Philippa Kaur

Facing dire approval ratings and Republican discontent, Trump is fuming – and threatening political violence. More

Everyone knew that once Congress passed legislation requiring the Justice Department to release all the Jeffrey Epstein files, US President Donald Trump would go on a tear to “flood the zone” with other distractions so he could command the agenda.

And that’s exactly what he did. Over the next four days, Trump met with FIFA President Gianni Infantino in the Oval Office to announce expedited visas for fans at next year’s World Cup (though, pointedly, not for all).

He hosted Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with an effusive news conference, where he attacked a journalist for asking a “horrible, insubordinate” question about the killing and dismemberment of a journalist at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018. The crown prince was then feted at a White House state dinner with tech giants from Apple to Nvidia.

Trump also lashed out at his political opponents with dangerous, vengeful rhetoric that was shocking, even by his standards.

On Thursday, the president posted on Truth Social to trash a video produced by six Democratic members of Congress, who had all served in the military or intelligence services. They accused the Trump administration of attempting to pit the military and intelligence services against the American people. In a direct address to military and intelligence leaders, they said:

Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders; you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.

Trump went ballistic. He called the message “seditious behaviour at the highest level” and said the Democratic lawmakers should be punished “by death”.

By the end of the week, the Epstein affair had faded to the background – by design.

Dire poll numbers

So, what’s going on behind the scenes that’s driving this vitriol? Put simply, Trump is under pressure like at no other time in his second term.

For one, his poll numbers – and those of the Republicans – have hit rock bottom.

A Fox News poll last week had Trump’s favourable rating at just 40% – even worse than Joe Biden’s rating at the same point in his presidency. And three quarters of respondents viewed the economy negatively.

Moreover, the Democrats’ sweep in elections in Virginia and New Jersey on November 5 has given them a major boost ahead of next November’s midterm elections that could determine the control of Congress.

Another poll has the Democrats up 14% over Republicans when respondents were asked who they would vote for if the election was held today. This is the largest gap since 2017, which presaged the Democrats taking back control of the House of Representatives in 2018.

The driver in all this is a growing lack of confidence in Trump’s ability to resolve the affordability crisis in food, rent, insurance, health care and other basic items. Trump’s message that the US economy is the “hottest” on the planet is not resonating with voters.

As was obvious during the US government shutdown, Trump has no interest in meeting with Democrats, much less negotiating with them. He wants to destroy them. And, at a time of heightened political violence, he’s publicly saying he wants some of them executed.

In Trump’s mind, there are almost no limits to his exercise of power. He has deployed the National Guard to patrol US cities, which a judge last week said was illegal, and he has ordered the killings of people in small boats in the Caribbean. He does not tolerate dissent to his exercise of power as commander in chief.

That is precisely the fear the Democrats expressed in their message last week – that the military could potentially be used against American citizens, particularly if Trump feels his power is starting to weaken.

Cracks emerging in Trump’s loyalist base

The other thing that has Trump worried is his stranglehold over the Republican Party. There are signs this may be starting to crack. And given his second term has been boosted by loyalists – both in the party and in his appointments – this could be a cause of significant concern for the president.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a case in point. For a decade, the Georgia congresswoman has been one of the most vocal Trump and MAGA cheerleaders. But this year, she has increasingly spoken out against Trump for reneging on his commitment to put “America first” with all his foreign policy focus and travel overseas.

Her break with Trump over the Epstein files was the last straw. In recent days, he called her “Marjorie Traitor Greene” and threatened to back a candidate to challenge her in a Republican primary next year.

On Friday, Greene announced she would resign from Congress. She said what she stood for “should not result in me being called a traitor and threatened by the president of the United States.”

Trump has made clear his intention to destroy more of his enemies and others who stand in his way. This is what Trump feels he must do to survive.

But how long Trump manages to ward off other Republican challenges remains to be seen, especially if Republicans up for election next year become really worried about their chances. They could start creating distance between their priorities and how Trump is preforming as president.

With all this pressure mounting on Trump – not to mention a looming showdown with some Republicans over his Ukraine peace plan – he may be heading for a winter of discontent. More

Julie Inman Grant has been asked to testify to Congress. It’s a sign of an increasing US preoccupation with online censorship. More

In the lead-up to the much-discussed social media ban taking effect, Australian eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant is often in the headlines.

For all the attention she’s been getting, Inman Grant probably didn’t expect any of it to come from a foreign government committee, calling her to answer for a so-called “censorship regime”.

But the US House Committee on the Judiciary has asked her to appear before it to testify about laws governing the internet.

Chair of the committee, Republican Jim Jordan, was blunt in his request. In a letter to the commissioner, he wrote:

as a primary enforcer of Australia’s OSA [Online Safety Act] and noted zealot for global take-downs, you are uniquely positioned to provide information about the law’s free speech implications […]

While it seems an unusual move, censorship has grown into a hot-button issue in the United States. Inman Grant finds herself at the centre of a perfect storm of rhetoric, politicking and fierce American individualism.

Does she have to testify?

The committee has no jurisdiction over the activities of the Australian government. Indeed, it does not even have jurisdiction over US-Australian diplomatic relations, which are the provenance of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The Judiciary Committee can call anyone it wants to come and testify at a hearing, but potential witnesses outside the US cannot be compelled to do so. This means Inman Grant can decide whether she wants to appear.

Jordan, the committee’s chair, is a member of the House Freedom Caucus: a formal group of around 45 mostly libertarian conservatives in the Republican Party in the House.

The caucus does not necessarily represent the views of most Republicans. It has often been in conflict with House Republican leadership.

Mounting cynicism

The issue of internet censorship is fraught in US politics. At the height of the COVID pandemic, this issue became even more heated and controversial.

Many Americans were very upset to learn the Biden administration worked with Facebook to censor posts about the pandemic. Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, who testified before the Judiciary Committee about this issue last year, has vowed his company would never do so again.

On his first full day in office this year, President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning government from censoring social media.

The backlash from Americans against any kind of censorship has at least two sources. The first the generalised resistance to taking any kind of direction from the government.

Americans don’t want to be told “no” by their government. Whether it’s guns, drugs, gambling, abortion, gay marriage or even seatbelts, Americans don’t want to be told what to do (although after a few years of clever advocacy, Americans accepted the need to wear seatbelts).

The idea that their own government would censor their social media posts – no matter how wrong that post might be on the facts or how counterproductive to the public interest – is anathema to many Americans.

Second, the backlash against the US government, specifically for actions taken during the COVID pandemic, has been fairly broad. Americans have criticised mask mandates, social distancing, working from home, and other measures taken to reduce exposure to the coronavirus.

Republican Congressman Jim Jordan chairs the House Judiciary Committee.
Alex Brandon/AP

While there certainly has been a lot of disinformation regarding COVID, the policies of and information from the US government itself during the pandemic have been widely criticised as ineffective or wrong-headed.

The confusing politics and fraught policies from the pandemic era have made many Americans – particularly represented by the Freedom Caucus – much more sceptical of government actions generally.

It’s against this backdrop that politicians like Jordan cast a wide net in the quest against censorship, real and imagined.

Ghosts of disputes past

Of course, many of the large social media platforms and internet technology companies are American (X, Meta, Google and Amazon, among others).

The people who run these companies have generally made a point of getting along with Trump and his administration. They are often seen funding his initiatives and supporting his policies.

No doubt they also would have done this if Kamala Harris had won the presidency.

Because VPN (virtual private network) technology can allow individual users to escape national restrictions, some foreign governments have asked American companies to take down all posts globally on a certain topic.

This is what Inman Grant did in the commission’s case against X, owned by former Trump administration figurehead Elon Musk. The commission wanted video of Wakeley church stabbing in Sydney removed everywhere, not just in Australia. eSafety ultimately dropped the case in 2024.

Read more:
Elon Musk vs Australia: global content take-down orders can harm the internet if adopted widely

Jordan cites this case in his letter to the commissioner. It clearly struck a sour note.

These sorts of requests, if granted, affect Americans because they wouldn’t have access to those posts. Libertarians in particular do not react well to this possibility, and that means it won’t land well with Congress.

The position of the House Judiciary Committee does not represent American foreign policy. Jordan, however, is an influential member of Congress and generally friendly with Trump. Jordan’s advocacy may come to impact Trump’s foreign policy, but for the time being, Inman Grant doesn’t have too much to worry about. More