Opinion | Trump Is the Nostalgia-Protest-Change Candidate. Can Biden Beat That? (2024)

Click here for the latest from The Point, the Times Opinion blog.

When the first reports came out on Sunday that a helicopter carrying the president of Iran, Ebrahim Raisi, had gone down, the first question on most minds was probably, “Who did it?”

That’s not a far-fetched question. Only last month, several senior Iranian officers were killed in a drone strike on Iran’s embassy complex in Damascus, Syria — a hit broadly attributed to Israel, though Israel rarely acknowledges such things. And in 2020 the United States acknowledged responsibility for the drone strike that killed Qassim Suleimani, a powerful Iranian general.

This time, however, the United States and Israel were quick to say: Not us. Washington even expressed “condolences” after it was confirmed that Raisi had died. Iran was equally quick to declare that the crash, in foggy mountains, was indeed an accident and even reportedly asked the United States for help in locating it.

None of that reflected a change of heart or a disavowal of targeted killing as a clandestine tool or any regret outside Iran over the death of Raisi and his foreign minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, who was also killed in the crash. Both were full-blooded members of the Iranian theocracy, dedicated to its ruthless suppression of any dissent and its proxy wars, especially against Israel. Raisi, in fact, was discussed as a likely successor to the 85-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iranian exiles were reported to have celebrated their deaths in London and elsewhere.

But Iran, already deeply enmeshed in the Israeli conflict through its support for Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthi rebels in Yemen, only recently risked getting into a major direct war with Israel by launching a massive wave of drones and cruise and ballistic missiles at Israel in retaliation for the bombing of its Damascus embassy. Accusing Israel or the United States of the killing of the Iranian president would have risked a far more fateful exchange, which no one wanted at this juncture.

Besides, Raisi and Amir Abdollahian probably did not figure high on the American or Israeli enemies list, even if the president was a candidate for supreme leadership. However repugnant, both were tools of the theocracy, not architects of the nuclear, regional or domestic policies that they brutally enforced.

The broad consensus in the immediate aftermath of their deaths was that nothing much would change. There were plenty of other hard-liners lined up to succeed Khamenei, including his son Mojtaba Khamenei, and none of them suggested a promising future for Iran. The only immediate question was how many — or, more accurately, how few — Iranians would show up for the “election” of the next president picked by the supreme leader.

Weeks after the rap battle between Kendrick Lamar and Drake began — triggered by competing claims to greatness — listeners are still electrified. There’s a general agreement that Lamar won, whether because of his masterly storytelling, triple entendres that stretch the horizons of meaning, or flow that feels like the sonic equivalent of an ice bath.

There’s also the fact that some of his most successful, emotionally resonant bars argue that his opponent has failed as a father, son and romantic partner. In one of the catchiest verses in “euphoria,” Lamar accuses Drake of knowing nothing about raising a son. He also raps as a sort of warning, while using coded Canadian slang for “bro”: “It can get deep in the family, crodie / Talk about me and my family, crodie? / Someone gon’ bleed in your family, crodie.” Days later, Drake dropped “Family Matters,” in which he questions why Lamar hasn’t married his fiancée. Drake accuses Lamar, without providing evidence, of abusing her.

Lamar counters with the tragic “Meet the Grahams,” a point-by-point takedown through a series of vignettes addressed mostly to Drake’s family members: his son, Adonis; his mother, Sandra; and an unnamed baby girl that Lamar claims is Drake’s daughter.

These digs are so provocative because the rich and powerful are beholden to few things other than family.

Family motifs carry hip-hop and rap. Rappers are obsessed with whether the women they’re involved with are wifey material. Are they capable of mothering, or are they just hos? The rapper Future, notorious for having seven baby mamas, apparently dreams of domestic bliss. Lil Wayne, Offset, DaBaby and Lamar have all featured family members on album covers. Artists grapple meaningfully with family, whether that family abandoned them or supported them on the come up.

In her 2022 book “Abolish the Family,” Sophie Lewis criticizes family as a norm that “makes a prison for adults — especially women — out of their own commitment to children they love.” But because there is no alternative, family is sacred; this is especially true for Black people.

The traditional family is an untouchable symbol. Women, who bleed more for it, are its figureheads. This is why attacking your competition’s family members — especially his partner or mother — becomes the most potent way to dismantle the honor of a man who appears to have everything.

It’s hardly Drake’s fault that Kendrick Lamar did it better.

Eight times a day during his felony trial, a former president of the United States must stand and honor 12 jurors and six alternates as they walk past, eyes straight ahead or down, casting no glances at him. It’s inspiring to watch these ordinary citizens as sovereign soldiers for justice.

On Monday this calm processional was disrupted, as jurors were forced to hurry out after a witness for the defense mocked the authority of the court. Moments later, Justice Juan Merchan ordered the courtroom immediately cleared, and reporters fled in a frenzy.

The reason for all of this was the testimony of Robert Costello, an astonishingly arrogant former federal prosecutor who has defended the likes of George Steinbrenner and Leona Helmsley, borrowing a little of his nasty affect from each.

Michael Cohen testified earlier that Costello and Rudy Giuliani were assigned by Donald Trump to open a back channel to Cohen to keep him in the Trump fold.

Costello testified before a friendly House subcommittee last week that Cohen was a liar. This apparently impressed Trump and — presto! — Costello was the first important witness the defense called after the prosecution rested.

On direct examination, Costello did next to nothing for the defense beyond landing a few more mostly irrelevant blows on Cohen.

On cross-examination by the prosecution, however, you could almost see steam coming out of Costello’s ears. The temerity of this lowly local female prosecutor asking him questions! Merchan ruled earlier that Costello could testify only on certain subjects. When Merchan sustained several objections from the prosecution and struck a couple of Costello’s answers from the record, Costello decided to play judge.

He muttered “ridiculous” and “strike it” after disliking a question. An enraged Merchan excused the jury and said sharply, “I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom.” He continued, “You don’t say, ‘Geez,’ and you don’t say, ‘Strike it.’ And if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t give me side-eye and roll your eyes.”

Merchan apparently didn’t want reporters to hear the rest of his tongue-lashing and cleared the courtroom.

None of this was good for the defense, which struggled all day to build on Thursday’s success in making Cohen seem he was lying about the purpose of his calls to Trump in late October 2016. Cohen looked bad admitting he passed $20,000 in cash in a paper bag to Red Finch, a tech firm that uses algorithms to rig online polls. But Trump looked even worse by directing Red Finch to cheat his way onto CNBC’s list of the most famous business leaders of the 20th century. Classic Trump.

Jurors may conclude that the whole bunch of ’em are liars and reasonably doubt every word out of all of their mouths. At this point, that may be Trump’s best hope of avoiding conviction.

Is it possible to use a lie to illuminate the truth? If the lie is told by the serial liar Michael Cohen in the right context, the answer is yes. Credit the prosecution in the Trump felony trial for pulling off this tricky maneuver.

On Monday, we finally got closer to a key factor in this case: campaign finance law. To convict Donald Trump of a felony, the jury must find that he falsified business records (or directed that they be falsified) with “the intent to commit another crime.” Trump need not be found guilty of any of those other crimes — in this case, it could be tax fraud, intervening in an election or violating campaign finance laws — in order to convict him. But he needs to have crime in mind in at least one of those areas.

Late in the morning, Susan Hoffinger — a prosecution lawyer on her game — drew Cohen’s attention to a letter written by his lawyer, Stephen Ryan, after the Stormy Daniels hush-money story broke in The Wall Street Journal in 2018. At that time, Cohen was still in Trump’s camp, telling the world that he had paid the $130,000 to Daniels on his own. In his letter, Ryan wrote, “The payment in question does not constitute a campaign contribution.”

Hoffinger asked, “Was that a true statement?” Cohen, in his new, polite incarnation, replied, “No, ma’am.” This told the jury: Here goes Cohen, lying again. In other words, because Cohen was such a known liar, it is more plausible than not that he was lying when he said the payment was not a campaign contribution, to protect Trump and himself.

After a sidebar, Justice Juan Merchan turned to the jury and repeated instructions he had already given, during direct examination of Cohen, when the subject of his 2018 guilty plea in the criminal case that sent him to jail for 13 months came up: “Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea is not evidence” of Trump’s guilt.

The judge was basically saying to the jury, “I know you may think these two guys both intended to commit this other crime, but you can’t use Cohen’s guilty plea to convict Trump.”

As Norm Eisen, an expert on campaign finance law, told me during a break, “The jury will listen to the judge, but that’s like saying, ‘Don’t look at the elephant.’”

To emphasize the point further, Hoffinger asked, “Did Mr. Trump approve the substance of these false statements by you?” This brought another “Yes, ma’am.”

The prosecution caught another break when Merchan refused to allow Bradley Smith, a Republican and former chair of the Federal Election Commission, to testify about his conservative interpretation of campaign laws. The judge said if he allowed that testimony — which the defense desperately wants — he would have to let the prosecution call an expert witness with his or her opposing interpretation. Merchan concluded that as judge, it was his job — and his job alone — to interpret how campaign finance law should be regarded by the jury.

All in all, this was an unsexy but significant win for the prosecution.

The decision on Monday by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to seek arrest warrants for leaders of Hamas and Israel probably will not result in anyone being put on trial immediately for crimes against humanity. But it does further tarnish Israel’s invasion of Gaza, add to the isolation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and raise questions about President Biden’s steadfast support for Israel’s war in Gaza.

It’s no surprise that the prosecutor, Karim Khan, is seeking to arrest Hamas leaders for their rampage of murder, rape, torture and kidnapping on Oct. 7, which clearly constituted war crimes. Those protesters making excuses for Hamas should read Khan’s statement and understand Hamas’s brutality.

The allegations against Netanyahu seem to focus on the Israeli government’s decision to throttle aid, including food assistance, to civilians in Gaza and thus cause starvation. The very first allegation listed by the prosecutor against Netanyahu is “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.”

That has always seemed to me a part of the Israeli operation in Gaza that is particularly difficult to justify. My view is that Israel absolutely had a right to strike Gaza militarily after the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks, to destroy Hamas leadership and to try to recover hostages. I have argued that the military operation should have been far more restrained, calibrated to target Hamas officials rather than to level entire neighborhoods, but bombing targets in Gaza was not inherently wrong or unlawful.

What has seemed utterly indefensible has been the constraints placed on aid entering the territory, so that Gaza is teetering on the edge of famine — even as trucks filled with food are lined up at Gaza’s border, waiting to enter. That is what seemed to galvanize the International Criminal Court.

A panel of international experts convened by the International Criminal Court unanimously backed the prosecutor. “Parties to an armed conflict must not deliberately impede the delivery of humanitarian relief for civilians, including humanitarian relief provided by third parties,” the experts said.

I’m not an expert in international humanitarian law, so I’ll leave it to others to argue about whether a prosecution of Netanyahu is justified. But the court’s efforts underscore the moral stain of the starvation in Gaza, in which the United States is complicit.

America’s highest-priority response needn’t be a flurry of legal arguments, but instead could involve a far greater effort — using all the leverage we have — to persuade Israel to allow more aid into Gaza and to ensure that the aid is actually delivered to starving children. Whether or not one agrees that starving children is criminal, it is unconscionable. And preventable.

Every Monday morning on The Point, we kick off the week with a tipsheet on the latest in the presidential campaign. Here’s what we’re looking at this week:

• All eyes will be on Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan this week. His lawyers are expected to wrap up their cross-examination of Michael Cohen on Monday, and then will reveal if Trump is going to testify in his own defense before heading to closing arguments, probably on Tuesday. As much as Trump might be tempted to take the stand, he knows very well the lies he has told about Cohen, Stormy Daniels and his business records over the years — lies he could get caught telling under oath. The risk of testifying is enormous for a born liar, and Trump wasn’t born any other way. I don’t see him taking that chance.

• For me, this trial has underscored two things: The enthusiasm and loyalty that the Trump base feels for their man, and the dangerous political dynamic that President Biden faces this year. That dynamic, as I see it, is this: Many Americans want change, and while they may respect Joe Biden, they don’t want Joe Biden anymore. Even the Trump criminal trial hasn’t been enough to make Biden look good by comparison, if the latest polls are any measure. My colleague Ezra Klein has a great new column about why this may be, but whatever the reason, the Biden campaign has big choices to make.

• The biggest choice to me: His campaign has been focused on getting people to respect Biden — by portraying him as a defender of democracy, a champion of a normal America, a trusted ally to the less fortunate, a more decent man than Trump — rather than on making people want the Biden presidency to continue. He gave a good speech Sunday at Morehouse College in Atlanta about manhood and faith, but given his weak polling in that battleground state, I was surprised he didn’t make a stronger case for why people should want him in office for another four years.

  See Also

  Marriage and Family Therapist - MHRRTPSupervisory Social Worker - MHRRTPQ&A on Sealaska’s CARES Act Distribution in Partnership with Tlingit & Haida

  He then headed to another battleground, Michigan, where he is also struggling in the polls. Based on his speech at an N.A.A.C.P. dinner there, I’m sure there was a lot of respect for him in the room, but what’s he doing that’s new or especially persuasive to make more Black voters and others want him for another four years?

• On Tuesday, Biden heads to New Hampshire, another traditional battleground where he is polling strongly. As Trump gets closer to a verdict on that day, I’ll be watching New Hampshire to see if Biden and his team demonstrate any new thinking to make the case for why Americans should want another four years of his presidency.

The United Automobile Workers union fell short in its bid to unionize two Mercedes plants in Alabama on Friday but accomplished something historic nonetheless. Simply having the election — and getting close to passing — was a victory in itself, given what union organizers were up against. (The vote was 2,045 to 2,642.)

People in power — from the governor of Alabama to a Tuscaloosa city councilor — spoke out against organized labor as antithetical to the state’s best interests. Mercedes has been blasting anti-union emails and videos to workers for weeks and requiring workers to attend information sessions about the bad stuff that can happen when a plant unionizes. (The U.A.W. has accused the company of unfair labor practices.)

My cousin works in the Mercedes plant and has been forwarding the videos that the company has been sending around. It’s clear that Mercedes pulled out all the stops to get workers to reject the union. But it is also clear that workers saw firsthand what labor solidarity can do. Just the threat of the union coming into the plant prompted the company to give him a $2 raise to $34 an hour.

“All the stuff started blowing about the union, and Mercedes done gave us a raise,” he told me. (I’m withholding his name to avoid any trouble for him.) He also got a new quarterly bonus, based on sales. “Like they are trying to correct what they should have done a long time ago.”

He said that union organizers have popped up at the plant every few years since the 1990s and that he attended a meeting once. But it never came to a vote. This time, a recent ruling by the Biden administration’s labor-friendly National Labor Relations Board made it far easier for the U.A.W. to bring an election to the factory floor.

That ruling helped Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tenn., join the U.A.W. That plant was the first nonunion auto plant in a Southern state to vote to join a union, after the U.A.W.’s president, Shawn Fain, announced an audacious campaign to unionize auto plants in the South.

My cousin said he initially wasn’t sure which way he’d vote, but he cast a ballot for unionization. He liked working for Mercedes but recalled times he wasn’t treated with respect, such as how he was treated after a white woman he worked next to falsely accused him of brushing up against her on the assembly line.

After the vote, he expressed disappointment but said he hoped the union would try again.

“This is the first time it ever got this far,” he said. “We made history.”

It seems that police officers in North Carolina will soon be allowed to penalize cancer patients for wearing a medical mask in a grocery store.

Since 1953, North Carolina has had a law on the books banning masks in public in order to hamper secret societies like the Ku Klux Klan, and ever since the Covid-19 pandemic, that law has had an exemption for people wearing masks for health and safety reasons.

But the way things are going, that exemption may not exist for much longer.

“Individuals would no longer be able to wear masks in public for health or safety reasons,” reads North Carolina’s House Bill 237, which was passed by the Republican-controlled State Senate in a vote along party lines on Wednesday. (Republicans have said the bill is designed to target masked protesters.) Because the bill was amended by the Senate, it has since been sent back to the Republican-controlled State House of Representatives for reapproval, where it will probably pass.

It is unlikely that even a veto by the state’s Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, would stop this bill from becoming law. After the 2022 elections, Republicans were a single seat short of a supermajority in the General Assembly. When State Representative Tricia Cotham became a Republican, she handed the party enough votes to override the governor’s vetoes.

The bill is titled Unmasking Mobs and Criminals, and it still allows some exceptions to the mask ban: for a “secret society or organization to wear masks or hoods in a parade or demonstration if they obtain permission” or “by a person wearing a traditional holiday costume in season.” The bill would allow clowns to keep wearing masks, too, as part of an exception for professional activities.

So secret societies are fine, Halloween is fine, and clowns are fine — just not cancer patients, other immunocompromised individuals or any other people concerned with protecting their health.

Thanks to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s neighbors, Jodi Kantor of The Times was able to report a shocking bit of news on Thursday: In January 2021, shortly after the deadly Capitol assault incited by Donald Trump, Alito’s front yard openly displayed an upside-down American flag — an unmistakable pro-Trump symbol used by those who believed the 2020 election was stolen.

But wait: It turns out this wasn’t Alito’s fault. “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” he told The Times, explaining that the flag was “briefly placed” there by his wife, Martha-Ann, in an escalation of a neighborhood spat that included “objectionable and personally insulting language” on yard signs.

For a guy who earns his paycheck evaluating the quality of arguments, Justice Alito is remarkably bad at coming up with ones in his own defense. Even if he had no role in raising the flag, what stopped him from taking it down immediately and apologizing profusely for his wife’s intemperance? Doesn’t his failure to do so suggest tacit agreement if not outright support — not only for a violent insurrection based on a demonstrable lie but also for one of the litigants who was at that time before his court arguing over the election?

This disregard for the appearance of bias is in line with how Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, in particular, have long approached their job and the enormous power they wield. (You may recall that Thomas’s wife, Ginni, cosplayed as a legal insurrectionist who tried to overturn the 2020 election.) That disregard extends to the institution of the Supreme Court and to the American people forced to live under its edicts. How are we expected to respect a court that has so little respect for us?

Yes, other justices have revealed their political biases over the years. In 2016 the Times editorial board called out Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for referring to Trump as a “faker,” comments for which she quickly expressed regret. I’m not holding my breath for any comparable avowal of humility from Alito, who is well known for his self-righteousness.

Nor do I expect him or Justice Thomas to recuse themselves from the continuing cases related to Jan. 6, including the one about Trump’s immunity from prosecution for that day, which the court has prevented from moving forward for months. By any reasonable ethical standard, they should recuse themselves, and they would be required to do so if the Supreme Court were bound by any meaningful ethical standards. Any lower-level federal employee would probably fail a security screening for being connected to a flag-flying stunt like this.

The integrity of the court may be beyond repair, but you still have to wonder, are Thomas and Alito trying to get themselves impeached?

Will Iran go for the Bomb?

That question looms over the volatility in the Middle East, particularly after the tit-for-tat attacks last month by Israel and Iran, which ended after an Israeli airstrike damaged an S-300 system, used by Iran to protect its nuclear sites.

Last week, Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, traveled to Iran to meet with senior officials. Iran has enriched uranium to near weapons grade and barred Grossi from its centrifuge plant under construction deep underground in Natanz. After the trip, he told reporters that Iranian officials are ready to engage in “concrete measures” that appear to be based on a deal hashed out last year that expanded cooperation and monitoring. But he gave few specifics.

Behind the opaque diplomacy, there are worrying signs.

Iran is rapidly advancing its nuclear program, seemingly teetering on the edge of weaponization, as oversight by the international community is falling away. “We are moving closer to a situation where there is a big, huge question mark about what they are doing and why they are doing it,” Grossi told The Guardian this week.

Iran is not currently working toward building a nuclear weapon, according to a recent U.S. intelligence assessment. But this month a senior Iranian official declared that the country could change its nuclear doctrine, moving the program away from solely peaceful purposes, if seriously threatened (the Iranian Foreign Ministry has walked back similar statements). Safeguards put in place after the 2015 deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program are now all but gone following the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement in 2018, and the I.A.E.A. is increasingly flying blind.

In February, an I.A.E.A. report said the agency has lost what it calls “continuity of knowledge” in key areas of the program, all while Iran has expanded its overall stockpile of enriched uranium and effectively blocked several of the agency’s inspectors. It has also removed monitoring equipment, which the report said “had detrimental implications for the agency’s ability to provide assurance of the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.”

If Iran does make the leap, it will probably need a week or two to enrich enough weapons-grade uranium for at least one weapon. It may be a bit longer, only six months by one estimate, for Iran to have a crude nuclear device.

A nuclear-armed Iran would be a mortal threat to Israel and would probably further destabilize the Middle East. It could also set off a chain reaction: Saudi Arabia has threatened to go nuclear if Iran does, which could push the region further into an arms race.

If Donald Trump beats the rap in his felony trial, he might be able to thank a 14-year-old prank caller, backed by some bad staff work at the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

This was one of those peculiar tales that can sink cases, because if it undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s key witness with just a single juror, we could see a hung jury.

All morning, Todd Blanche, Trump’s lead defense attorney, was barking up mostly fruitless trees. When cross-examining the key witness, Michael Cohen, he scored a few points by making Cohen seem as if he had a personal vendetta against Trump, and he dinged him for stupidly claiming that Judge William Pauley — who earlier sentenced him to prison — was in some kind of conspiracy against him. But Blanche’s inexperience kept him from gaining the rhythm to truly nail Cohen.

Then, about 20 minutes before lunch, Blanche hit pay dirt.

On Tuesday, Cohen had testified that on Oct. 24, 2016 — just a couple of weeks before the election — he called Trump to discuss the Stormy Daniels matter and to tell him that he would move forward to pay the hush money. The call lasted for a minute and 36 seconds.

Unfortunately for the prosecution, the update on Daniels was not the only purpose of the call.

That week, Cohen felt victimized by harassing calls from a phone number that hadn’t blocked him. He called the number and found that the prank caller was only 14 years old. Cohen told the boy’s parents what their son had done. But he didn’t stop there. He wanted to connect to the Secret Service, which was traveling with Trump on the campaign trail. Cohen texted Keith Schiller, Trump’s bodyguard, who texted him to call and discuss the harassment.

The D.A.’s office didn’t review those texts with Cohen before he testified. This gave Blanche a chance to blindside him, which is never good for a witness.

“You talked to Keith Schiller about what you just went through” with the harassing calls, Blanche charged, his voice rising. “You can admit it!”

Cohen said he believed the call was about the hush money.

“We’re not asking what you believed!” Blanche shouted. “This jury doesn’t want to hear what you think happened.” The prosecution’s objection was sustained but the damage had been done.

Cohen then said he talked to Schiller and Trump about both the harassment and the hush money deal, and he can emphasize the point when prosecutors get a chance to question him again.

Fortunately for the prosecution, we’ve heard about several calls where Cohen discussed hush money with Trump. The most critical one — which Cohen taped — has Trump mentioning the $150,000 promised to a former Playboy model, Karen McDougal. After lunch, Blanche tried and failed to crack Cohen on that critical call.

Even so, I saw Trump smiling as he whispered to one of his lawyers. It was a good day for him.

After 90 minutes of talking to a dozen women who voted for Donald Trump in 2020, as part of our latest Times Opinion focus group, I was reminded of something my colleague Michelle Cottle wrote in November: Trump is tapping into the desire of many voters for nostalgia (e.g., the Trump-era economy), protest (President Biden is doing things wrong) and change (new policies on the economy and the border).

Our 12 focus group members didn’t think Trump was perfect — and in that respect they echoed the latest New York Times/Siena poll, where voters also were critical of Trump, yet gave him a lead over Biden in five swing states. But it’s crystal clear at this point that a lot of Americans credit Trump as a better steward of the economy, and they just don’t see evidence that Biden will change things up enough to attack inflation and interest rates.

The nostalgia for the Trump economy, the protest against Biden’s belief that he has earned a second term, and the desire to change the picture on inflation and the border are adding up to a powerful combination. Think what you will of Trump, but a lot of voters agree with something my colleague Kristen Soltis Anderson wrote in December about the former president:

Much of his candidacy and message so far is aimed at arguing that he can restore a prepandemic order and a sense of security in an unstable world. And unlike 2020, there’s no guarantee most voters will see President Biden as the safer bet between the two men to bring order back to America — in no small part because Mr. Biden was elected to do so and hasn’t delivered.

What Biden needs now more than anything is to pierce that nostalgia bubble that’s enveloping and protecting Trump while making the case to voters that he has delivered, and will continue to do so. That’s why I think Biden on Wednesday made the most radical of moves for an institutionalist like himself and proposed a June debate with Trump, far earlier than normal, which seems like it will happen for now. There’s only one reason any candidate would do such a thing: Because he thought he needed it.

Trump needs it, too. It’s historically very hard to knock off an incumbent president, and he knows he has to do more to make it happen. Being the nostalgia-protest-change candidate may be enough for Trump to win in the end, but in America, re-election is still the incumbent president’s to lose. Biden told the political world on Wednesday that he’s willing to take a big risk, even a bad or embarrassing debate, to save his job.

In Tbilisi, Georgia, the country’s parliament passed a “foreign agent” bill on Tuesday that, according to the ruling Georgian Dream party, will increase transparency on foreign funding of nongovernmental groups and media outlets.

But the thousands of Georgians who have been demonstrating in the streets since the measure was first introduced don’t agree with that description. Nor does the Biden administration, nor the European Union. They see the bill for what it is: a repressive measure intended to silence independent NGOs and media and move Georgia closer to the Kremlin’s orbit.

The law is modeled on one Russia enacted in 2012, which the Kremlin has used to smear or silence anyone challenging the government. The Georgian variant — widely known as the “Russian law” — would require organizations getting more than a fifth of their funding from abroad to register as “bearing the interests of a foreign power” or face stiff fines. The law was first introduced last year and withdrawn under heavy protest; this year the protests failed to dissuade the ruling party. Georgia’s largely ceremonial president, Salome Zourabichvili, says she will veto it, but Georgian Dream has enough votes to override her.

Why is the ruling party doing this?

One reason is the national elections set for October: Tamping down the opposition and the independent press will help Georgian Dream stay in power, which it’s held since 2012. The party has demonstrated distinctly authoritarian ambitions.

The more worrisome possibility is that Georgian Dream, the creation of the richest man in Georgia, Bidzina Ivanishvili, wants to get on the right side of Russia. Ivanishvili, who was prime minister from 2012 to 2013 and still wields considerable power behind the scenes, initially took a robust anti-Moscow stance, but that has been changing, especially since Russia invaded Ukraine.

The ruling party maintains that it is still keen on joining the European Union, which formally granted Georgia candidate status in December. The party has little choice, given that the overwhelming majority of Georgians are in favor of moving westward. But the party’s actions and words have pointed the other way, either out of fear of Russia — not irrational, given that Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 — or for gain, or to keep the party in power.

The United States and the European Union have made no secret of their alarm and annoyance. A State Department statement condemned the “foreign influence” legislation, warning that the law and Georgian Dream’s anti-Western rhetoric “put Georgia on a precarious trajectory.” A U.S. official warned that Washington may slap some financial and travel restrictions on some Georgian officials. It may not be too late.

The latest news on inflation has been pretty good. It has also been extremely weird. And that weirdness is, in a way, the message.

With underlying inflation fairly low but probably still above the Fed’s 2 percent target and people still worried that it might go back up, quirky measurement issues can lead to big mood swings that are quickly reversed when the next numbers come in — or sometimes even a few hours after the initial announcement, once knowledgeable people have had some time to dig into the details.

There were two big official inflation reports in the past couple of days: the Producer Price Index (what we used to call wholesale prices) on Tuesday and the Consumer Price Index on Wednesday morning. There was also a private survey from the National Federation of Independent Business that may add some clarity.

So what do I mean by “weirdness”? On Tuesday I was busy most of the day with plumbers and dentists, so I was able to check in on events and commentary only once in a while. But this enforced limitation on the information flow might actually have given me more perspective. The first thing I saw was a hot P.P.I., with inflation coming in well above expectations. There was much wailing and rending of garments. Then, as the analysts I follow had time to parse the details, they started to declare that this was actually a good report.

Financial markets seemed to agree. One quick and dirty way to judge how markets view inflation data is to look at the yield on two-year U.S. Treasuries, which largely reflects what people think the Fed is going to do. If inflation looks hot, they expect the Fed to keep rates high and maybe even increase them; if it looks cool, they expect the opposite.

And if you look at two-year yields over the past few days, you see the market reaction matching my sense of the commentary:

Yields spiked when the P.P.I. report was released, then fell back once there was time to dig into the numbers, ending the day lower than they started.

On the other hand, markets from the get-go liked the C.P.I., which seemed to show inflation resuming its downward trend, with yields falling sharply. But as I write, analysts are still digging into the details. Will they be less optimistic by evening? Probably not: Early commentary seems, if anything, to be saying that the numbers were even better than they first appeared. But after yesterday, I’m going to wait and see.

I also mentioned the survey from the N.F.I.B., which represents small and medium businesses. One question it asks is whether businesses are planning to raise or lower prices over the next three months; the percentage difference from current numbers is often a useful indicator of inflation trends. And that spread is currently close to what it was before the pandemic, although slightly higher:

So my best guess? The acceleration in measured inflation over the past few months was probably a statistical illusion; inflation wasn’t as low as it seemed in late 2023 but probably hasn’t risen much, if at all. Underlying annual inflation is probably around 2.5 percent, maybe even less. So my guess is that we’ve already won this war — that we have basically achieved a soft landing, with low unemployment and acceptably low inflation.

But I could be wrong, and even if I’m right, it’s going to take at least a few more months of good inflation news before this happy reality sinks in.

I’ve been waiting and hoping — no, I’ve been desperate — for President Biden to do two things. One, boldly project strength. Two, recognize that he cannot coast to re-election and that he needs to shake up the state of the presidential race.

With his offer on Wednesday to debate Donald Trump at least twice before the election and as early as next month, he has done just that.

The Biden campaign’s proposal came with the condition that the debates be in a television studio and there be no audience present to hoot, holler and otherwise interrupt. Trump subsequently indicated that he was onboard, though it wasn’t clear if he would agree to Biden’s terms.

By emphasizing debates and suggesting that they start soon, Biden is taking a risk. But it’s a necessary one. Trump and his supporters lean hard on the charge that Biden is too rickety — in terms of both energy and intellect — to face off against Trump, and they have sold that idea skillfully and mercilessly, with the help of right-wing news organizations that portray Biden as a doddering wreck. It’s selective and often malicious stuff, but that doesn’t mean that Biden can ignore it. He must refute it. Signaling an eagerness to debate is the crucial first step.

The next one is performing well in those debates, should they happen, and that’s where the risk comes in. Some Democrats who’ve spent time with Biden over the past year privately express concerns about his sharpness and stamina, and a debate is less scripted — and arguably more draining — than a State of the Union speech read from a teleprompter. But a reluctance or refusal to debate could be as damaging to Biden as half a dozen terrible moments at the lectern.

Besides which, Trump could have scores of such moments, to go by his bizarro stump speeches of late. That’s where the rewards that Biden could reap come in. Do I think that he will turn in debate performances for the ages? No. Do I think that Trump will have a harder time insisting on Biden’s wobbliness if he has demonstrated his own profound unsteadiness on the same stage where Biden is standing, with plenty of swing voters watching? Yes.

I also think that it’s past time for Biden to pivot from caution to daring. Maybe that pivot is finally here.

With Vladimir Putin’s revival of Soviet-style centralized and secretive rule, the old art of Kremlinology is making a comeback. It’s not quite the same as when the lineup atop Lenin’s mausoleum on May Day was scrutinized for signs of who was on the way up or down, but Putin’s abrupt replacement of the long-serving Sergei Shoigu as defense minister last Sunday was still a distinct blast from that dismal past.

Technically, Shoigu was kicked upstairs, to head up the national security council. Putin is not given to publicly punishing loyal courtiers, and Shoigu was about as loyal as they come, even going fishing and hunting with the boss. Still, Kremlin-watchers have long expected his ouster, given the sloppiness of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the widespread corruption in the military-industrial complex, and Shoigu’s reported unpopularity with the generals. There was also the dramatic rebellion of the mercenary commander Yevgeny Prigozhin, who marched on Moscow last June demanding Shoigu’s head (only to lose his own in a plane crash broadly presumed to have been an assassination).

So, very briefly, here are the questions and speculation now keeping Kremlinologists busy:

• Shoigu’s replacement at the Defense Ministry is Andrei Belousov, a senior Kremlin economist. That he is not a military man is not surprising; neither was Shoigu, a former construction foreman, nor his two predecessors. Military matters are handled by the generals of the General Staff; the defense minister looks after the military-industrial base. The thinking is that Belousov’s task will be to manage the rapid growth in Russia’s military spending and to clean up the corruption that is siphoning off huge amounts of the money earmarked for the Ukraine war.

• How long Shoigu will be allowed to survive remains an open question. One of his top deputies, Timur Ivanov, was arrested on bribery charges in April. One of Ivanov’s nicknames was “Shoigu’s wallet.” And on Tuesday morning, government investigators announced that a senior general on the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Yuri Kuznetsov, had been detained on suspicion of “large-scale” bribe-taking.

• A big question is what happens to Nikolai Patrushev, who is being displaced by Shoigu at the helm of the Russian security council. Patrushev, like Putin a former K.G.B. official, is among the oldest and closest members of Putin’s ruling clique, and among the most hawkish. Where he lands — or fails to land — will say a lot about where Putin is headed.

• On balance, the musical chairs point to a major overhaul of the military as Russia moves toward what is basically a war economy. Russia is making incremental but steady advances in Ukraine, albeit at an astounding cost in casualties and armaments. Putin’s plan is to press on at any cost, squeezing Ukraine and its ever more reluctant Western backers, and keeping China on board as a major supplier. None of that bodes well for Ukraine.

For months, we’ve known that the cross-examination of Michael Cohen would be the decisive moment of Donald Trump’s New York felony trial — the day we learned whether his defense team could plant reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors.

On Tuesday it became clear that the team was struggling with its most important task.

Todd Blanche, Trump’s lead defense lawyer, was like a baseball pitcher assigned to start Game 7 of the World Series after only two or three wins in his major-league career. Though a seasoned former federal prosecutor, he has little experience as a defense attorney — and it showed.

We’re only about a third of the way through Blanche’s cross, but so far, he’s too meandering and pleasant for the sharp-toned, rat-a-tat style necessary for the role.

Blanche spent more than an hour showing that Cohen, like Stormy Daniels last week, despises Trump, and this line of inquiry was entertaining if not informative. When he quoted Cohen calling Trump a “boorish cartoon misogynist,” Cohen wielded the same mild and effective rejoinder he used twice earlier: “Sounds like something I would say.” My kids would like to see me in that T-shirt.

Blanche spent a long time depicting Cohen as a publicity hound cashing in on his decision to flip on Trump. Guilty as charged. But Cohen’s unwise decision to make sport of Trump in an orange jumpsuit (and worse) earlier in the trial, while angering both the prosecution and defense, doesn’t relate to the falsification of business records at issue in the case. And Cohen made it clear that he was merely responding in kind to Trump’s childish posts, a few of which jurors have seen more than once. All told, an annoying waste of the jury’s time.

Blanche had trouble finding a rhythm. For instance, he asked Cohen if he had appeared on MSNBC shows anchored by Ali Velshi and Joy Reid. When Cohen said yes, Blanche had no follow-up.

But his real problem is that he has so little to work with. Cohen delivered devastating direct testimony all day Monday and again Tuesday morning, and he has been careful and low-key on cross.

Instead of attacking the prosecution’s case head-on, Blanche has been handcuffed by a client nursing a perverse desire to see Cohen’s insults — and his own — aired in open court.

At around 4 p.m. Tuesday, shortly before court adjourned for the day, Blanche began delving into why other prosecutors have passed on this case. That could be promising for him. But after all the runs the prosecution has already scored, he’ll have to strike Cohen out with the bases loaded to get back into the game.

On a day when Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former fixer, testified about the price of loyalty to Trump, a group of Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and Vivek Ramaswamy, a former presidential candidate, showed up at the courthouse to demonstrate their loyalty to Trump.

Sitting in the courtroom on Tuesday on my first day at the trial, I kept wondering what they were thinking as they heard Cohen, seeming every bit the weary, reluctantly reformed TV gangster, testify about his mafia-like interactions with Trumpworld.

He described how, after his home and office were raided by the F.B.I., Trump encouraged him, both through a “really sketchy” lawyer and through his own Twitter posts, to, in Cohen’s words, “Stay in the fold, stay loyal, don’t flip.” He described how once he decided “not to lie for President Trump any longer,” the then-president publicly attacked him.

Cohen now seems like a man whose life has been essentially wrecked — he went to prison, lost his law license, had to sell his New York and Chicago taxi medallions and is still on supervised release. Though his implosion has been particularly severe, he is far from alone; many people who’ve served Trump, no matter how faithfully, have been ruined in various ways by the experience.

Nevertheless, as Trump runs for re-election, Republicans are climbing over one another to get as close to him as possible. Toward the end of his testimony for the prosecution, Cohen was asked about his regrets.

“To keep the loyalty and to do things that he had asked me to do, I violated my moral compass, and I suffered the penalty,” he said. I’d like to know if Johnson, hearing this, had even a flicker of foreboding.

Drowning deaths in the United States rose by more than 12 percent to an estimated 4,500 per year during the pandemic, according to grim new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The increase, from 4,000 per year in 2019, comes as this long-neglected public health crisis is slowly beginning to draw some attention from government policymakers.

“It’s moving in the wrong direction,” the C.D.C. director, Dr. Mandy Cohen, told The Times. The agency said more than half of Americans had never taken a swimming lesson.

The sobering data is an opportunity for President Biden and health officials to finally make drowning prevention a national priority.

Drowning is the leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 4 in the United States and the second leading cause of death by accidental injury for children 5 to 14. Tackling the issue has clear bipartisan appeal and would improve quality of life in every American community.

Despite the obvious need for action, federal, state and local governments in the United States have invested very little to prevent these deaths.

The rise in deaths has caught the eye of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose philanthropy told The Times this week it plans for the first time to direct millions of dollars to drowning prevention efforts within the United States to improve data collection and help fund swimming lessons in 10 states where drowning rates are highest: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma and Texas.

The planned $17.6 million investment by Bloomberg Philanthropies is modest compared with the $104 million it is spending globally on preventing drownings. But the focus by Bloomberg, whose prominent public health campaigns helped ban smoking in bars and restaurants in New York, could help raise the profile of this issue. Executives at the philanthropy said they planned to work with the C.D.C.

Many Americans of even wealthy backgrounds have lost children to drowning. But drowning is also an issue of equity. Black people and Native Americans are at substantially increased risk of drowning. So are teenage boys. The C.D.C. report found that these trends have continued. In 2020, they said, Black Americans saw the greatest increase in fatal drownings.

Red Cross surveys suggest that a majority of Americans lack basic swimming abilities. With C.D.C. data showing the existence of more than 10 million private pools in the United States and fewer than 309,000 public ones, it’s clear that large numbers of Americans lack access to basic information about water safety, as well as safe places to learn to swim. Instead of a public health issue, drowning is treated as a private matter and swimming as a luxury. To save lives, this needs to change.

What do American voters want? The latest New York Times/Siena polls of swing states offer some confusing evidence on this point. Some of the polling results suggest that Americans are in a revolutionary frame of mind: Asked whether the political and economic systems need major changes, 69 percent of respondents said those systems need major changes or should be entirely torn down.

On the other hand, when the pollsters gave voters a choice between a candidate who would bring the country back to normal and one who would bring major changes, 51 percent said they would prefer the back-to-normal candidate and only 40 percent would prefer the major-changes candidate.

So which is it? Is 2024 a change election in which people want someone who will shake things up, or is this a stability election in which people are going to vote for the candidate of order over the candidate of chaos?

Well, different voters want different things. But if I had to write a single sentence that reconciled these diverse findings, it would be this: The people who run America’s systems have led the country seriously astray; we need a president who will shake things up and lead the country back to normal.

When they hear “systems,” I assume voters are thinking of the network of institutions run by America’s elite — corporations, governing agencies, higher education, the news media and so on. If voters believe one thing about Donald Trump it’s that he’s against these systems and these systems are against him.

Voters clearly see President Biden implicated in these systems. The heart of his problem heaves into view when people are asked which candidate will bring about change. Seventy percent of voters said that Trump would bring about major changes or tear down the system entirely if elected. And 71 percent of voters said that little or nothing would change if Biden was re-elected.

In other words, the evidence suggests that the swing voter wants reactionary change, not revolutionary change. The mood suggested by the evidence is angry nostalgia. That would be my explanation for why Trump is so convincingly ahead in most of the swing states.

When Michael Cohen took the stand for the first time in Donald Trump’s hush-money trial on Monday morning, he almost accidentally sat down without taking the oath. But after he raised his hand and swore to tell the truth, he seemed to do so.

In dry language, with his impulse-control problems nowhere in sight, he landed blow after blow on the former president.

Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, is willing to look like a stooge — pathetically eager for any praise from the boss — to implant in jurors’ minds that even in the absence of incriminating emails, he should be believed because of all the time he spent looking for Brownie points from Trump. When he did so, he was implicating Trump.

Cohen’s testimony about the Playboy model Karen McDougal, who says she had a nine-month affair with Trump, is important beyond Trump describing her to Cohen as “beautiful.” It cemented Trump’s attention to detail, which we’ve heard a lot about already. He constantly asked for updates on the hush money that American Media Inc., publisher of The National Enquirer, was paying at his direction to McDougal, replying, “Great!” or “Fantastic,” when Cohen delivered them.

Cohen’s tape of Trump discussing that deal landed hard when it was played, and not just because it was Trump’s voice talking about “150” — a clear reference to the $150,000 in hush money that Trump — through Cohen and A.M.I. — was originally going to pay McDougal. Trump’s micromanaging, which we’ve heard about for two weeks, came to life in a way that didn’t help him. And when Cohen dissected practically every moment of the call, there was no mistaking the meaning of the brief conversation.

When Cohen told Trump that Stormy Daniels was shopping her story, “Trump was really angry with me,” he said. Trump told Cohen: “‘I thought you had this under control, I thought you took care of this! … Just take care of it!’”

According to Cohen, Trump thought he would surely lose the 2016 election if the Daniels story came out. He testified that Trump said, “This is a disaster, a total disaster. Women will hate me,” and added that “guys, they think it’s cool” to have sex with a p*rn star, “but this is going to be a disaster for the campaign.” In combination with the fallout from the “Access Hollywood” tapes, they agreed, it would send his already low polling with women into a tailspin.

“Get control of it!” Trump barked, Cohen testified. “Just get past the election. If I win, it’ll have no relevance when I’m president. And if I lose, I don’t really care.”

Here the prosecutor, Susan Hoffinger, asked if Cohen inquired about Melania Trump. He said yes, and said Trump responded: “Don’t worry. How long do you think I’ll be on the market for? Not long.”

Wow. With Trump, every time you think he’s touched bottom, he crashes through the floor. Here he was already looking ahead to his third divorce.

Cohen is doing very well on direct examination. The test will come Tuesday afternoon, when cross-examination is likely to begin.

An already unbearable situation in Gaza is getting far worse, as hundreds of thousands of desperate Palestinian families flee an Israeli ground operation in Rafah, in southern Gaza. Aid groups say the so-called humanitarian zone near the sea, where people are being told to move, doesn’t have enough shelter, food, water or sanitation to support the people who are already there. Without a significant infusion of new aid, this place is at risk of total famine and social chaos.

One glimmer of good news came on Sunday, when Israel opened the Western Erez crossing in northern Gaza. But virtually no aid has got through to southern Gaza for nearly a week, aid groups say. The reality is that the Gaza Strip needs many, many more crossings.

“If you have only one entry point in, then it becomes extremely valuable, and every adverse actor can disrupt it for their own gain,” Dave Harden, a former U.S.A.I.D. mission director in the West Bank and Gaza, told me.

If there were a dozen access points, spread across every two or three kilometers, then no single crossing would become a choke point, vulnerable to attack. He said there’s no reason that Israel, which controls the security envelope around Gaza, could not open far more checkpoints.

“People complain that Hamas is stealing aid, but there would be no incentive to steal if there was enough food going in,” said Harden, adding that he shared a plan to open more than half a dozen more border crossings in Gaza with a branch of the Israeli military about six weeks ago.

But since then, the opposite has occurred. The main artery for humanitarian aid, Kerem Shalom, was shut down on May 5 after a Hamas rocket attack killed four Israeli soldiers. Then Israel seized the border crossing at Rafah, gaining full control over the vital entry and exit point for people and goods for the first time since 2005. Israeli officials have blamed Egypt for the halt in humanitarian goods through Rafah since last week. But for months aid groups have cited the onerous inspections of aid convoys, Israeli attacks on aid workers and protests by right-wing Israeli settlers who have destroyed or delayed truckloads of aid as the cause of famine in Gaza.

“The situation is absolutely desperate,” Sean Carroll, who leads Anera, an American aid organization that has operated in Gaza for decades, wrote in an email on Monday. His staff members have been forced to evacuate Rafah at a moment’s notice, just like the rest of the population, and were forced to leave vital supplies in a warehouse behind.

“They are trying to keep delivering but there’s not much to deliver,” he told me.

Donald Trump may be the presidential candidate whose midday snoozing has generated headlines and animated late-night comics, but President Biden is the one who needs to wake up.

He’s a whopping 12 points behind Trump among registered voters in Nevada, according to polls by The New York Times, Siena College and The Philadelphia Inquirer that were released on Monday morning. Biden won that state by nearly 2.5 points in 2020. He’s behind among registered voters in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan — in all of the six battleground states surveyed except Wisconsin. That’s not some wildly aberrant result. It echoes alarms sounded before. It speaks to stubborn troubles.

And it’s difficult for Democrats to believe. I know: I talk regularly with party leaders and party strategists and I’ve heard their incredulity. They mention abortion and how that should help Biden mightily. They mention the miserable optics of a certain Manhattan courtroom and a certain slouched defendant. They mention Jan. 6, 2021. They note Trump’s unhinged rants and autocratic musings and they say that surely, when the moment of decision arrives, a crucial share of Americans will note all of that, too, and come home to Biden.

From their lips to God’s ear. But with stakes this huge, I can’t help worrying that such hopefulness verges on magical thinking and is midwife to a confidence, even a complacency, that Biden cannot afford. He needs to step things up — to defend his record more vigorously, make the case for his second term more concretely, project more strength and more effectively communicate the most important difference between him and his opponent: Biden genuinely loves America, while Trump genuinely loves only himself.

The new polling shows that Democratic senators up for re-election are doing better than Biden, so his party affiliation isn’t his doom. That’s the lesson, too, of the favor enjoyed by Democratic governors in red and purple states. Look, for prime example, at Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania.

But Biden seems to get the blame for the war in Gaza. For the high cost of living, too. Regarding the economy, he has a story to tell — infrastructure investment, the CHIPS Act, low unemployment — and must tell it better, with an eye not on his liberal base, but on the minorities and young people who are drifting away from him. That’s the moral of the latest numbers: Take no voter for granted. And there’s not a second to waste.

Every Monday morning on The Point, we kick off the week with a tipsheet on the latest in the presidential campaign. Here’s what we’re looking at this week:

• The next two weeks are critical for Donald Trump. He is leading President Biden in most polls in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and other swing states that will decide the 2024 election. But on Monday, the star witness in Trump’s criminal trial — Michael Cohen, his former lawyer — will begin telling a Manhattan jury that he gave $130,000 to the p*rn star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence about a sexual encounter with Trump. And based on the pace of the trial, the case could go to the jury as soon as next week.

• Cohen is the linchpin to any conviction, acquittal or hung jury for Trump. More than any other witness in the case, he will put words in Trump’s mouth for jurors — telling them how the former president directed the payment to Daniels. Expect the cross-examination to be withering, but in the end, Trump’s lawyers may be hard-pressed to contain or thwart the damaging Cohen testimony without strong witnesses who can rebut it.

• The trial matters because some voters say a conviction could change their thinking about Trump — a man who for years has shaken off scandals like Teflon. Failure to convict, in turn, could boost the martyr message that he’s been campaigning on at rallies like his big one in New Jersey on Saturday.

• I just did a focus group with Trump voters from 2020 about how they see him now, which will be published on Tuesday. Most of these voters want to support him again because they think the economy will do better under him. But these voters volunteered how much they dislike Trump’s chaotic and inappropriate behavior, and several of them are looking at R.F.K. Jr. as a third-party candidate. What happens in the trial could steer some of these Trump voters away from him.

• Biden had a successful fund-raising weekend on the West Coast, but it’s Israel’s military actions in Gaza and the cease-fire talks that will loom over both his week and the biggest event on his schedule: his commencement address at Morehouse College next Sunday. Many voters are unhappy with Biden’s approach to Gaza and general handling of the war, and he came in for some criticism over his latest move on U.S. weapons to Israel.

  This isn’t an easy time for Mr. Biden to set foot on a college campus, but he’s been an admired figure at many historically Black colleges like Morehouse — and he and his campaign need to improve his standing with both Black voters and Georgia voters, where he is lagging Trump in polls. No single event will turn it around for Biden, but I think this will be one of his highest-stakes speeches of the spring.

For months, we’ve heard that the prosecution’s entire case in Donald Trump’s New York felony trial boils down to one man: Michael Cohen.

It turns out that it doesn’t — as long as Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, behaves himself on the witness stand beginning early next week.

For three weeks, I’ve sat in the courtroom and watched prosecutors carefully set the table for the feast of Cohen’s testimony against his longtime boss. Knowing that Cohen is a disreputable witness, they’ll basically argue that you don’t have to like the chef to swallow the food he serves.

The arc of the prosecution’s narrative has taken the jury from the “catch and kill” scheme (a coherent prelude to the crime) to the validation of highly incriminating records to the debunking of arguments for the defense. It all adds up to an effective precorroboration of Cohen’s likely testimony.

Stormy Daniels had no connection to the falsification of business records, the fundamental charge against Donald Trump. But by establishing that she did, indeed, have sex with Trump, her testimony provided important proof of motive. It’s increasingly clear to the jury that Trump coughed up the hush money to save his 2016 campaign after it was sent reeling by the “Access Hollywood” tape. He knew that a credible story of sex with a p*rn star would sink him. So he broke the law.

The defense has responded mostly by grasping at straws. It tried to make the hush money look like an extortion scheme, with the former president in his favorite position as victim — a difficult maneuver, considering that Trump has spent years in the same tawdry milieu.

On Monday and Friday, the defense attorney Emil Bove used technojargon and innuendo to suggest, without a shred of proof, that a key piece of evidence — a Sept. 9, 2016, call in which Trump and Cohen discussed hush money for the Playboy model Karen McDougal — was somehow tampered with by Cohen, the F.B.I. or some other sinister force and that it might not have been Cohen on the call. The idea was to use a nanosecond gap in the call and a change in phone ownership to capture the imagination of even a single conspiracy-minded juror. It takes only one to create a hung jury.

But Bove’s cross-examination crashed when a young prosecution witness explained that when people (in this case, Cohen) buy new phones, they usually keep their old numbers.

Is that all they’ve got? No, the defense is betting on the offensiveness of Cohen, who has been ignoring repeated pleas from prosecutors to keep his mouth shut in the days before he takes the stand. (Justice Juan Merchan strongly suggested he do so.)

If Cohen can straighten up and fly right, riding on a trove of evidence and surviving cross-examination, a conviction is well within sight.

When OpenAI introduced its virtual assistant, Sky, last week, many gasped. It sounded just like Scarlett Johansson, who had famously played an artificial intelligence voice assistant in the movie “Her.”

On the surface, the choice made sense: Last year, Sam Altman, the C.E.O. of OpenAI, had named it his favorite science fiction movie, even posting the single word “her” around the assistant’s debut.

OpenAI approached Johansson to be the voice for its virtual assistant, and she turned it down. The company approached her again two days before the debut of Sky, but this time, she said in a blistering statement, it didn’t even wait for her official “no” before releasing a voice that sounds so similar to hers that it even fooled her friends and family.

In response to Johansson’s scathing letter, OpenAI claimed that the voice was someone else and “was never intended to resemble hers,” but it took Sky down anyway.

The A.I. industry is built on grabbing our data — the output that humanity has collectively produced: books, art, music, blog posts, social media, videos — and using it to train their models, from which they then make money or use as they wish. For the most part, A.I. companies haven’t asked or paid the people who created the data they grab and whose actual employment and future are threatened by the models trained on it.

Politicians haven’t stepped in to ask why humanity’s collective output should be usurped and monopolized by a handful of companies. They’ve practically let the industry do what it wants for decades.

I am someone who believes in the true upside of technology, including A.I. But amid all the lofty talk about its transformational power, these companies are perpetuating an information grab, a money grab and a “break the rules and see what we can get away with” mentality that’s worked very well for them for the past few decades.

Altman, it seems, liked Johansson’s voice, so the company made a simulacrum of it. Why not?

When you’re a tech industry star, they let you do anything.