Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares128 Views

      in Elections

      Let’s Argue About Our Phones (and Tech in General)

      by

      More from our inbox:Excuse Me, but Who Are You Calling Stupid?Musk Has Seen ‘State Capture’ BeforeThe Autocrats’ Playbook221A/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Only Phone You Need Is a Dumb One,” by August Lamm (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 2):Three cheers for Ms. Lamm, an anti-tech activist.I am a boomer who grew up meeting people face to face, talking with family members at the dinner table, playing outdoors, writing with a ballpoint pen and going to the library to get information. So it’s refreshing to see a young person striving to restore our basic sanity — our basic humanity, in fact — by encouraging us to dump harmful, unnecessary technology.We’re living in a dangerously dizzying time in which high tech threatens to end our very existence.Dennis QuickCharleston, S.C.To the Editor:August Lamm announces that she is “on a mission … to get people off their smartphones.” Why has she made it her mission to change the lives of strangers who have never asked for her intervention? Because “we’ve become so used to selecting partners on a sterile, simulated interface that we’ve lost the ability to make spontaneous, messy connections in real life.”But I often make spontaneous, messy connections in the real life of cyberspace, which lets me make these connections based on mutual interests and values rather than mere propinquity.The only opinion I need about how to live my social life is my own, supplemented by suggestions from friends who actually know something about me.Felicia Nimue AckermanProvidence, R.I.To the Editor:August Lamm is 29 years old, so she may be too young to know: Seventy years ago, everyone in the United States smoked, or at least it seemed that way. Today, far fewer Americans smoke. I suspect that social media is headed in the same direction.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares178 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Fired, Then Unfired, National Nuclear Security Administration Employees. What Were Their Jobs?

      by

      When termination letters were sent to employees across the federal government last week, the Trump administration affected an agency charged with the readiness of America’s nuclear arsenal.The move also shined a spotlight on the agency, the National Nuclear Security Administration, which few Americans likely think of often, if ever, but has a monumental responsibility.Here’s a rundown of what the obscure agency does and the potential reasons that the Trump administration had to quickly adjust some of the firings:What is the agency’s mission?The National Nuclear Security Administration maintains, refurbishes and keeps safe the United States’ more than 3,000 nuclear warheads. It also supervises the production of new nuclear warheads. It has a $25 billion annual budget and more than 57,000 employees. Congress also put the agency in charge of thwarting nuclear proliferation, researching and developing nuclear propulsion systems for submarines and directing national laboratories that provide key scientific and engineering knowledge for the U.S. nuclear weapons system.Those laboratories include the historical Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, where the top secret Manhattan Project took place during World War II.To what department does it belong?Confusingly, despite its long-held, pivotal role in the military’s defense strategy, the agency sits within the Department of Energy, rather than the Department of Defense.In 2017, after accepting the offer to serve as energy secretary in the first Trump administration, Rick Perry was bewildered that the job entailed supervising the maintenance and production of the most fearsome weapons in the world.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The MAGA Youth Remind Me of the 1980s and Not In a Good Way

      by

      When I was 7, I sent a birthday card to President Ronald Reagan. It was the 1980s. I lived in rural Alabama, and pretty much all the adults around me were loudly on board with what was then the Reagan revolution, which had swept Jimmy Carter and his timid liberal apologists for America’s greatness out of power and made the presidency, especially to my young eyes, a glamorous exemplar of everything good about the country. I remember the seductive appeal of the story he told about America as a global superpower, a “shining city on a hill” where anyone could be successful with enough elbow grease, so long as those meddlesome big-government liberals didn’t get in the way.Being young and preppy and rich back then looked cool to me. Within a few years I had a crush on Alex P. Keaton on “Family Ties,” who horrified his ex-hippie parents with his love of heartless capitalism and harebrained business schemes. I didn’t see that the show was making fun of him, too. The young conservatives of the ’80s were all molded in his image (and he in theirs).Now, in 2025, some young people (who were not yet born in the age of Reagan) are renouncing the progressive politics of their millennial elders and acting like it’s the ’80s again. There was a marked shift toward Donald Trump by voters under 30 according to exit polling in last November’s election, so maybe they are just dressing the part. But when I read about a group of younger MAGA supporters reveling in their victory at the member’s only Centurion New York (declaring, as one 27-year-old in attendance did, that Trump “is making it sexy to be Republican again. He’s making it glamorous to be a Republican again”) or see photos or watch videos of MAGA youth at, say, Turning Point USA events run by Charlie Kirk, a preppy right-wing influencer whose organization recruits high schoolers and college students to be soldiers in the culture war, or in Brock Colyar’s New York magazine cover story about the young right-wing elite at various inauguration parties — I get a very distinct feeling of déjà vu. It’s laced with nostalgia but grounded in dread.These young right-wingers have a slightly modernized late ’80s look. I doubt they use Aqua Net or Drakkar Noir, but I imagine their parties have the feel of a Brat Pack movie where almost everyone is or aspires to be a WASPy James Spader villain. Few of the people I’m talking about were even alive in the 1980s, and so they can’t understand what it means for Mr. Trump to be so stuck in that time, still fighting its battles. Now, instead of renouncing hippie counterculture, they’ve turned against whatever their generation considers to be woke. The incumbent liberal they detested was Joe Biden instead of Jimmy Carter. Instead of junk bonds, many of them plan to get rich by investing in crypto and trust that this administration will pursue or exceed Reagan levels of deregulation to facilitate it. After all, Project 2025 mentions Reagan 71 times.Mr. Trump’s ’80s were, until now, his glory years, when he built Trump Tower, published “The Art of the Deal” and called the tabloids on himself using a made-up name, John Barron. He was routinely flattered in the tabloids thanks to the excellent public relations skills of Mr. Barron, popped up regularly on TV and wrestling promotions and started making movie cameos. Urban elites looked down on him — Spy magazine called him a “short-fingered vulgarian” — but he embodied what many people who weren’t rich thought rich people looked like, lived like, and, in his shamelessness and selfishness, acted like.More important for us now, his formative understanding of politics seems to have been shaped by that era, when America, humbled by the Vietnam War, Watergate, crime and the oil crisis, was stuck with a cardigan-wearing president who suggested that we all turn down our thermostats for the collective good. Reagan told us to turn the thermostat way up, live large and swagger again. Hippies became yuppies, at least in the media’s imagination.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      This Is What the Courts Can Do if Trump Defies Them

      by

      Are we heading toward a full-blown constitutional crisis? For the first time in decades, the country is wrestling with this question. It was provoked by members of the Trump administration, including Russell Vought, the influential director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Stephen Miller, the deputy White House chief of staff, who have hinted or walked right up to the edge of saying outright that officials should refuse to obey a court order against certain actions of the administration. President Trump has said he would obey court orders — though on Saturday he posted on social media, “He who saves his country does not violate any law.”Some have argued that if the administration is defiant there is little the courts can do. But while the courts do not have a standing army, there are actually several escalating measures they can take to counter a defiant executive branch.The fundamental principle of the rule of law is that once the legal process, including appeals and stay applications, has reached completion, public officials must obey an order of the courts. This country’s constitutional traditions are built on, and depend upon, that understanding.A profound illustration is President Richard Nixon’s compliance with the Supreme Court decision requiring him to turn over the secret White House tape recordings he had made, even though Nixon knew that doing so would surely end his presidency.If the Trump administration ignores a court order, it would represent the start of a full-blown constitutional crisis.The courts rarely issue binding orders to the president, so these orders are not likely to be directed at President Trump personally. His executive orders and other commands are typically enforced by subordinate officials in the executive branch, and any court order — initially, it would come from the Federal District Court — would be directed at them.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Team Leaves Behind an Alliance in Crisis

      by

      European leaders felt certain about one thing after a whirlwind tour by Trump officials — they were entering a new world where it was harder to depend on the United States.Many critical issues were left uncertain — including the fate of Ukraine — at the end of Europe’s first encounter with an angry and impatient Trump administration. But one thing was clear: An epochal breach appears to be opening in the Western alliance.After three years of war that forged a new unity within NATO, the Trump administration has made clear it is planning to focus its attention elsewhere: in Asia, Latin America, the Arctic and anywhere President Trump believes the United States can obtain critical mineral rights.European officials who emerged from a meeting with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said they now expect that tens of thousands of American troops will be pulled out of Europe — the only question is how many, and how fast.And they fear that in one-on-one negotiations with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Mr. Trump is on his way to agreeing to terms that could ultimately put Moscow in a position to own a fifth of Ukraine and to prepare to take the rest in a few years’ time. Mr. Putin’s ultimate goal, they believe, is to break up the NATO alliance.Those fears spilled out on the stage of the Munich Security Conference on Saturday morning, when President Volodymyr Zelensky declared that “Ukraine will never accept deals made behind our backs.” He then called optimistically for the creation of an “army of Europe,” one that includes his now battle-hardened Ukrainian forces. He was advocating, in essence, a military alternative to NATO, a force that would make its own decisions without the influence — or the military control — of the United States.Mr. Zelensky predicted that Mr. Putin would soon seek to manipulate Mr. Trump, speculating that the Russian leader would invite the new American president to the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany. “Putin will try to get the U.S. president standing on Red Square on May 9 this year,” he told a jammed hall of European diplomats and defense and intelligence officials, “not as a respected leader but as a prop in his own performance.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Legal Shakedowns Won’t End With the Adams Case

      by

      Every occupying force knows the tactic: If you want to cow a large population, pick one of its most respected citizens and demand he debase himself and pledge fealty. If he refuses, execute him and move on to the next one. This is how the Trump Justice Department thinks it will bring U.S. attorneys’ offices around the country under its control, starting last week with the Southern District of New York. Firing or demanding the resignation of a previous administration’s top prosecutors has become standard. After all, elections matter, and a new president should be free to set new priorities.But the Trump Justice Department’s twisted loyalty game is something new, dangerous and self-defeating. And this round probably won’t be the last.In instructing the Southern District to drop the case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York, Emil Bove III, the acting deputy attorney general, found a useful loyalty test. In his letter to Danielle Sassoon, the interim Southern District U.S. attorney, Mr. Bove gave two transparently inappropriate reasons: a baseless claim that the prosecution was politicized, which her powerful resignation letter demolished, and a barely concealed suggestion that a dismissal would provide leverage over Mr. Adams and ensure his cooperation in the administration’s efforts to deport undocumented immigrants. As Hagan Scotten, who led the Adams prosecution and has also resigned, nicely put it, “No system of ordered liberty can allow the government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.”When Ms. Sassoon, to her considerable credit, refused to debase herself and her office by proceeding on these rationales, Mr. Bove moved on to lawyers in Washington. Each resigned, until finally he found officials who would join him in signing.I don’t know why the Southern District was the first office in Mr. Bove’s cross hairs. Perhaps Mr. Adams’s lawyers, with connections to President Trump and Elon Musk, were first in a line of cronies seeking sweet deals for their clients. Perhaps Mr. Adams’s pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago gave his case priority. Perhaps Mr. Bove has demanded similar demonstrations of loyalty from other offices, which quietly caved. Or perhaps Mr. Bove, an alumnus of the Southern District, thought its reputation for independence required it to be the first brought to heel.At the nation’s founding, the Southern District quickly assumed importance because the New York Customs House was the source of a large chunk of the government’s revenue. Its present culture was established when President Theodore Roosevelt recruited an elite New York lawyer, Henry Stimson, later a secretary of war and secretary of state, to go after abusive monopolies. Merit, not the usual patronage concerns, drove Mr. Stimson’s recruitment of young lawyers, including Felix Frankfurter and Emory Buckner, who would become an esteemed leader of the office.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Disrupter in Chief Can’t End a War Like This

      by

      Can a nation be truly free and independent if it doesn’t possess a nuclear arsenal?That question is being answered right now, on the battlefields of eastern Ukraine. If a nation’s conventional military can stop an aggressive, nuclear-armed nation in a defensive struggle, then there is hope for the viability of conventional deterrence.If, however, a conventionally armed nation is doomed to fail — because it lacks the resources (including the allies) to defend itself — then look for more countries to pursue nuclear weapons. They will choose self-defense over subservience.So far, most of the discussion of the risk of nuclear war in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been focused on a perceived immediate danger — that Russia will use nuclear weapons to achieve victory on the battlefield or to retaliate for Ukraine’s use of Western weapons on Russian soil.The hovering threat of Russia’s nuclear arsenal is one explanation for the Trump administration’s shocking weakness in its dealings with Russia. It will stand tall when confronting allies like Denmark, Canada, Mexico and Panama. It will threaten war crimes when dealing with a puny, diminished military force like Hamas.But regarding Russia? Consider the following news items from the past few days alone.Donald Trump initially refused to promise that he would even include Ukraine in his negotiations with Russia, as if Ukraine were a mere pawn on the chessboard. (He reversed himself and said later that “of course” Ukraine would have a place at the table.)He spoke to Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, an event Russians celebrated. The Russian stock market soared, and a Russian lawmaker said the call “broke the West’s blockade.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Aides to Meet With Russian Officials About Ukraine Next Week

      by

      Three top foreign policy aides in the Trump administration plan to meet with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia next week to discuss a path to ending the war in Ukraine, the first substantial talks between the superpowers on the conflict.The meeting would come less than a week after President Trump spoke on the phone with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Mr. Trump told reporters afterward that talks on ending Russia’s war in Ukraine would take place in Saudi Arabia. The plan for meetings next week in Riyadh was described to reporters on Saturday by a person familiar with the schedule who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss national security concerns.The meeting will most likely draw criticism from some top Ukrainian officials. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said Thursday that his country must be involved in any talks over its own fate, a statement he made after learning about the Trump-Putin call. Ukrainian officials fear Mr. Trump could try to reach a deal with the Russians that would not have strong security guarantees or viable terms for an enduring peace for Ukraine, which has been trying to repel a full-scale Russian invasion for three years.The top American officials who plan to attend are Marco Rubio, the secretary of state; Mike Waltz, the national security adviser; and Steve Witkoff, the Middle East envoy who also works on Ukraine-Russia issues, the person familiar with the schedule said.When asked whether any Ukrainian officials would attend, the person did not say — a sign that Ukraine will probably not take part in the talks, despite Mr. Trump saying this week that Ukrainians would participate in discussions in Saudi Arabia.Mr. Rubio and Vice President JD Vance met with Mr. Zelensky at the Munich Security Conference on Friday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More