Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      The deep historical forces that explain Trump’s win

      by

      In the days since the sweeping Republican victory in the US election, which gave the party control of the presidency, the Senate and the House, commentators have analysed and dissected the relative merits of the main protagonists – Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – in minute detail. Much has been said about their personalities and the words they have spoken; little about the impersonal social forces that push complex human societies to the brink of collapse – and sometimes beyond. That’s a mistake: in order to understand the roots of our current crisis, and possible ways out of it, it’s precisely these tectonic forces we need to focus on.The research team I lead studies cycles of political integration and disintegration over the past 5,000 years. We have found that societies, organised as states, can experience significant periods of peace and stability lasting, roughly, a century or so. Inevitably, though, they then enter periods of social unrest and political breakdown. Think of the end of the Roman empire, the English civil war or the Russian Revolution. To date, we have amassed data on hundreds of historical states as they slid into crisis, and then emerged from it.So we’re in a good position to identify just those impersonal social forces that foment unrest and fragmentation, and we’ve found three common factors: popular immiseration, elite overproduction and state breakdown.To get a better understanding of these concepts and how they are influencing American politics in 2024, we need to travel back in time to the 1930s, when an unwritten social contract came into being in the form of Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal. This contract balanced the interests of workers, businesses and the state in a way similar to the more formal agreements we see in Nordic countries. For two generations, this implicit pact delivered an unprecedented growth in wellbeing across a broad swath of the country. At the same time, a “Great Compression” of incomes and wealth dramatically reduced economic inequality. For roughly 50 years the interests of workers and the interests of owners were kept in balance, and overall income inequality remained remarkably low.View image in fullscreenThat social contract began to break down in the late 1970s. The power of unions was undermined, and taxes on the wealthy cut back. Typical workers’ wages, which had previously increased in tandem with overall economic growth, started to lag behind. Inflation-adjusted wages stagnated and at times decreased. The result was a decline in many aspects of quality of life for the majority of Americans. One shocking way this became evident was in changes to the average life expectancy, which stalled and even went into reverse (and this started well before the Covid pandemic). That’s what we term “popular immiseration”.With the incomes of workers effectively stuck, the fruits of economic growth were reaped by the elites instead. A perverse “wealth pump” came into being, siphoning money from the poor and channelling it to the rich. The Great Compression reversed itself. In many ways, the last four decades call to mind what happened in the United States between 1870 and 1900 – the time of railroad fortunes and robber barons. If the postwar period was a golden age of broad-based prosperity, after 1980 we could be said to have entered a Second Gilded Age.Welcome as the extra wealth might seem for its recipients, it ends up causing problems for them as a class. The uber-wealthy (those with fortunes greater than $10m) increased tenfold between 1980 and 2020, adjusted for inflation. A certain proportion of these people have political ambitions: some run for political office themselves (like Trump), others fund political candidates (like Peter Thiel). The more members of this elite class there are, the more aspirants for political power a society contains.By the 2010s the social pyramid in the US had grown exceptionally top-heavy: there were too many wannabe leaders and moguls competing for a fixed number of positions in the upper echelons of politics and business. In our model, this state of affairs has a name: elite overproduction.Elite overproduction can be likened to a game of musical chairs – except the number of chairs stays constant, while the number of players is allowed to increase. As the game progresses, it creates more and more angry losers. Some of those turn into “counter-elites”: those willing to challenge the established order; rebels and revolutionaries such as Oliver Cromwell and his Roundheads in the English civil war, or Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia. In the contemporary US we might think of media disruptors such as Tucker Carlson, or maverick entrepreneurs seeking political influence such as Elon Musk alongside countless less-prominent examples at lower levels in the system. As battles between the ruling elites and counter-elites heat up, the norms governing public discourse unravel and trust in institutions declines. The result is a loss of civic cohesiveness and sense of national cooperation – without which states quickly rot from within. View image in fullscreenOne result of all this political dysfunction is an inability to agree on how the federal budget should be balanced. Together with the loss of trust and legitimacy, that accelerates the breakdown of state capacity. It’s notable that a collapse in state finances is often the triggering event for a revolution: this is what happened in France before 1789 and in the runup to the English civil war.How does this landscape translate to party politics? The American ruling class, as it has evolved since the end of the civil war in 1865, is basically a coalition of the top wealth holders (the proverbial 1%) and a highly educated or “credentialed” class of professionals and graduates (whom we might call the 10%). A decade ago, the Republicans were the party of the 1%, while the Democrats were the party of the 10%. Since then, they have both changed out of all recognition.The recasting of the Republican party began with the unexpected victory of Donald Trump in 2016. He was typical of political entrepreneurs in history who have channelled popular discontent to propel themselves to power (one example is Tiberius Gracchus, who founded the populist party in late Republican Rome). Not all of his initiatives went against the interests of the ruling class – for example, he succeeded in making the tax code more regressive. But many did, including his policies on immigration (economic elites tend to favour open immigration as it suppresses wages); a rejection of traditional Republican free-market orthodoxy in favour of industrial policy; a scepticism of Nato and a professed unwillingness to start new conflicts abroad.It seemed to some as though the revolution had been squashed when a quintessentially establishment figure, Joe Biden, defeated Trump in 2020. By 2024 the Democrats had essentially become the party of the ruling class – of the 10% and of the 1%, having tamed its own populist wing (led by the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders). This realignment was signalled by Kamala Harris massively outspending Trump this election cycle, as well as mainstream Republicans, such as Liz and Dick Cheney, or neocons such as Bill Kristol, supporting the Harris ticket.The GOP, in the meantime, has transformed itself into a truly revolutionary party: one that represents working people (according to its leaders) or a radical rightwing agenda (according to its detractors). In the process, it has largely purged itself of traditional Republicans.Trump was clearly the chief agent of this change. But while the mainstream media and politicians obsess over him, it is important to recognise that he is now merely the tip of the iceberg: a diverse group of counter-elites has coalesced around the Trump ticket. Some of them, such as JD Vance, had meteoric rises through the Republican ranks. Some, such as Robert F Kennedy Jr and Tulsi Gabbard, defected from the Democrats. Others include tycoons such as Musk, or media figures, such as Joe Rogan, perhaps the most influential American podcaster. The latter was once a supporter of the populist wing of the Democratic party (and Bernie Sanders in particular).The main point here is that in 2024, the Democrats, having morphed into the party of the ruling class, had to contend not only with the tide of popular discontent but also a revolt of the counter-elites. As such, it finds itself in a predicament that has recurred thousands of times in human history, and there are two ways things play out from here.One is with the overthrow of established elites, as happened in the French and Russian Revolutions. The other is with the ruling elites backing a rebalancing of the social system – most importantly, shutting down the wealth pump and reversing popular immiseration and elite overproduction. It happened about a century ago with the New Deal. There’s also a parallel in the Chartist period (1838–1857), when Great Britain was the only European great power to avoid the wave of revolutions that swept Europe in 1848, via major reform. But the US has so far failed to learn the historical lessons.What comes next? The electoral defeat on 5 November represents one battle in an ongoing revolutionary war. The triumphant counter-elites want to replace their counterparts – what they sometimes call the “deep state” – entirely. But history shows that success in achieving such goals is far from assured. Their opponents are pretty well entrenched in the bureaucracy and can effectively resist change. Ideological and personal tensions in the winning coalition may result in it breaking apart (as they say, revolutions devour their children). Most importantly, the challenges facing the new Trump administration are of the particularly intractable kind. What is their plan for tackling the exploding federal budget deficit? How are they going to shut down the wealth pump? And what will the Democrats’ response be? Will their platform for 2028 include a new New Deal, a commitment to major social reform?One thing is clear: whatever the choices and actions of the contending parties, they will not lead to an immediate resolution. Popular discontent in the US has been building up for more than four decades. Many years of real prosperity would be needed to persuade the public that the country is back on the right track. So, for now, we can expect a lasting age of discord. Let’s hope that it won’t spill over into a hot civil war. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump cabinet picks shaped by new power centers in his orbit

      by

      Donald Trump’s picks for the incoming administration are being shaped by a combination of different power centers including one-man influences like top Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn and combined groups led by chief of staff Susie Wiles and vice-president-elect JD Vance.The president-elect appears to have settled on a number of cabinet nominees himself without being aggressively pushed by advisers, including Pete Hegseth for defense secretary, Marco Rubio for secretary of state and Russ Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget.But for other cabinet roles or major White House positions for which Trump did not have a clear preference or a frontrunner in mind, a handful of individuals with outsized influence have come to dominate the decision-making in meetings and interviews being held at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.There are still factions, according to half a dozen people involved in transition planning, though they have been nowhere near as concrete as they were in 2017, when there were clear demarcations between Trump’s family, the Republican National Committee, establishment Republicans and people allied with Trump’s strategist Steve Bannon.And in recent months, the previously distinct camp informally led by Wiles, who has had influence over West Wing picks and some cabinet roles, and the other camp led by Vance have combined and engulfed the wider Trump orbit, the people said.“It’s ever-shifting sands of allegiance. The people who you think are your friends may not be the case in 24 hours. We’re all friends but none of us are friends,” said one person adjacent to the Trump team.Although there are people in Trump’s orbit who disagree with Epshteyn, there is universal acknowledgment that he has had significant influence in the first weeks of the presidential transition, a reflection of Trump’s appreciation for his help in coordinating the defeat of the criminal cases against him.When Trump floated the idea of having the congressman Matt Gaetz for attorney general, Epshteyn was supportive of him during a round-trip flight from Palm Beach, Florida, to Washington when the president-elect announced he was nominating Gaetz.View image in fullscreenAfter the Gaetz nomination sank in the face of holdout Senate Republicans refusing to confirm him over sexual misconduct allegations, Trump nominated as a replacement former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi – who has been friendly over the years with Epshteyn.Epshteyn has also played key roles in finalizing the leadership at the justice department, recommending that Trump keep his personal lawyers in key jobs: Todd Blanche for deputy attorney general, Emil Bove for the principal deputy position and John Sauer for solicitor general.One through-line about those lawyers was that they were successful in delaying until after the election the federal criminal cases against Trump, which were dismissed on Monday. But the other was that they were all recruited by Epshteyn.Epshteyn, whose physically imposing presence is regularly fitted into a navy three-piece suit, has flexed his power away from the department as well, recommending Bill McGinley to be the next White House counsel.Epshteyn has told associates that the choices are for Trump to make. Some of the picks he has suggested have been names endorsed by other allies or people who have appeared on his longtime friends Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast.From the outside, Bannon pushed for McGinley to be White House counsel and may yet get another victory if Trump picks Kash Patel, a regular guest on War Room, for the FBI director or the deputy FBI director roles for which he remains in the running, the Guardian has reported.Bannon lobbied for Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget and, in a particularly audacious play, managed to get Sebastian Gorka, the deeply polarizing national security aide from the first Trump administration, into the incoming team as the senior counter-terrorism director.He also played an instrumental role in bringing Scott Bessent to the fore, according to a person directly familiar with the matter. Bannon made the first introduction to Trump years ago, while his allies have advocated for him at Mar-a-Lago and pushed his agenda.View image in fullscreenBut a main power center for cabinet picks is widely seen to rest with JD Vance’s crew, which pushed for Bessent to be named as treasury secretary and Brendan Carr to lead the Federal Communications Commission, among others.The Vance crew is informally said to involve Trump’s eldest son, Don Jr – who pushed for Vance to be his father’s running mate – and Don Jr’s close advisers including Arthur Schwartz and Andrew Surabian, as well as former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.In addition to being seen as getting Bessent the nod when Trump still had his doubts, the Vance crew have earned additional juice with Trump in probably securing enough Republican votes for Hegseth to be confirmed as defense secretary, despite another set of sexual misconduct allegations.For West Wing picks, the incoming White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, has extended her personal influence with Trump. Wiles has mostly been able to get the staff of her choosing without having to fight against competing interests.Wiles’s top aides have landed in deputy chief of staff roles, including James Blair for legislative policy, Taylor Budowich for presidential personnel and Steven Cheung as communications director – although the factions are amorphous and Budowich and Cheung are also close to the Vance crew.Then there are individuals – relative newcomers to the Trump orbit – who have been in transition meetings at Mar-a-Lago as a result of their unique situations: Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, and Howard Lutnick, the chief executive of Cantor Fitzgerald, who is also the co-chair of the Trump transition team.By weighing in on major cabinet picks, Musk has gotten on the nerves of some Trump loyalists, including Epshteyn, who have complained that the billionaire knows little of the Trump agenda they are trying to bring about and has little idea about who would be best placed to enact it.Lutnick has retained his authority through his transition co-chair role, although he recently engaged in some accidental self-sabotage by pushing too hard to be treasury secretary and appeared to have been caught in a leak investigation over the nominee for secretary of agriculture.Trump was irritated by Musk’s post on X pushing Lutnick for treasury secretary, which gave an opening for his main rival Bessent to secure the job instead. Still, Lutnick has continued to be close to Trump and last week was named commerce secretary.Musk, who is staying off-site in Palm Beach, has become more judicious with his interactions with Trump since that episode and after he secured himself his own role to lead the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency”. More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Sanctuary cities respond to Trump deportation plans: ‘We’re preparing to defend our communities’

      by

      Mike Johnston, the mayor of Denver, joined a drumbeat of local leaders in left-leaning cities across the country earlier this month to say he’s willing to protest the incoming Trump administration’s expected mass deportation efforts.He told local outlet Denverite that Denver police would be “stationed at the county line” to keep federal authorities out. “It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun, right?” he said. He then walked back the comments about using local police, but still said he would protest deportations – even being willing to go to jail for it.“I’m not afraid of that and I’m also not seeking that,” he told 9News.Donald Trump’s “border czar”, Tom Homan, said that’s one area where he and Johnston agree. “He’s willing to go to jail, I’m willing to put him in jail,” Homan told Fox on Tuesday.The back and forth is indicative of what’s to come, as liberal cities and states plan to push back against Trump’s mass deportation plans. The resistance will likely come with a backlash from Trump, who could withhold federal funds or, as Homan threatened, arrest local leaders who stand in his way. Trump’s team is reportedly figuring out ways the president could unilaterally remove federal resources from Democratic cities that don’t go along with deportation plans.The stature is not new for some cities. Some have had so-called “sanctuary city” policies in place since before Trump’s first term, promising not to aid federal immigration and customs enforcement agents as they seek to detain and deport immigrants. Some additionally have programs to provide support to migrants and to manage what data they collect on undocumented populations.Other cities and states choose to cooperate with agents by providing them information and resources to identify and detain migrants – and some state laws bar cities from adopting sanctuary policies. Texas, for instance, has offered up state land to use for deportation facilities.Sanctuary policies can slow deportations and, local officials hope, deter immigration agents from targeting their communities because operations there would encounter organized resistance and cost more money to carry out.“They work – that’s why the Trump administration hates them,” said Naureen Shah, the deputy director of government affairs for the American Civil Liberties Union. “The Biden administration doesn’t like those policies either.”For his second term, Trump and his appointees have threatened a more forceful and broad deportation plan, though they have not offered details on what it will look like. Trump has said he will activate the military to carry out deportations, and there are likely to be flashy raids in Democratic cities that defy him.ICE has limited resources and has historically preferred to conduct raids in localities where it has local cooperation, though in his first term, Trump still sought to deport people from cities that opposed deportations. Immigration advocates expect a blend of these two strategies – with some showdowns in “sanctuary” places as a show of force.“Some of the raids will be in the red states where they have a lot of support from state and local law enforcement, because that’s just going to help them reach the numbers that they want to reach,” Shah said. “They’re also going to want to make people feel very afraid and very unsafe in the blue states. They’re going to want to create that sense that there is no safe sanctuary. That’s part of their game. So I don’t think that we should be comfortable in any part of the country.”What cities are doingAround the country, mayors and city councils are discussing how they can protect local immigrants from a mass deportation campaign. Cities cannot stop federal authorities from deporting people, but depending on state laws, they can refuse to use local resources or voluntarily provide information to assist in these operations. In Los Angeles, the city council approved a sanctuary policy earlier this month, with one council member saying the city would be “hardening our defenses” against Trump.Homan spoke out against the city on Newsmax. “If you don’t wanna help, get the hell outta the way,” he told the rightwing outlet. “If I gotta send twice as many officers to LA because we’re not getting any assistance, then that’s what we’re going to do. We got a mandate. President Trump is serious about this. I’m serious about this. This is gonna happen with or without you.”Chicago’s Democratic leaders have reignited trainings similar to those communities there went through during Trump’s first term. The trainings are designed to teach people how to spot and respond to immigration enforcement actions.Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, an alderman on Chicago’s city council, said a local training in mid-November drew nearly 600 people – six times as many as the first training in 2017. The group is also getting started earlier.“Trump is promising massive deportations on day one, and we’re preparing to defend our communities on day one,” he said.During Trump’s first term, hundreds of people in Ramirez-Rosa’s ward were ready to stand against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) using tactics such as bicycle brigades, which ultimately were not needed at that time. Still, being organized can serve as a deterrent to immigration agents, who want the lowest cost and easiest operations possible, he said. “Ultimately, the organized community is the safest community,” Ramirez-Rosa said.Slowing down deportations means fewer people are deported, though he acknowledges the policies can only go so far. “At the end of the day, nothing can preclude federal immigration agents from coming into your community, pulling people over, knocking on people’s doors. No local law can prohibit the federal government from enforcing immigration law in your community or in your neighborhood.”He said local officials should make sure policies are ready when Trump takes office, but also preparing the community to organize against deportations and engage in nonviolent civil disobedience. They should also be figuring out what local resources they can use to help migrants through legal clinics or cash assistance, while being mindful about the data they collect and how it could be accessed by federal authorities to find and deport migrants, he said.“We, as residents, as US citizens, really do need to be thinking about how do we leverage our collective power to defend our immigrant neighbors?” Ramirez-Rosa said. “Do we surround Ice vehicles when they come into our neighborhood? Those are all risks that US citizens in particular should be thinking about taking at this time. But of course, doing that in a way that is strategic and organized, peaceful and really mitigates the harm, particularly towards undocumented people.”What Trump could do in responseTrump has said he will call a national emergency and then use the military to help carry out a mass deportation campaign. The use of the military, in particular, would bring up a host of legal questions.“The use of the military on domestic soil should worry all of us, but there’s plenty of harm that the Trump administration could seek to do just by using state and local law enforcement as the force multiplier to mass deportation,” Shah said. “And so sealing off access to the extent possible is going to be significant. It slows them down. It stymies their ability to act at the scale and speed that they want to.”The Trump administration is likely to try to deny federal funds to cities and states to get them to play ball. One idea floated in Project 2025, the conservative manifesto, called for withholding federal emergency assistance grants as a way to compel cities to detain undocumented immigrants and share sensitive data with the federal government for immigration enforcement purposes.The second Trump administration is coming into office emboldened by a strong electoral college win and a US supreme court ruling that granted a president immunity from criminal charges for actions taken in his official capacity.But the Trump administration will still need Congress’s help to expand their authority. A key test will be whether Congress agrees to take away funding from cities that don’t want to participate in deportation efforts, Shah said.“We’re going to be firing on all cylinders, and we’ll answer their blitz of policies with our own blitz.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Mexican president claims ‘no potential tariff war’ with US after call with Trump

      by

      Claudia Sheinbaum has said her “very kind” phone conversation with Donald Trump, in which they discussed immigration and fentanyl, means “there will not be a potential tariff war” between the US and Mexico.The president of Mexico spoke to reporters on Thursday following Trump’s threat earlier in the week to apply a 25% tariff against Mexico and Canada, and an additional 10% tariff against China, when he takes office in January if the countries did not stop all illegal immigration and fentanyl smuggling into the US.Trump, in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, claimed that during the phone call with Sheinbaum she had “agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border”.During her Thursday address Sheinbaum clarified she did not agree to shut down the border.“Each person has their own way of communicating,” Sheinbaum said. “But I can assure you, I guarantee you, that we never – additionally, we would be incapable of doing so – proposed that we would close the border in the north [of Mexico], or in the south of the United States. It has never been our idea and, of course, we are not in agreement with that.”She added that the two did not discuss tariffs, but that the conversation with Trump had reassured her that no tit-for-tat tariff battle would be needed in future.On Monday this week, Trump threatened to impose a 25% percent tariff on Mexico until drugs, including fentanyl, and undocumented immigrants “stop this Invasion of our Country”. He declared that Mexico and Canada should use their power to address drug trafficking and migration and, until they do, “it is time for them to pay a very big price!”The following day, Sheinbaum suggested Mexico could retaliate with tariffs of its own.On Wednesday, however, the conversation between Sheinbaum and Trump was “very kind”, the Mexican president said. She said she told Trump of the various migration initiatives her government has undertaken, including providing resources and support to central American countries and to migrants arriving in Mexico. Potential immigrants “will not reach the northern border, because Mexico has a strategy”, Sheinbaum said.Trump “recognized this effort” by the Mexican government, Sheinbaum added.She also said Trump expressed interest in the government-driven programs to address fentanyl addiction and overdoses in Mexico. And she raised the problem of American-made weapons entering Mexico from the US to be used by drug cartels.Sheinbaum further added that she encouraged Trump to stop the blockades against Cuba and Venezuela, since “people suffer and it leads to the phenomenon of migration”.Asked by a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine that quoted anonymous Trump-aligned sources discussing a “soft invasion” of Mexico by deploying the US military inside the country against drug trafficking groups, Sheinbaum dismissed the idea, calling it “entirely a movie”.“What I base myself on is the conversation – the two conversations – that I had with President Trump, and then, at the moment, the communication we will have with his work team and when he takes office,” Sheinbaum said. “We will always defend our sovereignty. Mexico is a free, independent, sovereign country – and that is above everything else.” More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s Ukraine envoy pick proposed forcing peace talks by withdrawing US weapons

      by

      Donald Trump’s plan to tap the retired US lieutenant general Keith Kellogg as US envoy to Ukraine and Russia has triggered renewed interest in a policy document he co-authored that proposes ending the war by withdrawing weapons from Ukraine if it doesn’t enter peace talks – and giving even more weapons to Ukraine if Russia doesn’t do the same.Trump is said to have responded favorably to the plan – America First, Russia & Ukraine – which was presented to him in April and was written by Kellogg and the former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, who both served as chiefs of staff in Trump’s national security council from 2017 to 2021.The document proposes halting further US weapons deliveries to Kyiv if it does not enter peace talks with Moscow, while simultaneously warning Moscow that, should it refuse to negotiate, US support for Ukraine would increase.It blames “unserious and incoherent” US foreign policy under Joe Biden for the three-year conflict, including what it describes as a “precipitous” US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the supposed antagonization of US allies including Israel and Saudi Arabia, and a policy to China described as “weak and confusing”.The paper further accuses the Biden administration of putting “the idealistic agendas of the global elite ahead of a working relationship with Russia” – a “hostile policy” that it claims “made it an enemy of the US, drove Russia into the arms of China and led to the development of a new Russia-China-Iran-North Korea axis”.Kellogg and Fleitz criticize what they said was a decision to scold Vladimir Putin and threaten “unprecedented” sanctions as it prepared to invade Ukraine, “instead of using negotiations to de-escalate tensions”.“An America First approach could have prevented the invasion,” they write.Trump’s vice-president-elect, the Ohio senator JD Vance, has aired comparable views, arguing in effect that US support for Ukraine is a drain on resources necessary to counter Washington’s principal security threat with China.The selection of Kellogg comes as the Biden administration pushes to complete more weapons transfers to Ukraine before the president’s term ends. A decision to approve the use of US-made Atacms missiles on targets inside Russia was met by Russia’s use of a powerful intermediate range missile, Oreshnik, on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro.In an interview with Fox News, Kellogg said Biden’s decision to approve Ukrainian strikes inside Russia has given Trump “more leverage”.“It gives president Trump more ability to pivot from that,” he said.On Tuesday, Moscow responded to a New York Times report that unidentified western officials had suggested Biden could give Ukraine nuclear weapons before he steps down. The Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said discussions in the West about arming Ukraine with nuclear weapons was “absolutely irresponsible”.But the Kellogg-Fleitz plan, though lacking in details, appears to mirror the counsel of Gen Mark A Milley, Biden’s former chief military adviser who argued that since neither Russia nor Ukraine could win the conflict, a negotiated settlement was the sole route to peace.Under the plan, Moscow would also be coaxed to the table with the promise of Nato membership for Ukraine being delayed or abandoned.“We tell the Ukrainians, ‘You’ve got to come to the table, and if you don’t come to the table, support from the United States will dry up,’” Kellogg told Reuters in June. “And you tell Putin, ‘He’s got to come to the table and if you don’t come to the table, then we’ll give Ukrainians everything they need to kill you in the field.’”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn that interview, Fleitz said Ukraine would not need to formally cede territory to Russia, but would come to recognize that it would not be able to regain effective control of all its territory.“Our concern is that this has become a war of attrition that’s going to kill a whole generation of young men,” Fleitz said, adding that a lasting peace in Ukraine would require additional security guarantees, including “arming Ukraine to the teeth”.But in the policy paper the pair acknowledged that it would be hard for Ukraine to accept a peace deal “that does not give them back all of their territory or, at least for now, hold Russia responsible for the carnage it inflicted on Ukraine”.Asking whether he endorses Kellogg’s position paper, the president-elect told NBC News: “I’m the only one who can get the war stopped. It should have never started in the first place.”Trump said that European nations should contribute more aid, a position echoed by Vance at the Republican national convention in July. “We will make sure our allies share in the burden of securing world peace,” he said. “No more free rides for nations that betray the generosity of the American taxpayer.”Trump chose Kellogg, an 80-year-old retired army lieutenant general, to be his top adviser on defense issues. He served as national security adviser to Vice-president Mike Pence, was chief of staff of the national security council, and then stepped in as an acting security adviser for Trump after Michael Flynn resigned.During the Vietnam war he served in the 101st airborne division, also known as the Screaming Eagles, and after the first Iraq war he was named commander of special operations command Europe (SOCEUR). He retired in 2003 as a lieutenant general.During the January 6 Capitol riot, Kellogg demanded that the Secret Service not evacuate Pence from the building, which would have prevented the vice-president from certifying Biden’s electoral victory. “Leave him where he’s at. He’s got a job to do. I know you guys too well. You’ll fly him to Alaska if you have a chance. Don’t do it,” he reportedly said.After naming Kellogg as envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Trump said Kellogg “was with me right from the beginning”! More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Mark Zuckerberg dines with Trump at Mar-a-Lago despite former feud

      by

      Mark Zuckerberg has become the latest former Donald Trump critic to make his way Mar-a-Lago to break bread with the incoming US president.The tech mogul had banned Trump from the social media sites Instagram and Facebook, which he owns, following the January 6 riot that the president-elect egged on in an attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 election.On Wednesday, however, the incoming White House deputy chief of policy, Stephen Miller, told Fox News that Zuckerberg, 40, had dined with Trump at his Florida compound.“Mark, obviously, he has his own interests, and he has his own company, and he has his own agenda,” Miller said. “But he’s made clear that he wants to support the national renewal of America under President Trump’s leadership.”Zuckerberg, whose personal fortune is estimated at $200bn, has previously indicated a thawing of relations between himself and the president-elect.After Trump survived an assassination attempt in July and pumped his fist saying “fight, fight, fight”, Zuckerberg called it “one of the most badass things I’ve ever seen in my life”.A month later, in a book called Save America, Trump still accused Zuckerberg of “plotting” against him during the 2020 election by “steering” Facebook against his campaign. He threatened Zuckerberg that if it happened again he would “spend the rest of his life in prison”.In the book Trump also noted that Zuckerberg would visit him at the White House “with his very nice wife, be as nice as anyone”, but then claimed the CEO turned Facebook against his 2020 campaign – possibly referring to a $420m donation Zuckerberg’s charity made to fund election infrastructure in 2020.“He told me there was nobody like Trump on Facebook. But at the same time, and for whatever reason, steered it against me,” Trump wrote in the book. “We are watching him closely, and if he does anything illegal this time he will spend the rest of his life in prison – as will others who cheat in the 2024 Presidential Election.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA spokesperson for Meta, Facebook’s parent company, told the BBC: “Mark was grateful for the invitation to join President Trump for dinner and the opportunity to meet with members of his team about the incoming administration.“It’s an important time for the future of American Innovation,” the statement added.Meta is among several of the tech giants to hold contracts with the federal government. Earlier this month, the company announced it had approved a collaboration to integrate its Llama AI division into government operations. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Elon Musk calls to ‘delete’ US finance consumer watchdog agency

      by

      Elon Musk has said he wants to “delete” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal watchdog that helps protect consumers from predatory financial practices.The tech billionaire, who has been tapped to run a “Department of Government Efficiency” in the incoming Donald Trump administration, posted “Delete CFPB” on X, the social media site he owns. He added a declaration that the agency, which employs 1,700 people and has an annual budget of close to $700m, is an example of “too many duplicative regulatory agencies” in Washington.The CFPB is an independent watchdog agency with oversight over banks and other financial institutions, created after the financial crash of 2008 and charged with overseeing consumer protection in the industry.Musk’s post came in response to a recent podcast clip from the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, a significant Trump donor, who said the agency’s primary purpose is to “terrorize financial institutions”.But it was soon reported that Andreessen’s venture capital firm, Andreessen Horwitz, was among other investors who had backed LendUp, an online consumer payday lender, that was shut down by the CFPB in 2018.The CFPB director, Rohit Chopra, said the company’s lending operations were shuttered “for repeatedly lying and illegally cheating its customers”.Trump announced a plan for Musk and fellow entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to run a new advisory agency, known by the acronym Doge, earlier this month. Musk has said he would like the newly formed commission to cut $2tn from federal government running costs – approximately a third of all government spending.Trump has said Doge and its new “efficiency” tsars would “provide advice and guidance from outside of Government” to “restructure Federal Agencies”.Ramaswamy and Musk – whose X bio is now headlined: “the people voted for major government reform” – outlined plans for a “drastic reduction” in regulations and “mass head-count reductions” last week in the Wall Street Journal.The men said they would rely on two recent US supreme court rulings that limited the authority of federal regulatory agencies to “liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress”.They said Doge would target more than $500bn “authorised by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended”, including $535m in funding for public broadcasting, $1.5bn in grants to international organisations and nearly $300m given to progressive groups including Planned Parenthood.DOoge would also carry out audits of government contracts to “yield significant savings” and “identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions”.“Critics claim that we can’t meaningfully close the federal deficit without taking aim at entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which require Congress to shrink,” they wrote, referring to the healthcare programs covering more than 150 million Americans.How far Ramaswamy and Musk will be able to influence cuts to federal programs and spending before running into legislative opposition is yet to be determined. Many have warned them that cutting bureaucracy is difficult and time-consuming.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOn Wednesday, Musk asked in a poll on X what should happen to the budget for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the agency responsible for collecting federal taxes. The most popular result was to have its budget “deleted”. He later replied positively to a post that called for the IRS itself to be audited by Doge.But dismantling the CFPB would be a signal of broader plans for disruption. The agency was formed after the financial crash of 2008, which was caused by insecure or predatory lending to “subprime” mortgage borrowers.Safeguards to prevent a repeat of the disaster included regulatory financial reforms and the formation of CFPB. The agency reports that its work has resulted in over $20.7bn in compensation, cancelled debt and other forms of monetary relief for consumers and has requested responses from companies involved in more than 5.6m consumer complaints.It has also drawn the attention of the conservative policy blueprint known as Project 2025, which called for CFPB to be abolished.“The CFPB is a highly politicized, damaging, and utterly unaccountable federal agency. It is unconstitutional,” the document said. “The next conservative President should order the immediate dissolution of the agency”.Musk last week also posted on social media naming several specific people and jobs that he aims to eliminate, targeting relatively obscure posts and otherwise unknown government employees.“These tactics are aimed at sowing terror and fear at federal employees,” said Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 800,000 of the 2.3 million civilian federal employees, told CNN. “It’s intended to make them fearful that they will become afraid to speak up.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump victory not a mandate for radical change, top election forecaster says

      by

      Despite Donald Trump’s decisive victory in the presidential election, a political scientist who developed a model that correctly predicted his sweep of battleground states warns that voters have not necessarily given the president-elect a mandate to make radical changes.In a paper released with little fanfare three weeks before the vote, Cornell University professor of government Peter Enns and his co-authors accurately forecast that Trump would win all seven swing states, based on a model they built that uses state-level presidential approval ratings and indicators of economic health.In an interview with the Guardian, Enns said his model’s conclusions suggest voters chose Trump not because they want to see his divisive policies implemented, but rather because they were frustrated with the state of the economy during Joe Biden’s presidency, an obstacle Kamala Harris was not popular enough to overcome.“If this election can be explained by what voters thought of Biden and Harris and economic conditions, it really goes against the notion of a mandate for major change from Trump,” said Enns.“If Trump was looking to maximize support, being cautious about changes that are massive changes would be what the model suggests is the optimal strategy.”On the campaign trail, Trump promised norm-shattering measures to accomplish his objectives, ranging from deploying the military to carry out mass deportations of undocumented immigrants to levying trade tariffs against allies that do not cooperate with his administration.On 5 November, voters responded by giving Trump an overwhelming victory in the electoral college, and also by making him the first Republican to win the popular vote in 20 years.Both outcomes were predicted in the paper released on 15 October by Enns, Jonathan Colner of New York University, Anusha Kumar of Yale University School of Medicine and Julius Lagodny of German media firm El Pato. At the time, polls of the seven swing states showed Trump and Harris tied, usually within their margin of error, signaling that the election was either’s to win.Rather than focusing on the candidates’ support nationwide or in the swing states, Enns and his co-authors built a model that combines two types of data: presidential approval ratings from all 50 states using data from Verasight, the survey firm he co-founded, among others, and a Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia index measuring state-level real income, manufacturing and labor market conditions. Both sets of data were compiled more than 100 days before the vote.Enns first deployed the model in the 2020 presidential election, where it correctly predicted the outcome in 49 states, with the exception of Georgia. This year, Enns and his co-authors wrote that Harris, who took over as the Democratic nominee for Biden in late July, was on track to lose both the popular vote and the electoral college, including battleground states Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Georgia.“If Harris wins the election, we will not know exactly why, but we will know her victory surmounted conditions so disadvantageous to the Democratic party that the incumbent president dropped out of the race. She will have added major momentum to the Democratic campaign and/or Trump and the Republican party will have squandered a sizable advantage,” Enns and his co-authors wrote.The forecast wound up being accurate, though, with ballot counting continuing in a few states, Trump seems set for a plurality victory in the popular vote, not the 50.3% majority they predicted.Then there’s the question of whether Biden would have done better if he had stayed in the race. The 82-year-old president has been unpopular through most of his term as Americans weathered the highest inflation rate since the 1980s, even as the labor market recovered strongly from the Covid pandemic. Biden was also dogged by concerns about his age and fitness for office, which culminated in a terrible debate performance against Trump in June that led him to drop out of the race weeks later.“Given Biden’s low approval ratings and economic conditions, our model forecasted less than a one in 10 chance of a Biden victory if he had stayed in the race. Even after accounting for Harris’s approval ratings, which are notably higher than Biden’s, the Democrats face an uphill battle,” the authors wrote.If Harris had a chance to overcome the disadvantages she entered the race with, Enns said it would have required convincing voters she would be a very different president than her boss – which it appears she failed to do.“There’s some economic headwinds, there’s the Biden incumbency headwinds. And what I think that suggests is, given these headwinds that Harris faced, the optimal strategy would have been to differentiate herself more from Biden,” Enns said.But the vice-president’s fate may have been sealed in the years that preceded her bid for the White House, when she failed to build the sort of public profile that would have pushed her approval ratings up to the level that she needed them to be.“If she had been more popular, you can think about what could have happened to make our forecast wrong. So the fact that 100 days out, our forecast was so accurate, that really enhanced the campaign, had minimal effect on the outcome,” Enns said.“The task at hand was to outperform the forecast, and her campaign wasn’t able to do that.” More