Traveling

I will be traveling throughout this week. Absent something significant, there will be few or no blog posts during this time frame. Also comment moderation and responses to emails may be a bit slow. Bear with me.

Mr. Biden

On May 19, 2024 the NY Times ran a an op-ed piece under the following headline...

Seven Theories for Why Biden Is Losing (and What He Should Do About It)

To which I posted the following comment...

Politically, it would be helpful if the Democrats did not nominate a man who is in his 80's, with the demeanor of a man in in his 90s.

Seriously. Can we take a moment to address the elephant in the living room? Life expectancy for the average adult male in the US is 77(ish). If he is re-elected, he would be almost ten years beyond that point at the end of his second term of office. Even assuming he is in excellent health for a man of his age, and I have no reason to believe he isn't, you just cannot make safe assumptions about someone's long term health once they get into their 80s. Given his age and the average life expectancy of people who do make it into their early 80s, statistics suggest that the odds of Mr. Biden being able to complete another four years as president are not good. Once you get to that age, things do start to go wrong. 

I think we would have to go back to 1944 for the last time a major party nominated someone who was less likely to be able to serve a full four-year term as president. And in fact, FDR died just months into his fourth term. I don't know who the next president will be. But if Mr. Biden wins the election; I suspect the next president after him will be Kamala Harris.

Obviously, a great deal has transpired since then.  

The Grifter N Chief

Donald Trump caught his first sight of the so-called “palace in the sky” in February as he climbed the red-carpeted steps of the Boeing 747-8.

The Qatari plane was parked at Florida’s West Palm Beach International Airport, and offered a chance for the president to see what a newly refitted Air Force One could look like, easing his frustration with the long-delayed Boeing project.

In the event, it appears to have been more of a test drive. His administration’s plan to accept the $400m (£300m) luxury jet from the Qatari royal family, which he is expected to use after his presidency, is the latest example of what many view as an increased disregard for ethics in Washington under his second term.

During his first term in the White House, foreign governments buying meals and block-booking rooms at Trump hotels set alarm bells ringing.

Yet now the president has created even more opportunities for those looking to curry favour with him – and his children. From pay-to-dine cryptocurrency schemes, a new social media platform that carries advertising and the expansion of their property empire, it has never seemed easier for the Trump family to line their pockets.

“If I had seen it [examples of this behaviour], I would have remembered it, and maybe that just shows they were better at concealing it, because this term, it’s just blatant,” says a former cabinet member during Trump’s first term.

“The kids in particular ... this is about making money. You’re dealing with royal families, and they understand how families work, and that’s the way Trump plays the game. He may not have to say anything himself, they may do it all through the kids.”

Trump’s oldest sons, Donald Jr and Eric, have travelled the globe flogging their fathers name by expanding their property empire during his second term. The president’s children have also been raking in cash from business deals in the Middle East struck before the president’s diplomatic trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates last week.

“We’ve never seen anything like this in American history,” says Norm Eisen, a former White House ethics tsar.

Even for Trump’s staunchest supporters, accepting a multimillion-dollar luxury jet from the royal family of Qatar – a nation that has in the past acted as key financier for Hamas – is a bitter pill to swallow.

“This is probably the first issue of this administration where a lot of my listeners who get mad at me for criticising Trump actually totally agreed that this is a bad idea,” says Erick Erickson, a conservative radio host and long-time voice of the Right.

“It’s been hard to find Trump supporters who think this is a good idea, except for anonymous accounts on Twitter.”

Laura Loomer, a prominent Right-wing activist and Trump loyalist, wrote on X: “The Qataris fund the same Iranian proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah who have murdered US service members. The same proxies that have worked with the Mexican cartels to get jihadists across our border.

“This is really going to be such a stain on the admin if this is true. And I say that as someone who would take a bullet for Trump.”

Ben Shapiro, one of the most loyal soldiers in the Maga cavalry, said on his podcast this week: “I think if we switched the names to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, we’d all be freaking out on the Right.”

Read the rest here.

Moody's Downgrades US Credit Rating

Moody’s Ratings slashed the United State’s credit rating down a notch to Aa1 from the highest triple A on Friday, citing the budgetary burden the government faces amid high interest rates.

“This one-notch downgrade on our 21-notch rating scale reflects the increase over more than a decade in government debt and interest payment ratios to levels that are significantly higher than similarly rated sovereigns,” the ratings agency said in a statement.

The U.S. is running a massive budget deficit as interest costs for Treasury debt continued to rise due to a combination of higher interest rates and more debt to finance. The fiscal deficit totaled $1.05 trillion year to date, 13% higher than a year ago. The influx in tariffs helped shave some of the imbalance last month, however.

Moody’s had been a holdout in keeping U.S. sovereign debt at the highest credit rating possible, and brings the 116-year-old agency into line with its rivals. Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S. to AA+ from AAA in August 2011, and Fitch Ratings also cut the U.S. rating to AA+ from AAA, in August 2023.

Read the rest here.

Long overdue.

Perks now, pain later

For all four years of Donald Trump’s presidency — and those years only — Americans would enjoy benefits like no taxes on tips or overtime, under the massive party-line legislation House Republicans are trying to pass this month.

Then it won’t be until 2029, when congressional GOP incumbents have already run for reelection and Trump is gone from the White House, that voters feel the sting from many of the “pay-fors.” That includes much of the Medicaid cuts estimated to strip health care coverage from more than 10 million people, plus the nixing of clean energy tax perks Democrats created during the Biden administration.

In each slice of the megabill House Republicans are working to tie up this week, policies would kick in immediately that curry favor with voters and add trillions of dollars to the federal deficit — before those costs are ultimately offset with unpopular policies that hit after the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.

Read the rest here.

What I'm Reading

I just finished "The Great Depression: A Diary" by Benjamin Roth. Roth was a young lawyer with a family in Youngstown Ohio. In 1931 he realized that he was living through historic times and started keeping a diary containing observations about what was going on locally, as well as in the broader world. Originally intended to chronical the economic calamity of the 1930s, he ended up continuing for the rest of his life. This book only covers the period up to America's entry into the World War. Roth's entries are not daily, but sporadic depending on what was going on and what his thoughts were. The book presents a very powerful picture from someone who fell between the very poor and those few who were sufficiently well off that they could ride out the depression with little impact on their lives. The professional men  suffered because clients, or patients for doctors who could actually pay for services were rare. Often business was conducted on a barter basis. Roth's son, who arranged for the publication of the book posthumously noted that at one point things were so desperate his father had to borrow money against his life insurance policy in order to keep food on the table and a roof over his family. Much of the book contains Roth's thoughts as he attempts to make sense of the disaster and what could be done to prevent or mitigate future similar events. 

A rock ribbed Republican, Roth supported Herbert Hoover's insistence on avoiding debt and defending the gold standard. Once FDR abandons gold he can't understand why the country isn't wiped out by hyperinflation. Periodically Roth recorded current stock prices with astonishment as blue chip securities slid to levels that were unimaginable just a few years before. He complained that he wished he had money to take advantage of what he believed to be fire sale bargains as the markets rally, only to watch them crash again to even lower levels. 

Perhaps the most powerful elements of his diary were his descriptions of local conditions. The book contains many personal stories of friends and acquaintances who eschewed conservative investments like government bonds during the good years in favor of stocks and real estate, both of which became almost worthless during the dark days of the depression.  Youngstown was an industrial city that was hit incredibly hard. He writes of businesses shuttering, and people being evicted from their homes because they can't pay the mortgage or rent. And then the houses sit empty as nobody can afford them even at rock bottom prices. A good deal of attention is focused on the collapse of the banks, this being before deposits were insured. 

In one entry from the winter of 1931, Roth records that hours before dawn there were several thousand men lined up outside city hall hoping for a day's work. The entry ends with; "There is great suffering."

The Most Corrupt President in US History (Yet Again)

The royal family of Qatar is planning to gift President Trump a brand new luxury Boeing 747 for use as Air Force 1, and for his private use after leaving office. The bill for the necessary upgrades in security, communications etc., will presumably be footed by the American taxpayer. Of course this is illegal under the US Constitution but Trump and his lawyers have a plan to get around that. The Qataris will officially gift the plane to the US Government, with the understanding that the Air Fore would then gift the plane to Donald Trump's presidential library at the end of term. Of course, he doesn't have a presidential library and has taken no steps towards creating one. (One of the few things I actually approved of after he left office in 2021.) Apparently the plane would then be available for his personal use. Lawyers working for Trump and the administration (more or less the same thing at this point) believe this little shell game will get them past the Emolument Clause in the constitution. 

The level of sheer corruption in this president, his family, and the broader administration defies the descriptive capabilities of the English language. 

Read the story here.

Trump Considering Suspension of Habeus Corpus

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller said Friday that the Trump administration is “actively looking at” suspending the writ of habeas corpus — the constitutional right to challenge in court the legality of a person’s detention by the government — for migrants.

Miller’s comment came in response to a White House reporter who asked about President Donald Trump entertaining the idea of suspending the writ to deal with the problem of illegal immigration into the United States.

Asked when that might happen, Miller responded: “The Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of invasion.”

“So, I would say that’s an option we’re actively looking at,” he said.

Read the rest here. 

The Attack on Freedom of Speech

I just had a disturbing conversation with a green card holder—a legal permanent resident of the United States. He had asked if he thought traveling internationally was wise for him as someone who has criticized President Trump and Israel and whether he should avoid any further criticism and/​or remove any past criticism from his social media before he travels.

In a free society, the answer would be: “You should say whatever you want, criticize whoever you want, and not worry about traveling because the government cannot punish you for what you say.” But until the Supreme Court reaffirms that the First Amendment protects noncitizens in the United States from banishment for their speech—and until President Trump obeys the Supreme Court—we do not live in a free country.

The Trump administration is revoking green cards and visas solely based on speech. Individuals are explicitly being targeted based on “beliefs, statements, or associations” that are “lawful within the United States” but which Secretary of State Marco Rubio has deemed “adverse to the foreign policy of the United States.” Even authoring an op-ed criticizing a foreign government’s foreign policy can now trigger visa revocation. The administration is also searching electronic devices at ports of entry for evidence of “adverse” views.

Read the rest here.

See also this on Trump's orders targeting law firms that have crossed him in the past.

Leo XIV

I'm not easily stunned, but this time I am. He wasn't even on my radar. And he is an American. I know almost nothing about him. Two slightly encouraging signs.... he came out dressed like a newly elected pope (unlike his predecessor). And his papal name is a good one. Leo XIII was a great champion of the poor and working class,  but also doctrinally (small 'o') orthodox.

Making Kookery Great Again

People who question whether the Earth is round — a fact understood by the ancient Greeks and taught to American children in elementary school — might have been political pariahs a decade ago. Now, they’re running local Republican parties in Georgia and Minnesota and seeking public office in Alabama.

A prominent far-right activist who has said, despite years of research and intelligence establishing otherwise, that the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were an inside job by the U.S. government commemorated the 9/11 anniversary last year alongside President Trump.

And Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, pledged the agency’s support last month for a fight involving so-called chemtrails, a debunked theory that the white condensation lines streaming behind airplanes are toxic, or could even be used for nefarious purposes.

Conspiracy theories that were relegated to random and often anonymous online forums are now being championed or publicly debated by increasingly powerful people. Mr. Trump in particular has embraced, elevated and even appointed to his cabinet people promoting these theories — giving the ideas a persuasive authority and a dangerous proximity to policy.

“The real problem with the ideas and the communication of conspiracy theories is when they get evinced by people with the power to act on them,” said Joseph E. Uscinski, a professor at the University of Miami who studies conspiracy theories. “If some guy, somewhere, thinks the Earth is flat, the answer is ‘So what?’ But when people in power have those beliefs, it becomes a serious issue.”

He added: “You can wind up harming many, many people over a fantasy.”

Anna Kelly, a spokeswoman for the White House, said in a statement that the mainstream media “has tried and failed to paint President Trump as extreme for his entire political career” and that his agenda was “common sense.”

Read the rest here. 

Francis II?

If you are Catholic, or just a curious observer of the transition from the Bergolgian pontificate, here are a few random thoughts. 

Roughly four of every five Cardinal Electors (those under 80) were appointed by Francis. Almost all of them share Francis' progressive inclinations, although the degree may vary. I cannot name any pope who went to such lengths to flood the College of Cardinals with like minded ideologues. For those hoping for a return to something resembling small 'o' orthodox Catholicism, or just a degree of post Vatican II normalcy, the odds are not in your favor. 

By my estimation there are only four Cardinal Electors who can be described as staunch "conservatives." Those being Gerhard Müller (77 Germany), Péter Erdő (72 Hungary), Robert Sarah (79 Guinea), and Raymond Burke (76 USA). Of those, Erdő and Sarah have been mentioned in at least some sources as possible successors. In my opinion Erdő is a long shot. His election would would put someone in the mold of the late Benedict XVI, but at 72 much younger, on the papal throne. That would require a remarkable repudiation of the Franciscan legacy by a significant number of those he appointed. As for Sarah, I think he is on the list simply because the various media and news sources needed another conservative name to try and disguise just how stacked the deck actually is. Sarah will be 80 next month and is considered a traditionalist. So his election would not just be a repudiation of Francis but to at least some degree, of the post Vatican II liturgical reforms. If he emerges on the balcony, I would be stunned. 

Are there any moderate contenders? Depending on how you define that term, I'd say yes. The two most prominent names are Peter Turkson (78 Ghana) and Pietro Parolin (70 Italy). An outside possibility would be Wim Eijk (71 Holland). Of the two, Parolin is perhaps the most widely mentioned name in a conclave where there is little consensus on the likely successor. He is known to share Francis' progressive attitudes on the poor and immigrants, though his theological views are a bit more murky. It is generally believed that he leans left, but may not be the doctrinal wrecking ball that Francis was. Traditionalist Catholics are highly suspicious of him as it has long been rumored that he is hostile to the old rite. Parolin is a career diplomat and is believed to be a power broker in the Vatican Curia. One very strong point in his favor, is his nationality. After almost a half century of foreign popes, Italians are keen to see one of their own as Bishop of Rome and primate of the Italian Church. And there are quite a few cardinals from across the ideological spectrum who will likely want to look first and hard at the Italians to see if there is an acceptable compromise among them. 

Zuppi, and Pizzaballa are the two other Italians frequently mentioned. Zuppi is a radical progressive and rumored to have been the one Francis wanted most to succeed him. Pizzaballa is more of a mystery on doctrinal questions, though he has solid credentials as a diplomat. The fact that he has served as the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem would also make him a rather political choice given recent events in that part of the world. That said, he is only 60 which makes him something of a long shot, unless the cardinals are prepared to roll the dice on a pope likely to outlive most of those electing him. 

Back to the "moderates." Peter Turkson is from Africa and shares Francis' progressive views on the poor and immigration. However, and unlike Parolin, he is believed to be doctrinally conservative. Prior to Francis election he had spoken out rather forcefully on the subject of sexual morality, though he has toned that down over the last twelve years. The alphabet people and their lobby would almost certainly oppose his election. For that reason, I disagree with those labeling him a top tier candidate. However, if there are enough moderates to block a radical progressive from being elected, he could end up as a compromise choice. His odds would likely improve if the conclave does not settle on someone in the first two days. Eijk typically gets mentioned farther down the roster. But like Turkson, his chances might improve if the conclave is deadlocked and the progressives lack the votes to install one of their own. Of the various "moderates" named as papabile, he is likely the most conservative. Some observers have labeled him as a conservative. For that reason alone, I think there would be strong resistance to him among progressives. His age, at only 71 would likely add to those reservations with the likelihood of a long pontificate. 

This brings us to the progressives. I'm not going to go too deep here. The list is long and depressing. Rorate has it pretty well covered for those with a strong stomach. Of the progressives, I think Zuppi and Tagle are the two most mentioned. Zuppi, being Italian, has the lead among his fellow cardinals. Though I think Tagle has more name recognition and is the one that most Catholic lefties outside of Italy are hoping for. 

With all of this noted, I am not sure there has been a conclave in modern times where there was as much uncertainty about the outcome. There are so many possibilities, from so many different corners of the globe that I think anyone would be well advised to take a deep breath before making any predictions here. A lot of conservatives have been trying to calm themselves with the old Italian adage that "a fat pope is followed by a skinny one." The problem is that there are very few skinny Cardinals. The one consideration that might temper the radicals, is the fear that another doctrinal bomb thrower could provoke an outright schism. Most unusually, Cardinal Müller has dared to warn of this openly. Even spoken quietly and in private, such a threat would be shocking enough. The fact that he made it in front of the press cannot be seen as anything other than a flashing danger sign to all of the electors. 

The Systematic Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law

In his first hours back as president, Donald J. Trump did an extraordinary thing: He made a direct assault on the Constitution. He declared that his government would no longer treat U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants or children of lawful, temporary immigrants as citizens, as the 14th Amendment commands.

You can draw a straight line from that executive order on birthright citizenship to his administration’s revocation of visas, the detention of foreign students and the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident, to a Salvadoran prison and the subsequent refusal to try to extricate him in spite of court orders. Mr. Trump is claiming far-reaching but dubious powers, pushing or exceeding legal limits without first bothering to determine if they were permissible, as past presidents generally did.

Times Opinion recently reached out to dozens of legal scholars and asked them to identify the most significant unconstitutional or unlawful actions by Mr. Trump and his administration in the first 100 days of his second presidency and to assess the damage. We also asked them to separate actions that might draw legal challenges but are, in fact, within the powers of the president. And we asked them to connect the dots on where they thought Mr. Trump was heading.

We heard back from 35 scholars — a group full of diverse viewpoints and experiences, including liberals like U.C. Berkeley’s Erwin Chemerinsky and Harvard’s Jody Freeman; the conservatives Adrian Vermeule at Harvard and Michael McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge who directs Stanford’s Constitutional Law Center and is a member of the Federalist Society; and the libertarians Ilya Somin at George Mason University and Evan Bernick at Northern Illinois University. Many are among the nation’s most cited scholars by their colleagues in law review articles.

From all of their responses, we constructed a road map through Mr. Trump’s first 100 days of lawlessness, including his defiance of our judiciary and constitutional system; the undermining of First Amendment freedoms and targeting of law firms, universities, the press and other parts of civil society; the impoundment of federal funds authorized by Congress; the erosion of immigrant rights; and the drive to consolidate power.

This road map largely draws on the scholars’ words, which serve as bright red warning lights about the future of America:

Read the rest here.

A Brief History of the Death & Funerary Rites of the Roman Papacy

I found this to be quite interesting. 

Sunday Various

In Rome the battle lines are forming for the upcoming conclave.

A list of potential papal successors from media reports

A look at some of the possible successors from Rorate with a traditionalist POV

In Canada's election, Trump is on the ballot.

Poll: Canadians despise Trump and distrust US

Shocked by US peace proposal, Ukrainians say they will not accept any formal surrender of territory

Trump's third-term talk freezes the potential 2028 Republican field

GOP Medicaid debate intensifies in search for cuts

Florida nears ban on fluoride

The NBC / MSNBC Divorce is Getting Messy

Trump is Going After Wikipedia

..As you know, Section 501(c)(3) requires that organizations receiving tax-exempt status operate exclusively for “religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes. . . [.]” It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation, through its wholly owned subsidiary Wikipedia, is allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public. Wikipedia is permitting information manipulation on its platform, including the rewriting of key, historical events and biographical information of current and previous American leaders, as well as other matters implicating the national security and the interests of the United States. Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing informational material is antithetical to Wikimedia’s “educational” mission. 

In addition, Wikipedia’s operations are directed by its board that is composed primarily of foreign nationals, subverting the interests of American taxpayers. Again, educational content is directionally neutral; but information received by my Office demonstrates that Wikipedia’s informational management policies benefit foreign powers....

Read the rest here.

I saw this coming from the moment he won the election. The language is straight out of every tyrant's playbook. Attack any source of information you can't control. Start by accusing it of being a foreign propaganda entity, cut off its funding, and then shut it down. 

Trump is an Authoritarian Fool

To see the true face of Donald Trump, look no further than Ukraine. Laid bare in his handling of that issue are not only his myriad weaknesses, but also the danger he poses to his own country and the wider world – to say nothing of the battered people of Ukraine itself.

Don’t be fooled by the mild, vaguely theatrical rebuke Trump issued to Vladimir Putin on Thursday after Moscow unleashed a deadly wave of drone strikes on Kyiv, killing 12 and injuring dozens: “Vladimir, STOP!” Pay attention instead to the fact that, in the nearly 100 days since Trump took office, the US has essentially switched sides in the battle between Putin’s Russia and democratic Ukraine, backing the invaders against the invaded.

On Friday, Trump’s real-estate buddy and special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, held talks in Moscow with Putin. But any resemblance between the US and an honest broker is purely coincidental. On the contrary, previous encounters between the two men resulted in Witkoff parroting Kremlin talking points, essentially endorsing Russia’s claim to the Ukrainian territory it seized. In that, Witkoff was merely following the lead set by his boss: the supposed peace deal Trump is now in a hurry to seal amounts to handing Putin almost everything he wants and demanding Ukraine surrender.

Hence Trump’s anger on Wednesday, when he accused Volodymyr Zelenskyy of making “inflammatory statements”. What had the Ukrainian president said that was so incendiary? He had calmly pointed out that he could not do as Trump demanded and recognise Russian control of Crimea, which Russia grabbed in 2014, because it was forbidden by his country’s constitution. It’s telling that Trump should be enraged by a president who thinks constitutions have to be respected.

Whether Trump succeeds in making Kyiv buckle or not, the new reality is clear. The US president is taking an axe to an international order constructed in the aftermath of a bloody world war, a system that has held, however imperfectly, since 1945. A central tenet of that order was that big states could not simply swallow up smaller ones, that unprovoked aggression and conquest would no longer be allowed to stand. Yet here is Trump bent on rewarding just such an act of conquest, not simply acquiescing in Putin’s land grab in Ukraine but conferring on it the legitimacy of approval by the world’s most powerful nation.

Note how he speaks as if Putin had every right to seize the territory of his neighbour. Asked this week what concessions, if any, he had extracted from Moscow, Trump replied that Putin’s willingness to stop the war, rather than gobbling up Ukraine in its entirety, was a “pretty big concession”.

Read the rest here.

I can't remember ever really agreeing with Jonathan Freedland on much of anything. But he is pretty much dead on here.

The Peace Deal

Francis

Francis had many real and undoubted virtues. His love for the poor and marginalized was not a show, likewise his humility. Yet I can't help but recall Winston Churchill's damning assessment of Clement Attlee; "a humble man, with much to be humble about." 

The  hallmark of his pontificate was the elevation of religious indifference, and by extension indifference to Divine Revelation itself, to a degree that made the proclamation of anything as objectively true, a punishable offense. I honestly have more respect for Calvin and Luther who at least stood for something. At the end of the day Francis was a heretic. Who, in the course of twelve years did incalculable damage to his own church, and by example to much of Christendom. Out of charity, I shall refrain from further comment on his legacy until after the funeral. 

Hungary takes another step towards dictatorship

Just last week, Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party adopted a bill that would allow the government to temporarily strip dual citizens — specifically those who are also nationals of non-EU or non-European Economic Area countries — of their Hungarian passports, should they be deemed to have acted “in the interest of foreign powers” and “undermined the sovereignty of Hungary.” 

The ambitions of this bill are clear as day. This is not about national security; it’s about silencing dissent. It’s about targeting civil society, journalists and activists — both within Hungary and the diaspora — who refuse to fall in line with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

I’ve already been the subject of many such attacks. My name and my organization, Action for Democracy, have been fixtures of the Hungarian government’s propaganda machine for years.

The government has commissioned illegal surveillance, covertly recording videos and taking photographs of me and my family in front of our apartment in New York. It has published unfounded allegations in pro-government newspapers. It has launched misogynistic attacks against my wife. And it has instructed the Hungarian intelligence agencies, as well as the Orwellian “Sovereignty Protection Authority” — a body modeled on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s repressive state machinery — to investigate my organization on the grounds of “national security.”

Read the rest here.

The Face-Plant President

Harold Macmillan, the midcentury British prime minister, supposedly said that what statesmen feared most were “events, dear boy, events.” Misfortunes happen: a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, a foreign crisis. Political leaders are judged by how adroitly or incompetently they handle the unexpected.

Luckily, the Trump administration hasn’t yet had such misfortunes. Its only misfortune — and therefore everyone else’s — is itself.

So much has been obvious again this week, thanks to two stories that are, at their core, the same. First, there was the revelation that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had shared sensitive details of the military strike on Yemen with his wife, brother and personal lawyer on yet another Signal group chat. That was followed by an essay in Politico from a former close aide to Hegseth, John Ullyot, describing a “full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon” — a meltdown that included the firing of three of the department’s top officials. Donald Trump Jr. responded by saying Ullyot is “officially exiled from our movement.”

Then there was a market rout and a dollar plunge, thanks to President Trump’s unseemly and unhinged attacks on Jerome Powell, the Fed chairman. Powell’s sin was to have the audacity to describe the probable effects of the president’s tariffs: namely, that they’ll cause prices to go up and growth to slow down. This sent Trump into a rage, complete with White House threats to examine whether Powell can be fired — a potential assault on central bank independence worthy of the worst economic days of Argentina.

Both cases are about adult supervision: the absence of it in the first instance, the presence of it in the other and the president’s strong preference for the former. Why? Probably for the same reason that tin-pot dictators elevate incompetent toadies to top security posts: They are more dependent and less of a threat. The last thing Trump wants at the Pentagon is another Jim Mattis, secure enough in himself to be willing to resign on principle.

The same goes for other departments of government.

An adult secretary of state would never have allowed his department to be gutted in its first weeks by an unofficial official (Elon Musk) from a so-called department (DOGE) by unaccountable teenage employees with nicknames like Big Balls. But Marco Rubio has a moniker with a very different meaning, Little Marco. He’ll do as he’s told right until he’s fired, probably (like one of his predecessors, Rex Tillerson) via a social media post.

Read the rest here.