Politics of trying to kill pubici media

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Trump rescissions bill killed federal funding for NPR, PBS and local stations.  The $1.1 billion cut is small for the federal budget, but big for Republicans who think NPR/PBS tilt to the liberals and give little coverage to GOP conservatives. 

NPR/PBS maintain they do straight reporting.   Their response recalls the retort of President Truman to a voter who yelled, “Give ‘em Hell, Harry.”  He replied, “I just tell the truth about them, and they think it’s Hell.”

If enough voters agree with that view, it could make Trump regret having satisfied longstanding GOP grumbling.

The unusual bill, to claw back funds already appropriated and in the pipeline, passed on an almost purely partisan basis.  Some Republicans regretted having the congressional power of the purse transferred to the president, but they went along with Trump’s request.

In the Senate, two GOP senators broke with their party.   Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski did not influence the outcome, but they voted “no” in their states’ interests.  Alaska and Maine are the two states most heavily affected by the cuts, well beyond any other states.

One argument against the cut was that it would impact rural states that depend on the public media for news, emergency warnings and entertainment.   

Maine is the state with the highest share of its population living in rural areas, which make up more than 98 percent of its land area.   Alaska is almost entirely rural.  Still, Murkowski’s fellow Alaska senator voted with the president.  Collins, the only GOP member of Congress from New England, faces re-election next year and depends heavily on the most rural parts of the state.

In the House, two Republicans broke ranks.  Neither comes from a seriously affected area, though one represents a swing district in Pennsylvania.  For all other Republicans, partisanship prevailed.

If two more senators and two more representatives had voted against recission, the bill would have been defeated.  In the House, the vote was 216 to 213; the Senate vote was 51-48.

In the 2024 elections, two Democratic House incumbents and two sitting senate Democrats lost their re-election bids by narrow margins. The popular vote winning margin for the two House seats was 11,938 out of a total of 145 million votes cast in House elections.   With the Democrats, the result would have been 214-215.

In the Senate, the two losing Democrats had missed re-election by a combined margin of 58,492 out of 110 million cast in Senate elections. With them, the Senate vote would have been 49-50.

Trump would not have been able to prevail on cutting NPR/PBS and foreign aid, if two seats in either the House or Senate had not flipped.  As much as the Trump spokespersons emphasize his mandate and his almost monolithic GOP congressional support, his dominance might have been undermined if 12,000 more people had voted for the Democrats.

Clearly, the Democrats will try to take Senate seats now held by Republicans.  Among likely targets, reflecting somewhat the impact of the recissions vote are North Carolina, Nebraska, Montana and Alaska.

In the House, they will surely try to recover the two seats they lost last year.  But they also see GOP legislative loyalty to Trump as potentially creating political liabilities for the Republicans. Trump is writing the Democrats’ platform by giving them issues to run on.  That’s worth more than vague references to restoring democracy or Trump’s dangerous way of governing.

That makes the public media vote interesting.  It is estimated that about 100 million people, plus those streaming, view PBS at least once a month.  The demographics of viewership fit with the emerging picture of the Democrats’ natural constituency – educated, middle income or higher, female.

The educated, affluent voters who watch PBS are likely to vote more than the general population.  They follow the news, so they may be aware of the rescissions bill.  In some areas, stations are heavily viewed by key constituencies like Blacks or Hispanics.  Kids who talk to their parents about their viewing and their caregivers who are viewers both matter. 

PBS now receives much support from the private sector.  Though it does not carry commercials, it allows major donors to present their product or service.  Supporting companies may benefit from the “halo effect” of being associated with the public media.  Maybe there’s a different of halo effect, one based on the loyalty of PBS viewers. 

By itself, it may be questionable if the loss of government support of the public media will have much of an electoral effect.  But joining in showing loyalty to PBS is easier than arguing about issues that create divisions in the Democratic Party.  Can the Democrat’s turn support for PBS/NPR into a feel-good cause that’s beyond politics?

Epstein case shows how conspiracies work

  

Gordon L. Weil

The Epstein affair, with Trump supporters attacking him for supposedly blocking the release of the damaging client files of the convicted sex offender, reveals the nature of political conspiracy theories.

A conspiracy theory begins with a premise, built on what its creators believe is logical.  It’s a theory that lacks evidence and rests on belief.  It’s also contagious; people in the MAGA world who believe in one conspiracy theory likely believe in several others as well. 

Here’s how conspiracies can work.

1. Premise: People providing sexual favors keep client lists of their clients and possible prospects.

2. Epstein provided sexual favors to the rich and famous.  See the case of Britain’s Prince Andrew.

3. Therefore, Epstein had a client list that contained embarrassing information or worse on the rich and famous.

Only point 2 is based on evidence.   Even if it’s logical that Epstein would keep a list, there is no evidence of it.  People often believe others have done what they would do in the same situation.  “Everybody keeps a list,” they say, meaning, “I would keep a list.”

If there is a list, it logically contains names, which if revealed, would embarrass people. Once again, this is a matter of something that seems logical being accepted as fact.  It it’s logical, it must be true.

Now, the next phase of the conspiracy theory.

4. The Epstein list is not being made public.

5. Some politicians could disclose the list, but resist doing so.

6. It is logical that the reason that they refuse to make the list public is that it will embarrass them or their allies.

Here, point 4 might be accurate if there were a list, but in point 5, we assume that Democrat Joe Biden was involved in blocking disclosure, while having the legal right to make the list public.  We lack evidence for either of these beliefs, but they seem logical.  Point 6 also seems to be the logical result, though there’s no evidence.

Before moving to the next phase, the conspiracy thus far is based on what the creators believe are inescapable logic and reasonable assumptions.  If another person does not share these views, we can assume that it’s only logical that they are defending the bad guys.

This train of reasoning is widely distributed.  It fits neatly with the idea that bureaucrats¸ known as the deep state, are running the government.  Nobody elected them, but they can withhold the Epstein list.  They must be protecting government leaders who are content to let them run the country.

People who believe that the government is corrupt and unresponsive latch onto this reasoning, because it confirms their own opinions.  Withholding the Epstein list is part of a broader conspiracy, backed by the deep state, to use the government for their own nefarious purposes.

Now, the next phase.

7. Trump ran for president, but had no personal agenda.  He sought the support of constituencies seeking change who wanted to oust the incumbent administration.  He adopted the agendas of these people to build his core support.

8. The Epstein list conspiracy believers are an available constituency.

9. He absorbed the Epstein conspiracy people and pledged that, if they get him elected, he would find and make public the list they seek.

Final phase: it works. With their ardent support, he was elected.  Promoting the conspiracy has made him president. Conspiracies work so well, Trump uses them repeatedly: international trade is a plot against the U.S., the 2020 election was stolen, Joe Biden was a robot.  He moved on, expecting the Epstein people to focus approvingly on how he is changing the country

The conspiracy believers still expect him to uncover the truth that they assume exists.  They want him to focus on the Epstein list, as promised.  Trump’s backers believe that the Democrats could have released it, but risked embarrassment, so now they must pay.  

In office, Trump’s aides find no list.  Maybe Epstein kept it in his head or destroyed it or maybe we already know all there is to know.  But Trump had to tell loyal backers that the promised list does not exist, producing the badly timed death of a false promise.

The conspiracists are furious, claiming Trump did not keep his promise, an essential reason that they backed him.  Maybe they believe he cynically used Epstein to gain their support.  Or is he hiding something?  His solution: blame the Democrats.  For what?

A political conspiracy is not based on provable facts.  If the charges could be proved, there would be evidence, not a theory based on false logic and questionable assumptions.  Conspiracy theory is a lie.

Telling lies is like walking on a tight rope.  You can easily fall off.

Peacemaking: Trump’s empty promise

Gordon L. Weil

“My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier,” declared Donald Trump at his January 2025 inauguration.  His statement was not a hope, but a promise.

On that day, the world witnessed two major wars with other conflicts coming close to hostilities.  Wielding the power of the United States, Trump had the possibility of earning the title of peacemaker.

Russia had invaded neighboring Ukraine three years earlier.  It sought to nullify Ukraine’s pro-West leanings and return it to the orbit of Russian influence, just as it had been under the Soviet Union.  Russians viewed Ukrainians as inferior and had historically exploited them.  The invasion was expected to amount to a restoration of Russian dominance.

But the self-awareness of Ukrainians had grown, and they did not wish to again be subservient to Russia. To the world’s amazement, they resisted the Russian invasion, despite losing some territory.  President Biden sent them help.

Trump believed he had a good personal relationship with Russian President Putin.  He could deal with him over the head of Ukraine, heavily dependent on the U.S. for its defensive arms. Offering sanctions relief and help in ending a costly war, Trump thought he could induce Putin to accept Russia’s territorial gains and end his invasion.

For Putin, the historical need to conquer Ukraine required him to press on.  Trump did not understand Putin and was disappointed. He told Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy that Putin had all the cards. He was right, because he himself did not play his cards.  He avoided new sanctions on Russia and only reluctantly supported Ukraine.  Not a peacemaker.

In the Middle East, Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu turns his country’s response to the Hamas attack into a drive to raze Gaza and dominate the region.

Trump proposed to turn Gaza into a new Riviera, after the removal of its Palestinian residents. That idea may appear entirely out of historical context, but it fits right-wing Israeli views that their country should rule Gaza and deport its Arab inhabitants.  Neighboring Arab countries are not enthusiastic.

Despite increased doubts, both in Israel and the U.S., about the destructive way Netanyahu is pursuing military action in Gaza, Trump has put no effective pressure on him.  The U.S. remained the essential military supplier of Israel.  Trump must have known what the New York Times has just revealed about how Netanyahu has repeatedly prolonged the conflict.

Trump set aside hopes of expanding cooperation between Israel and its Arab neighbors, extending the Abraham Accords, in favor of backing Israel.  Trump allowed Netanyahu to guide his policy.  Ceasefire negotiations are fruitless, but the U.S. does not use its relationships with key parties to convene full scale peace talks.   No room for peacemaking.

After exiting an earlier agreement on Iran’s nuclear development, Trump tried to negotiate a new deal.  But he was under Israeli pressure that amounted to an ultimatum.  The message was that the U.S. should reach an agreement with Tehran soon or Israel would bomb Iran.  Israeli pressure would overcome U.S. patience.

Time ran out, and Israel attacked, and the U.S. engaged in massive bombing as well.  From an effort to negotiate and avoid armed conflict, the U.S. became a combatant.  Once again, Trump’s potential role as a peacemaker, deploying the power and influence of the U.S., was absent.

Other menaces grow.  China continues using its fleet to push its claims to the South China Sea.  It has also sent clear signals that it would move on Taiwan.  The U.S. mobilized opposition from Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and the Philippines.  By a persistent and increased show of force, the U.S. and its allies would try to force China to lower tensions.

This was a clear case of Trump using American power, together with allies, to reduce the risk of greater conflict by deterrence and opening the possibility of negotiations with China from a position of strength.  But the U.S. then moved one aircraft carrier from the South China Sea to the Mediterranean to defend Israel from Iran’s counterattacks.

The president also undermined his own policy by launching trade attacks on his most valuable allies in the Pacific region.  Instead of strengthening relations with countries sharing a common interest, he menaced them with trade policies that would weaken their economies.  They could come to see the U.S. more as an adversary than as an ally.

Whatever the merits of Trump’s trade measures, their arbitrary and inconsistent application has created uncertainty.  Unpredictable American policy raises international tensions, reducing the opportunity for the U.S., as the dominant nation, to lead the way to settling conflicts.

“Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent, and totally unpredictable,” Trump promised in his inaugural address.

When?  How?

 

 

 

  

Third party alternatives coming for 2026 elections

 

Gordon L. Weil

In the political off season, if that still exists, people often turn to dreams of a new party.  As soon as any frustrated player talks about forming a new political party, they are scolded for not recognizing how difficult it is and that new parties don’t work. 

Now comes Elon Musk, whose foreign birth would deny him the presidency, but who wants to create the America Party.  

Ignore him, and maybe he’ll go away.  Maybe not.  Maybe he is sending a message.  He is not proposing a “third” party.  That’s because there are no political parties left standing.

The traditional Republican Party no longer exists.  It was seized by Donald Trump, who is Republican in Name Only.  The remnants of the former Republican establishment are defeated and dispersed. The vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill is prime evidence of the Trump monolith overriding traditional GOP concerns about the debt.

“I am not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat,” said cowboy philosopher Will Rogers.  The party has no program, other than opposing Trump, no leader, and no unity.  It governs a minority of states, which may matter little in the face of Trump authoritarian rule.

The Democrats’ progressive wing wants to move the party toward a larger role for government and higher taxes on the wealthy with the funds being used for social policies.  Traditional Democrats are more conservative, competing with the GOP more effectively, they say, for blue collar voters.  

The problem with the Democrats is that too many believe that being opposed to Trump is all it takes to win. 

Both major, but dying, parties fear what they see as a third party that could capture voters who would normally support one or the other of them.  In 1992, independent Ross Perot may have taken supporters away from both sides.  Having learned that lesson, each attacks new party advocates.

Many voters are discontent with what they see as the government’s failure to respond to their concerns about their economic condition and outlook.  They want change, which explains the successes of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. 

Trump provides change.  Instead of a hope, voters have the reality.  The talk of a third party reveals that some voters have found that, in their desire for change, they gave Trump a blank check.  Musk believes he has the formula and the funding to offer change without Trump.

But the third-party movement misses the point, especially when the strongest anti-Trump sentiment comes from extreme fiscal conservatives like Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul and extreme liberals like Vermont Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders.  There’s no third party that would accommodate both.

The answer is likely not a third national party but a series of alternatives.  The Trump opposition could be formed out of a combination of movements.  Different solutions could work among different electorates.

In the upcoming 2026 congressional elections, Musk’s party could field candidates in targeted districts.  Despite Musk’s maverick image, these candidates, holding views on trade and economic policy akin to traditional Republican conservatives, could either win seats, defeat Trumpers or hand districts to Democrats by splitting the GOP.

More independent candidates could run.  Maine makes the case.  It has elected two independent governors, one of whom now sits in the U.S. Senate.  That’s at least theoretically possible in 2026 with a strong independent now in the governor’s race.  In Nebraska, an independent candidate has a strong chance for a Senate seat.

The chief appeal of independents is not that they are moderate, taking a position between the two parties, but that they are not part of the parties.  Their independence, a willingness to find practical, non-ideological solutions, may represent an appealing version of change.

Another element of the alternative effort would be philanthropy.  The New York Times has reported about a group of foundations that will support opposition to authoritarian moves by the Trump administration.  While they are outside of the partisan process, their role provides indirect help to Trump’s opponents.

Private funding also supports efforts to get people to the polls. The Republican Party openly tries to discourage voter participation in the belief that marginal voters are likely to support Democrats.  Gerrymandering runs wild. To effectively oppose Trump, getting out the vote may be far more important than other actions, including a third party.

In next year’s congressional elections, the Democrats or at least an anti-Trump coalition ought to be able to take control of the House, now held by a tiny GOP majority.  Some Democratic unity would help.  If Trump’s authoritarianism has succeeded in creating widespread opposition, the real test would come in flipping GOP Senate seats.

Musk has a point.  At the same time, he misses the point.  A single, unified party is not the solution to Trumpism; an array of alternatives may be. 

America's secret police and 'shadow' court

Gordon L. Weil

1. Lt. Columbo, one of the most famous television police officers, always identified himself and showed his credentials.  There’s a reason that police officers wear badges, so it was routine for him and almost all officers to identify themselves.

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect people from an overzealous government that might trample on their “inalienable rights.”  The badge identifies the police to a person who they approach and gives that person a means to take action against an abuse of their authority.  It can limit arbitrary police action and promote accountability.

But agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement show no identification, even wearing no insignia on their uniforms.  This American secret police wears face masks.  It is impossible to know if a person is being accosted by an authorized law enforcement agent or a thug.  ICE says they need to be protected from illegal immigrants.  Children?  University graduate students? People asking who they are and risking arrest for impeding them?

This looks remarkably like a policy that says a national emergency allows the government to ignore the Constitution.  That document is not meant only for use on sunny days; it’s meant for any day.

2. President Trump is hailed for getting NATO allies to agree to match the American spending of five percent of GDP on defense.  The U.S. is a continental nation, unlike all NATO members except Canada.  It must maintain a two-ocean defense plus a presence elsewhere.  That’s not true for Belgium or Spain.  Maybe one size does not fit all.

Besides, five percent, like so many other rules, is based on the number of fingers on the human hand.  When Spain says it can meet the alliance’s obligations applying to it, but at a lower cost, the NATO Secretary General, a total Trump fan, flatly says they can’t.  That raises the question if member countries even have specific military obligations to the alliance or just a budget commitment to keep Trump satisfied and on board.  Maybe we don’t have to see them, but we need evidence they exist.

3. Maine Sen. Susan Collins was one of only three GOP senators to vote against the One Big Beautiful Bill.  Her risk-taking deserves credit.

Some of her Maine critics allege that she takes on the president when she knows it won’t influence the outcome.  Did she know that Alaska’s Murkowski, normally her ally, would vote for the bill?

Collins is proud to chair the once-powerful Appropriations Committee, a post which requires her to show GOP loyalty.  But her committee was entirely bypassed by the OBBB.  It had no visible say on any appropriations in the bill; Collins was just another face in the Republican crowd.

North Carolina’s GOP Sen. Thom Tillis was so unhappy with Washington events, that he chose not to run next year for a third term.  Collins seems to be moving toward seeking a sixth term, more than any senator from Maine has ever had.  Her place in history might be better if she showed more independence and either chose not to run or accepted the risk of defeat.  Margaret Chase Smith is well remembered, but she lost her last race for the Senate.

4. Trump likes to count people like the leaders of Russia, China and North Vietnam as his friends.  Maybe he thinks that will flatter them.  Maybe he thinks that, in his select group of friends, he will be respected and get results.  For him, world politics is personal.

He may be missing out on history.  The other chiefs are not wheeling and dealing; they are pursuing centuries-old goals and relationships.  Trump simply does not have the educational background to know where they are coming from.  He does not get results as he might in a purely business deal.

Maybe the authoritarians think they can string him along so that they can pursue their ambitions without his interference?  We’ve heard of the “fog of war.”  How about their “fog of false friendship?”

5. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a select group of five Norwegians.  Often, the Prize reflects the idealism of Alfred Nobel or the political values of Norway.  For example, the 1935 Prize went to an imprisoned German journalist who had been critical of illegal Nazi rearmament.  And it doesn’t usually go to peace mediators, but rather to the parties that have agreed to make peace.  Negotiations are rewarded more often than surrenders after being bombed.

Trump has been nominated for the Prize by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for whom the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant to face charges of responsibility for war crimes.

Taking this all together, it’s doubtful Trump will be invited to Oslo in December.

6. A Supreme Court “shadow docket” decision just allowed Trump to reorganize the federal government and lay off thousands of workers until such time as the Court decides if what he has done was allowed by law.  By that time, Trump will have reshaped the government without congressional approval, in effect overriding its decisions.

Thus, what is served up as a procedural decision, overriding the detailed analysis by a district court without providing any substance, has the effect of a major ruling.  In the unlikely case that the Supreme Court were persuaded by the lower court’s ultimate ruling, its decision would amount to locking the barn door after the horse is stolen.

Either it should have taken the case, heard arguments, and made a reasoned decision or it should have left the temporary stay in place until the district court did its job.  That court could have been given a limited time to produce an appealable decision. Instead, the Supreme Court continued rubberstamping presidential actions without any sign of serious consideration.

The shadow docket – decisions without reasons – are a cause for public losing confidence in the Court.

Biden, if he had determined that he was retiring after one term, might have tried to restore some balance to the Court by “packing” it?  Instead, he was sure he would win, so did nothing to undermine what he thought was his popularity. 

Budget bill aims to deceive voters

 

Gordon L. Weil

In 2017, the Trump tax bill cut both personal and business income taxes.  The reduction came at a high cost to the U.S. Treasury, boosting the national debt.

To reduce the effect, the tax cuts for individuals were slated to expire this year.  If Trump were elected to a second term, individual rates would increase after he left office.  He would “rent” political support and left it to the 2024 campaign to see if candidates would “buy” and make the lower taxes permanent.  That would have a cost, but not on his watch.

By this year, people had become accustomed to the new tax rates.  Political reality required extending the individual rates to parallel the business rates.  Republicans asserted the extension would be painless in terms of the federal debt.  Though Trump says readopting the individual rates is part of the nation’s largest tax cut, he also denies it’s a tax cut when it comes to the debt.

The 2017 tax changes were made permanent in the One, Big, Beautiful, Bill.  The Republicans found a way to make it seem that the change came at no cost.   They claim that the original reduction increased debt, but the mere extension beyond its scheduled end added nothing more.

If that lie were true, then why was the individual tax cut set for a limited period in 2017?  Then, the concern was limiting growth in the national debt. Now, that growth will be built in, but the GOP will say that reviving a tax cut that was due to expire to relieve the debt, won’t add to it.

This process revealed two major elements of Trump tax policy.  Set changes in the tax laws with delays that will cushion their costly effects until after the next election.  It’s an application of Lincoln’s saying: “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time.”

The second element is that the American government now assumes the responsibility for establishing the laws of economics.  When you can tell the people that the national debt will grow larger, but that’s not an increase, the government has reached the point where it can create a new reality.

This obviously works for the solid GOP government. The OBBB contains many provisions that have timers attached.  Benefits come quickly and could appeal to voters next year, though the timers would end the changes later. Wanna bet?

Here are some key timers:

● Big boost in exemption for state and local taxes – for five years

● No taxes on tips – until 2028

● Tax break on auto loans – 2025-2028

● Increased tax deduction for seniors – until 2028

● Trump child saving subsidy – 2025-2028

● Phase-out of wind and solar subsidies – delayed a year

● Border spending – increase by ten times, but over five-year period.

It’s easy to see that some of these timers are meant to fulfill Trump’s campaign promises but are not now expected to outlast him by much.  This includes taxes on tips and auto loans.  As for his promise not to tax Social Security, while its leaders claim that it’s included, it did not happen.  The increased seniors exemption, a partial substitute, is also subject to a timer.

Without congressional approval and with the Supreme Court’s seal of approval, Trump is changing longstanding understandings of how the government works.  As previously noted, this resets the constitutional clock and creates a new original for which there will be a new originalism.

When it comes to the economy, only one institution stands in the way.  The Federal Reserve, established in 1914, is expressly meant to serve independently. 

Its seven members are appointed for 14-year terms, long enough to withstand the political pressures of even a person serving as president over a 12-year period, like Trump.  Policy is set by a 12-member body that includes representatives chosen by regional Federal Reserve banks.

The government’s economic policy takes two forms.  The political branches set fiscal policy – government spending, taxation and debt.  The Fed sets monetary policy – controlling inflation and limiting unemployment.  Fiscal management is subject to review by the voters; monetary policy is left to the independent Fed non-political, economic experts.

Seeking to gain control of the Fed, Trump would oust Fed Chair Jerome Powell, but can’t.  Trump will appoint a successor next year, but Powell can remain on the Fed Board.  And, even with a new chief, Trump could not count on other Fed leaders falling in line.

While it is turning control over independent agencies over to Trump, the Supreme Court stresses the Fed’s independence from the executive.

Lincoln concluded, “you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”   Trump may be content to “fool enough of the people, enough of the time.”

 

U.S. under one-person rule

 

Gordon L. Weil

On July 4, 1776, a group of representatives of a new country they called the United States declared that all men (not only citizens or a subset of them) are equal and have the same human rights.  And it’s up to democratic governments to ensure these rights.  (Of course, “men” would come to mean “people.”)

Now, 249 years later, the United States obviously remains a work in progress. Some may believe it is reverting to the political system that existed before the Declaration was published.  Earlier, I compared the actions of President Trump to King George III, as listed in the Declaration of Independence. 

With the federal government under the control of Trump and Congress, which is entirely dominated by his supporters, only the judiciary, the third branch of the government, could give hope to doubters about the Republican regime.  But that looks to be a false hope.

Trump ordered that, despite express constitutional language and Supreme Court precedent, not all people born in the U.S. are citizens.  He wants to exclude children of illegal residents.  Asked to rule on Trump’s order, the Court avoided making a decision.  After a delay of 30 days, it left him the ability to strip people of their citizenship.

The Court failed to rule on birthright citizenship, and it may not issue a decision for many months, possibly even a year.  Instead, it focused on banning any U.S. district court from issuing a “universal injunction” that suspends an executive action nationwide, while the federal courts consider its legality.  Now, only the Supreme Court itself may issue such an injunction.

Such cases may take weeks or months to get to the Supreme Court and, meanwhile, the president can apply his edict.  People will be harmed, perhaps permanently.  Children will be born in the U.S. who may be stateless.  In some states, injunctions will remain, so there will be a patchwork instead of a single federal birthright standard.

The Court’s decision produced a scholarly study of universal injunctions in the 18th Century.  That does not sound political, though the result favored Trump.  When such injunctions were used against then-President Biden’s executive orders, the Court never gave them a second thought.

One door was left open for the federal district courts.  If a court certified a complaint as a class action – raising the same issue for people in the same situation as the plaintiff – then the court might issue a universal injunction.  Of course, a court’s approval of a class action would be challenged by the president, potentially adding to the delay before a final decision.

If all requests for a universal injunction in a major case must be decided by the Supreme Court, it could be quite busy.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion reassuringly said that the Court could handle its increased workload.  Interestingly, no other justices said they agreed with him.  Delays seem inevitable.

The Court was preoccupied by the injunction question.  It skipped the real focus of the case: can Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship be squared with the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent?  It dodged the question that demanded an answer.  The result was Trump’s unchecked view could apply in many parts of the country.

This week also brought the passage of a destructive and costly budget bill, ardently sought by Trump so he could congratulate himself on July Fourth.  He offered administrative concessions to wavering GOP House members and eked out barely enough votes to accompany the tie- breaking Senate vote of the Vice President.  He did it without a single Democratic vote.

Any civics lesson on government teaches about the three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Today, all three are under the control or influence of one person.

Though public opinion polls are questionable, they broadly show that a majority of Americans do not agree with or even respect the three branches of their government.  By manipulating historic understandings about constitutional government, a minority has gained control.   That minority is trying to reshape the system to entrench itself.

The three branches act on behalf of the ultimate authority in the American government.  The Constitution’s first words name it – “We, the people.”

The United States is a democracy; the people rule.  Trump may believe that he can dazzle people with his showmanship, but the nation depends on their taking charge.  The key is participation and the time is now, as the 2026 elections come into view.

My long-time readers may recall I have a favorite saying from a cartoon character who reshaped an 1813 American battle report.  Pogo Possum proclaimed, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

If you don’t like what’s happening and do nothing, it’s your fault.

Happy Independence Day.

Big Beautiful Bill opponents: right thing for right reason

 

Gordon L. Weil

If you oppose him, it isn’t like swimming against the tide.  It’s like swimming against a tsunami.

The One Big Beautiful Bill, President’s Trumps hoped-for legislative triumph, will happen in some form.  He probably doesn’t care what form, so long as it happens.  If you get in his way, you may be drowned.

Two senators opposed the bill for the right reason.  It would deprive hundreds of thousands of people in both of their states of Medicaid, health care for people who otherwise cannot afford it.  Trump has promised to protect Medicaid, but the only way he could get the tax cuts he wanted had to come at its expense.

Thom Tillis, the Republican senator from North Carolina, could not accept that 663,000 people from his state would lose health care coverage.  Trump’s response was to attack him and threaten to have a MAGA candidate challenge him in the GOP primary next year.

Tillis stuck to his position and said he would not run for reelection.  His move might be interpreted as giving in to threats, but he made it clear that he was tired of the loss of bipartisanship in Congress.  He preferred to walk away from political extremism, just as had Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe.  There must be more to life than constant conflict.

That made Tillis’ decision the right thing to do and for the right reason.

He will leave after serving two terms in the Senate.  If time in government is meant to be public service rather than building a career in politics, his decision amounted to a self-imposed term limit. 

Susan Collins, Maine’s Republican senator, voted against the OBBB, mainly because of its harmful effect on 400,000 Maine people.  She tried to amend the bill to deal with the problem, but was soundly defeated with only a few poor states helping her.   After that, because she’s up for re-election next year, her vote in opposition was a good political move.

Trump had little chance of opposing Collins, so she could afford to take a stand against him. At 72, she should be retiring after five terms, but, unlike Tillis, she wants to stay.  Supporting him would have made her more vulnerable to a Democratic challenger.    

Tillis did the right thing for the right reason.  While hoping for a political reward, Collins also did the right thing.  Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, usually a Collins ally, was bought off by adding even more debt to the deal.

A word must be written about Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the third GOP senator to break with the president.  He opposes increasing the federal debt, which the OBBB not only did, but used dishonest accounting.  He stuck to principles closely identified with him and refused to be swept under by Trump’s tidal wave.  He showed integrity.

In the end, that’s what it boils down to.  The disastrous and dishonest OBBB, a jumble of conservative causes piling up more debt, led some members of Congress who could have resisted Trump and forced through a better bill to abandon their integrity.

Trump’s unchecked power ending ‘the normal balance’

 

Gordon L. Weil

The president of the United States announced that, facing a “national emergency,” he needed “broad Executive power,” departing from “the normal balance between the executive and legislative authority.”

“The people of the United States … have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action,” he said, asserting that they had picked him for task.

These words reflect the thinking of Donald Trump, though not his speaking style.  For good reason. These are the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt in his first inaugural address in 1933. 

Trump may have an influence on national and world events that we have not seen exercised by any one person since FDR.

Though their policies would be enormously different, both changed the nation and the world, overthrowing conventional wisdom and practice.  And both acted boldly and swiftly.

In three elections, Trump has never won a majority of the popular vote, while FDR gained big popular majorities in four elections.  FDR drew power from his big victories and good, if sometimes fractured, support from a Democratic Congress.  Trump draws his power from an intensely loyal Republican Congress and a claimed strong electoral mandate.

His power stems from his extraordinary public outreach and from a Supreme Court decision recognizing almost unlimited presidential powers.  Using the Court’s broad grant of powers, Trump has reshaped the American political system and international affairs.  Trump continually pushes to see if any limits remain on his power.

“To prove this, let facts be submitted.”

He has reduced the size of government, and has virtually eliminated entire agencies. Programs, like foreign aid and consumer credit protection, are almost gone, contrary to the law and without congressional approval.  In effect, he has established the dominant role of the president over the Congress.

He is ending independent regulation, in existence since the 19th Century, by revoking rules and firing regulators.  Courts have approved his departure from longstanding precedents and practices.

He has ignored constitutional due process protections applying to non-citizens so that a daily target of 3,000 expulsions of illegal foreign residents could become possible.  His agencies have uprooted peaceful and productive people, going well beyond his promise to deport criminals first. 

He has also imposed his values and beliefs without regard for traditions and the views of others.  His opposition to recognizing racism and to diversity in hiring and public speech, even in the private sector and universities, and his watering down of Civil War history has opened old wounds.

He has used his office for personal gain from his business interests to a greater extent than any other president.  In the process, he has modified the accepted standards controlling political corruption.

He uses tariffs as a readily available tool to force others to reduce their exports, promoting increased U.S. production.  Though excessive tariffs punish both the exporter and the importer, Trump believes the U.S. trade deficit results from other countries taking unfair advantage. 

He claims to raise tariffs in response to a national emergency, but his frequent and impulsive adjustments show they are a bargaining tool rather than a way to meet an existing crisis.  He has reshaped world trade, forcing other countries to replace U.S. ties with new relationships and to buttress their own self-sufficiency.

He has forced friendly countries to reduce their defense reliance on the U.S., sometimes demeaning them and their leaders.  At his urging, they increase both their military budgets and their independence from the U.S., eroding American influence.  The split between the U.S. and Europe in dealing with Russia’s war on Ukraine is a sign of future divergence.

He is also changing the role of the military.  Despite laws and traditions to the contrary, it has begun to take on law enforcement responsibilities.  This allows him to bypass state authority.

He has stunningly transformed the American system of government by exploiting popular sentiment that can be led to abandon policies and values of FDR’s New Deal and post-World War II liberalism.  In serving his ambition, his authoritarianism eats away at democracy.

He has ignored constitutional norms so that he may be creating a new originalism from which the country must restart its political evolution.  This effort must yet be tested by courts, subjected to the political process and influenced by other nations.

This list of his unchecked actions directly parallels the list of “usurpations” composing the indictment of the British king in the Declaration of Independence, whose 249th anniversary the nation is about to observe.

The Declaration was the voice of strong and united opposition to unlimited executive rule.  The new Americans took great risks, personal and political, to resist.  They compromised their differences to reach unity on a common goal.

Today, simply proclaiming “No Kings” is not enough.  On the Fourth of July, the Founders offered a bold and coherent alternative.  That’s what is missing now.

Will U.S. bombing of Iran pay off?

 

Gordon L. Weil

When the B-2 bombers took off from Missouri on their way to bomb nuclear sites in Iran, that was not the beginning of the direct conflict between the two countries.

It began in August 1953 and continues.  President Trump may have seen the bombing only as an attempt to end Iran’s nuclear weapons development, but it was part of an historic confrontation. 

In 1953, the CIA led an effort that toppled the Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh.  He had nationalized the oil industry, stripping British and American interests of their control, and was also seen as a threat to the stability imposed upon the Middle East following World War II.  

The Shah, the country’s nominal ruler, had American backing to take control of the government in Tehran.  But the coup brought deep Iranian resentment of the U.S., which falsely denied the CIA’s role.  Iranian militants opposed the Shah who had appropriated some of the nation’s wealth for his own use.

Eventually, the Shah was forced into exile and fell ill.  The Iranian opposition sought his return to face judgment, but he was granted access to health care in the U.S.  Infuriated, in 1979 militants turned a street demonstration into the occupation of the U.S. Embassy.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile, became Supreme Leader of Iran’s refashioned Islamic State, and approved the occupation.  The new regime labelled the U.S. as the “Great Satan.”  Even after Iran freed the embassy hostages, its conflict with the U.S. intensified.

Iran detested American backing of Israel.  It saw Israel as gaining power in the Middle East, at the expense of fellow Muslims and undercutting its own plans for power in the region.  Israel saw Iran as its major regional threat.  Iran considered the U.S. and Israel as a common enemy.

Iran extended its war against Israel by arming and supporting hostile forces all around it: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthi in Yemen.  Its growing power moved it toward regional domination.

Iran’s economic strength comes from its oil exports.  It claimed that it would develop nuclear power to free up more oil for export.  As a non-weapons state, it subscribed to the Nonproliferation Treaty and accepted inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

But Iran enriched uranium to levels that could be used in nuclear weapons to threaten Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East.  Under pressure, it agreed with leading world powers to limit its enrichment for a fixed period but could continue to develop missiles capable of delivering atomic devices.

Trump condemned that accord and in 2018 withdrew the U.S. from it.  Iran stepped up enrichment, getting close to weapons grade.  IAEA inspections were hampered and, at last, it formally voted that Iran was not obeying its treaty obligations.

Soon after Russia failed to win rapid victory over Ukraine in 2023, Iran supplied it with drones and even technical help on the ground.  The Russian attack sought to regain control over Ukraine to prevent it from joining with the West, which aligned with Iran’s anti-American objectives.

Trying to reduce nuclear threats, Trump tried to coax North Korea, also long hostile to the U.S., to give up its nuclear weapons, but failed to charm Kim Jong-Un..  Like Iran, North Korea drew closer to Russia and assists it in the Ukraine War. 

European nations and Canada joined in Trump’s determination not to allow the emergence of Iran as another nuclear state.

Some foreign leaders preferred more negotiations, despite a dismal record, instead of the bombing and its unknowable consequences.  But if unproductive talks went on, the closer Iran might come to being a nuclear power.  And Iran had not shown itself to be negotiating either realistically or in good faith.  So, Trump chose to act.

Given Iran’s ongoing hostility to the U.S, its enmity toward Israel, its growing relationship with Russia and its deceit about its intentions, Trump’s move to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites is understandable, though opposed by many Americans who are wary of war.  Arguing about the effectiveness of the bombing is pointless; the result will become apparent enough. 

What comes next?  Will Iran finally recognize that it must abandon any possibility of having nuclear weapons, perhaps only possible after a regime change, or will it continue to threaten Middle East stability.  If Iran persists in denying that its territory and nuclear development are vulnerable, Trump faces a choice.  

Negotiations might lead to a new agreement like the one he rejected, with enrichment limited indefinitely and limits placed on missiles.  In return, Iran would get eased economic sanctions and new foreign investment.

Without a negotiated deal, the alternative would be an unpopular, prolonged American military confrontation with Iran, perhaps even in a wider conflict.

 

 

 

Does Trump act legally?

Gordon L. Weil

There’s a war going on.

This one’s not Ukraine or the Middle East.  It’s the quiet war being fought in the courts that could have a direct effect on many, if not all, Americans.  It’s major decision time for the Supreme Court, and it could set limits on the Trump regime or approve how it governs.

By June 19, at least 285 federal cases had been brought against the Trump administration by people and institutions claiming to have been harmed by government actions they argue violate the Constitution and laws.  President Trump’s executive orders since his inauguration (at least 163) have set a record, but so have challenges to them.

The federal courts are entangled in resolving complaints that the president has gone too far.  Has he violated the Constitution?

Here’s how the system works as Trump cases move up to the Court. 

A legal action is begun in one of the 94 federal district courts.  Because the court must issue a reasoned judgment in each case, it may suspend the Trump move by issuing an injunction until the judge can reach a conclusion.  The Justice Department may not wait and instead go to one of 13 courts of appeal to get that suspension lifted.  Or it may go directly to the Supreme Court.

If an injunction is lifted, the plaintiff, possibly harmed by the Trump-Musk actions, may be left jobless or slated for expulsion from the country.  Entire agencies may be functionally abolished.  But decisions may take months and meanwhile, the Trump policy would remain in effect. 

District courts judges may make careful decisions on the legality of Trump’s actions after early hearings and prompt rulings.  If they decide against the president, he then requests that their injunctions should be suspended while appeals are considered.

When a court lifts a court suspension on Trump or grants him one, it will usually rely on a finding that Trump is likely to win when the case is decided.  Thus, a case may be finally decided procedurally by allowing it to go into effect even if it has not reached a formal decision that itself could be appealed and take more time.

The Supreme Court often uses this so-called procedural “shadow docket.”   In the current term beginning last October, it has issued 102 such decisions, not all on Trump, but only 57 formal opinions. 

By the time a final decision is made, the plaintiff may have been expelled from the country or lost their job.  University-based scientific research might have been halted.   An innocent person may have been held in harsh detention.  Yet no court has acted against any government official who violated a direct court order protecting a person’s due process right.

The Supreme Court is now in the final days of its current term.   As usual, it has left some of its most important decisions until the end, though this dramatic delay may be artificial.  Here are some key points to watch for.

Chief Justice Roberts likes to emphasize that the Court stays out of politics. He may find ways to agree with Trump, while avoiding making major decisions.  He threads his way along procedural paths that make decisions look both narrow and legally unquestionable. The result can confirm the Trump policy without saying so.

The Court may appear to make decisions giving satisfaction to both sides.  This may happen in the landmark decision expected on birthright citizenship.  Trump claims that, despite a clear statement in the Constitution, his administration can use a provision designed to exempt the children of foreign diplomats to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal entrants.

It would be surprising if the Court agreed with Trump.  But it has signaled that it is focusing on the ability of a single district court to make a ruling of a nationwide effect, as happened in this case.  This has frequently happened to Trump orders.  The Court could give some comfort to Trump by somehow pulling back on the district courts’ powers.

A recent appeals court decision, by a panel with a majority of his appointees, rejected his claim that his powers are so absolute that the court should not even hear a case.  Even though it approved his actions, it said that the president must obey the laws enacted by Congress.   

The Court might narrow the scope of its broad grant of presidential powers, given in Trump v. U.S. last July.  Undoubtedly, Trump uses that decision as his basis for ignoring the Constitution and laws when issuing his executive orders.  Or the Court could boost his powers, by reinforcing its earlier decisions that he can fire members of independent regulatory bodies. 

In the next ten days, the Supreme Court could bring the war in the courts to a new level.

  

"Big, bearuful bill' in trouble

Gordon L. Weil

It’s all about the Laffer Curve.

President Trump’s “One, big, beautiful bill” to cut taxes and spending has run right into it.

The Laffer Curve, an idea promoted by economist Arthur Laffer, has been around since Ronald Reagan was president.

It’s about the relationship between the level of taxes and economic growth.  If taxes are too low, the government puts too little money into the economy to promote growth.  If taxes are too high, the government takes too much money out of the economy, slowing growth. 

There’s a sweet spot when the tax rate is just right.  At that point, taxes allow government to play its proper role in the economy and individuals and companies the right amount of money to keep the economy growing.  Nobody knows where that sweet spot is; it’s a matter of opinion. 

The BBB would lower taxes and could be enacted with only loyal Trump GOP votes. The euphoria of the federal government under a single party and the resulting belief that it could easily enact the president’s proposal are now meeting the realism of American politics. 

The iron law seems to be that the people – even conservative Republicans – expect much from government but do not want to pay enough taxes to get it.  They reasonably add some debt to the mix, though they must avoid letting debt service feed on itself, always growing greater.

Here’s what the BBB would do.

First, it would extend major tax cuts for individuals that are set to expire and create new tax breaks, ranging from no tax on tips to lower rates for the wealthiest taxpayers.  These add up to huge tax breaks that Trump promised in his campaign.

Second, it would cut spending to pay for some of the tax reductions.  To even begin to raise enough money, it would require slashing Medicaid, green energy support and much else.

Third, it would inevitably increase the national debt to pay for the tax cut costs not covered by spending cuts. For that purpose, the debt ceiling, which is little more than a symbolic political gimmick, would have to be raised.

This combination is causing big trouble for Congress and may result in Trump’s BBB falling well short of his promises.

The individual tax cuts were set to expire after Trump’s second term, assuming he had been re-elected in 2020.  Because he skipped a term, they expire during his presidency.  He would make them permanent, but that is costly.  Added tax cuts, promised in the campaign, would massively increase the national debt.

The neutral Congressional Budget Office says the BBB could increase the national debt by $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years.

Traditional GOP conservatives reject increasing the national debt.  Even for their president, they cannot accept trillions more of new debt.  Some creative bookkeeping to disguise debt is supposed to satisfy them, but it is not working.

Debt service is now greater than either national defense spending or Medicaid, and conservatives are looking for debt reduction not a further increase. 

As for spending, the budget cannot be cut the way Trump and Elon Musk would like.  The budget deficit is not simply a matter of wild Democratic spending.  Instead, it results from members of Congress responding to the demands, needs and desires of the voters.

Constituencies composed of millions of voters favor Medicaid for the poor, health research, renewable energy development, farm payments and a myriad of other government programs. Members of Congress cater to their constituents to stay in office. They support most federal appropriations and protect each other’s priorities.

The worst is yet to come. Social Security will soon stop paying for itself.  Voters are likely to oppose massive cuts to it.  Congress will have to find funding.

Right now, Trump doesn’t have the votes for BBB.

While spending cannot be cut as Trump wants, there’s room for some reductions. Nothing should be automatic.  Each agency should have to justify regularly all its spending subject to line-item review, not a Musk meataxe. The president and GOP Congress can set their priorities, like killing foreign aid, but cannot achieve them all.

The Laffer Curve stands in the way of a tax increase.  Republicans see the U.S. as being past the sweet spot, suggesting that a tax cut would boost the economy, increase government revenues, and pay for itself.  There’s no historical evidence supporting such optimistic expectations.  The unforeseen economic effect of the Covid pandemic proves that.

The answer to finding a sound federal budget without endless debt increases must be a combination of setting spending priorities and tax increases.  Voters must accept the need to pay for the government services they want. 

It’s time to stop hiding behind the self-serving appeal of the Laffer Curve and recognize that tax increases on upper income people must come. 

How a country, leader impresses Trump

 

Gordon L. Weil

You know it when you see it. 

Donald Trump does.   He sees it in British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.  He does not see it in Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy or former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  When he sees it, his quick take on a leader influences his policy toward that person’s nation.

It’s called gravitas.  That’s a term from ancient Rome.  If a person has it, they are thought to be serious, substantial and dignified.  Their gravitas gains them respect and enhances their ability to lead.  That respect benefits their countries and the aura of leadership gives them the ability to govern effectively.  

Americans seem to place little value on it, preferring to see a president as a pal.  Look at Gerry (Gerald Ford), Jimmy (James Carter), Bill (William Clinton), Al (Albert Gore), and Joe (Joseph Biden). Trump might aspire to gravitas. He may appear as a plain-speaking guy, but he enjoys a big military parade with its multiple salutes.

Carney recently made it clear that a leader with gravitas is essential if a nation wants to be taken seriously by the U.S., China or Russia. “If you are not at the table,” he said, “you’re on the menu.”  See Zelenskyy at the White House.

The effect can be found in the serious trade negotiations between the U.S. and China, the U.K. and Canada, while the rest of the world is in the waiting room.  Its absence can be seen in the way Trump treats Ukraine.

Carney has given Canada a new image, one immune from Trump’s ridiculous and offensive claim that it should be the 51st American state.  With his respected standing, extensive international experience and proximity to the U.S., he has been able to express clearly how Canada and others see the U.S. and to act on his conclusions.

He laid it out recently.  Here is his view, which is a clear statement reflecting the sentiment of leaders of other countries as well.

The U.S. played a “predominant role” in the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  It exercised a “gravitational pull” on Canada.  “Today, that predominance is a thing of the past.”

“Now, the United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony, charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contribution to our collective security,” he stated. 

A key word for Carney is “reliable.”  You could always count on America, especially as the protector of international rules-based order.  That has changed. Canada now finds itself in an “age of disorder” and feels threatened by “a new imperialism.”

Like a substantial investor, Canada will seek to diversify.  This does not mean abandoning its close relationship with the U.S., which is an asset for both countries.  But by diversifying, Canada can reduce the risk that Washington will set Canadian national policy.  The same formula is true for Britain, France and Germany.

“We’re far too reliant on the United States,” Carney said. “We can no longer send three-quarters of our defense capital spending to America.”  His country is now seeking to form a new relationship with Rearm Europe, a multinational effort to expand non-American military production.

He asserts that “the world’s trade routes, allegiances, energy systems and even intelligence itself are being rewired.”  Canada will seek “a new international set of partnerships” and “deeper alliances with stable democracies.”   The clear implication is that he questions whether the U.S. is a “stable” democracy.

Carney recognizes that his new policy, involving stepped up defense spending, will impose a cost on the country.  He has already shown himself to be more aware of the economic interests of Canadian provinces to promote accelerated growth and a stronger economy beyond what Trudeau’s utopian agenda would have permitted.

His view is increasingly the common view of countries from Estonia to Australia.  Trump’s vision of nations orbiting the U.S., not so much for American domination as for its enrichment, is leading other countries to reassess their relationship with the U.S. and to form “a new international set of partnerships.”

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in today’s crisis points in Europe and the Middle East.  American interests, influenced by its relationships with Russia and Israel, do not align with those of Canada or Europe, which may see themselves as targets.  Trump’s easy claims to Canada or Greenland reveal the gap with countries that have been threatened or invaded.

“When we stand up for territorial integrity, whether it is in Ukraine or West Bank and Gaza, we are standing up for the territorial integrity of the Canadian Arctic,” he said.

Perhaps one positive result of the Trump’s pressure on trade and territory is that Canada and Europe are being forced to accept their own responsibility for a stable and reliable world order.