The Obama Foundation
@ObamaFoundation

We are bringing together some of today’s most prominent voices and global icons for the Obama Presidential Center Grand Opening Ceremony. The festivities will livestream globally at 11 a.m. CT, Thursday, June 18 — don’t miss it!

Tune in for speeches from @BarackObama and Mrs. Obama!

Enjoy performances by: Bono, Bruce Springsteen, @xtina, @common, Eddie Vedder, Guitars over Guns, Illinois Army National Guard, @IAMJHUD, @johnlegend, @MarcAnthony, Stevie Wonder, @temsbaby, The Edge, @theroots, Uniting Voices Chicago.

An invocation led by Pastor Joel Hunter and Joshua DuBois.

Remarks and special appearances by: @marsaimartin, Marty Nesbitt, and Valerie Jarrett.

Celebrate with us: http://obama.org/grandopening

In the aftermath of the Roberts Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais, it’s clearer than ever that the Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority is willing to use its power to halt the coming backlash to the second Trump regime’s catastrophic first two years in power. Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues are all in: They’ll do whatever it takes to guard the Republican Party against the political consequences of their shameful capitulation, and the accelerating authoritarian entropy of the moment.

Kate Ertmann of Dame Magazine wrote back in September 2025 about authoritarian regimes and the cults of personalities that drive them. Every authoritarian regime in modern history has started its reign with maximum energy that can make it appear invulnerable. The second Trump regime has been no different.

“When a system is relatively new, like the Trump regime, there’s a lot of energy that keeps its pendulum slowly swinging on the functional side,” Ertmann wrote, nine months after Trump was sworn in for a second term and four years after his failed attempt to overthrow the U.S. government. “But, as it is in the lifecycle of all systems, as time passes, a regime’s pendulum swing will begin to have diminishing returns.”

These regimes, bucking or outright ignoring small-d democratic norms, need people to believe they do not have a “sensitive underbelly,” as Ertmann writes. They know they have one, however, and like an animal fighting for its life, they will do anything and everything to protect that vulnerable underbelly, or to make their opponents believe there is no underbelly at all.

In the summer of 2026, we are seeing the entropy of the Trump regime in real time. Federal courts defying the regime at every turn: Trump’s name being torn off the Kennedy Center, for instance, and congressional Republicans refusing to confirm the president’s choice to lead U.S. intelligence. Trump and his goons have drastically overplayed their hand, interpreting the results of the 2024 election as an ironclad mandate from the American people to eviscerate constitutional governance and reshape the nation in the image of the man who wants you to believe he is sovereign.

Five months after the demolition of the White House’s East Wing, President Donald Trump claimed that the project to construct a massive ballroom and a bunker in its place would cost up to $400 million and that private donors would pay for all of it.

“This is taxpayer-free. We have no taxpayer putting up 10 cents,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on March 31, describing the project as including bomb shelters and major medical facilities.

But a detailed project summary prepared for the White House by the contractor more than three weeks before Trump’s comments estimated the total construction cost at $600 million — with more than half coming from taxpayers, according to a copy of the contractor estimate obtained by The Washington Post.

By the time Trump made his comments in March, the federal government had already approved more than a dozen payments to the contractor overseeing the work, Clark Construction, totaling tens of millions of dollars in public funds, according to a log of the contractor’s invoices obtained by The Post.

Since first announcing the East Wing project last July, Trump has repeatedly said that the price tag would not exceed $400 million and that private donations routed through a nonprofit would cover its entire cost. At other times, he has said that the Secret Service and the military would contribute security enhancements, without elaborating on the price of those upgrades.

The Florida Supreme Court has cleared the way for Republicans to use Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) gerrymandered congressional map in 2026, despite the state’s voter-approved ban on partisan gerrymandering.

The only judge to dissent from the order was the sole state Supreme Court justice who was not appointed by DeSantis.

In its decision, the court’s majority declined to weigh in on the map itself, effectively allowing it to be used this year. But Justice Jorge Labarga, the lone dissenting judge, rebuked the court, insisting it should have intervened as it did in past elections.

“For a second time in fewer than three years, in a substantively similar context, the district court has elected a path of delayed appellate review,” Labarga wrote. “Only this time, the votes of even more Floridians are at stake.”

Justice Adam S. Tanenbaum disagreed in a fiery concurrence.

“There is no need for special treatment in this case,” Tanenbaum wrote, reasoning that “this court in the past has allowed congressional elections to move forward on redistricting plans that have been declared, directly or indirectly, to be unconstitutional.”

The Florida Supreme Court has cleared the way for Republicans to use Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) gerrymandered congressional map in 2026, despite the state’s voter-approved ban on partisan gerrymandering.

The only judge to dissent from the order was the sole state Supreme Court justice who was not appointed by DeSantis.

In its decision, the court’s majority declined to weigh in on the map itself, effectively allowing it to be used this year. But Justice Jorge Labarga, the lone dissenting judge, rebuked the court, insisting it should have intervened as it did in past elections.

“For a second time in fewer than three years, in a substantively similar context, the district court has elected a path of delayed appellate review,” Labarga wrote. “Only this time, the votes of even more Floridians are at stake.”

Justice Adam S. Tanenbaum disagreed in a fiery concurrence.

“There is no need for special treatment in this case,” Tanenbaum wrote, reasoning that “this court in the past has allowed congressional elections to move forward on redistricting plans that have been declared, directly or indirectly, to be unconstitutional.”