Thursday, April 17, 2025
It’s Time to Protect America From Trump
With each passing day we are seeing the Felon launch more attacks on American institutions, ignore court orders and take actions cutting funding for medical research that over time will shorten American lives. Add to this the lunatic in charge of America's health care system who is disputing research and proven science to push insane conspiracy theories and the work of charlatans. We find ourselves with a would be mentally unhinged would be monarch or dictator who cares nothing for the harm done to everyday Americans as he seeks revenge and the manufacture of chaos. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans sit on their hands - or worse, praise dictatorial actions - rather than find themselves targeted by the Felon's wrath and potential primary challenges. The "adults in the room" that restrained the Felon during his first term have been replaced by crackpots, ideologues and sycophants who seemingly are as mentally unhinged as their fuhrer. Only the courts have sought to block illegal actions, although I have little faith in the U.S. Supreme Court to act decisively - its presidential immunity ruling helped set the stage for the current nightmare - and affirm lower court rulings that have sought to uphold the rule of law. A piece in The New York Times looks at where we are and the need for voters - the majority of whom did not vote for the Felon - to begin rising up to stop the slide towards something truly frightening. Here are highlights:
America has periodically faced great national tests. The Civil War and Reconstruction. The Great Depression. McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Jim Crow and the civil rights movement. And now we face another great test — of our Constitution, our institutions, our citizens — as
PresidentTrump ignores courts and sabotages universities and his officers grab people off the street.I’ve spent much of my career covering authoritarianism in other countries, and I’ve seen all this before. The chummy scene in the White House this week with Trump and President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador was telling. . . . . With chilling indifference, they discussed the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a father of three who is married to an American citizen and who in 2019 was ordered protected from deportation by an immigration judge. The Trump administration nonetheless deported Abrego Garcia as a result of what it eventually acknowledged was an “administrative error,” and he now languishes in a brutal Salvadoran prison — even though, in contrast to Trump, he has no criminal record.
This is a challenge to our constitutional system, for the principal lawbreaking here appears to have been committed not by Abrego Garcia but by the Trump administration.
Appellate judges in the case warned that the administration’s position represented a “path of perfect lawlessness” and would mean “the government could send any of us to a Salvadoran prison without due process.”
Then the Supreme Court ruled that Trump must obey the district judge’s instruction to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. Trump and Bukele effectively mocked our federal courts by making it clear that they had no intention of bringing Abrego Garcia home.
A remarkable Times investigation found that of the 238 migrants dispatched to the Salvadoran prison, most did not have criminal records and few were found to have ties to gangs. Officials appear to have selected their targets in part based on tattoos and a misunderstanding of their significance.
This is the same administration that marked for deletion a photo of the World War II bomber Enola Gay, seemingly because it thought it had something to do with gay people. But this ineptitude is intertwined with brutality. Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, said that those sent to the Salvadoran prison “should stay there for the rest of their lives.”
Trump’s border “czar,” Tom Homan, suggested that governors of sanctuary states should be prosecuted and perhaps imprisoned. “It’s coming,” he said.
Much of this echoes what I’ve seen abroad. In China, the government has cracked down on elite universities, crushed freethinking journalism, suppressed lawyers and forced intellectuals to parrot the party line. . . . In Communist Poland, in Venezuela, in Russia, in Bangladesh and in China, I’ve seen rulers cultivate personality cults and claim to follow laws that they concocted out of thin air. “We are a nation of laws,” a Chinese state security official once told me as he detained me for, um, committing journalism.
Trump’s defiance of the courts comes in the wider context of his attacks on law firms, universities and news organizations. The White House this week appeared to ignore a separate court by blocking Associated Press journalists from a White House event.
In the face of this onslaught, many powerful institutions have caved. Nine law firms have surrendered and agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in pro bono work for the administration’s preferred causes. Columbia University rolled over.
We needed a dollop of hope, and this week it came from Harvard University. Facing absurd demands from the administration, it delivered a resolute no, standing fast even as Trump then halted $2.2 billion in federal funding and threatened the university’s tax-exempt status. (A conflict alert: I’m a former member of Harvard’s board of overseers, and my wife is a current member.)
Yes, critics of elite universities make some legitimate points. . . . Too many university departments are ideological monocultures, with evangelical Christians and social conservatives often left to feel unwelcome.
It’s also true that there is a strain of antisemitism on the left, although Trump exaggerates it to encompass legitimate criticisms of Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza. . . . . Admission preferences based on legacy, sports and faculty parents perpetuate an unfair educational aristocracy.
Yet Trump is not encouraging debate on these issues. Rather, like autocrats in China, Hungary and Russia, he’s trying to crush independent universities that might challenge his misrule. One difference is that China, while repressing universities, at least has been smart enough to protect and boost academic scientific research because it recognizes that this work benefits the entire nation.
I hope voters understand that Trump’s retaliatory funding freeze primarily strikes not Harvard’s main campus but researchers affiliated with Harvard Medical School. The university has 162 Nobel Prize winners, and scientists there are working on cancer immunotherapy, brain tumors, organ transplants, diabetes and more. It was a Harvard researcher who discovered the molecule that is the basis for the GLP-1 weight-loss medications that have revolutionized obesity care.
Programs now facing funding cuts address pediatric cancer and treatment for veterans. The federal government already issued a “stop-work order” on Harvard research on Lou Gehrig’s disease. The upshot is that Trump’s lust for power and vengeance may one day be measured by more Americans dying of cancer, heart disease and other ailments.
All this illuminates an administration that is not only authoritarian but also reckless; this is vandalism of the American project. That is why this moment is a test of our ability to step up and protect our national greatness from our national leader.
Wednesday, April 16, 2025
First Came the Chaos; Next Comes the Retribution
During the first two months of his presidency, the prevailing theme of Trump’s White House was the Elon Musk–led attempt to drastically cut federal agencies. The purge is incomplete—the U.S. DOGE Service continues to seek cuts at more agencies, and litigation has slowed or blocked some of the cuts—but we seem to have already moved into the next stage: revenge.
Trump took one of his most chilling steps toward retribution last week, when he directed the government to investigate two officials in his first administration: Chris Krebs, who headed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Miles Taylor, who was chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security. The reasons Trump is out to get these two men are clear enough. Krebs, whose work focused on election security, was fired for refusing to say that fraud tainted the 2020 presidential election; as I wrote back in November of that year, Trump targeted him “not because he did a bad job, but because he did too good a job and said so.” Taylor wrote a notable anonymous New York Times op-ed about administration officials resisting Trump, then published a book unmasking himself and worked to organize Republican opposition to Trump.
One might be tempted to think that Trump’s new orders rely on pretexts to target the duo, but they don’t even really bother: They’re pretty straightforward about the reasons. Trump is starting with a conclusion that the two men did something wrong and demanding the government work backwards to find some evidence to support it.
You don’t have to be a fan of either Krebs or Taylor to be alarmed by these actions, just as you don’t have to agree with Mahmoud Khalil’s views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to see why his detention is a danger to all Americans.
Any legal inquiries into Krebs and Taylor seem unlikely to go anywhere, beyond stripping their security clearance, which Trump has the power to do. But the two will have to hire lawyers, likely at significant cost, and go through the stress and fear of defending themselves. Even if they triumph, they will have been made examples; other would-be dissenters will see their travails and think twice before speaking, as Trump intends.
Trump has been quietly imposing retribution for some time, but the DOGE-led purges mean fewer longtime professionals who might object to or stand in the way of the latest revenge moves.
In January, the acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, fired several attorneys who had prosecuted cases related to the January 6, 2021, riots. Trump also stripped security details for officials who had served in his first administration but later criticized him—even though some face credible death threats from Iran because of actions they took on Trump’s behalf.
Meanwhile, in a sort of inverse retribution, the administration is rewarding its loyal allies. The Justice Department is pushing for the release of a man convicted of lying to FBI agents about the Biden family.
One prominent target for Trump’s retribution has been law firms. Trump has gone after a series of major firms simply because current or former attorneys there were involved in things Trump hated: his felony conviction in Manhattan, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s work. Last week, he also assailed a firm that has represented plaintiffs in defamation cases related to 2020 election fraud. As the Atlantic contributor Paul Rosenzweig writes, the speed with which some of these firms have surrendered is deplorable.
In the settlements, these firms have agreed to provide a combined total of about $1 billion in “pro bono” work supporting causes the president backs. As The Wall Street Journal reports, these deals have been negotiated by Trump’s personal lawyer Boris Epshteyn, who is not a government employee—making clear that these causes relate to Trump’s personal revenge rather than some legitimate governmental purpose.
But then, Trump has never seen much distinction between his own interests and the power of the government. For him, revenge isn’t just a welcome adjunct to controlling the levels of government. It’s the reason to control them.
Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Trump Is Exploring Ways To ‘Deport’ U.S. Citizens
In America today, we are seeing foreign students and others being accused of being "terrorists" or as supporters of anti-Semitism seized on the streets by masked individuals and throw into unmarked cars and made to disappear, some in a horrific prison in El Salvador. Now, the Felon has indicated he wants to do the same to American citizens and is defying a unanimous ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court directing the Felon and his regime to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States. Lawyers for the Department of Justice told a federal court that the administration does not believe it has a legal obligation to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, despite a court order to do so, and even though the government has admitted that its arrest and rendition of Abrego Garcia happened because of “administrative error.” The excuse? He can't be brought back because, in El Salvador, he is outside the jurisdiction of the United States. A piece in The Atlantic looks at the Felon's defiance of the U. S. Supreme Court and what it could mean for American citizens:
Donald Trump took one step closer to openly defying an order from the Supreme Court today—effectively daring the justices to defend the law or pack up and go home.
President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador has emerged as a confederate of Trump’s, accepting planes full of Venezuelan citizens removed from the United States. Last month, the U.S. government deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man living in Maryland with protected legal status. As The Atlantic first reported, the Trump administration acknowledged in court that Abrego Garcia’s deportation was “an administrative error”; last week the Supreme Court unanimously ordered the executive branch to “facilitate” his return to the United States.
Since then, the Justice Department has dragged its feet. It has filed required reports to a district court judge late, and has refused to say what it’s doing to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States. But whether this was defiance or merely delay was unclear until today. In an Oval Office press conference this afternoon, the White House revealed that the answer is defiance—at least for now. Both the U.S. and El Salvador are pretending that they have no power to do anything about Abrego Garcia, a performance of smirking, depraved, and wholly unconvincing absurdity.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Abrego Garcia “was illegally in our country,” despite her own department’s earlier admission of error. The Trump administration also alleged that he’s a gang member, based on a dubious 2019 accusation, but has provided no evidence.
And the idea that Trump couldn’t insist that the friendly leader of a client state return a single man would be an indictment of his abilities as a head of state—if it were true. One might say this leaves Abrego Garcia in a Kafkaesque limbo, but all reports about the Salvadoran prison, the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), indicate that it’s more of a hell.
American citizens might like to reassure themselves that Abrego Garcia’s case is an outlier involving a Salvadoran citizen; surely they are insulated from such misfortune. But this would be a failure of imagination. First, as I have written, a government that can ignore court rulings in one sphere can ignore them in others, so no one is safe from a lawless government.
Moreover, an American citizen could find themselves in precisely the same vise as Abrego Garcia. During today’s remarks, Trump was asked whether he would be willing to deport American citizens convicted of violent crime to El Salvador. “I’m all for it,” he said. But convictions are overturned all the time. What would happen if an American citizen was found guilty, sent to CECOT, and then had their conviction overturned? We can guess: The White House would insist that they were in Salvadoran custody, beyond the government’s reach. Bukele would shrug and say he had no power to release them.
In their brief, unsigned order about Abrego Garcia last week, the Supreme Court justices seemed to be trying to say as little as possible, and today’s press conference showed how happy the White House has been to take advantage of their brevity and ambiguity. If the Court is unwilling to be more direct, it will surrender any power to act as a check on the other branches of government, thereby allowing authoritarianism.
Meanwhile a piece at Huffington Post looks at Trump's veiled threats to American citizens:
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that President Donald Trump is exploring legal pathways to “deport” U.S. citizens to El Salvador, where the administration has already arranged to house deported immigrants in a prison known for its human rights abuses.
Leavitt suggested the effort would be limited to people who have committed major crimes, but Trump has also mentioned the possibility of sending people who commit lesser offenses abroad.
Any such move on the part of the Trump administration is certain to be challenged in court. It is also not clear what legal authority could be used to justify expelling U.S. citizens from their homeland.
“These would be heinous, violent criminals who have broken our nation’s laws repeatedly. These are violent, repeat offenders on American streets,” Leavitt told reporters at a press briefing.
“The president has said if it’s legal, right, if there is a legal pathway to do that. He’s not sure, [and] we are not sure if there is,” Leavitt continued.
Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday that he “love[s]” the idea of removing U.S. citizens, adding that it would be an “honor” to send them to El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele — an eager partner in Trump’s schemes.
Trump also proposed the idea in March, when Tesla vehicles were being vandalized and set ablaze in protest of CEO Elon Musk’s heavy-handed involvement in the Trump administration. Musk has been running the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, taking credit for huge cuts to the federal workforce and federal services.
“I look forward to watching the sick terrorist thugs get 20 year jail sentences for what they are doing to Elon Musk and Tesla,” Trump wrote. “Perhaps they could serve them in the prisons of El Salvador, which have become so recently famous for such lovely conditions!”
The administration has argued that housing people in El Salvador saves taxpayer money.
Several planeloads of immigrants flown there last month remain incarcerated as a lawsuit challenging their deportation proceeds through the federal court system. The immigrants, mostly men from Venezuela, were accused of being gang members and deported without the chance to defend themselves. Court documents and reports that have emerged since their removal suggest many believe they will be targeted by the very same gangs Trump has accused them of being affiliated with.
Trump used the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to send the immigrants to El Salvador, officially categorizing the gang Tren de Aragua as a hostile power and the immigrants of being members. It is not clear whether he would attempt to use the same law or a different power to remove citizens.
Critics say the administration’s policy is a clear violation of due process protections enshrined in the Constitution.
Monday, April 14, 2025
Sunday, April 13, 2025
.jpg)
Saturday, April 12, 2025
Trump Is Triggering a New Nuclear Weapons Race
In Trump 2.0 America, there is much to fear, ranging from social program funding cuts coupled with the destruction of federal agencies, to potential soaring consumer prices combined with a recession, to masked federal agents seizing people (no citizens as yet) in their homes or on the streets and making them disappear, to the effort to erase racial and sexual minorities, to the future one's children or grandchildren may face in a country with an increasingly fascist and authoritarian government. Add to the list, as laid out in a very long piece in Politico Magazine is a new nuclear weapons race among former U.S. allies spurred on in part that the realization that America is no longer a reliable ally who will honor its defense treaty obligations. Just as the Felon's tariff war has upended the world economy, so too have statements by the Felon and his henchmen - think Vance and Rubio - that have insulted Asian and European nations and suggested that when push comes to shove America may not honor its common defense agreements. Hence countries from German, Poland, Japan and South Korea are beginning to discuss building their own nuclear arms defenses. Here are article highlights:
In his first presidential term, shortly before heading off to what would become an infamous 2018 summit with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Trump called nukes “the biggest problem in the world” and summed up for reporters what he hoped to accomplish: “No more nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.” Trump has repeatedly sounded the theme in his second term as well, warning over and over of “World War III.”
So it’s more than a little curious to consider that, in less than three months as president, Trump has already set in motion the opposite trend: potentially the fastest and most dangerous acceleration of nuclear arms proliferation around the world since the early Cold War.
The new nuclear powers aren’t just the rogue nations that have long been the focus of U.S. concern, countries like Iran and North Korea. Increasingly, the nations considering going nuclear are longtime U.S. allies, from Germany to South Korea, Japan to Saudi Arabia. Faced with the threat of U.S. withdrawal from its defense commitments, more and more countries are now openly talking about embracing the bomb — and just as worrisome, actually deploying nukes if hostilities break out. Nor is there any evidence that in the flurry of activity marking what Trump has called “the most successful” start of any presidency in U.S. history, his administration has even begun reckoning with the implications of these seemingly contradictory policies.
“I’ve heard it’s a pure ghost town,” said Matt Costlow, who worked in the Pentagon’s Office of Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy in Trump’s first term. “There’s just no one there. And the staff that is there is spread so thin it’s causing this paralysis.” As a result, he adds, “I don’t know that the Trump administration yet has a set view on the desirability of allies going nuclear. I think there’s a mix of views.”
Yet it’s clear that Trump’s signaling of a global drawdown of the U.S. defense umbrella has also produced an accelerated trend toward building — or at least considering deploying — nuclear weapons. Potential U.S. adversaries as well as allies say they are puzzled by the fact that no one in the Trump administration seems willing or able to grapple with the issue.
In Beijing, Chinese officials are growing worried that “regional security is fragmenting and eventually they’ll have to deal with more nuclear or ‘nuclear-latent’ countries in Asia,” said Francesca Giovannini, head of the Project on
Managing the Atom at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, who met with Chinese officials in late March. The problem, she said, is that the Chinese “really have zero idea of who he will appoint for arms control dealings. The Trump people don’t have the expertise in place to make decisions.”
One senior official who was just confirmed by the Senate, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, has been a leading and often strident voice in pressing European and Asian allies to beef up their own defenses. Last year Colby told the Yonhap News Agency that South Korea was going to have to take “primary, essentially overwhelming, responsibility” for its own defense and added that Washington should not sanction Seoul if it decides to go nuclear.
In his Senate testimony in March, Colby also said that Trump believes Taiwan needs to boost its defense spending from under 3 percent to about 10 percent of gross domestic product to deter a war with China — a hike that Taiwanese Premier Cho Jung-tai called “impossible.”
Many U.S. allies now have a sense that Trump is abandoning the entire postwar global system and casting the world back into a vicious scramble for power in which the biggest powers get to dominate their regions and the smaller countries fend for themselves. Secretary of State Marco Rubio all but said as much in a Jan. 30 interview with conservative pundit Megyn Kelly, when he effectively conceded that Washington’s hegemonic global stature had been “an anomaly.”
“The message coming from the U.S. is that Trump’s foreign policy is all about spheres of influence. Russia can have Ukraine. China can have Taiwan,” said Karl Friedhoff, an expert in East Asian security at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
As a result, some national security experts say this could be turning into the most unstable period since the early Cold War — an unstable period that could have a lot more nukes in a lot more places.
The danger posed by nuclear weapons in the 21st century is shaping up to be a very different threat than it was in the 20th century.
For decades during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union built up massive arsenals of nuclear missiles that could be launched from the air, ground or sea. The destructive power of those weapons led the two nations to conclude a series of arms control agreements that eventually reduced the size of those arsenals.
Then, in the late 1980s and early ‘90s, there was a concern that the breakup of the Soviet Union would result in loose nukes and newly independent post-Soviet states being armed with nuclear weapons. As a result, three former Soviet republics — Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus — were pressured into relinquishing the weapons stationed on their territories. In 1998, President Bill Clinton made an anguished plea to Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif not to test a bomb; after Sharif refused, Clinton imposed sanctions. Finally, in the mid-90s the Clinton administration pushed successfully to extend the NPT from 25 years to an indefinite term. Among the nations that ultimately gave up active nuclear weapons programs: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and Yugoslavia.
Today, largely as a result of all this frenetic diplomacy led by Washington, there are just nine nuclear powers in the world, as there have been for decades: the United States, Britain, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and most recently, North Korea.
Yet increasingly, nuclear weapons are being sought by countries that aren’t global superpowers but instead face threats from neighbors or regional rivals, such as Russia in Europe, or Iran in the Middle East. That means the nuclear equation is increasingly a region-by-region strategic puzzle with global ramifications.
Here’s some of what that looks like.
In Germany — a country where even discussing the bomb used to be a political third rail — the likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, didn’t rule out the idea of developing one in a March interview. Merz also said Berlin should start talks about expanding the French and British nuclear deterrents to Europe, and he suggested Germany may finally be ready to go along with France’s on-again, off-again push for strategic autonomy from the United States. French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed extending France’s nuclear umbrella; on March 18 he said France will deploy its own Rafale fighter jets equipped with supersonic nuclear warheads along its border with Germany in 2035.
And in Poland, a NATO front-line nation, Prime Minister Donald Tusk in March became that country’s first leader to hint at going nuclear, saying in a speech his nation should “reach for opportunities related to nuclear weapons.” He also suggested that Ukraine made a mistake by giving up its nuclear arsenal in the 1990s, leaving itself vulnerable to Russia.
As for Ukraine, which feels threatened with abandonment by Washington in the face of Russia’s aggression, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has openly talked about reestablishing a nuclear deterrent. . . . . “Say you’re Zelenskyy and you’re being forced into unsatisfactory peace with Russia without good security guarantees, what’s your best bet?” said Daniel Serwer of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “Could the Ukrainians technically do this? Sure. Look what they’ve done driving the war. They know their business. They’ve handled a lot of nuclear material. They have good physicists and really good engineers. It’s not beyond Polish, German, Japanese or Taiwanese capabilities either.”
And in the long run a French guarantee of extended nuclear deterrence would not suffice for many European states. “Would the Poles see it as credible? Not a chance. It’s not likely the Germans would either,” said Roberts, who foresees a future of new regional groupings of nuclearized states, including the Nordic countries.
In the Middle East, experts believe Iran has been backed into a strategic corner since Israel decimated its proxy armies, especially Hezbollah in Lebanon, and that its leaders are now more motivated than ever to build a bomb. . . . Iran has raced to develop its program, and current assessments estimate that Iran is close to producing weapons-grade uranium and is only months, not years, away from completing a nuclear bomb.
Both Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have indicated they would duplicate Iranian nuclear capabilities if Tehran got a bomb. Turkey will begin operating its Russia-built Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant — its first — this year. And numerous reports over the years have indicated that the Saudis may have a secret diplomatic understanding with Pakistan under which Riyadh could quickly obtain a nuclear weapon from Islamabad, which developed its own bomb in the 1990s with Saudi financial backing. (Saudi Arabia denies such an understanding.)
But since his first administration, Trump and senior defense officials also have been pushing Asian allies hard to build up their own defenses. As a result, in South Korea and even Japan — where building a bomb was once unthinkable after Hiroshima and Nagasaki — there is a new willingness to embrace nuclear weapons in some form. . . . since the Russian invasion of Ukraine we’ve seen a total wake-up call in Japan about what kind of additional military power to possess,” said Junjiro Shida, a national security expert at Meio University on Okinawa, where about half of the 50,000 U.S. troops in Japan are stationed.
In a statement last fall, Ishiba proposed an “Asian version of NATO” that must “specifically consider America’s sharing of nuclear weapons or the introduction of nuclear weapons into the region.”
South Korean politicians have gone further. In January — a week before Trump’s inauguration — South Korea’s politically embattled president, Yoon Suk Yeol, said for the first time that his country might consider building nuclear weapons in the face of mounting threats from nuclearized North Korea. Yoon has since been ousted after being impeached for declaring martial law last year. But even his likely successor, Lee Jae-myung, leader of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea — which once stoutly opposed nukes — has not ruled this out.
“There is growing doubt among allies and partners about whether the United States will meet its defense commitments when the chips are down,” said Eric Brewer, the former director for counterproliferation at the National Security Council in Trump’s first term. “But there are a lot of other systemic factors driving countries to talk about developing nuclear weapons. One is the deteriorating regional security environments. In Europe, [you have] Russia’s growing nuclear arsenal and threat. In Asia you have the growing North Korean and Chinese nuclear arsenal. In the Middle East you have Iran at the nuclear threshold. The other factor is the absence of cooperation among great powers.
But as Costlow and others point out, just a willingness to broach the prospect of going nuclear could be something of a Pandora’s box.
“I compare it to uranium enrichment: The first 20 percent is actually the hardest hurdle to overcome. The last 80 percent doesn’t take much time,” Costlow said. “For some of these countries just the fact that they’re now talking about becoming a potential nuclear state is the toughest hurdle.”
And, he added, they’re starting to clear it.
Friday, April 11, 2025
Trump Is Demonstrating Why Dictatorships Fail
After wild gyrations in the stock market the market is again down, the American economy (and the world's) is at risk, and the trade war with China is intensifying with China now hitting back with 125% tariffs on American goods. Meanwhile, the federal civil service is being torn asunder and war has been declared on public education with threats to withhold federal funding, efforts to rewrite history so than no one other than white heterosexual males play a role, and book banning. All the result of a single individual who is a malignant narcissist and who has contempt for true experts and expertise in general. As bad as things are and the way prices are going to significantly rise thanks to irrational tariff actions, much of MAGA world continues to drink the Kool-Aid and grasps for anything to suggest their glorious leader is not wrong, be it citing lower oil prices - which are dropping due to economic uncertainty caused by the Felon - or applauding the white washing of true history that puts their ancestors in a bad light (for disclaimer, I have my own slaving owners in Charleston, South Carolina, which is a reality I cannot change). They refuse the ineptitude and arbitrariness of the Felons actions which as a piece in The Atlantic lays out shows why dictatorships eventually fail, especially under a petulant and vengeful dictator, after ding great damage to the country involved. Here are column highlights:
He blinked. But we don’t really know why. Whether it was the stock market cascading downward, investors fleeing from U.S. Treasury bonds, Republican donors jamming the White House phones, or even fears for his own portfolio, President Donald Trump decided yesterday afternoon to lift, temporarily, most of his arbitrary tariffs. This was his personal decision. His “instinct,” as he put it. His whim. And his decision, instinct, or whim could bring the tariffs back again.
The Republicans who lead Congress have refused to use the power of the legislative branch to stop him or moderate him, in this or almost any other matter. The Cabinet is composed of sycophants and loyalists who are willing to defend contradictory policies, even if doing so makes them look like fools. The courts haven’t decisively intervened yet either. No one, apparently, is willing to prevent a single man from destroying the world economy, wrecking financial markets, forcing this country and other countries into recession if that’s what he feels like doing when he gets up tomorrow morning.
This is what arbitrary, absolute power looks like. And this is why the men who wrote the Constitution never wanted anyone to have it. In that famously hot, stuffy room in Philadelphia, windows closed for the sake of secrecy, they sweated and argued about how to limit the powers of the American executive. They arrived at the idea of dividing power between different branches of government. As James Madison wrote in “Federalist No. 47”: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
More than two centuries later, the system created by that first Constitutional Congress has comprehensively failed. The people and institutions that are supposed to check executive power are refusing to restrain this president. We now have a de facto tyrant who thinks he can bend reality to his will without taking any facts or any evidence into consideration, and without listening to any contrary views. And although the economic damage he has caused is easier to measure, he has inflicted the same level of harm to scientific research, to civil liberties, to health care, and to the civil service.
From this wasteful and destructive incident, one useful lesson can be drawn. In recent years, many people who live in democracies have become frustrated by their political systems, by the endless wrangling, the difficulty of creating compromise, the slow pace of decisions.
Just as in the first half of the 20th century, would-be authoritarians have begun arguing that we would all be better off without these institutions. “The truth is that men are tired of liberty,” said Mussolini. Lenin spoke with scorn about the failings of so-called bourgeois democracy. In the United States, a brand-new school of techno-authoritarian thinkers find our political system inefficient and want to replace it with a “national CEO,” a dictator by a different name.
But in the past 48 hours, Donald Trump has just given us a pitch-perfect demonstration of why legislatures are necessary, why checks and balances are useful, and why most one-man dictatorships become poor and corrupt. If the Republican Party does not return Congress to the role it is meant to play and the courts don’t constrain the president, this cycle of destruction will continue and everyone on the planet will pay the price.
Thursday, April 10, 2025
What Trump Just Cost America
I have many reactions to President Trump’s largely caving on his harebrained plan to tariff the world, but overall, one reaction just keeps coming back to me: If you hire clowns, you should expect a circus. And my fellow Americans, we have hired a group of clowns.
Think of what Trump; his chief knucklehead, Howard Lutnick (the commerce secretary); his assistant chief knucklehead, Scott Bessent (the Treasury secretary); and his deputy assistant chief knucklehead, Peter Navarro (the top trade adviser), have told us repeatedly for the past weeks: Trump won’t back off on these tariffs because — take your choice — he needs them to keep fentanyl from killing our kids, he needs them to raise revenue to pay for future tax cuts, and he needs them to pressure the world to buy more stuff from us. And he couldn’t care less what his rich pals on Wall Street say about their stock market losses.
After creating havoc in the markets standing on these steadfast “principles” — undoubtedly prompting many Americans to sell low out of fear — Trump reversed much of it on Wednesday, announcing a 90-day pause on certain tariffs to most countries, excluding China.
Message to the world — and to the Chinese: “I couldn’t take the heat.” If it were a book it would be called “The Art of the Squeal.”
But don’t think for a second that all that’s been lost is money. A whole pile of invaluable trust just went up in smoke as well. In the last few weeks, we have told our closest friends in the world — countries that stood shoulder to shoulder with us after Sept. 11, in Iraq and in Afghanistan — that none of them were any different from China or Russia. They were all going to get tariffed under the same formula — no friends-and-family discounts allowed.
Do you think these former close U.S. allies are ever going to trust getting into a trench with this administration again?
This was the trade equivalent of the Biden administration’s botched exit from Afghanistan, from which it never quite recovered. But at least Joe Biden got us out of a costly no-win war for which America, in my opinion, is now much better off.
Trump just put us into a no-win war.
How so? We do have a trade imbalance with China that does need to be addressed. Trump is right about that. China now controls one-third of global manufacturing and has the industrial engines to pretty much make everything for everyone one day if it is allowed to. That is not good for us, for Europe or for many developing countries.
But when you have a country as big as China — 1.4 billion people — with the talent, infrastructure and savings it has, the only way to negotiate is with leverage on our side of the table. And the best way to get leverage would have been for Trump to enlist our allies in the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Brazil, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico, India, Australia and Indonesia into a united front. Make it a negotiation of the whole world versus China.
But instead of making it the whole industrial world against China, Trump made it America against the whole industrial world and China.
Now, Beijing knows that Trump not only blinked, but he so alienated our allies, so demonstrated that his word cannot be trusted for a second, that many of them may never align with us against China in the same way. They may, instead, see China as a better, more stable long-term partner than us.
What a pathetic, shameful performance. Happy Liberation Day.
As for the pending financial crisis that prompted the Felon to blink, The Atlantic has this (the New Yorker largely echoes the same storyline):
Only yesterday, President Donald Trump was mocking Republicans nervous about his global trade war as “Panicans.” In a defiant speech to the National Republican Congressional Committee, he insisted, “This time I’m doing what I want to do with respect to the tariffs,” and that only he had the courage to defy “the globalists.”
But the globalists turn out to have had enough power to bring Trump to heel after all. This afternoon, the president announced a 90-day pause on what he has called his “reciprocal tariffs” against every country other than China.
According to Charlie Gasparino of Fox News, Trump retreated in the face of troubling developments in the bond market. Asked by reporters, Trump didn’t deny this, noting that, even with a “beautiful” bond market, “I saw last night where people were getting a little queasy.” This was a completely new layer of danger that appeared overnight. Before yesterday evening, the interest rate on Treasury bonds had fallen slightly, a sign of increased demand as nervous investors retreated to the historically safe strategy of lending their savings to the U.S. government. Then, suddenly, investors began pulling money out, sensing that the U.S. government was no longer safe, a prospect that created the risk of everything from higher interest payments on the debt to a full-scale financial crisis.
All of this is to suggest that if a stock-market swoon, or even a recession, does not frighten Trump, the prospect of a 2008-style meltdown apparently still does. And so the gargantuan trade war is back off, for now.
Where does this leave the economy? The new 10 percent tariff on almost every good imported from every country not controlled by Vladimir Putin remains in place.
That policy is, to be clear, quite harmful. Despite Trump’s rhetoric about reindustrialization, the universal tariff applies indiscriminately to almost every country and product. Some of those products, like coffee and bananas, cannot be practically grown in the United States, and will just get more expensive. Others, like metals and other industrial inputs, will make American manufacturing less competitive, not more.
The stock market surged after Trump’s “pause” announcement, but once the relief wears off, reality is likely to dull investors’ enthusiasm. Goldman Sachs, absorbing the news, has returned to its previous economic forecast, which calls for meager 0.5 percent economic growth this year and a 45 percent chance of recession. That is not the blinking-light disaster that the economy was facing before the pause, but it is still terrible, and much worse than the situation Trump inherited when he took office.
Nobody has made a new trade agreement with Trump. To the contrary, other countries have found the administration unable to even articulate its goals or objectives, because Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs are the product of a nonsensical formula putatively serving a grab bag of mutually exclusive goals.
To the extent that the reciprocal tariffs created any leverage, it rests on the side of Trump’s counterparties, who now know that he may be a madman, but is not mad enough to risk a full-blown global economic meltdown. The gun on the table is pointed at Trump’s own foot.
Trump could very well restore the gigantic tariffs, especially if he feels humiliated by today’s events. The likelier outcome is that he will muddle through with policies that push prices up and growth down, but don’t directly precipitate an economic collapse. Trump’s allies will tolerate an enormous amount of damage to the country, especially damage that takes place over an extended period of time or primarily hurts people who aren’t rich. Immediate, massive harm to his wealthiest supporters appears to be one of the few red lines that Trump still won’t cross.
The end result of all the insanity? America is weaker and more isolated than ever in recent memory while its enemies smile as they gleefully watch the self-inflicted harm the Felon has wrought.
Wednesday, April 09, 2025
So Many People Delude Themselves About Trump
Donald Trump’s 2024 election sent many finance types into spasms of anticipatory ecstasy as they imagined freedom from regulations, taxes and unfamiliar pronouns. “Bankers and financiers say Trump’s victory has emboldened those who chafed at ‘woke doctrine’ and felt they had to self-censor or change their language to avoid offending younger colleagues, women, minorities or disabled people,” The Financial Times reported a few days before Trump’s inauguration. It quoted one leading banker crowing — anonymously — about finally being able to use slurs like “retard” again. The vibes had shifted; the animal spirits were loose.
“We’re stepping into the most pro-growth, pro-business, pro-American administration I’ve perhaps seen in my adult lifetime,” gushed the hedge fund manager Bill Ackman in December.
One Wall Street veteran, however, understood the risk an unleashed Trump posed to the economy. After Trump’s victory in November, Peter Berezin, chief global strategist at BCA Research, which provides macroeconomic research to major financial institutions, estimated that the chance of a recession had climbed to 75 percent. “The prospect of an escalation of the trade war is likely to depress corporate investment while lowering real household disposable income,” said a BCA report.
The surprising thing isn’t that Berezin saw the Trump tariff crisis coming, but that so many of his peers didn’t. You don’t have to be a sophisticated financial professional, after all, to understand that Trump believes, firmly and ardently, in taxing imports, and he thinks any country that sells more goods to America than it buys must be ripping us off. All you had to do was read the news or listen to Trump’s own words. Yet Berezin was an outlier . . . .
On Monday, as stocks whipsawed on shifting news and rumors about the tariffs, I spoke to Berezin, who is based in Montreal, about how Wall Street had gotten Trump so wrong. He told me that many investors who pride themselves on their savvy are in fact just creatures of the herd. “All these cognitive biases that amateur retail investors are subject to, the Wall Street pros, are, if anything, even more subject to them because they’ve got career risk associated with bucking the trend,” he said.
People in finance, said Berezin, are more likely to be punished for being too cautious and pessimistic than for being too hopeful and aggressive. . . . . “You don’t get fired for being bullish, but you do get fired for being bearish on Wall Street,” said Berezin.
Some investors also felt a cultural affinity with the new administration that further clouded their judgment. When wokeness was ascendant, plenty of people in tech and finance quietly seethed at being guilt-tripped and forced to feign concern about social justice. “When the opportunity came to jettison all that, they were happy to do it,” said Berezin. “And Trump enabled them to do it.”
So last October, when Scott Bessent, soon to become Treasury secretary, said that Trump was really a free trader who used tariffs as a negotiating tactic, Wall Street was eager to believe him.
This claim was obviously absurd. Trump has been obsessed with tariffs, which he called “the most beautiful word in the dictionary,” for decades. In his 2018 book “Fear,” Bob Woodward reported that Trump scrawled “TRADE IS BAD” in the margin of a speech he gave after the G20 summit. It makes sense that Trump would see things this way. When he makes sales, whether of Trump University courses or Trump-branded cryptocurrency, he is usually taking advantage of the buyer, and he views global trade through the same zero-sum lens.
It’s widely known that during his first term, the so-called adults in the room thwarted some of Trump’s most destructive whims. There have been far fewer such figures in the Trump sequel, resulting in the wholesale degradation of American governance. The conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer just directed a purge of the National Security Council. Thanks to Elon Musk’s haphazard cuts, employees who once worked to prevent the spread of diseases like Ebola are gone, as are nuclear safety experts. . . . . Somehow, traders failed to recognize that there would eventually be economic fallout from such profound misrule.
“The markets should have put two and two together that if you’re talking about annexing Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, you’re probably going to be more radical on trade as well,” said Berezin.
But Wall Street professionals, like so many other ostensibly smart people, refused to see Trump clearly, mistaking his skill as a demagogue for wisdom as a policymaker. . . . . What an odd assumption to make about a man who bankrupted casinos.
Berezin thinks Wall Street still hasn’t come to terms with the cost of the nascent Trump presidency. “I do think that at this point we might have passed the event horizon, meaning that even if Trump backs off from the tariffs, there’s been enough damage done to the U.S. economy, to the global economy, to investor confidence, consumer confidence, that we’re probably going to see a recession regardless of what happens,” he said.
He points out that while public attention is focused on the stock market, there are alarming signs in the bond market. Usually, if stocks go down, so do yields on U.S. Treasuries . . . . right now, that’s not happening, which he thinks could signal a crisis of confidence in the stability of the U.S. government and the debt it issues.
“If we’re moving to this new world where the U.S. just can’t be trusted, then do we really want to hold a lot of Treasuries?” he said as he sketched out investors’ thinking. “Do we really want to use the dollar as a reserve?” It turns out that there’s a price for taking all the soft power America has accrued since World War II and setting it on fire. Who knew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)