Itemoids

United States

Why Didn’t Jack Smith Charge Trump With Insurrection?

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2025 › 01 › jack-smith-trump-charges › 681306

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report into his investigation of Donald Trump’s 2020 election subversion is an atlas of roads not taken—one to a land where Trump never tried to overturn the election, another where the Justice Department moved more quickly to charge him, and another where the Supreme Court didn’t delay the case into obsolescence.

One of the most beguiling untrod paths is the one where Smith charged Trump with insurrection against the United States. The nation watched Trump try to overturn the election, first through spurious lawsuits and then by instigating a violent riot on January 6, 2021, in a vain attempt to prevent the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory. A conviction for insurrection would have prevented Trump from returning to office, but when Smith indicted Trump in August 2023, he didn’t charge him with insurrection.

Smith’s report, which was released early this morning, finally explains why. In doing so, it shows how the United States legal system is and was unprepared for a figure like Trump. The framers of the law simply didn’t contemplate a sitting president trying to use the vast powers of the federal government to reverse the outcome of an election.

[Read: The cases against Trump—a guide]

Most of the report, which runs to about 150 pages, focuses on the crimes that Smith did charge, the evidence behind them, and why he believes he would have convicted Trump if he’d had a chance to try them. Instead, Smith moved to dismiss the charges in November after Trump won reelection, citing Justice Department rules that bar the prosecution of a sitting president. Even if he had not done so, Trump had vowed to fire Smith and close the case immediately upon taking office. (Smith also dropped charges in another case related to Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. His report on that case was not released, because charges are still pending against Trump’s erstwhile co-defendants.)

Though the material included is damning, it’s also mostly known. News reports, the House January 6 committee, and Smith’s initial and superseding indictments had already laid out how Trump tried to steal an election that he knew he had lost—first by filing bogus lawsuits and pressuring state officials; then by attempting to corrupt the Justice Department; next by trying to convince Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes; and finally by instigating his followers to attack the Capitol. The evidence is no less conclusive or horrifying for its familiarity.

The insurrection-charges discussion, however, is new. It shows that Smith did seriously consider whether the law applied but concluded he would struggle to convict Trump under it—not because what happened was not an insurrection, but because the laws were written too narrowly, such that although Trump appears to have violated the spirit of the law, he may not have broken its letter. (Smith writes that no one has been charged with violating the law in question for more than a century.)

[Quinta Jurecic: Trump secures his get-out-of-jail-free card]

A conviction of insurrection would have been far more consequential than convictions on the charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct, and conspiracy against rights, which Smith did bring. Felons are entitled to hold federal office—as Trump will prove on January 20—but the law stipulates that anyone convicted of insurrection or rebellion “shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

But Smith saw several challenges to bringing charges under the law. First, he would have had to prove that what happened on January 6 was an insurrection. As he notes, multiple courts have described the events as an “insurrection.” Smith “recognized why courts described the attack on the Capitol as an ‘insurrection,’” but was still worried about establishing this fact under such an obscure and little-used law. He considered past cases, but they didn’t offer any guidance on what the legal standard for an insurrection is, or how it is different from a riot.

He also found that case law tended to treat insurrection as an attack against a sitting government, rather than an attempt to remain in power—an autogolpe, in political-science terms.

[Read: The paperwork coup]

“The Office [of Special Counsel] did not find any case in which a criminal defendant was charged with insurrection for acting within the government to maintain power, as opposed to overthrowing it or thwarting it from the outside,” Smith writes. “Applying Section 2383 in this way would have been a first, which further weighed against charging it, given the other available charges, even if there were reasonable arguments that it might apply.”

Smith faced yet another complication. Trump cleverly instigated his followers to attack the Capitol, and suggested that he was coming with them, but he instead returned to the White House and watched the chaos unfold on TV, rather than take part. (As The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, has written, Trump often uses this mafia-boss tactic of encouraging his minions to act without ever explicitly implicating himself.)

What about inciting an insurrection? Smith saw reasonable arguments that Trump’s actions met even the high legal bar the Supreme Court has set for incitement—“the evidence established that the violence was foreseeable to Mr. Trump, that he caused it, that it was beneficial to his plan to interfere with the certification, and that when it occurred, he made a conscious choice not to stop it and instead to leverage it for more delay”—but Smith didn’t have any direct evidence of Trump saying the full scope of violence was his goal, so he worried that bringing charges against Trump for inciting an insurrection would be risky.

[David A. Graham: Trump gets away with it]

Besides, Smith couldn’t find any examples of prosecutions where a defendant was charged who didn’t actively participate in the act. “There does not appear to have ever been a prosecution under the statute for inciting, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to rebellion or insurrection,” he wrote. “Thus, however strong the proof that he incited or gave aid and comfort to those who attacked the Capitol, application of those theories of liability would also have been a first.”

This led Smith to conclude that, given the other charges, “pursuing an incitement to insurrection charge was unnecessary.”

But necessity is in the eye of the beholder, and lawyers can only see so much. Smith’s decision is understandable but shows why criminal law was always an unreliable method for holding Trump to account. Smith’s remit was to hold Trump accountable to the law, a relatively narrow task. And although the Justice Department ought to have moved faster—Smith was appointed to take on the case only in November 2022 and then acted with speed—the more consequential error was the Senate’s failure to convict Trump at his impeachment trial in February 2021.

[Jeffrey Goldberg: Donald Trump’s Mafia mind-set]

As Smith writes in a different context in his report, impeachment has a different aim than prosecution. “When Congress decides whether a President should be impeached and convicted, that process does not depend on rigorously adjudicating facts and applying law, or on finding a criminal violation. Instead, the impeachment process is, by design, an inherently political remedy for the dangers to governance posed by an office holder who has committed ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’”

But some Republican senators, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, believed that voters were so irate about the January 6 attacks that Trump was a spent force. As a result, these senators didn’t need to risk the ire of his supporters by voting to convict Trump. The Senate voted 57–43 to convict, short of the two-thirds majority required to convict Trump and then bar him from future office.

Two years later, some legal scholars tried to make the case that Trump had committed an insurrection and broken his oath of office under the Fourteenth Amendment. But courts ruled that only Congress could make such a determination, which was politically never going to happen. Only political processes—voters’ choices and impeachment—could have definitively prevented a second Trump presidency.

Jack Smith Gives Up

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2025 › 01 › jack-smith-donald-trump-january-6 › 681309

Early this morning, the Department of Justice released the report of Special Counsel Jack Smith on his investigation of Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election—closing the saga of the U.S. criminal-justice system’s effort to hold the coup instigator accountable. No prosecution will now take place. Compared with the present outcome, it would have been better if President Joe Biden had pardoned Trump for the January 6 coup attempt.

A pardon would at least have upheld the theory that violent election overthrows are wrong and illegal. A pardon would have said: The U.S. government can hold violent actors to account. It just chooses not to do so in this case.

Instead, the special counsel’s report delivers a confession of the helplessness of the U.S. government. Smith asserts that the evidence was sufficient to convict Trump of serious crimes—and then declares the constitutional system powerless to act: The criminal is now the president-elect, therefore his crime cannot be punished.

The report suggests that if the law had moved faster, then Trump today would be a convict, not a president. But the law did not move fast. Why not? Whose fault was that? Fingers will point, but the finger-pointing does not matter. What matters is the outcome and the message.

Trump swore to uphold the Constitution in January 2017. He violated that oath in January 2021. Now, in January 2025, he will swear it again. The ritual survives. Its meaning has been lost.

In 2022, a prominent conservative intellectual proclaimed that the United States had entered a “post-constitutional moment”:

Our constitutional institutions, understandings, and practices have all been transformed, over decades, away from the words on the paper into a new arrangement—a new regime if you will—that pays only lip service to the old Constitution.

That conservative was Russell Vought, one of the co-authors of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 policy plan, and now President-Elect Trump’s choice to be director of the Office of Management and Budget, which controls and coordinates all actions by the executive branch. The post-constitutional moment that Trump supporters once condemned has now become their opportunity. They have transgressed the most fundamental taboo of a constitutional regime, the prohibition against political violence, and instead of suffering consequences, they have survived, profited, and returned to power.

If anything, the transgression has made them more powerful than they otherwise would have been. Bob Woodward gives an account in his 2018 book, Fear, that Gary Cohn, Trump’s chief White House economic adviser, thwarted his intent to withdraw from NAFTA and the U.S.–South Korea trade agreement by snatching the notification letters off the president’s desk. The story suggests something important about the difficulty Trump had imposing his will during his first term. But for his upcoming second term, Trump has made defending his actions in 2021 a test of loyalty. In December, The New York Times interviewed people involved in recruiting for senior roles in the Trump Defense Department or intelligence agencies; several of them had been quizzed about whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election and whether Trump did anything wrong in his challenge to the election on January 6. The clear implication was that to answer anything but No and No would have been disqualifying. There will be no more Gary Cohns, only J. D. Vances who will deny the last election and defend Trump’s actions to overturn it.

That is what a post-constitutional moment looks like.

Before Trump, American law was quite hazy on the legal immunity of the president. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a president could not be sued for his official acts. In 1997, the Court ruled that a president could be sued for personal acts unrelated to his office. Both of these rulings applied only to civil cases, not to criminal ones.

For nearly 250 years after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the question of the president’s rights under criminal law did not arise. Trump’s proclivity for wrongdoing forced the question on the country: Was a president of the United States subject to criminal law or not? Last year, the Supreme Court delivered a complex mess of an answer, whose main holding seemed to be: Here’s a complex, multipart, and highly subjective set of questions to answer first. Please relitigate each and every one of them, while we wait to see whether Trump wins or loses the 2024 election.

Now comes the Smith report with its simpler answer: If a president wins reelection, he has immunity for even the worst possible crimes committed during his first term in office.

The incentives contained in this outcome are clear, if perverse. And they are deeply sinister to the future of democracy in the United States.

No One Cares That the Chimpanzee Is Singing

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › culture › archive › 2025 › 01 › better-man-movie-review-robbie-williams › 681300

During the years-long height of the British superstar Robbie Williams’s fame, I’d often wonder why he struggled to cross over to true global recognition. Williams, for those who are unfamiliar, started out as a member of the wildly beloved English boy band Take That in the early 1990s. After leaving the group in 1995, right when its success was cresting, Williams transformed himself from potential pop-culture footnote into icon. A slew of blockbuster albums made him a household name across the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia—but not in the United States, where his early-2000s attempts to gain traction made little progress. Perhaps the country had too many of its own idols—or perhaps, as the new musical biopic Better Man argues, Williams was too gleefully self-deprecating to sincerely make the sales pitch.

The director Michael Gracey adheres to the biopic genre’s basic contours. Better Man follows Williams’s hardscrabble youth, his rise to fame, and the ups and downs that came with notoriety, all punctuated by interpretations of some of his most famous tracks. This synopsis suggests that the film is a programmatic, musician-approved project, almost as if it’s designed to be an entry point for a new generation of fans. Except, get this: Williams is represented as a CGI chimpanzee. Like, a walking, talking, human-size chimp, portrayed and voiced by a combination of a motion-capture actor (Jonnie Davies), a musician (Adam Tucker), and Williams himself.

Why is he a primate? Better Man doesn’t ever explain—though in its trailer, Williams mentions feeling “less evolved” than everyone else—and none of the characters ever remarks on it. Instead, the meaning of the conceit is left in the hands of the audience. This decision is a baffling swerve for a celebrity biopic, one that will probably keep it from becoming an out-and-out sensation. But Better Man deserves to be treated as more than a strange curio: Despite the seemingly run-of-the-mill premise and the contrivance of the protagonist, it properly delves into its subject’s erratic persona, using the musical segments to advance the story instead of as mandatory breaks in the action. The result is one of the most thoughtfully constructed movies about a musician I’ve seen in years.

[Read: Bob Dylan broke rules. A Complete Unknown follows them.]

A core part of Williams’s appeal has always been his cheekiness, as the Brits would put it. Yes, he’s a handsome fella who sings catchy hits. But even though his stock-in-trade is sincere love ballads and toe-tapping anthems about having fun, Williams exudes the sense that he’s never taking any of the glitz around him too seriously. His narration throughout Better Man poses a possible reason for his devil-may-care attitude: It’s a cover for what he refers to as the clinical depression that has dogged him over the course of his career, especially at its peak. What better way to underline that than by removing his image from the film entirely?

The appealing presentation of chimp-Williams is helped by the fact that Gracey started his career as a visual-effects artist—he knows his way around computer-generated characters. His prior directorial effort was The Greatest Showman, a more conventional movie musical that tried to package the complex and problematic life of P. T. Barnum as a family-friendly inspirational tale. It made little sense, but it became something of a box-office phenomenon on the backs of Hugh Jackman’s bravado and Gracey’s steady hand behind the camera.

Better Man has not only similarly earwormy tunes but also a far richer subject than Barnum. Williams is a showman too, but he’s a rawer, more relatable one; he’s always worn his personal deficiencies on his sleeve, even on the biggest stage. Gracey’s attentive care with Williams’s discography is especially striking. Williams’s career could easily have been shot as a straightforward jukebox musical, running down the track listing of his greatest-hits CDs while sprinkling in some run-of-the-mill backstory material. Instead, Gracey rearranges the chronology, finding numbers that thematically match the events of his protagonist’s life. Williams performs the power ballad “Feel,” the lead single from his fifth solo album, to illustrate his tough childhood. The director re-creates the singer’s famed 2001 live rendition of Frank Sinatra’s “My Way” for Better Man’s grand finale; instead of just plucking another of the singer’s own numbers, he chooses to evoke one of Williams’s biggest inspirations.

[Read: The missing piece of the Bob Marley biopic]

The film’s most jaw-dropping set piece is also perhaps its most timeline-flouting. After covering his difficult adolescence in the downtrodden industrial town of Stoke-on-Trent, Better Man turns to Williams’s early years in the music industry. Gracey captures the explosion of Take That’s crossover appeal—they climbed the ladder from small gay clubs to national arenas—in a scene where the band performs “Rock DJ,” Williams’s solo chart-topper from 2000. It unfolds as an unbroken, CGI-assisted camera move, with Williams and his bandmates—who, in real life, had nothing to do with the song—dancing through the streets of Central London, surrounded by a growing throng of fans. An artificial long take can sometimes come across as gimmicky, but it works tremendously well here, thanks in part to the creative choreography. Movie-musical directors must make certain decisions when mounting their big numbers: Should they throw everything into a wide shot, capturing the scale of the dance routines but making the world around them feel static? Or is it better to cut into the action constantly, highlighting the individual players but losing that sense of magnitude? The one-shot technique helpfully circumvents those questions.

Gracey makes an effort to innovate in several other ways, navigating around the musical genre’s visual conventions and limitations. A later scene, for example, renders the anthemic “Let Me Entertain You” as a dreamlike battle between Williams and his mouthiest chimp-demons. High points like these helped keep Better Man in my good graces even as the second half dips into excessively maudlin territory, as Williams wrestles with the strictures of fame. Still, some viewers might find the audacity of a hero that’s a CGI chimp impossible to overcome—especially those who know little about the real person (including what he actually looks like). Early box-office returns seem to indicate U.S. theatergoers’ disinterest, if not outright bafflement. But Williams has always thrived on the audience’s sympathy as much as their admiration, and Better Man finds a wonderfully goofy way to represent that with its charming, if unevolved, simian star.

Aldi is recalling almost 25,000 pounds of chicken products

Quartz

qz.com › recall-issued-for-25k-pounds-of-frozen-aldi-taquitos-1851738977

Aldi shoppers should check their freezers. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a recall on Saturday for around 24,870 pounds of frozen chicken and cheese taquito products that “may be contaminated with foreign material.” The products are in Aldi grocery stores nationwide.

Read more...

Iran’s Return to Pragmatism

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › international › archive › 2025 › 01 › iran-pragmatism-return-rouhani › 681301

The Iranian presidency seems to be a cursed position. Of the eight men who have held it before the current president, five eventually found themselves politically marginalized after their term finished. Two others fell to violent deaths in office (a bomb attack in 1981, a helicopter crash in 2024). The only exception is Ali Khamenei, who went on to become the supreme leader.

Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s centrist president from 2013 to 2021, could be poised to break the spell and stage a political comeback.

The prospect seemed far-fetched until recently. Pressed on one side by hard-liners and on the other by opponents of the Islamic Republic, the regime’s centrists and reformists had become political nonentities. In the last years of his rule, Rouhani was among the most hated men in Iran. His landmark achievement, the 2015 nuclear deal with the Obama administration and five other powerful countries, was destroyed when President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018. Iran’s security forces, which are not controlled by the president, killed hundreds of protesters in 2017 and 2019 while he looked on. He was followed as president by the hard-line Ebrahim Raisi, picked in 2021 in an uncompetitive election. With Khamenei’s backing, the hard-liners went on to capture most of the available instruments of power in Tehran. Last January, Rouhani was even denied a run for the seat he had held since 2000 in the Assembly of Experts, a body tasked with appointing the supreme leader.

But the events of 2024 shifted the balance of power in the Middle East—and inside Iran. Israel’s battering of Hamas and Hezbollah greatly weakened Iran’s so-called Axis of Resistance. The fall of the Assad regime in Syria last month was the final nail in the axis’s coffin. Khamenei’s foreign policy now lies in ruins. Last year, for the first time in their history, Iran and Israel exchanged missile and drone attacks on each other’s territory. Following Raisi’s death in a helicopter crash in May, Khamenei allowed a reformist, Masoud Pezeshkian, to run for and win the presidency—a significant concession, as reformists have been effectively sidelined, if not barred, from national politics for nearly two decades. Now Rouhani’s star foreign minister, Javad Zarif, is back as Pezeshkian’s vice president for strategic affairs. Both Rouhani and Zarif campaigned for Pezeshkian and have found themselves on the winning team.

[Read: RIP, the Axis of Resistance]

Having brought international isolation, domestic repression, and economic ruin to the country, hard-liners find themselves red-faced. Although the almost 86-year-old Khamenei is still fully in charge, he has lost much respect, not only among the people but also among the elites, and the battle to succeed him is already under way. Recently, Khamenei has signaled his possible openness to abiding by the anti-money-laundering conditions set by the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force. If Iran is to have any hope of solving its economic problems, it has no other choice: The country is currently one of only three (the other two are North Korea and Myanmar) on the FATF’s blacklist. But the issue has long been a touchy one for hard-liners, who see cooperating with the FATF as capitulation to the West and fear that it will force Iran to curtail its support for terror groups.

An emboldened Rouhani is back in the spotlight, giving speeches and defending his time in office. In the past few months, he has repeatedly complained that his administration could have engaged Trump directly but was stopped from doing so. (This is an implied dig at Khamenei who, in 2019, publicly rejected a message that then–Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe brought to Tehran from Trump.) Rouhani has called for “constructive interaction with the world,” which is regime-speak for negotiations with the United States in the interest of sanctions relief. None of Iran’s problems can be solved without addressing sanctions, he recently said. He has also called for “listening to the will of the majority of people” and freer elections. These statements have made him the target of renewed attacks by hard-liners, such as Saeed Jalili, who lost the election to Pezeshkian last year.

What may look like factional bickering is significant in this case. Rouhani speaks for part of the Iranian establishment that rejects Khamenei’s saber-rattling against the U.S. and Israel on pragmatic grounds. He is in many ways the political heir to Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a once-powerful former president who eventually ran afoul of Khamenei and died in 2017. Rafsanjani and Rouhani are often compared to the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. They sought to transform Iran from an ideologically anti-Western state to a technocratic one, with a pragmatic, even West-facing, foreign policy. During his presidency, Rouhani made state visits to France and Italy and was accused of neglecting Iran’s ties with China and Venezuela. His cabinet included many American-educated technocrats, and his administration tried to purchase American-made Boeing planes.

[Read: The collapse of the Khamenei doctrine]

Iran’s centrists are less interested than the reformists in democratization, and more focused on fostering economic development and good governance. This emphasis allows them to extend a broad umbrella. Rouhani’s agenda of pragmatic developmentalism is shared to varying degrees not just by reformists, but by many powerful conservatives, including the Larijani brothers (a wealthy clerical clan that includes several former top officials), former Speaker of Parliament Ali Akbar Nateq Nuri, former Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi, and even the current speaker of parliament, Mohammad-Bagher Qalibaf (who was for years a top commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps).

Iran’s current weakness and desperation offer Rouhani and his allies an opportunity to wrest back power. Doing so could put them in a favorable spot for that inevitable moment when Khamenei dies, and the next supreme leader must be chosen. Rouhani has some qualities that will serve him well in this internal power struggle. Unlike the soft-spoken reformist clerics, such as former President Mohammad Khatami, he is a wily player who spent decades in top security positions before becoming president. (Khatami had been Iran’s chief librarian and culture minister; Rouhani was the national security adviser.) During his two-term presidency, Rouhani confronted rival power centers, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, without fear. His experience negotiating with the West goes back well before the Obama era. In early 2000s, he led Iran’s first nuclear negotiating team, earning the moniker “the diplomatic sheikh.” In the mid-1980s, Rouhani led the negotiation team that met with President Ronald Reagan’s national security adviser, Robert McFarlane, in the arms-for-hostages deal known in the U.S. as Iran-Contra. In 1986, Rouhani even met with a top Israeli security official, Amiram Nir (who was posing as an American), to ask for help in countering Iranian hard-liners.

But does Rouhani have any reasonable chance of returning to power? As always, Tehran is full of discordant voices. According to one conservative former official who spoke with me on the phone from Tehran, Rouhani is a major candidate for succeeding Khamenei as supreme leader. The official asked to be anonymous, given that “we have been ordered not to discuss the succession.” A high-ranking cleric and a former reformist MP cited the same gag order, but observed that Rouhani’s fortunes were rising; they declined to predict whether he could become supreme leader.  

Mohammad Taqi Fazel Meybodi, a reformist cleric, is not so hopeful. “I don’t believe folks like Rouhani can do much,” he told me by phone from his house in Qom. “They don’t hold power, and hard-liners oppose them. These hard-liners continue to oppose the U.S. and have an ideological worldview. They control the parliament and many other bodies.”

Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, a former reformist MP who is now an activist based in Boston, believes that the regime will seek a deal with the U.S. regardless of who is in power. “There have long been two views in the regime,” she told me: “a developmentalist one and one that wants to export the Islamic Revolution. But the project of the latter now remains defeated. Iran has no way but to go back to development.” Even in what many consider a worst-case scenario—if Mojtaba Khamenei, the leader’s son known for his ties to the security establishment, succeeds his father—he, too, will be forced to adopt the developmentalist line, Haghighatjooo says.

[Read: Iranian dissidents don’t want war with Israel—but they can’t stop it]

Haghighatjoo is even hopeful that the new Trump administration, with its willingness to break with past norms, will provide an opportunity for normalization between Iran and the U.S. Such an approach would “give strength to the developmentalists, especially now that the Axis is weakened,” she said.

Khamenei continues to resist such notions. In a defiant speech on January 8, he lambasted the U.S. as an imperialist power and pledged that Iran would continue to “back the resistance in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Yemen.” He criticized “those who want us to negotiate with the U.S. … and have their embassy in Iran.”

But Iran is in dire straits, and the supreme leader can ignore the facts for only so long. In many ways, he resembles his predecessor, Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolutionary leader who, in 1988, likened his acceptance of a cease-fire with Iraq to “drinking a chalice of poison.” Having promised for years that Iran would continue to fight until it overthrew Saddam Hussein, Khomeini’s volte-face came out of desperation—and at the urging of Rafsanjani and Rouhani (a young Zarif, then a diplomat at Iran’s UN mission, helped write Iran’s letter to the UN Security Council, officially accepting the cease-fire).

Many analysts now loudly wonder whether Khamenei, too, will drink his chalice of poison. He might have no other choice. The old ayatollah’s project has evidently run aground—and Iran’s pragmatists have fresh wind in their sails.  

Harvard Didn’t Break America

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › magazine › archive › 2025 › 02 › the-commons › 681087

How the Ivy League Broke America

The meritocracy isn’t working, David Brooks argued in the December 2024 issue. We need something new.

It is a very Ivy League thing to try to take credit for breaking America. I share David Brooks’s criticisms of a system that ranks and sorts based on test results. But standardized testing had taken hold in the United States long before James Conant’s presidency at Harvard. The danger of blaming the Ivy League for today’s overreliance on blunt ranking-and-sorting instruments is that we may be tempted to wait for the Ivy League to fix it. Instead, let’s agree that we also need leaders who flourished in local community colleges, regional universities, apprenticeships. The talent is out there—I saw it every day as a high-school teacher. But our current system sends the message that if you do not score well on standardized multiple-choice tests delivered in English, you are not capable.

Erin Crisp
Knoxville, Tenn.

Most of the elite schools David Brooks criticizes already evaluate “the whole person.” Cognitive metrics are only a small part of getting in. These institutions have invested heavily in evaluating applicants’ noncognitive skills, and arguably, the result is worse.

Families seeking to secure a spot at a top college must strategically position their child as a well-rounded applicant. They choose extracurricular activities and write admissions essays that demonstrate empathy, curiosity, the ability to overcome hardship—all things that Brooks wishes these institutions would evaluate. This approach has further advantaged families with the financial means to afford educational consultants, private coaching, and enrichment activities. We do need an alternative to the meritocratic system. Unfortunately, Brooks’s solution has already been swallowed by the meritocratic machine.

Pete Marshall
St. Louis Park, Minn.

Why is the central force controlling our economy and society today Ivy League admissions offices and not, say, the demands of global capitalism, the transition to a services-based economy, or the increasing value of symbolic thinking in those contexts? The world has changed in ways that reward a certain kind of intelligence. That may be good or bad, but it’s not primarily the fault of a small number of elite schools—it’s true in every developed economy.

Andrew Bartholomew
New York, N.Y.

It’s not utopian to imagine an American public-school system and society that recognize the skills and contributions of both the mechanic and the debater. They do it in Europe: Set into the bronze plaques on London’s Tower Bridge are the names of a plater, a rivet boy, a cook. In America, such a prestigious public placement on an iconic structure would honor only big corporate donors.

The people who pursue vocational education ought to be treated as a core constituency in arguments about the meritocracy, not as afterthoughts.

Sheela Clary
West Stockbridge, Mass.

David Brooks is right that America is broken, but he points his finger at the wrong culprit. Universities aren’t wrong to evaluate academic merit and select the students who will most benefit from the education they offer. The societal problem is an economic system that gives almost all of the benefits of growth to the already wealthy and not the working class. The economic elites are the real predators savaging the American dream—not the cultural elites.

Stuart J. Kaufman
Bear, Del.

Much of what David Brooks described resonated with me. I attended community college on a full Pell Grant; both of my parents were blue-collar workers. I loved school and I loved learning, but my parents could never afford to pay for extracurricular activities, Advanced Placement exams—I never even took the SAT. I always felt that there was an elite class of learning that I would never access.

And in many ways, I was right. I was rejected from hundreds of jobs, only to find out later that the successful candidate was from an elite school. This instilled in me what Brooks calls the sixth “deadly sin” of the meritocracy—“contempt for the entire system.” I now teach as an adjunct, and my students are generally much more well-off than I ever was. I fear my anger has made me less inclined to understand the very real stresses they face.

I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and for Kamala Harris in 2024. It was during this span of eight years that I attended college and then graduate school—I am a living example of the way education influences opinions and beliefs. Yet I empathize with the working-class voters of Texas, my home state, far more than I empathize with the elite voters of New York City.

Katherine A. Chase
Brooklyn, N.Y.

I am 92 years old. I attended a public high school in Cincinnati. When I told my principal I wanted to go to one of the best liberal-arts colleges, he recommended Harvard—he told me that Harvard would take up to seven students from my class. Looking through my records, he noticed that I was Jewish and qualified his statement, saying that Harvard would never take more than three Jews. Harvard accepted seven students from my class, including me, and six of us were Jewish. When I arrived in the fall of 1950, it was obvious that the quota system was gone—Jews made up a significant portion of my class. At a meeting with incoming students, the dean of freshmen proudly told us that our class had the highest average SAT score of any incoming college class in the country. I frequently saw James Conant walking in Harvard Yard, not knowing that he had made it possible for me to be there.

John J. Frank Jr.
Cincinnati, Ohio

David Brooks replies:

I’m grateful for the thoughtful responses. I’d like to highlight one area of disagreement and one area for further exploration. Pete Marshall says that “cognitive metrics are only a small part of getting” accepted to an elite school. I’d say they are the foundational part—the average Harvard freshman has an SAT score of about 1520. You have to meet those metrics before any other qualities are considered. Andrew Bartholomew suggests that the real problem is global capitalism in the Information Age. There’s a lot of truth to that. I do think universities churn out “knowledge workers” because intellectual life has been commodified. Students and workers are caught in the same system that wants us to live lives of total work. But my argument is that our system doesn’t even turn out ideal capitalists: Large numbers of new employees have to leave their firms because companies don’t know what to look for in applicants. They select for the qualities that the meritocracy can quantify—but those aren’t the qualities that matter. Intelligence is overrated, and temperament and desire are underrated.

A Note from the Editor in Chief

More than two decades ago, The Atlantic decided to reduce the number of print issues published each year, dropping from 12 to 10, thus ending the run of what had been previously called The Atlantic Monthly. The rise of the internet made this seem at the time, I’m sure, like an obvious and unavoidable choice. But the history of our magazine is filled with improbabilities, and today, more people subscribe to our print magazine than at any time since its birth, in 1857. Which is why we’ve decided to restore The Atlantic to monthly print publication, beginning with the issue you are currently reading.

The broader trends in the magazine business, and across journalism generally, are not promising. But The Atlantic continues to grow, because (I believe) our editorial team produces the highest-quality journalism, and because readers like you continue to find what we do useful, and even illuminating.

Last year was a very good year for The Atlantic. We crossed the million-subscription threshold; we became profitable again after running in the red for several years; and we won our third consecutive National Magazine Award for General Excellence, something no other magazine has done in this century. But mainly what we’ve tried to do is make important journalism. I hope, by your lights, that we are succeeding, and that you join me in finding the return of a monthly Atlantic a very happy thing.

Jeffrey Goldberg

Behind the Cover

In this month’s cover story, “The Anti-Social Century,” Derek Thompson explores how Americans came to spend so much time alone, and what that solitude means for our personalities, our politics, and even our relationship to reality. For the cover, the illustrator Max Guther created a series of figures engaged in solitary activities. Arrayed across an otherwise blank field, Guther’s figures evoke a nation in which people have come to prefer their own company to that of others.

Liz Hart, Art Director

The Atlantic

This article appears in the February 2025 print edition with the headline “The Commons.”

The Childhood Friends Behind the Most Audacious Sports-Memorabilia Heists in American History

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › magazine › archive › 2025 › 02 › sports-memorabilia-heist-yogi-berra-world-series-rings › 681093

This story seems to be about:

On a Wednesday morning in October 2014, in a garage in the woods of Pennsylvania, Tommy Trotta tried on some new jewelry: a set of rings belonging to the baseball great Yogi Berra. Each hunk of gold bore a half-carat diamond and the words NEW YORK YANKEES WORLD CHAMPIONS. The team had given them to Berra for each of his 10 World Series victories—no player had ever won more.

Trotta, a balding 39-year-old who lived with his wife and two kids in Scranton, had grown up a Yankees fan. He’d dreamed as a boy of one day joining the team. Berra had been the favorite player of his beloved godmother, who gave Trotta his first Yankees uniform when he was a toddler and took him to games at Yankee Stadium.

Trotta never competed past Little League. But there was more than one way into a hall of fame. In a methodically planned heist in the dark and rain of that October morning, he’d climbed onto a balcony at the Yogi Berra Museum & Learning Center, in Little Falls, New Jersey, carrying a duffel bag of tools and dressed entirely in black. He’d cut through a double-reinforced window built to withstand foul balls from an adjoining stadium. Then he’d used a 20-volt DeWalt grinder, with a fire-rescue blade, to slice open a bulletproof display case labeled BASEBALL’S RING LEADER.

Berra’s rings now glinted on Trotta’s hands. They evoked for him a magnificent time before his own birth: the mid-century years when Berra had won World Series after World Series with teammates such as Joe DiMaggio, Roger Maris, and Mickey Mantle. How many men besides Berra—and now Trotta—would ever know the feeling of those rings on their fingers? How many besides Trotta could sense the weight of all those victories, then destroy every last ounce of it for cash?

In the garage in the Pennsylvania woods, an electric melting furnace was reaching a programmed temperature of more than 1,900 degrees Fahrenheit. Trotta handed Berra’s rings to a friend, who used jewelers’ tools to pluck out the diamonds and cut up the rings. The dismembered rings were then dropped into the furnace, where they liquefied into a featureless mass of molten gold.

Mining has a proud history in the parts of northeastern Pennsylvania that Trotta and his crew called home. Scranton, the biggest city there, was named after a pair of brothers who exploited the region’s rich deposits of iron and coal. But where earlier generations had descended into the ground for raw minerals, Trotta broke through windows. His mother lode was the championship rings, belts, and trophies—veined with precious metals and gemstones—that sat, almost for the taking, inside low-security sports museums across America.

[From the June 2023 issue: Ariel Sabar on the billion-dollar Ponzi scheme that hooked Wall Street, Warren Buffett, and the U.S. Treasury]

Trotta so perfected this niche line of burglary that he evaded the FBI and more than a dozen police agencies for two decades. His longevity was all the more remarkable given the size and makeup of his crew: three friends he’d known since grade school; his cousin’s fiancé; Trotta’s eldest sister, Dawn; two of her ex-boyfriends; and a neighbor of one of the exes. By day, they had normal jobs: plumber, carpenter, building contractor, bar owner, mechanic, Uber driver, real-estate closing agent. By night, they allegedly served as Trotta’s getaway drivers, toolmakers, and assistants.

Trotta told me his story last year, while he was on pretrial release, awaiting sentencing. He has pleaded guilty to a single count of theft of major artwork, as part of a cooperation agreement with federal prosecutors who have indicted and are seeking to convict his entire crew. I interviewed Trotta in his lawyer’s office, at the apartment he shared with Dawn, and over a few meals and car rides. This article draws on those conversations and on details in the federal indictments, police records, and other public documents.

Trotta stands at about 5 foot 8 and has a round, expressive face—cleft chin, narrow eyes, jutting nose and lips. He speaks like an earnest 10-year-old telling of adventures so grand, he can barely sit still. He turns 50 this year. He hides his bald head beneath a newsboy cap; his once lean, CrossFit-hardened body has grown pear-shaped and wobbly. “Fat Elvis,” he told me.

Trotta claims now to know what he never grasped during a lifetime of thieving: the pain he caused people, particularly the families and fans of the sports heroes whose hard-won trophies he’d plundered. Yogi Berra was nearing his 90th birthday—his last—and grieving the recent death of his wife, Carmen, when Trotta broke into the museum that October, stealing 16 of Berra’s baseball rings and two of his MVP plaques.

“I’m hated in the sports world,” Trotta told me. “I’m hated at a very deep level.”

Trotta felt as though he was born to steal. “In the blood” was how he put it, and it wasn’t just a metaphor. His father—Thomas Trotta Sr., known as “Big Tom” to Trotta’s “Little Tommy”—served as a police officer in Passaic, New Jersey, for seven years before discovering that he liked the other side of the law better. In March 1976, nine months after Trotta was born, his father accepted $750 from an associate of the Genovese crime family to torch a Hackensack dance club. A jury convicted him of arson and conspiracy, and a state judge sentenced him to two to three years in prison, rejecting any “sentimental concern for the family of a crooked cop.”

Left: The Trotta siblings pose with their father’s guns. Right: Thomas Trotta Sr., or “Big Tom.” (Courtesy of Tommy Trotta)

Big Tom was a Vietnam War veteran, fond of camouflage, jean shorts, and exotic firearms. Four months after leaving prison, he held up a Rite Aid pharmacy and was quickly caught. Later he ran heroin and cocaine for a New Jersey drug ring. Little Tommy was 15 years old—and watching from the back seat—when FBI agents yanked his dad out of the driver’s seat of the family car to arrest him. (Trotta Sr. agreed to testify against his associates and was sentenced to 22 months in prison.)

Big Tom may not have been cut out to be a successful arsonist, stickup man, or drug trafficker, but he did better as a thief, supporting his family without once getting caught. To steal without violence was a sly art, and Little Tommy loved when his dad asked for help. Where other fathers took their sons fishing, Trotta’s dad took his to steal salmon from a hatchery. Where other dads took their kids to see historical sites, Big Tom took his son to loot them: Little Tommy, at age 11, would look out for rangers at the Gettysburg battlefield at night as his father dug up Civil War artifacts with a metal detector and spade.

They’d moved from northern New Jersey to rural Pennsylvania in 1986, supposedly to escape the corrupting influences of city life. But it was there, in tiny Madison Township—on a former hay farm, off a dirt road, 15 miles east of Scranton—that Trotta’s criminal education began in earnest. His sister Dawn, who was four years older, had started dating a boy named Nicholas Dombek, a floppy-haired blond who’d quit school, robbed a gas station, and moved in with the Trottas after having had enough of his own parents. Dombek became a kind of older brother to Trotta, and a second son to Big Tom. (Dombek did not respond to requests for comment.)

Big Tom mentored Dombek in home and commercial burglary; Dombek, in turn, mentored Trotta; and by high school, Trotta had helped turn a group of boys he’d known since he was about 11 into a surprisingly disciplined band of thieves.

The gang would listen to idle talk among schoolmates and neighbors to figure out when houses might be unoccupied or stores flush with cash. Then they’d strike, syncing their movements over walkie-talkies and fleeing on ATVs and snowmobiles (also stolen) down wooded trails that police cars couldn’t reach. Trotta never used weapons: His code was always to run if spotted. But in other ways he could be ruthless. He stole $6,000 from the home of a schoolmate’s great-grandmother, he told me, then gave the boy a cut for his advice on how to do it. And he stole a safe from a clothing shop managed by his own girlfriend. Police interrogated the girlfriend, who had no idea he was responsible, but Trotta didn’t mind. The suspicion that fell on innocent employees after his burglaries, he said, “was good for me.”

After graduating from North Pocono High School, in 1994, Trotta got a student loan and enrolled in a six-month vocational-training course in alarm-system technology. He learned that you could disable an alarm by ripping its control panel—or “brain”—off the wall. He found out that many motion detectors had a “pet alley,” an unmonitored area near the floor for small animals. And he discovered that most alarms had a built-in delay: 60 to 90 seconds between when a sensor was tripped and when security was called. The feature was designed to reduce false alarms by giving owners time to punch in a code if they triggered the system accidentally. Trotta took away a different lesson: If a burglar got in and out in under 90 seconds, he could vanish into the night before anyone knew he’d been there. This insight, more than any other, became the basis for the next phase of his career.

Clockwise from top left: Tommy Trotta, Dawn Trotta, Nicholas Dombek, Damien Boland, Al Atsus, and Joe Atsus (Photo-illustration by The Atlantic. Sources: 1989 and 1994 North Pocono High School yearbooks; Tommy Trotta.)

In August 1999, Keystone College, in La Plume, Pennsylvania, held a celebration for its most famous alumnus: the Baseball Hall of Famer Christy Mathewson, who pitched for the New York Giants from 1900 to 1916 and won an astonishing 373 games. Mathewson had helped invent the fadeaway pitch and was nicknamed the “Christian Gentleman” for his refusal to play on Sundays.

Trotta was invited to the festivities by a baseball-card dealer he knew. They watched a one-man show about Mathewson’s life, then walked to the gym for an exhibit of memorabilia that Mathewson’s widow had given the school. Keystone’s athletic director was such an exuberant promoter of Mathewson’s legacy that she slid open a case to give visitors close-ups of the most thrilling items: Mathewson’s 1902 contract with the Giants; his 1916 contract with the Cincinnati Reds; and a World’s Champions jersey he wore after winning the 1905 World Series, its right sleeve cut off at the elbow for friction-free pitching.

Trotta didn’t think much of any of it until the car ride home, when his friend casually said that the Mathewson memorabilia in that one case might be worth more than half a million dollars. It was the most interesting thing Trotta had heard all evening.

He called Joe Atsus—a member of the thieving crew he’d known since middle school—the moment he got home. As Atsus made his way to the house, Trotta dug out a ski mask, a crowbar, and a pair of walkie-talkies. When they got to the Keystone gym, after midnight, Trotta noticed a parked car near the glass side door he’d planned to break through, and a plugged-in vacuum cleaner just inside. If a janitor was there, they’d momentarily stepped away. Trotta was reaching for his crowbar to smash the door when it occurred to him to try the handle. The door was unlocked. Trotta ran to the display, jimmied the sliding glass free of its ratchet lock, and grabbed the jersey and contracts. He was in and out, he recalled, in about 25 seconds. “It was like it was meant to just be taken,” he told me.

Nicholas Dombek (left) and Tommy Trotta in the 1990s (Courtesy of Tommy Trotta)

Trotta continued to burglarize homes to cover his day-to-day living expenses; unlike his assistants, he had no other job. But homes were haystacks: Somewhere in all that clutter, you’d maybe find an antique, a gun, some jewelry, but nothing to make you truly rich. Exhibits like Mathewson’s, Trotta realized, were clutter-free—everything in them was precious. If you could snag half a million dollars in memorabilia in half a minute from a college gym, imagine the takings in an actual museum.

The most prestigious museum in northeastern Pennsylvania was right there in Scranton. Founded by a local physician in 1908, the Everhart Museum had a diverse collection that ranged from a Tyrannosaurus rex skull to paintings by important artists. In 2000, a year after the Mathewson heist, the Everhart made headlines when it proposed strengthening its finances by selling its one Matisse. The painting, a 1920 still life called Pink Shrimp, had been appraised at more than $4 million. Trotta and his crew set in motion a plan to steal it; they began by filming the museum’s layout with camcorders while pretending to be tourists.

They lost their chance when the museum abruptly sold the Matisse. But Trotta was undeterred. On a return visit, he started talking about the painting with a guard, who mentioned that another artwork was probably worth more: Springs Winter, a movie-poster-size drip painting attributed to Jackson Pollock.

Over the next five years, Trotta, Dombek, and other members of the crew took turns visiting—and at times filming—the museum. They mapped the location of each security camera and motion detector, each entry and egress. In bed at night, Trotta replayed the footage obsessively, until he felt he could walk the museum blindfolded. The heist’s exact timing would depend, in a sense, on the gods: The crew needed a storm to hit Scranton between 2 a.m. and dawn. From burglarizing houses as teens, they knew that bad weather slowed the police and muffled the sound of breaking glass. Rain or snow was particularly effective an hour or two after bars closed, when police—tired after the usual arrests—tended to lose steam and become, in Trotta’s phrase, less “peppy.”

But all of those plans were set aside one early morning in November 2005, when a giant brawl erupted at a Scranton bar called Whistles. Trotta, Joe Atsus, and another schoolmate, Damien Boland—whose great-grandmother’s house Trotta had burglarized years earlier—were having a drink when the melee (which they’d played no part in) drew seemingly every last police cruiser to Whistles’ front door.

[From the April 2018 issue: An OurTime.com con man and the women who busted him]

Let’s do it now, Trotta told his friends. He had no ax, no crowbar, no ski mask. But a huge bar fight near closing time was a diversion as providential as a 3 a.m. downpour. He had more luck still when his friends dropped him off behind the museum: A large tent—erected for the Everhart’s annual ball the next night—blocked sight lines to the back door.

After failing to kick in the door, Trotta grabbed a ladder beside the tent and used it as a battering ram, bashing a hole in the glass and crawling through it. In the pitch dark, he bounded up the stairs to the second-floor gallery. He removed the Pollock from the wall and, on the spur of the moment, took an Andy Warhol silk screen, La Grande Passion, right near it. He was downstairs, out the hole, and in his pickup in less than a minute. “We’re rich!” Atsus said, according to court documents.

But by sunup, Trotta was so convinced of his imminent arrest that he pulled a lawn chair into his driveway and just sat there, waiting for the police. Lacking a mask, he’d improvised inside the museum by lifting his sweater over his nose, like some Looney Tunes bandit. Worse, it was a colorful sweater, which anyone at the bars he’d visited the previous evening might recognize.

Yet by the end of the day, no police had showed. The Scranton Times-Tribune soon reported that the museum’s surveillance cameras were under repair and not working that night.

Trotta’s relief was replaced by a new anxiety, captured in a front-page Times-Tribune headline the next day: “FBI: ‘No Market for Stolen Art.’ ” “The true art in an art theft is not stealing the material,” Robert Wittman, then the FBI’s lead art-crime investigator, told the newspaper. “It’s selling it.”

No one had linked the Everhart and Mathewson heists, but word of both had spread among museums, dealers, and collectors. Anyone who tried to sell the Pollock and the Warhol—together potentially worth millions—or the Mathewson memorabilia would almost certainly be discovered. Buyers, for their part, could face both civil and criminal liability, having no credible excuse for ignorance.

At first Trotta thought he could sell the items, no problem, once the five-year statute of limitations for theft expired. Later he realized his error: Under federal laws governing museum crime, prosecutors had as many as 20 years to bring charges. In desperation, he sent a videotape of the art and memorabilia to his father, to see if any of Big Tom’s underworld connections might bite. “I can’t move this,” his dad eventually reported back.

A few months after the Everhart job, one of Trotta’s crew saw an article in Electric City, an alternative Scranton weekly. Arthur Byron Phillips, an eccentric artist who had loaned the Pollock to the museum, was offering a biblical-sounding reward. “Return the purported Pollock to him,” the paper said, “and he’ll grace your palms with silver.” Phillips told reward seekers to be prepared to verify their bona fides by naming the gallery on the painting’s reverse side: “Anyone coming up with that name will prove that they have the actual picture.”

Hot art might not be sellable, Trotta realized, but apparently it could be ransomed. He found a gas station with a pay phone, checked for security cameras, and dialed.

“The Parsons Gallery,” Trotta said.

Phillips replied after a long silence. “You have my attention.”

“I want a million dollars in cash. Don’t call the police.”

“I don’t have a million dollars in cash.”

“Then you’ll never see the painting again,” Trotta said, hanging up.

When Trotta passed the gas station the next day, the pay phone was gone. He suspected that Phillips had called the FBI. The phone was likely on its way to a crime lab. Trotta was glad he’d wiped his fingerprints off his quarters. But he’d screwed up again: He’d asked for too much. “If we went, ‘$50,000,’ I tell you what—he pays, he gets his painting back, okay?”

Dombek eventually decided that art was dangerous. According to prosecutors, he burned a painting by the Hudson River School artist Jasper Cropsey—valued at $500,000 and stolen by Trotta from a New Jersey museum—rather than risk getting caught with it. Dombek was like that. Whereas Trotta shone at getting loot, Dombek always had ideas about what to do with it.

The garage Nicholas Dombek had built, on the six acres he lived on in Thornhurst Township, was essentially an improvised chemistry lab. Its long shelves were lined with beakers, droppers, funnels, jugs, calipers, and cookers, alongside containers of various acids, powders, and solutions. Chemical formulas were handwritten on the walls beside what appeared to be personal affirmations. DREAMS ARE EXTREMLY [sic] IMPORTANT YOU CAN’T DO IT UNLESS YOU IMAGINE IT, read one. Another read ALWAYS KEEP SECRETS. It wasn’t necessarily the science that Dombek’s father and older brother taught in the public schools (his dad had a master’s degree in chemistry from Bucknell University), but it reflected at least some of what he’d picked up before quitting school after eighth grade and moving in with the Trottas.

Though Dombek would later testify in court that he was trying to change the bond of water “to cure cancer,” his successes tended to the more pedestrian: S-hooks for attaching stolen license plates to getaway cars; a spiked metal ball for pulverizing reinforced glass; a chain that trucks could use to rip ATMs off their base. Dawn Trotta, who dated Dombek as a teenager and remained friends with him, recalled his particular facility for annihilating cars for her father, who helped people dispose of them for insurance money. “Nick could disappear a vehicle in hours,” she told me. Among the literature Dombek kept handy were The Anarchist Cookbook, A Field Guide to Rocks and Minerals, and Recovery and Refining of Precious Metals.

After the Mathewson and Everhart fiascoes, Trotta told me, Dombek had one of his ideas. The thing that made most museum pieces valuable—their status as unique, instantly recognizable objects—was also the thing that made them unsellable. But what if you scrapped a museum piece, almost like you did a car? Could certain one-of-a-kind objects be remade, in a lab, into tradable commodities?

In March 2011, Trotta stole 13 silver golf trophies from the Country Club of Scranton during an overnight storm, then delivered them to Dombek’s garage. Five had been awarded to the club’s most illustrious member: Art Wall Jr., who had won the 1959 Masters at Augusta National, beating the defending champion, Arnold Palmer.

The trophies buckled under the heat of Dombek’s torches and furnaces, then puddled and cooled into an untraceable blob of silver. (As Dombek refined his methods, the blobs would come to look less “criminal”—as Trotta put it—and more like professionally made ingots, in the shape of bars or pucks.) Lumps of metal might sell for a tiny fraction of what the original objects, with their feel-good history, would have fetched in a legal market, but there was no legal market. Trotta drove the silver blob to precious-metals dealers in Manhattan’s Diamond District, who bought it for about $6,000, no questions asked.

A business model was born, and Trotta—newly married, with a wife to support—dedicated himself to its perfection. He began mornings now on his laptop at the local Starbucks or Dunkin’, Googling for websites where the words gold, silver, or diamonds showed up alongside terms such as museum and display. When a promising target appeared in the search results, he’d immediately drive, for hours sometimes, to see it; some were mining museums, but far more were halls of fame or sports museums, many of them in small towns. (The crew cased the National Baseball Hall of Fame, in Cooperstown, New York, for years, but gave up after discovering that the diamonds on the championship belt they were after had been replaced by inexpensive replicas.)

Trotta’s reconnaissance grew bolder. On return visits to a target, he’d often bring his sister Dawn’s two preschool-age kids, which gave him cover to film its interior under the guise of recording his little loved ones. He’d ask his niece and nephew to walk over to certain windows, to see if their movements made lights blip on nearby motion detectors. (Dawn told me she appreciated the child care and was unaware of her brother’s ulterior motives.)

When it was Dombek’s turn to visit a target, he’d discreetly tap display cases with a penny, Trotta told me, to glean from the sound whether the glass was easily breakable or bulletproof—information that helped Trotta decide whether to bring his DeWalt grinder, Estwing camper’s ax, or center punch on heist night. With each successful job, Trotta became more convinced that his “dorky” face—together with the button-down shirts he wore on museum visits—made him look like the most generic of American tourists.

When the weather app on their phones showed storms nearing a target, Dombek, like a football coach, would chalk arrows and X’s on his garage floor, diagramming Trotta’s path through a museum. Then, in Dombek’s yard, Trotta would rehearse the moves at full speed, tracking his times on a stopwatch.

Dawn did her part by renting cars at the Scranton airport, then handing the keys to her brother. Not only did rentals rarely break down; they were so new and clean that police tended to overlook them, even in the immediate aftermath of a heist.

Trotta’s system left almost no detail unconsidered, from the way he activated burner phones and bleached his burglary tools to the music he psyched up with—AC/DC’s “Thunderstruck” or Metallica’s “Enter Sandman”—before crashing through a window. A trophy could be stolen from a museum at 3 a.m., melted in Dombek’s furnace by 8 a.m., and sold in Manhattan by 1 p.m.—enough time to enjoy a vodka with the Russian dealers they sold to and to pick up a new batch of ski masks at the Army-Navy store on their walk back to the Port Authority garage, where they’d parked.

From the summer of 2011 through late 2013, as gold prices hit record highs, Trotta’s crew made nearly $500,000, more cash than they’d seen in their whole lives. Trotta had launched nearly flawless heists on the Sterling Hill Mining Museum, in Ogdensburg, New Jersey; the United States Golf Association museum, in Liberty Corner, New Jersey; the Harness Racing Museum and Hall of Fame, in Goshen, New York; and the National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame, in Saratoga Springs, New York. Among the objects melted into oblivion were golf’s historic U.S. Amateur Trophy; a replica of the golfer Ben Hogan’s 1953 Hickok Belt, a diamond-studded gold strip given to the best professional athlete of the year; an 18-karat Memphis Gold Challenge Cup awarded in 1902 to the trotting horse Lou Dillon; a silver Fabergé tureen that Czar Nicholas II gave to Dillon’s American owner in 1912, to thank him for introducing harness racing to Russia; and two 1903 trophies designed by Tiffany, one for the Brighton Cup, the other for the Belmont Stakes.

In 2012, Trotta stole from the United States Golf Association Museum, in New Jersey. (Bernards Township Police Department)

By late 2013, the FBI and the sporting press started to suspect a connection among the heists. Theories ranged “from the common street crime variety to complex schemes worthy of ‘The Sopranos,’ ” The New York Times reported that October. A year later, Trotta was in and out of the Yogi Berra Museum so fast that nothing looked amiss from the front doors when the police got there, about five minutes after the alarm sounded. “Because of the rain and wind,” one officer wrote in a report, “our visibility was limited.” Not until Berra’s son Dale arrived at the museum the next morning—he kept an office there—was the theft discovered.

When Trotta disappeared, sometimes for days, to case or burglarize a museum, he’d lie to his wife. He’d say he was in New Jersey doing HVAC work with Joe Atsus and Joe’s brother, Al, who had a contracting business. On their marriage certificate, in 2009, Trotta listed his profession, falsely, as “plumber.” Trotta told me that his wife never asked questions, so long as money came in. Trotta’s parents’ relationship had worked much the same way.

The trouble began after they had children. Trotta’s wife started to resent his frequent absences, which left her with too little help around the house. One night, while Trotta was on his way to a museum, she called to demand that he immediately return with supplies for their 1-year-old son. “She’s like, ‘Thomas needs diapers, you motherfucker,’ ” Trotta recalled. (His wife, who filed for divorce in 2018, told me that she preferred not to involve herself in this story, writing in an email, “I am ok with whatever Tommy stated.”)

Money was becoming tighter, too. Berra’s 16 rings and two MVP plaques—valued at $1.5 million intact—had grossed Trotta’s crew just $10,300 after melting. The more he and his wife fought, the more he wondered how long he could keep it up: the burglaries, the lies, all of it. He thought about day-trading or opening a restaurant. If he could pull one last job—a really big one—he’d have the capital to start an honest business, draw a steadier income, do better as a husband and dad. He was turning 40. It was time.

Yogi Berra poses with his World Series rings in 2000. (Steve Crandall / Getty)

He found an exit the way he’d found everything else: on Google. In 1894, the Russian Empress Alexandra wore a spectacular crown at her wedding to Czar Nicholas II, the same Nicholas, incidentally, whose Fabergé tureen Trotta had stolen from the racing museum in Goshen. Some 1,535 diamonds covered six velvet-draped silver bands, which converged beneath a cross made of six larger diamonds. Trotta believed he could get $5 million in the Diamond District by scrapping the crown’s stones.

The crown, he discovered, sat shockingly close to a first-floor window in a Washington, D.C., mansion once owned by one of America’s wealthiest women. Marjorie Merriweather Post—the cereal heiress, businesswoman, and philanthropist—had purchased Hillwood, as the 25-acre estate was called, in 1955 and filled it with fine art and collectibles from 18th-century Russia and France. In 1977, four years after her death, Hillwood opened to the public as a museum and gardens.

Trotta had cased it more than a dozen times before returning in the summer of 2015 for a crucial, final step. He called it a “night check”: hours spent in a car or in bushes, searching through binoculars for guards and other nocturnal activity. Trotta was a few minutes from the night-check spot when he got into a shouting match with his wife over the phone. He was jolted out of it by a flash in the street: A speed camera had photographed his vehicle, placing it uncomfortably close to Hillwood. He called off the night check and drove the four hours home, furious.

Back in Pennsylvania, he grew so impatient that he dispensed with his usual caution. Forget the night check, he thought. He’d return to Washington with a single mission: to take the crown and retire. He could misdirect the police by setting fire to—or, as he put it, “cooking”—a Hillwood outbuilding as a diversion. But Boland and Ralph Parry, another friend who’d agreed to accompany him, talked him out of the fire. “You want more charges?” Parry said, according to Trotta.

In the darkness of an August morning in 2015, Trotta used fence cutters to enter Hillwood’s grounds and a grinder to cut a bulletproof window some eight feet from the empress’s crown. As Trotta reached for his ax to smash open the display case, he heard a voice shout “Halt!” In the red glow of his headlamp, he glimpsed a man in uniform down the hall. The Hillwood, it turned out, employed night guards. Trotta leaped out the window he’d entered, yelling, “Pop the smoke.” Boland yanked the pin from a smoke grenade and lobbed it behind them as they ran toward Rock Creek Park and forded the creek to Parry’s waiting car. (In a statement issued through his lawyer, Boland called Trotta an “inveterate liar” with “no credibility.” Parry’s lawyer did not comment.)

The failure drove Trotta into a depression. Why hadn’t he returned for a night check? Why had he let his less experienced friends talk him out of a diversion? What was wrong with him?

Since childhood, he’d tried to abide by the one scruple his father seemed to have: Don’t do drugs. But after Hillwood, as his marriage crumbled, he needed release. He began taking Percocet, a narcotic painkiller, and became hooked, paying as much as $50 on the street for each 30-milligram tablet.

The money he made from a 2016 heist of the Roger Maris Museum—all the way out in Fargo, North Dakota—hardly seemed worth the hours of travel. And the drugs were making him sloppy. He cut himself so badly breaking into the International Boxing Hall of Fame, in Canastota, New York, and the Franklin Mineral Museum, in Franklin, New Jersey, that he trailed blood on the windows and floors. All for nothing; the boxing belts turned out to be made of a cheap alloy, and the mining stones—tourmaline, zircon, alexandrite—were worthless. Some malignant force seemed to be conspiring against him. When he entered Harvard’s Mineralogical & Geological Museum, disguised as a Hasidic Jew and ready to snatch a large diamond in the middle of the day, the stone, which he’d seen every time he’d cased the museum, was no longer on display.

His edge dulled by narcotics, he returned to the petty thievery of his youth: houses in his own neighborhood, dinky antique shops, convenience-store ATMs—whatever, whenever, for another handful of pills.

Trotta was driving to a friend’s apartment in the snowy early morning of March 4, 2019, when a Pennsylvania state-police cruiser came up behind him. His Pontiac had been fishtailing on the slicked roads, but the troopers didn’t make a traffic stop until he inexplicably pulled over. (Trotta told me he’d wanted to let the car pass, not seeing its police markings until too late.)

Trotta failed a field sobriety test and was charged with a DUI, illegal possession of controlled substances, the unauthorized use of someone else’s car (his cousin’s), the use of a different car’s license plates (his sister’s), and other motor-vehicle violations. He kept it together enough to refuse a blood-alcohol test: The last thing he needed was anyone tying his DNA to the blood he’d shed at various crime scenes. At the police barracks, however, he asked for water. A trooper fished his cup out of the trash and sent it to a forensics lab.

When troopers opened the Pontiac’s trunk the next day, they realized that the driver might be someone other than their usual yahoo out past his bedtime. Inside the vehicle were bolt cutters, a sledgehammer, a headlamp, ski masks, walkie-talkies, burner phones, bits of jewelry, a checkered shirt that had been caught on security cameras during a recent jewelry-store heist, and brochures for sports museums. When Trotta met his lawyer, he asked what the police had found in the car. The lawyer, a seasoned defense attorney named Joe D’Andrea, replied, “Everything but Jimmy Hoffa.”

Nine days after Trotta’s arrest, FBI agents gathered at a state-police barracks with law-enforcement officers from New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. They’d come to review a long list of burglaries with similar MOs and to figure out whether Trotta was their missing link. The DNA results that came in after the meeting erased all doubt.

Trotta was turning 44 that year. He’d known the core members of his crew since Ronald Reagan was president. They’d seen one another through graduations, marriages, kids, joblessness, substance abuse, divorce. Joe and Al Atsus were godparents to Trotta’s children. “If you’re robbing stuff at 11 or 12 with people, and at 40 you’re still robbing stuff with these people,” Trotta told me, “you can’t actually get a closer bond than that.” He estimated that over their lives together, they’d done more than 1,500 burglaries.

But when he was arrested, he said, not one of them came to his aid. No real money for lawyers or bail. No sympathy for the years of prison he might face—for crimes that had enriched them all. “He’s a big boy; he’ll eat it,” one of them told his sister. Dombek, claiming to be broke, gave Trotta a handful of screws, suggesting that he scrap them for a bit of cash, according to Trotta. The police, meanwhile, started using evidence from the Pontiac, and interviews with at least one associate, to charge Trotta with a series of local crimes: a 2016 ATM theft, a 2018 house burglary. “My friends,” Trotta concluded, “were prepared to bury me.”

In April 2019, with his lawyer’s encouragement, he began cooperating with state police and prosecutors, and eventually with the FBI. The police fitted him with a listening device, and he recorded damning conversations with Dombek, a man he loved like a brother. In one of those conversations, Dombek said that if anyone turned on him, he’d “sneak on their property, turn off the well cap, and pour a gallon of some kind of substance down their well and would kill that person and their whole family,” according to a police summary of the recording. Dombek also talked about destroying evidence of their crimes, and about plans to kill one witness by mixing fentanyl into his cocaine or by poisoning him with a toxic plant called false hellebore.

In August of that year, the state police raided Dombek’s property, discovered the makeshift chemistry lab, and charged him with burglarizing a house with Trotta. Released on bail, Dombek stormed over to the homes of Trotta’s mother and sister. He called Trotta a “fucking rat,” according to court records, and threatened violence if Trotta didn’t shut up or change his story. The police promptly charged Dombek with five counts of witness intimidation.

U.S. attorneys, meanwhile, persuaded their state counterparts to let them mount a single prosecution of nearly all the museum heists. As federal agents gathered evidence, Dombek and Trotta remained in a Pennsylvania prison on state charges: the former for three years, until he pleaded no contest to a single charge each of witness intimidation and home burglary; the latter for almost four years, until he pleaded guilty to the DUI, the ATM theft, and two home burglaries.

Then, in June 2023, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced federal charges against Trotta, Dombek, and seven other alleged ring members, including Joe and Al Atsus. (Al Atsus’s lawyer told me that any criminal allegations against his client were “absolutely ridiculous and patently absurd”; Joe Atsus’s lawyer declined to comment for this story.) Investigators had linked the ring to 21 burglaries across five states over more than 20 years. A press release credited 20 state and local police departments, as well as the FBI, for helping solve the case.

Boland and the Atsus brothers have pleaded not guilty. Dombek vanished into the woods when he learned of his arrest warrant but reappeared after six months and pleaded not guilty. Tommy and Dawn Trotta, Ralph Parry, and two others pleaded guilty as part of cooperation deals. “Very guilty, Your Honor,” Trotta assured a federal judge.

“We ripped the guts out of people emotionally,” Trotta told me. “I know that now.” In May 2019, while out on bail on the state charges, Trotta broke into a vacant house in New Jersey that the Atsus brothers owned. It was the last place he’d seen the Mathewson memorabilia, the Pollock, and the Warhol. He’d hoped to restore them to their owners, he said. But if the items were there, he couldn’t find them. Their whereabouts remain unknown.

In the days after the 1999 Mathewson heist, two of the pitcher’s biggest fans were among the most heavily interrogated. Eddie Frierson, an actor who’d written and performed the one-man show about Mathewson that night, endured searches by the state police and grillings by the FBI while still deep in grief himself over the loss to the college and to baseball history. “I was aching,” he told me.

Terry Wise was the Keystone College official in charge of the Mathewson display that weekend. When she’d been hired as athletic director a few years earlier, she’d encouraged the college’s president to do more with the memorabilia: How many schools could claim as an alumnus an inaugural inductee of the Baseball Hall of Fame? It was Wise who had opened the case that night to give visitors—including Trotta, she now realizes—a better look at Mathewson’s contracts and jersey. Worse than being questioned by six cops the next day are the feelings of guilt and naivete she still lives with. “I can’t believe it’s 25 years,” she said as we spoke in the gym parking lot, a few steps from the door where Trotta had let himself in.

Haley Zale launched a “Bring Back the Belts” campaign on social media after her great-uncle’s championship belts were stolen in 2015 from the International Boxing Hall of Fame. Tony Zale had beaten Rocky Graziano in 1948 to become the middleweight champion of the world. After Tony’s death, in 1997, Haley visited the museum every year to say her Hail Marys and Our Fathers, and to remember the shy man who’d come up from nothing, beaten Graziano, and been a grandfather figure to her—teaching her boxing stances, applauding her childhood ballet routines, and calling her Miss America. “Visiting Uncle Tony’s belts,” she told me, “was like visiting his grave.”

Lindsay Berra told me that her grandfather Yogi reacted to the disappearance of his rings and plaques with his familiar good humor. “Well, I know I won them,” he said. He worried only about the schoolchildren who visited the museum: Could the broken glass be cleaned up so the kids didn’t get cut?

Berra’s relatives took the theft harder. “Every one of those rings has a story behind it, and it’s about him and a team and the Yankees and a time in our country,” Lindsay told me. “You’re taking little pieces of American history when you take them. They belong to all Americans, not just the guy who won them.”

When the museum’s director called in 2023 to tell her that the alleged culprits had melted the rings for the sake of a few thousand bucks, Lindsay cried as much in sorrow as for the stupidity and waste. Wouldn’t it have been easier and more lucrative to knock off a Kay Jewelers? she thought. She couldn’t understand how Trotta could try on her grandfather’s rings—claiming to be a fan—only to moments later destroy them.

I asked if she believed Trotta’s professions of remorse. “No,” she said. “I think he’s sorry he got caught.”

Even after the police had found “everything but Jimmy Hoffa” in the Pontiac, even after he’d agreed to cooperate, Trotta burglarized a New York jewelry store and came close to ransacking the Saratoga Springs racing museum a second time. He aborted only because he’d spotted a guard during a night check. Then, in January 2024, as half his crew was headed for trial—with himself the star witness for the prosecution—Trotta allegedly stole gift cards, cash, and jewelry from the house of a woman he’d driven home from a bar. The police dropped the charges after Trotta’s lawyer gave the home’s owner a $7,500 check for the missing items, the local police chief told me. Trotta claims that it was a misunderstanding, but the federal judge overseeing the heist cases was displeased enough to revoke Trotta’s pretrial release.

The instinct to steal remains so strong, Trotta told me—so “in the blood”—that he feels as if his brain needs rebuilding. Like a recovering addict, he has to stay constantly on guard against his own impulses. He worries, too, about his son. At 11, he’s now the age Trotta was when Big Tom led him into a life of crime. When Trotta calls from jail, he talks with his son about the misery of incarceration: the bad food, the piece of metal with a half-inch mat that passes for a bed.

The only steady paycheck Trotta earned in his adult life was at Walmart in the early 2000s. (Courtesy of Tommy Trotta)

For a couple of years in the early 2000s, to satisfy probation on a minor theft charge, Trotta held a part-time job loading Walmart trucks. It was the only steady paycheck he’d earned in his adult life; he was miserable. “It was like the coal mines of old,” he told me. “It’s honest and you could wake up and feel proud, but, like, you’re in a category now of real broke-ness.” Guys could live paycheck to paycheck there for 20 years and never save enough for even a little self-indulgence.

Trotta had never grown rich as a thief. He’d taken some nice vacations, eaten some expensive steaks. But he drove junkers, dressed plainly, and had owned a house for just a couple of years before the payments became too much for him. His sister’s place, where he’d lived in a basement bedroom before and after his marriage, was perhaps the closest thing he’d had to a stable home. Yet a thief’s life—like a gambler’s—made wealth something other than impossible. Months would pass in which Trotta would scrape by on penny-ante burglaries. “Then, all of a sudden, a big thing would hit: Boom, we’re good.” And for however many days the money lasted, he felt free.

This article appears in the February 2025 print edition with the headline “Trophy Hunters.”