All power to the president: the 2026 budget

 

Gordon L. Weil

“I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump said during the 2024 campaign.  For a person who knew nothing, he went on to assert, “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” 

Either he was dissembling or he is a quick learner.  He named Russell Vought, chief architect of Project 2025, to head the Office of Management and Budget, and Vought has just issued Trump’s proposed 2026 budget. Project 2025 permeates it.  With a straight face, Vought says it’s pure Trump.  It’s a chicken-or-egg proposition. Which plan came first, Trump’s or Project 2025?

Vought just sent the budget to Senate Appropriations Committee chair Susan Collins.  She promptly found a lot wrong with it.  That’s not surprising, because most presidential budgets are not adopted by Congress.  Members favor appropriations that help them win elections, so their priorities differ from the president’s.

The budget reveals the essential elements of Trump’s thinking about government.  It confirms virtually everything included in his torrent of executive orders.  It formally recognizes that Congress decides federal spending, but really expects it to issue a seal of approval on what he has already done without its approval.

Any change in the proposed budget is accompanied by a note explaining the reasoning behind the subtraction or addition.  In some cases, the statement is anecdotal, with a general policy growing out of a single person’s experience or opinion.

Here are seven keys to the proposed budget.

1.  It is aimed at eliminating whatever Joe Biden did.  It reads less like a proposal for funding the appropriate priorities for the U.S., and more like a campaign manifesto.  It would reshape the government, which Vought sees as socialist, but instead of looking forward, it keeps looking backward.  Pointless, since Biden won’t be back.

2.  It’s based on the theory that because he won the election, Congress should leave policy to him. The budget focuses on carrying out President Trump’s aims, providing Congress with a checklist of items to approve. 

This may constitute progress.  At least, instead of government by executive order, it recognizes the need for congressional action.  Still, the underlying assumption of presidential policy supremacy is far from the Constitution that says Congress (Article I) makes policy and the president (Article II) executes it.

3. Congress should transfer legislative power to the president.  Many items in the proposed budget would give the president power to legislate through executive orders.  That could eliminate court challenges, which now claim Trump has exceeded the powers given him by law.  No more fighting about executive orders, he implies, just authorize them.

Here’s an example. Should Congress decide on U.S. participation in the United Nations? Not here. The budget would create a $2.9 billion America First Opportunity Fund.  Foreign policy and UN dues would be paid out of this fund, entirely at Trump’s discretion.  It could become a tool for his “art of the deal.”

4.  Trump gets revenge.  Trump defunds what he sees as hostile agencies. The budget would cut $18 billion from the National Institutes for Health, punishing the agencies for having failed to agree with him on the origins of Covid-19.   The FBI is severely cut, paying for having investigated him.  But Homeland Security gets almost $44 billion more to build the Wall and keep mass removals growing.

5. The crusade against “woke” continues.  Any activity that even faintly looks like help for any group that has suffered from discrimination must go.  In some cases, the host agency itself is also swept away.

6.  Much health care and scientific research disappears.  But Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy gets $500 million for “Make America Healthy Again.”  When was America healthy?  The amount seems to be a round number without a cost basis.

7. The bipartisan deal balancing military and non-military discretionary outlays is gone.  Now non-military, like health, education and low-income help would be cut by $163 billion, more than one-fifth, while military spending breaks the trillion-dollar level.  Even then, GOP senators think that Trump did not go far enough.

Many of these Trump priorities are likely to make it into the final budget.  That will create challenges for targeted states and individuals, plus Republicans in toss-up districts, and Democrats who want to find a way to take control of Congress.

This is Trump’s budget, thanks to Project 2025. The first question is whether congressional Republicans will endorse it or retake legislative control of their party’s agenda. 

But it also challenges the Democrats to come up with their own budget.  Their choice goes beyond taking potshots at the budget. They could come up with a comprehensive alternative. Both parties could seek compromise, thanks to the cooperative relationship between Collins and Sen. Patty Murray, the Democratic committee vice chair.

 

Antisemitism, the latest wedge issue

Gordon L. Weil

In his 100-day whirlwind, President Trump has transformed a public concern into a mega-wedge issue.  It’s antisemitism.

He uses charges of antisemitism to attack institutions and show his support for Israel.  While antisemitism is real and historic, Trump exploits it to drive a political wedge that could bring him added support, based on his position on this single issue.

The 2023 Hamas attack on Israel provided the fuel for his policy.  Most of the world was shocked by the brutal raid, killing and kidnapping and agreed that Israel was entitled to act to prevent any recurrence.  The unchecked power of Hamas had to be ended.  Jews across the world joined in this sentiment.

In its retaliation and counterattack, Israel not only went after Hamas but also hit innocent Palestinians, first in Gaza and then on the West Bank, presumably to undermine any possible support for Hamas.  Israel appears to leverage its Hamas response to repress or expel Palestinians, so it can ultimately exercise total control over the former territory of Palestine.

Just as great sympathy had been shown for Israelis in the wake of the Hamas attack, sympathy also emerged for the many Palestinians, not Hamas activists, who saw their families, homes, and hospitals devastated.  Some worried about the fate of the Palestinians, though among them were those who went overboard and backed Hamas.

This is the point where U.S. antisemitism became an issue. 

With the second largest Jewish population in the world, the politics of this issue divide American Jews. They all continue to be concerned about their survival as a small minority among the world’s billions, but they disagree on the current events in the Middle East.

For some, support for Israel, a Jewish state, is essential to their beliefs, making it a large part of how they define themselves as Jews.  Their support for Israel readily translates into support for any actions taken by the Israeli government under Netanyahu.  In short, backing the Israeli government, no matter what it does, has become an integral part of their faith.

Other American Jews base their faith less on Israel and more on their traditions and shared values.  While they support Israel’s existence, they focus on protecting and improving the lives of others.  In recent decades, this has become frequently expressed as a duty to “repair the world.”  That belief can lead to opposition to Israel’s aggressive, sometimes brutal, tactics.

Trump agrees with the pro-Netanyahu hard-right views.  Jews and others who oppose Israel’s repression of the Palestinians are labelled as being self-hating or antisemitic. 

Trump may exploit antisemitism as a way of gaining support in the Jewish community, which has usually voted strongly Democratic.  This is what happened in the recent Canadian elections, when a Trump-like Conservative picked up some traditional Liberal Party supporters. He also appeals to Christian conservatives, who see Israel’s existence as central to their own beliefs. 

Labeling opposition to the Israeli government and showing support for non-violent Palestinians as antisemitism dismisses deeply held beliefs in the Jewish community.  Those who express these views, even Jews, become targets for political retaliation and may threaten their freedom of speech.

Anti-Arab militants, whether for racist or political reasons, claim that supporters of beleaguered Palestinians are antisemitic.  That makes it impossible for a person either to see some merit on both sides or to reject both sides. 

For people who want to suppress Arabs, the Israeli government has become the authority on who is a good Jew, defined as those who share that view.  To be clear, Israel cannot “excommunicate” a Jew.  That is an individual’s decision.

Trump’s allies in Congress could deem criticism of Israel virtually illegal through a definition of antisemitism in proposed new legislation.   They are forcing Jewish members of Congress to face a choice between backing Trump and seeming to be indifferent to antisemitism.

“We are witnessing the co-opting of the fight against antisemitism to pursue unrelated, authoritarian goals by the Trump Administration, and the so-called Antisemitism Awareness Act will give them another tool,” wrote one leader of a Jewish group opposing the bill.  “Antisemitism is a serious problem,” he said, “but this legislation combined with the current administration’s actions aren’t making Jewish Americans any safer.”

By politicizing antisemitism, Trump may make the situation worse.  He increases an unwanted focus on American Jews and adds to national divisiveness.  He uses this policy to attack institutions that foster free speech and open debate.  Is it wise to end funding for some of the world’s best scientific research, because a university administration badly handled a campus protest?

Trump has taken extreme action in withholding federal funding to kill “woke” efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion for some groups.  But his singular and favored focus on antisemitism makes it appear that for one group, he, too, is “woke.”

 

 

  

Canadian voting system has lessons for U.S.

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Canadian national elections were conducted on Monday, and the winner was known early on Tuesday, within 12 hours of the polls closing.

It was an exciting and close election, thanks significantly to the Trump threat to attempt annexing the entire country as the 51st American state.  The winner, Liberal Party leader Mark Carney, benefitted from his vigorous opposition to Trump.

There are key differences between the Canadian and American political systems.  Elections to Parliament determine who will be Prime Minister.  It’s as though there’s a national vote in each riding (the Canadian term for a district), and the party that wins the most ridings gets to name the Prime Minister. 

Even with that major difference from U.S. presidential elections, some of the ways Canadians conduct elections could improve the American procedures and reduce the opportunity for post-voting disputes.

Here are some elements of the Canadian system that could help in the U.S.

1. Before voting, each voter must state their name and address and either produce a government-issued ID or make a sworn statement, subject to verification and penalty in case of a false statement.

2. There are many ballot boxes and on average, less than 300 votes are deposited in each one.  That can make counting the vote easier and quicker.

3. All voting is by paper ballot.  There are no voting machines. Though the labor cost to process votes may be greater than in the U.S., the cost of machines and their vulnerability to manipulation or error is avoided.

4. Election officials open the ballot boxes in public and display to observers each ballot as it is counted. This reduces the chance for election fraud.  The election officers tally the results by ballot box, which is then sealed.  It is later transferred to the central election administrator.

5. The ballot box results are aggregated by riding to determine the outcome and the exact vote in each one.  The running total is transmitted to a federal elections officer.  Results are made public as they are counted and added together.  When all votes in a riding are counted, a member of parliament is elected.    In the U.S., the parallel would be the aggregation of the raw vote by congressional district and transmission of the results to a state election official who would determine the state’s presidential vote winner (or winners in the cases of Maine and Nebraska).

6. Parliamentary voting takes place without any other issue or candidate voting occurring at the same time.  That is not possible in the U.S., but a similar result could be achieved by completing a tally of presidential votes (or perhaps congressional votes in midterm elections) before any other votes begin to be counted.

7. Courts ultimately have the authority to settle promptly disputes about how the procedure is carried out and any challenges.

In Canada, the election is under ultimate federal control, while the U.S. states run elections.  To adopt any part of the Canadian system would require action by states or national action by Congress to the extent allowed by the Constitution.

The number of voters and the use of ranked-choice voting in some states might seem to make the adoption of the Canadian procedures difficult.  Overcoming the added complexity can be resolved through technology.  In ranked-choice voting, the need for a central recount, the principal cause of delay, could be eliminated.

American elections have come under criticism because counting takes much time, results become public slowly and procedures create opportunities for challenge and claims of fraud. Adoption of at least some of the Canadian methods offers the possibility of overcoming or reducing these issues.

 

 

Democrats seek an identity

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Democrats lost the last elections.  They remain lost.

Who are they?

Right now, they have a split personality – at least in three ways.

The first group, which includes most congressional Democrats, believes the party was doing well before Trump’s comeback.  The Affordable Care Act, infrastructure spending, slowing inflation, low unemployment and attention to marginalized people all seemed to be reasons for satisfaction.

On the economy, the Democrats were vulnerable, not having made their case.  National numbers were good, but at the individual level, a combination of frustration and misunderstanding remained. 

They also ignored broad national concern about a seemingly unchecked flood of immigrants.  They failed to understand that many Americans were deeply worried that their powerful nation could not control its borders or might not even want to limit unauthorized immigration.

The Biden administration’s focus on issues like sexual preferences, aiding the victims of discrimination, and even repaying college loans did not resonate with working people harmed by inflation and discontented with an unresponsive government.  Some voters saw Biden focusing on marginal problems and not on their concerns.

The Democrats unwisely took for granted the support of such people.  Their lack of seriousness about inflation was evidenced by the naïve pronouncements of candidate Kamela Harris. The party demonstrated an overblown sense of pride in its agenda and accomplishments and incorrectly believed that the Democratic platform was popular.

What they saw as their success bred overconfidence.  Proud of their achievements and aware of the first Trump presidency, they were confident they could win.  But first they had to recover from the problems created by Biden’s prolonged attachment to his belief that he was the best suited to defeat Trump.

In the end, they misread the electorate.  Many people had lost faith in government and, as they had since the 2008 election, demanded change.  Good or bad, what the Democrats served up was more of the same, not change. 

The aging cohort that pursued that course still makes up much of the congressional Democratic contingent.  They are led by Sen. Chuck Schumer, who fails to project the image of a renewed party.  Lacking an alternative agenda, they allow Trump, still smarting from his 2020 loss, to keep running against Biden.

The second face of the Democrats are the progressives led by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  They campaign across the country, arguing that the Democrats can only win with policies rejecting the demands of billionaires, which come at the expense of average people.

In short, if the GOP has gained by going right, marooning traditional Republicans, the Democratic Party would gain by going left and either dragging traditional leaders along or dumping them.  Copying Trump, one young party leader wants to run progressives against older, establishment Democrats in congressional primaries.

Their platform may emphasize the issues that led many voters to believe that Biden focused on marginal groups. Their complaints against “oligarchy” may be too abstract.  But they make a strong case against Trump’s unconstitutional and illegal actions.  They encourage sorely needed party activists.

The progressives openly stage a challenge to establishment Democrats, whose incumbency can be used to defeat their more liberal agenda.  Open primaries between the two sides are unlikely to swing the party, and winning progressives could be markedly more liberal than the general electorate.

The third Democratic component are the pragmatists, considered to be moderates.  They want to produce solutions that are more practical than ideological.  They may agree with Republicans when they reach similar solutions and avoid knee-jerk partisanship.  That could have political appeal.

The pragmatists respond to concerns that the party may appears too “politically correct,” labeled by Trump as “woke.”  They understand that some voters worry the Democrats have become more responsive to the desires of the elite than to the needs of blue-collar workers.

As a result, they support policies to bring immigration under control, to update trade rules to redress relationships with other countries, and to simplify regulation to spur economic growth.  These positions may align, at least to some degree, with the GOP.

But they remain strongly opposed to Trump’s methods that override checks and balances by ignoring Congress and the courts.  They back efforts to prevent discrimination and to recognize the values of a diverse society.

They lack a single voice, but California Gov. Gavin Newsom seeks the role.  It remains for him and others to win over establishment Democrats and progressives.

Democratic policy favors more government.  Republican policy demands less government. Is a pragmatic policy of “some of each” viable?

Whatever the solution for the Democrats, if they expect to halt Trump by prevailing in the 2026 congressional elections, they must find common ground and a common voice – and soon.  Otherwise, by leaving their current struggles unresolved, they will become responsible for more Trump rule.

 

Trump's personal presidency

Gordon L. Weil

Trying to figure out Donald Trump may be the prime American indoor sport.  His barrage of new policies has left people trying to figure out their president. 

Some see him as a great deal maker. Others see him as erratic.  Still others may believe he is not completely sane or that he is sliding into senility.

What do we know about him?

His goals are reasonably clear: (1) restoring American manufacturing by making imports more costly, (2) reducing regulation to improve corporate profitability and boost the economy, (3) ending “woke” policies, (4) cutting the size and functions of the federal government and (5) blocking and expelling illegal immigrants.

Each of these goals has its supporters, creating the coalition that backs him, but his unpredictable methods have raised concerns even among those backers.  His methods may do more harm than the good his supporters see in his goals.

Here’s a look at his policies and actions to see who Trump really is.

He focuses on the immediate, the short term.  Raise tariffs, change policies, shut agencies. Do that now.  That can produce surprise and quick results. It may be the way a newly elected president can best take advantage of his election victory.

But this almost impetuous style means that he ignores history’s lessons.  He does not understand why Ukraine won’t simply quit the war Russia started and end the bloodshed.  He has learned that other presidents favored high tariffs, but seems unaware of the disastrous effect of those moves.

By acting quickly, he ignores side effects.  His tariff policy might boost domestic production, but that takes time while tariffs take effect immediately.  Meanwhile, the economy will slow, prices will rise and markets will weaken.  He suggests that life will be painful for a while, ignoring the short-term effects on middle income and elderly people.

Though proud to be considered a great negotiator, he makes concessions to Russia, while gaining little from it in return.  He accepts the demands of the Russian aggressor and tries to pressure Ukraine, the victim, to surrender. 

He uses the economic tools at his disposal to force others to accept his views. Maine has only two trans students in high school sports, but he wants to cut off all federal funding to the state unless it outlaws the policy making that possible.

He is insensitive to intangible values.  He seems not to understand that his policy would strip Ukraine of its sovereignty, to him an abstraction compared to a ceasefire.  Similarly, attacking universities, he shows no understanding of academic freedom.  In both cases, he ignores the values and history of those he would control.

He reveals human traits.  He bullies those he would control.  He retaliates, using his government powers, against those he sees as past opponents, from government officials to law firms.  He persists in falsehoods that support his policies, even after being confronted with hard facts.  He is heedless of the concerns of others, even major allies.

He is president of the greatest power in the world, but he still craves acceptance in the select clubs of the rich and powerful.  He likes to associate with fellow billionaires and with national leaders who can wield dictatorial powers. 

At the same time, he continually and immodestly asserts that what he is doing exceeds the accomplishments of any predecessor and that the results are historic.  He feeds on the praise of others and lavishes it on himself.  He shows no embarrassment when other national leaders and his own agents shower him with compliments.

The result is the most personal presidency in American history.  His desire to add Greenland and Canada and maybe even Panama and Gaza to the U.S. seems to be more about his desire to find a place in history for himself than the demands of political or military reality.

Many of Trump’s personal and political characteristics differ from any previous president. He seems ready to inspire fear as an instrument of his style of government. Thus far, he is unchecked by other branches of government, and he intimidates his critics.

His lack of respect for history, cooperation and compromise, and the concerns of others represents change, which voters said they wanted. But change under Trump may come at a high price for the country and its standing in the world.

Experts may opine about the reasons why Donald Trump is the man and president he is.  His business background, his family, and his lack of relationships with average people have undoubtedly shaped him.

I leave psychological or medical judgments to others.  Donald Trump most reminds me of a kid in fifth grade who is not yet mature enough to understand history or how to relate effectively with others, but is strong enough to bully his classmates. 

Republican lawmakers challenge government chief

 

Gordon L. Weil

Only two elements of the federal government seem capable of halting President Trump’s overreach in using his powers – the courts and at least some Republican members of the House and Senate who could join the Democrats in reclaiming congressional powers.  So far, it’s not the GOP, with one Republican senator admitting she’s afraid of Trump.

But there’s at least one clear case of GOP legislators pushing back against an executive effort not only to fire experienced personnel but to slash or abolish a government agency.  It happened in Oklahoma this month.

Governor Kevin Stitt is a Republican.  At the start of the current session, the House was composed of 80 Republicans and 20 Democrats.  The Senate was composed of 39 Republicans and 8 Democrats.  Stitt should be able to get backing for almost any action.

In mid-March, Oklahoma experienced major wildfires, which state and local firefighters struggled to extinguish.  The Oklahoma Forestry Service, the key state agency, had undergone staff cuts under Stitt and was limited in how far it could extend its resources. But the governor claimed that it had deployed only about half of its personnel on the peak day of the fires.

He promptly fired the head of the OFS, a highly respected person who had worked at the agency for 40 years.  The governor also cut other top managers.  He went even further, questioning the need for the agency and proposing almost fatal cuts to its budget.

In Trump’s Washington, the president could have gotten away with such moves.  But not in Oklahoma City.

The House Speaker and the Senate president pro tem both spoke against Stitt’s actions. They pledged to ensure that OFS funding would be locked in.  Their stance mattered because, even after Stitt implicitly admitted that the entire state force had been deployed, he did not back off. Only after public opinion swung to back the legislative leaders, he said OFS would survive.

Why could Oklahoma Republicans oppose their own governor, while the GOP in Congress acquiesces in Trump’s moves, even at the expense of their own constitutional powers?

With political support that cannot be attributed to Stitt’s endorsement, the Oklahoma members may feel more loyal to their constituencies than to their governor.  Local opinions mattered more than the demands of a governor placing his views ahead of the public interest. In relatively small districts, voters could get to know members, rather acceding to Stitt’s influence.

The split between the two branches of government went a step further.  The governor complained that the legislature had passed some bills sponsored by Democrats.  One-party rule, obviously possible, suited him.  So much for meeting public sentiments in favor of government cooperation.

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert responded to Stitt.  He noted that 20 percent of the House was Democratic, but only six percent of the bills passed had been sponsored by Democrats. 

Apart from the specific issues, the Oklahoma case reveals the survival of institutional checks and balances can take place even when one party completely dominates and that bipartisanship can happen even in a setting far more partisan than Washington.

 

[If you like this blog, please share it with others and recommend they read it regularly.]

Supreme Court threatens independent agencies

Gordon L. Weil

America grew up and, just like a child growing up, it found that life becomes more complicated.

After the Civil War, Congress devised ways for the government to manage increasingly complex issues.  The Supreme Court is now deciding if this long-standing solution – the creation of independent agencies – is acceptable.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to pass laws on any matter under federal jurisdiction and to test the limits of that jurisdiction, both subject to judicial review.  Presidents can propose laws and approve what Congress did, but their powers do not extend to make them legislators.

The three branches of government lack the time and expertise to regulate a wide range of issues.  While Congress could in theory legislate on individual cases, in practice that’s impossible.  Legislators cannot deal with matters extending from the safety of medications to the control of airplane flights to consumer protection.

The solution has been to delegate legislative and even some judicial powers to independent agencies. In theory, they act on behalf of Congress, not the president. The president appoints members of independent agencies, subject to Senate confirmation.

Because there are only three branches of government, the independent agencies came to be considered as part of the executive branch, even though they exercise few executive functions.  They may make rules for their own operations, but, even then, Congress may choose to disapprove them.

Independent agencies are usually composed of boards whose members are experts in the subject matter under their legislative mandates.  They make informed judgments about the application of the law to specific activities over a wide range of issues.  Where the law is unclear, they may interpret its meaning.

This system has come under political attack.  For those who argue that presidents have all executive authority (the unitary presidency), the independent agencies must be under his control, because they are assigned to the executive branch.  Without presidential authority over them, the agencies may constitute the “deep state,” a part of the government escaping normal control.

If this view is correct, then the agencies are not truly independent.  Their expertise can be overruled by the political agenda of the president.  They become functionally a part of the president’s administration.  The courts retain authority to determine if an agency acted outside of its authorized powers or unconstitutionally.

The Supreme Court has begun to deal with the issues raised by this demand for a new look at independent agencies. Its focus has been on (1) the president’s ability to replace members, even with fixed terms, to suit his policies, and (2) the agency’s ability to interpret the laws applying to its jurisdiction. 

The Court has already ruled that the president can remove the head of an agency if there is only a single person in that position. 

It is now asked to reverse a position it adopted in 1935 and allow the president to remove members of boards of agencies exercising legislative functions .  President Trump has recently removed two Democratic members of independent agencies, who are challenging his action. Could presidents remove members only for allowed reasons or can they do so at will?

The Supreme Court has already overturned an earlier decision and ruled that the courts and not the agencies will determine questions about the meaning of the laws they apply.  That decision could narrow the scope of agency decisions.

If the president can remove the heads of independent agencies and the courts can determine agency jurisdiction, the delegated legislative authority would be fatally weakened.  The only power left to Congress would be to establish agencies for specific purposes, much as it now does for executive departments and their subordinate offices.

In short, the Supreme Court could effectively end the role of independent agencies.  Presidents would be able to substitute their political will for the judgments of experts, eliminating the “deep state.”  Public health and safety could be endangered.  There is a real possibility that this could happen.

The only answer might be for Congress to reassert its legislative authority.  Agencies that now exercise independent powers delegated to them by Congress could be transformed.  Congress could convert them into legislative advisory bodies, carrying out the same expert activities as at present.   Congress would appoint the members.

The conclusions of independent agencies would not be decisions but rather recommendations to Congress.  Congress could establish balanced, bi-partisan committees, like today’s joint committee on taxation, to receive the expert bodies’ recommendations.  Congress could then vote on expert recommendations approved by the joint committee.

While this process would not eliminate partisanship, it would allow for expert opinion free from presidential politics and discharge the courts from determining what Congress meant in the original legislation.

In short, Congress would recover its right to legislate and resume its place alongside the other two branches.