United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Barrage of Trump’s Awful Ideas Is Doing Exactly What It’s Supposed To

      by

      The first month of the second Trump presidency has put the lie to the widespread wisdom that Donald Trump has no ideology and no ideas, only an insatiable thirst for power and money. Trump has shown that he has ideas. So many ideas. They are just really bad ideas:The United States can own, ethnically cleanse and redevelop Gaza as a luxury resort. The U.S. will buy Greenland and take possession of the Panama Canal. The government will become more efficient by cutting the Department of Education, U.S.A.I.D., medical and science research and many many jobs. D.E.I. caused the collision of an Army helicopter and a passenger plane in the air near Washington, D.C. Immigrants and transgender people are an existential threat to Americans. The president can and should rule by decree. These are all ideas, in the sense that they are opinions, beliefs or expressions of a possible course of action.Some of these ideas would have seemed unthinkable just weeks ago. But now that they have been thought and uttered by the man in possession of the world’s biggest megaphone, all of us are forced to engage with them. Otherwise sane people start debating questions like: Could the U.S. really take over Gaza? Would Egypt or Jordan go along with the ethnic cleansing project? Can trillions of dollars really be cut from the federal budget with a few keystrokes? Is there evidence that D.E.I. caused the crash? Are all immigrants criminals? Do trans people exist? Did the founders intend to check the power of the executive?Flooding the ether with bad ideas isn’t Trump’s unique know-how — it’s standard autocratic fare. Hannah Arendt used the word “preposterous” to describe the ideas that underpinned 20th-century totalitarian regimes. Bad ideas do a lot of the work of building autocracy. By forcing us to engage with them, they make our conversations, our media and our society dumber. By conjuring the unimaginable — radical changes in the geography of human relationships, the government and the world itself as we have known it — they plunge us into an anxious state in which thinking is difficult. That kind of anxiety is key to totalitarian control.Life under autocracy can be terrifying, as it already is in the United States for immigrants and trans people. But those of us with experience can tell you that most of the time, for most people, it’s not frightening. It is stultifying. It’s boring. It feels like trying to see and breathe under water — because you are submerged in bad ideas, being discussed badly, being reflected in bad journalism and, eventually, in bad literature and bad movies.Much has been said about the Democrats’ failure to sound the alarm loudly enough, fast enough or broadly enough as Trump has mounted his campaign of destruction. Some of the criticism is not entirely fair. The American system of checks and balances isn’t designed to move as fast as Trump is moving or to stop a bad-faith individual intent on breaking it. A real problem, though, is that Democrats’ objections to these ideas have been primarily procedural. Trump understands politics as the interplay of power and ideology. His opponents see politics as procedure. The contrast has never been starker — and never has the Democrats’ technocratic, legalistic approach been more detrimental to the cause of democracy. It’s not Trump who doesn’t have ideas; it’s the people who should be fighting to stop Trump’s autocratic breakthrough.It is not enough to say that Trump and his crony Elon Musk are staging a coup, though they are. Many of the people who voted for Trump want to see him smash what he has successfully framed as a useless, wasteful government. It is not enough to say that Trump is destroying American democracy. Many of the people who voted for him did so because they have long felt that the system as it is constituted doesn’t represent their interests — and both Trump and Musk have argued that they are wresting democracy back from unelected bureaucrats. It is not enough to say that Trump’s actions have caused a constitutional crisis or that his executive orders may violate laws passed by Congress. Many of the people who voted for Trump longed to see their frustrations addressed by decisive, spectacular action, which he is delivering.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

      Who Will Stand Up to Trump at High Noon?

      by

      When I was a teenager, my older brother took me to see “Shane.”I wasn’t that into westerns, and the movie just seemed to be about a little boy running after Alan Ladd in the wilderness of the Tetons, screaming “Sha-a-a-a-ne, come back!”I came across the movie on Turner Classic Movies the other night, and this time I understood why the George Stevens film is considered one of best of all time. (The A.F.I. ranks “Shane, come back!” as one of the 50 top movie lines of all time.)The parable on good and bad involves a fight between cattle ranchers and homesteaders. Ladd’s Shane is on the side of the honest homesteaders — including an alluring married woman, played by Jean Arthur. Arriving in creamy fringed buckskin, he is an enigmatic golden gunslinger who goes to work as a farmhand. Jack Palance plays the malevolent hired gun imported by the brutal cattle ranchers to drive out the homesteaders. Palance is dressed in a black hat and black vest. In case you don’t get the idea, a dog skulks away as Palance enters a saloon.It’s so easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys, the right thing to do versus the wrong. Law and order wasn’t a cliché or a passé principle that could be kicked aside if it interfered with baser ambitions.The 1953 film is also a meditation on American masculinity in the wake of World War II. A real man doesn’t babble or whine or brag or take advantage. He stands up for the right thing and protects those who can’t protect themselves from bullies.I loved seeing all those sentimental, corny ideals that America was built on, even if those ideals have often been betrayed.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      I’ve Covered Authoritarians Abroad. Trump’s Actions Look Familiar.

      by

      President Trump’s second term dizzies many Americans, but I find it oddly familiar — an echo of the time I lived in China as a reporter.Americans sometimes misperceive Trump’s actions as a fire hose of bizarre and disparate moves, a kaleidoscope of craziness. Yet there is a method to it, and I’ve seen parallels in authoritarian countries I’ve covered around the world over the past four decades.It’s not that I offer a unified theory of Trumpism, but there is a coherence there that requires a coherent response. Strongmen seek power — political power but also other currencies, including wealth and a glittering place in history — through a pattern of behavior that is increasingly being replicated in Washington.But let’s get this out of the way: I think parallels with 1930s Germany are overdrawn and diminish the horror of the Third Reich; the word “fascism” may likewise muddy more than clarify. Having covered genuinely totalitarian and genocidal regimes, I can assure you that this is not that.Democracy is not an on-off switch but a dial. We won’t become North Korea, but we could look more like Viktor Orban’s Hungary. This is a question not of ideology but of power grabs: Leftists eroded democracy in Venezuela and Nicaragua, and rightists did so in Hungary, India and (for a time) the Philippines and Poland. The U.S. is the next test case.When authoritarians covet power, they pursue several common strategies.First, they go after checks and balances within the government, usually by running roughshod over other arms of government. China, for example, has a Supreme Court and a National People’s Congress — but they are supine. Here in the United States, many Republican members of Congress have similarly been reduced to adoring cheerleaders.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Refuses to Immediately Reinstate Inspectors General Fired by Trump

      by

      A federal judge denied eight former inspector generals who were fired by President Trump immediate reinstatement to their jobs on Friday and excoriated their lawyers, saying that their emergency request had wasted the court’s limited time.The ruling by Judge Ana C. Reyes of the Federal District Court in Washington marked a rare victory for the Trump administration in the barrage of lawsuits that has followed its attempts to slash the federal work force, freeze funding, dismantle agencies and install officials loyal to the president. But it is not necessarily permanent: Judge Reyes criticized the case more on procedural than substantive grounds and allowed it to proceed on a less urgent schedule.Still, in a roughly 10-minute hearing scheduled just hours before it was held via a conference call, she repeatedly berated the plaintiffs’ lawyers for the manner in which they brought the case. She also faulted what she considered to be their weak arguments for immediately reinstating the eight inspectors general, who performed oversight of the Departments of Defense, State, Education, Agriculture, Labor, Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services, as well as the Small Business Administration.At one point Judge Reyes, who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., went as far as to threaten the plaintiffs with court sanctions if they did not immediately withdraw their emergency request so the case could proceed on a slower timeline. The plaintiffs initially refused, but eventually assented after further criticism from Judge Reyes.President Trump has moved swiftly to purge federal agencies in his first weeks in office, targeting many executive branch officials whose positions are supposed to be protected from being fired without cause. Inspectors general, who monitor their assigned agencies for fraud, waste and other misbehavior, are among those officials who have statutory restrictions on how they can be fired, ones that Congress tightened after Mr. Trump dismissed some inspectors general during his first term.The inspectors general in this case had argued that a judge’s order this week to temporarily reinstate another government watchdog — Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel — while that court challenge progresses had supported their own request to have the inspectors general immediately reinstated while their case proceeds.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

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Prominent Cryptocurrency Investor Faces Senate Tax Inquiry

      by

      The Finance Committee’s top Democrat sent a letter last month to Dan Morehead, the founder of Pantera Capital, about the investigation.A Senate committee is investigating whether a prominent cryptocurrency investor violated federal tax law to save hundreds of millions of dollars after he moved to Puerto Rico, a popular offshore tax haven, according to a letter reviewed by The New York Times.Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, sent the letter on Jan. 9 to Dan Morehead, the founder of Pantera Capital, one the largest crypto investment firms.The letter said the Senate Finance Committee was investigating tax compliance by wealthy Americans who had moved to Puerto Rico to take advantage of a special tax break for the island’s residents that can reduce tax bills to zero.The investigation was focused on people who had improperly applied the tax break to avoid paying taxes on income that was earned outside Puerto Rico, according to the letter.“In most cases, the majority of the gain is actually U.S. source income, reportable on U.S. tax returns, and subject to U.S. tax,” the letter said.The letter requested detailed information from Mr. Morehead about $850 million in investment profits he made after moving to Puerto Rico in 2020, noting that he “may have treated” the gains as exempt from U.S. taxes.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

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      JD Vance Is in Charge of Getting a TikTok Deal. Can He Find a Buyer?

      by

      The vice president is in a tricky position as he looks for a deal to save the popular short-form video app, which is subject to being banned in the U.S. if it is not sold to a non-Chinese owner.Last week, an aide for Vice President JD Vance reached out to the billionaire Frank McCourt.The topic at hand was Mr. McCourt’s $20 billion long-shot offer to buy TikTok, the Chinese-owned video app. Mr. Vance’s aide wanted details about the bid, which was one of several public overtures for the app, according to two people familiar with the process.The inquiry was one of Mr. Vance’s earliest moves toward corralling a deal for the popular app after President Trump tapped him earlier this month to find an arrangement to save it. TikTok was recently banned in the United States under a new federal law that prohibited distribution in the country if it was not sold to a non-Chinese owner, though Mr. Trump delayed enforcement of the law until early April.Mr. Trump’s assignment plunges Mr. Vance into a fraught geopolitical and corporate negotiation over the fate of the app, which counts some 170 million American users. It is not clear who could buy TikTok in the United States, or even whether China or ByteDance, TikTok’s owner, would allow a sale. And the Trump administration is under scrutiny for its decision to disregard the law’s Jan. 19 deadline for a sale or a ban. Mr. Vance’s involvement ensures that he and Mr. Trump — both of whom once supported banning TikTok because of national security concerns — have some public accountability for saving it, according to analysts and people involved in negotiations for a sale. Tapping Mr. Vance could also help lend negotiations more credibility, said Peter Harrell, a former Biden White House official who worked on national security, tech and economic issues.“What he brings to the role is everybody’s going to take his call and take him seriously,” Mr. Harrell said. “Most people, given Trump has been pretty clear he’s tapped Vance for this, will assume that Vance is speaking for the president.”An electronic billboard for TikTok in Times Square. Mr. Vance’s involvement adds some credibility to the White House’s efforts to find new owner for TikTok.Juan Arredondo for The New York TimesWe 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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Why Career Prosecutors Signed a Dismissal Request in Eric Adams Case

      by

      About two dozen lawyers in the Justice Department’s public integrity section conferred on Friday morning to wrestle with a demand from a Trump political appointee that many of them viewed as improper: One of them needed to sign the official request to dismiss corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams.The acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove III, told the shellshocked staff of the section responsible for prosecuting public corruption cases that he needed a signature on court motions. The lawyers knew that those who had already refused had resigned, and they could also be forced out.By Friday afternoon, a veteran prosecutor in the section, Ed Sullivan, agreed to submit the request in Manhattan federal court to shield his colleagues from being fired, or resigning en masse, according to three people briefed on the interaction, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.The filing landed in the court docket Friday evening, bearing the name of Mr. Sullivan and that of a criminal division supervisor as well as the signature of Mr. Bove.Mr. Bove, the filing said, “concluded that dismissal is necessary because of appearances of impropriety and risks of interference with the 2025 elections in New York City.” The stated justification was remarkable because of its acknowledgment that politics, not the evidence in the case, had played a guiding role.On Thursday, six lawyers — the Trump-appointed acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and five prosecutors in Washington — resigned rather than accede to Mr. Bove’s demands. On Friday, a seventh stepped down, writing in his resignation letter that only a “fool” or a “coward” would sign off on the dismissal.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

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Funding Freeze Raises a New Question: Is the Government’s Word Good?

      by

      As the Trump administration continues to withhold billions of dollars for climate and clean energy spending — despite two federal judges ordering the money released — concerns are growing that the United States government could skip out on its legal commitments.Typically, when the federal government spends money through a grant or a loan program approved by Congress, it signs a legally binding agreement, known as an obligation, to deliver the money. Companies, states and other recipients often spend millions of dollars to buy equipment, hire workers, build facilities and more, fully expecting that the federal government will make good on its promise to reimburse the funds.That expectation has been upended by the new administration.Following an order by President Trump, federal agencies, including the Energy Department, Environmental Protection Agency and the Agriculture Department, have paused funding for a wide range of obligated grants related to the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, sweeping laws that provided billions for climate and energy programs.In just a few weeks, the consequences have begun to be felt nationwide. School districts that planned to use promised federal dollars to buy electric school buses have seen their accounts frozen. Farmers and store owners that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money to replace old refrigeration systems or install solar panels are finding their requests for reimbursements delayed.Two federal judges have explicitly ordered the Trump administration to end its freeze and let the money flow again. On Monday, one of those judges, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island federal court, said the White House was defying his order by withholding funds.Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law at the George Washington University Law School, said the administration’s actions had jeopardized the integrity of federal contracting.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