Trump Doctrine emerges: America First, block China

 

The Trump Doctrine now takes its place in American history.

Trump joins presidents who adopted broad world policies that became identified with them.  President James Monroe warned that Europe should stay out of the Americas, creating the Monroe Doctrine.  President Harry Truman pledged U.S. support to governments opposing authoritarians, creating the Truman Doctrine (though probably repealed by Trump).

Both Monroe and Truman based their doctrines on the growing American power.  The Trump Doctrine recognizes the limits of American power.  It has become known thanks to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the accidental model of transparency even about the most sensitive government planning.

The Trump Doctrine has two priorities: defending the American “homeland” and preparing for a potentially military confrontation with China.  These are Trump’s basics drawn from Project 2025, a conservative manifesto that he had denied even knowing about.

“China is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario,” is Hegseth’s description of the core of the doctrine.

This strategy explains policies that Trump has pursued from the outset of his presidency.  The U.S. prepares to meet a “threat” from China, but it acts now to fulfill a “scenario” of security.

First, defend the 50-state homeland by increasing the buffer around it.  Add Canada and Greenland to create a new, expanded homeland, allowing the U.S. to defend against attack from the north.  Owning territory provides greater security than a mere alliance like NATO.

The original America First movement in 1940-41 preached that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were satisfactory buffers, but the new America First supplements them with territory.  The aspirations and values of other nations must be overridden to put this plan in place.

Second, casting any doubt aside, the Trump Doctrine makes clear that the U.S. would use military force to protect Taiwan from a Chinese attempt to seize it.  It makes clear that the principal threat to American security comes from China.  While this may be accurate, all measures short of a military buildup seem to have been ruled out.

What about the rest of the world?  Europe, the Middle East and East Asia defenses would largely be left to regional powers.  The U.S, would help them against threats from Russia, Iran or North Korea, but only within the limits of its resources after dealing with its top two priorities.

Though American policy would call these regional powers “allies,” their dependence on the U.S. for weapons and intelligence would make them something more like the “satellites” that surrounded the Soviet Union and which Putin seeks to recreate. 

Trump’s attempt to take over key elements of Ukraine’s economy in return for past American help against the Russian invasion is a prime example of this approach.  Trump wields the power of tariffs, weapons supply, and intelligence capability to force compliance.  He even demands that foreign suppliers to the U.S. drop their DEI programs.

Because his demands affect the sovereign powers of other nations, his Doctrine could encounter strong resistance.  Sensing any willingness by them to make concessions, he increases his demands.  Leaders may try personal flattery, but can end up appeasing him to avoid retaliation.  History reveals that appeasement fails to yield satisfactory results.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney shows he understands that appeasement will not work.  Measures to cut tiny Fentanyl flows or a trickle of illegal immigration have only led to greater U.S. demands.  Carney is taking a tougher line with Trump and is trying to rally Canadians to a sense of unity that will preserve the nation.

Britain and France are willing to defend Ukraine, though some other Europeans remain addicted to taking a free ride whether provided by Europe or the U.S.  If those two countries plus Germany and Poland form a core response, they must make some voluntary sacrifices instead of those demanded by Trump.  Ukraine already is making sacrifices for its survival.

Instead of a free world dominated by the U.S., a series of interlocking accords are likely to gradually develop.  A variety of alliances focusing on military planning, arms production, trade and intelligence could grow, though the U.S. would remain a needed partner. 

Given the obvious flaws in American intelligence security, a new version of Five Eyes could include Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand plus Germany, which has sought to participate. A deeper trade relationship with Europe could bring Canada a form of associate status with the EU and participation in the Anglo-French military “coalition of the willing.” 

Moves toward greater self-reliance by otter countries could require costly adjustments, but so would the Trump Doctrine.

The U.S. might reverse its policy, but trust in it has been deeply damaged.  Its cast-off friends cannot take any more risks and must create their own future.

 

 

History shows DEI works; Eisenhower's Black soldiers

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump has set out to kill DEI – diversity, equity and inclusion.

His message is that the traditional system has been shunted aside by preferences given to members of groups that have suffered discrimination.  Groups helped by DEI include women, Blacks, American Indians, and Asians.  In his view, they have gained an advantage over white males.

The key element of his policy is the assumption that merit has been sacrificed to political correctness.  Competence is sacrificed.  He rejects the idea that DEI helps ensure that members of affected groups, though equally qualified, are not excluded because of their sex or race.

Trump wants to end DEI policies across American society, not only the federal government.  He can use the influence of federal spending to make that possible.  He also seeks to erase the history of discrimination, implying that leadership roles played by Blacks, women and others were due to their favored treatment, not their own merit.

Nowhere is his policy more apparent than in the Defense Department.  It may have been embodied in an excessively clever statement by a Pentagon information officer who issued a statement that DEI “Divides the force, Erodes unit cohesion and Interferes with the services’ core warfighting mission.” 

Carrying out Trump’s policy, the department went too far and erased recognition of Jackie Robinson’s service, the role of the Tuskegee airmen and a Black general who had won the Medal of Honor.  It was an attempt to whitewash history.  Strong opposition caused this erasure to be reversed, and the official was reassigned to less public duties.

He was wrong.  While you can change policy, you can’t change history.  A still almost unknown story reveals just how wrong he was.

Years ago, I wrote a book about building the Alcan highway in 1942.   It was a hastily constructed road to get troops and supplies to Alaska in the event of a Japanese attack.  In response to Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the Doolittle raid on Tokyo and the Alcan.

It was built by seven Army Engineer regiments, four composed of white troops and three of Black troops.  The Army was not integrated below the regiment level.  The officers of the Black units, including my distant cousin, were white.  The road was quickly built.

Many of the Black soldiers were then assigned to Louisiana.  In the mess hall, they were given spoons but denied forks or knives.  They faced open racism.  As Black soldiers at many Army posts were similarly mistreated, they rebelled and were quickly shipped to Europe to drive supply trucks.

Following the successful but costly Battle of the Bulge in Belgium at the end of 1944, General Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme Allied commander, found the Army was short of front-line combat troops.  He wanted to add Blacks from engineer units, but was warned that he would have to ask permission from Washington.

Instead, Eisenhower called for Black troops, in excess of engineer needs, to volunteer for assignment to combat units.  Many volunteered and most were accepted into new platoons integrated into white companies and went into battle.  In theory, the separate Black platoons would not amount to integration.

But a platoon is a small unit, and they ended up fighting alongside white platoons.  Some Germans could recognize the presence of American forces by their Black troops. When the war ended in Europe so did the Black platoons.

Given the importance of wartime morale, the Army Department quietly conducted surveys of soldiers.  White soldiers who had fought together with the Blacks were asked for their reactions.   Only five percent said Blacks were not as good as whites, while 17 percent of officers and 9 percent of enlisted said they fought better.

Overwhelming majorities of officers and enlisted rated them favorably.  Ratings were highest in units that had faced the heaviest fighting.  Problems arose mainly when troops from outside units came in contact.  Survey respondents mostly favored the platoon approach, some saying that individual assignment could cause problems because of certain soldiers’ racism.

The results of those 1945 surveys would destroy the foundations of today’s attacks on DEI.  But Army bosses kept the surveys secret, presumably because the findings would make the case for integration.  Digging in the National Archives decades later, I found them.  My interviews with Black Alcan engineers confirmed the data.

These surveys are proof of the false basis for the Pentagon claim and for Trump’s opposition to DEI.

Trump removed the Black general chairing the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as Navy and Coast Guard chiefs, both women, without explanation.  Their appointments probably looked like DEI to him.

DEI should not place underqualified people in jobs.  Opposition to DEI should not be used to deny jobs to qualified people.  Trump’s claim of using merit alone obviously lacks merit.

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. becomes economic island; Trump's tax increase

 

Gordon L. Weil

In his avalanche of actions, President Trump has adopted an across-the-board tax increase. Like many of his other moves, he should have asked Congress to approve, but he chose to act on his own.

He is using powers meant for a true national emergency to radically increase tariffs as he launches his personal view of trade policy and seeks to use trade as a weapon against other countries, both friends and allies. 

Trump’s trade policy is aimed at making the U.S. economically self-sufficient.  The rest of the world sells more to the U.S. than America sells to them.  Trump charges they profit because they cheat.  In his view, the U.S. buys imports at rigged, low prices, rewarding countries that use their profits from enormous U.S. sales to subsidize their own economies.

He uses tariffs to force up the price of imports.  As import prices rise, higher cost American goods can compete.  In fact, U.S. producers may be able to raise their prices.  After claiming he would restore the economy and combat high prices, he has admitted that prices will rise because of his tariff policy and the country might face a recession. That’s hardly what he promised.

Higher prices are the taxes he imposes to finance his notion of the proper role of tariffs.  But the price is wrong. And Congress did not give the president emergency authority to use tariffs as he does and effectively raise taxes.

The U.S. is the world’s only economic superpower, for the time being at least, and Trump takes advantage of its strength to remedy what he sees as the victimization of the U.S. and to force other countries into line.  By his unchecked action, he raises prices. That has the exact same effect as if Congress had raised taxes to support a new policy.

Trump’s view fairly recognizes that traditional free trade does not always work.  Countries must have market economies where buying and selling are free for free trade to work.  But some countries that benefit from the low tariffs that are part of free markets have state-run economies that allow them to take unfair advantage of the system.

Take China, the worst offender.  Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s trade guru, correctly opposed China’s admission to the tariff-cutting World Trade Organization, because of its state-run system.  It became a WTO member by lying about its intentions.  Countries like China have made a mockery of free trade, but U.S. consumers lap up their lower cost goods.

Higher consumer costs are not the biggest problem.  Underlying Trump’s policy are several economic assumptions that have been disproven.

Much trade is based on economic efficiency, with countries specializing in production where they are strong. Trade naturally favors exchanges among countries selling what they are best at producing and buying from others whose goods are better or cheaper than their own.  That’s an efficient division of trade.

Trump complains that most other countries are using the system to take unfair advantage of the U.S.  That ignores the role of consumers in a market economy.  A nation’s import-export balance usually results more from what its domestic market wants than the trade treachery of others.

The U.S. depends on some countries for essential resources, like rare earths, uranium and even some types of oil.  A tough trade policy can get in the way of meeting essential needs.  As an alternative to easing trade policy, Trump pressures Ukraine to become a major low-cost supplier of rare minerals supposedly to repay American aid to its defense against the Russian invasion.

The Trump trade policy also ignores the reaction of other countries.  He assumes they will have to accept the loss of sales to American competitors.  He has argued they will pay more tariff revenues that will fatten the federal budget, though he increasingly recognizes that those revenues will ultimately come from American consumers when they pay higher prices.

He has little obvious concern whether, faced with American protectionism, foreign governments will reject his “beggar thy neighbor” policy.  But they retaliate, trying to reduce their U.S. imports and to punish the U.S. for its tariff increases.  The U.S. itself then retaliates. This spiral is the essence of a trade war.

Finding the U.S. an unreliable trading partner, other countries are likely to seek new trade relationships. The world economy can be reshaped if Trump persists.  For example, Canada could consider joining the EU customs union to replace its former free-trade relationship with the U.S.

As world commerce reconfigures, the U.S. dollar would lose influence as the most accepted reserve currency.  With that loss goes much of American economic power in the world.  

The political equivalent of protectionism is isolation and the loss of world power.  That could happen if Trump’s “America First” turns the country into an economic island.

Trump wrong about EU

Gordon L. Weil

President Donald Trump says the EU was “formed in order to screw the United States.”

This statement is both a gross misstatement and a demonstration of his ignorance of history.  It is either the result of intentionally distorting history or the sign of a seriously faulty memory. He insists on using his incorrect claim as the pretext for levying high tariffs on imports from Europe.

I am an eyewitness to the fact that Trump’s assertion is false.  I played a role in the relationship between the U.S. and the EU.

After World War II, leaders in the U.S., Britain, France and Germany agreed to seek ways to prevent yet another clash between Germany and France that could again lead to world war.  They were determined to find a formula that would make such a conflict impossible.

The solution was to intertwine the economies of Germany, France and other European countries so that they would be unable to develop an independent ability to build a war machine.  Even more important, the joint European undertaking would be based on democratic principles, with decisions being made in an organization that could, in many cases, overrule nationalistic action.

That formula worked.  Year by year, new forms of economic integration were adopted.  Eventually, a single market was created where goods and services and even workers could freely move.  As more nations joined, they established the world’s largest trading unit.   It operates along many of the same lines as the U.S. market.

American policy was consistently supportive of the Europeans’ efforts.  The emerging Europe would adopt the principles of democratic liberalism.  Not only could Europe refrain from conflict in which the U.S. would inevitably become entangled, but it could become a powerful ally in facing the aggressive policies of the Soviet Union.

Among Europe’s efforts to create unity was the establishment of a graduate school where the future leaders of the EU and its member countries could study, socialize and develop shared outlooks on common challenges.  As an American, I was selected to attend this school in the hope that I would represent American democratic values.

I would later become the sole American on the staff of the European Commission, the international body responsible for adopting continent-wide policies.  It was not difficult to explain to the American media the details of the new European decisions that were usually quite compatible with Washington’s policies.

The leadership of the State Department was favorable to the European effort and supportive in almost all cases.  I was able to serve as a non-diplomatic link between European and American leaders.

The high point came at a meeting between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Walter Hallstein, the president of the European Commission.  I was present with them in the White House Oval Office when they met to confirm their mutual interest in trans-Atlantic cooperation.  Clearly, Europe was not out to “screw” the U.S.

Of course, the U.S. and Europe would each promote their own economic interests, just as any country would.  Instead of going to war, they entered negotiations to find workable arrangements.  These talks took the form of the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations, named in honor of the late American president.

I became an American journalist, reporting to the Washington Post and other publications on the Kennedy Round and European unification. While the negotiations often focused on specific sectors, the goal was to find a balance of interests.  Each side should be able to end up with a deal that was beneficial to it.

The solution was to increase trans-Atlantic trade by lowering tariffs and non-tariff barriers.  In launching the negotiations, President Kennedy had recalled that “a rising tide lifts all boats.”  By lowering tariffs on both sides to increase trade, everybody could benefit.  The Kennedy Round succeeded.

This is the history that proves Trump wrong on both the facts and the policy.  The creation of the EU was not hostile to the U.S.  While the U.S. has a trade deficit today with the EU, the solution is more likely to be Kennedy’s “rising tide” than punching holes in the bottom of the boat. 

Democrats accept 'losers' label

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump likes to acclaim winners (often himself) and scorn losers.  If you are a “loser,” he holds you in contempt.

After last November’s elections, the Democrats were losers.  They saw control of the federal government go to President Trump, the Trump Republican Party in Congress and a Supreme Court majority openly sympathetic to him. 

Joe Biden led them to being losers.  The Democratic Party remained loyal to him and his policies when he should have stepped aside to allow the party to renew itself through primaries to choose younger leaders.   By clinging to the unrealistic belief that he was the only person who could defeat Trump, he was the Pied Piper who led the Democrats over the cliff.

Even worse, the Democrats see themselves as losers.  They haven’t recovered or developed a coherent response to Trump.  They cling to the hope of an eventual return to their policies as the American people come to see his flaws.  Perhaps, but meanwhile his “losers” label sticks.

They seem to accept it.  Their sign-waving in the face of a triumphant Trump at his speech to Congress was embarrassingly pathetic.   Their reaction to Trump’s extreme and ill-informed policies did not look like the response of a still powerful political party.  Opposition by Senate Democrats to the budget bill approving Trump’s actions was a more positive sign.

Possibly to avoid giving any potential presidential candidate an advantage, the party has not designated a spokesperson to take on Trump.  That has left the Democrats’ image in the hands of two leaders from Brooklyn, N.Y., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Neither of them has proved to be charismatic or capable of launching a sustained response to Trump.  Legislative leadership, more important inside the Washington Beltway than across the country, is not enough.  The Democrats should have a forceful, informed and younger person speak for them. 

Their voice need not be a member of Congress, but that person should be ready now.  Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg could fill the bill.

Clinton strategist and would-be Democratic wise man, James Carville, proposed that his party should “roll over and play dead.”  Do nothing and allow the Trump Republicans to self-destruct.  The Democrats could then pick up the pieces. That strategy says almost nothing about how they would reassemble those pieces.

The Democrats need a coherent and comprehensive answer to Trump. They should hold a mini-national convention to compensate for the lack of an open party process last year.  In reviving the party, the task of defining Democratic policies cannot be left to random pop-up leaders.

They risk being unable to agree.  They should recognize that a common goal – taming Trump – matters more than forcing their agendas into a hotly contested platform.  For their unifying message, they could adopt the motto, “the greatest good of the greatest number” and declare that equal respect for every person is an essential element of the greatest good. 

People should be treated as citizens of the country that is theirs and not as subjects of a presidential government that has taken control of the country.  The Democrats need to stress that the government serves the values, interests and needs of all people, not only those who voted for the latest presidential winner.

Their focus must be the congressional elections next year.  The president’s party usually loses seats at the midterm elections. That should cost the GOP control of the House.  But the Senate is a major challenge.  A majority is possible, but tough.  A veto-proof majority could only be obtained with some Republican senators. 

Getting GOP Senator Susan Collins to commit to independence from Trump should be the central element of next year’s campaign in Maine.  If she supports his excesses, her claim to being a moderate and not a Trumper could be exposed and make her vulnerable.

Trump threatens to unseat potential GOP dissenters, possibly exposing them to personal threats and attacks.  If public service means more than sitting in Congress, now is the time for the best leaders to take risks.  Otherwise, the political system may disappear beneath their feet, leaving little need for their public service.

The U.S. needs a functioning two-party system.  The parties have had sharply different views about good public policy, but have shared a commitment to the system.  The Republican Party is no longer the clear conservative voice; it is the Trump maga-phone.  The Democrats are drifting, leaderless and dispirited.

The Democrats should offer a political alternative to Trump that can win elections in a country that wants cooperation but cannot compromise.  They must lift the level of their politics above outbursts of frustration, bouts of depression, and disunity.  Otherwise, they will share responsibility with the GOP for the country’s decline.

 

 

American justice becoming pure politics

Gordon L. Weil

A group of state attorneys general, all Republicans, decide to go to federal court to block the actions of then President Biden.

A group of state attorneys general, all Democrats, decide to go to federal court to block the actions of President Trump.

They can go to a federal district court anywhere in the country and try to get the judge there to issue an injunction halting the president’s moves.  Better yet, they hope to convince a district judge, no matter how small or remote their jurisdiction, to make that injunction apply across the country. 

That’s often called a nationwide injunction.  Its prime characteristic is its effect on non-parties to the specific case that would be similarly affected by the president’s action.  These non-parties are usually the states that are still on the sidelines, which may be the president’s supporters.

In filing the case, the complaining states can select the district court where they will begin.  They look for a court where the likelihood of finding a judge favorable to them is the highest.  Judges may be selected at random for new cases, so the states look for the smallest pool with judges that share their politics or philosophy.

That’s called “judge shopping” or “forum shopping.”

For the Republicans, the desirable court may sit in Amarillo, Texas, or Fort Pierce, Florida. Each of those courtrooms has only one judge.  In Florida, it’s Aileen Cannon, who always does Trump’s bidding. 

For the Democrats, that may be the court, consisting of three judges, in Providence, Rhode Island.

Of course, the losing side will take an unfavorable district court decision to the Court of Appeals.  There, random selection of a panel of three judges does not assure approval of the district court ruling.  Still, the political orientation of a majority of the relevant appeals court judges may be similar to that of the district court judge.

Politics play a strong role in the nomination of judges. Of course, a president will seek to name judges who share their political views.  Presidents traditionally rely on the input or approval of a state’s U.S. senators in making nominations in their states.

Decisions by Courts of Appeal are likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, when they involve states disputing presidential powers. Even there, the political orientation of the justices and of the presidents who nominated them may give that highest court a political hue.

It has become usual to see the justices referred to as conservatives or liberals.  They may claim that they merely follow the law, but the law itself must be interpreted, and individual judgments may reflect a justice’s political views.

The Supreme Court is increasingly facing cases involving presidential or executive branch powers.  The public’s need for prompt action and executive pressure has led the conservative-dominated Court to use procedural orders, the so-called “shadow docket,” to make more rapid decisions. 

That process can often allow for rulings with little or no explanation of the Court’s reasoning.  In this situation, it may be influenced by the previous course of the case as it came through the judicial process. Conservative district court decisions, even if they must be modified, percolate upwards.

The Supreme Court has come to make many fewer rulings each session. At the same time, it has given itself an essential role in sorting out questions about the president’s powers.

Will the Court act along partisan lines or try to keep to the law as it has previously been understood?  Trump and his backers count on its ultimate approval of their new views.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump, voted against his position in a recent procedural order.  She has been the target of bitter attacks by Trump backers.  They have also called for the impeachment of district court judges who oppose Trump positions.

More district court judges are needed, but new slots have been blocked by partisan warfare.  While the presidential campaign was under way, House Republicans refused to approve badly needed new slots.  After Trump won, they voted for enlargement.  President Biden then vetoed the bill, and no new judgeships were created. 

This was a rare case of the Democrats playing by GOP rules.  But the judicial system suffered because of such partisan tussles. 

The conservative Supreme Court was tilted to the Republicans by Senate GOP maneuvers.  Yet Biden and the Democrats refused to consider enlarging the Court, when they could. 

All the attempts to influence the course of the American political system through judge shopping and nomination games may now have their effect on whether any real limits are placed on Trump’s broad assertion of control.

The last word may belong to judicial partisans as the president pushes his powers and Congress collapses.

 

 

 

 

U.S. leadership of the West ending

Gordon L. Weil

The U.S. is like a nation at war.

The federal government is on the attack, deploying the power of the American economy and military to force other nations, states, the media and even citizens to follow the orders of President Trump and his agents.

This brutal campaign would reshape the economy and transform the world order.  It might also replace the American democratic republic with an authoritarian regime.

The end of economic, political and military systems on which many have relied results from the abuse of the awesome powers that Congress has given the president in the naive belief that custom would limit his exercise of them.

The Declaration of Independence states that it was issued out of a “decent respect for the opinions of mankind.”  The actions of the president in the few weeks since his inauguration has shown no such decent respect for the opinions of anybody who differs or objects. 

It would take only a few people to bring the government back under constitutional control.  If even a small number of Republicans in Congress joined with the Democrats, they could pass veto-proof laws to recover from the president the overly broad emergency powers he exercises.  If not, the GOP will share responsibility for Trump’s excesses.

The election certainly produced an administration determined to break with the traditions developed since World War II.  Trump always claimed that was his intent.  But his electoral majority did not give him a blank check to destroy America’s place as world leader or its system of balanced government.

He has routinely abused the congressional grant of emergency authority to take sweeping actions on tariffs and other matters that normally should be handled by Congress.  He has embarked on raising tariffs on imports from virtually the entire world based on a disastrously incorrect understanding of economics. 

He sees normal trade relations as warfare. If purchases from another country exceed sales from the U.S. to that country, for him the net exchange amounts to an intentional and hostile attack on the U.S.  He uses tariffs to raise import prices, and believes foreign suppliers will pay them.  Revenues from tariffs will increase.  Higher import prices will create competitive conditions for U.S. industry, which will prosper.

Other countries have not produced favorable trade balances intending them as hostile acts against the U.S.  Their advantages may come from paying labor too little or damaging the environment.  Higher American tariffs won’t fix either of them, and Trump doesn’t seem to care anyway.

The ultimate absurdity of Trump’s trade policy is slapping high tariffs on imports from Canada, a hostile act that will damage its economy.  Why?  Under a deal Trump made, most trade both ways is duty free. The American trade deficit in goods is more than offset by surpluses in trade in services and investment flows.

He charges without evidence that Canada allows floods of illegal immigrants and fentanyl into the U.S.  People on both sides of the border are bewildered about his real intentions.

He wants Canada as the 51^st state.  Canada, with an economy the equal of Russia’s and composed of 10 state-like provinces, has no interest in national suicide. If Canadians remain unwilling, he would coerce them by using American economic power.  Is that what an aging American president sees as his historic achievement?

He would treat Canada as a mere satellite, and just as he does Ukraine, a nation invaded by and at war with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.  Trump wants to be a peacemaker, with an eye on the Nobel Prize.  No matter that he would sacrifice Ukraine’s land and security for his dealmaking with Putin, whose favor he clearly seeks.

European countries, which share Ukraine’s worries about future Russian aggression, get in Trump’s way.  They embrace President Zelenskyy.  It may have pained Trump to see him received at King Charles’ private residence, just after Trump had received a royal invitation for a state visit.

When a group of European leaders met in London to plan their help for Ukraine, Canada’s prime minister, having turned away from the U.S., was among them.  For the sake of making a deal, Trump is losing American leadership of the West.

The Europeans cling to the belief they need American backing to defend Ukraine and to pursue a lasting peace and not merely a headline.  They must gear up, but meanwhile they could rapidly deploy major support.  Britain once faced Hitler alone, while the original America First movement kept the U.S. neutral.  Europe now needs its own version of Winston Churchill.

In this column, I try to make fair judgments, pro and con, about Trump and the Democrats.  I will continue to do so.  Now, it is necessary to speak out about Trump as he becomes increasingly dangerous, even to the freedom of the press. 

Powerful president tests legal system

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Donald Trump singled out Maine Gov. Janet Mills to ask if she would comply with his executive order on transgender athletes.

“I will obey state and federal law,” she replied. 

“Well, I’m ...We are the federal law,” he told her.

 “See you in court,” she replied.

Trump concluded that he would win easily and taunted Mills, suggesting she has no future in politics.

Contrast Trump’s remarks with John Adams’ 1780 definition of the American republic as “a government of laws, not of men.”  Adams was later the second president.

Trump’s view follows his earlier statement that “Article II [of the Constitution] allows me to do whatever I want.”  The president is redefining his role.  If that holds, then check and balances among Congress, the president and the courts are dead. 

The avalanche of executive orders issued by Trump has raised at least two major issues, and both will inevitably end up in court. 

Has the president taken on powers that, under the Constitution, belong to Congress? 

Can the president selectively veto congressional spending by closing or reducing federal agencies or programs through forced staff cuts?

Trump may be encouraged by two factors.  First, he won the election.  His representatives claim that the majority vote victory gave him a mandate to carry out every promise or proposal he had made in the campaign.   This electoral endorsement would amount to a sweeping legislative act, making irrelevant both Congress and the courts.

The other support for Trump’s assertion of power comes from the Supreme Court decision in Trump v. U.S., issued last year.  The Chief Justice, on behalf of the Court, wrote, “the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive.”  The Court’s ruling implied that the president could defy Congress.

Presidential executive orders might amount to federal legislation that ordinarily would be under congressional control.  If Congress is dominated by the president’s allies, his solo lawmaking may go unchallenged.  Historically, limits on presidential lawmaking have resulted from the president’s need to compromise with a skeptical Congress, but that’s missing these days.

In the end, presidents may be lawmakers, but Trump is not the law.  The Supreme Court long ago made itself the judge of what the law is.  It can decide that, while Trump could issue an order, it cannot violate the Constitution or existing laws.  Mills implied that Maine could prevail in Court, possibly because Trump had ignored the powers that states lawfully retain.

Acting mostly through Elon Musk, who holds a temporary government position, the Trump administration has tried to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development and to terminate or reduce federal government programs.  These actions came swiftly, stunning both federal workers and the private sector.

Presidents may dismiss federal employees, provided they respect employee rights set by law or labor contracts.  Musk may be using his business practices to dismiss people under an approving president, but it is doubtful that the Court has yet allowed presidents to go as far with public employees as Musk demands.

These firings amount to an “item veto,” by which a president can block a portion of spending that has been ordered by law.  Trump is not alone among presidents in wanting to have this power.  This move is called rescission and for 50 years it has been banned by law.  President Bill Clinton tried it, and he was overruled.

Just as Republican state attorneys-general brought cases against Biden policies, Democratic AGs are now lodging many legal challenges to Trump.  The courts have begun acting and mostly trying to stick to the law. That means both Trump and his opponents can win procedural points, but the full story has just begun to be written.

Former Maine AG and Harvard Law School lecturer James Tierney claims that the state AGs play “a vital role” in challenging the president.  But, he says, they know that “Donald Trump is the President of the United States.  They are not going to sue their way out of it.”  Plus, congressional Republicans can continue to allow Trump unchecked power.

Trump’s treatment by the same Supreme Court that accepted his assertion of power will be the most important test. Will it impose any limits on his actions and Musk’s?  If it approves his moves and appears partisan, a constitutional crisis caused by his view of presidential power will have arrived.

If it overrules Trump, some of his supporters say the president should ignore unfavorable court decisions.  He should rely on the almost unlimited power given him by the voters in 2024.  If he disobeys the courts, that would also bring the ultimate crisis.

James Harrington, a British philosopher, wrote in 1656: “The empire of laws is concerned with right; the empire of men, with power.”  Which do American voters want?

 

Presidents’ Day missed the point; George Washington ignored

 

Gordon L. Weil

Presidents set precedents.  Or break them.

At this time of year, we celebrate Presidents’ Day, but officially it is Washington’s Birthday in honor of George Washington.  The abandonment of a patriotic memorial for a bland, commercial holiday leads me each year to write a column to recall the greatest president. 

As the first president, Washington understood that he would establish precedents and practices that could influence American history, perhaps for centuries. Having been offered the chance to be king, he chose instead to focus on developing democracy.  Asked to pick his title, the general selected “Mr. President.”

Today, many of his precedents continue, though they increasingly face challenges, not the least from Donald Trump, his latest successor.

The most well-known of Washington’s precedents was limiting his service to two terms.  Established in 1797 and only once challenged, this custom was enshrined in the Constitution.  It was a simple and direct statement that the U.S. wants no king.  Democracy is a greater good than the leadership of any person.  

When King George III, the British monarch who lost America, learned that Washington would voluntarily give up the presidency, he said, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Upon leaving office, Washington set the precedent of an orderly transfer of power to his successor.  He understood that popular confidence in the American system of government depends on its reliable continuity.  Not only do elections have consequences, but consequences deserve respect.  That’s the fabric of the system.

Washington had chaired the negotiations on the Constitution, making him not only preeminent among the Framers, but an expert of the balance of powers within the federal government and between the federal government and the states.  He respected the leading role of Congress in making the laws, while emphasizing his own role as the chief executive.

He made it clear that he was in charge.  Executive orders began with him, but he did not use them as a substitute for legislation. He sent his own proposals to Congress, and he used the veto power.  He respected Congress and delivered the first State of the Union address in person.

In naming the heads of the executive departments and his Supreme Court appointments, he applied two standards.  Those named had to have shown high competence, and they should have already acquired a public reputation that would give them popular respect.

He saw the Court as the final judge of check and balances and believed that the justices had to be people of the highest standing with voters and have impeccable reputations.

Washington did not demand personal loyalty, though undoubtedly he received it.  He did require commitment to the constitutional system.  After all, he was leading the government of the United States not the government of George Washington.

Washington created the Cabinet.  The heads of departments would form a group of people to discuss proposed policies with him and one another.  There was no doubt that he would make the final decisions, but he did not let his self-esteem, as modest as he was, get in the way of listening to competing opinions.  He listened more than he talked.

The Cabinet was led by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, who were continually at odds, giving the president conflicting advice, which is just what he wanted. The key issue was the size and role of the federal government.

Washington favored a strong government, which he saw as necessary for the U.S. to prevent local uprisings.  He also favored the expansion westward of the country.  Jefferson sought an agrarian nation with weak federal powers and modest aspirations and quit the Cabinet.  As the third president, he ultimately adopted Washington’s views.

In his historic role, Washington wanted to conduct himself in ways that set a standard for his successors.  He remained open to contact with the public.  He met with foreign representatives both to impress upon them the growing power of the U.S. and to gain information from them.  Not surprisingly, the ex-general was the most active commander-in-chief in American history.

Possibly possessing the highest net worth in the country at the time, he did not flaunt his wealth. He put his business affairs entirely aside while he held office. Despite his international standing, surprising for the head of a new country, he avoided making claims to have special skills or talents.

Much of this history is forgotten.  To be sure, a state, a city, counties, and avenues are named for him, but he has become a two-dimensional figure, the portrait on the dollar bill.

Presidents’ Day has obscured the attention that Washington deserves.  What he did for the country could continue to serve as a model for his successors, if we took the trouble to remember.

 

Is Trump breaking the law?

 

Gordon L. Weil

“He violates international law.”  “It’s unconstitutional.”  “It’s against the law.”

That has become the usual response of opponents of new Trump-Musk public policies.  President Trump is accused of actions violating the laws he dislikes. Federal courts are already dealing with legal challenges to the Trump political whirlwind.  What are his chances of prevailing?

As for international law, it grows out of treaties and similar agreements among nations or their commonly observed customs.  Other than losers in war, countries seldom have international laws imposed on them without their consent. International law is somewhere between the law of the jungle and traditional national law.

An agreement like the U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade treaty or the NATO pact committing the U.S. to defend others create international law.  If the U.S. moves against other parties’ understandings of those accords, there’s no international court authorized to decide if it acted lawfully.  There’s a slim chance that a complaint might come before a U.S. court.

Enforcement of international law is mainly left to the other countries affected. They may accept a U.S. move, retaliate or simply quit the agreement.  Both sides may suffer from any of these actions.  If Canada or Mexico cannot afford to oppose Trump’s tariffs that override the trade accord, they may have to let him amend it unilaterally.

The U.S. has historically opposed international courts that could hold it accountable.  International law usually means whatever the American government says it does. If it can’t be held legally accountable, the greatest risk is that other nations will lose trust in the U.S.  If Trump doesn’t care, he could conclude the U.S. is immune from international law.

Under the American legal system, his actions can be judged to see if they are in line with the Constitution or federal law.  The final decision is up to the courts, and the federal government, the states and the people are supposed to abide by their rulings. 

What if the president and the executive branch use powers not given to them by the Constitution or Congress or, even more seriously, openly violate the law?  In the recent case of Trump v. the United States, the Supreme Court closed the door on any legal charges against a president except for a purely personal act.  And it gave itself the power to decide what is purely personal. 

That leaves the only potentially effective way to determine if a president has violated the Constitution or laws entirely in the hands of the courts and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.  If the Court finds a violation of law, the president is expected to comply, and government officials need not follow an illegal order.

Trump has raised some major matters that will undergo court tests.  The Supreme Court previously ruled that anybody born in the U.S., except children of foreign diplomats, is a citizen, but Trump has tried to block that rule for the children of illegal residents or visitors.  He may hope that Republican judicial appointees will back him, but so far that’s not happening.

Trump and Elon Musk are closing federal agencies, created and funded by Congress, by depleting or suspending their personnel. The Supreme Court has previously found that presidents cannot refuse to spend appropriated funds or operate agencies simply because they disagree with the law.  

Vice President JD Vance, trained as a lawyer, rejects court control. He maintains that judges should not overturn the “executive’s legitimate power.”

Trump-Musk might receive a negative court order and simply ignore it.  That’s what one federal judge has already found.

If Trump succeeds, possibly helped by judges he put on the bench, it’s questionable if there are any limits on what he may do.  The Court has already moved to overrule Congress and allow the “unitary” presidency, potentially giving Trump power over the regulatory agencies Congress created. 

Trump and the Supreme Court limit Congress, originally intended to be the leading federal institution.  The last remaining legal obstacle would be for Congress to impeach and convict him. With Republican majorities in both houses, that won’t happen. No president has ever been convicted.

The president is trying to transform the government.  He halts the application of some existing laws and governs by executive order, relying on what he sees as approval by the voters of his campaign promises.  If Vance is correct, the courts are political, not legal, agencies and cannot object.  

At stake now is more than the fate of any agency, program or personnel.  If neither Congress nor the Supreme Court limits the actions of the president, then nothing Trump does would be illegal.

Will the balance of powers among the three branches of the federal government survive or have the people chosen to abandon the checks and balances that the Constitution created in favor of an all-powerful president?

 

Trump turns government around

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump is the new captain of what Longfellow called the Ship of State.  He tries to turn the federal government around completely – and quickly.

Captain Trump’s moves to reverse course are both bold and dangerous, creating tests that the captain of any huge vessel might encounter by acting abruptly to completely change direction.  The ship itself could be endangered.

Here’s a few basics about turning a supertanker, the largest vessel afloat, though it is a lot smaller than the U.S. government.

Normally, the ship slows and swings in an arc to reverse direction.  That’s made more difficult with an entirely new crew.  The captain doesn’t steer the ship; the person at the helm does, and they may be given a free hand in how the course change is executed.  They should turn carefully or they could damage the rudder, which is used to steer the ship.

In making the maneuver, the ship is supposed to follow the rules for navigation.  That keeps the ship and other vessels safe.  A careful turn also allows people on board to adjust.

That’s how it is supposed to work at sea.  How is turning the country around being managed by Captain Trump?

Trump changes directions fast, and his commands are causing some immediate problems.  He does not want the government to slow down, so the U-turn is both abrupt and potentially dangerous.

The shipowners’ representative, the U.S. Congress, worries about the sudden course change, but Trump has begun operating the government in ways that may violate laws passed by Congress.  He risks being held to account by it at some point, which may explain why he wants to execute the change in direction as quickly as possible, while Congress is muddled.

He has placed Elon Musk at the helm, giving him broad authority over changing the direction of government. The new crew, many with little government knowledge, is recruited based on their loyalty to Trump.  Musk runs his own businesses as he wishes, but he lacks experience with the more complex federal government or following congressional requirements.

Musk has swung the helm so hard that some people have been tossed overboard, maybe his intention.  The person who operated the multi-trillion-dollar federal payment system independent of politics is such a casualty.  Entire executive agencies are being pushed overboard, breaking through congressional lifelines.  Musk’s private-sector crew acts without restraint.

Meanwhile, there’s turmoil on board.  Commands from the White House may miss operating realities and their full effect.  Trump ordered a halt to much federal spending without realizing that he had gone even beyond his own intentions.  When he issued the order, the ship shuddered. 

He rescinded his command, but the defunding may not have stopped.  A federal judge questioned whether the decision to cut spending is still in effect, even if the order has been recalled.  After all, this captain does not like to change his mind.

Not only does his swift course change violate international rules and U.S. treaties, but it can harm other countries.  Agreements exist to prevent conflicts, but the new American crew seems to dismiss treaties. Trump even changed the name of a major international waterway, calling it the “Gulf of America” without first talking with other nations using it.

Not yet having completed the change of course, Trump’s ship began lobbing missiles in the form of tariff threats at neighboring, traditionally friendly vessels.  He attacks Canada and Mexico and threatens Europe.  Inevitably, they would retaliate, while swerving away from the U.S., after a dangerous bluff that may cost America loyal allies.

Captain Trump not only wants to change the course of the U.S. government, but he wants to remodel the country itself.  Though his navigation correction may be short-sighted, he may also have long-range intentions for countries ranging from Panama to Denmark.  He has the absurd and insulting idea that Canada, a world player, can be reduced to becoming the 51^st state.

Just as was believed when the U.S. isolated itself after World War I, Trump believes that America’s power can control events worldwide.  Elected under the banner of “America First,” his message is translating into “America Most” at the expense of others.  He deploys tariffs, but doesn’t rule out the use of force. 

Just as before, this policy ignores the ability of other countries to change course, not always for the best.  His policy may turn into “America Alone” and the consequences are unknown.  The aftermath of the original “America First” was Pearl Harbor and World War II.

Even without planned globalism, nations have become interlinked over the last 80 years.  No matter Trump’s intentions, no single country can pull all others along in its wake.

But there’s even more at risk than overly aggressive Trump-Musk navigation. This rapid course correction could damage the rudder – the American political system. 

Trump uses power of purse to control states

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump promised that, if elected president, he would make big changes.  He claims to keep his promises, and he surely is keeping that one – and fast.  He interprets his win as the nation’s endorsement of massive change.  The speed and scope of his moves have stunned the country.

Among his lightning moves is one meant to reshape the relationship between his federal government and the states.  This could be huge, though it was not a prominent part of his package of promises.  Beyond using almost unlimited presidential power to remake the federal government in his own image, he also wants to bring the states into line.

Trump can pressure states, whether Democratic or Republican, to accept his priorities by using the power of the purse. If a state, especially one that has not backed him, wants federal funds that are doled out by his executive branch agencies, it might have to meet his conditions. 

Federal funds, appropriated by Congress for many programs, flow to all states.  Decisions on specific outlays under a federal program are left to individual states.  Each state can deal with its own problems in its own way and can be held responsible by its own voters.

Congress gives the president and executive agencies wide discretion in distributing the funds.  The agencies and their inspectors general are expected to make sure states spend the money as intended by Congress.  But last week Trump, jumping legal procedures, fired 18 independent, departmental inspectors general.

Visiting North Carolina, Trump promised federal aid to deal with hurricane impacts and extensive federal involvement in the recovery.  Then, in fire-stricken California, he conditioned federal emergency funds on changes to the state’s voter identification system and water management policies.

North Carolina backed him for president, while California remained loyally Democratic.  It looks like he rewarded one and punished the other.  About 42 percent of  the American population lives in Democratic states. While those states might resist Trump’s domestic policies, his administration could force them to follow his policies or lose federal funding.

Consistent with that approach, he proposed eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency and replacing it with direct grants to the states.  That way, states would assume lead responsibility for disasters.  They already have that role and FEMA supplements them, but his moves could give him political power over the states that FEMA can’t exercise.

Favored states might gain considerable freedom in spending federal aid.  To receive urgently needed support, Democratic states could be forced to adopt Trump’s policies, even if far removed from the intent of the funding, or lose out.

Kristi Noem, then governor of South Dakota and now Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary, provided the model.  She used a small part of Covid relief funds for state government costs and applied the balance at her discretion rather than helping people and companies that had suffered losses from the pandemic. 

She also refused federal funds, when she disagreed with Biden’s policies.  While Democratic states might similarly refuse Trump, they can’t afford to decline the massive aid necessary to meet enormous disasters.  California faces the choice between either accepting the president’s conditions or paying overwhelming emergency costs.

The problem with refusing the money is that California’s federal government contribution could go to other states, while it gets little.   It may have to raise state taxes for emergencies, while Trump’s elimination of FEMA may provide him with money he needs to extend costly federal tax cuts.

That’s how Congress does business.  States vie for as much money as they can get at the expense of other states.  After Sen. Susan Collins became the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, attention in Maine focused more on the added dollars she can bring home than on her increased ability to influence national priorities.

Maine gains large federal subsidies, being a winner like almost all small states.  Most small states are Republican, so that could work for Trump.  Collins is the sole GOP member of Congress from New England, so Republicans might want to help her with the state’s voters by meeting Maine’s needs with other people’s money.

Making states more dependent on the president and less able to act independently steps away from the original constitutional formula.  The states intended to cede limited powers to the federal government, but they have become its dependents.  This change plus the fading role of Congress, has increased presidential power.  Checks and balances don’t matter.

As much as Trump may wish that he could serve a third term, his use of presidential power and his reshaping the ways the federal government adopts and executes policies could extend his reach well beyond his current term.  Change has come.  His successors in either party are likely to accept and continue many precedents he is creating in the name of MAGA.