US news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares26 Views

      in US Politics

      Aspiring autocrats are always more dangerous the second time they are in office | Jan-Werner Müeller

      by

      In retrospect, the weeks between the election and Donald Trump’s first executive order seem like a phoney war. Everyone knew that something bad was about to happen, but there was still a sense it might not be so bad. After all, Trump’s first four years had been less terrible than observers predicted. That was always a mistake: aspiring autocrats are most dangerous when they come to power a second time. But even those bracing for shocks could hardly have expected Trump to be so blatantly lawless and destructive once back in office. This approach – sabotage bureaucracies, violate the constitution, then see what happens – might now be applied to education.Trump’s choice of education secretary, pro-wrestling billionaire Linda McMahon, seemed positively harmless compared with figures like the walking talking threat to public health known as Robert F Kennedy Jr. Though she has an accusation of having enabled the sexual abuse of young boys in the wrestling world hanging over her, McMahon denies all wrongdoing.At least unlike Trump’s first education secretary, Betsy DeVos, McMahon seemed to have no particular investment in charter schools and predatory for-profit colleges. Perhaps nothing worse might happen than a push for conventional Republican policies, in particular voucher schemes that end up helping wealthier parents who are already sending their children to private schools.True, Trump’s executive orders also affirmed a desire for more “patriotic education”, possibly based on another amateur whitewashed American history as first formulated by his ill-fated 1776 commission. But these are no more than bombastic sounding wishlists: the federal government does not control curricula and most spending on education is local or strictly determined by Congress.Yet, the surprise is that Trump has not pursued the strategy familiar from other far-right populists in power, namely what scholars call “autocratic legalism”: observe formal procedures when legislating, but violate the spirit of the law and, ultimately, the constitution, as you pursue a relentless concentration of power. Despite the Republican control of all branches of government, Trump (and Elon Musk) have opted for a strategy of chaos, sabotage and evident lawlessness: destroying USAid and quite possibly now trying the same with the Department of Education.As lawyers have been shouting from the rooftops, departments cannot be undone by executive order; Congress needs to act. That was one reason why some observers suggested sitting back and relaxing before Trump came back into office; after all, he had threatened to kill the Department of Education before. In fact, the Republican party has been committed to the idea ever since the 1980s.Yet, Trump clearly feels emboldened to adopt the conduct long familiar from his businesses: just see how far you can push and see who will really sue. Of course, the imperative – break things, and if they were really important, someone else will put them back together – is also part of the worldview of his new Silicon Valley allies. And Trump might be forgiven for thinking that, after years of never having been held to account for anything – from allegedly inciting an insurrection to mishandling documents – he is the most unconstrained president ever.Courts might eventually put a stop to Trump’s sabotage of the American state. His administration might just disaggregate some of the functions of the Department of Education, let private actors take over loans and the states be responsible for special education (all of which will make the most vulnerable kids worse off), plus get rid of whatever Musk happens not to like on a particular day and then declare victory. But a lot of damage will have been done, including the intimidation of plenty of administrators in colleges and universities and possibly schools, which will do Trump’s bidding even in the absence of valid laws. Florida has set the example; and in the face of legal uncertainty, many adapt and self-censor.One executive order instructed the justice department to initiate a compliance investigation of a private institution of higher education with an endowment of more than $1bn. Deans may well be inclined to obey in advance and abolish anything smacking of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) – which like critical race theory, has now been redefined into an all-purpose political weapon. The spending freeze of National Science Foundation grants, possibly followed by a devastating attack on the institution itself through mass layoffs and the scramble to find the tiniest traces of DEI in existing projects – such as, God forbid, the word “women” – will have a major chilling effect.Trump does not have the authority fundamentally to reorient education; but, as we have by now seen, lack of authority does not equate to refraining from power grabs. The shock-and-awe tactics could further radicalize rightwing activists; civil rights enforcement in schools and universities over which Trumpists will have control might be both weakened and weaponized. One thing is sure: as with USAid, Trump’s actions manage to inflict harm on many individuals and cause major national self-harm at the same time.

      Jan-Werner Müller is a professor of politics at Princeton University and is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 163 Shares32 Views

      in US Politics

      What will Trump 2.0 mean for the global world order? | Stephen Wertheim

      by

      Many assumed that Donald Trump’s second term as president of the United States would turn out like his first. But this time looks to be different. In his opening weeks, the US president has taken a flurry of actions he never attempted before, wielding sweeping tariffs against the US’s neighbors, upending portions of the federal workforce, and attempting to change constitutionally enshrined citizenship laws through executive order.The early signs on foreign policy are no exception. In his inaugural address, Trump said next to nothing about the issues that have dominated US foreign policy for decades – matters of war and peace in Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Instead, he spoke of expanding US territory in the western hemisphere (and going to Mars), harking back explicitly to the 19th-century tradition of manifest destiny. Astoundingly, Trump mentioned China solely for the purpose of accusing it, inaccurately, of operating the Panama canal. When he turned beyond the Americas, Trump’s most telling line signaled restraint: “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”Then Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, made even more pointed and intriguing remarks. Rubio ran for president in 2016 vowing to usher in a “new American century”, the mantra of post-cold war neoconservatives. But days ago, sitting for his first lengthy interview as America’s chief diplomat, he emphasized the need for a foreign policy grounded in the US national interest and said:“So it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the cold war, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet. We face that now with China and to some extent Russia, and then you have rogue states like Iran and North Korea you have to deal with.”For a US secretary of state to announce that the world is now “multipolar”, or is inevitably heading in that direction, is historically significant. Hillary Clinton also used the m-word in 2009 at the start of her tenure in the same role, but she invoked it less than affirmatively: Clinton professed a desire to move “away from a multipolar world and toward a multipartner world”. Rubio, by contrast, meant that a world of multiple poles or powers is to be accepted, not resisted. He also implied that US foreign policy had long been off course, having taken unrivaled American dominance to be a normal or necessary condition when in fact it was destined to disappear. At the end of the cold war, Rubio explained: “We were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem.”The message: no longer.Still, no longer could lead down any number of roads. Read against the Trump administration’s Americas-centric start, Rubio’s comments have provoked dread – or excitement, depending on the perspective – that the United States will radically reduce its political-military role beyond the western hemisphere even as it asserts its power within the Americas.For traditional figures in Washington, the fear is that Trump 2.0 will give China and Russia a free hand to command “spheres of influence” in their regions, so long as they permit the United States to police its own sphere. For advocates of US restraint overseas, the hope is that Trump will deliver on his promises to end the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, shift more responsibility for defending Europe on to the shoulders of European allies, and seek to find a stable if competitive mode of coexistence with China. If Rubio thinks the world is now multipolar, presumably it follows that the United States should abandon the approach it pursued in the bygone age of unipolarity – a grand strategy of “primacy” or “hegemony”, as scholars call it.Perhaps. Rubio, though, was not nearly so conclusive. Throughout the interview, he referred to the governments in Moscow and Beijing in adversarial terms, which hardly suggest a willingness to grant them spheres of influence. Nor is there a straight line from acknowledging the loss of unipolarity to abandoning primacy. Even in a crowded, competitive landscape, the United States could try to remain militarily stronger than every rival, retain all its globe-spanning defense commitments, and maintain a large troop presence in Asia, Europe and the Middle East simultaneously. Those are the elements of primacy. Rubio did not renounce any of them. The United States, in short, could still pursue primacy without enjoying unipolarity.Indeed, in associating multipolarity with the existence of “multi-great powers”, Rubio may have meant to affirm the outlook of the first Trump administration, which adopted “great power competition” as a watchword. For Trump 1.0, as for the Biden administration that followed, the rise of China and the assertion of Russia did not compel Washington to pare back its military commitments and presence. Quite the contrary. Over the two presidencies, Nato enlarged to four new countries, the US military presence in the Middle East (excluding Afghanistan) remained stable, and the United States deepened security cooperation with Ukraine, Taiwan and others.So far, the appearance of formidable rivals has done less to discipline US ambitions than to furnish US global primacy with a new rationale – to stand up to the aggressive and revisionist activities of America’s adversaries. As Rubio put it: “China wants to be the most powerful country in the world and they want to do so at our expense, and that’s not in our national interest, and we’re going to address it.”But Rubio did signal more restraint than a continuation of business as usual. Just after his remarks on multipolarity, he noted that the second world war ended 80 years ago and that “if you look at the scale and scope of destruction and loss of life that occurred, it would be far worse if we had a global conflict now.” Since the end of the cold war, US leaders have invoked the second world war almost exclusively to exhort the country to lead the world. Rubio, by contrast, did so to caution against the dangers of overreach. He continued:“You have multiple countries now who have the capability to end life on Earth. And so we need to really work hard to avoid armed conflict as much as possible, but never at the expense of our national interest. So that’s the tricky balance.”Quite so. In recent years, the risk of conflict between major powers has grown acute. The war in Ukraine – in which one major power is fighting directly on its borders and the other heavily arming its opponent – had no parallel during the cold war. A US-China military conflict over Taiwan would be ruinous. In a country unused to paying noticeable costs for foreign policy choices, and a world that no longer remembers the last general war, Rubio delivered a salutary message.The policy test, however, is still to come. If the new administration is serious about avoiding catastrophic wars, without exposing core US interests to great power predation, it will make a determined, sustained diplomatic effort to end the war in Ukraine and minimize the risks of escalation if initial talks do not succeed. It will explore politically difficult ways to reach a modus vivendi with China, including by offering assurances that the United States does not seek to keep Taiwan permanently separate from the mainland, a red line for Beijing.The new administration’s opening moves suggest some intention to find a more sustainable and less confrontational approach toward the world’s major powers. But if unipolarity is dead, the lure of primacy remains very much alive.

      Stephen Wertheim is a senior fellow in the American statecraft program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School and Catholic University More

    • 188 Shares30 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘They’re hurting our children, our babies’: US schools on high alert amid Trump immigration raids

      by

      As immigration officers moved in on Chicago following Donald Trump’s inauguration, carrying out the president’s plans for “mass deportations”, the city’s schools began to notice waves of absences.Parents were picking up kids early, or parking a few blocks away – fearful immigration raids will target the pickup rush. In a city that has received thousands of new immigrant students in recent years, teachers made house calls to check in on families that were terrified of leaving their homes. At after-school programs for high-schoolers, educators passed out “know your rights” information for students to give to their undocumented parents.And all across the city, teachers and parents wondered how long the administration’s ramped-up raids would last before the pressure lifts.As the Trump administration moves forward with its immigration agenda, rescinding longstanding protections against immigration raids on school campuses and deploying hundreds of federal agents into residential neighborhoods and quiet suburban enclaves, educators across the US are scrambling to maintain safe spaces for students to learn.In some cities and states with hardline immigration policies, educators and civil rights groups are fighting to keep public education accessible to students regardless of immigration status. In Oklahoma, teachers and elected leaders are fighting the passage of a proposed rule requiring schools to ask for proof of US citizenship during enrollment.“Children – they can have the capacity to learn algebra only if they have a supportive environment,” said Alejandra Vázquez Baur, co-founder and director of the National Newcomer Network, a national coalition of educators and researchers working to support immigrant children and families. “And so every teacher is already an advocate.”Amid immigration raids, now teachers also have to grapple with their students’ difficult questions and fears about deportations. “Children don’t see immigration status. Children see friends,” she added. “What happens if students see their classmates plucked out of a classroom? So how do you explain these things to them?”In Chicago, educators had started preparing months ago for the impact of Trump’s deportation agenda on public school students. Teachers and school administrators coordinated safety plans, and brushed up on their legal rights.Even so, school staff found themselves rushing to support parents and children who were suddenly terrified to leave their homes, said Ashley Perez, a licensed clinical social worker at schools in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood.As images of Ice agents ramming down the doors of undocumented immigrants circulated online and in the news, Perez – who is the director of clinical services at Brighton Park neighborhood council – said children began increasingly expressing worry that their parents would be taken away. She recently visited with a family that had not come to school for more than a week after inauguration day, and coaxed them to start sending the kids in by reviewing all the ways that teachers could protect them, and offering to help walk all the kids to and from campus.“And then we all sort of sat down, the parents and the kiddos, in their dining room to process some of their feelings,” Perez said. “Because there’s so much fear right now … and schools should be a place of stability, not fear.”In Chicago’s Pilsen – a largely Mexican American neighborhood – Chalkbeat Chicago reported that one high school principal told parents that though the school was doing the utmost to keep children safe, he would understand families’ decision to stay home.“Please know that while our school is safe and that our students will be protected while they are in school, I also understand that there is a lot of fear and anxiety among our families,” Juan Carlos Ocon, the principal, wrote in a message obtained by Chalkbeat.Roy, a second-grade teacher in Chicago’s south-west side, said he had already been fielding questions from his six- and seven-year-olds.View image in fullscreenMany of his students are new arrivals from Venezuela, who wound up in his classroom after a long, and often traumatic migration. “Last year, one of my students who came here from Venezuela would tell me stories about people not making it in the jungle, while crossing rivers,” he said. “ I was just not prepared for that type of conversation.”Now that the Trump administration has begun targeting Chicago for large-scale raids and moved to rescind the temporary legal status that has protected thousands of Venezuelans from deportation, Roy’s students are facing a fresh wave of uncertainty and trauma. The Guardian is not publishing his full name and the school where he teaches due to concerns his students and their families could be targeted by immigration enforcement.Many of his students too young to fully understand what is going on, or why the adults in their lives have been on edge – but others are keenly aware. Not long after Trump was elected, a student from Honduras explained to all his classmates what it means to get deported. “He said, ‘If you’re from Venezuela, you’re going back there. If you’re from El Salvador you’re going back there’ And he pointed to himself, ‘I’m from Honduras, so I’m going back there.’”Horrified, Roy tried to reassure the kids that he was going to make sure that everyone could stay right where they were, that the school had security that wouldn’t let Ice in. And he tried to joke around a bit. “I said, ‘You know, if they really do send you back, I’ll come too. We’re going to go to the beach,’” he said.For older children, some of whom are also worried about what they should be doing to support undocumented parents, Stephanie Garcia – the director of community schools for the Brighton Park neighborhood council (BPNC) – said she had emphasized the importance of staying focused on school, “so that their parents don’t have anything extra to worry about right now”.At after-school programs and community events, the BPNC has also encouraged older kids and young adults to get to know their own rights and make plans with their parents. “It’s difficult to tell a high school freshman, ‘Hey, encourage your parents to have a deportation plan just in case,’” she said. “Unfortunately, here we are.”It’s a scene playing out in many cities. In New York, teachers are using encrypted group chats to alert each other of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) sightings, and residents are volunteering to escort the children of undocumented immigrants to and from school. In Los Angeles on Monday, the school superintendent, Albert Carvalho, said that attendance across the school district, the second largest in the US, was down 20%, with about 80,000 students missing. He attributed the absences to both fear and activism, as students participated in nationwide protests against Trump’s immigration policies.“We have to figure this out,” said Emma Lozano, a pastor of Chicago’s Lincoln United Methodist church and a member of the city’s board of education. “It just gets me because they are hurting our children, our babies. It just isn’t right.”Parents, too, are struggling to explain the raids to their children. “They’re sad and they’re scared,’” said Lucy, who has an eight-year-old daughter and a 10-year-old son, both enrolled in a public school in Chicago’s Gage Park neighborhood. “And I have to explain racism, and how we are being profiled.”What has really helped, she said, is recruiting her kids to help her pass out “Know your rights” flyers to families after school. “They get really happy, like, ‘Mom we’re going to help so many people!’”Though Lucy, her husband and her children are all US citizens, several of their extended family members, cousins and close friends have been living in Chicago without documentation for years. The Guardian is not printing her surname to protect her family from immigration enforcement.As federal agents descended on the city’s immigrant neighborhoods last week, Lucy made grocery runs for loved ones without documents who were too nervous to leave their homes, and offered to do pickups and drop-offs for parents worried about being apprehended while taking their kids to school.“I’m nervous, we’re all a little nervous,” said Silvia, a mother of four children including two that are school-aged in Chicago. “But we have the confidence that if something bad should happen to us, we have the support of the community, of the organizations here.”The Guardian is not publishing Silvia’s surname because she is undocumented, and could be targeted by immigration enforcement. Silvia herself volunteers with the Resurrection Project, an immigrant advocacy organization distributing immigrants’ rights information at local businesses, and helping connect other immigrants to legal aid.Raids have always happened, she said – this isn’t all that new. “There’s a lot of bad information being passed around right now, and it’s creating panic,” she said. “But if we have good information, we don’t have to be afraid.”She has charged her eldest son, who is 26 and has a temporary authorization to stay in the US, with taking care of her eight- and 14-year-old children should she and her husband get arrested or deported. They have also prepared a folder with all of the family’s important documents, as well as a suitcase with essentials, that their son can bring or send them to Mexico.Other than that, she said, she keeps showing up to drop her kids off at school. Her husband is still going to work. “Sometimes if we’re afraid, we end up putting fear in our children, don’t we?” she said. “So we are calm … and we’re keeping the same routine.” More

    • 238 Shares30 Views

      in US Politics

      President Trump fired me. Now it will be easier for the government to spy on Americans | Travis LeBlanc

      by

      Donald Trump fired me on Monday from my job as a member of the bipartisan Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board – a job he nominated me for twice. Yes, I am a Democrat. He also fired every other board member who is not a registered Republican. While most Americans have never heard of our board, which oversees national security agencies such as the CIA, NSA and FBI, we should all be concerned about the undermining of an oversight agency designed by Congress to ensure that government surveillance does not infringe our privacy and civil liberties.The board I served on was created to make sure that independent bipartisan subject matter experts – such as myself and my fellow board members – could keep a close watch on the use of new national security powers presidents were given to surveil Americans after 9/11. Our job was to look for abuses that threatened Americans’ privacy and freedom.Congress designed the board as an “independent agency” to keep it insulated from day-to-day politics. Members of the board must be Senate confirmed and are appointed to six-year terms so that they serve by law and design across two administrations. At least two of the five members must not be from the president’s political party, and in selecting those members the law requires that the president consult with the opposition party. That design helps to ensure that potential surveillance abuses – abuses that might be targeted at the opposition and not otherwise be known to Congress, the courts or the American public – are more difficult to hide behind invocations of national security and executive privilege. Despite Congress’s attempt to insulate the board from politics, I and other board members were fired before the end of our terms with no explanation. Our firings were clearly partisan, but Americans should not be fooled into thinking that board members have partisan agendas. I was nominated for my seat two times by Trump in his first term and confirmed by a Republican Senate. At a time when Democrats and Republicans were fleeing the federal government, I dutifully took up Trump’s call to serve in his first administration.My top priority while at the board was oversight of the FBI – a concern that I am confident the president shares. And since taking office, I have been criticized by Joe Biden’s national security council and earned praise from Freedom caucus Republicans for proposing reforms to ensure that federal surveillance activities are not being abused to spy on American citizens.The result of these historically unprecedented firings at our agency is that a board intentionally designed by Congress to be staffed on a bipartisan basis across administrations is now exclusively staffed by a single Republican. That Republican has previously aligned herself with Merrick Garland and the Biden administration in defending warrantless surveillance by the FBI on average Americans – a practice that a federal court in New York ruled unconstitutional last week. And worse, the board (which requires a quorum of three members to do anything) will no longer engage in any oversight of presidential surveillance of American citizens. In other words, by firing us, the president has extinguished independent oversight of surveillance activities of the exact kind that plagued Trump and Carter Page in past years.The same story is being repeated throughout the executive branch. Trump has fired many of the inspectors general whose job is to prevent government waste, fraud and abuse. He’s fired the heads of other independent agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board, with many others likely to follow. And he’s undertaking a swift purge of the civil service to get rid of anyone not perceived as sufficiently loyal.These partisan witch-hunts and firings need to stop. Congress creates independent agencies and insulates civil servants from partisan firings for a reason. They provide critical non-partisan expertise to Congress, the president and the American people on a wide range of critical issues from privacy, to securities regulation, to monetary policy, to transportation safety, to protecting American consumers from corporate abuses, to the storage of radioactive materials. If this week’s actions by the president become the new normal – and partisanship overrides Congress’s design and becomes the only criteria for holding a position in a federal agency – then our financial markets will be more volatile, our consumer products more hazardous, our skies and railroads more dangerous, and our civil liberties and constitutional rights less secure.

      Travis LeBlanc was a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board member from 2019 to January 2025. He is a partner at Cooley LLP, a global law firm, and an expert on data privacy, cybersecurity and the regulation of emerging technologies. He has held key roles at the Federal Communications Commission, Department of Justice and California attorney general’s office More

    • 213 Shares38 Views

      in US Politics

      It is Elon Musk who is now running the United States. Not Donald Trump | Moira Donegan

      by

      It’s one of the humiliations of our historical moment that the constitutional order has been destroyed by such stupid and unserious people. On the trail with Donald Trump, the billionaire Elon Musk, who financed Trump’s campaign to the tune of about $250m, pledged to cut $2tn from the federal budget, a project that promised to wreck the economy, destroy the nation’s credit, eliminate programs and institutions that structure people’s lives and create an international economic and leadership vacuum into which America’s rivals – namely, China – could step.This would have been ominous enough on its own. But because Musk is a narcissist and a nerd – because he insists on discarding solemnity and being ostentatiously irreverent and carefree as he destroys people’s lives – he named his new project the “department of government efficiency”, or Doge, a juvenile reference to a years-old internet meme featuring a shiba inu.It is under this idiotic banner that Musk has upended the American system of government, seizing an unprecedented, unelected and seemingly wholly unaccountable degree of personal power. Less than three weeks into the Trump restoration, Doge is well under way.The group is not a government department; Musk is not a cabinet member and has not been subjected to a Senate confirmation process. But he now reportedly has an office in the West Wing, along with one in the Eisenhower executive office building across the street. At his direction, a small group of coders and engineers – men reported to be aged between 19 and 25 years old – are fanning out across federal agencies, seizing control of their sensitive data and making proposals for massive cuts.Just days after Trump’s inauguration, Musk reportedly sent an email to all 2 million federal employees – subject line Fork in the Road – encouraging them to resign ahead of anticipated mass firings. Musk reportedly offered workers a buyout of seven months’ pay; it’s doubtful whether any of those who take him up on the offer will ever receive it.Musk and his young followers have moved to shutter specific programs that they deem wasteful – including those whose funds have been allocated by Congress – and to shutter whole departments. He has declared the closure of USAid, America’s foreign aid agency, and is reportedly looking to eliminate much of the Department of Education and the Department of Labor, along with privatizing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He has seized control of the treasury, and specifically the treasury’s payment system, granting himself a personal line-item veto on all government spending. He also has gained access to reams of private and sensitive data and has reportedly downloaded much of it on to private servers. He can access bank accounts, medical histories, income and debt records. If he cared to, he could look up your social security number.No one elected Musk and very little of what he is doing is legal. It is Congress, not some random rich guy, who is granted the power of the purse, because the citizens deserve to have a say, through their elected representatives, in how the government spends their tax dollars. Federal civil servants are protected by law from purges, because the federal bureaucracy is supposed to serve the people of the United States, not to merely function as courtiers and enforcers of whim for some entitled foreign billionaire who nobody has ever voted for.There is a chance that Musk will be told to stop his unconstitutional dismantling of the federal government by a court order, one he might even obey; there is a chance that he will get scared, declare a hasty victory and back off. But that chance looks more and more remote. Musk, now, has seized control of many of the organs of state. There also does not seem to be any way to stop him.Trump critics have long predicted an oncoming rift between Musk and Trump, but it’s not clear, exactly, that it is from Trump that Musk is deriving his power: his gutting of federal agencies and slashing of federal expenditures seems to be coming from his own preferences and impulses, not as any direction from the man who is nominally the president.It may be Trump, that is, who sits in the Oval Office, and it may be Trump who takes to television every few days to sign yet another executive order seeking to punish and humiliate trans people. But it is Musk who controls government operations and federal spending, and so it is Musk who is running the country. The constitutional order, now, is largely window dressing. The reality is that a foreign billionaire is running the state through a shadow government, and that his power has no formal check.Another humiliation of our era: that to merely state what is happening sounds hyperbolic, even unhinged. Musk, after all, is such a morally small man – so transparent in his corrupt self-interest, so childish in his peevish self-regard – that it is hard to countenance him as such a profound agent of history.He represents not so much the banality as the imbecility of evil: how shallow and vacuous it is. Yet Musk’s personal, private seizure of state power has thrown real doubt on whether the US constitution is still in effect. How can it be, if he upends its demands so heedlessly, and with such impunity? How can it be, if the power of the people’s elected representatives can simply be wished away by a man rich enough to buy anyone?For a long time now, it has been clear that America was slipping out of a liberal democratic mode of governance and into something more vulgar and less accountable, something more like a privatized racket for the rich that extracts from and punishes the people, but never responds to their will. We knew this was coming. I just didn’t expect it to be so embarrassing.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 175 Shares47 Views

      in US Politics

      Doge v USAid: how Elon Musk helped his acolytes infiltrate world’s biggest aid agency

      by

      USAid security personnel were defending a secure room holding sensitive and classified data in a standoff with “department of government efficiency” employees when a message came directly from Elon Musk: give the Doge kids whatever they want.Since Donald Trump’s inauguration last month, a posse of cocksure young engineers answering to Musk have stormed through Washington DC, gaining access to government computer systems as part of what Senator Chuck Schumer has called “an unelected shadow government … conducting a hostile takeover of the federal government”.The young men, who are all under the age of 26 and have almost no government experience, have tapped into the treasury department’s federal payment system and vacuumed up employment histories at the office of personnel management (OPM). Roughly 20 Doge employees are now working out of the Department of Education, the Washington Post has reported, and have gained access to sensitive internal systems there too. On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported they had infiltrated the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and accessed key systems as well.The young engineers, whose identities have been confirmed to the Guardian, wanted the same at USAid. One of them, Gavin Kliger, was a 25-year-old techie who has defended the failed attorney general nominee Matt Gaetz as a victim of the “deep state” and claimed he had left behind a seven-figure salary to join Doge and “save America”. Another, Luke Farritor, 23, was a former SpaceX intern who had been given top-level clearances to USAid systems and had requested similar to Medicare and Medicaid. A third, Jeremy Lewin, was reportedly assigned to the General Services Administration. A superior planned to lobby the CIA for a clearance for him after he failed to gain access to a secure area.Some US officials had begun calling the young engineers the “Muskovites” for their aggressive loyalty to the SpaceX owner. But some USAid staff used another word: the “incels”.The Guardian has identified three calls by Musk to USAid’s political leadership and security officers in which he demanded the suspensions of dozens of the agency’s leading officials, and cajoled and threatened senior USAid officials to give his acolytes private data and access to restricted areas. At one point, he threatened to call in the US Marshals Service.
      One USAid employee said that the calls by Musk, two of which have not been previously reported, showed he had effectively usurped power at the agency even from the Trump administration’s political leadership. “Who is in control of our government?” the person said. “[Doge] basically showed up and took over.”In the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, USAid had been presented as a pilot test for a large-scale overhaul of the federal government that would downsize agencies and arbitrarily move federal employees to looser contracts that made them easier to fire.“If the Trump administration is successful here, they’re going to try this everywhere else,” said Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey, a former USAid employee who came to protest alongside fired and furloughed workers outside the agency’s headquarters on Monday. “This is just the beginning.”View image in fullscreenBut it has also been a primer on how Doge operatives have inserted themselves into federal agencies and cajoled and bullied their way to access their most sensitive systems. This account of Doge’s infiltration of USAid is based on interviews with more than a dozen current and former USAid, state department and other officials briefed on the events of the last week.Security staff initially rebuffed the engineers’ efforts to talk their way into the secure rooms, called sensitive compartmented information facilities (Scifs), because they didn’t have the necessary security clearances. But that evening, Musk phoned a senior official at USAid to demand access for his subordinates, the first of numerous calls to officials and employees of Doge at USAid that have continued into this week.Inside the building, chaos reigned. Areas that were once declared restricted, with limitations on electronics such as phones and watches, suddenly loosened their security protocols to allow in uncredentialed outsiders. Doge employees were said to obscure their identities to prevent online harassment, a tactic that was repeated at other agencies. And Peter Marocco, the controversial new director of foreign assistance at the state department, was stalking the halls and meeting in private with the Doge employees.By Friday, things had gone further downhill. After a tense all-hands meeting with senior staff, and outsiders in the sixth-floor conference room, the young engineers rushed around the offices with their laptops, plugging cords into computers and other electronics as they gathered data from the agency.After the meeting, Matt Hopson, a Trump appointee for USAid chief of staff, abruptly resigned. Jason Gray, the acting administrator, was removed from his position. The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, was soon to announce that he was the new administrator of USAid and appoint Marocco as his deputy. Musk was closing in on his goal.The Doge employees had open access to rooms throughout the sixth floor, including the offices of the administrator’s suite. But the Scifs were still off limits.At USAid, a newly installed leadership was formally in charge. But the real power lay with Marocco and Doge, which was plotting how to wind down the agency, a plan that Trump endorsed on Tuesday afternoon as he confirmed that teams were backed by the White House. That evening, USAid announced it would put all its direct-hire personnel around the world on administrative leave, a decision that would affect thousands of employees and their families.Inside of USAid, the operation to shut down the decades-old operation was being run by Marocco, four engineers in their early 20s and the Doge leadership that contacted them by phone.“It’s all being driven through Doge right now,” said a current USAid official, adding that Doge engineers in USAid headquarters continued to field calls from Musk and Marocco on Monday. “The folks in the building are turning the system off for [USAid employees], they’ve kept a small number of people from the different bureaus to help understand what programs will be kept and not kept, what the footprint will look like.”View image in fullscreenThe tension at USAid headquarters came to a head on Saturday evening, when Doge employees demanded access to the Scif on the agency’s sixth floor. They were stopped by the agency’s top security officer, John Voorhees.Among those present was Steve Davis, according to one current and one former USAid official. Davis, a Musk deputy, has worked with the billionaire for more than 20 years at SpaceX and the Boring Company. He reportedly sometimes slept in the Twitter offices to help Musk slash costs there after he acquired it in 2022.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe argument over access to the Scif had grown verbally heated and senior Doge staff threatened to call in US marshals to gain access to it. During that standoff, according to one account made to the Guardian, a call was again made to Musk, who, as Bloomberg first reported, repeated the threat to involve the US Marshals Service.Shortly after, Voorhees was placed on administrative leave and the Doge staffers entered the Scif. They took over the access control system and employee records. Within hours, the USAid website went down. Hundreds of employees were locked out of the system that weekend, and many still don’t know their status. (The Guardian has seen emails in which USAid administrators admit they do not know the employment states of current USAid officials.)“I’ve been furloughed, I guess?” said one contractor with 15 years of experience for the bureau for humanitarian assistance, where she had helped coordinate urgent responses in Ukraine, Gaza, Somalia and Latin America. “I don’t know what my status is but I don’t think I work here right now.”By Monday, Kliger wrote an email to all staff at 12.42am to tell them not to bother coming into the building that day.The incident has illustrated how Doge employees with Musk’s backing were able to override USAid leadership and bypass government procedures for accessing restricted areas with classified materials, fueling criticism that his agency is a national security risk.“Did Secretary Rubio allow this kind of access by Musk’s employees?” asked Kim. “It worries me about USAid but if it’s happening here, I’m guessing it’s probably happening at all these other national security agencies.”Formally, Rubio has delegated responsibility to Marocco, who has been pressed by congressional staffers to give details of the changes affecting USAid and the $40bn in foreign aid it manages each year.“The question at hand is: who’s in charge of the state department?” Senator Brian Schatz told the Guardian. “So far the answer has been Pete Marocco.”Doge did not respond to questions about what security clearances, if any, the engineers held. “No classified material was accessed without proper security clearances,” wrote Katie Miller, a Doge spokesperson, on social media.But Scifs are regulated by a strict protocol and it is unclear who could have verified the Doge employees’ credentials and filed the necessary paperwork to allow them to enter.Inside the building, staffers said that Doge cultivated a culture of fear.“It’s an extreme version of ‘who do you trust, when and how?’” said Kristina Drye, a speechwriter at the agency, who watched dozens of senior colleagues escorted out of the building by security. “It felt like the Soviet stories that one day someone is beside you and the next day they’re not.”People started meeting for coffee blocks away because “they didn’t feel safe in the coffee shops here to even talk about what’s going on”, she added.“I was in the elevator one morning and there was an older lady standing beside me and she had glasses on and I could see tears coming down under her glasses and before she got off her elevator she took her glasses off, wiped her eyes, and walked out,” she said. “Because if they see you crying, they know where you stand.” More

    • 150 Shares40 Views

      in US Politics

      US federal workers weigh Trump’s buyout offer: ‘We’re feeling petty as hell’

      by

      Amy*, a federal US government employee working for homeland security who was hired by the Joe Biden administration’s refugee programme, has not left her phone out of her sight since last Tuesday, when the Elon Musk-led push for mass voluntary redundancies of government workers began.Since the US office of personnel management (OPM) sent nearly all of the federal government’s 3 million employees an email offering them deferred resignations and warning that, if they choose to stay, they may be laid off or reassigned, US career civil servants have been weighing their options.“It’s just been crazy. A billionaire is taking over a government,” Amy said. “The executive orders against the federal workforce feel designed to create chaos and fear. Musk calls us lazy and described workers at the US Agency for International Development (USAid) as a ‘ball of worms’. They’re trying to dehumanise us to make these changes more palatable, and are trying to rattle enough of us so that a majority of federal employees leave.”Amy was among scores of civil servants from across America who shared with the Guardian what they intend to do with the Trump administration’s “fork in the road” buyout offer, designed to dramatically reduce the ranks of left-leaning federal workers.“While many may think federal employees should take the offer and run, I haven’t spoken to a single person jumping at it,” she said. “Everyone is still digging their heels in and is intent on not taking it. We’re also feeling petty as hell.”Although her department does not qualify for voluntary redundancies, Amy is affected by the blanket return to the office order that was issued.“I was hired for a fully remote position,” she said. “I spend six to eight months every year overseas helping refugees who are trying to enter the US. So many of us are trying to continue focusing on our work while being told to immediately return to the office, but also to not return to the office yet because there is not space for all of us nor the resources to relocate everyone.“The refugee program has been suspended, so we don’t know the future of it, but I feel really determined to stick it out so that the budget for me cannot be used for somebody else who doesn’t care about refugees and [will] infiltrate this line of work to do harm or to prevent good from being done.”Amy’s remarks reflected those of scores of other federal government workers who presented themselves as a united front in defiance of Musk and Trump, but there were some who felt it was possibly time to resign from their careers.For Riordan*, a trans, autistic, disabled veteran who has worked for nearly 20 years for the government, the last few weeks have been stressful and “too much” for their mental health. Feeling “tired”, Riordan wants to hold on until they can retire early.“It’s upsetting. The stereotype of the lazy government worker has persisted for a long time but the majority of us have been working our asses off to serve our populations.”Federal workers have been told that those eligible for voluntary early retirement (Vera) can combine it with their deferred resignation, but Riordan is cautious.“I’m not going to take the chance right now. We’re not even sure what is being offered is legal. [If I’ll be eligible for Vera] I will take it in a second because I’m ready to get out of here. I don’t want to work for Trump and I don’t want to work for Musk. I’ll sell the house and move to a blue state where I can be with my family. For now, I’m just going to delete the emails and ignore them.”A long-term government employee at USAid from the east coast who had been working on programs in the developing world shared her disbelief at how her agency has begun being dismantled.“After going dark for several days, the USAid website was relaunched to tell the world that the entire workforce is being put on administrative leave,” she said. “Every message to my agency’s workforce has been hostile and intimidating with threats of disciplinary action and no space for disagreement with orders from the White House. All of the communication we have received expresses lack of trust in us and our judgment.“As a result of the stop-work order that has affected most of the work USAid funds, our workforce is glued to our computers with nothing to do. The American public is not benefiting from this in any way.”Deaths and illness around the world could result from the halt of USAid assistance that contributes to global security, she warned, adding that despite everything she had decided to stay.“For a second, the [buyout offer] sounded kind of appealing, but I quickly heard voices I trust – employee unions, lawyers, Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia – who raised questions and told people to be very cautious. There’s no funding for this [buyout programme], there’s no guarantee, so I’m not going to take it. This is unprecedented.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMartin Heyworth, a former chief of staff at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Philadelphia between 1999 and 2009 who retired from federal employment in 2017, disagreed and pointed out that Bill Clinton as well as Barack Obama had ordered large buyout programmes of federal workers during their presidencies.“Offering buyouts is not new and has been standard practice in the US federal government for the last several decades, whether under a Republican or a Democratic president. The phenomenon is neither Republican- nor Trump-specific, and it’s being construed as a sort of Trump-related dysfunction, which I think is not accurate.“I did not vote for Trump, I voted for Jill Stein, and although he does things that are problematic, I think he needs to be given a chance.”Elizabeth, a federal immigration enforcement attorney from the west coast, learned a few days ago that her department would be exempt from the buyout, but that she would have to return to the office despite her flexible hybrid union contract.“I’m a single mother, and the flexibility of this job is what is keeping me sane,” she said. “I have so many court appointments, I just don’t know whether I could handle having to come into the office all the time in between for the next four years.“I currently have no plans of quitting, but I’d have to strongly consider other job options, depending on how draconian they want to be on this.”Elizabeth, who is Black, added that the administration’s decision to suspend DEI practices and departments across the federal government was also “extremely upsetting”. “I’ve been having problems concentrating all week. A handful of people in my office support Trump, but others are very liberal. Politically like-minded people and I are concerned. Power is being given to Elon Musk.”Another major worry, Elizabeth said, was the prospect of being subjected to loyalty tests as part of future workplace evaluations, while she insisted that her political dislike of the Trump administration would not undermine her professionalism.“I’m not taking a loyalty test for any president. We all take an oath, our job is to uphold the laws of the United States. It is not to pledge loyalty to anyone. I can have my views about any politician but still be able to do my job.”An older remote worker for the Department of Veterans Affairs said her office had been “swamped with calls from stressed-out employees considering the deferred resignation but without sufficient information to make a decision within the very limited timeframe”.“If they don’t take the deferred resignation,” she said, “will they need to return to the office even though there is no identified office space? Will they have to relocate in order to keep working? Will their jobs be eliminated? Exactly how does this affect their retirement benefits?”She described emails coming from the administration as “callous” and “staggering”.“Even though we try to refrain from any overtly political comments,” she said, “it was clear that most people I spoke to viewed the ‘[fork in the road]’ email as craven and hypocritical. ‘Enhanced standards of conduct’ – from an administration headed by a felon, a sexual predator, a pathological liar with no respect for the rule of law? What a joke.”A probationary Department of Homeland Security employee from the midwest who wanted to stay anonymous said she would be taking the deferred resignation offer.“I do believe [this offer] is likely illegal and the administration will stiff me, but it doesn’t really matter in my case,” she said. “I only signed on to the federal government for the remote and telework benefits, and now that’s gone, I can cut ties and return to my old job, where I made more money, worked fewer days and hours, and had a shorter commute.”A combat veteran federal government worker from the north-west expressed a steely resolve to resist.“We laugh at [Trump] during meetings, trying to make sense of the nonsense spilling out of the White House,” she said. “His disregard for laws, morality and humanity proves how intimidated he is by real Americans making real contributions. I hold the line and dare him to fucking fire me.”*Names have been changed More