“The New York Times reported that Hegseth shared sensitive information about military operations in Yemen in a private chat on the Signal app that included his wife, brother and personal lawyer — the second reported instance of the secretary sharing operational plans in an unclassified chat. The revelations have reignited the so-called Signalgate scandal and deepened scrutiny over Hegseth’s judgment and leadership.”
…
“Ullyot — once a vocal supporter of the Defense secretary — accused Hegseth’s team of spreading unverified claims about three top officials who were fired last week, falsely accusing them of leaking sensitive information to media outlets.”
“in his second term he appears to be in the business of exerting American power abroad, from Greenland to Gaza. But no modern empire has ever successfully projected power globally without a competent and motivated bureaucracy. The late Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington wrote that the more complex a society becomes, the more it needs institutions to run it. And this is especially true of an empire, which the United States has been in functional terms since 1945. Americans may, like the elder Bush, be uncomfortable with the word empire, but our successes, challenges and even disasters have been akin to those of all the great empires of history. The Trump administration’s war on its own imagined “deep state” is essentially a war against the very institutions needed to organize society at home and especially, defend it from its enemies abroad.
American power abroad is expressed not only through presidential decisions, but through the power of institutions, notably the State Department and the Defense Department. American diplomats deal with crises in dozens upon dozens of countries in the world on a daily basis that you never read about: they include small countries and large, troubled, and complex states like Pakistan, Nigeria and Colombia. The finest linguists and political secretaries are needed in overseas embassies to manage such challenges. Weaken the bureaucracy at this crucial level — at the same time you are discouraging new generations of young people from going into public service — and you weaken American power itself. This might take time to be noticed, but its effect will be real and insidious.”
…
“Trump wants to exert control worldwide, but his actions against the bureaucracy undermine that goal.”
…
“The Arabists and the China experts of the late 20th and early 21st centuries have been some of the finest bureaucrats I have encountered. They are the ultimate early warning system: the Arabists warned against the 2003 Iraq War and the China experts about the political and economic dangers of a conflict over Taiwan. You want the very best people in these jobs. Empires at their best encourage cosmopolitanism, that is, a knowledge of other languages and cultures required for the maintenance of good diplomatic and security relations. Yet the Trump administration is essentially telling brilliant, linguistically adroit young people not to want a career in government. It is fine to trim bloated bureaucracies in order to save money and to improve efficiency. But it is another thing entirely to make life miserable for those who remain by requiring them to fill out weekly forms about their activities and so forth. In such a circumstance, the very people you need to be motivated won’t be, and will look elsewhere for careers.”
…
“USAID, through its projects often run by non-governmental organizations, has been for decades doing much more than running humanitarian programs throughout the developing world. In fact, these programs don’t operate in the abstract: Because they are on-the-ground operations often in far-flung areas of a given country, they build vital human connections that are money in the bank for diplomats and military people to utilize, especially during crisis situations where local contacts are essential. An empire is about more than guns and money, it is also about the maintenance of relationships built up on official and non-official levels throughout the world by way of, among other things, humanitarian projects. Trump has been rightly concerned about the rise of Chinese power around the world, but has seemingly not realized that China is itself spreading its influence in large part through development projects. Dismantling our humanitarian projects in places like Africa and South America leaves a vast opening for the Chinese to fill with projects of their own. It will also hurt our intelligence gathering, as USAID staffers have had their own networks in the hinterlands of difficult countries.
The postwar American-led order has been administered through three non-economic pillars: NATO, USAID, and various treaty alliances in the Pacific. The Trump administration disdains the first, is trying to gut the second, and is making the third very nervous.”
…
“The British Empire lasted as long as it did through the brilliance of its diplomats and intelligence agents. As I can attest through reporting in Africa and elsewhere in the 1980s and 1990s, British influence continued for decades afterwards, partly because the British embassy or high commission in each country was manned by equally brilliant people who could always be counted on to deliver a great briefing to a reporter. Nothing projects power like the quality of people in your vital institutions at home and at your embassies and other missions around the world.
The most long-lasting world powers and empires succeeded not by raw power but by various methods of persuasion: the more subtle the approach, the more longevity for the great power involved. And such persuasion involves a talented and well-functioning bureaucracy, exactly what Trump is seeking to destroy. Our bureaucratic elite is not like others around the world: its sense of seeing little differentiation between American self-interest and promoting human rights and democracy might be somewhat naïve and self-serving, but it is real and deeply felt. These bureaucrats know that without that sense of idealism, America’s foreign policy descends into a sterile, ruthless realpolitik: like China’s. And no empire or great power has lasted very long without a sense of mission. That’s why Trump’s policies toward the bureaucracy are in direct conflict with his goals abroad, even if he doesn’t know it.”
“During what was probably the low point of the 2024 presidential campaign, Vice President J.D. Vance falsely accused Haitian immigrants living in his home state of Ohio of kidnapping, killing, and eating pets. He then doubled down by challenging the legal status of those same immigrants.
“I’m still going to call them an illegal alien,” Vance said defiantly in late September, despite the fact that many Haitian immigrants in the U.S. have legal status under a federal policy called Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which is granted to migrants who cannot return safely to their home countries due to natural disasters or conflicts. At the time, Vance argued that TPS for Haitians was illegitimate because “Kamala Harris waves the wand illegally and says these people are now here legally.”
In reality, the TPS program for Haitians had been in place since the Obama administration, when it was implemented in response to a devastating earthquake. President Joe Biden extended TPS status for Haitians—legally, despite what Vance claimed—last year.
The Trump administration is now partially reversing that extension and retconning reality to match Vance’s politically motivated delusions.”
Trump defying a Supreme Court order is a constitutional crisis. The crisis comes to a head with Congress derelict in its duty. The only one with the power to enforce limits on the president’s power is Congress through its power of impeachment and a little bit through passing legislation that restrains the president.
“The rule intends to reduce federal bureaucracy by reverting the mission of CEQ to its origins. The agency, which was created with the passage of NEPA, was originally intended to advise the executive branch on environmental matters and NEPA implementation. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order that required federal agencies to comply with NEPA regulations published by the CEQ. Since then, the council has been the guiding agency for the federal government’s NEPA reviews.
Trump’s executive order reversed Carter’s, which rescinded CEQ’s regulatory authority over other federal agencies. The proposed rule, if implemented, would not strike down NEPA altogether (this would require congressional approval). Instead, it would remove CEQ’s NEPA regulations from the federal register and allow federal agencies to use their own rules to comply with the law. Many agencies, including the Department of Energy, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Forest Service, already have their own NEPA regulations in place.
Any effort to streamline the NEPA process should be welcomed by all. Since its passage in 1969, the law has become a redundant, bureaucratic nightmare that has slowed down or killed key infrastructure, energy, and environmental projects.”
Man who worked with Trump in his first term explains that Trump is not qualified to be president. He isn’t interested in policy, he doesn’t read his briefings, he’s vulnerable to being manipulated by praise, and he’s not concerned about the world but just about himself.
“At the end of the day, protectionism is rooted in fear and pessimism: fear that we’ll be outcompeted, and pessimism about the idea that a growing, dynamic economy can make us all better off. Libertarians are fond of making just such claims—so fond that Cass coined a term to mock us for it. Instead of tussling over the size of different constituencies’ relative shares of the fixed economic pie, the libertarian view is that our goal should be to grow the pie so everyone’s share is bigger. Cass calls this “economic piety,” and he rejects it. For him, the goal is not to grow the economy; it’s to direct the economy for the benefit of deserving constituencies such as blue-collar workers.
This is pure zero-sum thinking. It cements in place a mindset where one group’s gains necessarily come at some other group’s expense. To libertarians, technological innovation is a boon because it makes the whole economy more productive and everyone richer in the long run. But some people usually are hurt in the short run—think of the proverbial buggy-whip salesmen when automobiles come along. Protectionists are inclined to be suspicious of the tech sector and sympathetic toward policies that would tamp down economic dynamism in the name of protecting the would-be losers. The result, inevitably, is stagnation.”
“Legally, the answer is complicated and untested. No Fed chair has ever been removed by a President.
The Federal Reserve Act allows for the dismissal of Board members, including the chair, “for cause.” But that has historically been interpreted as misconduct or incapacity, not policy disagreements. “The court would typically not see disagreements over interest rates settings as ‘for-cause,’” Binder says.”
…
“Still, the Trump Administration appears to be laying the groundwork for a potential confrontation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently told Bloomberg that he expects to begin interviewing possible replacements for Powell in the fall.”
…
“At the heart of that debate is a nearly century-old legal precedent: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 Supreme Court ruling that limited the President’s ability to remove leaders of independent agencies without cause. The ruling has long shielded Fed chairs from political dismissal, but could soon be tested by a conservative Supreme Court.”
…
“Trump has blamed Powell for failing to act aggressively enough to support economic growth, saying the Fed chair is “playing politics” by keeping interest rates steady. But central bankers—and many economists—argue the opposite: that an independent Fed is essential to managing inflation and stewarding the economy, and that caving to political demands could damage the economy and global trust in U.S. institutions.”