Last Tuesday, President Donald J. Trump showed to Canadian officials a plan for a triumphal arch that would sit on the banks of the Potomac River opposite the Lincoln Memorial in a traffic rotary at the Virginia end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge below Arlington National Cemetery. The idea, apparently, is to build the arch to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the United States in July 2026.
On Thursday, the White House press pool reported, the plan was laid out on President Donald J. Trump’s desk in the Oval Office. The massive stone arch appears to be the same height as or taller than the Lincoln Memorial. Early in the morning on Saturday, October 11, Trump posted on social media an artist’s rendering of what such an arch might look like, complete with what appears to be a gold winged victory statue at the top of the arch.
Triumphal arches are free-standing structures consisting of one or more arches crowned with a flat top for engravings or statues. They hark back to ancient Rome, where leaders built them to commemorate military victories or significant public events. Those arches inspired others, like the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, France, built to honor those who died in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.
Observers immediately noted that the photographed plan showed the Lincoln Memorial facing the wrong way, and compared the Trump Arch both to the Arc de Triomphe and to another arch modeled on it: the German Arch of Triumph proposed by Adolph Hitler to commemorate Germany’s victory in World War II.
That triumphal arch was never built.
Architect Eric Jenkins told Daniel Jonas Roche of The Architect’s Newspaper that the proposed arch would disrupt the symbolic connection between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The two are connected not only by the Arlington Memorial Bridge, but also by the Civil War. During that war, the nation began to bury its hallowed dead on the grounds of the former home of General Robert E. Lee, who led the troops of the Confederacy. Lee’s Arlington House sits directly behind the memorial to Lincoln, who led the United States to stop the Confederates from dismantling the nation.
The proposed construction of a triumphal arch contrasts with the expected sale and probable demolition of the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building on Independence Avenue in Washington, D.C. Completed in 1940, the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building was built to house the Social Security Board, the precursor to the Social Security Administration.
In August 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. That law established a federal system of old-age benefits; unemployment insurance; aid to homeless, dependent, and neglected children; funds to promote maternal and child welfare; and public health services. It was a sweeping reworking of the relationship between the government and its citizens, using the power of taxation to pool funds to provide a basic social safety net.
The vision of government behind the Social Security Act was very different from that of the Republicans who had run it in the 1920s. While men like President Herbert Hoover had embraced the idea of a “rugged individualism” in which men provided for their families on their own, those behind the Social Security Act recognized that the vision of a hardworking man supporting his wife and children was more myth than reality. They replaced that vision with one in which the government recognized that all Americans were equally valuable.
Their reworking of American government came from the conditions of the United States after the rise of modern industry. Americans had always depended on community, but the harsh conditions of industrialization in the late nineteenth century had made it clear that the government must protect that community. City governments like New York City’s Tammany Hall began to provide a basic system of social welfare for voters, making sure that they had jobs, food, and shelter and that women and children had a support network if a husband or father died.
Then, in the 1930s, the overwhelming unemployment, hunger, and suffering during the Great Depression showed that state governments alone could not adjust the conditions of the modern world to create a safe, supportive community for ordinary people. FDR’s secretary of labor, Frances Perkins, came to believe that, as she said: “The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to give all the people under its jurisdiction the best possible life.”
And so Perkins pushed for the Social Security Act, the law that became the centerpiece and the symbol of the new relationship between the government and American citizens.
Once FDR signed the law, the next step was to create a building for its administrators. To decorate a building that would be the centerpiece of the government’s new philosophy, administrators announced a competition for the creation of murals to decorate the main corridor of the new building.
Among those who threw their hats into the ring was Lithuanian-born American artist Ben Shahn, one of the most sought-after artists in the United States, a social realist painter who designed murals to illustrate “the meaning of Social Security.” Shahn wrote: “I feel that the whole Social Security idea is one of the real fruits of democracy.” He set out to show that idea in his art.
Shahn depicted the evils of a world of economic insecurity, showing “endless waiting, men standing and waiting, men sitting and waiting, the man and boy going wearily into the long empty perspective of a railroad track.” He showed the “little girl of the mills” and “breaker boys working in a mine. The crippled boy issuing from the mine symbolizes the perils of child labor…a homeless boy is seen sleeping in the street; another child leans from a tenement window.” He showed “the insecurity of dependents—the aged and infirm woman, the helpless mother with her small child.”
Then he illustrated the alleviation of that insecurity through government support. He showed “the building of homes…[and] tremendous public works, furnishing employment and benefitting all of society… youths of a slum area engaged in healthy sport in handball courts…the Harvest—threshing and fruit-gathering, obvious symbols of security, suggesting also security as it applies to the farm family.”
Shahn finished the pieces in 1942, and said: “I think the Social Security mural is the best work I’ve ever done…. I felt I had everything under control—or almost under control—the big masses of color to make it decorative and the little details to make it interesting.”
Shahn’s work stood alongside that of Philip Guston, who depicted the well-being of the family under the Social Security Act; Seymour Fogel, whose portrait of security included children learning and a table piled with food; and sisters Ethel and Jenne Magafan, who were warned their mural in the boardroom should not distract the members, so they painted mountains in snow. Gray Brechin, the founder of the Living New Deal, a nonprofit that tracks the fate of New Deal art, told Timothy Noah of The New Republic that the Cohen building is “a kind of Sistine Chapel of the New Deal.”
But by the time Shahn and the other artists had completed their work, Noah explains, plans for the building had changed. The Social Security Administration never occupied it. First, the War Production Board, which managed the conversion of U.S. companies to wartime production, commandeered the building, and then in 1954 the Voice of America (VOA) moved in.
Like most federal buildings, the Cohen building is owned by the General Services Administration (GSA), to which the agencies in the building pay rent. With a total budget of $300 million, the VOA’s rent could not keep the building up, and in 2020, under the first Trump administration, the GSA told the VOA that it would have to vacate the building by 2028. During the Biden administration, Noah reports, the GSA proposed renovating the building to make it “a flagship in the federal government portfolio,” but before the report was widely circulated, Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) inserted into a water resources bill a provision to sell the building.
Now, although the market for commercial buildings is depressed, the Trump administration is proceeding with the sale.
Since taking office in January 2025, officials in the second Trump administration have made war on the vision of government embodied by the Social Security Act, promoting in its place a return to the rugged individualism that is even less true today than it was a century ago.
Now the administration is getting rid of the building built to house the Social Security Administration, along with the murals that champion the government’s role in protecting the equality and security of ordinary people, while Trump contemplates building a triumphal arch, carving MAGA ideology into the nation’s capital in stone.
The government shutdown, which started on October 1, is entering its third week. As Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) explained this morning, the Senate is in session, and it keeps voting on two bills to reopen the government. Majority leader John Thune (R-SD) keeps having the Senate vote on the measure passed by Republicans in the House. That measure funds the government until November 21. It has failed repeatedly to get past the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster. The Democrats have offered an alternative measure, which extends the healthcare premium tax credit—without which health insurance costs on the Affordable Care Act market will skyrocket—and restores nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid. That measure, too, has repeatedly failed to pass.
Murphy notes that normally the two sides would negotiate. But, he says, President Donald J. Trump is telling Republican senators to “BOYCOTT NEGOTIATING,” and they are “following orders.”
The House of Representatives is even more dysfunctional. House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) pushed the continuing resolution through the chamber on September 19, the Friday before leaving town for a week. Then Johnson canceled the House sessions on Monday and Tuesday, September 29 and 30, both to jam the Senate into having to accept the House measure and to avoid swearing in Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), who was elected on September 23. Grijalva will provide the 218th signature on a discharge petition to force a vote on the release of the files collected during the federal investigation into the crimes of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump and his officials promised to release those files, but have tried to avoid doing so since news broke that Trump, who was a close friend of Epstein, is named in them.
Emily Brooks of The Hill notes that jamming the Senate as Johnson tried to do was a tactic employed by the far-right Freedom Caucus, and they are cheering him on. But Democratic senators refused to vote in favor of the House measure, standing firm on extending the premium tax credits before their loss decimates the healthcare markets. Now, although Democrats are in Washington, D.C., ready to negotiate, Johnson says he will not call House members back to work until the Senate passes the House measure.
Brooks notes that not all Republicans are keen on the optics of staying out of session during a shutdown. Mike Lillis of The Hill reported on Sunday that the cancellation of all House votes since late September has some Republicans warning that the tactic will backfire. In addition to the question of healthcare premiums, there is the issue of military pay stalled by the shutdown, and the fact that, by law, Congress was supposed to deliver its 2026 budget by September 30.
Over the weekend, the administration tried to ratchet up the pressure on Democratic senators to cave when it announced it would fire about 4,200 federal employees. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo notes that the threat seemed at least in part to be designed to follow through on a threat Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought had made to pressure Democrats before the shutdown. When those layoffs didn’t happen, the administration then suggested it would not pay furloughed workers after the shutdown ends. After backlash, they walked that threat back. The new announcement seemed in part an attempt to prove they would do something.
On Friday night, hundreds of workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received notices they were being fired, only to receive a follow-up letter less than a day later saying they were not fired after all. As Tom Bartlett of The Atlantic put it: “No explanation, no apology.”
Marshall points out that other cuts seem to have come from agencies Trump especially dislikes, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which Trump has hated since its then-director Chris Krebs said the 2020 presidential election was not hacked. The administration also gutted the office responsible for special education in the U.S. Department of Education serving about 7.4 million students with special needs.
Today, Trump tried to pressure Democrats by telling reporters the slashing of government programs will hurt only Democrats. “We’re not closing up Republican programs because we think they work,” he said. “So the Democrats are getting killed, but they’re not telling the people about that…. So we are closing up Democrat programs that we think that we disagree with, and they’re never going to open again.”
The administration continues to try to demonstrate its power. Today it announced its fifth known attack on a boat “just off the coast of Venezuela” in international waters. Once again, Trump asserted that the boat was trafficking narcotics. The U.S. has now killed 27 people in this and similar attacks, making the argument that drug smugglers are enemy combatants. This is problematic not just because the administration has never produced any evidence that those killed have been smuggling drugs but also because lawyers say these killings are illegal. Charlie Savage of the New York Times points out that the administration has not produced any legal analysis that defends its position.
Conservative lawyer George Conway posted: “That’s twenty-seven flat-out murders. That’s twenty-seven lives taken without even a semblance of a legal justification under domestic or international law.”
The administration’s attempt to portray itself as powerful is running not just into the law but into popular perception. The administration insists it needs extraordinary powers to fight back against South American gang members illegally in the U.S. The attack on the boats serves the idea that drug cartels are invading the U.S. to kill Americans, a theme the administration hits when it insists that those it is rounding up in the U.S. are “the worst of the worst.”
But as Jacob Soboroff and Kay Guerrero of MSNBC reported today, the Department of Homeland Security announced on October 3 that more than 1,000 undocumented immigrants had been arrested in and around Chicago since September, when their operation began. It said those arrested included “the worst of the worst pedophiles, child abusers, kidnappers, gang members, and armed robbers.” But it has produced little evidence for that claim, and federal data shows that more than 70% of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees as of last month had no criminal convictions.
So the administration is upping its claims. Today the Fox News Channel reported on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) allegation that “narcoterrorists in Mexico are reportedly working in coordination with domestic extremist groups to place bounties worth thousands of dollars on the heads of federal immigration officers in Chicago.” DHS called it “an organized campaign of terror against agents just trying to do their jobs.”
The administration is attempting to paint immigrants as violent criminals and those opposed to their raids as terrorists. They are producing slick videos to make that point. But protesters have deprived them of photo opportunities by dressing in animal costumes. ICE agents staring down a giant frog and Mr. Potato Head don’t look very dominant.
Cracks are showing elsewhere in the administration’s picture of strength. Defense secretary Pete Hegseth demanded that media outlets agree they would not publish any material about the Defense Department—even if it were unclassified—unless it was explicitly authorized by department officials. He set a deadline of 5:00 tonight for them to sign an agreement or hand over their press badges.
Every major press outlet, including the Fox News Channel, refused, saying such a demand is an assault on the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Airports around the country are refusing to air the video Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem recorded to be shown at Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints, which blames Democrats for the shutdown. Some have noted it violates the Hatch Act that prohibits the use of government assets for partisan purposes.
As the administration faces resistance, Republican lawmakers seem worried about the upcoming No Kings rally scheduled for Saturday, October 18. Joe Perticone of The Bulwark notes that Republican lawmakers are scrambling to get in front of a potentially large protest event with a prebuttal. House majority whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) has alleged that those protesting are “the terrorist wing” of the Democratic Party, “playing to the most radical, small, and violent base in the country…. They just do not love this country.”
While Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) retorted that the No Kings event is about loving America, not hating it. “It’s a rally of millions of people all over this country who believe in our Constitution, who believe in American freedom and are not going to let you and Donald Trump turn this country into an authoritarian society.”
Today, Jason Beeferman and Emily Ngo of Politico reported on 2,900 pages of messages exchanged on the messaging app Telegram between leaders of the hardline pro-Trump factions of Young Republican groups in New York, Kansas, Arizona, and Vermont. In the edgy messages, the leaders used racist themes and epithets freely and cheered slavery, rape, gas chambers, and torturing their opponents. They expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler.
One of them wrote to the others, “If we ever had a leak of this chat we would be cooked [for real for real].”
American officials have threatened supporters of measure to reduce emissions with tariffs and other retaliatory action.
The Guardian article (below) reports that ahead of a crucial vote on shipping emissions at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), Trump threatened vulnerable countries with trade repercussions if they supported stricter climate regulations. The vote concerns measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the global shipping industry.
Trump's stance undermines international climate efforts and pressures economically weaker nations to prioritize trade over environmental protection.
Trump threatens vulnerable countries before key shipping emissions vote
Today the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, which together challenge a federal court decision outlawing a racial gerrymander in the state of Louisiana. At stake is Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which declares: “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”
About a third of the people who live in Louisiana are Black, and when Republicans in the Louisiana state legislature redrew the state’s congressional districts after the 2020 census, they gerrymandered through “packing” and “cracking.” They packed as many Black voters as they could into one district and then cracked the rest across five others. This meant that out of the state’s six districts, only one is majority Black. Because voting patterns map onto racial patterns in Louisiana, this means that Black voters cannot elect representatives of their choice. As Madiba K. Dennie of Talking Points Memo notes, Louisiana has never had a Black senator, and no congressional district other than the majority-Black district has elected a Black representative. The state hasn’t had a Black governor since Reconstruction.
So Black voters sued over the new map, and federal courts agreed that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. They told the legislature to draw new maps that created a second majority-Black district. To stop that change, a group of people who described themselves as “non–African American voters” sued, saying that drawing a map to create a majority-Black district is itself an illegal racial gerrymander.
In the past, the Supreme Court has upheld the principle that if a state has used race to determine districts, it must show that it has a compelling reason to do so. In 2017 it said: “This Court has long assumed that one compelling interest is compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” In the past, the court saw that interest as served by guaranteeing the creation of majority-minority districts to guarantee that Black, Brown, and Asian-American voters can elect the lawmakers they prefer.
In today’s hearings, the right-wing majority indicated it opposes the use of race in redistricting, suggesting the previous understanding of this issue is unconstitutional. Overturning the decision of the lower court would finish the gutting of the Voting Rights Act the Roberts Court began with the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision.
This shift shows the willingness of the right-wing majority on the court to gather the power of the U.S. government into its own hands.
The actual name of what we know as the Voting Rights Act is “AN ACT To enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.” Congress passed it after more than 80 years in which state legislatures refused to acknowledge the Fifteenth Amendment, which reads:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
When it passed the Voting Rights Act, Congress did what the Fifteenth Amendment required it to do to protect the right of racial minorities to vote. As political scientist Jonathan Ladd notes, now, though, the Supreme Court is on the cusp of saying that it, rather than Congress, can determine how to enforce the right of citizens to vote.
That the Supreme Court appears to be taking aim at a constitutional amendment added to the Constitution during Reconstruction is a little too on-the-nose. When the federal government stopped enforcing the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, former Confederates took control of their states and instituted a one-party region that lasted until the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Today, Nate Cohn of the New York Times explained that striking down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could eliminate more than a dozen districts in the South currently held by Democrats. Republicans could win virtually uncontested control of the South and so could control the House of Representatives even if they lost the popular vote by a significant margin. Cohn writes that Democrats would need to win the popular vote by between five to six points in order to win the House if the court strikes down Section 2.
But, since gerrymandering depresses turnout of the losing party’s voters, Republicans would appear to hold the country even more firmly, making the United States as a whole reflect the American South from about 1874 to 1965.
Such a one-party state would give the leader of that party whatever power party officials permitted. We are already seeing what that could look like.
Julian E. Barnes and Tyler Pager of the New York Times reported today that the Trump administration is stepping up its effort to remove Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro from power. This effort has been spearheaded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director John Ratcliffe. Last month the administration told Congress that it considered Venezuelan drug cartels “nonstate armed groups” whose actions “constitute an armed attack on the United States,” meaning that the U.S. is at war. This declaration covered for the strikes on Venezuelan boats, which the administration claims were importing drugs to the U.S., although it has offered no proof of that assertion.
Sources in the administration told the journalists that a presidential finding authorizes the CIA to conduct operations in the Caribbean and to take covert action against Maduro and his government. A presidential finding, also called a memorandum of notification, is a classified directive issued by the president to authorize the CIA to conduct a covert operation the president claims is necessary for national security. Findings are supposed to be transmitted to key congressional committees to keep Congress informed of the actions of the U.S. government, but lawmakers cannot make the information in them public.
That “multiple U.S. officials” were willing to discuss the presidential finding with the New York Times journalists suggests the administration wanted to leak this information—perhaps, as legal analyst Asha Rangappa suggests, to make it sound like there is legal cover for what they are already doing or, as legal analyst Allison Gill suggests, to do an end run around Congress.
Trump promised during the 2024 campaign that he was “not going to start a war,” and promised “to stop the wars.” He has campaigned heavily to win a Nobel Peace Prize, nonsensically claiming to have stopped at least seven or eight wars. But the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have gotten hotter during his administration, and Barnes and Pager note that the U.S. military is also building up its resources in the region near Venezuela. The Pentagon has deployed 10,000 troops to the area, stationing most of them on bases in Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Navy has sent eight warships and a submarine.
This buildup comes as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has demanded that media outlets report only information authorized by department officials or lose their press credentials. All but a single far-right opinion network refused, leaving the department’s actions unscrutinized by the excellent journalists who had been covering the Pentagon. The Pentagon Press Association today said its members were “still committed to reporting on the U.S. military. But make no mistake,” it said, “today, Oct. 15, 2025 is a dark day for press freedom that raises concerns about a weakening U.S. commitment to transparency in governance, to public accountability at the Pentagon and to free speech for all.”
Natasha Bertrand and Zachary Cohen of CNN reported today that at least one of the U.S. strikes in the Caribbean—the one on September 19—targeted a boat that had left Colombia and was manned by Colombian nationals. The journalists note that “[t]he deliberate targeting of Colombians…suggests that the U.S. military’s campaign against suspected narcotics trafficking groups in the Caribbean is wider than previously believed.”
Last week, the deputy director of the CIA, Michael Ellis, made himself the CIA’s general counsel.
Yesterday Trump compared the strikes on “drug boats” with public executions Hamas supporters have carried out in Gaza in the wake of the ceasefire deal there. “They killed a number of gang members,” Trump said. “And that didn’t bother me much, to be honest with you. That’s ok, it’s a couple of very bad gangs. You know it’s no different than other countries—like Venezuela sent their gangs into us and we took care of those gangs.”
Today Trump announced that he has the power to pay furloughed troops by taking any unused funds Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2026 and using that money to pay the troops.
As budget and tax specialist Bobby Kogan notes, this is wildly illegal: only Congress can appropriate money and determine how it is spent, a constitutional requirement reinforced by the Antideficiency Act clarifying that it is illegal for the government to spend money that was not appropriated for that purpose. The military is funded on an annual basis, so when funding ran out on September 30, so did money to pay the troops.
Kogan explains that Trump is turning to the account for research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDTE), which was funded for two years and still has money. But, as Kogan points out, that shift creates another problem: as soon as the money is taken to pay the troops, it becomes unusable because that money ceased to be available on September 30.
Kogan notes Trump’s order should also be unnecessary: Congress would pass a measure to pay the troops easily if only House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) would call the House into session. Democrats have been begging Johnson to bring such a measure to the floor.
Trump says that because he is commander in chief, he has the right to this power.
I can't wait for the next president to replant the Rose Garden, tear down the ballroom, and level this stupid arch. Hell, there's a precedent, too – Reagan took Carter's solar panels off the White House roof.
Yesterday the Trump administration announced it would pay furloughed troops by using funds Congress appropriated for research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDTE) for fiscal year 2026. Today White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump had “found a creative solution to keep the troops paid. And rather than congratulate the president for doing that, this unprecedented action to get our troops paid, the Democrats want to sue him for it. They’re saying that it’s illegal.”
Democrats are saying it’s illegal because it is illegal. The Antideficiency Act, a law that has evolved over time since 1870, prohibits the government from spending money that Congress has not appropriated for that purpose, or agreeing to contracts that spend money Congress has not appropriated for that purpose.
This summer, Democratic senators charged Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem with triggering the Antideficiency Act by overspending her department’s budget, but Trump’s claim that he can move government money around as he wishes is an even greater threat to the country than Noem’s overspending.
There is more at stake here than a broken law.
Trump’s assumption of power over the government’s purse is a profound attack on the principles on which the Founders justified independence from King George III in 1776. The Founders stood firm on the principle articulated all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215 that the government could not spend money without consulting those putting up that money by paying taxes.
That principle was at the heart of the American Revolution. The 1773 Tea Act that sparked Sons of Liberty in Boston, Massachusetts, to throw chests of tea into Boston Harbor did not raise the price of tea in the colonies; the law lowered those prices. To pay for the cost of what colonists knew as the French and Indian War, Parliament in 1767 had taxed glass, lead, oil, paint, paper, and tea, but boycotts and protests had forced Parliament to repeal all the taxes except the one on tea. It kept that tax to maintain the principle that it could tax the colonies despite the fact they were unrepresented in that body.
Then, in 1773, Parliament gave a monopoly on colonial tea sales to the foundering British East India Tea Company. That monopoly would have the effect of lowering the price of tea. Lower prices should persuade colonists to buy the tea despite the tax, thus cementing the principle that Parliament could tax the colonies without their consent. But colonists protested the maneuver. In December 1773, the Sons of Liberty held what became known as the Boston Tea Party, ruining newly arrived chests of tea by throwing them into the harbor, thus paving the route to the American Revolution.
When leaders from the former colonies wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they made sure the people retained control over the nation’s finances in order to guarantee that a demagogue could not use tax money to concentrate power in his own hands. They gave the power to write the laws to the legislative branch—the House of Representatives and the Senate—alone, giving the president power only to agree to or veto those measures. Once the laws were enacted, the president’s role was to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
To make sure that the power of the purse remained in the hands of the people, the Framers wrote into the Constitution that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”
Trump’s declaration that he will ignore the laws Congress passed and take it upon himself to spend money as he wishes undermines not just the Antideficiency Act but also the fundamental principle that the American people must have control over their own finances. That Leavitt suggests giving up that principle to pay the troops, which lawmakers agree is imperative but cannot write into law because Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) will not recall the House of Representatives, echoes the Tea Act that would have thrown away the principle of having a say in government for cheaper tea.
Since Trump took office, his administration has undermined the principle that Congress controls funding. It had withheld funds Congress appropriated, a practice that violates the 1974 Impoundment Act and the Constitution. The cost of such impoundment became evident on Sunday, when catastrophic flooding hit the village of Kipnuk, Alaska, a disaster Andrew Freedman of CNN notes was exacerbated by the lack of weather data after cuts left a critical shortage in weather balloon coverage in the area.
Earlier this year the administration cancelled a $20 million Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant awarded to the community to prevent flooding. Maxine Joselow and Lisa Friedman of the New York Times noted that when EPA administrator Lee Zeldin cut grants this year, he boasted that he was eliminating “wasteful [diversity, equity, and inclusion] and Environmental Justice grants.”
Now that the government is shut down, Trump has told reporters that his administration is using the shutdown to take funds Congress appropriated away from Democratic districts. Tony Romm and Lazaro Gamio of the New York Times estimate that the administration has cancelled more than $27.24 billion in funds for Democratic districts and states while cutting $738.7 million from Republican districts and states. Speaker Johnson told reporters he thought such withholding was both lawful and constitutional but did not explain his reasoning.
Today Annie Grayer and Adam Cancryn of CNN reported that not just Democratic representatives but also Republicans are out of the loop of presidential funding cuts, finding out about cuts to their districts through press releases. Even Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said “we are really not consulted.”
Speaker Johnson told CNN that he hasn’t received details about the administration’s offer of $20 billion in public money and another $20 billion in private-sector financing to Argentina to prop up the government of Trump’s right-wing ally Javier Milei before upcoming elections there.
Trump is also taking control of the previously nonpartisan Department of Justice (DOJ). Yesterday, in the Oval Office, Trump stood in front of three top officials from the DOJ and called for investigations into former deputy attorney general in the Biden administration Lisa Monaco; former FBI official Andrew Weissman, who led the team investigating the ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russian operatives; former special counsel Jack Smith, who investigated and indicted Trump for the events of January 6 and for retaining classified documents; and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), who led the House impeachment team in Trump’s first impeachment trial.
Glenn Thrush of the New York Times noted the DOJ officials “smiled, nodded and shuffled in place as he spoke.”
Today a federal grand jury in Maryland indicted John Bolton, who served as national security advisor in Trump’s first term, alleging that he shared classified information in the form of a diary with two of his relatives. That material later informed his book The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, which covered his time in the first Trump administration and so infuriated Trump that he tried to stop its publication.
The grand jury charged Bolton with eight counts of communicating secret information with those not entitled to receive it, and ten counts of having unauthorized possession of documents containing secret information. These charges are similar to those Jack Smith brought against Trump himself, although Trump’s election to a second term stopped that prosecution.
The indictment references Bolton’s criticism of the Trump administration’s handling of secret information, in particular Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the Signal messaging app to plan a military strike on the Houthis in Yemen, especially after a journalist had been added to the call, and Hegseth’s additional Signal chat about the strike with family and friends.
A court will determine the merits of the case against Bolton, but there is no doubt it is intended to send a signal to others in government that Trump will persecute those whom he perceives as disloyal.
Today, Steady State, a group made up of more than 340 former U.S. intelligence officers from the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the State Department, and other intelligence agencies, released a report assessing the state of American democracy. Applying the tools of their craft to the U.S., they assess that the nation is “on a trajectory toward competitive authoritarianism: a system in which elections, courts, and other democratic institutions persist in form but are systematically manipulated to entrench executive control.”
The report, titled Accelerating Authoritarian Dynamics: Assessment of Democratic Decline, finds that American democracy is weakening as the Executive Branch is consolidating power and “actively weaponizing state institutions to punish perceived opponents and shield allies,” and that Congress is refusing to check the president, “creating openings for authoritarian exploitation.”
“We judge that the primary driver of the U.S.’s increasing authoritarianism is the increased frequency of Executive Branch overreach,” the report says, noting that “President Donald J. Trump has leveraged emergency powers, executive orders, federalized military forces, and bureaucratic politicization to consolidate control and weaken checks and balances.”
But the Trump administration is increasingly unpopular. Trump loyalists are working overtime to portray those who oppose the administration as anti-American criminals and terrorists. Today White House press secretary Leavitt told the Fox News Channel that “[t]he Democrat Party’s main constituency are [sic] made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals,” and administration loyalists have spent the week claiming that the No Kings rally scheduled for Saturday, October 18, is a “hate America rally.”
Joe Perticone of The Bulwark noted that Indivisible, the organization sponsoring the No Kings protests, “has an extensive track record that shows a longstanding emphasis on safety and nonviolence.” Perticone spoke to Ezra Levin, co–executive director of Indivisible, who said: “Go to a No Kings rally. What do you see? You see moms and grandmas and kids and dogs and funny signs and dancing and happy displays of opposition to the regime that are foundationally nonviolent. And on the other end, you’ve got a regime that’s led by a guy who cheered the January 6th insurrection.”
Levin noted that authoritarian regimes fear mass organizing and peaceful protest because they reveal a regime’s unpopularity and show that it is losing its grip on power.
Much as tossing chests of tea into Boston Harbor did about 250 years ago.
I don't understand any of these Trump moves.
