Kash Patel, Trump’s FBI pick, would turn the agency into the Federal Bureau of Retribution

The Los Angeles Times

Kash Patel, Trump’s FBI pick, would turn the agency into the Federal Bureau of Retribution

Doyle McManus – December 16, 2024

Kash Patel speaks before Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally at the Findlay Toyota Arena Sunday, Oct. 13, 2024, in Prescott Valley, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
Kash Patel, shown campaigning for Donald Trump this year, has vowed to purge the FBI of anyone who doesn’t fully support Trump and to prosecute those he accuses of conspiring to undermine the president-elect. (Ross D. Franklin / Associated Press)More

Kash Patel, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee as the next director of the FBI, has big plans.

He has called for the prosecution of a long list of people he accuses of conspiring to undermine Trump, including President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and outgoing FBI Director Christopher A. Wray.

“These people need to go to prison,” Patel said last year. If he delivers on that threat, he would turn the once-independent FBI into the Federal Bureau of Retribution.

Patel has vowed to purge the federal law enforcement agency of anyone who doesn’t fully support Trump, and says he will transfer all 7,000 employees in the bureau’s Washington headquarters to other cities — apparently including agents who now focus on international terrorism and foreign espionage.

“Go chase down murderers and rapists,” Patel said. “You’re cops. Go be cops.”

On both counts, he is echoing Trump’s long-expressed desire to prosecute his political opponents and bring the FBI to heel.

The president-elect has called on prosecutors to investigate the Biden family, Harris, Clinton, former President Obama, the members of the congressional committee that investigated his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, even the police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol against rioters on Jan. 6, 2021 — “The cops should be charged and the protesters should be freed” — among many others.

Read more: Trump says he’ll jail his opponents. Members of the House Jan. 6 committee are preparing

And he has long harbored a special animus toward the FBI, which he blames for investigating allegations that his 2016 campaign colluded with Russia and for the 2022 search of his home and social club in Florida that turned up more than 100 classified documents he claimed not to have.

Since his election last month, Trump has said — not entirely reassuringly — that he does not intend to order up investigations from the Oval Office.

Read more: Column: Trump hoped his Cabinet picks could escape serious vetting. He was so wrong.

“That’s going to be [attorney general nomineePam Bondi’s decision, and to a different extent, Kash Patel,” he said last week.

But he added: “If they think that somebody was dishonest or crooked or a corrupt politician, I think he probably has an obligation to do it.”

Patel may not find that a difficult call. He has already published an enemies list of 60 people he considers “corrupt actors of the highest order.”

The record from Trump’s first term suggests that these threats should be taken seriously.

During his four years in the White House, Trump frequently demanded that the FBI and the Justice Department investigate his adversaries. His aides often pushed back, but eventually bowed to his pressure and opened investigations of Clinton, former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, former national security advisor John Bolton, former FBI Director James B. Comey and other former FBI officials. None was charged with a crime.

Those episodes reflect a sobering fact: It’s easier for the FBI to open an investigation than you may think.

“There’s basically no limit, at least when it comes to opening a preliminary investigation,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former federal prosecutor.

For a full-scale investigation, which could include search warrants and electronic surveillance (if a judge approves), the standards are tougher.

Read more: Column: Trump’s worst Cabinet picks aren’t just unqualified, they’re part of a bigger power grab

“They have to have an articulable factual basis to believe a federal crime has been committed,” said Michael R. Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general. “There’s a lot that can fit within that, but it’s not limitless.”

“If Patel goes to his deputies and says, ‘Let’s open an investigation into Liz Cheney,’ they’re going to ask: ‘What’s the factual predicate?’” he said, referring to the Republican former congresswoman from Wyoming, a vigorous Trump critic. “There will be resistance in the FBI … unless he finds compliant officers who are willing to make something up.”

Prosecution is harder. A criminal indictment requires clear evidence that the person under investigation committed a specific federal crime.

But merely being investigated can have devastating consequences.

“There’s a lot of damage that can be done by an investigation even if there’s no indictment,” Bromwich said. “Investigations are very expensive; a target needs to hire a lawyer. They affect a target’s ability to gain a livelihood. And they are extremely stressful.”

“Lives get ruined,” said Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice (who is not related to Kash Patel). “People get fired from their jobs.”

An investigation also opens a target’s private life to scrutiny, potentially putting embarrassing information in the hands of the FBI director.

Under J. Edgar Hoover, who ran the FBI for almost half a century until 1972, the bureau assiduously collected private information about politicians and other prominent figures.

The most infamous example was the FBI’s attempt to blackmail civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. by threatening to expose his extramarital affairs.

So if a president wants retribution, opening investigations is a good way to start.

The irony, of course, is that Trump and other Republicans have spent years condemning what they claim has been a “weaponization” of the Justice Department and FBI under Democratic presidents.

Now that they’re about to regain the White House, they appear to have decided that weaponization is now their friend.

But senators in both parties should resist that dangerous trend.

Read more: Column: Tulsi Gabbard as intelligence czar? The Trump Cabinet pick most likely to fail

They should look carefully at Patel’s skimpy qualifications beyond his loyalty to Trump. In 2020, when Trump proposed giving Patel the No. 2 job in the bureau, his attorney general, William Barr, threatened to quit. “The very idea of moving Patel into a role like this showed a shocking detachment from reality,” Barr wrote later.

They should ask Patel if he realizes that transferring all the FBI’s staff out of Washington would disrupt the bureau’s efforts to stop espionage by Russia and China.

And they should ask whether he really intends to turn the bureau into a weapon of partisan retribution against every target of Trump’s boundless ire.

GOP senators might want to ask why so many of the names on Patel’s enemies list are Republicans who disagreed with him during Trump’s first term, including Barr, Bolton and former Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

Then they should think twice about giving Patel power to investigate anyone he chooses. One day they may find themselves in his sights as well.

Hey, MAGA voters: You’ve been had. Trump’s plans for the economy may ruin you.

USA Today – Opinion

Hey, MAGA voters: You’ve been had. Trump’s plans for the economy may ruin you.

Rex Huppke – December 10, 2024

President-elect Donald Trump cares deeply about the forgotten men and women of the MAGA movement, the regular folks who believe wealthy elites have made America decidedly NOT GREAT.

So I’m sure those forgotten men and women are thrilled to know Trump has stocked his upcoming administration with enough billionaires and multimillionaires to, as The Guardian put it recently, “form a soccer team.”

That’s right. Axios reported last week that, including Trump himself, the administration-to-be is already staffed with 14 billionaires. The list includes Linda McMahon as Education secretary, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy as government efficiency overseers, Howard Lutnick as Commerce secretary and billionaire hedge-fund manager Scott Bessent as Treasury secretary.

I’m sure these down-to-earth billionaires care deeply about the forgotten men and women who put Trump in office. Surely they are in no way “elite,” aside from perhaps owning an island, or maybe occasionally hunting poor people for sport on said island.

Trump is surrounding himself with non-elite billionaires who care

Forbes reported in 2021 that President Joe Biden’s Cabinet had a net worth of about $188 million.

The Guardian puts the net worth of Trump’s gang thus far at more than $300 billion. If you believe in math, it’s a staggering sum, about 2,000 times the wealth of those in the Biden administration.

Elon Musk, holding his son, and Vivek Ramaswamy, in blue tie, visit Capitol Hill to meet with members of Congress on Dec. 5, 2024.
Elon Musk, holding his son, and Vivek Ramaswamy, in blue tie, visit Capitol Hill to meet with members of Congress on Dec. 5, 2024.

So, you know … regular folks, the kind who undoubtedly can relate to the day-to-day needs of Americans. The sort who regularly go to grocery stores, which they refer to as “commoner slop-distribution centers.” The kind who would never want to harvest the blood of young people in a narcissistic quest for eternal life.

Musk, Ramaswamy may come after VA health care, but it’s fine

There’s no way billionaire businessmen like Musk and Ramaswamy would do anything that helps the rich at the expense of hardworking Americans. They wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal that they will be “taking aim at the $500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress.”

And yes, that could include things like the Department of Veterans Affairs medical services, billions of dollars in funding for education and housing, and the Head Start program.

But I’m 100% sure we can trust these billionaires because they’re with Trump, and Trump is clearly anti-elite. As the conservative Heritage Foundation trumpeted after the election: “With Trump’s Win, ‘Ordinary’ Americans Declared Independence from the Elites.”

And Fox Business host Stuart Varney said after Trump won: “The elites have been living in a bubble. Trump just burst it.”

Huzzah! Take that, elites! Now please stand back while regular-guy-billionaire Donald Trump installs a phalanx of other billionaires who will, in a totally non-elite way, lower their own taxes while taking away government services that many forgotten men and women rely on for little things like continuing to live.

Opinion: It’s the bitcoin boom, baby! I’m bailing on Beanie Babies and investing bigly!

Trump can’t guarantee tariffs won’t lead to higher prices. Cool!

Consider this: Trump has repeatedly talked about how much he likes tariffs and how, as soon as he takes office, he’s going to tariff the daylights out of other countries like China and Mexico.

Economists ‒ probably elites ‒ say the cost of tariffs will get passed along to American consumers. They say that because it’s exactly what will happen. But Trump, the everyman, has long denied that reality, convincing the forgotten men and women of the middle class he’s an economic wizard and this will all work out great for them.

Fruit could be impacted by Trump’s proposed tariffs, particularly avocados, melons and citrus fruits.
Fruit could be impacted by Trump’s proposed tariffs, particularly avocados, melons and citrus fruits.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Trump was asked if he can “guarantee American families won’t pay more” under his tariff plan.

Trump, the billionaire, said: “I can’t guarantee anything. I can’t guarantee tomorrow.”

Put your future in the hands of Trump’s caring billionaires

You see? Trump cares about American families to not guarantee anything.

So don’t worry, forgotten men and women. Be confident that Trump and Musk and Ramaswamy and McMahon and Lutnick and all the other totally trustworthy and altruistic non-elite billionaires know what’s good for you.

Because you’re about to get it, regardless.

Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @rexhuppke.bsky.social and on Facebook at facebook.com/RexIsAJerk

trump, musk and the billionaires can’t wait to begin dismantling American Democracy and our Constitution: Elon Musk warns Republicans against standing in Trump’s way — or his

Associated Press

trump, musk and the billionaires can’t wait to begin dismantling American Democracy and our Constitution: Elon Musk warns Republicans against standing in Trump’s way — or his

Thomas Beaumont, Juliet Linderman, Martha Mendoza – December 9, 2024

President-elect Donald Trump walks with Elon Musk before the launch of the sixth test flight of the SpaceX Starship rocket Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2024 in Boca Chica, Texas. (Brandon Bell/Pool via AP)
President-elect Donald Trump walks with Elon Musk before the launch of the sixth test flight of the SpaceX Starship rocket Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2024 in Boca Chica, Texas. (Brandon Bell/Pool via AP)
Elon Musk, carrying his son X Æ A-Xii, leaves after a meeting with members of congress to discuss President-elect Donald Trump's planned Department of Government Efficiency on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
Elon Musk, carrying his son X Æ A-Xii, leaves after a meeting with members of congress to discuss President-elect Donald Trump’s planned Department of Government Efficiency on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A week after President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, Elon Musk said his political action committee would “play a significant role in primaries.”

The following week, the billionaire responded to a report that he might fund challengers to GOP House members who don’t support Trump’s nominees. “How else? There is no other way,” Musk wrote on X, which he rebranded after purchasing Twitter and moving to boost conservative voices, including his own.

And during his recent visit to Capitol Hill, Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy delivered a warning to Republicans who don’t go along with their plans to slash spending as part of Trump’s proposed Department of Government Efficiency.

“Elon and Vivek talked about having a naughty list and a nice list for members of Congress and senators and how we vote and how we’re spending the American people’s money,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.

Trump’s second term comes with the specter of the world’s richest man serving as his political enforcer. Within Trump’s team, there is a feeling that Musk not only supports Trump’s agenda and Cabinet appointments, but is intent on seeing them through to the point of pressuring Republicans who may be less devout.

One Trump adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal political dynamics, noted Musk had come to enjoy his role on the campaign and that he clearly had the resources to stay involved.

The adviser and others noted that Musk’s role is still taking shape. And Musk, once a supporter of President Barack Obama before moving to the right in recent years, is famously mercurial.

“I think he was really important for this election. Purchasing Twitter, truly making it a free speech platform, I think, was integral to this election, to the win that Donald Trump had,” said departing Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump, the president-elect’s daughter-in-law. “But I don’t know that ultimately he wants to be in politics. I think he considers himself to be someone on the outside.”

During the presidential campaign, Musk contributed roughly $200 million to America PAC, a super PAC aimed at reaching Trump voters online and in person in the seven most competitive states, which Trump swept. He also invested $20 million in a group called RBG PAC, which ran ads arguing Trump would not sign a national abortion ban even as the former president nominated three of the justices who overturned a federally guaranteed right to the procedure.

Musk’s donation to RBG PAC — a name that invokes the initials of former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a champion of abortion rights — wasn’t revealed until post-election campaign filings were made public Thursday.

Musk has said he hopes to keep America PAC funded and operating. Beyond that, he has used his X megaphone to suggest he is at least open to challenging less exuberant Trump supporters in Congress.

Another key Trump campaign ally has been more aggressive online. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk, whose group Turning Point Action also worked to turn out voters for Trump, named Republican senators he wants to target.

“This is not a joke, everybody. The funding is already being put together. Donors are calling like crazy. Primaries are going to be launched,” Kirk said on his podcast, singling out Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa, Jim Risch of Idaho, Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Thom Tillis of North Carolina as potential targets. All four Republican senators’ seats are up in 2026.

For now, Musk has been enjoying the glow of his latest conquest, joining Trump for high-level meetings and galas at the soon-to-be president’s Mar-a-Lago resort home in Palm Beach, Florida. The incoming administration is seeded with Musk allies, including venture capitalist and former PayPal executive David Sacks serving as the “White House A.I. & Crypto Czar” and Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire who bought a series of spaceflights from Musk’s SpaceX, named to lead NASA.

Musk could help reinforce Trump’s agenda immediately, some GOP strategists said, by using America PAC to pressure key Republicans. Likewise, Musk could begin targeting moderate Democrats in pivotal states and districts this spring, urging them to break with their party on key issues, Republican strategist Chris Pack said.

“Instead of using his influence to twist GOP arms when you have majorities in both houses, he could start going after Democrats who vote against Trump’s agenda in states where the election was a referendum for Trump,” said Pack, former communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “Otherwise, if you pressure Republicans with a primary, you can end up with a Republican who can’t win, and then a Democrat in that seat.”

___

Linderman reported from Baltimore and Mendoza from Santa Cruz, California. Associated Press congressional correspondent Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report.

I lived in Florida for a decade. The downsides just kept adding up, and now I’m back in the Midwest.

Business Insider

I lived in Florida for a decade. The downsides just kept adding up, and now I’m back in the Midwest.

Debra Pamplin – December 9, 2024

  • I love many things about Florida, but after 11 years, I left to move back to the Midwest.
  • My insurance costs in Florida were high, and driving in our county felt dangerous and intense.
  • I often let the state’s heat, humidity, and many mosquitos deter me from going outside.

We first fell in love with Florida after visiting it on a family vacation in 1997.

After many more pleasant family vacations to the state, we left our hometown in Missouri and moved to Florida in early 2013.

We thought Jacksonville would be a good place to settle, as it was close to many Florida hot spots and great vacation cities in neighboring states.

It turns out, I’m much happier visiting Florida than living there full time. Here are a few things that led me to move back home to the Midwest after 11 years.

I didn’t like driving in our county, and I often worried about my family’s safety on the roads
Cars in traffic on highway in Jacksonville
I didn’t really enjoy driving in Jacksonville.peeterv/Getty Images

Witnessing high-speed chases on the interstate, cars failing to yield, and trucks running red lights were part of our daily life in Jax.

Our county, in particular, has some of the deadliest roads in Florida.

I worried about my young daughter daily as she commuted to work on I-95. Though I trusted her as a driver, I was concerned about everyone else on the interstates and roads.

She’d often tell me about cars going well over the already-high speed limit and how drivers would regularly speed up instead of letting her over for her exit or lane merge.

A few months ago, she moved to a much smaller city in the Midwest, and I stopped worrying so much about her daily commute. I figured if she could manage in a place like Jax, she could drive anywhere.

Insurance felt like a huge part of my budget in Florida

No one likes to pay a monthly insurance premium, but the cost felt especially tough to stomach while I lived in Florida.

MarketWatch analysis found that the average full-coverage car insurance cost in Florida was 42% higher than the national average.

The big kicker was finding out that I’d moved into a no-fault state. This means that no matter who’s at fault in a collision, each driver has to rely on their own insurance to cover medical expenses and other financial losses.

Florida is also dealing with a home-insurance crisis. Homeowners in many parts of the state struggle to keep up with sky-high premiums, especially after the recent hurricanes.

I’d often have to cut spending in other parts of my life just to cover my high monthly insurance costs. Now that I’m out of Florida, my monthly insurance expenses are lower, giving me breathing room to spend my money on more fun stuff.

I didn’t love the high temperatures and humidity during the day
Wooden boardwalk to beach in Florida
Many love Florida’s seemingly endless sunshine, but I found I got tired of it.Laura Sliva Collier/Getty Images

With sunlight beaming down most of the year, it’s clear why Florida is known as the Sunshine State. During some summer months, Florida’s average highs were above 90 degrees Fahrenheit.

I struggled to deal with the heat. Some may love it, but I found it could feel draining. With high humidity, the heat felt even worse. Jacksonville’s average annual percentage of humidity can be a sweaty 72% or higher.

Unfortunately, the heat and humidity kept me from fully enjoying all the beautiful outdoor activities and attractions throughout Florida.

My naturally curly hair turned into a pile of frizz each time I stepped out of the front door — sometimes, I’d feel so self-conscious about it I’d just stay home.

Instead of participating in outdoor adventures throughout the area, I often chose to stay home in the air conditioning.

Lastly, I missed experiencing the variety of the seasons and the temperature drops that come with some of them. The Midwest’s changing weather is a much better fit for me.

Mosquitoes were a huge nuisance to me at night

I also struggled to deal with mosquitoes when I lived in the Sunshine State. Though the pesky insects can be found in every state, Florida has more than most and over 80 species of them.

I seemed to be allergic to their bites, which would stay swollen on my body for days. Because of this, I didn’t journey outside too much without first coating myself in bug repellent.

The repellent wasn’t always super effective, so I eventually stopped going outside in the evenings to avoid getting bit.

Overall, I’m happier in the Midwest

I get why so many spring breakers and snowbirds are drawn to Florida. It has a lot of sunshine, natural beauty, and fun outdoor activities.

Still, for many reasons, I found it tough to fully enjoy the state and its beauty.

The Midwest is a better fit for me, and I’m glad I moved back. These days, I enjoy my slower-paced life in a state where I can feel the seasons change — and I no longer mind going outside so much.

Opinion – Trump promised to be a dictator on Day 1: Here’s why the Insurrection Act blocks him

The Hill – Opinion

Trump promised to be a dictator on Day 1: Here’s why the Insurrection Act blocks him

Julien Berman and Laura Dickinson – November 19, 2024

Could President-elect Donald Trump use the military within the U.S. to suppress protests on college campuses, patrol the southern border, and conduct mass deportations? By invoking the Insurrection Act — a little-known law that grants the president sweeping authority to deploy the military on American soil — he plans to do just that.

The Posse Comitatus Act generally makes it a crime for the military to engage in domestic law enforcement. But the Insurrection Act provides a crucial exception to this rule, giving the president seemingly broad authority to deploy military forces on American soil. Historically, it has been invoked sparingly and responsibly — only 30 times in the 230 years since its inception. Most famously, the act enabled Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson to desegregate schools in the South and protect civil rights marchers to enforce court orders over the objection of state officials.

But in a moment when our democracy hangs by a thread, when the president-elect has openly declared potentially authoritarian ambitions, it could become the legal mechanism for Trump (or any president) to transform our constitutional democracy into a military state.

In 2020, Trump wanted to deploy military forces to quash the Black Lives Matter protests, but was convinced not to by advisers such as Attorney General William Barr and Gen. Mark Milley. In his second term, with Trump pledging to purge independent voices and install loyalists across government, there may be no one left to say no.

The Insurrection Act contains three triggers for military deployment. The first is relatively uncontroversial because it requires a state to explicitly request military assistance to suppress an insurrection. But the other two triggers appear to grant the president virtually unchecked power to deploy troops without state consent — or even against state wishes.

The language in these other two sections of the law is breathtakingly broad. One section seems to allow the president to deploy troops whenever “unlawful obstructions” make it “impractical” to enforce federal law. The other goes further still, purporting to authorize the use of military force to suppress any “domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that “opposes or obstructs” federal law enforcement.

Even more alarming, in addition to allowing the deployment of regular troops and federalizing the National Guard, the act permits the president to deputize “private militias.” In theory, Trump could grant federal law enforcement authority to the extremist groups who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 or to militant organizations like the Proud Boys.

Our military is primarily trained for overseas combat, not domestic law enforcement, which requires different rules of engagement and careful protection of constitutional rights. And coordination between federal troops, local police and state officials becomes a logistical nightmare.

But all is not yet lost.

The Biden administration and Congress have roughly two months to reform this dangerous law before Trump returns to office. Experts across the political spectrum have proposed crucial reforms. Congress could explicitly narrow the specific substantive circumstances in which the act can be invoked, eliminate the private militia provisions, or add procedural checks on the use of the act, for example by requiring congressional approval or judicial review.

But even without congressional reform, executive branch lawyers in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel can make it clear that the current language in the Insurrection Act is not as broad as it may seem. Indeed, OLC has long maintained that the act’s sweeping language must be read narrowly in conjunction with other specific constitutional provisions and historical practice. Now, faced with explicit threats to weaponize the act, OLC should forcefully clarify these constitutional constraints, while providing needed guidance to judges should they be required to interpret the scope of the act.

First, OLC should emphasize that Congress enacted much of the act’s broad language immediately after the Civil War pursuant to its authority under the 14th Amendment. Because the 14th Amendment requires state action, the Insurrection Act should too, preventing the president from unilaterally deploying troops unless state authorities are either actively denying federal rights or completely powerless to protect them.

Second, OLC should establish a high bar for military deployment not tied to enforcing specific court orders. Both the Supremacy Clause and Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution suggest that the president must demonstrate a genuine collapse of state and local authority, and that the statute should only be used as a last resort.

Under this constitutional framework, Trump’s threats to deploy troops against protesters or undocumented immigrants are clearly illegitimate. They involve neither state violations of constitutional rights nor a breakdown of civil authority.

The framers of our Constitution were deeply skeptical of standing armies and military involvement in civilian affairs. They understood that turning troops against citizens was a hallmark of tyranny. It is deeply embedded in our Constitution and tradition that, outside of invasion or rebellion, civilian law enforcement — not soldiers — would maintain domestic order.

Our military exists primarily to protect the nation from foreign threats, not to serve as any president’s personal enforcement army against the American people. Now, as we face four more years of a president who has shown contempt for democratic norms and institutional restraints, we must use every legal tool available to prevent the abuse of this extraordinary power.

Julien Berman is a Harvard undergraduate and op-eds editor of The Harvard Crimson. Laura Dickinson is the Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School.

Trump’s worst Cabinet picks aren’t just unqualified, they’re part of a bigger power grab

Los Angeles Times

Column: Trump’s worst Cabinet picks aren’t just unqualified, they’re part of a bigger power grab

Doyle McManus – November 18, 2024

Former President Donald Trump, center, walks by Rep. Matt Gaetz, left, R-Fla., outside the courtroom after the day's proceedings in his trial Thursday, May 16, 2024, in New York. Trump's adviser Boris Epshteyn, and attorney Emil Bove, right, follow behind him. (Mike Segar/Pool Photo via AP)
Donald Trump walks by Matt Gaetz, left, after a day in court during his criminal trial in New York this spring. Former Rep. Gaetz, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, has vowed to purge the Justice Department and FBI of anyone who might get in the president-elect’s way. (Mike Segar / Pool photo via Associated Press)More

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways

At first glance, President-elect Donald Trump’s most controversial Cabinet nominees — Matt GaetzPete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — are an odd list of ideologues and eccentrics chosen for political loyalty more than any substantive qualifications.

But there’s a more important and potentially more dangerous factor that ties their nominations together: They are foot soldiers in a power grab that, if it succeeds, would weaken the institutional guardrails that limit the president’s powers and concentrate more authority in Trump’s hands.

Former Rep. Gaetz, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, has promised to purge the Justice Department and FBI of anyone who might get in the president’s way. Trump “is going to hit the Department of Justice with a blowtorch — and that torch is Matt Gaetz,” former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon said last week.

Hegseth, the Fox News host who could become Defense secretary, has proposed purging military officers he sees as too committed to diversity, including Gen. C.Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “The Pentagon likes to say our diversity is our strength,” Hegseth said on Fox News in June. “What a bunch of garbage.” (“Pete’s a leader,” Bannon said. “He’s kind of a madman — but hey, you need that.”)

Former Rep. Gabbard, who as director of National Intelligence would oversee the CIA and 17 other agencies, has criticized the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine so fervently that a Russian state television host once called her “our girlfriend.”

And Kennedy, the anti-vaccine activist who is Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services, has said he wants to fire hundreds of senior officials in the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health on “day one.” Trump has encouraged him to “go wild.”

Their pledges are all in keeping with Trump’s broader promise to dismantle much of the federal bureaucracy and bring what remains under his personal control.

“We will demolish the deep state,” the president-elect often said at his campaign rallies, “We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country.”

During his first term, Trump often expressed frustration at the legal and political limits on what he could do as president.

In 2018, he expressed an expansive view of his powers under the Constitution: “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want.”

Read more: Trump’s early moves send strong signals about what to expect

But in practice, he found himself hemmed in by experienced Cabinet officials, White House lawyers and military officers, some of whom dubbed themselves “the adults in the room.”

His attorneys general, Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, quietly sidelined his demands that they prosecute Hillary Clinton and other top Democrats.

His last Defense secretary, Mark Esper, and his appointee as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Mark A. Milley, resisted his proposal in 2020 to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy active duty troops against demonstrators in Washington and other cities.

Read more: News Analysis: Trump’s transition moves raise fears of a politicized military

Trump also denounced the CIA and other intelligence agencies for their finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election campaign to help him defeat Clinton — a judgment he seemed to consider partisan, rather than based on the evidence.

So it’s no surprise that he wants to bring those national security agencies to heel.

But Trump’s plans to expand his personal authority extend much further.

He has vowed to weaken civil service rules that protect federal bureaucrats from being fired if they disagree with their bosses’ decisions. “We will pass critical reforms making every executive branch employee fireable by the president,” he said last year, adding: “I will wield that power very aggressively.”

Read more: Column: Trump wants to turn the federal bureaucracy into an ‘army of suck-ups.’ Here’s how that would be a disaster

Robert Shea, a former top official in the George W. Bush administration, explained the real world impact. “If you told your boss that what he or she was proposing was illegal, impractical [or] unwise, they could brand you as disloyal and terminate you,” he said.

The result would be what one expert called “transformation by intimidation.”

Trump has also proposed weakening Congress’ power to direct federal spending — one of the legislative branch’s core functions.

He plans to revive the practice of “impounding” funds — blocking agencies from spending money that Congress has appropriated for programs he doesn’t like.

That tactic could enable him, for example, to stop parts of President Biden’s clean energy program from being implemented, even though Congress has already approved the expenditures.

A 1974 law made impoundment illegal, but Trump has suggested that he will ignore the prohibition and challenge it in court.

Read more: Column: What can a new President Trump really do on Day One? A guide for the worried

And, of course, Trump warned the Senate last week that if it refuses to confirm any of his Cabinet nominees, he may put them in office anyway — by using “recess appointments,” which allow a president to fill top jobs when Congress isn’t in session.

And if the Congress doesn’t recess, Trump may have another norm-shattering gambit in reserve. In his first term, he threatened to adjourn both chambers under a presidential power laid out in the Constitution for “extraordinary occasions.”

That wouldn’t just test the guardrails on a president’s powers, it would “crash through them,” wrote Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice.

That makes it all the more important that Republicans in the Senate, to preserve their constitutional powers, subject Trump’s nominees to searching scrutiny and reject any that are unqualified, dangerous or both.

Those controversial nominations will decide more than the future of the Justice Department, the Defense Department, the intelligence community and the vast Department of Health and Human Services — although those stakes are high enough.

They will help determine whether Trump can undo the checks and balances the founders wrote into the Constitution, and turn the executive branch into an instrument of a would-be autocrat’s will.

Democratic AGs rush to form line of defense against Trump

The Hill

Democratic AGs rush to form line of defense against Trump

Julia Mueller – November 17, 2024

Democratic attorneys general across the country are readying their legal defenses against the incoming Trump administration, preparing to pounce on potential violations and even take the president-elect to court if he implements controversial policies.

During his first term, state attorneys general brought a wave of lawsuits against the Trump administration as they worked to block moves like his travel ban and family separations at the border. Four years after he left office, as President-elect Trump touts plans for mass deportations and a rollback of environmental regulations, the top prosecutors are on high alert.

They join Democratic governors, some of whom are already in the spotlight as possible 2028 contenders, as a critical line of defense for the party, with the GOP set to take a trifecta of control over the White House and Congress.

“This time, not just with the trifecta, but also a more conservative judiciary, the number of venues for Democrats to advance their policies has shrunk on the federal level,” said Paul Nolette, a Marquette University political scientist and the director of a database on state litigation and attorney general activity.

“Whenever that happens, what we’ve seen is that parties then really use the states as a way to advance their own policy. And when Democrats are still in control of states like California, New York, Illinois … the actions of governors, the actions of state AGs, they really can make a difference not only in their own states, but across the country, on national policy,” he said.

The days since Trump’s win have seen a surge of Democratic attorneys general stepping up to signal they’re ready to counterbalance the GOP when it takes power in Washington next year.

“I don’t wake up every morning dying to sue the president of the United States or his administration,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D) told The Hill.

“If he’s operating lawfully, we’re not going to challenge it. But when he violates the law, we’re not going to hesitate to protect our residents,” Platkin said.

Trump has said his Day 1 agenda would launch “the largest deportation program in American history,” roll back Biden orders on equity and “drill, baby, drill.”

“It’s not like the Democrats made it up or something,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, of the prospective threats posed by a second Trump term. “It comes from the mouth, and social media, of Trump himself.”

The president-elect has also stoked concerns with his picks for Cabinet positions, including Trump ally former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) for U.S. attorney general. Gaetz, who is being investigated by the House Ethics Committee, resigned from Congress after getting the nod.

Platkin blasted the nomination on the social platform X as a sign that Trump “would use the DOJ to punish political opponents and undermine the rule of law.”

Attorneys general from coast to coast have been preparing for months amid the competitive White House race, California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) told The Hill. They’ve monitored comments from Trump and his inner circle and scrutinized Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump term.

The prep is as specific as prewriting briefs so officials “just need to cross the Ts, dot the Is and press print and file it,” Bonta said. California alone reportedly brought more than a hundred lawsuits against Trump in his first term.

“What we learned from the first Trump administration is that he can’t help but break the law. It’s part of his brand. It’s part of what he does,” Bonta said.

During Trump’s first term, Democratic attorneys general led more than 130 multistate lawsuits against the administration, according to Nolette’s database, and boasted an 83 percent win rate. That was more than twice as many as Republican attorneys general led against the Obama administration, with a 63.5 percent win rate. Against President Biden’s administration so far, Republican AGs have seen a win rate of around 76 percent.

The first Trump administration ushered in a “world of heightened AG activism,” Nolette said, making the latest crop of state legal officers “much more proactive in getting ready for challenges that currently don’t even exist.”

The attorneys general are connecting with each other through the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA), as well as coordinating with their governors, who are also gearing up to resist Republican policies.

“Nothing unites Democrats more than Donald Trump,” said James Tierney, a Harvard Law School lecturer, the director of StateAG.org and a former Democratic attorney general of Maine.

After Trump’s win, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called a special session of the state legislature to protect progressive policies, vowing the Golden State is “ready to fight.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), who brought a major lawsuit against Trump in 2022, joined with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) to announce their offices would be convening regularly to “coordinate legal actions” and develop responses to the incoming administration, according to a release.

In Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey (D) — herself a former state AG — has promised her state’s law enforcement would “absolutely not” assist if the Trump administration asked for help with mass deportation plans.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell (D) said she’s on alert for threats to reproductive health care, gun safety, consumer protections and other issues, and told The Hill that she has “real concerns about the president-elect’s position when it comes to the rule of law.”

“The role of the Democratic AG is the most critical, I think, in this moment in time,” Campbell said, arguing they’re “on the front line.”

Several Democratic governors were in the running for the veepstakes to join Vice President Harris’s 2024 presidential bid, and they’re also making early lists of possible 2028 contenders. Some state AGs, too, may have higher political aspirations, adding a political subtext to their public defense of their party ideals.

“The old joke, of course, is that AGs are ‘aspiring governors.’ And I think at this point we’ve seen, certainly, plenty of evidence that AGs have leveraged their roles to become good candidates for higher office,” Nolette said.

Harris herself is a prime example: She served as California AG before jumping to the Senate and then to the vice presidency. Along the 2024 campaign trail, she touted her work in the role.

Washington state’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) won his gubernatorial bid on Election Day. He told reporters after the results that his office feels “prepared to defend” progressive policies in his state as both the White House and his seat changes hands.

And that defense doesn’t always look like lawsuits, experts noted. State attorneys general often write letters to congressional leaders, participate in the notice-and-comment rule-making stage and speak out about certain policies.

“The wise attorney general understands that they’re more than just a lawsuit machine,” Tierney said.

DAGA president Sean Rankin told The Hill that state AGs will continue their work in the courtroom during a second Trump term, but also work to “do a better job” of explaining the work of attorneys general to the public.

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach (R), the chair of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), argued in a statement to The Hill that the Democratic AGs are “making an empty gesture” with their responses to Trump’s win, “given that regulatory overreach has been a hallmark of the Biden Administration.”

“Unlike President Biden who lost dozens of times to Republican AGs for promulgating illegal and unconstitutional rules and regulations, President Trump will be focused on reducing excessive overreach,” Kobach said.

A Trump White House 2.0. will also likely have a “more sophisticated approach” both to reverse Biden-era regulations and advance their own policies, Nolette said. And Democrats are set to face new hurdles in the increasingly conservative court system — including at the U.S. Supreme Court level, thanks to Trump’s appointments.

“It’s like the filibuster in the Senate. Both sides use it when it’s to their advantage. Republicans had a huge amount of litigation against the Biden administration in these past four years, and there’s more to come. And so this isn’t specific about Trump,” Nolette said of using litigation to combat the administration.

“It’s something that I think AGs of both parties have realized is a very good strategy to delay and to stop policies that they disagree with,” he said. “This is part of the process that’s now entrenched.”

The Lesson of This Election: We Must Stop Inflation Before It Starts

By Isabella Weber – November 12, 2024

Dr. Weber is an associate professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Four illustrations, done in an Old World etching style. On the upper left, furniture crowds the streets while nearby gutted buildings burn; on the upper right, a volcano erupts; on the lower left, tornadic waterspouts roil an ocean; and on the lower left, George Washington is smiling and holding a beer aloft.
Credit…Guillem Casasús

Unemployment weakens governments. Inflation kills them. That’s what a government official from Brazil once told me. But in rich countries including the United States, the politically destructive power of inflation had been forgotten. Standard policy tools left us unprepared and the Biden administration was slow to fight back. The re-election of Donald Trump should serve as a warning to democratic governments.

In this age of overlapping emergencies — hurricanes, an Avian flu outbreak, two regional wars — threats to supply chains are becoming commonplace. Each threat brings the risk of inflation and its power to destabilize governments, including our own. With such emergencies being the new normal, if we learned anything from last week’s earthquake election result, it’s that we need new means of protecting our society and democracy.

Among the biggest problems that need fixing: Many business sectors today are dominated by large corporations that can profit from these one-time events.

Using A.I. and natural language processing in an upcoming paper, several co-authors and I analyzed more than 130,000 earnings calls of publicly listed U.S. companies and found that businesses can coordinate price hikes around cost shocks. This enabled companies, by and large, to pass on or amplify the impact of the initial cost increase in response to shocks in the wake of Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine.

In other words, the sudden news of cost shocks, like the onset of a pandemic and war, grants companies more freedom to coordinate price hikes across sectors because they realize that their rivals are very likely going to do the same.

Skeptics of this idea often counter that corporate concentration was already high before the pandemic, yet those same powerful businesses kept prices stable for many years, despite close-to-zero interest rates. That’s because under normal circumstances, a company that decides to increase prices without knowing that its competitors would follow suit risks losing business to rivals. This was the world we were living in before the pandemic. Globalization had created the most efficient, just-in-time production networks the world has seen and, for the most part, even giant companies kept prices stable under the pressure of competition.

But when supply bottlenecks occur, the clockwork stops. Every producer is naturally limited in how many products it can produce. This means that even if a company increases prices, competitors cannot easily ramp up their supply to take its business. Plus, everyone in the business sector understands the natural reaction to a shock is to raise prices. Jacking up prices is now a safe choice and has become the rational thing to do for profit-maximizing businesses.

In the wake of Covid, most companies managed to pass on their higher costs to the consumer and defend their margins, while some even increased them. But even if they simply keep their profit margins in response to a cost shock, their profits increase. Think of how the broker’s fee is higher for a more expensive house even if the percentage terms are the same. Corporate leaders know this to be the case. That’s why we found that when cost shocks are large and hit the whole economy, executives sound quite upbeat about them.

Massive shocks can be even better news for the sectors directly hit. Take oil. When demand collapsed overnight because people stayed home during the shutdowns, fossil fuel companies, suddenly faced with an unprecedented collapse in demand, closed some of their highest-cost oil fields and refineries. When demand recovered, the result was a shortage that led to record-high margins. In another forthcoming paper, my co-authors and I estimate that in 2022, U.S. shareholders in publicly listed oil and gas companies had claims on $301 billion in net income, a more than sixfold increase compared to the average of the four years before the pandemic. Oil and gas profits also exceeded the U.S. investments of $267 billion in the low-carbon economy that year.

Oil is inherently a boom-bust sector, but we cannot afford such extraordinary profit spikes in times of emergency. They prop up a sector that needs to be phased out to mitigate climate change. They also exacerbate inequality. As our new research shows, at the peak of the fossil fuel price spike in 2022, the wealthiest 1 percent claimed through shareholdings and private company ownership 51 percent of oil and gas profits. The less affluent faced higher inflation and only got a small slice of the oversized oil and gas profits pie.

Working people suffer through no fault of their own. Even if their wages eventually catch up, they are squeezed and feel cheated in the first place. This is why sellers’ inflation deepens economic inequality and political polarization, which are already threatening democracy.

President Biden mobilized a few unconventional measures to fight inflation, including an antitrust renewal to address outsize corporate power and increasing oil supply by drawing down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. These actions were an important departure from old orthodoxies, but were ad hoc and retroactive. The main policy tool remained increasing interest rates. Sharp rate increases deepened the housing crisis, exacerbated the debt crisis for developing countries and increased the costs of investments urgently needed to address the climate crisis.

Economic stabilization used to be part of the disaster preparedness toolbox. It is time we add it back in. Just as it was recognized that some banks were too big to fail after the global financial crisis, we have to recognize that some other sectors are “too essential to fail.” In essential sectors, we need to move from a pure efficiency logic to strategic redundancies. This requires policy interventions.

Ports and other critical infrastructure should have spare capacity and a well-paid work force large enough to ramp up activity when needed. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a publicly owned buffer stock of oil, should be employed systematically to buy when prices collapse and sell when prices explode to avoid price extremes. It should buy oil on the open market when demand is falling short, thus preventing prices from collapsing, and sell oil when there is a threat of short supply, thus preventing prices from exploding. Such countercyclical purchases and sales by buffer stocks in commodity markets operate on the same logic as central banks’ open market operations in money markets.

It is not enough to release oil when prices spiral upward. As we have learned during the pandemic, a collapse in prices can create a sudden reduction in production capacity that breeds price spikes when demand picks back up.

Another lesson is that where markets are global, it is a good idea to coordinate stabilizing measures internationally — as the International Energy Agency did for its member states. And where futures markets exist, buffer stocks can buy futures when prices fall and sell when they rise for stabilization.

Countercyclical price stabilization through buffer stocks is important beyond oil. We also need it for critical minerals to encourage investments in the green supply chain and for food staples like grains, to avoid violent commodity price fluctuations in the wake of extreme weather events.

In addition to buffering essentials, we need policies that align public and private interests with resilience. As long as corporations see profits go up thanks to threats of shortages in times of disaster, we cannot assume that they prepare for emergencies in the best interest of the public. Price-gouging laws and windfall-profit taxes are relevant policy tools here.

Of course, the main task remains tackling the root causes of the emergencies. But this is a momentous task, especially in our climate change era, and in the interim a systemic set of buffers, regulations and emergency legislation is necessary. Without this economic disaster preparedness, people’s livelihoods and the outcome of elections remain at the whim of the next shock.

Isabella Weber is an associate professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

More on the economy:

How Inflation Shaped Voting – Nov. 8, 2024 Opinion | Adam Seessel

It’s the Inflation, Stupid: Why the Working Class Wants Trump Back – Oct. 24, 2024

Inflation Is Basically Back to Normal. Why Do Voters Still Feel Blah? – Oct. 31, 2024

A changing climate, a changing world

Card 1 of 4

Climate change around the world: In “Postcards From a World on Fire,” 193 stories from individual countries show how climate change is reshaping reality everywhere, from dying coral reefs in Fiji to disappearing oases in Morocco and far, far beyond.

The role of our leaders: Writing at the end of 2020, Al Gore, the 45th vice president of the United States, found reasons for optimism in the Biden presidency, a feeling perhaps borne out by the passing of major climate legislation. That doesn’t mean there haven’t been criticisms. For example, Charles Harvey and Kurt House argue that subsidies for climate capture technology will ultimately be a waste.

The worst climate risks, mapped: In this feature, select a country, and we’ll break down the climate hazards it faces. In the case of America, our maps, developed with experts, show where extreme heat is causing the most deaths.

What people can do: Justin Gillis and Hal Harvey describe the types of local activism that might be needed, while Saul Griffith points to how Australia shows the way on rooftop solar. Meanwhile, small changes at the office might be one good way to cut significant emissions, writes Carlos Gamarra.

Trump’s first Cabinet was rocked by scandal. His second could suffer the same fate.

MSNBC – Maddow Blog

Maddow Blog | Rachel Maddow: Trump’s first Cabinet was rocked by scandal. His second could suffer the same fate.

Rachel Maddow and Allison Detzel – November 12, 2024

This is an adapted excerpt from the Nov. 11 episode of “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

The last time Donald Trump was president, his Interior secretary was embroiled in a corruption scandal and ended up referred to the Department of Justice for a potential criminal investigation. His Transportation secretary was also embroiled in her own corruption scandal and also was referred to the Justice Department for a potential criminal investigation.

Trump’s Labor secretary resigned in scandal, following a ruling from a federal judge that he had broken the law when he signed a plea deal agreement with Jeffrey Epstein in 2008. Trump’s Energy secretary, head of the Environmental Protection Agency and Health and Human Services secretary all also resigned in corruption and ethics scandals.

It used to be if you had one Cabinet official involved in a big ethics and/or corruption scandal that forced them out of the job or led to them being referred for criminal investigations, that would be enough to brand your whole presidency a disgraced and scandal-ridden mistake.

Just consider Warren G. Harding — what’s remembered about his presidency? Maybe that he died in office? Or that he had an affair? No, it’s the Teapot Dome corruption scandal, which resulted in a Cabinet official being criminally charged. A century later, that one scandal involving one Cabinet official is basically all we remember about Harding’s presidency.

The first Trump term had so many Cabinet officials forced out of office in disgrace and referred to the Justice Department for criminal charges that it’s actually hard to remember them all. However, despite an unprecedented number of Cabinet officials being referred for criminal investigations, the supposedly independent DOJ decided to bring charges against precisely none of them.

One of the more memorable ethical disasters along these lines from the first Trump term was a situation involving his secretary of Veterans Affairs, Robert Wilkie. This might be the most memorable scandal because it happened right at the end of his administration, Dec. 10, 2020 — after Trump lost re-election to Joe Biden but before the Jan. 6 attack.

MaddowBlog’s headline at the time, by Steve Benen, read, “Yet another Trump Cabinet secretary caught up in scandal: As Donald Trump’s presidency comes to an ignominious end, it’s apparently not too late for one more Cabinet controversy.”

Wilkie was accused of having discredited a female veteran who said she had been sexually assaulted at a VA facility. The VA inspector general investigated those allegations against him, found evidence that he seemed to have broken the law and referred him to the Justice Department for investigation. (Wilkie has denied questioning the woman’s credibility.)

The Justice Department didn’t charge Wilkie, just like they didn’t charge any of these guys. But more than 20 different veterans groups rose up in outrage against him. Disparate veterans groups with very different takes on the world banded together — everyone from the American Legion to Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America to the Veterans of Foreign Wars – all demanding that Wilkie resign or be fired.

It was just a disaster, and it was a sign that even right up to the very bitter and ultimately violent end of Trump’s first term, things weren’t merely bad. It’s not normal to have a half-dozen members of the Cabinet referred for investigations into potential crimes committed while they were serving in the Cabinet.

Now, as the nation marked Veteran’s Day, a day to honor and celebrate our veterans, we learned Trump has decided to bring Wilkie back, tapping him to lead the transition efforts for the entire Defense Department. At a time when the country is looking to the U.S. military for assurances that they won’t deploy against American civilians the way Trump has threatened, the guy charged with staffing up the Defense Department leadership for the military is same guy who left office last time while his “possible criminal conduct” was under investigation by federal prosecutors.

Wilkie is not the only one who’s been tapped for the second Trump administration in recent days. NBC News has learned Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who once memorably cast aspersions on the size of Trump’s genitals in a presidential debate, is expected to be the president-elect’s choice for secretary of state.

Trump has also chosen Rep. Mike Waltz of Florida to be his national security adviser. Walz helped in the effort to try to overthrow the government and keep Trump in power after he lost re-election in 2020. Waltz has distinguished himself by claiming that Trump was not responsible for Jan. 6 and that Dulles Airport should be renamed the “Donald J. Trump International Airport.” So clearly, he’s checked all the boxes he needs to be national security adviser.

We learned Tom Homan, the former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during Trump’s first term, will be his administration’s “border czar.” Remember when Republicans used to maintain with a straight face that it was a huge scandal and evidence of communism to call anyone the czar of anything?

Well, Homan will now be Trump’s “border czar.” He’s one of the architects of the policy that had the U.S. government deliberately and systematically separating kids from their parents at the border. He’s also spent this interregnum period while Trump has been out of office barnstorming the country bragging about how he’s going to be the man mercilessly coming after immigrants if Trump gets back in power.

Trump has put the other architect of family separation, Stephen Miller, in charge of all policy planning for the transition. A source tells NBC News that Miller will also serve as deputy chief of staff for policy in the second Trump White House.

So anyone telling you that a second Trump administration is going to be at all moderate or normal in terms of what they’re going to do, that person is living on a nice planet that I’d like to visit sometime, but it’s not our planet.

Any expectation that the most extreme things Trump talked about were just talk and that normal people would come into his administration to do normal things, well, that wishful thinking hasn’t survived one week after the election.

Rachel Maddow Says Trump 2.0 Cabinet Picks Will Continue His Reputation as ‘One of the Worst Presidents’

The Wrap

Rachel Maddow Says Trump 2.0 Cabinet Picks Will Continue His Reputation as ‘One of the Worst Presidents’

Benjamin Lindsay – November 12, 2024

Rachel Maddow skewered President-elect Donald Trump’s still-developing list of cabinet appointments Monday, first breaking down the litany of controversies and federal investigations surrounding his first term’s picks — before deciding the new crop could also continue his reputation as “one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States.”

The “Rachel Maddow Show” segment on MSNBC served as a Veteran’s Day explainer to the Trump 2.0 administration leaders, including incoming Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Walz and Trump’s so-called “border czar,” Tom Homan.

“The first Donald Trump presidential term had so many cabinet officials forced out of office in disgrace and referred to the Justice Department to face criminal charges, it’s actually hard to remember them all,” Maddow said at the top of the segment.

“And of course, just one of the scandals of the Trump administration is that despite an unprecedented number of cabinet officials being referred to the Justice Department for potential prosecution, the supposedly independent Department of Justice under Donald Trump decided to actually bring criminal charges against precisely none of them — which is yet another of the Trump scandals from his first time, but still.”

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XNgNRLa182Q%3Fsi%3DIcT0AsL5dmK5gJ60

After going through a murderer’s row of half a dozen cabinet officials — including Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao and Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta — Maddow determined that Trump’s first four years in office “were just bad.”

“It was a bad presidential term. It is not normal to have a half dozen members of the cabinet referred for potential criminal prosecution for crimes they allegedly committed while they were serving in the cabinet. It’s not normal,” she said. “I mean, that’s the kind of thing that gets you listed repeatedly as the worst, or among the worst, presidents in U.S. history when presidential historians and scholars are surveyed about these things, right? This is why Trump is considered by experts in the field to be if not the worst, then certainly one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States — I’m sorry, Warren G. Harding. It just wasn’t good!”

And if Trump’s newly appointed Secretary of Veteran Affairs looks familiar, it’s because he previously served in the first Trump administration before his mishandling of a sexual assault report derailed his political career.

“The guy who’s in charge with staffing up the defense department leadership for the military, making sure we’ve got all the best, most ethical people there, it’s the guy who left office last time under Trump while his ‘possible criminal conduct’ was under investigation by federal prosecutors,” Maddow said, incredulously. “Good times.”

For the other three new appointees in Maddow’s crosshairs, the MSNBC host explained that Republican senator of Florida Rubio “once memorably cast dispersions on the size of Donald Trump’s genitals while in a presidential debate,” Florida Congressman Walz has argued that Trump is not responsible for the Jan. 6 insurrection on the Capitol and Homan is making the media rounds promising “the biggest deportation operation this country’s ever seen.”

Watch her full “Rachel Maddow Show” segment in the video above.