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.

 

 

Foreign policy by threats has high cost

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump conducts foreign policy by threats.   If you don’t do as I demand, he implies, I will simply take you over.  Forget about pursuing traditional diplomacy with friendly nations.

Bullying may work on real estate competitors in New York City, where Trump gained his education in his father’s business, and the volatile world of local commerce allowed him to crush competitors.  

Real estate moguls may come and go, but sovereign nations tend to hang on tenaciously.  Look at Ukraine.  Still, you may dream of your place in history by expanding American territory.  Meanwhile, your diplomats can demand concessions from others by warning them about the president’s unpredictability if they don’t yield.

Trump’s threats may be false, but he uses intimidation as the shortest path to getting what he wants.  Beat up Denmark about Greenland, Panama about its canal and Canada for its supposed dependence on the U.S.  Even if his real goals are unknown, as the powerful leader of a powerful nation, he tries to pressure friendly nations to bend to his will.

In one aspect of this approach, Trump seems to believe that when one country sells more goods to another country, their margin represents a subsidy – getting something for nothing.  In fact, each country gets paid for its products.  It looks like the U.S. should always have a favorable trade balance with others and not “subsidize” anybody.

That policy doesn’t account for trade in services and cross-border investments. It also ignores the mutual benefits that can flow from trade, but measures only money and even that only partially.  It is virtually impossible for a country to have a neutral or favorable trade balance all the time with everybody else.

Trump’s remedy is to boost the prices of imports by imposing tariffs.  If foreign suppliers want to avoid being priced out of the market, they must swallow the tariff.  Otherwise, when tariffs boost their prices in the export market, domestic producers can raise both their prices and their sales.  Either foreign producers’ incomes are cut or American customers pay more or both.

Trump bullies Canada, which he claims without evidence that the U.S. “subsidizes” by $100 billion a year.  He threatens to raise tariffs on imports from Canada to cut the subsidy, and force it to increase its military spending and border controls. 

Trump’s crude and insulting solution is that Canada should become the 51st state.  One Canadian counters that Canada should absorb some U.S. states, including Maine.

Does the U.S. pay more to Canada than it receives? 

In 2023, the U.S. bought about $64 billion more goods from Canada than it sold there.  Canada paid $23 billion more for American services than flowed the other way.  That left a U.S. trade deficit of $41 billion.  But Canadian investment into the U.S. was $77 billion more than U.S. investment into Canada.  (There’s no U.S. foreign aid to Canada.) 

The net result was a favorable U.S. balance of payments with Canada.  Trump chooses to ignore the full facts, the essential details showing there’s no $100 billion “subsidy.”

Canada’s vast territory provides a protective buffer for the U.S., like the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.  But it needs to boost its military spending.  Trump is right in saying it leans too much on the U.S.  And he has already succeeded in inducing increased Canadian border protection.

To accomplish his objectives, Trump has alienated many Canadians by devaluing their loyalty to their own country. You don’t have to be American to think your country is great. By insulting a close ally and its leaders, Trump may prevail on some current issues, while sacrificing a highly valuable partnership for the long term.

If Trump raises tariffs on Canadian goods, Canada has plans to retaliate dollar-for-dollar.  A trade war only leaves victims and no real winners.  It would harm the relationship for many years, reducing Canadian trust in its “neighbour” (even their spelling is different).  Trump dismisses cooperation to confront China, their common adversary. 

Does Trump really believe that Canada’s ten provinces would readily join the U.S. as a single state, and that Canada would simply drop its own national identity, foreign policy, health care system, gun control, and abortion law, just to avoid high American tariffs or confrontation with him?

Trump’s policy of “America First” must inevitably turn into “America Alone.”  Canada would focus increasingly on trade with other countries.  The European Union, which includes Denmark, might either build its own defense arrangements or see the rise of anti-American nationalism in countries there, leaving the U.S. with fewer reliable allies in either case.

Whatever may be gained by bullying rather than negotiating could come at the loss of long-term trust among allies.  That would be a high price to pay by the U.S., long after Trump’s “America First” has faded.

 

 

Trump ran parallel presidency as Biden faded

 

Gordon L. Weil

A change in the political system is happening, but we are paying little attention to it.

Donald Trump, an agent of political change, has challenged the belief that the U.S. can only have one president at a time. Since the election, he has operated a parallel presidency.

A formal transition process exists in law, allowing for the incoming president and his appointees to be subject to specific ethics rules, to use federal office space and to receive financial support.  They can become current on department policies and actions. But the president-elect does not have to accept this process.

While the incoming president is not bound by previous policies, awareness of the current administration’s latest moves could enhance the chances for a smooth transition. But Trump wants to symbolize change, and cooperation may not suit his image.  He spurns transition and acts as if he is already in the White House.

Three reasons stand out.  First, Trump has already served as president so he can hit the ground running, without needing a basic White House education.  Second, Trump will head probably the most personal presidency, relying less than usual on precedent and advice than on his own instincts.  Third, President Biden is fading, creating an opening for his successor.

Biden has readily let him dominate the scene.  His departing administration is cloaked in the aura of its defeat rather than pride in its principles.  His cabinet has melted away, failing to react to Trump’s assertions. Biden failed to make his presidency the promised bridge – a real transition.

Though Biden still uses his inherent powers to deal with disasters, pardon people and issue executive orders setting his parting benchmarks, Trump has taken over large pieces of foreign and domestic policy.  Biden’s cabinet and actions are overshadowed, if not downright ignored.

Few resist the need to deal with Trump’s upcoming presidency as if he were already in office.  From Republican House members to foreign leaders, they have sought to curry his favor and divert any possible concerns he has about them well before his ability to take office, beginning next week.

Trump has moved decisively to transform the period between Election Day and Inauguration Day.  The so-called lame duck government of that transition period has become almost a rare bird.  By his actions, rather than through a formal constitutional amendment, Trump is redefining the transition for the second time in American history.

Originally, the presidency and the new Congress began on March 4, following the previous year’s November elections.  Given slow communications and travel, the delay was necessary to allow for vote counting and the arrival of newly elected officials in the capital city.

The result was that a president who might be slated to leave office and the sitting Congress could remain in power for months even if they had suffered election defeats.  That lame duck period could allow a departing administration and Congress to push through policies that might already have been rejected by a majority of voters. 

Newly elected presidents and members of Congress waited their turn and prepared to take office. That had to change.

Following the 1932 elections, voters clearly demanded action by the federal government in dealing with the Great Depression.  They had become impatient with the transition.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the time to ready measures he could put in place rapidly once he took office – the famous first 100 days. 

The delay also brought the end of the long-legged lame duck.  Under a new law, Congress would begin on January 3 and the presidential term would start on January 20, dates now set in the Constitution.

Twenty years later, President Truman offered to provide intelligence briefings to President-elect Dwight Eisenhower.  Truman’s first move led to a formal transition process, which has been expanded under the law.  

Because it is voluntary, Trump refused its ethics requirement or to be fully informed on current administration actions.  He chose to make the break between administrations both disruptive and preemptive.  In effect, he has improperly moved the government from Washington to Mar-a-Lago.  He has led the alternate government, not the government in waiting.

The refusal of the incoming president to participate in a transition comes at a price, especially when it relates to foreign policy.  The failure of an incoming administration to exchange information on its foreign contacts or its attempts to blindside the incumbent can be harmful to the conduct of delicate and complex relations.

Trump has drastically shortened the transition, which may have been inevitable.  But he has also made a mockery of its useful aspects.  Transition should not be left to the president-elect’s choice. The country would be better served, without limiting the incoming president’s discretion, by making their full participation mandatory.

The U.S. really should have only one president at a time.

Republican Right would bar compromise

Gordon L. Weil

It’s only a small issue, but it explains why talk about cooperation between the two parties is nothing more than a convenient myth, otherwise known as a lie.

The Maine House Republicans complain that the governor has “nominated a former Democrat state legislator” to be Public Advocate.  There it is: the persistent use by the GOP of the word “Democrat” when the correct word is “Democratic,” as in the official, legal name of the party.

The use of “Democrat” is meant as a slur, a way Republicans annoy Democratic legislators and to suggest that the traditional party has been replaced by an extreme liberal version.  The Democrats have not counterattacked with their own slur for the Republicans, though the traditional GOP has itself been replaced by Trump loyalists.

The almost total and persistent opposition to Democrats goes beyond the word.  The extreme right-wing Freedom Caucus in the House warned their support for Speaker Mike Johnson depends on his refusing to rely on Democratic support to pass bills.  Johnson’s version of bipartisanship occurs when the Democrats fall in line behind the GOP.

Susan Collins, Maine’s Republican senator, told a state university audience that she favors compromise over conflict. The result, she said, “would produce a very different legislative climate, one in which the objective is to solve the problem, not just to score political points.”  In her speech, she used the term “Democratic.”  That little “ic” may justify her moderate label.

But the Republican game, especially in Washington, is all about scoring political points.  If you score enough points, you win the game and can change the country. Standing in the way of GOP extremism might be a handful of loyal Republicans, including Collins, supporting good government over partisanship. That will take courage, which requires taking risks.

After a sound electoral victory and enjoying the first year of his term, Trump dominates.  He pressured Freedom Caucus members to support Johnson, allowing the peaceful January 6 electoral vote count.  But his political attacks replace the truth. Trump claimed the New Orleans slaughter resulted from illegal immigration, though the alleged killer was American-born.

The Republican extreme right is determined to play a massive blame game, attributing anything that goes wrong to the Democrats.  That is hardly the way to compromise, but guarantees conflict. 

The right can block decisions, if Johnson won’t allow any bills to pass that depend on Democratic support.   With a slim majority, the Speaker needs their votes to pass almost any bill with only GOP votes.

If the federal government has any chance for compromise, it’s up to the Democrats.  They need to stop agonizing over why they lost and try to respond to popular concerns.  Important as they may be, some social issues seem to be marginal compared with making government more responsive to public demands on spending and taxes.

The Democrats need to develop a platform containing an agreed agenda for government action.  It cannot offer something for everyone, and it must focus creatively on core issues like trade, Social Security reform, and immigration.

The party could start a platform development process now, involving the National Committee and people from across the country.  Presumably, the new party chair, who will not be the party’s visible leader, could manage this process.

The Democrats need a coherent and constructive agenda before the 2026 congressional elections.  They also need a leader. They cannot put off both decisions until the 2028 campaign.

The major financial backers of the Democratic Party could focus on potential standard bearers they would support.  While the ultimate choice is up to the party faithful, the Democrats’ menu could be prepared ahead of the 2028 primary wars. Meanwhile, they would have visible leaders with financial backing to speak for their platform.

The Democrats should be looking at issues on their own merits, reflecting the popular will, rather than simply opposing the Republicans.  That means they could support some Trump proposals.  If a GOP initiative could be improved, they should offer changes, but not lend their votes in return for political payoffs involving more spending.

Possibly the best way for Republicans to listen to Democratic ideas and for Democrats to make cooperation a reality would be to revive the tradition of an unofficial, bipartisan group of senators that would attempt to develop policies acceptable to a majority of each party in the Senate.  Four moderates from each party could do it.

If the Senate could agree on proposals backed by majorities in each party while the House produced distinctly partisan bills, another tradition could be revived.  Representatives of the two houses would meet in a conference committee where they might at least try to come up with a bill that could pass both houses.  The House could then be faced with accepting or rejecting the deal. 

Trump would bypass Congress, Court in TikTok case

 

Gordon L. Weil

We have front-row seats for a major fight, perhaps the constitutional Fight of the Century.

Three contenders are in the ring, each a heavyweight.  They are the Congress, the Supreme Court and President-elect Trump, who just got involved.  The outcome could reveal which of them wields the greatest power.

Last April, Congress passed with overwhelming majorities, including all four Maine members, and President Biden signed a law ordering ByteDance, the owner of the social media giant TikTok, either to sell it or shut it down.  The new unconditional federal law gave ByteDance until January 19 to act.  The president is ultimately responsible for carrying it out

China has a record of stealing or accessing U.S. data.  This week, the Treasury Department reported a “major incident” of Chinese hacking.  China has been formally designated as an American adversary.

Congress, Biden and former president Trump have all expressed concern about the control of ByteDance by China of a company that has access to personal information of millions of Americans.  While he was president, Trump tried to shut it down, but was blocked by the courts.

But ByteDance understandably opposed the law, so it challenged it on the grounds that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Constitution.  Because the First Amendment is meant to prevent government interference with freedom of speech, it claimed that Congress had gone too far.

If ByteDance did not divest, the requirement to end the millions of communications that take place on TikTok would amount to federal control of speech.  The company also stated that it is owned by international shareholders, not the Chinese government.  But Congress had decided that China controlled it, and that decision is not the key issue.

The case went first to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.  All three found that Congress had not violated the Constitution, because it acted in the interest of national security.  The judges had been appointed by presidents Reagan, Obama and Trump, making it difficult to call its ruling partisan.  ByteDance appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court is trying to act quickly on the appeal.  It must decide whether Congress exceeded its legal powers, but it will not decide if TikTok must close.  That is a judgment for ByteDance, which could resolve the matter by selling, though the law requires it to have a buyer lined up by January 19.

If the Court decides that Congress acted constitutionally, then ByteDance must quickly act.  If it finds that Congress exceeded its powers, ByteDance may continue to operate TikTok.

President-elect Trump’s lawyers recently requested that the Court delay its proceedings until after he takes office on January 20. They claim that Trump is uniquely qualified to negotiate a resolution of the issue of China’s control.  In effect, Congress and the Court should back off and turn the matter over to him. 

Trump’s last-minute move seems to ignore the fact that the law takes effect if not declared unconstitutional.  He might try to avoid that point by quickly deciding that China is not an adversary of the U.S., despite earlier findings by Biden, Congress and himself.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump became quite popular on TikTok and told voters that he would not let it close down.  This may be the reason why he has changed his views on its threat to America security and the privacy of its users.

Trump has put the Supreme Court and most of the GOP members of both the House and Senate on the spot.  In effect, he has asserted that both his role as president and his superior powers of negotiation should displace the normal legislative and judicial operations of the federal government.  On January 19, Trump will not yet be president, so can he now make this claim?

When the Court decided that the president has almost unlimited powers, it might not have thought he would want the Court itself to defer to him.  Now, the Court is on trial and will reveal how it reacts to his pressure to step aside and let him settle the matter.  If it gives Trump what he seeks, it would surely have to be seen as a partisan, political body.

He would ignore a law backed by his own supporters, who responded to his opposition to China.  That’s possible, since he has explored ignoring another long-standing law that limits presidential spending powers.  His unusual Court filing is extravagant in its self-praise, making it appear that he deserves deference not usually given to presidents.

The conflict is about whether Congress acted constitutionally, if the Court should suspend acting  when asked by the president-elect, and if the election empowers the president to rule rather than to govern within a system of checks and balances.

All that makes for a big fight.