Trump shows his worry about Supreme Court tariff case

 

Gordon L. Weil

Unlike almost all other countries, Canada has refused to make concessions to President Trump that would induce him to lower tariffs.  While he has taken actions on policies not yet in effect or to match a U.S. concession, Prime Minister Mark Carney insists in negotiations.

But trade talks are making no progress.  Instead of wasting time courting Trump, Canada is working hard on finding alternate markets and on increasing domestic trade.  But it attempts to keep talks going in the hope that the U.S. will realize its dependence on its major trading partner and ally.

Then, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose province is deeply involved in the joint American-Canadian auto manufacturing arrangement, vented his frustration with the talks.  As a Canadian Conservative, he had liked Trump’s return to office.  But the president’s tariff policy almost immediately turned him around.

Ford launched a one-minute television ad featuring long-ago remarks against tariffs by then President Ronald Reagan.  Trump immediately blew, impulsively cancelling what seemed to be the almost mythical trade talks with Canada.  Then, he added a new 10 percent tariff.  Out of this ad and Trump’s visceral reaction came a flood of misdirection.

First, was Reagan for or against tariffs?   He was a free trader who had just raised tariffs on Japan in retaliation for its protectionism.  While making this protective move, he sought to maintain his reputation as a free trader.  The statements Ford used were not out of context with Reagan’s entire remarks, but they were out of context with the complete circumstances of the times.

Trump claimed that Reagan “loved” tariffs, which also took his remarks out of context.  The former president tried to make clear that he did not like tariffs and their effects, but sometimes increasing them was necessary.  He did not use them like Trump’s broad-brush approach.

Second, Ford’s ad opportunistically took advantage of the fleeting moment when Americans would pay much attention to Canada, thanks to the opening of the World Series between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Los Angeles Dodgers.  It was an outburst of patriotic support for his province, home of the Blue Jays, and an outlet for his anger over Trump’s auto protectionism.

Third, Ford was seeking to put pressure on Carney.  They are not natural allies.  Besides, Ford’s Ontario has demands that differ somewhat from Carney’s Canada.   Canadian provinces often find themselves at odds with federal policy.  Ford could be seeking a deal that would benefit Ontario, but possibly at the expense of other provinces.

Carney obviously did not like Ford treading on his authority over foreign and trade policy.  He got Ford to withdraw the ad, but only after the first two games, both played in Toronto.  Ford wanted to keep exploiting the inevitable explosion of Canadian nationalism at the games, but he does not speak for Canada.  Carney showed Trump that he had no responsibility for the ad.

Fourth, Trump’s instant reaction scarcely hides the reluctance of the U.S. to arrive at a negotiated deal with Canada rather than simply forcing it to make concessions.  Trump apparently believes that delay weakens Canada and improves his own position.   He ignores the deep anger north of the border about his suggestion that Canada should become the 51st American state.

Fifth, perhaps the most important aspect of the ad flare-up is that it revealed what is truly worrying Trump – the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling unravelling most of his tariff policy.  Two federal courts have already ruled that most Trump tariffs are not allowed.  The case is now before the Supreme Court.

Congress permits the president to alter tariffs in a national emergency, but his current declaration does not meet the standard set by Congress in giving the president its power to set tariffs.  His complete control over tariffs would be unconstitutional.  And, it is hardly a national emergency when tariff talks with Canada are ostensibly ended because of a critical television ad.

Trump charges that Ontario’s Ford is trying to influence the Court’s decision.  But Ford only wants a trade deal on autos.   And it’s an insult to the Court that it, like Trump, would be influenced by a Canadian television ad.

Trump’s reaction could go beyond trade policy and increase his worries.  If the Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the lower court specializing in trade matters, it would be the first serious limit it has imposed on his powers.  If it supports him, the ruling would cement its backing for his virtually absolute power.

He believes that court actions can be influenced by his political pressure.  Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, led by judges he has appointed, have favored him.  By creating an improbable pretext for Ford’s ad, he may want to be seen as a victim, worthy of more judicial deference.

America's two-tier economy

 

Gordon L. Weil

Want a new car? 

For $50,000, it’s yours.  That’s the average sticker price of the new models.  Or you can make unending monthly payments of about $1,000.  When you trade it in, you’ll take a loss, because the car’s value will be less than what you still owe.   

But wealthy people can afford a new car and pay in cash.  They have the money to spend on high-cost purchases. 

As their incomes are squeezed by rising costs, many people cannot keep up with monthly auto loan payments.  They risk losing the car and their money.  The rest of the market wants used cars, though that also drives up their prices.  Dealers entice people who can afford new cars to trade in their cars.  They both sell new cars and supply the profitable used-car market.

The result is a two-tier market.  The wealthy drive the latest models, and others drive hand-me-down cars that may include the defects caused by their previous owners.

This economic split appears elsewhere.   The residential real estate market may be sluggish nationally, because many aspiring home owners cannot afford mortgage interest rates and the increased cost of building materials.  Their tight budgets, caused by stagnating wage increases and higher retail prices, put home buying out of sight.

One contributor to increased building materials prices are the Trump-imposed tariffs on Canadian lumber, widely used in home construction.  One Maine lumber dealer reported that its lumber costs increased by 45 percent due to new tariffs.  It is looking for alternatives.

Trump seems to think that if the Fed cuts interest rates, that could help the housing market.  But the Fed sets short-term rates, while mortgages are usually long-term debt.  Besides, lowering rates cannot fully compensate for costlier construction materials.

While the residential market remains slow, the sales of homes over $1 million exist in a parallel universe.  The prices of these homes are increasing steadily, thanks to an affluent core of potential purchasers, intent on upgrading.  They can pay cash, often out of the proceeds from the sale of their previous homes, so mortgage rates do not matter.

As with autos, a two-tier market occurs.  One level is for the wealthy and the other level is for everybody else.

This happens again when it comes to airlines.  Delta and United have found they can profit more by adding business- and first-class seats and reducing the economy cabin.  Packing more people in limited space does not earn them as much as offering greater luxury, even at unusually high fares.

American Airlines and the low-cost carriers like Southwest got the message.  Ultimately there will be more high-priced airline seats with a likely reduction in economy and budget fares. The two-tier economy is being repeated.

How does this split-level economy grow?  The wealthy are gaining more wealth thanks to government policy and their investments.  Their windfall gains go back into the stock market where they add even more wealth.

The record-setting stock market may produce two myths.  The first is that a healthy stock market is a good indicator of a healthy economy.  Trump often backs this belief when the market rises, and doesn’t mention it when the market declines.

The second myth is that the market is in a bubble with unrealistically high prices, and that the bubble will burst.  Maybe, but there is an alternative explanation for both myths.

The stock market may serve significantly as the savings bank of the wealthy.  The top ten percent own about 90 percent of the value of all stocks.  Coupled with their long-term position in an historically increasing stock market, the market may reflect their influence and interests rather than the national economy.

Again, here are two tiers.  The wealthy have a powerful effect on the market and the economy, while others mostly absorb their effects.  Most people are dependent on a political and economic system that is gradually withdrawing support from them by cutting food stamps and health care to tariff increases that forfeit markets and raise costs.

In theory, the wealthy would invest in new production, creating more jobs – the “trickle down” concept.  That theory has been abandoned.  Accumulation of wealth is now deemed a desirable and sufficient economic goal. 

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that the rich, “They are different from you and me.”

To which Ernest Hemingway is said to have responded, “Yes, they have more money.”

The rich aren’t different.  But they enjoy an income tax system that favors them, while other people lose essential government support.  The aversion of the rich to taxes beats caring about the common good. 

The deepest split in the U.S. may not be the partisan divide between the parties, but the growing two-tier economy, steadily widening the income gap between the wealthy and everybody else. 

Supreme Court conservatives become America's legislature

 

Gordon L. Weil

The U.S. Supreme Court seeks a new record: to issue a ruling rivaling the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision that said that Blacks could not be U.S. citizens. 

That decision was a cause of the Civil War, which led to constitutional changes intended to give African Americans equality with all other Americans.  In 1965, one hundred years after the end of the Civil War, the Voting Rights Act was adopted to finally ensure equality in access to voting. 

Because some states, mostly in the former Confederate South, had adopted laws and practices keeping Blacks from voting, Congress empowered the federal government to approve state voting practices to ensure they were not discriminatory and required states to design congressional districts that would not dilute minority voting.

The Supreme Court, controlled by a conservative majority of six justices, decided that federal supervision of states to prevent discriminatory districting had run its course and should end.  Virtually instantly, some states acted to reduce the possibility of Blacks being elected.

Now, the same Court majority seems ready to decide that the anti-discrimination requirement imposed on states is also outmoded.  Ignoring the effects of its earlier decision, it is poised to hollow out what remains of the historic Voting Rights Act.  If not racist, such a decision would reveal a remarkable indifference to American history.

The media has chosen to focus on the effect on the Democratic Party, supported by most Black voters, forecasting it will lose seats in Congress.  At a time when the Democrats might gain control of the House, the Court may assure the continuation of a GOP House, the subservient backer of the powerful president the Court has created.

But the focus on elections misses the setback to the equal treatment of African Americans, leaving them once again victims of the after effects of the nation’s “original sin” – slavery.  The pending decision could be deeply divisive, just as was Dred Scott.  Of course, there will be no armed conflict, but national unity could be severely tested. 

With Congress having fallen in line behind an increasingly powerful president, the Court has become the U.S. legislature.  Six conservatives have assumed the power to amend what may be one of the most important laws ever adopted in the nation’s history.

The Supreme Court’s power is not derived solely from the Constitution, but from an understanding among the early Federalists that the Court should have the authority, in the words of the key 1803 judicial decision, to “say what the law is.”  This is judicial review, with the last word on the law held by the Court.

This power differs from the British system, where the last word on the law lies with Parliament and the courts cannot reverse its decisions.

Judicial review should be changed.  Proposals to depart from the long-used approach might be written off as impractical or unrealistic, but the Trump regime has dangerously abused the concept.  Thinking outside the box Trump is creating has become critically important.

The most obvious change, but also the most unlikely, would be to amend Article III of the Constitution to remove this power from the Court.

But there are other measures available to Congress that are less extreme and easier to achieve.  This column has explored them.  They would require only an act of Congress with the assent of the president.

The Court could be enlarged to allow the president to appoint justices creating a majority more responsive to the will of Congress and to the people.  Abraham Lincoln did it, and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s proposal to pack the Court brought “a switch in time that saved nine.”

Short of enlargement, the number of justices on the Court could be temporarily increased.  Congress now creates temporary slots on the federal appeals and district courts.   They are filled by lifetime appointees who later move into the permanent positions as they are vacated.  This could be done at the Supreme Court to allow its steady renewal.

Temporary slots are often created because the burden of the caseload has grown.  The Supreme Court handles many fewer cases than previously, so perhaps it needs some help.  The use of temporary slots would allow for a smoother evolution from a Court dominated by the appointees of one president to those selected by a successor.

Even without expanding the Court, the Constitution gives Congress control over its jurisdiction. It can limit the Court’s jurisdiction over certain issues.  The Court has accepted such legal limits.  A restriction could be extended to include congressional districting cases.

Another method to limit the Court’s power would be a hybrid of the American and British systems.  The Court could still decide on constitutionality, but could be overridden by a required supermajority procedural vote, like the Senate filibuster, or two congressional votes separated by a designated delay period. 

Any of these changes may require a strong Democratic majority controlling Congress and a favorable president.  If the Supreme Court chooses to gut the Voting Rights Act, the Democrats could make Court reform a central part of their platform. 

Mid-east peace elusive; China's move

 

Gordon L. Weil

Missing handshake

After almost any peace deal, the representatives of the two sides shake hands. 

When a conflict ends without a deal, it’s either because one side won or because it’s not peace but a truce, there’s no handshake.

In Northern Ireland, the two sides shook hands.  In the Camp David accord between Egypt and Israel, the two sides shook hands.  Even in Vietnam, Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger shook hands, though both regretted it when hostilities continued.

Eisenhower did not shake hands with a German general.  McArthur did not shake hands with the Japanese surrender representatives. 

At Sharm El-Sheik, while Trump basked in the aura of a yet unwon Nobel Peace Prize, Israel’s Netanyahu was absent to avoid being in the same room as Palestinian leaders.  Hamas was absent, perhaps of a split within its own ranks leaving people who know nothing other than terrorism in charge in Gaza.  No handshake.

Since the flash summit, Israel has killed Gazans because they came too close to the IDF and Hamas has refused to disarm.  Israel has slowed food supplies, because Hamas has not turned over all bodies of hostages, though they may be difficult to find.

In the final rush to free the hostages and line up Trump for an instant Nobel Prize, there was no apparent concrete action to put the next steps into motion. That was left for more negotiating though neither side has shown an inclination toward final peace. 

Trump can earn his Prize, but the U.S. must do much more.  Hamas holds on.  An international occupying force is urgently needed, including the still-reluctant Arab nations.  Israel must not limit food deliveries, and they must flow from Egypt, with the U.S. putting real pressure on Israel if necessary.

Meantime, no handshake = no peace.

Who’s worse?

Suppose a major power seeks to enrich itself at the expense of other nations.  It imposes tariffs without a basis for their rates and that probably violate the rules of the World Trade Organization.  It refuses to negotiate, but imposes conditions that will intentionally harm its trading partners.  It does not fully understand the impact of its trade policies on its own people.

Name the country.  China?  U.S.?

The correct answer is both.

The U.S. has also imposed high tariffs on key Canadian exports that have hit the economy there hard.  It wants to destroy an auto agreement with Canada that has existed for decades, since long before any free trade agreements.  Their auto industries are integrated. 

To oblige the U.S. and protect the auto deal, Canada had joined it in imposing its own matching 100 percent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles.  That move gained Canada nothing with Trump.  Canada is blocked by no real negotiating progress.   Canadian people grow increasingly angry with Trump’s talk of their country becoming the 51st state.

Along comes China.  It offers to remove the reciprocal tariffs it placed on Canadian agricultural exports in response to the EV tariff, if Canada eliminates the EV tariff.  It will buy Canadian oil at market prices when Canada gears up to make such exports.  But Canada worries that China seeks great power equivalence with the U.S., Canada’s traditional ally.

This story is a bit oversimplified, but what is Canada to do?  Which is better for Canada?  With China, it can get some relief from Trump’s trade policy and immediately increase farm exports. Trump avows he wants to dominate the U.S. and Canadian auto markets.  Would Chinese competition improve the outlook for Canada?

It will take time for this testing to end, and perhaps U.S. policy may change.  But Canada won’t support “America First,” opting instead in favor of a newly strong Canada.  Losing the Canadian connection would be a massive unintended consequence of Trump’s trade policy.

Trump versus Marconi

On December 12, 1901, Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi transmitted a message from England to Newfoundland.  It was the first wireless connection between two continents.  It began to shrink the world.

While globalism is rejected by some people, including Trump, Marconi made it inevitable. He sent a technological signal that the earth’s seemingly great distances would come to mean little.  An increase in world commerce would become inevitable as technology quickly followed, developing countless possible links across countries and continents.

“No man is an island,” wrote the British poet John Dunne.  After Marconi, no nation is an island.

The original America First believed that the U.S. could concede Europe to Hitler, because America was protected by a vast ocean.  U-boats off New York City quickly proved that wrong.

Trump does not seek world domination, but to make the U.S. an island of self-sufficient prosperity.   This simply cannot work without a high cost to Americans.  Despite the theories of some short-sighted economists, the bill is just beginning to be paid.

 

Maine Gov. Mills wants Collins' Senate seat

 

Gordon L. Weil

The formal announcement Tuesday by Maine Gov. Janet Mills that she will seek the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Republican Susan Collins deserves attention.

Collins’ skill consists in convincing Maine voters she’s a moderate.  But her support for some of Trump’s actions and appointments look less like her traditional balancing between two sides and more like temporizing.  Her support for Justice Kavanaugh and Secretary Kennedy work against her.  The political situation has become too dire for some voters to accept her usual approach.

Mills is a right of center Democrat in a state that is majority Democratic with a heavy concentration in the southern First C.D. and a smaller GOP preference in the Second C.D.  By her own balancing, she has managed to rile some liberal Democrats.  Whether she has pleased more conservative voters remains to be seen.

Mills is 77 years old.  She would be the oldest first-year senator ever.  Even if candidates soft- peddle the age issue, it is sure to be a factor.  Collins is 72 and Sen. Angus King is 80.  Mills has been endorsed by Sen. Chuck Schumer, which probably means little in Maine, though it tells you something about how he sees his role.

She will face a primary challenge next June from several declared candidates.  Right now, Graham Platner, an oyster farm operator, veteran and local official, seems to be the most serious. He’s raising money and has the strong backing of Sen. Bernie Sanders.  Could Platner be Maine’s Mamdani (though less progressive)?

In some ways, the outcome of a Mills-Platner contest could suggest the direction of the Democrats.  Younger voters may want a change from the usual balancing by the state’s major politicians.  For example, in the two state referendums this fall, Mills opposes GOP efforts to make voting more difficult, and opposes a red flag law. That’s one for each side. 

Maine will be a money magnet.  The referendums are attracting major funding as will the Democratic primaries for Senate and governor.  Of course, the GOP will go all out for Collins, a possible key to their holding their Senate majority.

Collins, even when she starts out with low poll numbers, has succeeded in defeating relatively weak Democratic candidates.  This year, Mills, who has won two state-wide elections for governor and is well-known, is a different kind of challenger with a track record.  Collins has not yet announced that she’s running.

Are the times right for Mills rolling to primary and election wins?  Could be, but watch for the Democratic left and if Collins can sustain her appeal as a moderate.

Nobel sends a message, going beyond 2025 Peace Price

 

Gordon L. Weil

This is not a column about “I told you so” and my forecast that President Trump would not win the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize,

It is a column about “They told you so.”

The Prize Committee announcement of Maria Corina Machado, a Venezuelan, was a brilliant display of meanings and messages aimed at everybody from Trump to all of us.

In selecting Machado, the Nobel Committee sent three messages. 

First, it favors recognizing people who have made personal sacrifices on behalf of the rights of others. 

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for decades.  Andrej Sakharov was sent into internal Russian exile.  Carl von Ossietsky, a German journalist who revealed that the Nazis were breaking arms agreements, died in their prison.  Martin Luther King, Jr.  Maria Corina Machado.

Machado lives in hiding from the Venezuelan regime.  Her political movement saw its national election victory stolen.  She fights on.  The Nobel Committee is not sure she will be in Oslo to receive the award or how she is being protected.

The second message is that Venezuela is under authoritarian rule, which impoverishes its people. In this view, it shares Trump’s outlook and his desire to see a new government there. The Committee made it difficult for Trump to criticize the decision.

The third message is that individual action matters.  National figures have been recognized, but a single person, taking risks and showing courage, can awaken others to action.  The Prize recognizes and encourages individuals who try to change the course of history toward peace.  Many winners were unknown before their selection, which turned a spotlight on their causes.

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee laid out its focus clearly.  It said: “Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence…. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation.”

Without democracy, it argues, there cannot be lasting peace.  The Committee’s concerns apply to the United States today and to other countries increasingly made to feel more comfortable in sliding into autocratic rule, following the American lead.

Trump will most likely hope that a successful deal for the future of Gaza will earn him next year’s Prize, and he is sure to promote himself for it.  The world should be served well if there is such a deal.  But it is premature now to conclude that a deal, even if reached, will be fulfilled by Hamas or Israel.  Much may depend on the role of Arab states.

Trump and his backers compartmentalize, stressing his efforts for peace, while setting aside his hostility toward others.  He has transformed world trade, not through negotiations, but by sheer force.  He has bombed Iran.  He sinks boats on the high seas.  He has created a War Department, imbued with the “warrior ethos.”  He covets other countries.  He “hates” his opponents.

While no Peace Prize winner was a perfect person, their character pervaded their lives and their words.  Trump asks the Nobel Committee to segregate his peacemaking from the rest of his actions.  But this is not the Best Actor at the Oscars, awarded no matter whatever else the star has done.  The winner here must be seen as a laudable model.

What is the Committee’s message for the rest of us?  Individual action on behalf of democracy and peace matters.

If we care about the course of our country, each person needs to decide what they can do as an individual to preserve and promote democracy and peace.  Handwringing and sloganeering are not actions. 

The Nobel Committee said: “Democracy depends on people who refuse to stay silent, who dare to step forward despite grave risk, and who remind us that freedom must never be taken for granted, but must always be defended….”

The big mistake: one of the strange ways to make policy today

 

Gordon L. Weil

The news overflows with events caused by unrelated and unusual sources: a mistake, harassment, bullying and appeasement, and drinking your own bathwater.

The big mistake

The talks aimed at bringing an end to the Gaza War became possible, because of one man’s mistake.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has held onto power by promising to eliminate Hamas.  Israel has reduced threats from Iran and its proxies, replacing it as the dominant Middle East power.  Arab states, who had lined up with Israel against Iran, are now nervous.

Israel has successfully killed Arab leaders in neighboring countries, crippling Israel’s enemies.  Netanyahu sought to force Hamas to quit by killing its leaders in Qatar, who were invited there to negotiate indirectly with Israel.  His intelligence advisors opposed the plan, but he persisted and launched an attack.  The U.S. was not informed.

President Trump, Israel’s most stalwart backer, was shocked.  That single Netanyahu mistake caused a shift in U.S. policy.  Trump would no longer give Israel unstinting support in its Gaza policy.  He forced Netanyahu to call the Emir of Qatar from the Oval Office and apologize.  Trump pressed Netanyahu to end the Gaza War.

The Israeli leader also saw the U.K., France, Canada and others turn their backs on him.  He could not remain blind to his country’s increasing isolation and the loss of its special place in the world.

External Hamas leaders that Israel tried to kill, not those in Gaza, decided it was time to seek a ceasefire.  That way they could end what was a losing game.

Harassment as a tactic

Trump may believe that he won in 2020.  He discredits the Biden administration, and openly “hates” and seeks revenge against Democrats. If he finds they did anything against his interests, he is out to get them.

It does not matter if they are not guilty of any offense.  By bringing the force of government on them, he tries to sully their reputations and deplete their funds as they defend themselves.  The charges may be inconsequential and lack evidence and amount to little more than harassment.

He replaced experienced prosecutors with his own lawyer to get a flimsy indictment against former FBI Director James Comey.  Comey’s move to get the case tossed may be based on Trump’s open effort at retaliation.  If that succeeds or he is easily acquitted, Trump’s reputation might suffer more than Comey’s.  

Appeasement

Trump’s ego and self-esteem are legendary.  He believes in his own superiority and expects others to agree.  Flattery that might embarrass others nourishes him.

His sudden actions on tariffs have forced other countries to seek relief from losing U.S. markets.  Many have acceded to his demands and others have resorted to lavishing praise on him.

By acting rapidly and forcing other countries to make offers to him to gain relief, he puts “America First,” avoiding true negotiations.  When bullied by him, countries may try appeasement, with the hope of preventing something worse.   History shows that appeasement doesn’t work, though bullying might.

Except maybe not with Canada. Trump demonstrates a profound ignorance and lack of political sensitivity when he speaks of the “51st State.”  Canada plays its own role in North America and the world.  The U.S. and Canada need one another.  But Canadians now move away.  They will not appease, and the U.S. may pay the price.

Appeasement is now occurring in domestic politics.  Nobody favors the government shutdown, but the Democrats will accept Trump’s decision by hammering the loss of medical care by millions.  Surprisingly, Maine’s Sen. Angus King has rejected the Democratic position because he fears that Trump will do something even more harmful during the shutdown.  

Trump frequently backs down when he faces resistance.  He has not yet acted on the threats King feared.  If the threats work, it will partly result from the Democrats’ weakness.

Drinking your own bathwater

Failing to answer Democrats’ oversight questions, Attorney-General Pam Bondi attacked a senator for supporting Trump’s first impeachment.  Her focus is inward-looking, emphasizing Trump’s past grievances. She will not deal with current concerns, instead taking refuge in old complaints.  That’s called drinking your own bathwater.

What’s true of Bondi and other officials, it’s also true of Trump himself.  From the election campaign until his recent remarks to top generals and admirals, he delivers the same speech, loaded with self-praise and loathing for Biden.  It is riddled with factual errors, stated as if they were widely accepted.

His administration aims at enhancing Trump’s reputation, not America’s.  He has failed to note that most of the 2025 Nobel science winners are based at campuses of the University of California.  He wants the Nobel Peace Prize; he rewards his country’s scientific achievements by cutting university budgets.