Philippa Kaur

The United States’ steadfast allegiance to Ukraine during that country’s three-year war against Russia appears to be quickly disintegrating under the Trump administration. President Donald Trump on Feb. 19, 2025, called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “a dictator” and falsely blamed him for the war that Russia initiated as part of a land grab in the countries’ border regions.

Zelenskyy, meanwhile, said on Feb. 19 that Trump is trapped in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “disinformation space.”

The intensifying bitterness comes as the U.S. and Russia started talks in Saudi Arabia, without including Ukraine, on how to end the conflict.

The U.S. and Russia have long been adversaries, and the U.S., to date, has given Ukraine more than US$183 billion to help fight against Russia. But that funding came when Joe Biden was president. Trump does not appear to be similarly inclined toward Ukraine.

Amy Lieberman, a politics editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Tatsiana Kulakevich, a scholar of Eastern European politics and international relations, to understand the implications of this sudden shift in U.S.-Russia policy under Trump.

Kulakevich sees Trump’s moves that could be perceived as self-interested as instead part of a calculated strategy in preliminary discussions.

An airplane passenger reads a Financial Times article about U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Feb. 19, 2025.
Horacio Villalobos Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images

Can you explain the current dynamic between the U.S., Ukraine and Russia?

People should not panic because the U.S. and Russia are only holding exploratory talks. We should not call them peace talks, per se, at least not yet. It was to be expected that Ukraine was not invited to the talks in Saudi Arabia because there is nothing to talk about yet. We don’t know what the U.S. and Russia are actually discussing besides agreeing to restore the normal functioning of each other’s diplomatic missions.

People are perceiving the U.S. and Russia as being in love. However, Trump’s Russia policy has been more hawkish than often portrayed in the media. Looking at the record from the previous Trump administration, we can see that if something is not in the interests of the U.S., that is not going to be done. Trump does not do favors.

He approved anti-tank missile sales to Ukraine in 2019. That same year, Trump withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, an agreement with Russia that limited what weapons each country could purchase, over Russian violations.

In 2019, Trump also issued economic sanctions against a Russian ship involved in building the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. These sanctions tried to block Russia’s direct gas exports to Germany – this connection between Russia and Germany was seen by Ukraine as an economic threat.

Based on Trump’s talks with Russia and remarks against Ukraine, it could seem like the U.S. and Russia are no longer adversaries. How do you perceive this?

There are no clear indications that Russia and the U.S. have ceased to be adversaries. Despite Trump’s occasional use of terms like “friends” in diplomacy, his rhetoric often serves as a tactical maneuver rather than a genuine shift in alliances. A key example is his engagement with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, where Trump alternated between flattery and threats to extract concessions.

Even if the U.S. is meeting with Russia and the public narrative seems to say otherwise, strategically, abandoning Ukraine is not in the United States’ best interests. One reason why is because the U.S. turning away from Ukraine would make Russia happy and China happy. Trump has treated China as a primary threat to the U.S., and China has supported Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is also still saying that everyone, including Ukraine, will be at the table for eventual peace talks.

The allegations that Russia was holding some information over Trump and blackmailing him started long before this presidential term and did not stop Trump from imposing countermeasures on Russia during his first term. The first Trump administration took more than 50 policy actions to counter Moscow, primarily in the form of public statements and sanctions.

What does the U.S. gain from developing a diplomatic relationship with Russia?

Trump is a transactional politician. American companies could profit from the U.S. aligning with Russia and Russian companies, as some Russian officials have said during the recent Saudi Arabia talks with the Trump administration. But the U.S. could also benefit economically from the Trump’s administration’s proposed deal with Ukraine to give the U.S. half of Ukraine’s estimated $11.5 trillion in rare earth minerals.

Zelenskyy rejected that proposal this week, saying it does not come with the promise that the U.S. will continue to give security guarantees to Ukraine.

Historically, since the Cold War, there has been a diplomatic triangle between the Soviet Union – later Russia – China and the U.S. And there has always been one side fighting against the two other sides. Trump trying to develop a better diplomatic relationship with Russia might mean he is trying to distance Russia from China.

A similar dynamic is playing out between the U.S. and Belarus’ authoritarian leader, Alexander Lukashenko, a co-aggressor in the war in Ukraine. Lukashenko is close with both Russia and China. The U.S. administration is looking to relax sanctions on Belarusian banks and exports of potash, a key ingredient in fertilizer, in exchange for the release of Belarusian political opposition members who are imprisoned. There are over 1,200 political prisoners in Belarus. This U.S. foreign policy strategy is aimed at providing Lukashenko with room to grow less economically dependent on Russia and China.

A worker clears snow from a cemetery in Kramatorsk, Ukraine, on Feb. 17, 2025. More than 46,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died in combat since Russia launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Pierre Crom/Getty Images

Is this level of collaboration between the U.S. and Russia unprecedented?

While U.S.-Russia relations are often defined by rivalry, history shows that pragmatic cooperation has occurred when both nations saw mutual benefits – whether this relates to arms control, space, counterterrorism, Arctic affairs or health.

Moreover, the U.S. has always prioritized its own interests in its relationship with Russia. For example, the U.S. and its allies imposed sanctions on Russia’s uranium and nickel industries only in May 2024, over two years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This was due to the United States’ strategic economic dependencies and concerns about market stability if it sanctioned uranium and nickel.

Even after Russia invaded Crimea – an area of Ukraine that Russia claims as its own – in 2014 and provided support for Russian separatists in Ukraine’s Donbass region, the U.S. and other Western countries imposed largely symbolic sanctions. This included freezing assets of Russian individuals, restricting some financial transactions and limiting Russia’s access to Western technology.

We should also notice that Trump in January 2025 promised to sanction Russia if it does not end the Ukraine war. The U.S. still has not removed any existing sanctions, which signals its commitment to a tough stance on Russia, despite perceptions of a close relationship between Trump and Putin.

Given Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy, his tough rhetoric on Zelenskyy could be a deliberate negotiation strategy aimed at pressuring Ukraine into making greater concessions in potential peace talks, rather than signaling abandonment. More

A few weeks ago, word started to come out that the newly minted United States Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had acquired unprecedented access to multiple US government computer systems.

DOGE employees – tech billionaire Elon Musk and his affiliates – have been granted access to sensitive personal and financial data, as well as other data critical for national security. This has created a national and international outcry, and serious concerns have been raised about data security, privacy and potential influence.

A group of 14 state attorneys-general attempted to have DOGE’s access to certain federal systems restricted, but a judge has denied the request.

Questions of trust

What are the deeper reasons behind this outcry? After all, Musk is far from the first businessman to gain political power.

There is, of course, US President Donald Trump himself, alongside many more on both sides of politics. Most of them kept running their businesses at arm’s length and went back to them after a stint in Washington.

So why are so many people alarmed now, but not before? The key word here is trust. Surveys suggest many people don’t trust Musk with this kind of access.

Does that mean we trusted the others? The foundation of modern cyber security is not to trust anything or anybody in the first place.

So while a lack of trust in Musk is one reason for disquiet, another is a lack of trust in the current state of cyber security in US government systems and procedures. And for good reason.

An insider threat

The situation in the US raises the spectre of what cyber experts call an “insider threat”. These concern cyber security incidents caused by people who have authorised access to systems and data.

Cyber security relies on controlling the so-called “CIA triad” of confidentiality, integrity and availability. Insider threats can compromise all three.

Authentication and subsequent authorisation of access has traditionally been an important measure to prevent cyber incidents from occurring. But apparently, that is not sufficient any more.

Perhaps the most famous insider incident in history is Edward Snowden’s leak of classified documents from the US National Security Agency in 2013. Australia too has had its share of insider breaches – the 2000 Maroochy Shire attack is still a textbook example.

Musk and his DOGE colleagues have now become insiders.

How to reduce the risk of insider threat

There are plenty of strategies organisations can follow to reduce the risk of insider threats:

more rigorous vetting of employees
giving users only the bare minimum access and privileges they need
continuously auditing who has access to what, and restricting access immediately when needed
authenticating and authorising users every time they access a different system or file (this is part of what is called a “zero trust architecture”)
monitoring for unusual behaviour regarding insiders accessing systems and files
developing and nurturing a cyber-aware culture in the organisation.

In government systems, the public should be able to trust these procedures are being rigorously applied. However, when it comes to Musk and DOGE, it seems they are not. And that’s where the core of the problem lies.

Clearances and a lack of care

DOGE employees without security clearance reportedly have access to classified systems which would normally be considered quite sensitive.

However, even security clearances offer no iron-clad guarantees.

Security clearances assume someone can be trusted based on their past. But past performance can never guarantee the future.

Not all Americans are happy with DOGE access to government computer systems.
John G. Mabanglo/EPA

In the US, obtaining and holding a security clearance has become a status symbol. A clearance may also be a golden ticket to high-paying jobs and power, and hence subject to politics rather than independent judgement.

And it seems little care has been taken to keep users’ access and privileges to a minimum.

You might think DOGE’s employees, tasked with seeking out inefficiency, would only need read-only access to the US government IT systems. However, at least one of them temporarily had “write” access to the systems of the treasury, according to reports, enabling him to alter code controlling trillions in federal spending.

It all comes down to trust

Even if all possible access control and vetting procedures are in place and working perfectly, there will always be the problem of how to declassify information.

Or to put it another way: how do you make somebody forget everything they knew when their clearance or access is revoked or downgraded?

What Musk has seen, he can never unsee. And there is only so much that can be done to prevent this knowledge from leaking.

Even if all procedures to protect against insider threats are followed perfectly (and they aren’t), nothing is 100% secure.

We would still need a certain level of public trust that the obtained data and information would be dealt with responsibly. Has trust in Musk and his affiliates reached that level?

According to recent polling, public opinion is still divided. More

In the four weeks since he was inaugurated for his second term as US president, Donald Trump has issued dozens of executive orders – many of which are now the subject of legal challenges on the grounds they exceed his authority under the US constitution. As a result, some will inevitably end up in front of the US Supreme Court.

What the court rules – and how the Trump administration responds to its judgments – will tell us a great deal whether the separation of powers still works as US founding fathers intended when they drafted the constitution.

The concept of separation of powers is incorporated into just about every democratic constitution. It rests on the principle of the separation of powers between the three fundamental branches of government: executive, legislature and judiciary.

It’s what enables the political ecosystem of checks and balances to create the conditions for democracy to exist and freedom to flourish. But if one of the three branches of government dominates the other two, the equilibrium is shattered and democracy collapses.

We owe this idea of constitutional democracy as a tripartite division of power to an 18th-century French political philosopher, Charles de Montesquieu. He was the author of one of the most influential books to come out of the Enlightenment period, The Spirit of the Laws.

Published in 1748, this work gradually reshaped every political system in Europe, and had a powerful influence on America’s Founding Fathers. The 1787 US constitution was drafted in the spirit of Montesquieu’s recommendations.

Modern democracies are more complex than those of the 18th century – and new institutions have developed to keep up with the times. These include specialised tribunals, autonomous regulatory agencies, central banks, audit bodies, ombudsmen, electoral commissions and anti-corruption bodies.

What all these institutions have in common is that they operate with a considerable degree of independence from the three aforementioned arms of government. In other words, more checks and balances.

Notwithstanding his immense influence, the idea of a separation of powers at the heart of democracy predates Montesquieu by many centuries. One of the earliest formulations of this idea can be found in Aristotle’s work, the Politics. This includes the argument that “the best constitution is made up of all existing forms”. By this Aristotle meant a mixed government of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.

But it was the Romans who developed a working model of checks and balances. The constitution of the Roman republic was characterised by the separation of powers between the tribune of the plebs, the senate of the patricians, and the elected consuls.

The consuls held the highest political office, akin to a president or prime minister. But since the Romans did not trust anyone to have too much power, they elected two consuls at a time, for a period of 12 months. Each consul had veto power over the actions of the other consul. Checks and balances.

The greatest advocate of the Roman republic and its constitutional mechanisms, was the Roman philosopher, lawyer and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero. It was Cicero who inspired Montesquieu’s work – as well as influencing John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the US.

The Roman republic had lasted for approximately 500 years but came to an end following the violent death of Cicero in 43BC. He had devoted his life resisting authoritarian populists from undermining the Roman republic and establishing themselves as sole despots. His death (on top of the assassination of Julius Ceasar the previous year) are seen as key moments in Rome’s transition from republic to empire.

Democracy under threat

Today our democracies are facing the same predicament. In many different parts of the world this simple institutional mechanism has come under increasing attack by individuals hell-bent on curbing the independent power of the judiciary and the legislative.

In Europe, following in the footsteps of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, the Italian far-right premier Giorgia Meloni has been pushing for constitutional reforms that reinforce the executive branch of government at the expense of the other two branches.

Checks and balances: the three branches of government.
TREKPix/Shutterstock

The assault on the system of checks and balances has also been identified in Washington. The use and abuse of presidential executive orders is an indication of this growing political cancer.

During his time as 46th US president, from January 2021 to January 2025, Joe Biden signed 162 executive orders – an average of 41 executive orders per year. By comparison, during his first term Donald Trump’s annual average was 55 executive orders. Barack Obama before him was 35.

In his first 20 days since returning to the White House Donald Trump has already signed 60 executive orders. This has included pardoning some 1,500 people who were involved in the January 6 insurrection at the US capitol.

But of much greater concern is the Trump administration’s veiled threats to overturn the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court from 1803, Marbury v. Madison, the case that established the principle that the courts are the final arbiters of the law.

In recent weeks Trump has openly criticised federal judges who have tried to block some of his most executive orders. He’s been supported by his vice-president, J.D. Vance, who has been quoted as saying that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power”.

Meanwhile the president’s senior advisor, Elon Musk, accused a judge’s order to temporarily block the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency from accessing confidential treasury department data of being “a corrupt judge protecting corruption”.

So democracy’s delicate balancing act is under serious pressure. If the separation of powers does not hold, and the checks and balances prove to be ineffective, democracy will be threatened.

The next few months and years will determine whether the rule of law will be displaced by the rule of the strongest. At the moment the odds don’t look good for Cicero, Montesquieu and Madison.

It takes a brave person to bet on democracy to win this contest, but we live in hope that America will remain the land of the free and the home of the brave. More

On November 5, 2024, as millions of Americans headed to the polls, billionaire Elon Musk posted a video on his social media platform X depicting a caravan of Amish individuals travelling via horse and buggy to vote for Donald Trump. The following day, in response to a post expressing gratitude to the Amish for their contribution to Trump’s victory, Musk wrote: “The Amish may very well save America! Thank goodness for them. And let’s keep the government out of their lives.” Musk’s tweets underscore the growing prominence of religion in US politics and the Republican party’s efforts to integrate the Amish into its electorate.

The Amish and their vote in US history

The Amish are a Protestant religious community rooted in early European Anabaptist movements. They accept technological advancements selectively, adhering to a distinct way of life marked by simple living, plain dress and a focus on community, distinguishing between what strengthens their social bonds and what might compromise their spiritual path. The Amish are a tiny minority in the US: in 2022, there were approximately 373,620 individuals in a population of around 330 million–slightly more than one in 1,000 Americans. They are predominantly concentrated in the election swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio, which partly explains Republicans’ interest in courting their support.

Traditionally, the Amish mainly abstain from voting unless they feel compelled to protect their religious freedoms, preserve their way of life or address critical moral issues. Historically, such instances of electoral participation have occurred only three times.

The first instance dates back to the 1896 presidential election, when the Republican nominee, William McKinley, campaigned on a platform centred on industrial corporate interests. These interests diverged significantly from those of the Amish, who aligned instead with Democrat William Bryan’s policies advocating for small farmers and the defense of rural America.

Amish political engagement resurfaced during the 1960 presidential election, which featured Republican Richard Nixon vs Democrat John F. Kennedy. The Amish viewed Kennedy as an ally of the Catholic church, an institution they viewed as intolerant. Consequently, they supported Nixon, a Quaker, whom they saw as a defender of a Protestant America.

The most recent instances of notable Amish participation occurred amid the presidential election campaigns of Republican George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. This phenomenon, dubbed “Bush Fever,” saw unprecedented Amish voter turnout. In 2000, 1,342 out of 2,134 registered Amish voters in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania–which has one of the largest Amish communities in the US–cast ballots, achieving a turnout rate of 63%. By 2004, Amish voter registration had increased by 169%, with 21% of eligible adults being registered. This mobilization was spearheaded by Chet Beiler, the son of Amish parents who left the community when he was three. Leveraging his heritage and fluency in Pennsylvania German, a traditional language spoken in many Amish communities, Beiler developed a voter registration strategy targeting the Amish to support Bush’s re-election campaign.

The religious factor in US politics

To understand the Republican party’s interest in the Amish, one must examine the increasing centrality of religion in US politics. This phenomenon persists despite a growing number of Americans identifying as non-religious or less religious.

In the US political context, religion extends beyond faith to encompass cultural identity and social cohesion. Scholars often describe this phenomenon as “Christianism,” a form of nationalism that is bound together by a belonging to Christianity and that emerges, as a form of reaction, within the culture wars. Consequently, a political platform emphasizing Christian principles and rural values has the potential to galvanize segments of the electorate. This dynamic is exemplified by Musk’s tweets about the Amish. Within some parts of the Republican electorate, the Amish are perceived as “guardians of lost values,” embodying a vision of an untainted rural America defined by traditional family structures and an agrarian work ethic. This narrative has been further amplified by Amish PAC, a political action committee established in Virginia in 2016 to rally support for Trump through religiously framed identity politics that advocate for traditional values and oppose abortion rights.

The influence of religion within the Republican party is further underscored by the ascendancy of the Christian right, a political movement that emerged in the late 1970s. Though not a monolithic entity, it is composed of individuals–primarily evangelical Christians–seeking to shape US politics based on a conservative interpretation of biblical principles and societal values.

Legislation and the Amish

Some Republicans have advocated for legislation favourable to the Amish, such as former US representative Bob Gibbs, who won election in the Amish-dominated congressional district of Holmes County, Ohio. In December 2021, Gibbs introduced legislation to allow people with specific religious beliefs such as the Amish, who view photography as a form of idolatry, to be exempt from a requirement of possessing identification documents featuring their photographs “to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer.” In the same month, Gibbs also proposed another bill to benefit the Amish, which would have allowed them to opt out of social security and Medicare wage deductions if they were employed by non-Amish-owned companies.

Earlier in 2021, the conservative-majority Supreme Court resolved a longstanding dispute between the Amish of Lenawee County, Michigan and local authorities, ruling in favour of the Amish. The issue at the heart of the case concerned wastewater management. Following their religious principles, the Amish typically avoid using modern inventions such as septic systems, and the Amish in Lenawee County used a management method considered noncompliant by health officials. This case followed similar ones involving other Amish communities in Ohio, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. Legal disputes such as these could be leading the Amish to form a more positive view of the Republican party and Trump, both for their advocacy of “less government” and for positioning themselves as defenders of religious freedom.

The Amish and the 2024 presidential election

According to the online news source Anabaptist World, media reports suggested that the 2024 presidential election saw a surge in voter registrations among the Amish in Pennsylvania, allegedly contributing to Trump’s victory in the state. The alleged surge was reportedly driven by a reaction to federal legal actions against an Amish farmer accused of selling raw dairy products across state lines, which resulted in cases of Escherichia (E.) coli.

However, official data from Lancaster County–where the principal Amish settlement in Pennsylvania is located–challenge claims of a massive Amish turnout. The increase in Trump’s vote share in the state, from 48.84% in 2020 to 50.37% in 2024, primarily occurred in urban and suburban areas. For example, by the time the Associated Press declared that Trump had won Pennsylvania, his vote share in Philadelphia had improved by three percentage points. Key suburban counties such as Bucks, Monroe and Northampton, which former president Joe Biden won in 2020, had swung in his favour. And the Republican had also performed better in the Philadelphia-area suburbs of Delaware and Chester counties. These regions, with few Amish residents, experienced substantial shifts, while districts with larger Amish populations saw only modest gains for Trump.

While the Amish did not become a significant component of Trump’s electoral coalition, voters in some Amish communities may have grown more sympathetic to his candidacy. More importantly, members of the religious group serve as a potent symbol of mobilization and propaganda for the Republican party amid the intensifying polarization of US politics. More

It has been less than a month since Donald Trump retook the Oval Office. But with dozens of executive orders, every day has brought substantial change.

While Trump claims he has a democratic mandate to cut government waste, it is the unelected Elon Musk who has been behind the most radical changes. Musk, the world’s richest man, joined the US government as head of the new Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), which Trump established by executive order.

Trump and Doge have begun dismantling government agencies, introduced widespread recruitment freezes, and withheld billions of dollars in federal funds – including freezing foreign aid and dismantling USAid. Through Doge, Musk has also gained access to IT and payment systems in the US Treasury and other major departments.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

Their actions have not been without legal challenge. A judge issued a temporary order restricting Musk from accessing the Treasury’s files due to the risk of exposing sensitive data. In response, Trump has expanded Musk’s power further, instructing government officials to cooperate with Doge.

It already appears that Trump is prepared to defy court orders related to these changes. The US is on the cusp of a constitutional showdown.

A key question for the UK is whether something similar could happen here. In theory, the answer is yes – but it would be difficult for anybody to enact.

There have been ongoing concerns, including some raised by the current government, around the size of the UK government and the budget deficit. Politicians from the Reform party are already saying that Britain needs to adopt a Musk-style approach to cut government waste.

Compared to other systems of government, UK prime ministers have almost unparalleled power to change existing, and establish new, government departments as they see fit. So it would be well within the gift of the prime minister to establish a new department like Doge – though there could be limits to its power to change things like national spending, given the need for budgetary approval by parliament.

Could a Musk-like figure enter Downing Street as he has the Oval Office?
Aaron Schwartz/EPA-EFE

There is also plenty of precedent for private citizens like Musk to work in the UK government. This could be as a special adviser: a temporary “political” civil servant who advises the government and is appointed under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Previous examples include Alastair Campbell (Tony Blair’s spokesman) and Dominic Cummings (Boris Johnson’s senior adviser). While cabinet ministers hire their special advisers, the prime minister approves all appointments.

Alternatively, civilians can be brought more directly into government as ministers. Under constitutional convention, a member of the UK government is a member of either the Commons or Lords. Someone who is not an elected politician can be appointed to the Lords (and a ministerial role) by the prime minister. Rishi Sunak did this when he made David Cameron foreign secretary, as did Keir Starmer with businessman-turned-minister for prisons James Timpson.

There have even been debates in recent years over whether this convention of government ministers needing to be members of parliament can be dispensed with, given it lacks legal enforcement. But this raises questions about how you afford parliament opportunities to scrutinise the work of such ministers, if they are not even in the Lords.

Read more:
Plans for ministers who aren’t in parliament raise concerns for UK democracy – constitutional expert

Constitutional limits

However, the kind of actions that Trump and Musk are currently undertaking could not strictly pan out the same way under the UK’s constitutional arrangements.

While it does not have executive orders in the same way as the US, there are means for the UK government to administratively act without passing legislation through parliament.

The government’s power can be exercised through orders in council via the monarch. These can either be via statutory orders (where the power has been granted through an act of parliament) or prerogative powers.

The prerogative refers to powers that government ministers have, which do not require the consent of parliament. For example, to enter international treaties or wars, or the ability to call an election.

The monarch also retains some prerogative powers – for example, to appoint or dismiss a prime minister, and to summon or prorogue (end a session of) parliament. But by convention, the monarch fulfils these functions in a ceremonial and symbolic capacity – without input in the decisions. In reality, they merely follow the advice of the prime minister on these matters.

Importantly, prerogative powers can only be used when legislation does not exist to the contrary – and the UK government cannot arbitrarily change prerogative powers or create new ones.

President Trump signals that there is more to come from Doge.

One way a Musk-style takeover would struggle in the UK is if a proposed change affected primary legislation and left it redundant. It has been established since 1610 that prerogative powers cannot be used to change or make law without parliament.

To give hypothetical examples: if the UK government tried to exercise its powers in a way which ran contrary to the International Development Act, failed to fulfil a legally promised government function, or went against human rights obligations, they would be doing so contrary to UK constitutional principles – not least parliamentary sovereignty, separation of powers, and the rule of law.

Should this happen, the courts can intervene. This was tested in Miller 1, the legal case over whether the prime minister alone had the power to leave the EU, or whether parliamentary approval was needed. It was decided that the government could not rely on its prerogative powers to trigger Brexit without parliament’s approval, as this would change primary law.

And, as was clear when it came to Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament, the Supreme Court will nullify government action which it deems unconstitutional.

Read more:
Q+A: Supreme Court rules Boris Johnson’s prorogation of UK parliament was unlawful – so what happens now?

In this sense, it is a well-established common law principle that judges will rely on the rule of law to check what the government is doing, and would view parliament as never truly intending to pass any law which would exclude that oversight. Any attempt to legislate to block courts from having that check would be an unconstitutional violation.

Here, the UK has the advantage of a strong independence of the courts. Since 2006, judicial appointments have been the responsibility of an independent commission. There is also a separate, independent selection process for the Supreme Court. This effectively bars the prime minister from changing the composition of the courts in the same way the US president can.

What if parliament went rogue?

Some may be minded that, if a reformist government had a majority in parliament and existing laws were preventing change in the UK, then it could easily change the law through an act of parliament. This was the risk of the now-defunct Rwanda plan, where the government effectively tried, through legislation, to overrule the Supreme Court and send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Should this have continued, it would probably have faced legal challenges at the European court of human rights. Here is where efforts to remove the UK from the European convention on human rights, or to repeal the Human Rights Act, would have become consequential.

Read more:
How the bill to declare Rwanda a ‘safe’ country for refugees could lead to a constitutional crisis

Of course, even with the strongest majorities, backbench MPs do not always vote with their government, and would be less likely to do so if the leader was attempting to do something extreme, unprincipled and unconscionable.

We would be in relatively uncharted constitutional waters if the prime minister then ignored a Supreme Court ruling. But while rarely used, there are mechanisms available to parliament in such cases to use motions of no confidence in the government to instigate change to the executive.

Unless the law is radically changed, the machinery of parliament, with the checks and balances of the Supreme Court, would make a US-style overhaul challenging – if not, theoretically, impossible. But while it is not codified into one text, the UK does still have a constitution and the safeguards that come with it – as well as hundreds of years of convention to back it up. More

Many Americans have watched in horror as Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, has been permitted to tear through various offices of the United States government in recent weeks. Backed by President Donald Trump, and supported by a small team of true believers, he has successfully laid siege to America’s vast federal bureaucracy.

On Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order giving Musk even more power. It requires federal agencies to cooperate with his “Department of Government Efficiency” (known as DOGE) in cutting their staffing levels and restricting new hires.

In his first comments to the media since joining the Trump administration as a “special” government employee, Musk also responded to criticism that he’s launching a “hostile takeover” of the US government.

The people voted for major government reform, and that’s what people are going to get.

Are Musk’s actions akin to a “hostile takeover” of government, or a coup? I argue it’s more a form of “state capture”. Here’s what that means.

Why it’s not a coup or self-coup

Under the pretence of maximising government efficiency and productivity, DOGE has amassed quite a bit of power. It has:

Musk’s blitzkrieg across Washington – carried out in apparent violation of numerous federal laws – has not only stirred confusion, but defied explanation.

A popular argument, supported by some historians and commentators, is that Musk’s actions amount to a coup. They argue this is not a coup in the classic sense of a takeover of the physical centres of power. Rather, it’s a seizure of digital infrastructure by an unelected group seeking to undo democratic practices and violate human rights.

Demonstrators outside the US Office of Personnel Management headquarters in Washington.
Alex Wroblewski/EPA

This term, however, is not technically correct. The most widely accepted definition of a coup is:

an overt attempt by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting head of state using unconstitutional means.

Since Musk and Trump are bedfellows in this plot, the tech billionaire is clearly not trying to violently unseat the president.

Another possible explanation: this is a self-coup. This describes a situation in which

the sitting national leader takes decisive illegitimate action against countervailing institutions and elites to perpetuate the incumbent’s power.

In December, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol attempted a self-coup when he declared martial law in order to ostensibly protect the country from opposition forces. He quickly reversed his decision amid elite defections and mass public demonstrations.

Though self-coups are becoming more common, Musk is doing the dirty work in the US – not Trump. Also, Musk’s chief target – the bureaucracy – does not nominally offset presidential power (except in conspiracy theories).

What is ‘state capture’?

More accurately, Musk’s siege amounts to a form of “state capture”. This refers to:

the appropriation of state resources by political actors for their own ends: either private or political.

By this logic, Musk’s aim could be to capture different pieces of the US government and turn the state into a tool for wealth extraction.

State capture is a relatively simple but extremely destructive process. This is how it has played out in countries like Indonesia, Hungary, Nigeria, Russia, Sri Lanka and South Africa (Musk’s birthplace):

First, political and corporate elites gain control of formal institutions, information systems and bureaucratic policy-making processes.

Then, they use this power to apply rules selectively, make biased decisions and allocate resources based on private interests (rather than the public good).

In captured states, strongman leaders often use economic policy and regulatory decisions to reward their political friends. For instance, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Russian President Vladimir Putin and former South African President Jacob Zuma have helped their allies by:

making government anti-trust decisions
issuing permits and licenses
awarding government contracts and concessions
waiving regulations or tariffs
conferring tax exempt status.

State capture is fundamentally a predatory process.

Viktor Orban was democratically elected in Hungary, but has sought to weaken institutions and the judiciary in Hungary.
Anna Szilagyi/AP

By taking over how the American government does business, Musk could be seeking to enrich a small but powerful network of allies.

The first beneficiary would be Trump, who is no stranger to using his office to expand his family’s business empire. With a more fully captured state, Trump can take an active role in determining how public wealth is dispersed among corporate and political elites. This decision-making power often goes hand-in-hand with “personalist” regimes, in which everything is a transaction with the leader.

The second beneficiary would be Musk himself and other Silicon Valley mega-billionaires who have bent a knee to Trump. By positioning their tech companies as the solution to what allegedly ails the federal government, particularly when it comes to the use of artificial intelligence, they stand to secure lucrative contracts handed out by the “new” state.

The third beneficiary would be the small army of engineers and technicians working with Musk to upend the American government. As loyal foot soldiers, these individuals will be compensated with career advancement, financial gains and networking opportunities, while also enjoying legal impunity. This kind of quid pro quo is how authoritarian regimes work.

What this could mean for the US

As Musk continues his assault on the federal bureaucracy, the American people will suffer the consequences.

The most immediate impact of state capture: worse decisions are made. By purging experienced civil servants, cancelling government contracts and accessing sensitive information systems, Musk’s actions will likely degrade the standard of living at home and endanger American lives abroad.

State capture also means there would be less accountability for the Trump administration’s public policy decisions. With a lack of congressional and independent oversight, key decisions over the distribution of economic benefits could be made informally behind closed doors.

Finally, state capture is inseparable from corruption. Doing business with the US federal government could soon require one to pass a loyalty test rather than a public interest test.

Trump’s enemies will encounter more hurdles, while his allies will have a seat at the table. More

Following Donald Trump’s repeated claims that the US needs to “take back” the Panama canal from Chinese control, the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, visited Panama to demand the country reduce China’s influence. On the surface, it seems Rubio has succeeded.

On February 3, the Panamanian authorities withdrew from the China’s international infrastructure programme, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This makes Panama the first Latin American country both to endorse and to end cooperation with the BRI.

On February 4, local lawyers urged the country’s supreme court to cancel the concession given to Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Port Holdings which allows it to operate two ports at either end of the Panama canal. They say it violates the country’s constitution since it contains excessive tax breaks and cedes significant land areas to the port company. The Panamanian authorities are reportedly still considering this.

But what is the reality of China’s presence in the canal, and what does increased US scrutiny mean for Xi Jinping’s signature project?

The Panama canal is a key passage for US trade and military. The US accounts for 74% of canal cargo. However, while Trump’s fears of losing the canal may be understandable, his assertions about China’s influence are exaggerated.

The Panamanian government administers the canal through the Panama Canal Authority. Since 1997, CK Hutchison Port Holdings Limited, a Hong Kong-listed conglomerate with interests in over 53 ports in 24 countries, has operated the Port of Balboa and Port of Cristobal on either end of the canal. These are two out of five ports in the vicinity.

CK Hutchison Holdings Limited is one of the world’s leading port investors and is owned by billionaire Li Ka-shing. The company and projects have no direct ties with the BRI.

Business as usual: billionaire Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing with Chinese president, Xi Jinping, in 2017.
EPA/Bobby Yip/pool

The primary risks concerning China’s influence over the canal, as outlined by the US, are the potential for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control the canal and “shut it down”.

Washington has also expressed concerns that the CCP’s access to dual-use port technology allows it to gather intelligence about US ships, such as transshipment patterns and naval routes. It also fears that China can exert an “economic chokehold” on the US in terms of the imposition of rate hikes on transit fees.

The first two points encompass the potential for China to use ports for naval purposes. But while the People’s Liberation Army navy has access to Chinese-owned ports under domestic laws and policies, they require host country permission to use Chinese-operated foreign ports. These ports are also often ill-suited for military support and operations.

So the most probable risk concerns intelligence. If the CCP deems it necessary to national security, it may use the 2020 national security law to gather sensitive data from Hong Kong-based companies.

As for rate hikes, there have been recent increases in response to droughts, maintenance investments and demand. Following Rubio’s visit, the US has claimed it is allowed to transit without paying fees.

This has been denied by Panama’s President, José Raúl Mulino. The fees are equally imposed due to neutrality principles initiated in 1977. There is no evidence that China has played any role in these rate hikes.

Panama’s ‘BRI-xit’ and Trump’s geopolitical gamble

In the unlikely event that CK Hutchison’s concession is cancelled, what would that mean for China’s presence in Panama? China’s investments in Panama precede the BRI, even if they have increased since the initiative’s launch.

The country holds geostrategic importance due to its location and role in international trade. So it’s a critical link for China’s establishment of a regional gateway for its economic and political influence.

This includes securing raw material and energy resource imports and enhancing export capabilities. China’s engagements in Panama include foreign direct investments (FDI), which amounted to around 0.8% in 2023 (compared to 3.6% by Spain and 19.6% by the US), primarily in the logistics, infrastructure, energy and construction sectors.

Most have been promoted as part of the BRI and faced renegotiation or cancellation for various – often geopolitical – reasons.

Donald Trump’s intervention prompted angry demonstrations in Panama during the visit by US secretary of state, Marco Rubio.
EPA-EFE/Bienvenido Velasco

Since BRI projects in the canal are already quite limited, withdrawing from the initiative is unlikely to result in significant short-term changes. CK Hutchison will only be “slightly affected” in case of a contract cancellation.

What’s more, as the case of Brazil shows, a country can remain unaffiliated with the BRI and still receive Chinese investments.

Therefore, Chinese engagements will probably resume outside the BRI framework. Still, even though China has shown restrained disappointment and argued that Panama has made a “regrettable decision,” Sino-Panamanian relations may cool until Trump’s attention has turned elsewhere.

Trump’s rhetoric over the Panama canal may be exaggerated to appease a domestic audience rooting for a “strongman president”. But it also reflects decades of US concerns about China’s growing clout.

So the administration’s focus on containing China is hardly surprising. Instead, it demonstrates Trump’s broader “make America great again 2.0” strategy. Therefore, Panama’s “BRI-xit” may bolster US resolve on “reclaiming” the Americas.

The Panamanian authorities seem caught between US pressure to limit China’s influence and the economic boost provided by Chinese “pragmatic” investments. So like other BRI countries, they face tough choices in the coming years.

As the largest provider of FDI – US$3.8 billion (£3.05 billion) per annum – and the canal’s biggest customer, US influence and economic leverage over Panama is substantial. Conversely, China’s interests and engagements in the country have increased, and the CCP has made it clear that it is patient and wants to continue cooperation and “resist external interruption”.

Protests have erupted in Panama over Trump’s “muscular approach”, and residents have expressed strong reluctance to return to US rule. Therefore, the question remains whether this is the “great step forward” for Panama’s ties with the US that Rubio suggests or whether Trump’s actions will ultimately push Panama closer to Beijing. More

“And one other thing I’ll be doing very early in the administration is closing up the Department of Education.”

Donald Trump made this promise in a Sept. 13, 2023, campaign statement and repeated it frequently on the campaign trail.

Trump tried to make this long-standing pledge a reality on March 20, 2025, by signing an executive order that he said will “begin eliminating the federal Department of Education once and for all.”

Trump said that he hopes Democrats would support his executive order. “I hope they’re going to be voting for it,” said Trump, speaking from the White House in front of a group of children seated at desks. “Because ultimately it may come before them.”

Project 2025, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for the Trump administration, provides detailed recommendations for closing the Education Department, which was created by an act of Congress in 1979.

The Department of Education already announced on March 9 that it laid off more than 1,300 of its 4,100 employees.

Trump’s new executive order calls for Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure (of) the Department of Education and return education authority to the States, while continuing to ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely,” according to a White House statement distributed to media.

I am an anthropologist and have been studying U.S. political culture for years. During Trump’s first presidency, I wrote a book about the extremist far right called “It Can Happen Here”. Since then, I have continued to study the Make America Great Again, or MAGA, movement, seeking to understand it, as the anthropological expression goes, “from the native’s point of view.”

Education policies in the U.S. are largely carried out at the state and local levels. The Education Department is a relatively small government agency, which as late as February 2025 had just over 4,000 employees and a US$268 billion annual budget. A large part of its work is overseeing $1.6 trillion in federal student loans as well as grants for K-12 schools.

And it ensures that public schools comply with federal laws that protect vulnerable students, like those with disabilities.

Why, then, does Trump want to eliminate the department?

A will to fight against so-called “wokeness” and a desire to shrink the government are among the four reasons I have found.

President Donald Trump, sitting in the White House on March 20, 2025, signs an executive order aimed at shutting down the Education Department.
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

1. Education Department’s alleged ‘woke’ mentality

First and foremost, Trump and his supporters believe that liberals are ruining public education by instituting what they call a
“radical woke agenda” that they say prioritizes identity politics and politically correct groupthink at the expense of the free speech of those, like many conservatives, who have different views.

Diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives promoting social justice – and critical race theory, or the idea that racism is entrenched in social and legal institutions – are a particular focus of MAGA ire.

So, too, is what Trump supporters call “radical gender ideology,” which they contend promotes policies like letting transgender students play on school sports teams or use bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity, not biological sex.

Trump supporters say that such policies – which the Education Department indirectly supported by expanding Title IX gender protections in 2024 to include discrimination based on gender identity – are at odds with parental school choice rights or, for some religious conservatives, the Bible.

Race and gender policies are highlighted in Project 2025 and in the 2024 GOP’s “Make America Great Again!” party platform.

Trump has repeatedly promised, as he did on Aug. 14, 2024, in North Carolina, to “keep critical race theory and transgender insanity the hell out of our schools.”

2. American Marxist indoctrination

For MAGA supporters, “radical left” wokeness is part of liberals’ long-standing attempt to “brainwash” others with their allegedly Marxist views that embrace communism.

One version of this “American Marxism” conspiracy theory argues that the indoctrination dates to the origins of U.S. public education. MAGA stalwarts say this alleged leftist agenda is anti-democratic and anti-Christian.

Saying he wants to combat the educational influence of such radicals, zealots and Marxists, Trump issued executive orders on Jan. 29 that pledge to fight “campus anti-Semitism” and to end “Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schools.”

3. School choice and parental rights

Trump supporters also argue that “woke” federal public education policy infringes on people’s basic freedoms and rights.

This idea extends to what Trump supporters call “restoring parental rights,” including the right to decide whether a child undergoes a gender transition or learns about nonbinary gender identity at public schools.

The first paragraph of Project 2025’s chapter on education argues, “Families and students should be free to choose from a diverse set of school options and learning environments.”

Diversity, according to this argument, should include faith-based institutions and homeschooling. Project 2025 proposes that the government could support parents who choose to homeschool or put their kids in a religious primary school by providing Educational Savings Accounts and school vouchers. Vouchers give public funding for students to attend private schools and have been expanding in use in recent years.

Critics of school vouchers, like the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers unions, argue that vouchers would diminish public education for vulnerable students by taking away scarce funding.

Trump has already issued a Jan. 29 executive order called “Expanding Educational Freedom and Educational Opportunity for Families,” which opens the door to expanded use of vouchers. This directly echoes Project 2025 by directing the Education Department to prioritize educational choice to give families a range of options.

4. Red tape

For the MAGA faithful, the Education Department exemplifies government inefficiency and red tape.

Project 2025, for example, contends that from the time it was established by the Carter administration in 1979, the Education Department has ballooned in size, come under the sway of special interest groups and now serves as an inefficient “one-stop shop for the woke education cartel.”

To deal with the Education Department’s “bloat” and “suffocating bureaucratic red tape,” Project 2025 recommends shifting all of the department’s federal programs and money to other agencies and the states.

These recommendations dovetail with Trump’s broader attempt to eliminate what he and his MAGA supporters consider wasteful spending and deregulate the government.

Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20 that establishes a “Department of Government Efficiency” headed by billionaire Elon Musk. Musk said on Feb. 4 that Trump “will succeed” in dismantling the Education Department.

An electric school bus is parked outside a public high school in Miami in March 2024.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Can Trump abolish the Education Department?

Trump’s executive order shuttering the Department of Education will almost certainly spark legal challenges in court.

Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota also introduced a bill in November 2024 to close the department.

Trump has dismantled other government agencies in his second term, chiefly the U.S. Agency for International Development, without the required congressional approval. A federal judge ruled on March 18 that the dismantling of USAID likely violated the Constitution and ordered the Trump administration to restore all USAID employees’ email and computer access.

Abolishing the Department of Education would legally require congressional approval and 60 votes to move forward in the Senate, which is unlikely since Republicans only have 53 seats.

Regardless of such legal challenges, Trump’s March 20 executive order will further weaken the Department of Education even as it remains in the crosshairs.

This story was updated on March 20, 2025, from an earlier version published originally on Feb. 7, 2025. More