US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 250 Shares146 Views

      in US Politics

      There are many ways Trump could trigger a global collapse. Here’s how to survive if that happens | George Monbiot

      by

      Though we might find it hard to imagine, we cannot now rule it out: the possibility of systemic collapse in the United States. The degradation of federal government by Donald Trump and Elon Musk could trigger a series of converging and compounding crises, leading to social, financial and industrial failure.There are several possible mechanisms. Let’s start with an obvious one: their assault on financial regulation. Trump’s appointee to the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Russell Vought, has suspended all the agency’s activity, slashed its budget and could be pursuing Musk’s ambition to “delete” the bureau. The CFPB was established by Congress after the 2008 financial crisis, to protect people from the predatory activity that helped trigger the crash. The signal to the financial sector could not be clearer: “Fill your boots, boys.” A financial crisis in the US would immediately become a global crisis.But the hazards extend much further. Musk, calling for a “wholesale removal of regulations”, sends his child soldiers to attack government departments stabilising the entire US system. Regulations, though endlessly maligned by corporate and oligarchic propaganda, are all that protect us from multiple disasters. In its initial impacts, deregulation is class war, hitting the poorest and the middle classes at the behest of the rich. As the effects proliferate, it becomes an assault on everyone’s wellbeing.To give a couple of examples, the fires in Los Angeles this year are expected to cost, on various estimates, between $28bn and $75bn in insured losses alone. Estimates of total losses range from $160bn to $275bn. These immense costs are likely to be dwarfed by future climate disasters. As Trump rips down environmental protections and trashes federal responsiveness, the impacts will spiral. They could include non-linear shocks to either the insurance sector or homeowners, escalating into US-wide economic and social crisis.If (or when) another pandemic strikes, which could involve a pathogen more transmissible and even more deadly than Covid-19 (which has so far killed 1.2 million people in the US), it will hit a nation whose defences have been stood down. Basic public health measures, such as vaccination and quarantine, might be inaccessible to most. A pandemic in these circumstances could end millions of lives and cause spontaneous economic shutdown.Because there is little public understanding of how complex systems operate, collapse tends to take almost everyone by surprise. Complex systems (such as economies and human societies) have characteristics that make them either resilient or fragile. A system that loses its diversity, redundancy, modularity (the degree of compartmentalisation), its “circuit breakers” (such as government regulations) and backup strategies (alternative means of achieving a goal) is less resilient than one which retains these features. So is a system whose processes become synchronised. In a fragile system, shocks can amplify more rapidly and become more transmissible: a disruption in one place proliferates into disaster everywhere. This, as Andy Haldane, former chief economist at the Bank of England, has deftly explained, is what happened to the financial system in 2008.A consistent feature of globalised capitalism is an unintentional assault on systemic resilience. As corporations pursue similar profit-making strategies, and financialisation and digitisation permeate every enterprise, the economic system loses its diversity and starts to synchronise. As they consolidate, and the biggest conglomerates become hubs to which many other enterprises are connected (think of Amazon or the food and farming giant Cargill), major failures could cascade at astonishing speed.As every enterprise seeks efficiencies, the system loses its redundancy. As trading rules and physical infrastructure are standardised (think of those identical container terminals, shipping and trucking networks), the system loses both modularity and backup strategies. When a system has lost its resilience, a small external shock can trigger cascading collapse.Paradoxically, with his trade wars and assault on global standards, Trump could help to desynchronise the system and reintroduce some modularity. But, as he simultaneously rips down circuit breakers, undermines preparedness and treats Earth systems as an enemy to be crushed, the net effect is likely to make human systems more prone to collapse.At least in the short term, the far right tends to benefit from chaos and disruption: this is another of the feedback loops that can turn a crisis into a catastrophe. Trump presents himself as the hero who will save the nation from the ruptures he has caused, while deflecting the blame on to scapegoats.Alternatively, if collapse appears imminent, Trump and his team might not wish to respond. Like many of the ultra-rich, key figures in or around the administration entertain the kind of psychopathic fantasies indulged by Ayn Rand in her novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, in which plutocrats leave the proles to die in the inferno they’ve created, while they migrate to their New Zealand bunkers, Mars or the ocean floor (forgetting, as they always do, that their wealth, power and survival is entirely dependent on other people). Or they yearn for a different apocalypse, in which the rest of us roast while they party with Jesus in his restored kingdom.Every government should hope for the best and prepare for the worst. But, as they do with climate and ecological breakdown, freshwater depletion, the possibility of food system collapse, antibiotic resistance and nuclear proliferation, most governments, including the UK’s, now seem to hope for the best and leave it there. So, though there is no substitute for effective government, we must seek to create our own backup systems.Start with this principle: don’t face your fears alone. Make friends, meet your neighbours, set up support networks, help those who are struggling. Since the dawn of humankind, those with robust social networks have been more resilient than those without.Discuss what we confront, explore the means by which we might respond. Through neighbourhood networks, start building a deliberative, participatory democracy, to resolve at least some of the issues that can be fixed at the local level. If you can, secure local resources for the community (in England this will be made easier with the forthcoming community right to buy, like Scotland’s).From democratised neighbourhoods, we might seek to develop a new politics, along the lines proposed by Murray Bookchin, in which decisions are passed upwards, not downwards, with the aim of creating a political system not only more democratic than those we currently suffer, but which also permits more diversity, redundancy and modularity.Yes, we also – and urgently – need national and global action, brokered by governments. But it’s beginning to look as if no one has our backs. Prepare for the worst.

      George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist More

    • 163 Shares126 Views

      in US Politics

      Four deputies to New York mayor resign in fallout over dropped corruption charges

      by

      Four deputies to New York’s mayor, Eric Adams, resigned on Monday as the growing chaos following a justice department request to drop corruption charges against him, widely seen as a reward for his help with Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, engulfs his three-year-old administration.According to reports, four of Adams’ deputies – first deputy mayor Maria Torres Springer, deputy mayor for operations Meera Joshi, deputy mayor for health and human services Anne Williams-Isom, and deputy mayor for public safety Chauncey Parker – said they were stepping down.“I am disappointed to see them go, but given the current challenges, I understand their decision and wish them nothing but success in the future,” Adams said in a statement.Torres-Springer, Williams-Isom and Joshi issued a joint statement, citing “the extraordinary events of the last few weeks” and “oaths we swore to New Yorkers and our families” as what led them to the “difficult decision” to leave.Parker said the role was an “honor of a lifetime”.The deputies’ likely departure was first reported by WNBC and the New York Times on Monday, both citing sources within Adams’ administration.A justice department request to drop charges of conspiracy, wire fraud and soliciting illegal foreign campaign contributions against Adams last week led to a mutiny by prosecutors in New York who brought the case. At least seven prosecutors have resigned rather than comply with the request.According to WNBC, Adams held a Zoom call on Sunday with at least three of his deputies who expressed their intention to resign. The Democratic mayor is facing mounting calls for his own resignation, first over corruption charges filed last summer, and now over their resignations.Adams has pleaded not guilty, denied any wrongdoing and rejected calls for his resignation. He has also indicated he believes the charges were brought in retaliation for criticizing the Biden administration’s immigration policies, blaming them for the city’s struggles with absorbing tens of thousands of new arrivals.Adams has reportedly agreed to some cooperation with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) immigration agents, including allowing federal authorities to restart operations on Rikers Island, which holds the city’s largest jail.The mayor has also rejected accusations that dropping the federal charges against him would amount to making him a political prisoner of the Trump administration.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“No matter what they write, no matter all those who are tripping over themselves to state who I am and who I am going to be beholden to and how I am no longer independent, I know who I am,” Adams said on Sunday.Adams said that he is “going nowhere” despite protests calling for his removal by the governor of New York, Kathy Hochul.“And I want you to be clear, you’re going to hear so many rumors and so many things, you’re going to read so much,” Adams told a church congregation on Sunday. “I am going nowhere. Nowhere.” More

    • 150 Shares126 Views

      in US Politics

      Netanyahu seeks to draw Trump into future attack on Iranian nuclear sites

      by

      Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed that, with Donald Trump’s support, his government will “finish the job” of neutralising the threat from Iran, amid US reports that Israel is considering airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites in the coming few months.Trump has said he would prefer to make a deal with Tehran, but also made clear that he was considering US military action if talks failed, and his administration has laid down an early maximalist demand: Iranian abandonment of its entire nuclear programme.“All options are on the table,” the US national security adviser, Michael Waltz, told Fox News on Sunday. The new administration will only talk to Iran, Waltz added, if “they want to give up their entire programme and not play games as we’ve seen Iran do in the past in prior negotiations”.Earlier this month, Trump offered the Iranian regime a stark choice.“I would like a deal done with Iran on non-nuclear,” he told the New York Post. “I would prefer that to bombing the hell out of it.”In politics as in business, Trump’s vaunted “art of the deal” has relied heavily on bluster and threats, but analysts question how well that will work with Tehran. They also warn that the window for a diplomatic resolution to the standoff with Tehran will get narrower with each passing month, as Iranian nuclear capabilities progress, and Netanyahu works to persuade Trump to participate in joint strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities while it is at its most vulnerable.Israel’s prime minister has tried and failed to convince successive US administrations to take part in military action against Iran, including Trump’s. During his first term in the White House, Trump declined, in line with his aim of keeping the US out of foreign wars.In 2018, however, Trump did fulfil another Netanyahu request, withdrawing the US from a three-year-old multilateral agreement that had constrained Iran’s programme in return for sanctions relief. Since then, Iran has pushed forward with nuclear development and now produces increasing amounts of 60%-enriched uranium, which means it is a small technical step away from the production of weapons-grade fissile material.Tehran insists it has no intention of making a nuclear weapon and remains a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could upend that policy if Iran’s nuclear sites came under threat.Israel and Iran launched a series of tit-for-tat attacks on each other last year, culminating in substantial Israeli airstrikes on 25 October that inflicted significant damage on Iran’s air defences.That damage, combined with Israel’s crippling campaign over the past year against Iran’s most important ally in the region, Hezbollah, has left Iran in its most militarily vulnerable state for decades.View image in fullscreenStanding alongside the new US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, on Sunday, Netanyahu made clear he wanted to take advantage of that vulnerability.“Over the last 16 months, Israel has dealt a mighty blow to Iran’s terror axis. Under the strong leadership of President Trump, and with your unflinching support, I have no doubt that we can and will finish the job,” he said.US intelligence agencies have been briefing reporters over the past week that they believe Israel is likely to attack Iranian nuclear sites in the first half of 2025. But the intelligence assessments also underlined Israeli reliance on US support in the form of aerial refuelling, intelligence and reconnaissance. US officials also said such strikes would, at most, set back Iran’s programme by a few months, and could trigger Tehran’s decision to take the decisive step towards making weapons-grade uranium.Whatever the misgivings in Washington, the Trump administration approved the sale earlier this month of guidance kits for bunker-busting BLU-109 bombs, likely to be essential in inflicting damage on Iran’s most deeply buried enrichment plant at Fordow.Netanyahu was the first foreign visitor to be invited to the White House after Trump’s re-election, and according to the Washington Post, the two leaders discussed “several possible levels of American backing, ranging from active military support for a kinetic strike – such as intelligence, refuelling or other assistance – to more limited political backing for a coercive ultimatum”.Raz Zimmt, a research fellow and Iran expert at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said there was another clock ticking on diplomacy with Iran. Under the 2015 nuclear agreement, its remaining signatories, including the UK, France and Germany, can trigger a “snap back” of all international sanctions on Iran, but that leverage expires in October this year, giving European capitals the options of “use it or lose it”. If the mechanism is triggered, it could lead to a further escalation, Zimmt said.“I think there is a very limited diplomatic window of opportunity until August or September, to reach some kind of settlement between Iran and the US,” he said. “If there is no agreement by then … I think it will be much easier for Netanyahu to get not just a green light [from Washington] but perhaps some kind of military capabilities which will make it easier for Israel to achieve a broader and more effective impact.”Netanyahu regularly describes Trump as the “best friend” Israel ever had in the White House, a description echoed by Rubio and other administration officials, but that friendship will be put to a decisive test as Israel continues to press the case for an attack on Iran.Ariane Tabatabai, a Pentagon policy adviser in the Biden administration, said it would fuel “tension between the ‘restraint’ camp in the administration and the more traditional Republicans who are more inclined toward a more forceful approach to Iran”.“It’s not clear yet in these early days which group will have more influence in the inter-agency process and ultimately drive policy, but that’ll be a factor as well.” Tabatabai said.Trump prides himself in keeping the US out of foreign wars, but he has shown himself ready to take military action against Tehran, ordering the assassination by drone of a Revolutionary Guards commander, Qassem Suleimani, in Baghdad in January 2020.Saudi Arabia is reportedly offering to mediate to avoid a conflagration, but even if Trump wanted to hammer out a deal, argued Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, Trump’s browbeating style of negotiation could easily backfire when it came to Tehran.“The Trump style is he goes in heavy,” Vatanka said. “But Ali Khamenei has to be extremely careful how he responds to Trump so his personal image is not damaged.”“Iran has been weakened in the region – no doubt about it – but they still claim to be leading proponents of the Islamic cause who stand up to western bullying,” he added. “So what might work with certain countries in Europe or in Latin America will not necessarily work with the Iranian regime.” More

    • 175 Shares175 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration firing hundreds of FAA employees despite four deadly crashes in four weeks

      by

      The Trump administration has begun firing hundreds of employees at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including some who maintain critical air traffic control infrastructure, despite four deadly crashes since inauguration day.According to the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (Pass) union, “several hundred” workers received termination notices on Friday.Many of the workers were probationary employees, those employed for less than a year and lacking job protections, which makes them low-hanging fruit for the Trump administration’s streamlining efforts.According to the US office of personnel management, there are about 200,000 probationary employees within the federal government.The firings at the FAA do not include air traffic controllers, but did appear to include engineers and technicians.A spokesman for the union said non-probationary technicians had been fired, citing of a figure of less than 300 roles so far. The positions terminated include maintenance mechanics, aeronautical information specialists, environmental protection specialists, aviation safety assistants and management administration personnel.Former FAA air traffic controller Dylan Sullivan claimed on social media that agency personnel who were terminated “maintain every piece of equipment that keeps flying safe, from the radars to the ILS, to ATC automation”.Job cuts at the FAA are likely to raise concerns. The agency has struggled to recruit air traffic controllers in recent years. An increase in recruitment during the previous two administrations was hobbled by budget cuts that limited training and certification.The move also comes less than three weeks since a midair collision between an army helicopter and a civilian jet over Washington DC that killed 67 people. Initial reports suggested there was just one air traffic controller working both civilian and military flights in the notoriously busy airspace at the time of the collision.Since then, seven people died when a plane crashed near Philadelphia; 10 died when another crashed in Alaska; and one person died when the landing gear on a private plane belonging to Mötley Crüe singer Vince Neil failed as it landed and crashed into another parked aircraft.On Monday, a Delta aircraft flipped over when arriving at Pearson international airport in Toronto, Canada, with 80 people onboard. Early reports suggested all survived.The Pass union, which represents more than 11,000 FAA and Department of Defense workers who install, inspect and maintain air traffic control systems, posted on its website: “Staffing decisions should be based on an individual agency’s mission-critical needs. To do otherwise is dangerous when it comes to public safety.”David Spero, national president of Pass, said on X of the fired employees: “They are our family, friends, neighbors. Many are veterans. It is shameful to toss aside dedicated public servants.”Spero added that the move was “especially unconscionable in the aftermath of three deadly aircraft accidents in the past month”.The transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, said on X that he “talked to the DOGE [‘department of government efficiency’] team” and “they are going to plug in to help upgrade our aviation system”. Aviation experts have long pointed to outdated air traffic control systems used by the FAA as a source of concern.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDoge head Elon Musk later reposted Duffy, saying his department will “aim to make rapid safety upgrades to the air traffic control system”.Probationary employees targeted by Doge have little recourse to employment tribunals.On Sunday, it was reported that some probationary employees with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) were let go and then reinstated. The Department of Energy later said that fewer than 50 were removed from “primarily administrative and clerical roles”.Federal News Network, a federal government news source, said it had obtained a termination letter to an employee at the Department of Agriculture that indicated that the onus is on the employee to demonstrate why they should not be fired.“Until the probationary period has been completed, a probationer has ‘the burden to demonstrate why it is in the public interest for the government to finalize an appointment to the civil service for this particular individual.’ The agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the agency would be in the public interest. For this reason, the agency informs you that the agency is removing you from your position.”Sullivan, the former FAA air traffic controller, said in his social media post: “FAA technicians undergo years of specialized training to maintain mission critical systems and cannot be replaced quickly. In the 30 years since I began my controller career, we have never had a surplus of technicians and engineers.“Once our aviation safety infrastructure is compromised, it will take decades to bring it back. Money will not be saved and lives may be lost.” More

    • 175 Shares157 Views

      in US Politics

      A short history of the separation of powers: from Cicero’s Rome to Trump’s America

      by

      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

    • 150 Shares187 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration files first supreme court appeal over firing of government watchdog

      by

      Donald Trump’s administration has asked the supreme court to approve the firing of the head of a federal agency dedicated to protecting whistleblowers in the first appeal of Trump’s new term and a key test of his battle with the judicial branch.Hampton Dellinger, the head of the office of the special counsel (OSC), is among the fired government watchdogs who have sued the Trump administration, arguing that their dismissals were illegal and that they should be reinstated.The OSC is an independent federal agency that serves as “a secure channel for federal employees to blow the whistle by disclosing wrongdoing”.It is also intended to enforce the Hatch Act, a 1939 law designed to ensure that government programs are carried out in a nonpartisan way, and to enforce a merit system by investigating and prosecuting racial discrimination, partisan political discrimination, nepotism and coerced political activity.Dellinger has said his office’s work was “needed now more than ever”, noting the “unprecedented” number of firings, in many cases without any specified cause, of federal employees with civil service protections in recent weeks by the Trump administration.On Wednesday, the federal judge Amy Berman Jackson reinstated Dellinger to his position pending a 26 February court hearing, writing that the language of the 1978 law that created Dellinger’s position “expresses Congress’s clear intent to ensure the independence of the special counsel and insulate his work from being buffeted by the winds of political change”.According to that law, the special counsel “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office”.As the Trump administration implements sweeping firings throughout the federal government, Dellinger has argued that his dismissal, via a one-sentence email that did not specify the cause, was unlawful.Now, the Trump justice department has petitioned the supreme court to undo Jackson’s order, arguing that allowing a judge to reinstate an agency head for two weeks, pending a 26 February hearing on the case, is an impermissible check on presidential power.“Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an injunction to force the president to retain an agency head,” Trump’s acting solicitor general, Sarah M Harris, wrote in the brief, obtained by the Associated Press on Sunday.The case is not expected to be docketed until after the supreme court returns from the Presidents’ Day holiday weekend, meaning the justices will not respond until Tuesday at the earliest.The Trump administration argues in its brief that letting the order in Dellinger’s case stand could “embolden” judges to issue additional blocks in the roughly 70 lawsuits the Trump administration is facing so far.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIt notes some of the dozen or more cases where judges have slowed Trump’s agenda, including by ordering the temporary lifting of a foreign aid funding freeze and blocking workers with Elon Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency” team from accessing treasury department data for now.A supreme court ruling in favor of the Trump administration in the Dellinger case would overturn decades of precedent, legal experts have said. Conservative Trump supporters have been pushing for the supreme court to overturn the 1935 supreme court ruling protecting Congress’s power to shield the heads of independent agencies from being fired by a president.“Since my arrival at OSC last year, I could not be more proud of all we have accomplished,” Dellinger said in a statement to Politico last week. “The agency’s work has earned praise from advocates for whistleblowers, veterans, and others. The effort to remove me has no factual nor legal basis – none – which means it is illegal.”The office of the special counsel is separate from justice department special counsels, who are appointed by the attorney general for specific investigations, such as Jack Smith.The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 138 Shares177 Views

      in US Politics

      Lessons for Elon Musk from the original Doge | Brief letters

      by

      As Elon Musk’s unelected “Doge” troops slash and burn US federal departments (Elon Musk appears with Trump and tries to claim ‘Doge’ team is transparent, 12 February), it is ironic to note that the Doges of ancient Venice were always elected, and by a process that was designed to avoid wealthy families taking too much power.John JacobsAlton, Hampshire I agree with your correspondents about the difficulty of hearing the lyrics in musicals (Letters, 13 February), but there’s little mention of the problem in cinemas, where conversations are drowned out by background music. In the recent film about Bob Dylan, Timothée Chalamet perfectly captured the musician’s mumble. What words he actually said remain A Complete Unknown.Joanna RimmerNewcastle upon Tyne Re the letters on analogue photography (14 February), there is a good compromise. I use a digital camera, which means I can go “snap happy”. Then I can look at all the images, select what I want and get them printed.Peter ButlerRushden, Northamptonshire I’m not entirely convinced that the Guardian style guide does a lot for women’s rights in advising that actresses should always be called actors (Editorial, 14 February). Why not the other way around?John OwensStockport, Greater Manchester My school report read: “Angela has influence, unfortunately in the wrong direction.” I became a probation officer (Letters, 16 February).Angela GlendenningNewcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire More

    • 225 Shares147 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump and Musk want people to think college is not worth it. They are wrong | Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti

      by

      One of the many guises in which the Trump-Musk duo presents itself to the American public, as they take office in the new administration, is as ”employers-in-chief”: seasoned businessmen entitled to give life advice to their fellow citizens on the basis of a purported real-life experience that cuts against received wisdom.It is in this guise that both Trump and Musk recurrently attack higher education institutions as one of the as yet unconquered bastions of the “liberal America” they are now keen to tear down. Already during his first presidential bid in 2016, Trump famously stated that he “loves the poorly educated”. More recently, at a campaign rally in support of Trump’s re-election bid, Musk stated that “too many people spend four years in college, accumulate a ton of debt, and don’t have any useful skills they can apply afterwards”.The message appears to be landing. According to recent polls, the percentage of Americans who express “a lot of confidence” in higher education has declined from 57% to 36% over the past decade, and only about one in four now believe it is “extremely” or “very important” to have a college degree to get a well-paying job in today’s economy.Defending the emancipatory promise that has historically been at the heart of the United States’ higher education system against these attacks and widespread concerns requires going back to the basics about the nature of that promise. Simply pointing to statistics about the monetary returns of a college education won’t cut it, for at least two reasons.To begin with, aggregate data says little about individual life or investment decisions. While it is true that on average college graduates make between 60% and 80% more than workers without college degrees, a lot depends on what you study, where and at what cost. A more detailed program-level assessment conducted by Wharton professor Peter Cappelli found that “the cost-adjusted payoff from many college programs across the country – as much as one in four – is actually negative”.More importantly, however, this purely monetary way of assessing the value of a college education already concedes too much to its critics. By focusing exclusively on the economic returns after graduation, it ignores the broader educational – but also moral and political – value of the experience of actually being in college.There are not many times in most people’s lives nowadays when they can devote themselves to cultivating their own talents and opinions, without immediate regard to external constraints. Prior to entering college, most young people remain under the tutelage of their parents and are therefore at least in part constrained to do what they think is best for them. Afterwards, they usually have to enter the labor market, thereby falling under the authority of their employers, or at least the economic constraints of their revenue-generating activities.That is why, in his recent book entitled The Student: A Short History, Wesleyan University’s president, Michael Roth, reminds us that the college experience has historically been construed as a “concrete exercise of freedom”. In advocating for the creation of a publicly funded university in the state of Virginia at the beginning of the 19th century, for instance, Thomas Jefferson maintained that it was essential for a citizenry aspiring to be “self-governing” to have the opportunity of spending a period of their lives dedicated to cultivating the capacity to “judge for themselves what will secure or endanger their freedom”, unencumbered from both familial authority and the burdens of toil work.The usual retort against this conception of higher education as an intrinsically valuable exercise in freedom is that it can at best be available to a privileged few. The former director of the (for-profit) University of Phoenix, Mark DeFusco, is on record stating: “I’m happy that there are places in the world where people sit down and think. We need that. But that’s very expensive. And not everyone can do that. So for the vast majority of folks who don’t get that privilege, then I think it’s just business.”Upon reflection, however, this is the stance that turns out to be most truly elitist, since it assumes that the freedom afforded by a dedicated period of cultivation of one’s own talents and opinions cannot – or indeed shouldn’t – be available to everyone. As a professor at a higher education institution – the City College of New York, founded with the explicit goal of “educating the whole people” – I cannot abide by such a surrender of America’s democratic promise, masquerading as realism.For most of the predominantly working class and first-generation students on our campus, the decision to enroll is not a consequence of “privilege”. It involves significant costs and also risks. That is why it is generally experienced as an achievement in itself. By the very fact of going to college, these students already get to take part in what they themselves frequently – and unironically – refer to as the “American dream”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn their eyes, this dream isn’t therefore reducible to a prospect of monetary payoff after graduation. It also includes a direct experience of freedom in the present. And although many City College students also have to work to support themselves while studying, they usually see their jobs as instrumental to their education, not the other way around.I take there to be a lesson in this also for our “employers-in-chief” – which is that the American dream they are so fond of referring to as well isn’t for most people about rushing to serve them (more or less lucratively) on the job market, but rather about a more expansive life of freedom, of which higher education remains a core component.

      Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti is executive director of the Moynihan Center and full professor of political science at the City College of New York. More