Month: July 2025

Under pressure from the American colonists, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1765. At the same time, however, Parliament also passed a Declaratory Act, which made it clear that the British government had the legal right to raise revenue from the colonists in the future with or without their consent. In other words, the repeal of the Stamp Act was an act of grace that wouldn’t be repeated in the future. We all know how that turned out.

In a similar vein, ten GOP senators, including several who voted for the rescissions package, just sent a letter to OMB noting that money appropriated for specified local educational programs was being withheld by the executive branch against their wishes. The letter is clearly an effort by these senators to reassert the principle of legislative control over the power of the purse, even as it is being violated by the rescissions package. Don’t do this again, in other words. What we just did was a one-off.

Right. Tell it to the colonists.

I invented the term “PBS Republican” when I was a young lawyer in the 1980s. The archetype was a prominent local politician who could occasionally be seen asking for money for the local PBS station during begging weeks. He was highly educated and highbrow, so he supported government funding for public television and for environmental programs for both selfish and selfless reasons. He was a man with whom the left could do business.

As last night’s rescissions vote proves, the PBS Republican is a dying breed, or at least has gone deep underground. He hasn’t been seen since Mitt Romney lost the election in 2012. Will he ever return? Not unless Trump is viewed as an utter failure and is therefore repudiated by his party, like George W. Bush.

The Senate voted 51-50 on two procedural motions last night to advance a Trump rescission package cutting public radio and TV and foreign aid. Those votes would be unworthy of comment except for the fact that the administration refuses to specify in writing how the cuts will be allocated. As a result, approval of the package amounts to an unlawful acceptance of impoundment.

Some of the senators have been mollified by unenforceable oral promises by OMB to use money for specific purposes. They promise that they will never support another rescission package if the administration doesn’t keep its word. Sure. Once the message has been sent that impoundment is OK, nothing will stop Trump from doing it again and again and again, with or without approval from Congress.

My wife enjoys watching crime programs on TV. On Monday, it was a Netflix story about Gabby Petito; last night, it was the first few installments of a program about the Idaho murders. What do these programs have in common, other than homicides? In both of them, amateur sleuths operating on social media mercilessly harass innocent bystanders and family members and make life difficult for law enforcement in their attempts to gain followers by pursuing what they pass off as the “truth.”

To a populist, everyone with access to a smartphone is an expert. These programs are proof, if it was ever needed, that some issues need to be left to the real experts.

C: I’ve gathered you together to talk about the first six months of Trump 2.0. What grade would you give it?

S: An A.

M: C minus.

C: That’s quite a disparity. Let’s start with some positives. Mark, what would you say Trump got right?

M: He extended the tax cuts, which was extremely important. He’s also trying to deregulate business, although he doesn’t seem to know how to do it. The Musk cuts only made the program look bad; they didn’t save much money or cut permitting times.

C: Sebastian, what about you?

S: Almost everything has gone according to plan. Trump is sticking it to the people we hate. He’s cutting the elites down to size, getting rid of systemic wokeness, and creating a level playing field for white Christians. He said he would do it, and he has. Mission accomplished.

C: What has he done wrong?

M: Apart from the tax cuts, almost everything. The tariffs–particularly the day-to-day uncertainty about them–are making it very difficult to do business. I can’t make any decisions about employment and investment until I know what the program is. The mass deportations, while they don’t impact me directly, are also bad for business. The BBB is blowing up the debt. The attacks on the Fed are scary. It’s hard to see many reasons for optimism here.

S: Of course you would say that. You’re a RINO.

C: Well, what would you say Trump got wrong?

S: The Iran attack was ok, but only as a one-off thing. I don’t want to get involved in wars in the Middle East. Selling weapons to Ukraine is inconsistent with America First. And now we have the Epstein thing. I’m not happy about that. The left-wing perverts and evil-doers need to be exposed, once and for all.

C: I assume you’re glad that Musk is gone?

S: Absolutely! I never trusted the guy, or any of his tech buddies. Trump used him to get the deep state under control and then got rid of him. That’s exactly what I wanted.

C: Inflation has ticked up again, largely due to the tariffs. How do you feel about that?

M: Awful. And it’s going to get a lot worse if Trump follows through with his letters.

S: I trust Trump. He says foreigners will pay the tariffs, so that’s what will happen.

M: Only an economic illiterate would say that. Tariffs are a tax on consumption ultimately paid by American consumers.

C: I think that’s enough for today.

To Trump, the truth of a statement depends solely on its usefulness to him. Spreading and amplifying ridiculous conspiracy theories during a campaign keeps the base happy and loyal, so why not? As president, however, he has to take responsibility for them; after all, he has the power and the resources to expose the “truth,” as the base sees it.

The problem, of course, is that the “truth” has no basis in reality. What happens when Trump subsequently admits that the narrative he espoused was a lie that has outlived its usefulness?

A large part of the base clings to the narrative, of course. That is what is happening with Epstein, and it is a major problem for the president.

Trump has officially announced his intention to permit the Euros to buy American weapons and sell them to Ukraine. Give the man credit for squaring the circle; he can tell the base that he made a hardheaded business deal that makes America money, while providing the Ukrainians with at least some of the weapons they desperately need.

Nothing Trump says has a long shelf life, so you shouldn’t take his continuing support for this program for granted. In the meantime, he is also threatening the Russians with huge tariffs if they don’t make peace in 50 days. One doubts Putin is tariff-ied by the threat; Russia doesn’t really sell anything to us except a small quantity of vodka, which can be purchased easily from other sources.

Both the mainstream right and left would agree that we are in a tech race with China we can’t afford to lose. And yet, Trump and the GOP Congress are defunding science programs that represent our hope for the future. It sounds insane. What is going on here?

Science is forward-looking, skeptical of the conventional wisdom, and driven by intellectual elites. MAGA is faith-based, reactionary, authoritarian, and deeply skeptical of elites. What could go wrong?

The answer to the question, therefore, is yes, even if the programs have nothing to do with DEI. When the Chinese attack us with space lasers, we will have the Bible to protect us.

October 7 was a huge tactical victory for Hamas. In the longer run, however, it was a disaster; Israel responded with far more force than expected, and neither Iran nor Hezbollah did much to help. Gaza is now little but a pile of rubble. The tactical victory turned into a strategic calamity.

The Israelis, for their part, have pulverized Gaza, but have no plausible plan for its future. They have alienated public opinion all over the world, including the United States, by using disproportionate force and showing little concern for the fate of civilians. The likelihood of an agreement with moderate Arab nations has gone down dramatically. In time, barring the complete ethnic cleansing episode that the far right dreams about, the angry population will rise again against Israel. Once again, a tactical victory may well prove to be a strategic defeat.

The Israeli campaign in Lebanon has been both a tactical and a strategic victory because the Israeli government, for once, knew when to stop. The attack on Iran has also been a tactical victory, but Iran’s nuclear capability has not been “obliterated,” to use Trump’s word, and the government’s determination to rebuild it is undiminished. In addition, Iranian public opinion has rallied around the government. In the end, this campaign, like the one in Gaza, will probably prove to be a strategic failure.

Trump clearly believes that open displays of cruelty are necessary to deter illegal immigration. Why not take that belief to its logical conclusion? Why not crucify illegal immigrants at the border as a message to the rest of the world?

Hey, it worked for the Romans after the Spartacus Rebellion, and an influential element of the GOP admires Roman civilization. In addition, the Christian right would love it, for reasons that require no explanation.

A Republican member of Congress–unfortunately, I can’t remember which one–recently argued that unaligned countries should accept American leadership on trade because we, unlike the Chinese, don’t have concentration camps. In a related story, the Florida GOP is raising money by selling t-shirts celebrating the opening of Alligator Alcatraz.

I guess he missed that one.

In an interview with Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens once again argues that the Israelis were justified in killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza because the Allies did the same thing in the process of defeating Nazi Germany. Is the analogy sound?

No, for three reasons. First, the Allies didn’t have 21st century precision weapons. Second, Hitler and the Nazi regime mobilized the entire population of Germany to fight the war; in Gaza, Hamas made no such effort and simply hid among the civilians. Third, Nazi Germany had enough firepower to take and hold most of Europe. The military capacity of Hamas, even on its best days, was never any match for Israel’s.

TR called his program the “Square Deal.” FDR’s was named the “New Deal.” Harry Truman wanted a “Fair Deal.” In light of his performance in office, particularly (but not exclusively) in the field of international trade, what should historians call the Trump agenda?

That’s right–the “No Deal.”

Donald Trump always has to be the center of attention. He constantly reminds us that he’s the boss. But, even now, he also likes to position himself as an outsider in his own administration. He recently indicated that he had no idea who paused the transfer of weapons to Ukraine, and he suggested that, if he had been in charge, DOGE would have been run somewhat differently. Just being the president and Elon Musk’s best buddy clearly wasn’t enough authority for him to take responsibility for DOGE.

In maritime law, the captain is responsible for everything that happens on his ship. In Trump’s administration, the opposite is true; the point of having underlings is to have them take the blame for anything that goes wrong. In other words, the king can do no wrong.

Donald Trump is busy handing out huge tariffs to our trading partners in Asia. In the meantime, Marco Rubio is attempting to strengthen our security ties with them. Now that’s a tough job!

Trump clearly believes he can bully nations all over the world into accepting our leadership. The idea that they might decide to ally themselves with China instead appears not to have occurred to him. The analogy to Kaiser Wilhelm II and his “diplomacy” becomes more compelling every day.

Rubio’s problems, however, are nothing compared to those of the Secretary of Agriculture, who must concurrently assure the base that illegal immigrant farmworkers are going to Alligator Alcatraz and promise Trump-friendly farmers that those same workers are safe from deportation. Expect lots of bobbing and weaving from the administration–loud blustering followed by quiet inaction.