Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 150 Shares40 Views

    in US Politics

    Crews continue to battle wind-driven brush fire on New York’s Long Island

    Firefighters in New York were continuing to battle at least one brush fire in a wooded stretch of Long Island on Sunday with the wealthy coastal enclave of the Hamptons vulnerable and officials warning that high wind gusts threatened to ignite further blazes.The state’s Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, declared a state of emergency on Saturday after four separate fires broke out. The flames were spreading across large swaths of the narrow strip of barrier land that stretches for more than 100 miles east from New York City out towards the Atlantic Ocean.A huge fire in Long Island’s Pine Barrens region prompted road closures and evacuations of a military base.As of Sunday morning, three of the fires had been contained, while one was still burning in the hamlet of Westhampton, according to Michael Martino, a spokesperson for Suffolk county executive Ed Romaine.Local fire crews, as well as the air national guard, worked through the night, containing roughly 80% of the blaze, according to Martino.He said the Suffolk county police department’s arson squad had initiated an investigation into the blaze, though there was no immediate evidence to suggest arson.At least two commercial structures had been damaged. One firefighter was flown to a hospital to be treated for burns to the face on Saturday.Massive clouds of smoke billowed and flames towered over the Sunrise highway that leads to the Hamptons, the string of historic seaside communities flanked by magnificent sandy beaches with rolling waves and dotted with summer mansions of the rich and famous.According to the National Weather Service, wind gusts of up to 30mph were expected on Sunday, making it more difficult to extinguish parts that were still burning.“Our biggest problem is the wind,” Romaine said at an earlier news conference. “It is driving this fire.”Roughly 15 miles west, officials were monitoring a small brush fire along Sunrise highway early on Sunday, Brookhaven town supervisor Daniel Panico said. More

  • 175 Shares47 Views

    in US Politics

    Democrats are reeling. Is Stephen A Smith the way back to the White House?

    The View, one of the US’s most popular daytime television programmes, was a vital campaign stop last year for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. This week, it played host to a cable sports channel personality who might be nurturing political ambitions of his own.Stephen A Smith was asked by co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin what he makes of hypothetical polls that show him among the leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.“I make of it that citizens, particularly on the left, are desperate,” Smith said in characteristically forthright style. “And I mean it when I say it: I think I can beat them all.”Despite – or because of – his lack of political experience, Smith is emerging as an unlikely force in a Democratic party badly in need of critical friends, fresh ideas and blunt truth-telling. The idea of him running for the White House remains wildly speculative – but speaks volumes about a shift in the US media ecosystem and a blurring of the lines between culture, entertainment and politics.The 57-year-old, born Stephen Anthony Smith in the Bronx in New York, began his career in print journalism, writing for newspapers such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, then made his name as a broadcaster, especially on ESPN. Smith is now the co-host of First Take, where he shares provocative opinions on basketball and other topics.His fans include Kurt Bardella, a media relations consultant and Democratic strategist who watches First Take “religiously”. Bardella said: “He is out there with passion and charisma and he provokes emotion and conversation and debate. He has become the singular most influential person in all of sports.“We live in a time where our politics is shaped and informed by culture more than at any time in our history. There’s that old adage that politics is just culture downstream, and Stephen A is a good embodiment of that.”Smith’s star continues to rise. It emerged this week that he had agreed to a new ESPN contract worth at least $100m for five years. He will continue on First Take but reduce other sports-related obligations, increasing his opportunities for political commentary: in recent months he has appeared on Fox News, NewsNation and HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher.The Stephen A Smith Show, which streams on YouTube and iHeart, has featured interviews with Hakeem Jeffries, the House of Representatives Democratic minority leader; rightwing personality Candace Owens; and Andrew Cuomo, in his first interview since announcing his candidacy for New York mayorThe political chatter around Smith is also a symptom of the demoralisation in the leaderless Democratic party following last November’s defeat in elections for the White House, House and Senate. This week, for example, Democrats struggled to find a coherent response to Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress.After nominating Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in past elections, some in the party hunger for a fighter in the mould of Trump, an outsider not beholden to the traditional political establishment. And witnessing the rise of podcasters such as Joe Rogan and an entire “Maga” media ecosystem, they crave a liberal alternative.In Smith, they see a bracing energy. He voted for Harris but has been outspoken in criticising Democrats for failing to connect with voters and for prioritising niche issues – which in his view includes the transgender community – and failing to address the concerns of a broader electorate.In January, appearing alongside the Democratic representative Ro Khanna on Real Time with Bill Maher, he offered a blistering diagnosis of why Democrats lost to Trump: “The man was impeached twice, he was convicted on 34 felony counts and the American people still said: ‘He’s closer to normal than what we see on the left.’”Smith added: “What voter can look at the Democrat party and say: ‘There’s a voice for us, somebody who speaks for us, that goes up on Capitol Hill and fights the fights that we want them fighting on our behalf’?”His gift for storytelling and communicating impresses Bardella, a former spokesperson and senior adviser for Republicans on the House oversight committee. Bardella said: “His style of speaking, the directness, the boldness, the bombastic at times kind of PT Barnum-esque quality that he brings to the conversation is exactly what Democrats are lacking and exactly what made Donald Trump the showman such an appealing character to begin with when he arrived on the stage.“Rather than just dismiss it or make fun of it or ignore it, Democrats would be wise to study what makes him so successful because there is nobody in the Democratic party that is as relevant a voice on a day-to-day basis as Stephen A Smith.”It was striking that a January poll by McLaughlin & Associates for the 2028 Democratic nomination decided to include him in a survey that put Kamala Harris at 33%, Pete Buttigieg at 9%, Gavin Newsom at 7%, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at 6%, Josh Shapiro at 3%, Tim Walz at 3% and Smith at 2%.Still, many Democrats would think twice before gambling on an outsider such as Smith or the billionaire businessman Mark Cuban. Lack of experience could be a liability in the eyes of some voters. Smith’s controversial statements and “yelling” style could alienate certain segments of the electorate. The perception of Smith as a celebrity candidate could undermine his credibility.Bill Whalen, a former media consultant for politicians including the former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, said Smith’s eloquence and in-your-face style could be appealing to voters in this political moment: “But the question is, what does Stephen A Smith believe in at the end of the day? He’s been very vocal criticising the Democratic party. What positions does he hold? What does he believe in?“The fact is, if you’re going to run for a party’s nomination in America, there are about a half a dozen or so issues in which you need to be on the right side. Otherwise, you’re not going to go very far. Where is Stephen A Smith on abortion? Where is he on DEI? Where is he on quotas and affirmative action? Where is he on crime? Where is he on spending?“The list goes on. You just don’t know, so my advice to any Democrat looking at this is: before you become a Stephen A Smith supporter, give him a questionnaire and have him fill it out and see what the answers are.”Whether Smith, who has a recurring guest-acting role on the ABC soap opera General Hospital, would want to take on a gruelling election campaign is far from certain.He has expressed ambivalence on the topic but told the Daily Mail last month that “if the American people came to me and looked at me and said ‘Yo, man, we want you to run for office’, and I had a legitimate shot to win the presidency of the United States, I’m not gonna lie. I’ll think about that.”But on Friday, Smith’s agent, Mark Shapiro, sought to quell the rumours, insisting at a conference in Boston: “He will not run for president. He’s going to continue to entertain those conversations, but he will not run for president.”Still, the buzz reveals a bigger picture about Democratic soul-searching in the aftermath of election defeat. Trump proved effective at exploiting the new media ecology of podcasts, TikTok and other platforms in portraying the party as elitist, out of touch and obsessed with “woke” issues. Some Democrats are now recalibrating – for example, by removing gender pronouns from their social media accounts.David Litt, an author and former speechwriter for Barack Obama, said: “Democrats, for most of my lifetime, which is 38 years at this point, sort of assumed we are dominant in the culture, whether or not we’re dominant politically. One of the things we learned from this most recent election is, that may not be the case and either things are more even than we thought or, I would even argue, the right, at least during the election season, took an advantage in the culture.“It’s important that Democrats are saying our ‘political voices’ may not come from the world of politics, particularly at a moment when people are deeply sceptical of politicians. Who are some people who have ways of thinking and communicating that don’t sound like every politician out there? That search and that openness is going to end up being pretty useful and pretty important one way or the other.” More

  • 188 Shares42 Views

    in US Politics

    Republican leadership tells party to stop holding public events – what impact will that have?

    After Roger Marshall, a senator from Kansas, was hounded out of his own town hall event last week, Republican party leaders had had enough. Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, and Richard Hudson, the chair of the GOP’s fundraising body, decided the embarrassment had to end, and they told Republicans to stop holding the public events.But while that might save some Republican politicians from public humiliation, it could also deprive Americans of opportunities to interact with their elected officials, experts said, and prevent people from letting their representatives they are not happy with the increasingly divisive direction of the Trump administration.“It’s certainly a unique view of representation that representatives should hear only from constituents who agree with them,” said Marjorie Hershey, professor emeritus of political science at Indiana University Bloomington.“But it’s entirely in keeping with the recent direction of the Republican party: to become more and more extreme because they listen only to their far-right base.”Johnson and Hudson’s edict came after several Republican town halls were interrupted in recent weeks. Scott Fitzgerald, a four-year congressman, faced an angry crowd at an event in West Bend, Wisconsin, in late February. Fitzgerald was repeatedly booed as he defended the role of Elon Musk, in particular.Apparently misjudging his audience, Fitzgerald said Musk is “getting rid of the DEI”, to loud jeers, before receiving a similar reaction when he praised “the fraud and abuse that has been discovered” by the department of government efficiency.A video from TMJ4 showed attendees carrying signs including “Presidents are not kings” and “No cuts to Medicaid”. Glenn Grothman, also from Wisconsin, received similar treatment at a town hall a couple of days later, being loudly booed as he claimed that “across the board [Trump] has done some very good things”, including birthright citizenship and – using the same phrasing as Fitzgerald – “getting rid of the DEI”.Marshall fared even worse. He left a public meeting after 40 minutes, the 64-year-old senator telling a hostile audience: “If you’re rude, which you’re being, I’m going to leave,” as he defended Trump’s extraordinary row with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy a day earlier.That was apparently the straw that broke the camel’s back, as Johnson and Hudson rushed to their party members’ aid. While some Republicans, including Fitzgerald, have suggested they may buck party leadership, plenty will likely be relieved to use the screen provided by their leadership. But there are concerns about how this will affect Americans’ democratic rights, especially as the cancelling of town halls comes after Trump began to deny highly regarded news organizations access to the White House.“President Trump’s insistence on choosing which reporters get to travel with him and attend press conferences is in keeping with [this] effort,” Hershey said.“I think the people who wrote the constitution would argue that this is exactly the kind of behavior the American revolution was fought to stop.”She added: “Town halls are not the only way that constituents can express their views to representatives. But they are a meaningful way: not every citizen can access Zoom, and expressing our views in person is an important way of conveying a depth of feeling that isn’t as easily expressed in a letter, an email, or a visit to a representative’s staff member.”In issuing his town hall order, in a closed-door meeting, Hudson compared the atmosphere to town halls during Trump’s first term in 2017. Then Republican town halls repeatedly turned contentious as the Trump-led party sought to strip down the Affordable Care Act. There is a neat earlier precedent in the anger that erupted at Democrats’ town halls in 2012, as the Tea Party movement, seen as precursor to Trump’s Make America great again movement, disrupted Democrats’ public events in protest against the Affordable Care Act, which, according to the department of the treasury, has helped nearly 50m Americans access health care.Daniel B Markovits, a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Columbia, has published research on congressional town halls with fellow academic Andrew J Clarke. Markovits said that while there is no legal obligation for members of congress to hold town halls, people could lose out if Republicans follow through with their threat to limit in-district appearances.“A huge amount of what members of Congress do is non-partisan case work. It could be like: ‘There’s a problem with my social security check’, or: ‘I have trouble with whatever government agency,’” Markovits said.“A lot of this is done through staff, but sometimes it happens at town hall. So in common times, a lot of town hall questions are: ‘Here’s this problem, I want your help. I want you to interfere on my behalf.’ Or: ‘There’s a road broken in town.’ So there’s a lot of very clearly non-partisan business that happens at these things.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMembers of Congress are not popular in the US. A poll in 2013 found that Congress was less popular than hemorrhoids, cockroaches and toenail fungus, and there is little to suggest the law-making body has gone up in people’s estimations since then. That could become worse if politicians are seen as becoming more out of touch with their constituents – something a lack of public interaction could exacerbate.“There’s a lot of research saying that voters live in a bubble, which I think is true. But I think we shouldn’t understate the extent to which politicians can live in a bubble too,” Markowits said.“And there’s some good work showing that politicians don’t have the best understanding of their constituents’ beliefs. So I think one of the things you might see if these [town halls] stop happening, you might expect members of Congress to overstate, maybe even more than they already do, the extent to which their voters are agreeing with them.”Trump and Johnson have claimed, without evidence, that “paid troublemakers” are responsible for their members’ poor reception at town halls, something Democrats, including Democratic House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, have denied.“We don’t need paid protestors,” Jeffries said in a post on BlueSky. “The American people are with us.”Some local Democratic parties have encouraged members to attend town halls and air concerns, while Indivisible, a progressive activist organization formed during Trump’s first term, has listed events and sought to highlight some of the more contentious aspects of both the Trump presidency and the Democratic response.The organization, and others, are now planning to hold “empty chair town halls” in Republican districts – where they invite members of Congress to attend public forums, and hold a discussion anyway if they do not.“People who choose to go into public service, and have as your job that you are paid to represent other people, part of that job is talking to those people that you represent. And if you don’t like to do that, that’s okay. You can go become a lobbyist, you can go and do something else. Nobody is forcing you to represent other human beings in the United States Congress,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder and co-executive director of Indivisible.“But if you want to have that job, you’ve got two choices. You can show up and defend your positions, or you can hide and we’ll make sure people know you’re a coward.” More

  • 213 Shares33 Views

    in US Politics

    ‘Will Trump give up the store?’ Edward Fishman on how US economic warfare works – and doesn’t

    Edward Fishman’s first book, Chokepoints, is a study of American economic warfare. Densely reported but fast-moving, the book examines recent US sanctions policy regarding Iran, Russia and China, and how the dollar’s dominance of international financial systems has allowed administrations to pursue political aims.Fishman’s own service under Barack Obama, at Treasury, Pentagon and State, stands him in good stead. So does teaching at Columbia and being a Washington thinktank fellow.As Chokepoints comes out, Donald Trump is beginning talks with Russia aimed at ending the war in Ukraine. Russia is seeking relief from US sanctions, which Trump seems inclined to give, and Ukraine and Europe are increasingly isolated from the US.“The record of the first Trump administration on Russia is not particularly strong,” Fishman said, diplomatically, when asked what the US might expect from a president widely held to be in thrall to Vladimir Putin – and speaking before Trump’s spectacular Oval Office argument with Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine and subsequent suspension of US military aid.Fittingly, as the author of a history of modern sanctions, Fishman looked back to look forward – and did not find encouraging signs.View image in fullscreenIn 2018, “under pressure from Congress, Trump imposed sanctions on Oleg Deripaska, an aluminum magnate in Russia … Deripaska owned Rusal, which is the largest aluminum company in Russia, and produced almost 10% of the world’s aluminum. And overnight, basically, aluminum prices skyrocket, Rusal stock collapses, and there’s significant chaos in metal markets.“And Trump gets all these calls from the Russians, from CEOs, saying, ‘What are you doing? Stop.’ And he just pulls back the sanctions.”Years later, that episode is “concerning” to Fishman, “for a few reasons. One is, I think it signals to Russia that as soon as [Trump’s US faces] even the slightest amount of blowback, he will cave, even absent any concessions. It wasn’t like Putin gave any political concessions [in 2018]. It wasn’t like, ‘OK, we’re gonna free these prisoners overnight, we’re gonna stop this bombardment in Ukraine,’ because there was a low, simmering conflict being fought at the time. Trump just pulled back the sanctions.“And after that is when Russia shifts basically all of its foreign exchange reserves out of the dollar and into the euro and the yuan, the Chinese currency, and gold. So that was the key moment. Putin realizes [about Trump], ‘This guy, he doesn’t have the stomach to do anything, but also he’s so erratic.’ I think that was when the US lost leverage it needs with Russia, though I think it contributed to Putin underestimating the sanctions he would face in 2022”, from Biden, when he ordered a full invasion.US sanctions have hurt Russia deeply – and therefore should be among Trump’s strongest cards to play. Typically, he has been inconsistent. Usually friendly to Moscow, on Friday, Trump used his social media platform to say that because Russia was “absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield” he was “strongly considering large scale” sanctions and tariffs on Russia until a ceasefire could be reached.Fishman pondered the issue: “Do I think that Trump will give up the store? I don’t know … I would say I’m not confident that he’s going to get a just peace in Ukraine. But I’m not yet saying, ‘This guy is failing, we’re about to give up everything to Russia in exchange for nothing,’ though I think it’s possible and it’s certainly what the Russians want. It’s very clear they want to cut a deal with Trump that basically couches sanctions relief as a favor to the US, to say, ‘We should have open trade and investment with you. It’s good for America. It was Biden who put on all these restraints. He was just restraining US-Russia relations for no good reason.’“They want to basically get the US to give up their biggest bargaining chip before full negotiations over Ukraine even start.”Fishman studied at Yale, Cambridge and Stanford after 9/11. He noticed that “Iran’s nuclear program shot to the top of the foreign policy agenda”, even though “it was very obvious that the US was not willing to fight another war in the Middle East. And as a result, a number of people were thinking, ‘OK, what do we do about it?’”Joining the US government, Fishman found himself looking for a good book on sanctions.“I had an interesting mix of roles. Some were in the action, doing sanctions, diplomacy, and in others I was more of an adviser to really senior people. I worked for Secretary of State John Kerry and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey … And what I noticed was in the Situation Room, when the top leaders were discussing US foreign policy, whenever it turned to economic warfare, sanctions, etc, the level of conversation was so low, and I think it was because most people in the room had no idea what sanctions were.“It felt arcane. It felt mysterious. And so a big goal [with Chokepoints] was to demystify this and to create a way for average people just to read a book and say, ‘OK, I get it enough that I can develop my own opinions.’”The book is written to keep the reader moving, short chapters introduced with journalistic flourishes. Character traits are sharply noted, short anecdotes from lives away from work help present diplomats and bureaucrats in sharp relief.The importance of the sanctions policy such characters have shaped over the last 20 years is hard to overstate. The first part of Fishman’s book concerns the Iran nuclear deal, reached under Obama through diplomacy and economic pressure, meant to stop the Islamic Republic getting the bomb, dumped by Trump in 2018. Fishman also considers Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the US-led response – one subject of angry debate in the Oval Office when Zelenskyy visited last week – then switches to how Obama and Trump approached China.Fishman is a proud Obama alum but he is not afraid to apportion criticism.“Trump was significantly less risk-averse than Obama was when it came to sanctions. And I think that hopefully the Obama-Russia section [of Chokepoints] shows that in some ways, that risk aversion did not serve American interests.“The Obama administration also toward the end started to become quite concerned about China building islands in the South China Sea, all kinds of other aggressive acts. I think some Obama people would say this was too late in the administration to do anything about it but I would have been surprised, honestly, if you had seen a kind of frontal assault on Chinese economic aggression, even if Obama had more time.“So I think the benefit of Trump, with respect to China, was that he showed us that we have more leverage than we think we do, that we have more flexibility to actually push back against things that China was doing to hurt American interests, because I think it was well documented that Chinese IP theft was one of the ways that they were damaging American business interests, damaging the US economy, and we really hadn’t done anything about it.“So I do think that what Trump got right on China was that you can punch back without necessarily destroying the relationship … the US-China relationship didn’t really collapse during the Trump administration until the very end, until Covid, because they had signed the phase one trade deal in January 2020.“The thing that strikes me about the first Trump administration, and I think is going to be true about this one, is that Trump … on most issues, he vacillates. And China’s one of them. He goes back and forth from being extremely tough to being like, ‘Xi Jinping is my best friend.’”Trump is inconsistent toward other countries too, particularly those he threatens with tariffs, adversaries and friends alike, as demonstrated this week by 25% tariffs slapped on Mexico and Canada, then partially delayed.“Tariffs are taxes on imports,” Fishman said. “Let’s say we were to impose a tariff on Russian oil of 20%. That would mean that US companies could buy Russian oil, but if they were to do so, they’d have to pay a 20% tax. So a US refinery, down the street from me in New Jersey, could pay a tax to the US government to buy that Russian oil.“A sanction would be basically saying you can’t buy any oil at all. So a tariff is a significantly weaker form of a sanction. Historically, as a result, tariffs have not been used for national security reasons. They’re an economic bargaining chip. Sometimes you use tariffs to protect important domestic industries.“What Trump has done is basically just made tariffs yet another weapon in the US economic arsenal, alongside sanctions and export controls. And I think that’s OK. But it’s important for people to realize that tariffs are a significantly weaker tool than sanctions or export controls, so the idea of using them to address key national security problems is somewhat ludicrous.“Trump recently threatened tariffs on Russia. We import $2bn or $3bn worth of goods from Russia. So what good is that going to do? The tariff threat against the Brics countries – a lot of these things don’t make a lot of sense. I think he has a fixation with tariffs. Let’s see if one of his red lines is crossed, if he actually just relies on tariffs, or if there’s sanctions too.”A “chokepoint” is a point at which trade can be squeezed: physically, in corridors such as the Bosphorus or the Panama canal, electronically, through financial networks from which the US can freeze enemies out.“Geographic chokepoints have never fully lost their relevance,” Fishman said. “With the invention of the airplane, there are ways to ship commodities without access to chokepoints. But a lot of things, like oil, still travel by sea or by pipeline. And so that’s why the Bosphorus today is still a really important chokepoint. The Suez canal is very important, and the Strait of Hormuz.“What’s different about economic warfare today is that throughout almost all of human history, up until 20 years ago, cutting off any of these chokepoints would have required taking a navy vessel and parking it there, and saying, ‘OK, thou shall not pass.’ The difference now is you can have an official in the treasury department sign a document and block a chokepoint from thousands of miles away. That’s why you’ve seen this sort of unchained economic warfare, because it’s not like military force, it’s not like you’re actually putting US troops and US ships in harm’s way.”Trump has implied willingness to use US troops, to seize the Panama canal or Greenland. Fishman sees actual deployments as a possible consequence of Trump fueling a breakdown of economic order.“The thing I worry about, about some of Trump’s rhetoric, not just about Panama but Greenland … is that I think that we are certainly headed toward a breakdown in globalization. I think that in order to regain a sense of economic security, we’re going to see an erosion of economic interdependence.”Economic nationalism is on the rise. Fishman worries that “Trump may be driving us towards deploying these weapons of economic warfare not just against the Chinas and Russias of the world, but against Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Colombia, Brazil – all these different countries he’s threatened tariffs and sanctions against.”His book ends on a pessimistic note. In conversation, he warns: “History shows us that when states can’t acquire markets and resources through open trade and finance, that’s when wars break out. They try to conquer them. If you have that mindset, if you say, ‘We don’t feel like we can access these resources unless we physically plant our flag there,’ then that’s not a world that any of us is going to be happy living in.”

    Chokepoints is out now More

  • 175 Shares42 Views

    in US Politics

    Sycophancy and toadying are de rigueur in Trump’s court of self-aggrandizement | Sydney Blumenthal

    Sycophancy is the coin of the realm. In Donald Trump’s court, flattery is the only spoken language. He does not need an executive order to enforce it. Fear is the other side of the coin. Loyalty must be blind. Obedience is safety. Cronyism secures status. His whim is dogma. Criticism is heresy. Debate is apostasy. Expertise is bias. Objectivity is a hoax. Truth is just your opinion. Lies are defended to the death as articles of faith. New ones are manufactured on an industrial scale by his press office for social influencers to spread. Denying facts proves fealty. The rule of law is partisan. Russia is our trusted ally. Britain and France are “random counties”. Retribution is policy.The deeper the submission to madness, the greater his supremacy. The subjugation is more thorough if the things people are forced to accept are irrational or, better, the reverse of what they had believed. When previously held beliefs are abandoned to conform to their opposite, like the secretary of state Marco Rubio’s formerly adamant support of Ukraine, which went to his core as the son of refugees from Castro’s Cuba, the more Trump’s dominance is demonstrated. Rubio has gone full circle, from his family fleeing one kind of tyranny to Trump sneering at him as “Little Marco” to ambitious embrace of his tormentor. He finds himself as a supplicant to Trump complaining about Elon Musk’s mindless wreckage of the state department. Formally the ranking constitutional officer of the cabinet, Rubio is below Musk in Trump’s hierarchy.Each of the concentric rings of Trump’s court require different nuances of servility. At mid-level, the ethos is to mimic the irrational impulses of the ruler in order to be seen as his willing helper. In 1934, a middle-rank German minister explained that “it is the duty of everybody to try to work towards the Führer along the lines he would wish.” “Working toward the Fuhrer” – auf den Führer hinarbeiten – became the governing style, or else.At the cabinet level, Rubio’s renunciation is an essential conversion to prove subservient allegiance to the Fuhrerprinzip. “The higher one rose in the hierarchy, the more servile one became,” wrote Albert Speer, Hitler’s war manufacturing minister, in his memoir. At the height of power, in the innermost circle, at the leader’s right hand, sits JD Vance, who taunts and threatens on the leader’s behalf, demanding obsequious “respect” while slyly deploying his sycophancy to goad the leader.Upon passing through the gates of Trump’s White House, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, entered into a domain that would have been intimately familiar to him. It would have been reminiscent of the claustrophobic despotism in Ukraine under communism. It would have been a reminder of what was called “the Family” of kleptocratic oligarchs, lackeys and political operatives surrounding the Putin-backed Ukrainian ruler Viktor Yanukovych before he fled the country during the popular uprising of 2014 – a gangster culture that included the US consultant Paul Manafort, also Trump’s 2016 campaign manager, whom he would pardon for a host of criminal felonies.A western world shocked at Trump’s orchestrated humiliation of Zelenskyy should have seen the staged event as the culmination of hundreds of similar transgressions since he became president again. The difference between the rest of his rampage and his denigration of Zelensky was only in its momentousness. But not even Elon Musk systematically shredding the federal government approached the historic scale of Trump’s crime against Ukraine, which reduced the United States through a few insults to the lowest ebb of its international power and prestige since a century ago, when, in a spasm of partisan isolationism, the Senate rejected joining the League of Nations after the first world war. But, for the appalled and disoriented Europeans who must pick up the pieces as they adjust to the reality of an American president discarding them in order to forge a grand alliance with Russia, the revealing signs of Trump’s malignancy have been present in a never-ending series of less than world historical but dramatically squalid scandals.“I wouldn’t believe Donald Trump if his tongue were notarized,” New York mayor Ed Koch once quipped. Now, Trump tried to erase the infamy of being a figure of ridicule in New York by planting his hooks into the current mayor, Eric Adams. A predator recognizes vulnerability. After ordering the Department of Justice to drop its corruption charges against Adams, Trump’s precipitate action prompted the resignation of the acting US attorney for the southern district of New York, Danielle Sassoon, who stated that it was “a quid pro quo” in exchange for supporting the Trump administration’s “enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed”, and which was followed by the resignations of seven prosecutors from the justice department’s public integrity unit, who refused to participate in the deal.With Adams under his heel, Trump next crushed the Republican Senate through the confirmation process of his unqualified collection of quacks for his cabinet. Intimidation and smears did the work of cowing the august senators. Then, through his installation of his largest donor, Elon Musk, as his self-advertised “Dark Maga” overlord, Trump launched the massacre of the entire federal government. Off with their heads everywhere. The purges have no trials. Tick off the execution list of Project 2025. Let the courts slowly try to catch up to the devastation.Trump’s repetitive compulsion to create disorder allows him to present himself as its would-be master. He can’t temper his impulses. His bedlam provides his only arena for self-validation. He must always fabricate scenes for the exaltation of himself through the humiliation of others to confirm that he is strong. Musk magnifies his abuse.In two speeches, one by the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, and the other by the vice-president, JD Vance, the Trump administration shifted the ground under Ukraine and the western allies to Russian advantage. On 12 February, at the Ukraine Contact Group in Brussels, Hegseth conceded conditions to Russia before any negotiations had begun. He stated the return of occupied territory “unrealistic”, opposed Nato membership and rejected US participation in a security force. Two days later, on 14 February, Vance delivered a second shock, reciting the talking points of the far-right parties in Europe in a virtual endorsement a week before the German election of the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany Party.Some Republicans appear to have a good idea about the agents of influence floating around the Trump administration. Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, said after Hegseth’s speech, “I don’t know who wrote the speech – it is the kind of thing Tucker Carlson could have written, and Carlson is a fool.” The former Fox News talkshow host, now with his own podcast, has deep ties to the regimes of Putin and Orbán of Hungary. A fount of Russian disinformation, he is at the center of a circle that includes Donald Trump Jr and JD Vance, bonded as lost boys, abandoned in childhood, and who persuaded Trump to name Vance as his running mate. Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard, a pro-Russian echo chamber, now the national director of intelligence, were brought into their orbit.Tucker Carlson’s son, Buckley Carlson, is Vance’s deputy press director. Jack Posobiec, a far-right conspiracy monger of Pizzagate and white supremacist, was invited to travel with Hegseth, to whom he is close, and has traveled with the secretary of the treasury, Scott Bessent, on his trip in February to Ukraine to meet with Zelensky.In 2017, according to a report of the Atlantic Council, Posobiec was a key player in aiding the Russian “coordinated attempt to undermine Emmanuel Macron’s candidacy, with a disinformation campaign consisting of rumors, fake news, and even forged documents; a hack targeting the computers of his campaign staff; and, finally, a leak – 15 gigabytes of stolen data, including 21,075 emails, released on Friday, May 5, 2017 – just two days before the second and final round of the presidential election”.In 2024, Posobiec addressed the Conservative Political Action Committee: “Welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn’t get all the way there on January 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it.”Making nice with Trump has never proved to be a winning strategy. If Zelensky had bent to shine Trump’s shoes under his desk, he would still have been in a trap. Obsequious gestures to neutralize Trump have been repeatedly tried and failed. If anyone could cajole Trump, it would have been David Rubenstein, the billionaire founder of the Carlyle Group who built his firm with a bipartisan board. Rubenstein has been a pillar of the Washington community, who cherishes the constitution and has lent the National Archives his copy of the original Bill of Rights, personally paid for the restoration of the Washington Monument, and is a patron of the arts, the longtime chair of the Kennedy Center. He recently bought the Baltimore Orioles. Rubenstein wined and dined Donald and Melania Trump, attempted to ingratiate himself and bring them into his charmed circle. Rubenstein’s civilizing mission ran aground.Rubenstein presented Trump with a golden opportunity to gain the kind of acceptance he had sought for a lifetime. He has nursed his injury over rejection by the great and the good in New York, where his crudity, vulgarity and narrow greed constantly undermined his social ambitions. He was also a spectacular failure in the New York real estate market. But Trump still harbored resentment from the 2017 Kennedy Center Honors, when two of the recipients, choreographer Carmen de Lavallade and legendary TV producer Norman Lear, declined to attend a reception at the White House. Trump never appeared at any of the Kennedy Center Honors during his first term. He never came to a single of the thousands of the wide variety of cultural events there, not one. He was not boycotting; he had no interest in theater, music, dance, anything. He is a void.On 12 February, Trump unceremoniously fired its entire board, claimed that the national centerpiece of the performing arts in the capital was “woke” and a “disgrace,” denounced Rubenstein, who does “not share our Vision for a Golden Age in Arts and Culture”, and announced as his replacement “an amazing Chairman, DONALD J. TRUMP!” Rubenstein was privately stunned and surprised at his shabby treatment. But Trump cared less for Rubenstein’s diplomatic approach than for acting out his endless drama of victimization and self-promotion.Trump’s interim director inserted at the Kennedy Center, Ric Grenell, a rightwing activist who was universally despised in Germany when he was ambassador there in the first Trump term, declared that to “make the arts great again” the Kennedy Center would stage a biblical pageant about the birth of Jesus. Trump named Melania’s former modeling agent, Paolo Zampolli, to the board. He held forth to an Italian newspaper, Il Foglio, about Zelenskyy: “He should rebuild Gaza with all the money he stole.”Trump’s meeting with Zelenskyy was preceded two days, earlier on 26 February, by his first cabinet meeting that rehearsed scenes of belittlement, disparagement and deprecation. It was a sham cabinet meeting without any proper presentations by the secretaries of their departmental work, a scene of collective submission. (I had been present in many cabinet meetings during the Clinton administration, where informative review and discussion were the regular order.) Trump’s meeting was a made-for-TV more-than-hour-long reality show with the cabinet as props, two among the 21 Fox News personalities appointed to administration posts.At his cabinet meeting, Trump began by calling on Scott Turner, the secretary of housing and urban development, the only Black person in his cabinet, a former journeyman professional football player, briefly a far-right Texas state legislator and a motivational speaker. “Thank you God for President Trump,” prayed Turner. “So Scott Turner’s a terrific young guy,” said Trump. Turner is 53 years old. “He is heading up HUD and he’s going to make us all very proud, right?” Turner did not speak again in the meeting.Trump introduced Musk, who took control of the meeting, declaring the country would “go bankrupt” if he were not allowed to destroy the government untrammeled. He stood above the cabinet secretaries, wearing all black, a T-shirt reading “Tech Support”, a black Maga cap, and condescended: “And President Trump has put together, I think, the best cabinet ever, literally.” The questions came from the reporters in the room. The nervous cabinet members sat silently, worried about not one but two overlords. Musk was asked questions about his demand that federal employees justify their work every week and wondered how many “you’re looking to cut, total”. Musk gave no answer. Trump intervened: “We’re bloated, we’re sloppy. We have a lot of people that aren’t doing their job. We have a lot of people that don’t exist. You look at social security as an example. You have so many people in social security where if you believe it, they’re 200 years old.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAt the end of the meeting, as the press was led out, Trump jeered, “Thank you. Thank you very much. Pulitzer prize.” JD Vance mocked them with a sarcastic rhetorical question: “Sir, how many peacekeepers are you going to send … ” Trump joined in: “What will you do? How will it be?” Vance continued his mocking merriment. “How will you dress them?” The cabinet members nervously tittered. Vance was the king’s goad and jester. Trump called to one reporter, “Lawrence. Look at Lawrence. This guy’s making a fortune. He never had it so good. He never had it so good. Lawrence, say we did a great job, please. OK? Say it was unbelievable.” The tone for the meeting for Zelenskyy was already on display.That day, Trump banned the traditional press pool chosen by the correspondents that cover the White House. From then on, the pool covering him would be selected by Trump’s press office. The Associated Press and Reuters would continue to be banished altogether for refusing to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, following Trump’s order. Those news organizations had failed to meet the threshold of submission.Both Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer, one after another, arrived in advance of Zelenskyy to butter up Trump without losing their dignity. They treated him with delicacy as a borderline personality. Yet both corrected Trump’s central falsehood that the US had given $350bn to Ukraine while the Europeans gave loans of $100bn for which they were repaid, when in fact the US expended $120bn, most of which went to US weapons manufacturers, and Europe spent $250bn and had not been repaid a euro. Macron touched Trump’s sleeve as he corrected him. Starmer gestured in that direction but never made the physical contact. Trump was undeterred in lying about it afterward.Starmer presented the coup de grace, a handwritten invitation for a state visit from King Charles III to Donald I, royalty to faux royalty. Trump carefully opened the envelope and held up the letter. “Beautiful man, wonderful man,” he said. But there was trouble brewing in paradise when the vision of another man, Vladimir Putin, crossed his mind. His attitude passed from the ecstasy of Charles’s letter to the agony of “the Russia hoax”. “We had to go through the Russian hoax together,” Trump said. “That was not a good thing. It’s not fair. That was a rigged deal and had nothing to do with Russia. It was a rigged deal with inside the country and they had to put up with that too. They put up with a lot. It wasn’t just us. They had to put up with it with a phoney story that was made up. I’ve known him for a long time now.”Trump’s blurted non sequitur after non sequitur was the beginning of his self-revelatory statements about his relationship with Putin, whose actual nature he has devoted decades to covering up. Trump said he had known Putin for “a long time”. How long he did not say. The “phoney story”, which was a true one about Russia’s extensive efforts to interfere in the US election on Trump’s behalf involving hundreds of contacts between Russian agents and the Trump campaign, was stressful not only for Trump but, according to Trump, also for Putin. They went through the “hoax”, the incomplete investigations, “together”. The Mueller report concluded with a referral of 10 obstructions of justice committed by Trump to block its inquiry, but they were never prosecuted. The Senate intelligence committee report contained a lengthy section on Trump’s sexual escapades in Russia creating “compromising information” that could be used by the Russians and “posing a potential counterintelligence threat”. Babbling away about his sympathy for Putin, Trump did not understand that he was engaging in an oblique confession. “Russia, if you’re listening … ”After Trump was shut out of the New York banks, Donald Trump Jr remarked, in 2008, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” Trump’s architect Alan Lapidus stated in 2018: “He could not get anybody in the United States to lend him anything. It was all coming out of Russia. His involvement with Russia was deeper than he’s acknowledged.”Trump turned to Deutsche Bank, the only financial institution willing to do business with him. The bank served as a conduit for Russian money-laundering operations and in 2017 was fined $630m by American and British financial regulators for a $10bn scheme. In 2008, the bank sued Trump for non-payment for $40m on a $640m loan, and Trump counter-sued. Contrary to all normal practices, they settled and continued to do business. But after the January 6 insurrection even Deutsche Bank cut ties with him. His debt to the bank was more than $300m.Trump’s plot to switch sides, punish Zelenskyy, ditch the allies and partner with Putin was hatched before Zelenskyy flew to the US grudgingly to sign a deal for raw earth mineral rights in his country. Trump’s initial exorbitant insistence on $500bn may have been a ploy to get Zelenskyy to reject the deal out of hand. No rational leader could agree to such terms. Though the details of the next contract are not publicly known, Zelenskyy’s acceptance and willingness to negotiate might have come as a surprise. Terminating military and intelligence support for Ukraine required a different pretext. If one pretext doesn’t work, another could be contrived, even a flimsy one.After Putin invaded Ukraine, Trump called him a “genius”. He has always admired the Russian strongman as a model. He has been hostile to Zelenskyy personally since Trump’s “perfect phone call” to him in July 2019 to blackmail him into providing false dirt about Joe Biden in exchange for releasing already congressionally authorized missiles: “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” Trump’s attempt at coercion led to his first impeachment.On 18 February, Trump launched into a tirade of old Russian talking points, that Zelenskyy was a “dictator”. You never should have started it,” Trump said about the war. And, he added, “I don’t think he’s very important to be at meetings.” Zelenskyy’s response that Trump’s remarks were “disinformation” helped set the stage for the meeting on 28 February.The meeting was a wide lens on Trump’s small mind, incapable of grasping any ideas and their practical applications, like alliances, coalitions, national sovereignty or the western world. His ignorance of history is fairly complete. He sees the world like a map of Manhattan real estate that his apologists project as the revival of Great Power politics. He’ll take the West Side Highway development. Putin can get an East River stake. Trump is insistent that Ukraine owes the US money. He sees the country is a vulnerable debtor – “you don’t have the cards.” He may be influenced by his losses and liability stemming from the E Jean Carroll sexual assault and New York state financial fraud cases, where he accrued enormous penalties.Trump once again voiced his identification with Putin. “Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phoney witch-hunt where they used him and Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia … You ever hear of that deal?”JD Vance triggered the implosion with his charge that Zelenskyy was “disrespectful”. He scolded Zelenskyy for not “thanking the president”. He accused him of bringing observers to Ukraine for “a propaganda tour”. Vance’s demand for “respect” was a knowing self-abasement to awaken Trump to Zelenskyy’s absence of sycophancy. Vance’s ultimatum that Zelenskyy degrade himself revealed his own posture. But Vance is the corrective to Mike Pence, who failed at the critical moment on January 6 (“Hang Mike Pence!”). Vance ingratiated using Zelenskyy to manipulate Trump.Zelenskyy fell into the trap, trying to explain the rudiments of 20th-century history, that the geographic isolation of the US could not protect it. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel,” Trump snapped. “You don’t have the cards right now.” Zelenskyy replied, “I’m not playing cards right now.” Trump repeated a common Russian talking point: “You’re gambling with world war three.” Vance jumped in: “Have you said thank you once?” “A lot of times. Even today,” said Zelenskyy. In fact, he offered thanks six times in the conversation, with a “God bless you”.Trump kept talking about “the cards”. He brought up how he had given Zelenskyy missiles. He clearly wanted Zelenskyy to exonerate him for the high crime of his first impeachment. “You got to be more thankful because let me tell you, you don’t have the cards with us.” And the confrontation wound down. “This is going to be great television. I will say that,” said Trump.So the fate of Ukraine and the western alliance turned on the issue of flattery. Despite Trump’s obliviousness to history, the scene recalled Edward Gibbon’s comment in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: “The emperors, secure from contradiction, were abandoned to the intoxication of unlimited power, which their flatterers encouraged with the vilest servility.”

    Sidney Blumenthal, former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth More

  • 138 Shares23 Views

    in US Politics

    ‘They brought it on themselves’: a new low in US-Ukraine relations

    There was an audible gasp in the room at the Council on Foreign Relations as Keith Kellogg, the White House’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, characterised the US decision to cut off intelligence sharing and military aid to Kyiv as like beating a farm animal with a piece of wood.“Very candidly, they brought it on themselves, the Ukrainians,” Kellogg said as the veteran diplomats, academics, and journalists in the room recoiled in surprise. Several held their hands in their faces. “I think the best way I can describe it is sort of like hitting a mule with a two-by-four across the nose,” he continued. “You got their attention, and it’s very significant, obviously, because of the support that we give.”The collapse in US-Ukraine relations since the White House summit between Trump and Zelenskyy has been precipitous. Those around Trump viewed as the strongest supporters of Ukraine – including secretary of state Marco Rubio, national security adviser Mike Waltz, and Kellogg – have become vocal sceptics of continued US support or been sidelined entirely.“We know that [the Maga wing] are just waiting for something they can use to pounce,” said a former senior US diplomat. “And I think that’s where you get the posturing by Rubio, Kellogg and also Waltz, which disturbs people who understand America’s interest in preventing a Putin win in Ukraine.”It has been matched by a rise in the people around Trump who hold vocally Eurosceptic views: Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, and JD Vance, the vice-president who seized his moment in the Oval Office and provoked a greater conflict between Trump and Zelenskyy.Vance has made several key interventions meant to sow divisions with Europe. He appears to have planned ahead of time. His team briefed European media before he spoke up during Trump’s meeting with Keir Starmer to complain about “infringements on free speech” in the UK. And when Zelenskyy disregarded advice from Kellogg, Republican senators, and others, not to clash with Trump during the White House meeting, Vance once again poured petrol on the fire.“First Zelenskyy needs to keep silent in public about concerns with Trump’s policy moves, even though those concerns are justified,” the former senior official said. “It would be good for him to send a team to the meeting in Riyadh which is not at his level. I think he needs to sign the mineral agreement in any form that the Trump administration wants.”Fiona Hill, a former White House official during Trump’s first term, said the speculation on the part of many European officials was that “this was set up by Vance … that he wanted to sideline the Rubios, the Waltzes, the Kelloggs.”These were supposed to be the adults in the room for this administration. Rubio was confirmed 99-0 by senators who believed he would help keep Trump’s foreign policy on track. Waltz was expected to be a centrist ally as national security adviser. And Kellogg, while sceptical of piecemeal support for Kyiv, was seen as a firm supporter of Ukraine.View image in fullscreenInstead, they have followed Trump into putting pressure on Ukraine. Rubio last week said: “Frankly, it’s a proxy war between nuclear powers – the United States, helping Ukraine, and Russia – and it needs to come to an end.”That was a vision closely aligned with the Kremlin’s. Dmitry Peskov reacted positively to Rubio’s words, saying: “We can and want to agree with it, and we agree with it. That’s the way it is. We have said this repeatedly. We have said that this is actually a conflict between Russia and the collective west. And the main country of the collective west is the United States of America.”That’s not the only way in which the US is adopting Russia’s views on the war. In his speech, Kellogg broke ground in describing how Trump sees the conflict: the US wants to position itself as a neutral arbiter between Russia and Ukraine, and Trump recognises that the US needs to “reset relations with Russia” to secure US national security. “The continued isolation and lack of engagement with the Russians as the war in Ukraine continues is no longer a viable strategy,” he said.That portrayal is a radical realignment of US policy interests in the conflict. For three years, Washington has provided considerable financial and military support to Kyiv to allow it to stay in the fight. But under a new Trump administration, those who supported the previous policy have quickly pivoted to back Trump as he seeks to end the war by putting pressure on Ukraine.“Kellogg has some people around him who do know what they’re doing,” said Hill, who worked with him during the first Trump term. “He’s 80 years old. He fought in Vietnam. He knows his stuff. He’s no fan of Russia. He’s a total cold warrior. He’s trying to thread the needle there but he also works for the commander in chief, so he’s trying to interpret, in the best way that he can, what’s going on here? And he will not stray away from what Trump does or says, that’s why he is still there.”Yet Kellogg was left off the list for a key summit between Ukrainian and US officials this week in Saudi Arabia in an attempt to repair the relationship. Waltz, Rubio, and Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff are set to travel for talks with Zelenskyy’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak and his team. The path forward is unclear – although both pro-Ukraine Americans and European officials believe that there is no alternative to US support in the conflict.European officials are hopeful that Zelenskyy and the Trump officials can manage to hold a meeting that won’t erupt into open conflict. That may lead to a quick renewal of intelligence support, which European officials have not lost hope for.But there are broader discussions about whether or not the US remains a viable longterm partner for the Ukraine. For now, the Ukrainian side has few options except to make amends. More

  • 238 Shares23 Views

    in US Politics

    The founding fathers baked reason, truth and free speech into the US. That’s all gone now | Will Hutton

    The founding fathers of the USA – James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin and more – were quintessential disciples of the European Enlightenment. Their intent was to embed Enlightenment values into the government and culture of the New World. America would be a republic of laws. Its constitution would ensure governance of the people, by the people, for the people. Through checked and balanced branches of government, it would expunge the possibility of monarchical discretionary power and inaugurate proper democracy.It would celebrate all liberties, from freedom of speech to freedom of worship. Their belief in science “for the benefit of mankind in general”, in Franklin’s words, would imbue the republic’s commitment to reason, the scientific method and the pursuit of truth. The dynamic economy and society that emerged, however imperfect, reflected those values. It has inspired billions and, for all its falls from grace, has been a force for good.Donald Trump’s presidency is widely deplored for everything from his unilateral imposition of swingeing tariffs to his public humiliation of Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and siding with Russia over the war. He is guilty of all those things, and of an impulsiveness and unpredictability as he seeks retribution, respect and, as he would put it, reciprocity. But this misses the larger point: he draws not only on a constituency that shares his views but also on a well-developed body of thought that wants a decisive rupture with those Enlightenment values and all that spring from them.There is now genuine fear in US civil society – in business, finance, academia, the media and the Republican party – that to speak out will bring cruel retribution or even personal harm: this from the apostles of “free speech”. The US has gone mute. Its Enlightenment-based constitution and the accompanying values once held to be universal are being torched in near silence. Only fealty to Making America Great Again, by repudiating its notable traditions, is permitted – at home and abroad. The profundity of this is beginning to be recognised. Canada finds itself fighting for its life. Friedrich Merz, the incoming German chancellor, says for Europe it is “five to midnight”. He is driving through an extraordinary €1tn commitment to raise German defence and infrastructure spending over the next 10 years. The EU is bracing itself for attacks on its trade and its capacity to set standards and regulations for all goods EU citizens buy – so-called non tariff barriers – that Trump plans to launch “soon”. The EU’s high product standards, he argues, discriminate against lesser-regulated US exports. Even VAT is anti-American. The EU’s very being as a self-governing, multinational organisation is under threat.Multilateral organisations like the EU and the UN, expressing the same Enlightenment values as the US constitution, are in Trump’s crosshairs. The unashamed project is to reshape the world economic and political order so it serves only the interests of the US – as if it did not already. Can Britain really be a bridge between this vision and Europe, as Keir Starmer wants? These differences are unbridgeable.Trump’s court at Mar-a-Lago, high on power and much else, has reportedly worked on a draft contract for countries to sign that reverses the alleged rip-off of the US. Instead, they will have to agree to boost US industry by accepting one-sided trade deals and appreciating their currencies. In return, they will be offered degrees of US security. Countries are said to be colour coded green, yellow and red, depending on the degree to which they might wholly accept vassalage, bargain for a compromise or are deemed to be enemies – with China the number-one target, and also including Canada, Mexico and the EU. Nato and the World Trade Organization be damned.Stephen Miran, the new chair of the US Council of Economic Advisers, won his job as the author of an extraordinary paper – A User’s Guide to Restructuring the World Trading System. Trump can reshape the global economic and trade order, he argues, through creating targeted tariff policies aimed at countries to which the US objects. The tariff regime must be designed to maximise fear and uncertainty; last week’s imposition, then withdrawal, of car tariffs on Mexico and Canada was a prime example. The bulk of any economic costs will be displaced on to the countries at the receiving end by forcing them to raise their currencies against the dollar. He writes approvingly of Scott Bessent, now Trump’s treasury secretary, last year publicly arguing for putting countries into varying Mar-a-Lago style buckets corresponding to their readiness to comply with Washington’s will.Self-pity at the US’s alleged victimhood pervades Trumpite thinking. Even on Miran’s own numbers, the US still accounts for the same 25% of world GDP now as it did in 1980 – a phenomenal achievement. America is as great as it ever was. Only 19% of its GDP is imports, but these are blamed entirely for the fall in manufacturing employment as if robotisation, automation and the emergence of a service-based economy were irrelevant. Many working-class Americans have certainly suffered from these changes – but that needed an enlightened domestic policy response. China has re-industrialised by electrifying and decarbonising its economy. This is dismissed as woke.Adam Smith, the great Enlightenment economist, inspired the founding fathers as much as Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Paine. He praised the invisible hand of the market and open trade as pathways to the common good of greater prosperity – but none of that is for the Trumpites. They come from the mobster, cowboy, might-is-right, make-a-deal-on-my-terms strain of US culture and society. The humbling of Zelenskyy is the tip of this anti-Enlightenment iceberg. They are the masters now, and will gladly bend the US electoral system to stay that way. As some judges stir themselves, and political dissenters start to be braver, it’s an open question if they will succeed – but going back, if at all, is likely to be only partial.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionStarmer’s tactics so far have been hard to fault. His level-headedness, decency and pragmatism have been assets. But he faces an unavoidable choice: Britain cannot achieve economic growth by remaining a vassal state to the US while abjuring closer trade relations with Europe. Trump does not want Britain to grow US-competitor great tech companies, which are essential to economic growth. Nor does he want to defend Ukraine and Europe. It is brutally stark. The UK must make common cause with Europe to defend not only our economic and defence interests but, more importantly, our values. They live only in Europe now. More

  • 175 Shares30 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump administration briefing: US backs Russia ahead of G7, Republican spending bill boosts defense

    The US has reportedly rejected a Canadian proposal to establish a task force that would tackle Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers and pushed to soften language on Moscow ahead of a G7 foreign ministers meeting this week.In negotiations to agree a joint statement on maritime issues, the US is pushing to strengthen language about China while watering down wording on Russia, the reports said.The move comes amid growing fears in Europe that Washington is turning away from its western allies and towards Moscow; as Russia increased attacks on Ukraine last week Donald Trump said “anyone in [Vladimir] Putin’s position” would do the same.US rejects Canadian attempt to tackle Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’The US has reportedly rejected a Canadian proposal on tackling Russia’s “shadow fleet” of oil tankers ahead of a meeting of G7 foreign ministers in Quebec later this week. The “shadow fleet” refers to ageing oil tankers, the identities of which are hidden to help circumvent western economic sanctions imposed on Moscow since it launched its full-scale military invasion of Ukraine in 2022.As well as vetoing Canada’s proposal to establish a task force to monitor sanctions breaches, the draft G7 statement seen by Bloomberg News shows the US pushed to remove the word “sanctions” as well as wording citing Russia’s “ability to maintain its war” in Ukraine by replacing it with “earn revenue”.Read the full storyRepublican push spending bill that cuts everything aside from defenseUS House Republicans unveiled a spending bill on Saturday that would keep federal agencies funded through to 30 September, pushing ahead with a go-it-alone strategy that seems certain to spark a major confrontation with Democrats over the contours of government spending.The 99-page bill would provide a slight boost to defense programs while trimming non-defense programs below 2024 budget year levels.Read the full storyWe shouldn’t have played ‘so safe’, says WalzTim Walz has said that he and Kamala Harris were too “safe” during their 2024 election campaign, with the former vice-presidential candidate claiming they should have held more in-person events around the US.“We shouldn’t have been playing this thing so safe,” Walz, the governor of Minnesota, said in an interview with Politico.Read the full storyFort Bliss in Texas could become deportation hub under Trump planThe huge US army base of Fort Bliss at the Texas-Mexico border is poised to become a deportation hub under plans proposed by the Trump administration – prompting an outcry from critics as it once again becomes a focal point in the immigration debate.Read the full storyClasses cancelled at National Fire Academy after funding freezeThe country’s pre-eminent federal fire training academy cancelled classes, effective immediately, on Saturday amid the ongoing flurry of funding freezes and staffing cuts by Donald Trump’s administration.The Federal Emergency Management Agency announced that National Fire Academy (NFA) courses had been cancelled amid a “process of evaluating agency programs and spending to ensure alignment with administration priorities”, according to a notice sent to instructors, students and fire departments.Read the full storyTrump policies could make US more vulnerable to drug trafficking, ex-officials sayDonald Trump’s policies could leave the US more vulnerable to dangerous synthetic drug trafficking from abroad, even as the administration has vowed to stop fentanyl from entering the country, former government officials say. Jim Crotty, the former Drug Enforcement Administration deputy chief of staff, called the Trump approach of putting tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico “coercive” and said it had the potential to backfire.Read the full story‘Jerk boss’: the Minnesota senator calling out Trump and MuskThe American people “can see in Elon Musk and in Donald Trump” the “kind of jerk boss who just doesn’t respect the work that anybody does”, the Democratic senator Tina Smith of Minnesota told the Guardian. Smith has been bluntly calling out Musk and Trump since she made a strikingly rare decision in February for someone elected to one of the country’s top positions: she will leave her job, by choice, without some kind of scandal, at the end of her term.Read the full storyColleges and universities grapple with Trump funding cutsStudents, researchers, faculty and leadership at universities and colleges across the US are grappling with drastic short- and long-term impacts “for decades to come” caused by funding freezes, cuts and executive orders from the Trump administration.“It’s sowing a lot of chaos on campuses,” said Sarah Spreitzer, the vice-president and chief of staff of government relations at the American Council for Education.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

    An environmental nonprofit sued the US Environmental Protection Agency and Citibank on Saturday, seeking billions of dollars for solar and other projects frozen by the bank as the Trump administration slashes federal spending.

    The head of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, Adam Cohen, was fired, another move by Trump’s administration to purge or sideline career officials.

    The White House, responding to Iran’s rejection of Trump’s call to negotiate a nuclear agreement, reiterated the US president’s assertion that Tehran can be dealt with either militarily or by making a deal.
    Catching up? Here’s what happened on 7 March. More