Trump’s goal makes Congress irrelevant

 

Trump’s goal makes Congress irrelevant

Arc de Trump, yes; serious legislating, no

 

Gordon L. Weil

Grumbling about the failure of Congress to perform its designated role, including by me, may be wrong.

The conventional wisdom is that members of Republican majority in the House and Senate retreat before Trump’s assertion of power and his threats to their reelection.  While he has seized control of the nation’s political agenda, taking it way from the branch of government that is supposed to make policy, that’s far from the underlying reason.

Trump apparently believes he can bypass or overrule Congress at will, but a good case can be made that he simply doesn’t care.   It may not matter to him whatever Congress does or does not do.  His goal is not to leave a legislative legacy or to contribute to the betterment of the lives of Americans.

He has little need for Congress, and it has responded by slowing down.  Both the House and Senate have met in working sessions and enacted legislation far less than is normal for Congress.

The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), the highest expression of Trump’s agenda, is a notable example.  The pro-Trump House would almost reflexively pass his requested spending requests. Importantly, OBBB allowed the president go around the normal and cumbersome appropriation process, especially in the Senate, a less reliable part of his team. 

In the Senate, spending bills are considered by the Appropriations Committee, now under GOP control and chaired by Maine Sen. Susan Collins.  Traditionally, departmental bills would be considered individually but gradually they were adopted in packages.  If passed late, bridging funding would be adopted.

The Republicans had promised separate consideration of each bill, but Trump wanted quick success rather than a legislative process with extended negotiating.  That lightened the Senate work load, and senators got their earmarks, money for home state projects.  Collins, having lost much budget authority, could still bring home the bacon.

While the Senate appears to remain in session more than the House, it’s an illusion.  To prevent gaps allowing the president to make recess appointments to top positions, the Senate holds daily pro forma sessions with a single senator present.  Still, the Senate passes more bills than the House, thanks to a few senators breaking party ranks, but the House lets the bills die.

The House has reduced its work load by taking the longest recess in modern House history.  After it enacted Trump’s budget, Speaker Mike Johnson took any possibility of negotiating with the Senate off the table by sending the House members back home.  He sought to strongarm the Senate, though it was led by his own party. 

Johnson also called snap recesses when he could not gain agreement among Republican members to support or oppose a bill, risking action by Democrats and a few Republicans.  He fights to keep bills, like one on Epstein documents, from coming to a vote.

Both bodies have fewer bills to consider.  Members’ bills become scarcer as party discipline stifles individual initiative.  Even more important is the relative lack of presidential proposals, which would involve the president in prolonged negotiations with Congress.  He does not seek a legacy earned through conventional politics, beyond the passage of a few key bills.

In their new book “Regime Change,” Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan explain the president.  “Trump saw himself as a transformational figure in history, one who was already remaking the world in his image, something few leaders ever had the chance to do so definitively.”

Trump seeks an unforgettable place in history alongside names that have long been revered and remembered.  He does not pursue the acclaim that they had received after the adoption of their legislative programs.  As much as he has tried to show himself as a leader in great crises, like Lincoln or Roosevelt, he has had to create a mythology of comparable achievement.

And he wanted to cement his historic standing quickly, realizing that his influence would be limited to his second term.  That left him no time for Congress and he has ruled by executive orders, even if they are subject to protracted judicial challenges whose outcomes would be delayed for years.  There would no lasting legislative monuments to his leadership.

Instead, his monuments would be tangible, permanent and personal.  His name might be attached to an “Arc de Trump,” the White House East Wing, a Mount Rushmore bust, U.S. currency and passports, a reflecting pool, a D.C. football stadium, and a New York railroad station, plus a Nobel Peace Prize medal.  And personal glory could create the opportunity for personal profit.

In the end, Congress has been bypassed because it cannot contribute to his effort to gain permanent and exalted historical recognition.  While Republican majorities in both houses have bent to his will, Congress is irrelevant to his quest for lasting fame.  That helps explain its failure.

 

How Congress could control the president

How Congress could control the president

Fixing slippage in the system

 

Gordon L. Weil

The federal government has changed a lot recently.  Most of the reason for the almost revolutionary change has come from within the system itself.

Congress is heavily responsible.  It is supposed to set national policy.  The president is supposed to execute that policy.  That was the idea behind the Constitution, but it didn’t work for long.  Constitutional amendments were expected to meet change, but they haven’t worked.

The world is far more complicated than it was two centuries ago. Time brings change and change creates complexity.  While it continues to try to set national policy, Congress has increasingly asked the executive branch to fill in the details.  You know, the place where the devil lives.

While policy is set in broad terms, it is reshaped when applied to concrete situations.  Because of emergencies or their enjoyment of exercising power, presidents have increasingly become legislators, often using executive orders to substitute for acts of Congress.

The current Supreme Court has added a new twist on how the government should work.  It has ruled that if a federal power is not clearly defined as legislative or judicial, it belongs to the executive.  Their theory of the unitary presidency leads to the concentration of power.  Though presidents are elected, they have unchecked, regal authority during their term. 

Congress has created independent agencies to regulate private action, maintaining uniform and expert application of the law.   Such agencies exercise delegated legislative power and are kept relatively free of short-term political demands, even when made by the president.

The Supreme Court has ruled that such agencies are subject to the will of the chief executive. Presidents may use the power of appointment and removal of regulators to reshape the law.   Congress has lost its powers; I have previously proposed how they might be recovered.

Congress could counter the centralization of power under the president.  It determines the scope of its delegation of authority.  It has the power of the purse, enabling it to direct if and how the executive spends federal funds.

All presidents, including Trump, have acknowledged these congressional powers, though they may try to stretch the scope of the authority granted to them under law.  The Supreme Court has refrained in recent years from restraining Trump and encouraged the expansion of executive power. 

A president can enjoy the powers of office achieved by election while Congress could recover its inherent ability to set the limits on most forms of executive power.  Two tools – legislative authorization and the exclusive power to authorize federal spending – can do the job.

Congress should always approve any presidential authority subject to a sunset clause.  Every relevant Act of Congress should include a provision terminating the authority it grants without new congressional action.   For existing executive branch authority, Congress should enact an across-the-board sunset clause.

This week, Trump showed why Congress needs to recapture its authority.  He relied on a never-used provision of the ultra-protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 to impose 50 percent tariffs on Canadian exports.  The provision had been unused because the act was a major contributor to the Great Depression and abandoned. 

The provision, almost a century old, had been deemed dead.  Yet nobody had killed it.  Trump unearthed.  Sunsetting would finally have ended it long ago.

It allowed Trump to decide that Canada’s trade measures are discriminatory for which it could be punished.  Because the Canadian tariffs in question were retaliation against Trump’s prior tariff increases, his move amounted to declaring a trade war.

Under a sunset policy, presidents could still have their policies adopted by a friendly Congress, subject to sunsetting during the next presidential term.  An intervening presidential campaign could allow for public debate on the policy.  When renewal time came, it could be the subject of renewed political negotiations.

Another way for Congress to control the executive is through authorizing or denying appropriations, a power that it alone can exercise.  It can refuse to fund proposed presidential initiatives.  It can mandate that funds must be used for specific purposes; Trump should not have been able to eliminate the Agency for International Development by cutting its funds.

The problem arises of what sanction Congress can use, aside from impeachment and conviction, if it is defied on spending by the president.  One obvious option is to block other presidential requests, though that can open new political issues.

The president controls executive office operations funded at more than half-billion dollars annually.  Congress might consider enacting an automatic 10 percent reduction each time required spending is halted by the president.  This, too, might be accomplished by across-the-board legislation.

These changes would require action by Congress and approval by the president.

If Congress does not defend its constitutional powers, then, like the Supreme Court, it is little more than a presidential adornment.  Is that what Americans want? 

Multi-party Congress could save U.S. government

 

Multi-party Congress could save U.S. system

The new American Parliament

 

Gordon L. Weil

American politics are broken.

As recently as the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the two parties found ways to compromise, constructively if not consistently.  Partisanship existed, but without degenerating into personal animosity or challenges to the patriotism of rivals.

Forget about that.  It’s gone.

The prime evidence is the competitive congressional redistricting that looks to take place every other year, despite the Constitution’s requirement that it occur once a decade.  The historical system, allowing voters to easily change their preference between the parties, is being replaced by efforts to assure the long-term political dominance of the Republican Party.

Throughout history, American politics have undergone deep divisions.  Obviously, the secession of the Southern states is the leading example.  But the unique system of government devised by the Constitution and the customs built around it have endured, always bringing the country back to commonly shared commitments.

The system could recognize regional and ideological differences, on the understanding that the nation was evolving and striving to accommodate those differences.  The three branches of the government might develop at different rates, but they remained in the roles assigned to them.

Recently, divisions, as deep as others in the past, seem to have become more permanent.  Recovery from traditional disputes now is less likely to happen.  The reasons are not that American politicians are more hostile than ever, but that the system itself has undergone two major structural changes that resist reversal.

Congress has become a parliament.  The president has unchecked power.

American political parties have not traditionally been monoliths.  Franklin D. Roosevelt led a divided Democratic Party that included southern racists and northern Blacks.  He might also get the support of defecting Republicans.  Part of his success resulted from his ability to produce congressional majorities out of this mix.

Then, the Democrats enjoyed a long-running House majority.  Republican Newt Gingrich concluded that for the GOP to forge its own majority, it should propose its own agenda and require total commitment to it by its House members.  Failure to remain in line could result in party leadership denying them desirable committee assignments.

After the 1994 elections, it worked.  Strict party discipline replaced the independence of Republican representatives.   The party came to resemble British or Canadian parliamentary parties more than the American political individualism.  Not only did GOP party discipline work, but it became ingrained in the party.

When the Republicans were able to work as a unit, the Democrats, a much less disciplined party, were forced to respond by following the path toward the parliamentary system.  Party lines hardened so that defections by even one or two members have become national news.  Passing bills became tougher.

The Supreme Court filled the congressional vacuum.  It endorsed the concept of a unitary presidency in which the chief executive would control all the levers of government.  The president might govern by executive order when Congress failed to legislate.  Almost no agencies would be independent of the president.

In practice, that meant the president could reinterpret or reject the customs and understandings that had grown up around the Constitution.  President Trump has carried that process to extremes, having been left unchecked by a well-disciplined and submissive Republican Congress that he could intimidate.  He has probably set precedents for his successors.

The country remains split by ideology and region.  Democracy in a vast and divided nation seems to come up short.  Vermont and Mississippi share few common concerns, but have deep political differences.  Some Republicans and Democrats question each others’ patriotism.  A presidential election once every four years fails to produce a truly national leader.

Is democracy in peril as Jefferson thought it could be?   Are issues so complex that the U.S. is simply too large for representative democracy?

The U.S. has adopted a quasi-parliamentary system, but has retained an increasingly powerful executive outside of Congress.  If this system persists, it might evolve further as needed to save popular government.  A first step should be the enlargement of the House, bringing representatives close to the people.

Many parliamentary governments rely on legislative coalitions or voting support from other parties.   Legislation then reflects compromises reached to form or maintain the coalition.  The executive faces an active rather than a passive legislature, which can better exercise checks on the executive than can one-party government.

Talk has begun about a multi-party American system based on ideology.  It might restore the art of compromise, now virtually dead in Washington.

A multi-party system will not emerge rapidly.  New parties must be prepared to mature slowly before having much power.  That will require committed leaders across the country and adequate finance.  Still, splitting up politics is better than splitting up the country.

The process depends on voters seeing the potential benefits of having more than a choice between two parties that time has passed.

Congress caves on Iran

 Congress caves on Iran

Gordon L. Weil

Maine Sen. Susan Collins demonstrated last week how she maintains her reputation as a Republican moderate.  Her statements are evidence of the decline of Congress.

As President Trump geared up for the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, Collins cautioned that war should only be a “last resort.”  This remark was constructive, because Iran’s representatives still held out the hope of a negotiated settlement on their nuclear development.  But, like the rest of Congress and America’s allies, Collins did not know that Trump had already decided on war. 

War came, and questions were promptly raised about the absence of congressional authorization.  The War Powers Resolution, intended to limit a president’s ability to take the U.S. to war, might be used to put on the brakes.  Under that Resolution, the president is required to brief Congress within 48 hours and needs congressional authorization to continue the war beyond 60 days.

Collins opposed mandating an earlier end of the Iran war.  Her stated rationale was that Trump had provided the required briefing and therefore could legally proceed.  Collins and all Republican senators but one refused to deauthorize the action.

The impression left by Collins was that Trump had acted legally, so no further action was needed.  What happened to her “last resort?”   The GOP attitude ignored the purpose of the 48-hour notice.  Congress does not have to wait 60 days to halt the war.  By their action, the GOP senators and later the House approved the war.

Their action recalled the congressional vote supporting President G.W. Bush’s Iraq War. Members don’t want to look weak after the president has proclaimed that he acted to protect Americans.  In the Iraq case, the supposed threat from “weapons of mass destruction” did not exist.  In the Iran case, Trump has offered nothing more about a threat than his opinion.

After Iraq, some senators and representatives regretted having gone along with the vote.  Similarly, after the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, members expressed regret about having authorized the Vietnam War, relying on false reports about an alleged attack on a U.S. submarine.

The past votes were not as openly partisan as was the Iran vote, which took on the character of an expression of GOP support for the MAGA president.  It did not appear to be an individually considered decision about sending U.S. armed forces into combat with the attendant loss of life by citizens of the U.S. and other nations.

It’s now argued that the world has changed since the Constitution was written, and Congress would move too slowly to declare war in modern times.  It is sensible to leave the decision on war to the president, some analysts say, because presidents control foreign affairs and serve as commander-in-chief.

The prime power left to Congress is to enact legislation to block funding for a war, though it would have to withstand a presidential veto.  That would make it almost certain to fail.

As with the earlier authorizations, senators and representatives may yet have to justify their votes.  They may apologize, as have some of their predecessors.  But, when the vote was taken, there seemed to be no thought of their personal accountability to the voters.

Congress cannot “make” war.  A legislative body cannot control military action, beyond authorizing it or not.  But making war is distinct from “declaring” war, which is an essential function of an elected legislature. 

The issue is particularly complicated because the Constitution makes the president, the chief civil official, also the chief military officer.   What worked for George Washington did not work for many of his successors. 

Congress must make the policy decision committing the country on a course that will cost the lives of Americans and others.  While generals must inevitably issue orders resulting in the death of some of their troops, their actions must be authorized by agencies responsible to the people in whose name they act.

In the U.S., the responsible agency is Congress and not the lone chief executive.  The president may order actions costing lives, but they should have congressional authorization.  The power over life and death is too great an authority to accord to a single person, one who may never again face voter scrutiny.

The current War Powers Resolution does not work well.  The Resolution applies after the fact, which is too late.  Going through the motions of following it allowed Sen. Collins to abandon her moderate “last resort” statement for GOP partisanship.

If Congress values its authority and believes the constitutional war power needs updating, it should adopt a Resolution that its funding approval for any future war requires it receiving advance notice, except in case of a direct attack on the U.S. 

Without some role for Congress, the president’s surprise attack on an adversary is also a surprise attack on his own country.

Pushback on Trump's power

Gordon L. Weil

When President Trump was asked about any limits on his powers in world affairs, he replied, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

His view that he makes his own rules also applies to his authority in domestic affairs.  He has ignored the Constitution and laws.  His first year in office has shown his remarkable ability to do almost whatever he wanted without anybody being able to limit his moves.

In international affairs, American military and economic power discourage other nations from opposing him.  Most countries have accepted his unilateral actions, but he faced unexpected opposition.  China and Canada pushed back on his tariff policy, concluding that appeasement would not work.  Opposing his claim to Greenland, Europe has strongly backed Denmark.

In domestic affairs, Trump intimidated House and Senate GOP majorities by threatening to support primary challengers to disloyal Republicans.  His strategy worked, allowing him to get his way politically.  The thin red line held.  The Democrats could do nothing more than flail.  When he overrode Congress, the Supreme Court usually approved.

Signs are now emerging that his absolute power is limited.

His standing in public opinion polls has slipped.  A majority of the public is dissatisfied in all policy areas and in his overall performance.   Buoyed by good 2025 election results, the Democrats have begun to hope those sentiments would bring 2026 election victories, gaining them a congressional check on his actions.

Recently, his virtually total hold on congressional Republicans has begun to weaken.   House GOP representatives openly charge they are ignored.  A few Republicans have decided not to seek reelection. 

One probable reason for these signs of diminished loyalty is despair over Congress having lost most of its powers.  It is often bypassed or taken for granted.  And, some of his most loyal backers worry openly that he is abandoning basic MAGA isolationist commitments by sending American forces into conflicts involving Iran, Syria, Yemen and Venezuela.

MAGA loyalty verges on being a political cult, where anything Trump decides is deemed to be necessary and appropriate.  But its is now being challenged by some of its most loyal followers.   They align increasingly with traditional, conservative Republicans, who are not Trump backers.

The Democrats gained from resisting cuts to the Affordable Care Act, even though the result was a government shutdown.  Millions of Americans were placed in jeopardy by the GOP policy and are suffering from the end of the subsidies.  They are forced to pay budget-breaking premiums or lose coverage altogether.   

Some Republicans sought to adopt a short extension, allowing time for dealing with ACA reform, but the House was kept out of session, making any negotiations impossible.  Some members faced constituent anger.   They found that Trump & Co. put this government cost-cutting ahead of real human needs. 

This month, the dam broke.  Overcoming the obstinacy from GOP legislative leaders who followed Trump’s wishes, eleven House Republicans joined the Democrats in voting to extend the ACA subsidies.  The political reality of voter discontent pushed them to break ranks.  This was a major split with the president.

Previously, Congress had passed two bills unanimously.  One would bring a fresh water conduit to a part of Colorado. The other aided the Miccosukee Indian tribe in Florida and enhanced the environment.  Trump vetoed both bills.

He demands that the Democratic governor of Colorado pardon an MAGA-oriented election clerk convicted by a jury of tampering with voting machines, but the governor refuses.  Thus, the veto.   The tribe opposes the nearby Alligator Alcatraz for immigrants, which he favors.  Thus, the veto. 

It takes two-thirds of the House to override a veto and, in both cases, some Republicans lined up with Democrats.  But the result fell short of the required number as most GOP House members flipped their position to support the president.  Still, the defections showed that Trump’s absolute control is slipping.

The third event came after the Venezuela incursion.  The Senate voted that taking further Trump action there could be subject to a congressional override.  Though the resolution won’t become law and would not be used if it passed, five GOP senators were willing to break with a furious president. 

Maine Sen. Susan Collins was one of the five, and Trump said she should never again be elected to office.   Does he want her to face a MAGA primary challenger?  Does he want his loyalists to sit out the election?   Either way, he could be helping the Democrats pick up the seat. 

All this pushback happened in the one week of the new year.  For the first time in his second term, he was seriously and repeatedly challenged by his own party members.  He was not forced to change any policy, but he has now faced open GOP congressional concern with his being left to rule, checked only by his own “morality.”  

Trump seeks 'sphere of influence'

 

Gordon L. Weil

Make America Great Again assumes that the country had a golden past.

President Trump wants to recover it.  

The world’s major powers once dominated regions and other countries that fell within their so-called “sphere of influence.”   In those areas, the major power, its influence usually determined by the size of its economy and its military, called the shots.  That was their golden age.

Now, Trump seems to accept the world being divided among three great powers, each with its sphere of influence.  China, Russia and the U.S. would dominate.  The American sphere would encompass the entire Western Hemisphere, from Alaska’s Aleutian Islands to Greenland and from the Arctic to the Antarctic.

The U.S. area would be run under the newly created “Donroe Doctrine.”   President James Monroe warned of the use of American power to prevent further European colonization of Latin America.  Trump would extend his doctrine to allow U.S. power to be deployed throughout the hemisphere in the pursuit of economic and military advantage.

By understanding this policy, Trump’s moves on Venezuela, Greenland and Canada are explained.  The policy is unconstrained to the point that he can aspire to have his northern neighbors be absorbed by the U.S.  His minions imply that the country has the power to take what it wants.

In the case of Venezuela, America soldiers were deployed into the country, seized people and transported them to an American courtroom.  In the wake of this incursion, Trump made clear his intention to control Venezuela policy, and particularly its oil industry.

In fact, it worked so well that President Trump believes he has the “option” of using military force to seize Greenland, a sparsely populated Danish territory, and make it part of the U.S.  That might violate the law, but that wouldn’t matter. 

Who would enforce the law and either stop Trump or punish him and the U.S.?  Neither Venezuela nor Denmark has the power to block him.  What about the UN or Congress?

The UN Security Council met urgently to discuss the Venezuela situation, but no vote was taken on the American action.   If there had been a vote, the UN Charter might have provided a way to deny the U.S. its Council vote and hence, its veto.

It took no action because China and Russia, whose representatives spoke harshly about the U.S., don’t want an open conflict that could flare into real war.  Other Council members are either intimidated by the U.S. or dependent on it or both.

Trump used his status as commander-in-chief of the military to move into Venezuela.  He considers his military command gives him virtually unlimited authority to act.  With Congress having ceded many of its powers to the president, it does not employ the power of the purse.  It does not claim its right to declare war.  Impeachment alone would not deter him.  

The Supreme Court has usually endorsed his expansive view of the presidency.  It would normally leave a judgment up to Congress.  And some issues, like the kidnapping of the self-anointed president and his wife and their special status might fall outside of the scope of the case.

Trump’s asserts national security concerns, but he lacks evidence.   In Venezuela, he repeatedly has shown that his prime interest is oil.  In Greenland, he wants access for military bases and to minerals.

Trump’s actions are consistent with traditional American policy.  While people may find notions of democracy and neutrality in the country’s founding documents, the U.S. has long practiced “gunboat diplomacy” – the pursuit by force of American foreign policy objectives relating to smaller nations, especially in this hemisphere.

His sphere of influence policy encounters opposition in Europe, but countries there still decline to make the economic sacrifices needed to build their own defense, and he pays little attention to them.  To him, the EU is a threat to the U.S.

If there are downsides, they could come from the long-term consequences of his actions.  Trump looks for short-term results that would ensure he gets the credit.  Whatever his successes, animosity and even enmity has grown in neighboring countries in the hemisphere.  They could turn toward America’s rivals.

More desirable but less likely would be the recovery of Congress and the restoration of institutional checks on the president.  The legislative branch has abdicated its responsibilities, putting the institution itself in jeopardy.   Its integrity is threatened by members pushing partisanship ahead of preserving Congress. 

The UN’s leading members have given up on it.  The UN Charter is a treaty under international law, but is routinely ignored.  It might still be made to work instead allowing it to recede further as an irrelevant anachronism.

But everybody keeps their heads down.   That leaves Trump, violating laws and treaties, to remake the world as he wishes.

Constitutional test looms at Supreme Court

 

Gordon L. Weil

On Inauguration Day, President Trump issued a torrent of executive orders, aimed at reshaping the federal government; many more would follow.   Facing a flood of bad news, people affected took Trump to court.

Those affected believed they would soon gain relief from what they claimed were his illegal or unconstitutional acts.  But his supporters felt confident that, despite initial adverse rulings from lower courts they labeled as liberal, a friendlier Supreme Court would endorse his moves.

Faced with a steady flow of Trump’s executive orders, dockets expanded in every part of the country.  Federal district and appellate courts have worked nights and weekends to keep up with the cases. 

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, enjoying its usual three-month break, limited itself to a few procedural orders, supporting Trump, while putting off decisions.  It hears its first case on October 6.

In July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the president has almost unlimited executive powers, free from control by Congress or the Court.  The courts also would have “no power” to control the president.   Presumably, the courts could decide if the president enjoyed such a grant of full powers under the Constitution.

In a variety of ways, all the cases making their way to the Court will test the scope of the presidential powers that it has recognized.

Until now, Trump has asserted that the powers he exercises fall under the independent and exclusive power of the president.  In many decisions of challenges to his orders, lower federal courts have found that he violated the Constitution or laws.  They have suspended his actions, but the Supreme Court overruled them, allowing him to act for the time being.

The outcome of the legal tests between Trump and his challengers is not clear.  Some appellate decisions have been by split votes, suggesting the Supreme Court majority might see merit in either side. If the justices act based on the party of the president who appointed them, Trump could prevail.

Though many cases are pending, most fall into a few key areas.

The Constitution itself is in play.  Trump claims that the Fourteenth Amendment right to citizenship at birth, treated as absolute since it was adopted in 1868, does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants.  If the Court agrees that birthright citizenship may be conditional, the right could undergo great change.

Trump also seeks to deny due process rights to people before they are expelled from the country.  The Constitution applies to a “person” not only a “citizen,” but Trump discerns a distinction with which no court has yet agreed.

How far does the executive power extend?  The Court has already upended independent regulatory agencies by allowing the president to fire their members.  Will it allow him to fire them at will under DOGE, ignoring century-old civil service laws that protect government employees?

While the law is supposed to prevent his withholding public spending previously mandated and authorized by Congress, Trump has virtually eliminated entire agencies and their employees.  He ended programs created by law with no opposition from the Republican Congress.  If his powers extend that far, what remains of the congressional “power of the purse?”  

Trump backers claim his election victory gives him the right to implement his agenda without congressional approval.  He has removed women and Blacks from office in the belief that they had received favorable treatment.   He penalizes states and universities, stripping federal funding if they have programs to ensure equal opportunity, branding them as “woke.”

He uses the Title IX prohibition banning discrimination against women in athletics to keep trans women from women’s competitions.  Is this a matter he can decide or is it up to the states or Congress?   Maine’s Gov. Mills has asserted the state’s right in the face of retaliatory funding cuts.

Despite both history and a long-standing law, Trump deploys the military to engage in law enforcement activities meant to be under state jurisdiction.  He has sought to transform world trade by imposing heavy new tariffs using or misusing emergency powers granted by Congress.  Two courts have decided that he exceeded his authority.

Ultimately, such cases may come to the Supreme Court when it comes back to Washington next month.  The justices may take their time in deciding the many cases making their way to the Court.  A slow pace, like its recent procedural rulings in his favor, would simply allow his decisions to achieve their purposes before the Court rules on their legality.

If the Court affirms its view of virtually unlimited presidential power, as is possible, it could nullify the balance of powers in the Constitution.  If so, the Constitution itself and the Court’s own future will become hotly contested political issues.   The ultimate court will then be the voters.

In short, it will soon be crunch time for the Constitution.

Politics of trying to kill pubici media

 

Gordon L. Weil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. under one-person rule

 

Gordon L. Weil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Independence Day.

"Big, bearuful bill' in trouble

Gordon L. Weil

It’s all about the Laffer Curve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s what the BBB would do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Democrats didn't do

 

Gordon L. Weil

Here’s some news you may have missed this past week.

Though sure to be outvoted by House Republicans, Democrats issued their own comprehensive legislative package, calling it their “Big, Realistic Bill.”  In it, they noted where they have common ground with the GOP on several key aspects of immigration issues.  The bill was backed by all Democrats, while some Republican members said they liked aspects of it.

A group of Democrats announced a new social media outlet called “Truth Now.”  A rotating team of Democratic editors, including some members of Congress, intend, “to keep up a steady flow of proposals, facts and fact-checking.”  Their motto: “There’s nothing as dangerous as fake news.”

Democratic congressional leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries announced that their legislative work left them insufficient time to serve as the principal Democratic spokespersons.  Together with the Democratic National Committee, they will name a single spokesperson to hold daily press briefings for the White House and congressional press corps.

The DNC plans to create “The Democratic Forum,” a summit meeting later this year to include congressional leaders, governors, state party representatives and others to identify and develop unified policy positions for use across the country in next year’s elections.  The DNC chair said that the first step to victory is building unity around a creative set of proposals.

You missed all that, right? 

Of course, that’s because none of it happened. 

Instead, the Democrats chose to stick to the same failed policy they have pursued since 2016 – Trump will self-destruct, and they will be left standing to pursue great policies like those that brought them success under FDR.  They will look for attractive candidates to relentlessly attack Trump policies.

In short, the Democrats expect to win by waiting for Trump to lose, thanks to his obviously divisive policies.  They fail to notice that they are no more popular than Trump and his loyal Republican GOP.  

The Democrats are poor communicators.  During Joe Biden’s term, a week would go by without a word from him, as aging kept him out of the public eye.  Filling the Dems’ vacuum, a relentless Trump issues pronouncements on his own social media, which he has made his main tool for governing.

The Democrats need simple messages that focus on the concerns of most Americans, regardless of party.   Scoring points in congressional hearings doesn’t reach most people out here.  This is not an academic debate. This is politics, and politics today is war.

Democratic leadership should define party policy.  Here are my ideas on the issues they should address simply and directly.

The debt.  Too much and growing.  It could devour the budget.  Who will pay and when?

Taxes. We ask for a lot from government, but don’t pay for it.  With much debt, we must turn to taxes.  A fair system means tax increases, not decreases, for the wealthiest.

Your rights. The Bill of Rights is meant to protect people in the U.S. from the government. If government strips rights from anybody, it comes closer to being able to do the same thing to you.

Budget. All agree that there’s waste and marginal programs.  But today’s slash and burn kills innocent victims.  The Democrats should demand each department meet a spending target by setting priorities.  The president and Congress would have to sign off.  

Less fortunate neighbors.  Our market system inevitably leaves some people behind.  Most Americans are compassionate and want to help the poor and disadvantaged to participate in the economy and lead decent lives.  That’s nothing new.   Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not political playthings; they have become part of the fabric of America.

Immigration.  This great country should be able to control the flow of immigrants, who can gain their freedom and boost our economy.  While illegal immigrants who are criminals should be deported, mass deportation will deprive the country of loyal residents who make real contributions.

Biden.  The Democrats are moving on from the Biden years.  His policies do not always meet the needs of today.  We respect the past, but our eyes are on the future.

Economy.  Inflation was up during the Covid recovery, but it’s no longer high.  We must keep prices stable, while allowing the work force to earn more as it serves a more advanced economy.  That involves issues ranging from where and how long people work to direct aid to improve skills.

Of course, the Democrats disagree with the Republicans on almost all these issues. But they should spend less time attacking the GOP and more on making their own case.

This approach raises risks for future Democratic electoral success.  But their current policy of pure negativity may continue it on the path to failure.  Given the dire situation of American politics, it’s time to take risks.

 

Trump's DOGE could face Congress protecting its turf

 

Gordon L. Weil

There’s a new government department.  Except that it’s not part of the government and it’s not a department. 

It’s the Department of Government Efficiency, known at DOGE.  Sounds like something you’d make up, maybe as a video game, but it is real.  Its leaders aren’t confirmed by the Senate, its staff is not taxpayer funded, it communicates by social media, and it reports to a president who is not yet in office.

It exists and is functioning.  President-elect Trump expects it to respond to the broad concern that the government is not working and is not responsive to the public’s needs and priorities.

Trump has been acting presidential well before he takes office.  Of course, he has presidential experience, but his early moves are likely to set a new precedent in governing.  Creating a seemingly real government department before he gets into the White House is part of his effort.

He gave the agency to Elon Musk, on paper the world’s richest man, and Vivek Ramaswamy, who wants to be president one day.  Both are wealthy enough to finance DOGE and use Musk’s X social media to communicate.

The two men issue recommendations, which at times sound more like their wish list than measures to improve federal government operations.  But DOGE should be taken seriously, because it was created for them by President-elect Trump, and he takes it seriously.

DOGE has three purposes.  It would bring federal spending under greater control to reduce the annual deficit, allowing taxes to be cut, not raised.  It would eliminate unwanted, unnecessary or overlapping agencies or functions, reducing the size of government.  It would give the president increased ability to control the government.

The early proposals by the two DOGE bosses are somewhat scattershot, but responsive to the Trump Republican agenda.  The Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are at risk of outright elimination.  Even the Defense Department bureaucracy may be in for cuts.

In line with the Supreme Court’s doubt about the powers of independent regulatory agencies, DOGE might want to pare down the staffs of such bodies, including the IRS.  Outlays for culture, public health, and NASA could all be reduced.  But plans have not yet taken final form.

Ultimately, the DOGE spirit might extend to dealing with the two largest areas of federal spending, Social Security and Medicare.  Decisions about their future funding must come soon.  One solution would be to reduce benefits, which may sit well with DOGE.

The success of this cost-cutting approach may depend on Congress.  The president cannot close agencies or programs that exist under law.  Although Trump disagrees, the law now prevents a president from refusing to spend money on congressionally mandated programs.  He would need the consent of Congress to enact at least some major DOGE proposals.

While that may sound easy with a GOP Congress, it’s not a certainty. Many programs exist because members of Congress want to please specific constituencies.  Regardless of their party, they may be reluctant to kill or cut them.  Partisan support for the president may not overcome catering to their backers.

Evidence exists that Trump and DOGE may inevitably face a hard sell.  The Government Accountability Office, something like the national accountant, has already looked at much of what DOGE is supposed to do, but the agency is mostly ignored.

The GAO has published a detailed list of hundreds of federal programs that duplicate or overlap other programs.  For example, 80 economic development programs are run by four different agencies.  They exist thanks to proposals by members of Congress or turf battles among the agencies.  They probably waste billions of dollars.

Even more worrisome is the GAO High Risk Series, which “identifies government operations with vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or in need of transformation.”  Sometimes agencies heed warnings and undertake enough reforms to get off the list.  There are now 34 GAO warnings. but the president and Congress take little interest in them.

Presidents and department heads are selected for political reasons, not their administrative abilities.  A function like DOGE could make sense if it were independent and not overly ideological.  Of course, GAO could be used, if it were taken more seriously.

So-called zero-base budgeting for agencies could also be used.  Under it, they would regularly develop the lowest budget needed to get their missions accomplished and request any new funding for going beyond that.  Congress could eliminate or create programs.  President Jimmy Carter installed a workable ZBB, but it was gone by the presidency of George W. Bush.

Large organizations, public or private, will always be inefficient.  Though its agenda may turn out to be overly personal, too partisan or controversial, Trump’s DOGE recognizes that inefficiency may have gone too far, causing lost public confidence in government.