💥🇺🇸 SPARK & FLAG

A weekly briefing from The All American. See through the flash. Avoid the traps. Move the majority.

Each week, we’ll break down the stories, signals, and spin shaping American politics—and offer a sharp, usable perspective on how to push back against rising authoritarianism and build a democracy that actually works.

This newsletter is brought to you by The All American, the communications arm of American Futures —founded by Ilyse Hogue, Peter Teague , and Seth Flaxman—lifelong organizers, strategists, and builders working to forge a new majoritarian movement rooted in patriotism and universalist values.

Thanks for reading. Let’s get to it.

Trump Threatens to Punish New York for Mamdani’s Victory

What’s Going On: In his 60 Minutes interview, Trump suggested he would cut off federal funding to New York City if Zohran Mamdani won election as mayor. Federal dollars make up 6.4% of the city’s total spending, and cuts could blow a $7 billion hole in the city’s finances. Trump could cripple services relied upon by both working-class and middle-class New Yorkers and make it impossible for the new mayor to deliver on promises he’s made to improve the quality of life in the city. It’s a stunning escalation of presidential interference in a local election, and yet another example of the blatant extortion Trump is seeking to normalize in Blue states and cities.

🧭 Big Picture: Trump isn’t just targeting a political rival; he’s threatening to financially strangle a city to prove his dominance. His play is to turn New Yorkers against one another by ensuring Mamdani’s failure out of the gate. It follows the MAGA blueprint to wield economic blackmail nationwide, weaponizing the federal purse against any state or city that defies him, and further cementing a precedent where loyalty to Trump, not service to the public, determines who gets resources in America.

⚠️ Why This Matters: The President is spoiling for a fight he wants to bill as Trump vs. Mamdani. The opposition must frame this as Trump vs. New York City, and by extension, Trump vs. the American people. Every civic institution, business leader, union, and elected official—whether they support or oppose Mamdani—should treat this as a wanna-be dictator’s attack on self government. It is incumbent upon a united front to make clear that Trump is willing to vandalize the nation’s most iconic city—and the livelihoods of millions—to feed his authoritarian ambitions. The question is simple: Will we collectively fight back against government by coercion or lose government by consent?

Trump Downplays War With Venezuela; Wields It as a Test of Power

What’s Going On: In response to concerns about continued escalation in Venezuela, Trump brushed off fears that the U.S. is heading toward war, warning that President Nicolás Maduro’s “days are numbered.” His comments come as testosterone-fueled “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth continues extrajudicial strikes on alleged cartel boats off Venezuela’s coast, and while an impotent Congress sits quietly by, deferring to Trump even as he blatantly violates the law.

🧭 Big Picture: Trump’s Venezuela campaign is less about foreign policy than conditioning Americans to accept his unchecked use of military power. Each illegal strike abroad and every “war on narco-trafficking” narrative at home normalizes a president who acts without oversight, and forces military leaders into a “no-win situation.” It also exposes the core contradiction of “America First”: Trump is using drug overdoses as a pretext for foreign aggression while ignoring the real crisis at home—an economy and government shutdown crushing working people.

⚠️ Why This Matters: Trump is softening the public for future domestic deployments and laying the groundwork for extrajudicial power at home. Authoritarians consolidate power by continually creating “exceptions to the rule,” forcing the law to bend to their will. The opposition’s task is to expose this pattern and make clear that what Trump is testing overseas today, he intends to use against Americans tomorrow. This moment also offers an opportunity to remind voters where his true priorities lie. Research shows that the surge in overdose deaths is closely tied to a dramatic decline in upward mobility—a symptom of the inequality his own policies have deepened. His fixation on foreign enemies while neglecting despair at home reveals the failure and fraud of his campaign promises.

Don’t Look to SCOTUS to Save Democracy

What’s Going On: The Supreme Court is set to hear a slate of cases that could dramatically expand Trump’s executive power—from his unilateral authority to impose tariffs, to his right to deploy the National Guard in cities, to control over SNAP benefits during the shutdown. Each case has enormous implications for the balance of power, but the larger pattern is unmistakable: the Court has become an active partner in Trump’s project to centralize control within the presidency.

🧭 Big Picture: Even when the Court stops short of outright endorsement, its rulings and shadow-docket interventions have already normalized Trump’s power grab. What once would have been viewed as a constitutional crisis is now treated as standard operating procedure. But the spectacle of litigation only creates the illusion of accountability in this current era of corruption and knee-bending to Trump. SCOTUS has already signaled its submission even as it maneuvers to maintain a semblance of independence. The danger isn’t just in the outcomes of the individual cases—it’s in the broader acceptance of authoritarian rule dressed up under the validity of a sham constitutional process.

⚠️ Why This Matters: Lawsuits have been and will be an important tool to slow the authoritarian takeover. But the opposition must not mistake litigation for a strategy that can save democracy from Trump. The larger judicial system can delay the full effects of the MAGA threat, but it won’t defeat it. Preserving democracy now rests in the hands of voters, organizers, and state leaders using the power that remains to them to counter an executive branch that no longer adheres to a system of checks and balances, and a recognition that this SCOTUS will not be the bulwark of democracy the founders intended it to be.

THE FLAG

Each week, we’ll share one thing worth watching, listening to, or reading.

Ilyse’s Recommendation: Micah Sifry at The Connector has a fantastic interview with Ivan Pardo this week. Ivan is the founder of Solidarity Tech, which is the platform behind Zohran Mamdani’s extensive field and volunteer effort. Pardo talks about how the tool was built by organizers with the goal of understanding people and appealing to their interests, not just getting something out of them. The tool was also used by Catherine Connolly in her successful run to become Ireland’s President and is central to Avi Lewis’ bid to lead Canada’s New Democratic Party. Ideology and policy platforms do and should matter in picking leaders, but this great piece reminds us that people want to actually feel heard by their leaders and that there’s technology to support good organizing and movement building. If more campaigns thought this way, we wouldn’t have so many people feeling dismal about civic participation.

Peter’s Recommendation: Brian Beutler’s “The Scourge of Wimpiness” offers important clarity to the self-identified centrists who keep struggling to understand the fight we’re in. “Moderate and mainstream Democrats are by no means obliged to love Mamdani or express great confidence in him. But they should feel no compunction about saying they hope he will govern well—that he’s better than the vile, Trump-endorsed alternative, and that Trump will have hell to pay if he violates his oath of office to exact retribution on New York.”

Seth’s Recommendation: The NY Mag piece “Socialism or Abundance?” mostly does a good job differentiating between the actual divides, the online dunking, and the surprisingly large areas of agreement. I am still reading and withholding judgement on Welcome’s “Deciding to Win” but was pleased to see this line calling for candidates to reject “demands from corporate interests, left-wing activists, or our party’s donor class” in a way that seemed to be in dialogue with Peter’s piece “Abundance of Certainty” from a few weeks ago.