by removal via the Twenty-Fifth Amendment at 77 percent, and “dying peacefully in his sleep” at 40 percent. Assassination—by far the most immoral and dangerous way Trump could leave office, for all the reasons I lay out here—was the only choice with a negative sentiment, as it should have.

Still, I’m sorry, but the approval number for a military junta taking over the United States is way, way too high. Folks, you do not want a military coup in the United States under any circumstances.

Perhaps one reason this idea polls so well is that we’ve recently had a sample taste of what it’s like to be under unconstitutional leadership and it led to a desirable outcome. During the January 6, 2021, insurrection and for about a fortnight after, the United States was for all intents and purposes governed by a weird triumvirate: Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence, and General Mark A. Milley. Trump was, during this time, meaningfully constrained from exercising some of his constitutional authority, while this troika took it up. It can be argued, of course, that this may have been for the best. This interregnum eventually yielded to the Biden administration and its comparative normalcy. But for many people, myself included, it was still fairly unsettling. In many places around the world, such takeovers end badly.

This is perhaps why the basket case anecdote came flooding back in my memory banks, as Brazil’s history is demonstrative of why military coups d’état are a bad idea. If the Latin American nation is any guide, once you start having military takeovers, you tend to keep having them. As the Berlin Journal’s James N. Green recalls, “Since 1889, when the Brazilian army ousted Emperor Pedro II and established a republic, the armed forces initiated nine attempted takeovers, five of which were successful.” Brazilian history also teaches us that military takeovers can be very difficult to dislodge. “The last military intervention into Brazilian politics took place in 1964, with the explicit support of the U.S. government,” writes Green. “It led to a 21-year-long military dictatorship.”

I feel it should be obvious to most that a Trump-ousting coup would be an incredibly combustible event that would shatter the political landscape and lead to widespread uproar that would be difficult to contain. As I’ve noted previously, the MAGA movement is steeped in conspiratorial thinking and bound in cultlike devotion to Trump. Martyring him is thus a very bad idea. A military-style coup d’état would likely reinflame the passions that led to the January 6 insurrection, and serve as rocket fuel for the growing number of people who TNR’s Matt Ford says claim “a purported Second Amendment right to murder civil servants and assassinate elected officials.”

As TNR’s Tim Noah wrote earlier this week, one Trump-removal scenario that’s on the table comes down to the GOP’s long-term political thinking: Should Republicans get battered in the midterm elections, there could be a strong incentive to convince Trump to retire or quit and pass the torch early to Vice President JD Vance, so as to allow him two years to essentially run as an incumbent. If that’s the way it goes, so be it. Trump would, of course, have strong incentives to stay, as his becoming a private citizen again would immediately embroil him anew in any number of legal battles.

Barring that, the constitutional methods of removal that most Democrats thankfully seem to favor are the better options—though it seems that impeachment is, for Democratic leadership anyway, off the table. Perhaps it would be impractical for a newly empowered Democratic Congress to try impeachment for a third time (though they say that’s “the charm”). Still, it’s worth remembering that Republican senators had two shots to end a derelict presidency—once immediately after he sicced a mob on them—and they failed in their duty to oust Trump and bar him from holding public office. In this way, impeachment should remain a salient issue in this autumn’s Senate races: All of the miseries we are experiencing right now would never have happened if enough Republican senators truly loved their country.

It needs to be said that if Trump’s reign is to end prematurely—that is, before his stepping down on the next Inauguration Day—things won’t be peaches and cream. Even if it comes about through constitutional means, the U.S. will have to navigate a period of tumult. If we’re contemplating the end of the Trump presidency, rather than indulge in fantasies about a military coup, we should all contemplate how each of us, in our own way, might help reinforce the civic foundation and serve as good stewards of a nation of laws. Perhaps, as Noah writes, we’re within sight of Trump’s fall. We should not take such matters lightly, because if the fall is all that’s left, it matters a great deal.

Last week, President Donald Trump announced that if Republicans prevail in this year’s midterm elections, he would provide everybody with a $5,000 dividend check. People reacted as if he’d said something crazy, like “Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is ineligible to be president of the United States”—by which I mean they dismissed his ravings as one more Trumpian oddity and not what it really was: the disqualifying lunacy of a corrupt jackass. A few brave souls gently raised concerns that this was tantamount to a bribe. Those who wanted to add something substantive to the conversation pointed out just how much this idea would cause inflation to spike. I don’t recall anyone saying the obvious thing: A $5,000 payoff would be an implicit admission that he and his party’s reckless policies wrecked the economy and spawned a nationwide affordability crisis.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, whose flock of lawmakers would ostensibly be the people who would find this money—more than $1 trillion—and appropriate it, told Kristen Welker in an interview that the so-called “Trump dividend” would be something lawmakers would “process through Congress and talk through and debate and discuss.” That said, nothing is happening anytime soon, because Johnson is sending lawmakers home until the midterm elections so as to avoid having to vote on GOP Representative Thomas Massie’s proposed impeachment of Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth, who, between psychosexual panic attacks about the masculinity of the soldiers in his presence, is currently getting the belt-to-ass treatment from Iran.

So you might have to wait a while for your $5,000 check. But that doesn’t mean that the Trump dividend hasn’t already been paid out. To the contrary, the president and his congressional enablers have been handing out money left and right. They’ve made people very rich, in fact. It’s something that they’re quite good at doing—at least for a few.

Once upon a time, Trump claimed that shared prosperity would come in the form of tariffs, which he believed would rake in such a large amount of revenue that the income tax could be abolished. This was insane in theory; in practice, Trump’s tariffs only followed the logic of the president’s ire—whatever nation was pissing him off that week would get tariffed. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that most of this nonsense was illegal, not that it diminished Trump’s yen for trade war.

But it’s not all bad news. As ABC News reported last month, the administration has paid out $100 billion in tariff refunds. That ought to excite everyone. After all, the Tax Foundation estimates that the tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled to be illegal cost every household $700, so a reimbursement might be helpful in filling up your gas tank three or four times. But as ABC News notes, “most consumers—who paid higher prices from the tariffs—aren’t seeing that money go back into their pockets.” In some instances, firms have plans to repay some of that money to consumers. But in other cases, that money is being pocketed, with some corporations earmarking the money for “reinvestment” and others putting it toward offsetting the other high costs they face because of Trump’s handling of the economy and the Iran war.

And for small businesses, these mini windfalls have arrived too late. Per ABC, one fortunate recipient of a $50,000 refund says “she was forced to cut staff and use her retirement savings to keep the business afloat” while waiting for her refund pittance. That’s wreckage the check won’t cover. All in all, Trump’s “Liberation Day” mainly liberated money from your pocket. Whether it makes its way back to you or remains in the coffers of corporations is anyone’s guess.

Meanwhile, people seem to be forgetting that Republicans in Congress have already passed a measure that put $5,000 in Americans’ pockets—or to be more precise, $5,190 to Americans earning between $153,600 and $361,400. That law is called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which has been one big beautiful means of cementing income inequality across the country. As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reports, the OBBBA “favors the richest taxpayers and provides working-class Americans with relatively small tax cuts that will in many cases be more than offset by the import taxes, or tariffs, imposed by President Trump.” The richest 1 percent got way more than five grand in this deal—their tax savings were in excess of $66,000. At the other end of the spectrum, the poorest 20 percent got a paltry 40 bucks. Don’t spend it all in one place! (Actually, many folks cannot because the same bill ended the Affordable Care Act subsidies they were using to purchase health insurance.)

Republicans’ monomaniacal focus on re-enriching the already rich is doing much more than thieving money from your pocket. Wealth concentration is increasingly locking most of us out of the American dream. As a 2024 study from the Institute for Policy Studies and Popular Democracy found, wealth concentration is “supercharging existing problems of gentrification, homelessness, unaffordable rental housing, and out-of-reach homeownership.” Across the country, predatory billionaires are buying up single-family homes, keeping many of these properties vacant so as to “profit from real estate speculation,” and invading the short-term rental market to play the same tricks, thus keeping units at arm’s length from would-be renters. Trump and GOP lawmakers have enabled all of this through policies that have—as of Tax Day 2026—grown billionaire wealth 30.6 percent.

If you’re like most people, you could use $5,000 right about now. As a recent memo from Americans for Tax Fairness noted, “Working Americans have had to pay more for health care, gas, and food while their paychecks have remained stagnant or fallen while been in office.” Meanwhile, as Republicans wiggle and dodge on the Trump dividend checks, they’re out in public touting the very bill that led to all of this widespread immiseration—and hiding the fact that when the Medicaid work requirements slated to be imposed after the midterms go into effect, an estimated seven million people won’t have health insurance anymore.

Lots of people have gotten the Trump dividend: Trump himself, his family, billionaires, many corporations, even that weird Dick Tracy villain guy who broke the Reflecting Pool. But Trump’s long history of stiffing people should be more than enough to dissuade you from the belief that a check is coming your way if the GOP retains its majorities in Congress. If history is any guide, the Republicans would keep fleecing you. But the Trump dividends will continue to flow, and many people will keep getting richer. As they say, it’s a big club, and you’re not in it.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.

In the theater, there’s an old saying about “Chekhov’s gun” that basically goes like this: If the playwright shows the audience a gun in the first act, you are locked into a certain plot inevitability—that gun will go off in the final act. It usually ends badly. This week, a couple of folks at Anthropic—one who was sounding the alarm on his way out the door, the other still merrily employed there as a safety researcher—effectively showed us the AI gun. Who might die in the final act? According to reports, “All humans.” How soon? “The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

Cool, cool, cool. If I could offer my hot take, maybe someone should do something to, you know, stop this? Unfortunately, there is a series of related problems that impede the easy fix. For starters, our political system is awash in tens of millions of dollars spent by the AI industry. AI is not popular with the general public, but it is very popular among the few who expect to get, or already are getting, insanely wealthy from it—and they have all burned through small fortunes of sunk cost in this arms race, where everyone is trying to build the best (read: most destructive) AI model they can before someone else does. And the industry actually makes a habit of regularly informing people that this tech could kill us all, because when they do, it excites investors.

It is actually genuinely difficult to trust the motivations of anyone in this industry (and it seems bad that genuinely deceptive people are the human core of this technology). But if only for a few paragraphs, let’s extend the benefit of the doubt to Jacob Coxon, who resigned from Anthropic this week because (according to him) he came to believe that he was beckoning doomsday in humanity’s general direction. In a series of posts on X, Coxon declared that neither OpenAI nor Anthropic was acting responsibly. Rather, they were barreling forward with plans to develop “self-improving superintelligence” and “gambling with our lives.”

“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” Coxon wrote. “This is not a marketing stunt.” Evan Hubinger, an Anthropic colleague whose actual title is “alignment science lead,” echoed in confirmation: “Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” None of this is exactly coming out of the blue. Anthropic’s brand—disingenuously or not—is based on warning the public about AI, and there have been numerous high-profile examples of AI models escaping their environments to engage in hacking. In May 2025, the BBC reported that Anthropic’s own tests revealed that its model was “sometimes willing to pursue ‘extremely harmful actions,’ such as attempting to blackmail engineers who say they will remove it.”

Still, it’s a curious time for people to be resigning from Anthropic and talking up the destructive capabilities of the technology they are building. The firm is planning an IPO this fall that The Wall Street Journal is calling “Wall Street’s marquee event,” with projected earnings assessed at $100 billion for the company and a projected valuation of $2 trillion. Coxon’s insistence that this isn’t a marketing stunt stands out, because the kind of doomsaying he is indulging in, though it might be a genuine outcry for help, quite often is just that—fodder to goose investors to help the overall goal of “number go up.” As TNR contributor J.P. Meyboom explained, it’s extremely common for AI mavens to issue ominous warnings about the terrors their tech can unleash, only to raise gargantuan sums of money in the wake of those portents. As much as you and I might recoil from the periodic reminder that this industry is hurtling toward a future of unknown dangers, the money is flowing heavily in the direction of that future.

It’s also flowing into Washington, D.C. As Politico reported last week, super PACs aligned with the AI and crypto industry “spent a whopping $127 million across more than 100 primaries this year in an effort to shape the future of Congress—and won roughly 90 percent of them.” (They did much better in Republican primaries than in Democratic ones.) Now, the goal of all of that spending can be murky. There are groups sending cash to Washington who are authentically invested in regulation and guardrails; not everyone is looking for laissez-faire treatment from Congress. (Though, again, it’s impossible to gauge the motivations of any of the players in this field, some of whom might only be performatively asking for regulation.) But if we take Coxon at his word, the calculus has changed. Something that could wipe out humanity within a decade’s time probably needs something stronger than a mere guardrail—and something more forceful than those raining greenbacks on Washington may be willing to accept.

The Kill Switch Act, a bipartisan bill developed after OpenAI’s hack of the Hugging Face research hub, proposes to give the Department of Homeland Security authority over the industry, at least as far as ordering shutdowns in instances of dangerous AI breaches goes. But the specter of humanity’s destruction has the bill looking a little bit inadequate: Under the Kill Switch Act, we’d still be heavily reliant on the industry’s willingness to both police itself and comply with shutdown orders. The Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, a Senate bill co-sponsored by Bernie Sanders and Texas Representative Greg Casar, would “permanently ban the development and deployment of superintelligent AI and temporarily pause advanced AI development until a federal regulator has established safety rules,” as well as “direct the U.S. to pursue international agreements to prevent superintelligence from being developed anywhere in the world.”

That’s probably going to be the bridge too far for the AI industry. But the bad news is that it also may be critically insufficient to halting the apocalypse that’s allegedly at the door. It’s hard to see how a ban would work; AI firms blocked from developing technology in the United States would simply pick up their things and go elsewhere, and it’s not as though China would regard a U.S. ban as anything other than a competitive opportunity for them. And we cannot un-invent a technology. We aren’t going to pass a law that ends AI.

But this is the last war. Lawmakers who want to take this moment to think ahead and cancel the AI Armageddon should be thinking less about the technology itself and instead work harder at making comprehensive rules governing the control of these systems and regulating their safety, the same way we did with nuclear weapons. That’s what you do when you find yourself staring down technology that could wipe out civilization. It’s never been more important for Democratic and Republican voters to find lawmakers willing to lock up Chekhov’s gun, and kick those that won’t to the curb.

This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.