Hello Downriver,
Late tonight we ring in another new year; one that could be quite consequential in so many ways.
For me, it will be a true Janus holiday; one part of me looking back, while another looks ahead.
(You know Janus, a two-faced Roman god of beginnings, transitions, doors and time who gives us the month of January.)
Of course, most of us probably celebrate New Year’s in this way to some extent every year: we take a moment to reflect on what happened over the last 12 months and then try to envision — and even resolve as to — what’s next.
But given that we’re not only putting a bow on 2025, but also putting a fork in Trump’s first year, I think this transitionary moment means a little more than usual.
Because I think come tomorrow, we’ll enter the beginning of the end of his administration, and not just by the calendar; that with the mid-term election season already ramping up, the influence of Trump will continue to decline, while the impact on Trump will build with each subsequent month.
You can see both trends already: MAGA is fracturing, with various personalities trying to see if Trump’s hat and tie fit, while his hold on the GOP is obviously slipping.
In fact, his former VP, Mike Pence, has launched a strong alternative to MAGA via his own think tank, “Advancing American Freedom.”
This, Pence says, will be the new hub for traditional conservatism, and has already recruited more than a dozen staff members from the right-wing Heritage Foundation.
It used to be that anyone running for office from the GOP had to prove their conservative bona fides somehow (are you a true Republican or a RINO?), but with Trump, it morphed into having to prove personal loyalty to the man, not the party.
But that’s changing — probably faster than we have previously imagined.
At the same time, the other side of the aisle is starting to count the margin of victory it will have as a new majority in both the House and Senate after November’s midterms.
Yes, yes, you might say that’s a bit premature, arrogant and presumptuous — but history has shown us repeatedly that a president loses seats in Congress at the midterms, even more so in their final term in office.
And adding to the mix is news that so far, 54 Congressional lawmakers have announced they’re not running in November.
Some are retiring, others are seeking a different office.
Regardless, this could prove to be the biggest shakeup in the House and Senate in a while.
And given the slim GOP majority in both houses (53-45 in the Senate; 220-215 in the House), it won’t take much for Dems to take over total control of Congress a year from now.
Since I’m using the Janus method of celebrating New Year’s, it’s important to note that in the past, a president losing seats in a midterm wasn’t always viewed as a repudiation of his administration.
Bill Clinton lost seats during midterms in his first term, but then won reelection in a landslide in 1996 — the first Democrat to win two in a row since FDR.
But this time around, we now have the potential shift in party majorities, coupled with Trump’s tanking poll numbers and a schism growing in the MAGA tent.
That means we could — I emphasize, “could” — be looking at something really special — supermajorities in both houses.
Which would mean 1) enough votes to override any Trump veto, 2) enough votes in the Senate to break any filibuster attempt and 3) enough votes to impeach and convict the felon and remove him from office before his term is up.
——
Now, I don’t claim to have a crystal ball hidden under our bed, but there are a couple of observations — and hopes — I have for 2026, again based on history.
First, I think we’ve just witnessed a final confirmation of Trump’s complicity in ensuring Putin’s desires in Eastern Europe.
You see, AI defines being “complicit” as having some involvement in a crime; and nothing has been more criminal than Putin’s invasion of Ukraine — and Trump’s willingness to give away Ukraine as part of some kind of “peace deal.”
History has told us to look at the Trump-Putin relationship with a jaundiced eye; for all the denials, we know Russia was involved in trying to influence the outcome of all three of Trump’s campaigns.
2016: Investigations that included an assessment by all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies and a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded there was “irrefutable evidence” of Russia’s involvement.
2020: A report from the director of national intelligence said Russia sought to help Trump; that Putin authorized “influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process and exacerbating socio-political divisions in the U.S.”
2024: And leading up to last year’s election, Russia used intermediaries to hire American right-wing influencers to spread Kremlin talking points, and created networks of websites that resembled trusted U.S. news outlets, along with fictitious sites, to spread polarizing content.
I raise this history — looking back — to provide context for looking forward.
That the overall unseemly and nigh reprehensible cozy relationship Trump has with Putin has now come to bear with Trump’s almost gleeful push to have Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy simply give up land to Putin.
And you saw it live on Sunday, when Trump and Zelenskyy announced a 20-point peace plan that should give all of us pause.
While the plan supposedly provides a “platinum standard” of security guarantees for Ukraine, it requires that country to drop its bid for NATO membership — which is exactly what Putin wanted all along.
In making the announcement, Trump also acknowledged that some Ukrainian land is “up for grabs” to secure a deal.
What does that mean?
It means the acceptance of Putin’s claims over Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk.
In other words — and to look back in history: “peace for our time.”
Or, as it has come to be better known: “Appeasement.”
But for Trump it’s simply taking care of a buddy, who happens to be America’s generational enemy.
——
Another area worth exploring, of course, is the state of our economy, which brings me to one of the best books I’ve read in some time: “1929: Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History” by Andrew Ross Sorkin.
And as Sorkin points out, once again, history tells us things, if we bother to listen.
Every economist who studies the Great Depression will tell you the same thing: it may have started with the crash of a stock market built on too much debt, but the subsequent freeze of credit made things worse — and the implementation of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 put the final nail in the coffin.
This law drastically raised import duties on more than 20,000 foreign goods to protect American farmers and businesses — but it backfired “spectacularly,” triggering retaliatory tariffs from other nations.
This, in turn, caused global trade to plummet by more than 60% and turned a “Bad” depression into a “Great” one.
But Trump loves tariffs; he’s said so.
Which is why his announcement in April of unprecedented — and indefensible — across-the-board and around-the-world tariffs set off alarms everywhere.
According to U of M economist Justin Wolfers, our economy has created “close to zero jobs” since mid-2025, coinciding with new tariffs and policy uncertainty.
That, in turn, has led to “a worrying rise in unemployment (up to 4.6%) and weak wage growth,” signaling a potential economic stall or recession risk.
And Trump knows his tariffs are a disaster: He’s giving farmers a $12 billion (with a “B”) bailout because they’re being decimated by markets going elsewhere due to Trump’s tariff war.
I won’t go down the economic rabbit hole, but we know what’s happened to us and our families: prices have gone up — either directly because of Trump’s tariffs, or because companies saw an opportunity to profiteer by hiding price hikes behind the word “tariff.”
And we know prices aren’t going to come down; that’s not how it works.
——
Finally — although there’s a lot more I could get into — there’s Trump’s “America First” talking points that somehow include going to war with Venezuela and bombing Nigeria.
If history has taught us anything, it’s that military intervention without the sustained support of the American people leads to quagmires: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Frighteningly, I think Trump is saber-rattling for the same reason too many presidents have done it in the past: as a diversion from domestic problems they’ve been unable to solve.
Our economy isn’t doing much for anyone but the rich and powerful, health care costs are going through the roof (and ACA premiums are going to skyrocket tomorrow), good-paying jobs are impossible to find, young people can’t afford housing and student loan debt is crippling the opportunities of entire generations.
But Trump needs to bomb something to take our minds off the economy …
… and Jeffrey Epstein.
——
As I said, there’s so much more, but you get the idea: this is a fascinating moment in our nation’s transition to another year, one fraught with challenges yet still holding hope for many.
So, I wish you all a Happy New Year — and the best our nation and world can offer.
——
On my Substack site, I rate and review Trump’s administration (Part I) and Trump himself (Part II). Take a look and let me know what you think. To read all my essays, check out Substack.com and look for me at “Farrandipity.” It’s free. And please share with like-minded individuals — and even those who aren’t.
Craig Farrand is a former managing editor of The News-Herald. I can be reached at craig.substack@gmail.com.
