Trump administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares110 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is reportedly mulling over disbanding US Postal Service leadership

      by

      Donald Trump is reportedly considering disbanding the leadership of the US Postal Service (USPS) and folding it into his administration in a move that would end the 250-year-old agency’s independence and potentially threaten the mail delivery system’s impartiality.The Washington Post reported that an executive order was being prepared to fire the service’s governing board and place it under the authority of the new commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick.The White House issued an immediate denial amid fears of the effects of such a move on the mail delivery system and millions of dollars of e-commerce transactions handled by USPS.“This is not true. No such EO [executive order] is in the works, and secretary Lutnick is not pushing for such an EO,” CNN quoted an administration official as saying.However, there was no comment on whether the postal service – which polls have shown is the US’s most popular agency after the National Park Service among Democrats and Republicans alike – would be privatised as part of the administration’s drive to slash public spending and reduce the federal workforce.Trump floated the idea of selling off the service, which he has often criticised, while he was still president-elect.“It’s an idea that a lot of people have liked for a long time,” he told a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate last December. “We’re looking at it.”He had a fraught relationship with the agency during his first presidency, labeling it “a joke” and Amazon’s “delivery boy”, and threatened to withhold emergency funding from it during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic unless it raised the price of package delivery fourfold.The then treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, only authorised a loan for the service in exchange for access to its contracts with top customers.Before the 2020 election – when coronavirus rules triggered an expansion of postal voting – Trump claimed the service was unable to facilitate mail-in voting because it could not access the emergency funding his administration was then blocking. The postal service delivered nearly 98% of ballots to election officials within three days of them being mailed.The postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, who was appointed towards the end of Trump’s first presidency, this week announced plans to resign, less than halfway through his designated 10-year term. Trump’s transition team vetted candidates to replace him before he returned to the White House.The USPS has about 630,000 workers and reported a net loss of $9.5bn in the 2024 fiscal year.It has post offices in every zip code in the US and delivers millions of letters and packages every week, including medications and e-commerce deliveries.Its functioning is overseen by the postal regulatory committee to ensure that there is no discrimination in its delivery practices and that all areas and neighborhoods are served adequately.The Washington Post reported that the service’s governors were preparing to fight any executive order disbanding it. They staged an emergency meeting on Thursday and retained outside legal counsel.Postal experts suggested placing the commerce department in charge of it would violate federal law.“This is a somewhat regal approach that says the king knows better than his subjects and he will do his best for them,” James O’Rourke, of the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza college of business, told the outlet. “But it also removes any sense that there’s oversight, impartiality and fairness and that some states wouldn’t be treated better than other states or cities better than other cities.”The American Postal Workers Union – which represents many of the service’s workers – called any move to disband the governors or privatize the service “outrageous”.“Any attack on the postal service would be part of the billionaire oligarch coup, directed not just at the postal workers our union represents, but the millions of Americans who rely on the critical public service our members provide every single day,” the union said in a statement. More

    • 138 Shares174 Views

      in US Politics

      French far-right leader cancels CPAC speech over Steve Bannon’s ‘Nazi’ salute

      by

      The French far-right leader Jordan Bardella on Friday morning cancelled a scheduled speech at the US Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, after Donald Trump’s former aide Steve Bannon flashed a fascist-style salute there hours before.Bannon, who helped Trump win office in 2016 and is now a popular rightwing podcast show host, finished his CPAC speech on Thursday with an outstretched arm, fingers pointed and palm down – a sign that echoed the Nazi salute and a controversial gesture made by the tech billionaire Elon Musk at the US president’s second inauguration in January.Bardella, of the far-right National Rally party in France, pulled out of CPAC citing Bannon’s allusion to “Nazi ideology”.The salute during Bannon’s speech brought cheers from the audience at the US gathering.Bardella, who was in Washington ahead of his appearance and had said he intended to talk about relations between the US and France, issued a statement saying: “Yesterday, while I was not present in the room, one of the speakers, out of provocation, allowed himself a gesture alluding to Nazi ideology. I therefore took the immediate decision to cancel my speech that had been scheduled this afternoon.”The National Rally party was bested in France’s snap election last summer by a leftwing alliance.Bannon on Thursday night fired up the CPAC crowd, where he spoke directly after Musk, the man who has eclipsed him in Trump’s circle and with whom Bannon is not on good terms.“The only way that they win is if we retreat, and we are not going to retreat, we’re not going to surrender, we are not going to quit – we’re going to fight, fight, fight,” Bannon said of opponents, echoing Trump’s exhortation to supporters following the assassination attempt on him.Bannon then flung out his right arm at an angle with his palm pointing down. The Nazi salute is perhaps more familiar, especially from historical footage of Adolf Hitler, with the arm pointing straight forward – but the fascist overtone of Bannon and Musk’s signals has been unmistakable.The Anti-Defamation League, which campaigns against antisemitism, defines the Nazi salute as “raising an outstretched right arm with the palm down”.“Steve Bannon’s long and disturbing history of stoking antisemitism and hate, threatening violence, and empowering extremists is well known and well documented by ADL and others,” the Anti-Defamation League wrote on X in response, adding: “We are not surprised, but are concerned about the normalization of this behavior.”Bannon, speaking to a French journalist from Le Point news magazine on Friday, said the gesture was not a Nazi salute but was “a wave like I did all the time”.“I do it at the end of all of my speeches to thank the crowd,” Bannon said.However, from video, when he shoots his arm in the brief, straight-arm gesture, then nods sharply with a smile, to audience cheers, and says “amen”, it looks distinctly different from the very end of his address, when Bannon walked about the stage saluting the audience, throwing first his right arm out, then his left arm out, in a looser gesture that looked much more like conventional post-speech acknowledgment of a crowd.Online, some far-right users suggested Bannon had made the gesture purposely to “trigger” liberals and the media. Others distanced themselves.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNick Fuentes, a far-right influencer and Trump ally who uses his platform to share his antisemitic views, said in a livestream that Bannon’s salute was “getting a little uncomfortable even for me”.Bannon’s gesture, like Musk’s, has been characterized by some as a “Roman salute” – though some historians argue that is a distinction without a difference. Some rightwing supporters have argued, without evidence, that the Roman salute originated in ancient Rome. Historians have found, instead, that it was adopted by the Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini in the 1920s, and then Hitler’s Nazi party in Germany.However the ADL concluded that in that group’s view Musk had “made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute”.The Bannon speech showcased CPAC’s evolution from a traditional conservative conference to an all-out Trump-centric rally. Bannon also spoke about the forthcoming election in 2028, prompting cheers of “We want Trump,” and saying himself: “We want Trump in 28.”The statement echoed those of Trump himself, who on Wednesday asked a crowd if he should run again, was met with calls of “four more years”, and called himself a “KING” in a post on social media. US presidents are limited to two terms.Meanwhile, Musk on Thursday brandished a chainsaw at CPAC, gloating over the slashing of federal jobs he is overseeing across multiple departments, in the face of legal challenges and protests. He called it “the chainsaw for bureaucracy”.It was handed to him on stage by Argentina’s rightwing president, Javier Milei. More

    • 138 Shares110 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge rejects DoJ call to immediately dismiss Eric Adams corruption case

      by

      A New York judge on Friday said he would not immediately dismiss Eric Adams’s corruption case, but ordered the Democratic New York City mayor’s trial delayed indefinitely after the justice department asked for the charges to be dismissed.In a written ruling, the US district judge Dale Ho in Manhattan said he would appoint an outside lawyer, Paul Clement of the law firm Clement & Murphy PLLC, to present arguments against the federal prosecutors’ bid to dismiss, in order to help the judge make his decision.Justice department officials in Washington asked Ho to dismiss the charges against Adams on 14 February. A hearing was held in New York earlier this week.That came about after several prosecutors resigned rather than follow orders from the acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove, an appointee of Donald Trump and the Republican president’s former personal criminal defense lawyer, to seek dismissal of the case brought last year by prosecutors during the Biden administration.The current justice department argued that dismissal was needed so Adams could focus on helping Trump crack down on illegal immigration. The controversy, especially because the city has a strong sanctuary law designed to stop local enforcement from assisting federal immigration enforcement, has sparked a political crisis in the most populous US city. Senior Democrats have said that dismissing the charges makes Adams beholden to Trump’s administration.Adams, 64, was charged last September with taking bribes and campaign donations from Turkish nationals seeking to influence him. Adams, running for re-election this year, has pleaded not guilty.Many have called on Adams to resign.Four of the mayor’s deputies plan to resign amid loss of confidence in the mayor. The governor of New York state, Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, said on Thursday she would not use her power to remove Adams, but proposed new oversight of the mayor’s office. More

    • 163 Shares156 Views

      in US Politics

      Stephen Colbert on Trump: ‘With this guy, every troll is a trial balloon’

      by

      The Late Show host delves into New York City’s congestion pricing and Bigfoot maybe becoming California’s official state cryptid.Stephen ColbertOn Thursday evening, Stephen Colbert took on a topic close to his professional home at New York’s Ed Sullivan theater: congestion pricing, a toll on most vehicles entering Manhattan’s central business district between 5am and 9pm to cut traffic and emissions.The new tax was introduced at the beginning of this year, “and it’s working”, Colbert explained, as January saw a 7.9% reduction in traffic, and the governor’s office noted that foot traffic to local businesses spiked. “Or, as the New York Times put it, ‘Ay! People are walking here!’” Colbert joked.“This seems like a good thing,” he continued, “so Donald Trump ruined it.” On Wednesday, Trump posted on Truth Social: “CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!”“Yes, the classic domain of an all-powerful king, what all kings do: regulate local toll roads,” Colbert laughed. “So the president of these United States has called himself a king. Which is the thing presidents are not supposed to do.” And then the White House social media posted an image of Trump wearing a crown.“You know he’s trolling us and we shouldn’t take the bait, but with this guy, every troll is a trial balloon. So here we go: Mr Trump, America will never bow before any king … not named Burger,” Colbert joked before donning a crown from the fast food chain.Meanwhile, New York’s governor, Kathy Hochul, did not back down on congestion pricing, tweeting simply: “The cameras will stay on.”The new model seems likely to survive the president’s attack – the federal government already approved it last year, and it cannot unilaterally terminate a program once it’s begun. “To put that in layman’s terms: we are already said yes to the dress!” Colbert explained. “Kleinfeld doesn’t get to have it back. We’re wearing it to the wedding, dancing all night in it and then saving it for our daughter, who will hate it.”In other news, “we live in truly paradigm-shattering times,” said Colbert. “Which is why I was not surprised to be shocked by how startled I was” when this week, California introduced a bill to recognize Bigfoot as the state’s official cryptid, a creature that people believe exists without proof that it does.“Well, that’s strange and unnecessary,” said Colbert. “California already has a mystical furry creature: Randy Quaid.”If the bill passes, it will open the door for other states to officially celebrate their own cryptids, such as New Mexico’s Jackalope, the New Jersey Devil, “and of course the most hideous beast of all: the New York Giuliani”, Colbert joked. More

    • 175 Shares156 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is using tariffs as a blunt-force tool. It won’t work | Mike Williams

      by

      Last week, Donald Trump revived a trade war from his first term, implementing a 25% tariff on all imported steel. In doing so, he’s using tariffs as a blunt-force tool under the assumption that they’ll be sufficient to jump-start the American steel industry.But that’s not the case.Tariffs are important, but they’re far from enough. Thanks to decades of disinvestment and terrible trade policies, the steel industry has grappled with decline and stagnation for years. It now faces grave threats as China continues to flood the global market with artificially cheap steel, manipulating prices in its favor. Meanwhile, the global market has begun a shift towards “clean” steel produced with electricity and hydrogen, a process the United States has only just started to support.To survive, the steel industry must modernize. To support that effort, the federal government should be implementing targeted tariffs alongside investments and incentives that help the industry grow and transition.Strategic tariffs can help protect steel manufacturing from excessive overcapacity and unfair price manipulation by foreign competitors. They can also be used to account for other effects, such as the impact of high-emissions steel production on health and the environment. For example, a tariff that considers carbon emissions in the production of a given unit of steel would help protect the domestic steel industry from foreign competitors’ cheap, high-emissions steel. The European Union is already implementing this kind of tariff, called a carbon-border adjustment mechanism. Revenue from this tariff – and others – could help our steel industry transition to clean technologies and accelerate the industry’s modernization.When tariffs are used for negotiation without being combined with other government tools, they can backfire. Already, Canada and the EU are preparing reciprocal tariffs on American steel and aluminum, which will make American steel even less desirable in those markets. Steel is a critical material in countless supply chains, from cars and planes to housing and infrastructure, and across-the-board increases in steel prices carry widespread economic risks. Trump’s 2018 tariffs on steel provide a roadmap for what we can expect: while production temporarily ticked up, exports declined almost 25% between 2018 and 2020, and after retaliation from China and Mexico, economists downgraded growth estimates, and business investment slowed.Tariffs are necessary for correcting distortions in global trade but are a poor tool for catalyzing the kind of investment needed for the long-term viability of the American steel industry, which needs to transition to clean technology to remain competitive globally. While tariffs can protect existing production capacity from being undercut, they won’t necessarily yield large infrastructure and modernization investments from domestic steel companies already operating at slim margins.But just as it has started to do for our domestic semiconductor industry, the federal government can combine fortified trade policies with structural support for the steel industry’s transformation. This could include investment tax credits for revamping steel-production facilities to use clean technologies and production tax credits for making domestic clean steel, spurring private investment across the steel industry.The federal government could leverage existing policies as well. For example, expanding the Biden administration’s “Buy America” requirements for federally funded projects, such as highway and bridge construction, to include domestically produced, 100% clean steel would strengthen demand for US-produced steel. Reviving “Buy Clean” standards for steel used in federal projects could also accelerate the industry’s modernization. These structural supports could be funded by the revenue from targeted, well-designed tariffs.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump has claimed his tariffs will create a “manufacturing boom”, turn America into a manufacturing “powerhouse” and “make America rich again”. But going all in on tariffs alone is an unsteady foundation for industrial policy. Unless Trump expands his strategy to include incentives and investment for the steel industry, his approach will be like a game of Jenga: eventually, it will all come crashing down.

      Mike Williams is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and former deputy director of the BlueGreen Alliance More

    • 138 Shares156 Views

      in US Politics

      Mexico’s Sheinbaum wins plaudits for cool head in dealings with Trump

      by

      As Donald Trump swings his sights from one region to the next, upturning diplomatic relations and confounding allies, leaders of former US partners have clashed with him and come off much the worse.But so far, one – Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum – has emerged relatively unscathed.With the US-Mexico border and the trade, drugs and migrants that cross it a focus of the Trump administration, Mexico is under intense pressure. Yet while Sheinbaum has made some concessions, she has also charmed Trump and won plaudits at home, with approval ratings that touch 80%.“Sheinbaum has kept a cool head, and the capacity to hold firm and react to Trump,” said Carlos Pérez Ricart, a political scientist. “But Mexico is in a situation of emergency with the US. And it will have to play this game for four years straight.”Sheinbaum led Morena, a leftwing populist party, to a landslide victory in June last year, and had barely taken power when Trump won re-election in November.Many wondered how Sheinbaum, a climate scientist before she became a politician, would handle the US president. But the two have struck up a relationship, with Trump describing Sheinbaum as a “marvellous woman” even as he claims Mexico is “essentially run by cartels”.Since Trump announced a plan to hit all goods imported from Mexico with a 25% tariff, citing its alleged failure to stop migrants and fentanyl entering the US, Sheinbaum has offered to negotiate, while avoiding gestures of obeisance – such as Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau’s trip to Mar-a-Lago – or defiance – like Colombian president Gustavo Petro’s tirade against Trump on X.Sheinbaum has also shown a willingness to do more on fentanyl, with Mexican security forces notching a record seizure just days after Trump’s announcement, and underlined that Mexico was already doing a great deal to keep migrants away from the US-Mexico border.View image in fullscreenAt the same time, she picked battles that allowed her to show strength to a domestic audience while avoiding direct confrontation with Trump himself – for example, threatening Google with a lawsuit after it bowed to Trump and renamed international waters in the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America on Google Maps.She has pledged to expand legal action against US gun manufacturers who produce the majority of weapons used in Mexico, and implicitly turned Trump’s rhetoric on its head by warning that her country would not tolerate an “invasion” of its national sovereignty by US forces.“Sheinbaum found the sweet spot between the submission of Trudeau and the bravado of Petro,” said Pérez Ricart.The first real crunch came earlier this month, as the deadline for Trump’s tariff threat loomed.Sheinbaum was poised to announce retaliatory measures when last-minute talks defused the situation, with Trump agreeing to delay the tariffs for a month in exchange for Mexico sending 10,000 more soldiers to the border.It is unclear how those extra soldiers will reduce the flow of fentanyl, a substance so potent that only relatively small volumes are moved, and the great majority of which is trafficked through ports of entry by US citizens.“What I see is a show for the Mexican and American publics,” said Martha Bárcena, a former Mexican ambassador to the US. “It’s clear that Trump is talking to his base and Sheinbaum to hers. But we don’t know what is happening in the conversations between them.”“The president bought time – but the negotiation is not over,” Bárcena added.The next deadline, on 4 March, for Trump’s tariffs will likely bring another round of feverish talks, as Mexico tries to convince the US of results made on fentanyl and migration.“But if we don’t know what they want or how they want to measure it, then Trump can keep threatening us from here to the end of his government,” said Bárcena.The US has also ratcheted up the pressure by adding six Mexican organised crime groups – including the Jalisco New Generation and Sinaloa cartels, two of the world’s biggest drug trafficking organisations – to its list of foreign terrorist organisations (FTOs).While the designation of cartels as FTOs itself does not authorise US military action in Mexico, some fear it is a first step towards it.Defense secretary Pete Hegseth recently said “all options will be on the table” when it comes to dealing with the cartels. “Ultimately, we will hold nothing back to secure the American people,” he added.Meanwhile, Mexico’s economy edges towards recession. The mere threat of tariffs has already helped dragged growth projections down, with Mexico’s central bank predicting 0.6% GDP growth for 2025.That makes staving off tariffs and holding the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement together only more important for Sheinbaum.“For 30 years, Mexico anchored itself to a policy of trade and development in North America. It bet its growth, its identity, on integration into North America,” said Pérez Ricart. “And now this idea is being challenged. Trump doesn’t believe in it. This is a very delicate situation for Sheinbaum, and for the country.” More

    • 225 Shares183 Views

      in US Politics

      The ‘Gulf of America’ feud is about something bigger: Trump wants to control the media | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      It might seem like a small matter, just a disagreement over whether a body of water should be called one name or another.But it’s really about much bigger things: Trump-style intimidation, a clear violation of the first amendment – and the extent to which news organizations will stick together in each other’s defense, or will comply with the powerful for the sake of their own access.Even more broadly, it is about Donald Trump’s wide-ranging effort to control the media and be able to spread propaganda and interfere with the flow of accurate information.The disagreement started soon after the president decided unilaterally that the Gulf of Mexico was to be called the Gulf of America. The executive order was one more display of Trump’s capricious and imperious way of doing things; his first month has been a relentless exercise in chaos and norm-destruction.After the Associated Press, the global news organization, decided to stick with using the long-established name which makes sense to its international readership, the Trump White House determined that punishment was in order.An AP reporter was barred from a White House press event, and since then, things have only escalated. More AP reporters barred from briefings and from the president’s plane. Access denied.What’s happening is ugly. In the US, the government doesn’t get to dictate the language journalists use in their stories. There’s a little thing called the first amendment to the US constitution that prohibits this. But the Trump administration, as usual, has its own – often unconstitutional and sometimes illegal – ideas.The actions against the AP are “retribution, plain and simple, and a shameful attempt to bully the press into ideological compliance”, said Tim Richardson of PEN America.On Thursday, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sent a letter to the White House signed by 30 news organizations, and the White House Correspondents Association is similarly registering its displeasure.But letters – even signed by many and ever so strongly worded – are easy to ignore. The solution, if there is one, will require more forceful measures: lawsuits and journalistic solidarity that might include a widespread boycotting of White House press briefings.After all, compliance is a slippery slope. What happens, for example, when Trump proclaims that Ukraine is no longer Ukraine, but to be simply called Russia? Do news organizations politely accept the rewriting of history?“What do the media do then,” queried the longtime environmental journalist Andrew Revkin, “agree to those terms so they can stay in the briefing room?”Why stop there? How about declaring by fiat that the Washington monument is now to be called the Trump monument? Why not chisel another presidential face onto Mount Rushmore and call it Mount Donald?The great renaming has begun, and George Orwell would understand exactly what’s going on.A few days ago, a media leader I admire – Jim Friedlich, the CEO of the Lenfest Institute, a non-profit organization that owns the Philadelphia Inquirer – proposed a notion that deserves serious consideration. There should be, he wrote, a “NATO for News,” in which every legitimate news organization formally pledges to defend the others. This happens now, from time to time, but Friedlich has something more deliberate in mind, he wrote in the Inquirer.All of this is happening within a larger and quite alarming anti-press context.Trump’s sidekick Elon Musk recently fantasized about a “long prison sentence” for journalists on CBS’s 60 Minutes, which has been under fire for its (normal and conventional) editing of a pre-election interview with Kamala Harris.Trump has sued the Pulitzer prize board for statements in defense of its awards to the Washington Post and the New York Times for their coverage of Trump’s relationship with Russia; he’s sued the Des Moines Register over a pre-election public opinion poll. And the Pentagon recently tossed eight traditional news organizations from office spaces to make room for pro-Maga outlets.“The Trump administration has decided that it will actively wield access as a tool to reshape the media landscape in its favor,” Oliver Darcy wrote in his media newsletter, Status. It surely will also use more legal threats and actions.Given that we’re only a month into this brave new world, some unity and stiff-spined resolve are very much in order.That won’t be easy. Getting journalists together is like herding pigeons. And no journalist wants to lose access to sources and to being where news is made. But in this era, it couldn’t be more important to push back hard.The free press may be going down, but if so, we should go down swinging.

      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 238 Shares147 Views

      in US Politics

      No matter how distasteful we find Trump and Vance over Europe, they speak a blunt truth | Simon Jenkins

      by

      It’s tough being rightwing these days. You have to find something nice to say about Donald Trump. That is hard. He thinks Kyiv started the Ukraine war and its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is a “dictator”. But what about JD Vance? The US vice-president thinks that Europe’s “threat from within”, which is putting “free speech … in retreat”, is worse than any threat from Russia or China. These men are deranged. What more is there to say?The answer is quite a lot. John Stuart Mill warned that “he who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that”. We must try to understand the case they are making, whether we agree with it or not.Yes, these men are mendacious and hypocritical. Trump claims that Zelenskyy “refuses to have elections” and that he is “very low in the polls” despite recent polling showing that he still has a majority of Ukrainian support. As for the threat to free speech “from within”, the Associated Press is banned from White House briefings for refusing to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America”, and Trump’s friend Elon Musk thinks CBS’s “lying” journalists “deserve a long prison sentence”.Trump/Vance have cut through half a century of consensual waffle about the US’s God-given destiny to lead the world to goodness and freedom. Whether the issue is peace and war, immigration or tariffs, they claim to seek the US’s self-interest and nothing else. Why should Americans fork out billions each year to defend a Europe that fails to defend itself? Why should they arm distant nations to fight their neighbours, or tip staggering amounts of aid into Africa’s basket cases?If the rest of the world has screwed up – while the US has stayed free and rich for two and a half centuries – that is the world’s problem. Americans have spent a fortune these past 50 years trying to improve life on Earth and, frankly, it has failed. To hell with diplomatic etiquette.As for Ukraine, enough is enough. Putin is not going to invade the US, nor has he any intention of invading western Europe. If Europe wants to pretend otherwise, champion Vladimir Putin’s foes, sanction and enrage him, it can do so alone.Nato was a Hitler/Stalin thing. It was just another device to make the US pay for Europe’s defence. Not any more. The US, says the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, “is no longer the primary guarantor of security in Europe”. Bang goes plausible nuclear deterrence.In reality, these talking points are not new, though they have not previously been expressed so brutally by an administration. In various guises, they have lurked beneath the surface of US isolationism for more than a century. To win an election, Woodrow Wilson swore that the first world war was “one with which we have nothing to do, whose causes cannot touch us”. Franklin Roosevelt promised the same of the second. He promised American mothers “again and again and again, your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars”. Neither kept his word.US public opinion can be patriotic when a war is on, as during Vietnam. But otherwise it has been persistently anti-interventionist. Kennedy might have pleaded global sacrifice and to “ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man”. But that was largely fine words for foreign consumption.What Trump/Vance are now saying to western Europe is get serious. The cold war is over. You know Russia has no desire to occupy western Europe. This proclaimed threat is a fantasy got up by what a wise president, Dwight Eisenhower, called the US’s military-industrial complex, long practised at extracting profit from fear. If Keir Starmer really wants “to give priority to defence”, he can slash his own health and welfare budgets to pay for it. But is he really that threatened, or does it merely sound good?Joe Biden was meticulous in the degree of help he extended to Kyiv. Now is the inevitable moment of extrication, but it will require a very difficult ceasefire to precede it. Without a substantial guarantee from Washington, it is hard to see anything other than eventual defeat for Kyiv. Ukraine could yet prove a rerun of the US in South Vietnam.With a minimum of delicacy, Trump/Vance have decided to expose the mix of platitude, bluff and profiteering that underpinned much of the cold war. Nato’s victory in 1989 suggested the need for a shift to a more nuanced multipolar world, one that was never properly defined.Trump/Vance are right that a realignment is badly needed. They have chosen the worst possible moment and the worst possible way to say it. We can be as rude to them as we like, but they will have US democracy on their side.

      Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist More