Cromwell

Power has been leaking out of Congress into the executive branch all year. SCOTUS is expected to ratify part of that process by eliminating independent agencies, with the possible exception of the Fed; the oral argument on the case that will overturn the pertinent 90-year-old precedent is today. What happens then? What can Congress do to save itself?

SCOTUS is effectively demanding that Congress legislate constantly and clearly to force the executive branch to do its bidding. In the current hyper-partisan environment, that means eliminating the filibuster, with all of the risks that entails. There simply is no other solution.

There is plenty for Xi Jinping to like in the NSS. Trump explicitly disclaims any desire to hector authoritarian states on human rights; his interventions will only take place in Europe. He believes in power, not rules, and gives a green light to large nations to work their will. And he advocates for a Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which practically invites China to do the same and invade Taiwan.

The NSS does support protecting Taiwan, to be sure, but based solely on American economic interests, not the security of our allies. The document demands that the Asian allies beef up their defense spending while offering nothing but tariffs in return. Any notion of solidarity on the basis of liberal democratic values is, of course, completely off the table.

Trump makes it completely clear that he views China primarily as an economic threat to the United States, not an ideological or military adversary. His principal objective is to reduce the Chinese trade surplus. That could be done by signing agreements with our Asian allies that bind them more closely to America, but Trump has done precisely the opposite with his trade policies. As a result, regardless of the suggestions that the objective is to enhance the Biden approach of flexible containment, it is hard to read the NSS, in the real world, as anything but the beginning of a spheres of influence doctrine.

As a statement of Trump’s world view, it is hard to beat the new NSS. I will be reacting to its statements pertaining to particular parts of the world over the next week, but here are some overall opinions:

1. This is probably the first time an NSS has sucked up to the man who authorized it.
2. The NSS makes it clear that supporting liberal democracy throughout the world is no longer a national interest.
3. In a similar vein, the NSS rejects any kind of rules-based international system. Geopolitics, according to the document, is purely about power.
4. As a result, the NSS does nothing to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine. That is what large countries do to lesser fry.
5. The authors of the document make brief statements about exercising American soft power, but they do not appear to have any idea of what it is. Boasting about how great you are is not soft power.
6. Ending mass migration all over the world is a ridiculous objective.
7. The document links foreign policy to the domestic elimination of DEI in a way that has never been seen before and makes little sense.

Trump claims that his plan to massively deregulate business will result in lower costs for the consumer. Is that true?

Unless a particular regulation is either completely redundant or arbitrary, weakening or eliminating it does not reduce costs–it just shifts them. Getting rid of labor regulations, for example, cuts costs for business owners, and possibly (not certainly) results in price reductions for consumers, but it imposes new health-related costs on workers. Eliminating air quality standards cuts business costs but damages public health and the quality of life. Permitting truckers to drive more hours improves the bottom line but puts the lives of other drivers at risk. And so on.

The process of creating and enforcing new regulations consequently has always focused on identifying and weighing all of their costs and benefits. Trump apparently believes that cutting business costs is a value that outweighs any other considerations.

The use of criminal law for retribution is off to a rocky start. Trial judges are refusing to apply the presumption of regularity on critical procedural issues, grand juries are declining to indict, and trial juries are acquitting Trump’s targets. What should we make of this?

Part of the DOJ’s failures are due to incompetence and Trump’s blatant attempts to interfere in the process, of course. But part of it is the willingness of locals–including, in some cases, federal judges appointed by Trump himself–to look at what is actually happening rather than assuming the government is acting in good faith.

Even a lapdog Supreme Court will be of limited help to Trump here. The James II analogy looks more pertinent with each passing day.

Pete Hegseth has precisely zero qualifications to run the DOD. He has embarrassed Trump with his antics on multiple occasions. But Trump shows no inclination to fire him. Why?

Because Hegseth’s real job, in Trump’s eyes, is to turn the American military into a right-wing militia for use against Trump’s personal adversaries, domestic as well as foreign. Whatever his other failures, Hegseth appears to be completely committed to that task. To Trump, everything else is just noise.

The MSM like to speculate about Trump’s plans to run for a third term. Trump encourages the chatter because it strengthens his hold on the GOP. Should we take it seriously?

Given Trump’s persistent unpopularity and the clear language in the Constitution, there is no way he could possibly win a third term in a free and fair election. At some level, he has to know that. Any attempt for a third term, therefore, would have to be accompanied by successful efforts to use the judiciary and the military to rig the election. In other words, there will be no “race” for a third term; there can only be a ratification of a coup d’etat.

It would be a serious mistake to completely dismiss the coup scenario, but the more likely outcome in light of Trump’s age is J.D. promising to govern as a ventriloquist’s dummy. That option would more or less unite the GOP, avoid the constitutional question, and spare Trump the possibility of a very personal defeat, which is an intolerable existential threat to his fragile psyche.

J.D. Vance and Ron DeSantis have a lot in common. Both are conservative Catholics; both served in the military; both have law degrees from Ivy League schools; both hate intellectual elites and wokeness with a passion; neither has what you would call a winning personality, although DeSantis is worse; and both are desperate to be elected president. That means the almost certain conflict between the two in the 2028 GOP primaries will be fascinating.

DeSantis starts with one substantial advantage; he is not bound by the entirety of the Trump legacy, so he can pick and choose which parts he agrees with, depending on the mood of the country. This could be particularly helpful with inflation and free trade. But Vance holds two aces; he will have more initial support from the base, and Trump will keep open his option to run for a third term as long as possible, thereby making it difficult for an outsider to put together a campaign until the last minute. Would DeSantis have the nerve to challenge Trump a second time after offending the base in 2023 and 2024? I doubt it.

Vance, therefore, will begin the campaign with the edge. Whether he can keep it will depend on his performance and the perceived state of the economy. If the country has turned against Trump, most notably on tariffs, DeSantis will have a fighting chance.

CBP IS COMING TO TOWN

You better watch out.

You better go hide.

We whistle and shout.

I’m telling you why.

CBP is coming to town.

____________

They’ve got a long list.

They’re checking it twice.

If it isn’t them

Then it’s bound to be ICE.

CBP is coming to town.

_________

They track you while you’re sleeping.

They’ve got you in their sights.

So stay away from Home Depot

Unless you work at night.

_______________

You better watch out.

You better go hide.

We whistle and shout

I’m telling you why.

CBP is coming to town.

A Thomas Edsall column typically is a long list of emails from experts with little or no meaningful analysis from the author, which is why they are rarely worthy of much attention. Yesterday’s column, however, contained an interesting discussion regarding Vance’s relationships with New Right intellectual leaders; I recommend reading it, if possible.

The column makes the point that Vance is highly connected with the entire gamut of New Right thinkers, from Adrian Vermeule to Bronze Age Pervert. The real question is whether that will help him in 2028, because the base doesn’t even know who these people are, much less follow them on Sewer. I think the clear answer to the question is no; in fact, the anti-democratic views of some of these guys will be an embarrassment during the primaries, to say nothing of the general election.

The GOP managed to hang on to a House seat in a ruby red district in Tennessee yesterday, but the swing against them was 13 points. A column in today’s NYT tells us that this swing is completely normal, both in this election cycle and in previous midterms. In spite of all of the handwringing about the state of the Democrats after last year, barring an unforeseen improvement in the economy or a descent into pure fascism, this means the blue team should do very well in 2026.

The end of the Trump era is on the horizon. Almost exactly a year ago, I speculated that SCOTUS would show more independence if the administration was polling badly. Will the prospect of a Democrat in the White House in 2028 cause Roberts and his allies to think twice about enhancing executive power in the short run?

I suspect it will, particularly on issues (think tariffs) on which the GOP is already badly divided.

The preliminary information suggests that holiday spending has been unexpectedly robust in spite of the struggling real economy. It has been fueled, not by right-wing blue-collar workers, but by relatively affluent people, primarily from blue states, with hefty investments in the soaring stock market.

In other words, the dollar store economy has come roaring back, which is exactly what Trump supposedly is trying to avoid. The political survival of Republicans consequently depends on the continued spending of the information economy elites that Trump purports to despise.

That’s a paradox. It’s also a lesson, if you take it the right way.

Consider the humble t-shirt. Labor costs make up most of the price, so it can’t be made in America. Does that present a problem?

To most people, no. There is no national security angle to t-shirt production, so the national objective should be to help consumers by keeping the costs down to the maximum extent possible. But to Donald Trump, the countries making the shirts are stealing money from Americans. He thinks that all trade deficits are a problem. What is his plan to deal with it?

He is putting tariffs on them. To what practical end? It doesn’t help America create a system of imperial preference, it doesn’t drive production back to our country, and it doesn’t impact China at all. What’s the point?

Donald Trump is a reactionary on most economic issues, but he’s all in on AI. This is partly due to his strong connections with the techno-aristocracy and partly because he sees AI as the prize in an arms race with the Chinese.

AI creates economic and public welfare issues that greatly concern the reactionary base, but Trump doesn’t seem to care. They will undoubtedly be discussed at some length in the 2028 GOP primaries. In the short run, the soaring cost of electricity due to data center demands and the negative impacts on entry-level jobs give the blue team some opportunities with populist workers; going beyond that kind of criticism will be unnecessary in 2026. By 2028, however, the Democratic nominee will need a plan that encourages the development of AI, but subject to controls that will prevent it from becoming the tool of a handful of capitalists at the expense of everyone else.

Donald Trump famously told the crowd he hated his opponents at Charlie Kirk’s funeral–not that anyone doubted it. J.D. Vance embraced Trump and MAGA when, as he put it, he found that they hated the right people. That’s the glue that keeps the GOP together–hatred of the left.

So what will Trump and J.D. do when times get tough and MAGA starts to splinter? Double down on the hatred, of course, which doesn’t sound great for the rest of us.