Kavanaugh will ‘step up’ to keep Trump on ballots, ex-president’s lawyer says
Martin Pengelly in Washington – January 5, 2024
Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Brett Kavanaugh, the US supreme court justice, will “step up” for Donald Trump and help defeat attempts to remove the former president from the ballot in Colorado and Maine for inciting an insurrection, a Trump lawyer said.
“I think it should be a slam dunk in the supreme court,” Alina Habba told Fox News on Thursday night. “I have faith in them.
“You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he’ll step up. Those people will step up. Not because they’re pro-Trump but because they’re pro-law, because they’re pro-fairness. And the law on this is very clear.”
Kavanaugh was the second of three justices appointed by Trump, creating a 6-3 rightwing majority that has delivered major Republican victories including removing the federal right to abortion and loosening gun control laws.
Habba’s reference to Trump “going through hell” was to a stormy confirmation during which Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault, which he angrily denied. Trump reportedly wavered on Kavanaugh, only for senior Republicans to persuade him to stay strong.
Observers were quick to notice Habba’s apparent invitation to corruption.
Michael Kagan, a law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said: “Legal ethics alert. If … Kavanaugh feels in any way that he owes Trump and will ‘step up’, then [Habba] should be sanctioned by the bar for saying this on TV and thus trying to prejudice a proceeding.”
Last month, the Colorado supreme court and the Maine secretary of state ruled that Trump should be removed from the ballot under the 14th amendment to the US constitution, passed after the civil war to stop insurrectionists holding office.
Trump incited the deadly January 6 attack on Congress in 2021, an attempt to stop certification of his defeat by Joe Biden. Impeached but acquitted, he is now the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination this year.
Trump has appealed both state rulings. In a supreme court filing in the Colorado case, lawyers argued that only Congress could resolve such a dispute and that the presidency was not an office of state as defined in the 14th amendment.
The relevant text does not mention the presidency or vice-presidency. ABC News has reported exchanges in debate in 1866 in which those positions are covered.
The supreme court has not yet said if it will consider the matter.
Norm Eisen, a White House ethics tsar turned CNN legal analyst, said: “It’s likely … the supreme court will move to resolve this. They may do it quickly. They may not do it quickly because by filing this petition … Trump has stayed the Colorado proceedings. So at the moment he remains on the ballot. The supreme court does have to speak to it.”
Habba said:
“[Trump] has not been charged with insurrection. He has not been prosecuted for it. He has not been found guilty of it.”
She then made her prediction about Kavanaugh and other justices “stepping up”.
Trump ‘dictator’ comments raise questions about democracy. Here are 5 guardrails – if they hold
Riley Beggin and Angele Latham – January 5, 2024
As he seeks a second term in office, former President Donald Trump has indicated he plans to dramatically expand the power of the presidency and upturn democratic precedents.
Multiple American presidents of both parties have tested the bounds of executive power. But these pledges – and Trump’s unwillingness to acknowledge the valid results of the 2020 election, including saying the “termination” of the Constitution would be appropriate to overturn it − have experts in authoritarianism particularly on edge for what a second term would bring.
The United States government was built to withstand attempts to concentrate power in the hands of a single leader by vesting authority in Congress and the courts to check the president. There are also several agencies that operate independently of the president and decades of precedent that can create additional guardrails for democracy.
Experts who spoke with USA TODAY had varied opinions on the strength of those guardrails to stand up to potential abuses of power. Some said a widespread abandonment of democratic principles is unlikely; others suggested Trump has already proven they can be worn down.
Former President Donald Trump speaks after exiting the courtroom for a break at New York Supreme Court, Dec. 7, 2023, in New York.
In either case, they said, the strength of American democracy depends on how willing people are within the system to defend it in the face of retaliation.
“There is a possibility that the Constitution’s limits are exposed,” said Daniel Kiel, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Memphis. The Constitution sets rules to protect democracy, but it works only if people follow them, he said.
“If we don’t have voluntary adherence to the rules of the game, then it reveals that the Constitution on its own isn’t enough.”
Here’s more on five key guardrails at play in curbing potential abuses of executive power.
The courts
The judicial system, a co-equal branch of government, is a major arbiter of whether policies spearheaded by Congress or the president are legal.
“One of the guardrails against presidential dictatorship is the expectation that the other institutions will push back,” said Joel Goldstein, a law professor and constitutional expert at St. Louis University School of Law. “The Constitution requires every member of Congress, every member of the court, to take an oath to support the Constitution. And the premise behind that is that if you have a president who steps out of his or her lane, exceeds his or her power, as preventions to dictatorship the other institutions will push back.”
Trump has had a particularly significant influence on the court system: He appointed more than 200 federal judges in four years in office, only about 30% fewer than Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, who each served two terms.
A relatively high proportion of those were in the higher ranks. For instance, he appointed 54 judges to the nation’s 13 powerful appeals courts (compared with 55 appointed by Obama and 62 by Bush). He also appointed three U.S. Supreme Court justices, more than any president since Ronald Reagan. That created the conservative supermajority now serving on the nation’s highest court.
Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito attend a private ceremony for retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor before public repose in the Great Hall at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on Dec. 18, 2023.
But that doesn’t mean the justices would allow a significant power grab. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump in more cases than any president in modern history.
Trump and the Supreme Court would likely be on the same page about some disputes, said Philip Gorski, a political sociologist at Yale University, such as his plan to purge the civil service.
But “the real acid test would be around elections and presidential immunity,” he said.
The high court has already made one key decision in Trump’s favor: In late December, it declined special counsel Jack Smith’s request to take up Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution in the federal election interference case. The move is a boon for Trump in that it may delay the start of his March 4 trial, which is schedule a day before 16 states hold primary elections.
Congress
“One of the most important checks on executive power – the most obvious and the most powerful – is Congress,” said Sheri Berman, a political science professor at Barnard College.
Congress was built to be a co-equal branch of government with the president. But as the United States became a larger global player and the number of federal agencies expanded, presidents gained much more power to shape policy without the help of Congress.
Goldstein said that apart from a citizen’s initial vote, the role of Congress to uphold an equal separation of powers is one of the most vital to prevent extreme presidential overreach.
US House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., speaks to the press after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on December 12, 2023.
The legislative branch has the power to rein in a president. They are the only branch with constitutional power to tax and spend, can pass laws limiting executive branch regulatory powers (especially with a president set on slashing regulation), and remain able to impeach, convict and remove a president from office – but only with enough support in the House and Senate.
But “one of the things that I think has made Trump so dangerous is that the Republican Party has pretty much fallen in behind him,” Berman said. Trump remains extraordinarily popular among the GOP base – and he doesn’t hesitate to go after members of his own party who publicly defy him – which can make it challenging for a Republican-controlled Congress to be a significant check on his power, she said.
The ‘power ministries’
Trump has claimed he is being targeted for political reasons by Smith, the nonpartisan special prosecutor, and pledged to use the Justice Department to “go after” President Joe Biden and other political adversaries if elected.
He also has said he would send the National Guard into cities with high crime rates “until law and order is restored” and to the southern border “to stop the invasion” of record numbers of migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. Trump and his top military leaders clashed over Trump’s suggestion of using military might to quell protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis in summer 2020.
“The real threat is if he is able to purge and co-opt the power ministries: law enforcement, defense, intelligence,” said Yale’s Gorski. “Failing that, he can’t really go beyond being a norm-defying president.”
FBI Director Christopher Wray, speaks with reporters during a news conference at the Department of Justice on Dec. 6, 2023, in Washington, as from left, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Deputy Director Staci Barrera, of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri of the Criminal Division, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and Attorney General Merrick Garland, look on.More
There are multiple reasons to believe those “power ministries” would stand firm, he said. The militaries of successful strongmen are often drawn from the region or ethnic group that has strong ties to the leader. “The fact that we have a really cross-class, multiracial, inclusive military is certainly a buttress,” he said.
Gorski and Berman said the defense communities are staffed with people who are largely nonpartisan, professional and committed to defending the Constitution.
“Because of the strong ethos within each of those agencies or branches of the government – I would still expect considerable pushback,” Gorski said.
Elections
Multiple experts noted there is an often-overlooked guardrail to protect democracy that can prevent concerns of overreach from the very beginning: voting.
“The first act of rejection of these anti-democratic proposals should be at the ballot,” said Frederico Finchelstein, a history professor at the New School for Social Research in New York.
“If that is not effective, the situation will be very problematic because then you will have a person who is supported by votes” to deliver on anti-democratic promises – a voter mandate that could bolster arguments for more authoritarian policies, he said.
Lee Curran of Cherry Hill emerges from the voting booth after casting his vote at the Erlton Fire Company, district 25 in Cherry Hill, N.J. Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2022.
Goldstein expressed a similar sentiment.
“A democratic government is the antithesis of a dictatorship – and so the first guardrail against presidential dictatorship is not to elect somebody who has tendencies toward authoritarianism or dictatorial tendencies,” he said.
Though the right to vote is the first step in checking presidential power, Kiel warns that should Trump be duly elected in 2024, that electoral support might embolden him to push the limits of his presidential power.
“There was already a second reelection effort (by Trump) that failed, and so the voters have limited his power by voting him out of office,” Kiel said. Trump has been impeached twice − and acquitted twice in the Senate − and lost election once, he added: “If he were to be returned to office … I do think it’s a unique scenario in that one might feel more emboldened to test those limits of presidential power because those limits have proven already inadequate.”
The press
A primary guardrail of democracy, multiple experts noted, is also often the loudest one in the room: the press.
“The freedom of the press, the freedom of speech − our system depends upon a belief that the press and dissidents can speak against the government,” Goldstein said. “And that you as a citizen are not being unpatriotic by criticizing the government − it’s our patriotic duty to criticize the government when it acts improperly.”
But the attitude of a presidential administration toward the press can drastically affect the public’s trust in America’s oldest institution.
Trump has been a vocal critic, repeatedly claiming the press is intentionally peddling false information about him and his former administration. Kash Patel, a close ally who is likely to have a national security role in a second Trump administration, said that a new administration would “go out and find the conspirators” in the media.
TUCSON, ARIZONA – JULY 31: Kash Patel, a former chief of staff to then-acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, speaks during a campaign event for Republican election candidates at the Whiskey Roads Restaurant & Bar on July 31, 2022 in Tucson, Arizona. With less than two days to go before the Arizona primary election, candidates continue campaigning across the state. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)More
Patel’s statements reflect a growing gap among Americans regarding the trustworthiness and efficacy of reputable news organizations to provide that constitutional guardrail.
In 2020, the Pew Research Center found that the gap between Americans who view a number of notable news sources as “trustworthy” versus “untrustworthy” has widened significantly since 2014 – and almost entirely along political lines.
Indeed, another study found that the number of citizens who believed that news organizations’ criticism of elected leaders “(kept) them from doing things they shouldn’t” split dramatically after the first year of Trump’s presidency.
In January 2016, 75% of respondents believed news organizations protected from governmental overreach, and the gap between Republican-leaning respondents and Democrat-leaning respondents spanned 3 points. One year into Trump’s term, that gap widened to 47 points.
Looking forward
These five factors each have a role to play in protecting democracy in the United States, the experts who spoke with USA TODAY said. But their success hinges on the people inside each institution acting in the country’s best interest.
“Ultimately, any guardrail on presidential authoritarianism or dictatorship depends upon government officials and citizens valuing constitutional principle above short-term partisan advantage,” said Goldstein, of St. Louis University.
When people are more interested in “protecting their own team” than following the Constitution, he said, “then the system can unwind.”
“Unprofessional”: Experts blast Trump lawyer for saying Brett Kavanaugh “quid pro quo part out loud”
Igor Derysh – January 5, 2024
Alina Habba ANNA WATTS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
Trump attorney Alina Habba on Thursday suggested that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would “step up” and rule in favor of the former president because he “fought for” him.
Trump on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring him from the presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s “insurrectionist” clause. Trump has privately told people that he thinks the Supreme Court will “overwhelmingly” overturn the ruling but has also expressed concern that the conservative justices he appointed “will worry about being perceived as ‘political’ and may rule against him,” according to The New York Times.
Habba echoed Trump’s worries in an interview with Fox News.
“That’s a concern that he’s voiced to me, he’s voiced to everybody publicly, not privately. And I can tell you that his concern is a valid one,” she said. “They’re trying so hard to look neutral that sometimes they make the wrong call.”
But in a later appearance on the network with host Sean Hannity, Habba said the case should be a “slam dunk in the Supreme Court.”
“You know people like Kavanaugh ― who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place ― he’ll step up,” she said. “Those people will step up. Not because they’re pro-Trump but because they’re pro-law. Because they’re pro-fairness, and the law on this is very clear.”
CNN host Phil Mattingly was taken aback as he played the clip on Friday.
“If a Democrat said that about the Justice Department or Merrick Garland or fill-in-the-blank here, there would be an absolute implosion. That’s bonkers,” he said.
“She’s saying the quiet part out loud,” replied panelist Jon Avlon. “She’s saying that Brett Kavanaugh will step up and side with the president because he appointed him. That goes against every basic idea of law and independence of the judiciary. And frankly, it puts Kavanaugh in a bit of a box.”
Legal experts skewered the lawyers’ Fox News remarks.
“That’s not how this works,” tweeted national security attorney Bradley Moss. “Imagine for a second if a lawyer for Clinton, Obama or Biden said this. It’d be a massive scandal at Fox,” he added.
“Alina Habba saying the quid pro quo part out loud here,” wrote MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang.
“Yet another example of Habba demonstrating how unprofessional she is as an attorney,” national security lawyer Mark Zaid added.
How Rep. Andy Biggs proves House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Texas border bonanza was bogus
EJ Montini, Arizona Republic – January 4, 2024
Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs was at the border community of Eagle Pass, Texas, on Wednesday, part of a group of 60-plus Republicans led by House Speaker Mike Johnson, all of whom made the trip to make speeches, make the news, make (perhaps) some campaign cash, and accomplish … nothing.
Accomplishing nothing is something Biggs has proven to be very good (?) at.
“No more money for this bureaucracy of his (President Joe Biden’s) government until you’ve brought this border under control,” Biggs is quoted as saying in The New York Times. “Shut the border down or shut the government down.”
The congressman made the same threat on X, formerly Twitter.
”Shut the border down, or we’ll shut the government down,” he posted, standing with three other Republicans, including Arizona Rep. Eli Crane, who appears to have spent his time in Congress being tutored by Biggs on how to get zero done.
Some make progress. Biggs make noise
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, center left, and Texas Department of Public Safety chief Steve McCraw, center right, lead a group of Republican members of Congress during a tour of the Texas-Mexico border, Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024, in Eagle Pass, Texas.
There are two groups of elected officials operating in Washington, D.C.
There is a very small collective who want to make progress. And there is an overwhelming majority who want to make noise. You can guess which group Biggs, Speaker Johnson and the other Texas tinhorns belong to.
Meantime, back at the Capitol, there is a small working group of senators, including Arizona’s independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford and Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who are trying to hammer out a bipartisan agreement on border measures.
Sinema told The Arizona Republic, “We’re dealing with very, very difficult, complex issues. Drafting is very technical. It must be done incredibly precise and to avoid unintended consequences and decades of litigation. And so this is really hard. But everyone is working in good faith to solve this crisis.”
Not everyone.
Border isn’t a crisis, it’s a GOP gold mine
Republicans already are using the border crisis as their primary campaign argument for the 2024 election. It’s how they hope to help Donald Trump get back to the White House.
The worst thing that could happen to them, politically, would be for Republicans and Democrats of good faith to reach a bipartisan deal on the border.
Speaker Johnson, like Biggs and Arizona Republican Rep. Paul Gosar, was among those who tried to stage a nonviolent coup to keep Trump in office after he lost the election in 2020.
The bogus bonanza in Texas on Wednesday wasn’t about the border. It was about Trump.
Congress can solve this, but will it?
It wasn’t even the first time Biggs threatened a government shutdown.
He did that last year when he and some Republican cronies were trying to strongarm then Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
On Wednesday, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer in Washington said of the Republicans and their Texas two-step, “It’s very nice that they have a trip to the border, but the only way to solve this is here, working in a bipartisan way with Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats and House Democrats to get it done, period.
“I hope the speaker will realize that if he wants to solve the problem on the border.”
Trump’s businesses received millions from foreign entities during his presidency, House report says
Will Steakin – January 4, 2024
Former President Donald Trump’s businesses received millions of dollars from foreign entities located in 20 different countries during his presidency, according to a new report released Thursday by Democrats on the House Oversight committee.
The top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin, released the report and provided documents from Trump’s former accounting firm that show that 20 governments, including China and Saudi Arabia, paid at least $7.8 million during Trump’s presidency to business entities that included Trump International Hotels in Washington, D.C., and Las Vegas, and Trump Towers in New York.
The 156-page report by House Democrats is entitled “White House For Sale.”
In the forward to the report, Raskin wrote, “By elevating his personal financial interests and the policy priorities of corrupt foreign powers over the American public interest, former President Trump violated both the clear commands of the Constitution and the careful precedent set and observed by every previous commander in chief.”
The reports says that, according to “limited records” obtained by the committee, Saudi Arabia likely paid Trump-owned business at least $615,422 during Trump’s first term in office.
“While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was making these payments, President Trump chose Saudi Arabia as the destination of his first overseas trip — a choice that was unprecedented among U.S. presidents,” the report says.
PHOTO: Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump attends a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, Dec. 19, 2023. (Scott Morgan/Reuters, FILE)
The report claims that the payments violated the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause, a rule that bars the president and other federal officials from accepting money or gifts from foreign governments without Congressional approval.
In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed lawsuits accusing Trump of profiting from his presidency, on the grounds that he is no longer in office.
“Through entities he owned and controlled, President Trump accepted, at a minimum, millions of dollars in foreign emoluments in violation of the United States Constitution,” Democrats write in the report. “The documents obtained from former President Trump’s accounting firm demonstrate that four Trump-owned properties together collected, at the least, millions of dollars in payments from foreign governments and officials that violated the Constitution’s prohibition on emoluments ‘of any kind whatever’ from foreign governments.”
ABC News has reached out to Trump’s representatives for comment on the report.
Related:
AFP
Foreign govts paid Trump firms millions while president: report
AFP – January 4, 2024
A Chinese embassy delegation spent $19,391 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC (CHIP SOMODEVILLA)
Former US president Donald Trump‘s businesses received at least $7.8 million from foreign governments including China during his time in the White House, a congressional report claimed Thursday.
Officials from Saudi Arabia, India, Turkey and Democratic Republic of Congo were among some 20 countries’ representatives who paid money to Trump’s hotel and real estate businesses during his presidency, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee wrote in their report.
The authors claim that such revenues from overseas governments violated a constitutional ban on “foreign emoluments.”
“As President, Donald Trump accepted more than $7.8 million in payments from foreign states and their leaders, including some of the world’s most unsavory regimes,” said the report titled “White House for Sale.”
“We know about only some of the payments that passed into former President Trump’s hands during just two years of his presidency from just 20 of the more than 190 nations in the world through just four of his more than 500 businesses.”
– ‘Prohibited emoluments’ –
In the case of China, the report alleged that Beijing as well as businesses including ICBC bank and Hainan Airlines spent $5.5 million at Trump-owned properties.
“Former President Trump violated the Constitution when the businesses he owned accepted these emoluments paid by (Beijing) without the consent of Congress,” the report said.
The authors say that the full amount could be higher as the $5.5 million figure is based only on limited disclosures from Trump’s accountants Mazars and filings with the American financial regulator, the SEC.
In one expenditure dated August 27, 2017, a Chinese embassy delegation spent $19,391 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
The report also claims that “Saudi Arabia paid at least $615,422 in prohibited emoluments to former President Trump’s businesses over the course of his term in office from just (the Trump World Tower) and the March 2018 stay at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC.”
“Former President Trump has also boasted about the continued willingness of the Saudis to do business on terms highly favorable to him,” the report stated.
Trump’s Washington hotel was sold in 2022 to a private investor group and rebranded under the luxury Waldorf Astoria line.
The frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, Trump separately faces a civil fraud trial in New York over claims that his real estate businesses fraudulently inflated the value of their assets.
He is to go on trial in Washington in March for conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and in Florida in May on charges of mishandling top secret government documents.
The twice-impeached former president also faces racketeering charges in Georgia for allegedly conspiring to upend the election results in the southern state after his 2020 defeat by Democrat Joe Biden.
Related:
CNN
China spent over $5.5 million at Trump properties while he was in office, documents show
Zachary Cohen and Kara Scannell, CNN – January 4, 2024
Gabriella Demczuk/Getty Images
The Chinese government and its state-controlled entities spent over $5.5 million at properties owned by Donald Trump while he was in office, the largest total of payments made by any single foreign country known to date, according to financial documents cited in a report from House Democrats released Thursday.
Those payments collectively included millions of dollars from China’s Embassy in the United States, a state-owned Chinese bank accused by the US Justice Department of helping North Korea evade sanctions and a state-owned Chinese air transit company. Accounting records from Trump’s former accounting firm, Mazars USA, were obtained by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.
China is one of 20 countries that made at least $7.8 million in total payments to Trump-owned businesses and properties during the former president’s stint in the White House, including his hotels in Washington DC, New York and Las Vegas, the report states.
The documents offer additional evidence of the rare practice of foreign governments spending money directly with businesses owned by a sitting president but are not a complete record of all foreign payments made to Trump’s businesses during his time in the White House.
At the time, Trump’s lawyer said the former president planned to donate foreign profits from his hotels to the US Treasury Department. However, the amount reportedly donated by the Trump Organization in 2017 and 2018 falls well short of estimated foreign payments that were made to its properties.
Trump refused to divest himself of corporate assets and properties prior to taking office, meaning he could still profit from his various businesses with little transparency.
Democrats say the additional accounting records raise new questions about possible efforts to influence Trump through his companies while he was in the White House.
As an example, committee Democrats point to the fact that Trump declined to impose sanctions on the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), a state-owned entity that leased property at Trump Tower in New York.
A Securities and Exchange Commission filing from 2012 shows that the Chinese bank’s base rent paid was $1.9 million and documents produced by Mazars confirm the bank stayed in Trump Tower through 2019 at least.
In 2016, the Justice Department accused the bank of conspiring with a North Korean bank to evade US sanctions.
But upon taking office, Trump did not sanction ICBC despite calls from Republican members of Congress to “apply maximum financial and diplomatic pressure” by “targeting more Chinese banks that do business with North Korea,” House Oversight Committee Democrats wrote in a report summarizing the contents of the Mazars USA records.
Asked about China’s payments to Trump-owned properties, Chinese Embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu told CNN, “China adheres to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs and does not comment on issues related to US domestic politics.”
“At the same time, I want to stress that the Chinese government always requires Chinese companies to operate overseas in accordance with local laws and regulations. China-US economic and trade cooperation is mutually beneficial. China opposes the US politicizing China-US economic and trade issues,” Pengyu added.
The Trump Organization says it donated over $450,000 in estimated profits from foreign government patronage to the US Treasury over the time of Trump’s term. The company also worked to track all foreign government business across its entire portfolio and did not make new business investments overseas while Trump was in office.
In a statement, Eric Trump said that the former president was tough on China regardless of any business interests.
“There is no President in United States history who was tougher on China than Donald Trump … a President who introduced billions and billions of dollars worth of tariffs on their goods and services,” Eric Trump said.
Democrats also argue that the Mazar documents show Trump repeatedly violated the US Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits a president from receiving an “emolument,” or profit, from any “King, Prince, or foreign State” unless Congress consents. Yet despite ethical concerns that have been raised about Trump’s lack of adherence to constitutional norms that were embraced by his predecessors, legislation to enforce the Emoluments Clause has gone nowhere in Congress.
The committee, which has investigated Trump’s businesses and his lease of the Old Post Office in Washington from the US government that housed his hotel, was provided the records following a years-long court battle that ended in a settlement in 2022.
Many of the documents in the subset released Thursday have not been previously made public.
“These countries spent – often lavishly – on apartments and hotel stays at Donald Trump’s properties – personally enriching President Trump while he made foreign policy decisions connected to their policy agendas with far-reaching ramifications for the United States,” Democrats wrote in their report.
Saudi Arabia, for example, spent roughly $600,000 at Trump-owned properties during his time in office and was making significant payments in May 2017 when it signed a massive arms deal with the Trump administration.
The Trump administration agreed to the controversial arms deal, worth over $100 billion, despite bipartisan concerns about civilian casualties resulting from Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen.
The report produced by House Democrats also highlighted comments made by Trump during a 2015 campaign rally regarding his view of Saudi Arabia.
“Saudi Arabia, I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million.” He continued, “Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much!” Trump said at the time.
Committee Democrats have previously released some of the accounting records, but those documents only accounted for a fraction of the foreign payments to Trump-owned businesses during the years he occupied the White House.
Foreign spending at Trump World Tower
A sizable percentage of foreign spending disclosed in the latest report comes from leases or common charge payments countries made for apartments their diplomatic missions rent or own at Trump World Tower, an apartment building across the street from the United Nations.
Many of the countries bought properties years before Trump ran for office, but they continued to make payments to the Trump Organization during the presidency.
Saudi Arabia, India, Qatar, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and a Chinese-government linked petroleum company each owned or rented apartments at Trump World Tower and combined paid the Trump Organization an estimated $1.7 million in charges and fees, according to House Democrats.
The figure is based on records the Democrats received from Mazars for the year 2018 – the only year Mazars gave to the committee – and then an extrapolation based on the assumptions the charges remain the same during the course of Trump’s presidency.
The biggest payment to the UN property came from Saudi Arabia, which owns the 45th floor of the apartment tower. Democrats estimate the Saudi government paid $537,080 during Trump’s presidency – out of a total $615,422 in emoluments. The remainder came from payments to Trump’s hotel in Washington DC.
Qatar paid an estimated $465,744 for the properties it owned during Trump’s presidency; India paid at least $264,184; Afghanistan spent an estimated $153,208 for its unit; and Kuwait paid Trump’s company $152,664 for the Trump World Tower.
Kuwait also spent roughly $150,000 to the Washington hotel for National Day events held by its embassy in 2017 and 2018, according to Mazars records.
The national day event was also held at the hotel in 2019, but the Democrats said they did not receive records from Mazars related to the cost. The events were attended by Trump administration officials, the Democrats said citing press releases from the Kuwaiti embassy.
This story has been updated with additional details.
Related:
BBC News
Trump companies got millions from foreign governments, Democrats say
Natalie Sherman – BBC News – January 4, 2024
Trump International Hotel opened in 2016 in Washington
Donald Trump‘s hotels and other businesses accepted more than $7.8m (£6.1m) from foreign governments during his presidency, according to a new report from Democrats in Congress.
They found that China was responsible for more than $5.5m of those payments, which Mr Trump is accused of accepting in violation of the US constitution.
The report is based on documents released by Mr Trump’s former accounting firm after a court battle.
Mr Trump did not immediately comment.
The US constitution bars presidents from accepting gifts or other benefits derived from their position without express permission from Congress.
The former businessman, who made his name as a hotel and property developer, has been dogged by questions about his firms’ dealings since he entered the White House in January 2017.
At the time, he placed his sons in charge of the companies’ day-to-day operations but maintained ownership of the businesses, which included the Trump International Hotel in Washington, which became a known haunt for lobbyists, foreign delegations and others.
Mr Trump, who is currently campaigning for a second term, faced numerous lawsuits alleging conflicts-of-interest.
In 2021, America’s highest court threw out the cases, saying they were moot after he lost the 2020 election.
Representative Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said the investigation showed Mr Trump “put lining his pockets with cash from foreign governments seeking policy favors over the interests of the American people”.
“The report’s detailed findings make clear that we don’t have the laws in place to deal with a president who is willing to brazenly convert the presidency into a business for self-enrichment and wealth maximization with the collusive participation of foreign state,” he wrote in the introduction to the report.
Democrats said their investigation showed that Mr Trump’s loyalties were split by the payments, which came from at least 20 governments many of which had sensitive or politically charged matters before the US.
They cite as an example that Mr Trump supported arms sales to Saudi Arabia that were opposed by Congress due to fears the weapons would be used against civilians.
The report also notes he cast doubt on US intelligence assessments that the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman had ordered the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
After China, Saudi Arabia and its royal family was the second biggest patron of the Trump businesses, spending more than $600,000 at his properties, according to the report.
Qatar, Kuwait and India rounded out the top five list.
Democrats said that the findings reflect just the first two years of his presidency and only four of his properties, claiming it likely represented just a fraction of the money Mr Trump’s businesses made from foreign governments during his time as president.
In 2022, Democrats lost control of Congress and could no longer compel release of documents, cutting short the investigation.
Republican James Comer, who is leading an inquiry into the business dealings of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, during his father’s vice presidency, dismissed the findings.
“It is beyond parody that Democrats continue their obsession with former President Trump,” he said in a statement. “Former President Trump has legitimate businesses but the Bidens do not.”
Mr Trump’s tax records, released in 2022, revealed significant business losses during his presidency and he has scaled back his business.
The Trump Organization sold the Washington hotel to an investment group for $375m in 2022.
Related:
CBS News
Trump businesses got millions in foreign payments while he was president, Dems say
Kathryn Watson, Stefan Becket – January 4, 2024
Washington — Donald Trump‘s businesses received at least $7.8 million in payments from foreign governments and government-backed entities from 20 countries while he was in the White House, according to a new report by House Democrats.
Drawing upon 451 pages of documents received from Trump’s longtime accounting firm Mazars and a federal agency, Democratic staffers on the House Oversight Committee on Thursday issued their 156-page report entitled “White House for Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump.”
The records, the report said, “demonstrate that four Trump-owned properties together collected, at the least, millions of dollars in payments from foreign governments and officials.” The Democrats alleged these payments violated what’s known as the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts or other benefits from foreign countries without congressional approval.
“This report sets forth the records showing foreign government money — and all the spoils from royals we can find — pouring into hotels and buildings that the President continued to own during his presidency, all in direct violation of the Constitutional prohibition,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee.
The Democrats noted that they had access to a limited number of financial documents and that “the foreign payments to President Trump identified in this report are likely only a small fraction of the total amount of such payments he received during his presidency.”
Where the payments came from
The Democratic report focuses on payments to four Trump-controlled businesses: the Trump hotels in Washington, Las Vegas and New York, and Trump Tower in Manhattan.
While Trump turned over day-to-day operations of his businesses to his sons when he entered the White House in 2017, he declined to divest his assets and retained “personal ownership and control of all his businesses, as well as the ability to draw funds from them without any outside disclosure,” the report alleged. This arrangement, Democrats said, “reinforced (rather than severed) his ties to his businesses and enabled him to prioritize his personal interests over those of the nation.”
During his presidency, the Trump International Hotel in Washington attracted many foreign diplomats and dignitaries hoping to mingle with Trump allies and administration officials. According to Trump’s financial disclosure reports from when he was president, he earned more than $40 million from the D.C. hotel in 2017, and $40.8 million the following year.
A view of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 18, 2021. / Credit: Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Despite Trump’s frequent criticism of China and insistence that the country was taking advantage of the U.S., the majority of foreign payments included in Thursday’s report came from the Chinese government and two state-owned entities.
The payments totaled nearly $5.6 million at properties including Trump Tower, and the Trump International Hotels in Washington and Las Vegas, the report found. The bulk of the payments came from the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which paid $5.35 million in rent for space in Trump Tower from February 2017 to October 2019.
The nation that spent the second-most at the Trump properties, according to the report, was Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government spent more than $615,000 at Trump World Tower in New York and the Trump hotel in Washington from 2017 to 2020.
The report noted that Trump praised Saudi Arabia and mentioned “his transactional relationships” with the kingdom before taking office. During an August 21, 2015, rally in Alabama, Trump said Saudi nationals had spent millions of dollars on his apartments.
“Saudi Arabia, I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million,” he said. “Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much!”
The report said that Trump “oversaw several highly consequential decisions on a range of issues involving U.S. policy towards Saudi Arabia” while his businesses were receiving payments from the Saudi government. The Democrats noted Trump’s response to the 2018 death of Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident Jamaal Khashoggi, in which he publicly doubted the conclusion of the intelligence community that the Saudi crown prince had ordered his killing.
Qatar follows Saudi Arabia’s spending, with $465,744 spent at Trump World Tower. Nearly all of the remaining payments, from countries including Kuwait, India, Malaysia, Afghanistan, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates, occurred at the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
The fight over emoluments
Trump’s business dealings as president were the subject of three major court cases while he was in office, the first of which was filed in 2017. The cases, brought by Democratic lawmakers, several states and an oversight group, were the first legal battles over the Emoluments Clause, but failed to resolve questions about the definition of an “emolument” or the scope of constitutional provision. The Supreme Court dismissed two of them once Trump left office and declined to review the third.
The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the new report. Trump dismissed the “phony Emoluments Clause” and concerns about his business dealings in 2019.
The Trump Organization has said it voluntarily donated proceeds from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury every year from 2018 to 2021. In 2017, the Trump Organization said it would rely on foreign representatives to self-report if they were paying a Trump company for something in their official capacity.
The company said it donated $191,538 in foreign payments in 2019, $105,465 in 2020 and $10,577 in 2021.
Abcarian: Really, young voters? You want to teach Democrats a lesson by letting Trump back into the White House?
Robin Abcarian – January 3, 2024
President Biden poses with Students Demand Action in Connecticut in June. In 2020, the youngest American voters were squarely in his corner. Not now, according to polls. (Susan Walsh / Associated Press)
I almost spit out my Geritol the other day when I read what one young voter in Philadelphia told NBC News about why she is disillusioned about the upcoming presidential election.
“I don’t think the presidency has too much of an effect on what happens in my day-to-day life,” said Pru Carmichael, who supported Biden in 2020 but says she will not vote for president at all this year if she has to choose between the disappointing incumbent and former President Trump.
Seriously?
Maybe she believes she will never have an unintended, unwanted pregnancy. (However, if she does, she is lucky enough to live in Pennsylvania, where abortion is still legal.)
But how can she not appreciate the profound changes the Trump presidency inflicted on this country? Had there been no President Trump, there would be no ultraconservative majority on the Supreme Court, no Dobbs decision overturning nearly half a century of reproductive rights, no outright abortion bans in 13 states and no suffering by people like Kate Cox of Texas, who was forced to seek abortion care in another state after the Texas Supreme Court said she could not abort her severely compromised fetus, who suffered a condition that was incompatible with life.
In 2020, the youngest American voters were squarely in Biden’s corner. According to exit polls, 65% of those 18 to 24 years old chose him, the largest percentage of any age group. And yet, if recent national polls are to be believed, voters up to age 34 have grown disenchanted with the president. Perhaps this is a reflection on the impatience of youth, or, worse, a fundamentally weak grasp on how government operates.
Listen to what younger voters told NBC News they’re upset about: the country’s slow pace on reversing climate change, Biden’s failure to fully cancel student loan debt, his inability to federally codify the right to abortion and, perhaps most starkly, his handling of Israel’s war against Hamas and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
“I mean, he made a lot of really big promises in his campaign and virtually none of them were followed through on,” one poll respondent, Austin Kapp, 25, of Colorado, told NBC News.
He did try to codify Roe, but was unable to marshal the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by Senate Republicans.
And what has Trump been doing about abortion, besides taking credit for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade? He’s urging Republicans to mislead voters: “In order to win in 2024, Republicans must learn how to properly talk about abortion,” he told a group of Iowa supporters in September. “This issue cost us unnecessarily but dearly in the midterms.”
We now know, thanks to the horrific experience of Cox and other women who have brought suit in Texas, that the idea of an “exception” to abortion bans for cases of rape, incest, fetal anomalies or the health of the pregnant person is nothing more than a shimmering lie, a mirage to make abortion bans slightly more palatable to the majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to choose.
As for the Middle East crisis, even if you agree that Biden’s handling of the situation has been uneven, why would anyone think Trump, an outspoken supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, would handle it better, particularly if your sympathies lie more with the Palestinians caught in the violence than the Israeli government’s response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack?
On the campaign trail, Trump has signaled a lack of engagement in the conflict, suggesting that he would “let this play out.” His one concrete suggestion? In an interview with Univision in November, he said that Israel needed to “do a better job of public relations, frankly, because the other side is beating them at the public relations front.”
He has also pledged to “revoke the student visas of radical anti-American and antisemitic foreigners at our colleges and universities, and we will send them straight back home.” (Muslim ban, anyone?) Does that sound like an appealing counter-message for the 70% of voters under 35 who told NBC News pollsters they disapprove of the way Biden has handled the war?
With 2024 upon us, and the first contests of the Republican presidential primaries set to take place on Jan. 15 in Iowa and on Jan. 23 in New Hampshire, barring some unforeseen development it could become clear very quickly that the much-indicted Trump is bound for the November ballot as the Republican presidential nominee.
A Suffolk University/USA Today poll released on New Year’s Day showed that Trump is out-polling Biden among groups the pollsters described as “stalwarts of the Democratic base,” that is, Hispanics and younger voters. Biden’s support among Black Americans has also slipped significantly, though he still leads Trump.
This is alarming, not catastrophic. Biden, and Democrats, have time to make their case. I remain skeptical that the Democratic base will not come home by November, particularly as Trump continues to embrace his inner dictator on the campaign trail.
“A Republican getting elected isn’t the end. It is the beginning of a much larger fight,” a 23-year-old Wisconsin Starbucks worker and union organizer who is considering withholding his vote from Biden told NBC News. “I want to show the Democratic Party as a young person that you still need to earn our vote and if you don’t, the consequences will be your career.”
Teach Democrats a lesson by electing a democracy-destroying authoritarian?
My mother used to call that cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Turkey blocks passage of British minehunter ships destined for Ukraine
Dmytro Basmat – January 2, 2024
Two British minehunter ships destined for Ukraine will not be able to travel through Turkish waters, President Erdogan’s Directorate of Communications announced on Jan. 2, citing an international pact.
“Our pertinent allies have been duly apprised that the mine-hunting ships donated to Ukraine by the United Kingdom will not be allowed to pass through the Turkish Straits to the Black Sea as long as the war continues,” a statement from the President’s communications office read.
Referring to an international convention which governs maritime traffic in the region, the Turkish government emphasized that Russian and Ukrainian warships are prohibited from entering Turkish Straits due to the ongoing war.
As per the Montreux Convention, warships from non-belligerent nations are allowed passage through the straits during wartime. However, the convention also states that Ankara retains the ultimate authority over the passage of all warships, if Turkey perceives a risk of being involved in the conflict.
The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense revealedits plan to donate Sandown class vessels from Britain’s Royal Navy last month, amid the ongoing disbursement of sea mines in the Black Sea. The donated minehunter ships were intended to clear sea mines for the safe passage of larger ships, as well as “help save lives at sea and open up vital export routes.”
The Netherlands has also previously pledged two Alkmaar class minehunter ships to Ukraine to arrive in the Black Sea by 2025. It is now unclear if the intended donation will reach Ukraine.
Hundreds of mines have been spread throughout the Black Sea since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. On several occasions, civilian ships or navy ships belonging to countries not party to the war struck sea mines.
Step by step, Florida Guard inches toward becoming DeSantis’ personal army | Opinion
The Miami Herald Editorial Board – December 25, 2023
The creeping threat of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ new State Guard has increased again, this time with the news that a special unit within the organization recently took lessons at a Panhandle combat training center on things like “aerial gunnery” and treating “massive hemorrhages.”
Gun training? “Massive hemorrhages”? That sounds ominous.
This is the same guard that was supposed to be a civilian disaster response organization but has become increasingly militarized, according critics, including some former guard members. As we have said before, the big danger is that DeSantis will turn the State Guard into his personal militia. In a state that is already trying to squelch dissent and target vulnerable groups, that’s a scary prospect. This latest information only bolsters that fear.
Fleeing strongmen
That holds especially true in Miami. The push to give the governor what amounts to a personal law enforcement unit should ring some terrifying bells of recognition: Too many people here have had to flee countries run by authoritarians or strongmen who keep power through force.
The reason for the special training, which was reported by the Miami Herald, apparently is to allow DeSantis to use the guard, which reports only to him — a recipe for abuse — to stop migrants at sea. That’s a far cry from using the group to distribute hurricane relief supplies or help out an overworked National Guard.
That this is happening, though, can’t surprise anyone who has been paying attention. Florida’s governor has gone ever more extreme as he has watched his GOP presidential nomination hopes slipping away as Donald Trump’s have grown. His language has grown increasingly incendiary. He has described his plan to shoot and kill drug smugglers at the U.S. southern border using in bloodthirsty, B-movie terms: “We’re gonna shoot them stone cold dead.”
And yet his poll numbers keep going down. According to one recent Quinnipiac University poll, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has now pulled even with him for second place in the primary — both at a mere 11%. In February, DeSantis polled at 36%. Trump, despite his betrayal of the country that many Republicans once spoke against, now has about 67% support, with less than a month before the first primary votes will be cast.
Political points?
With the State Guard, Florida’s governor is no doubt hoping for a wave of people fleeing their country on the high seas so he can unleash his soldiers on them for political purposes. When the State Guard was revived last year by the Legislature at DeSantis’ behest, there was an actual surge of migrants in the Florida Keys, mostly from Cuba and Haiti. But since then, the surge has mostly dried up.
That makes no difference to the governor. Clearly, DeSantis wants to use the State Guard as a pawn in his fight to stay relevant in the primary by focusing on a sure-fire hit with Republicans: the evils of immigration.
It’ll be hard to go any lower than Trump has, though. He recently launched a particularly horrendous attack, saying that migrants crossing the southern border are “poisoning the blood” of the United States. Afterward, he insisted — in his usual attempt at manipulation — that any similarity between his words and those in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” manifesto — “All great cultures of the past perished only because the original creative race died out from blood poisoning” — was simply all in our heads.
DeSantis’ push to revive the State Guard during his presidential run was political from the start and has only become more so. This latest weapons and wounds training is part of the progression toward a potential abuse of power in Florida that he has created with the full-on support of the Legislature. And we’re the ones who will be stuck with the results after he’s gone from office.
‘A Very Large Earthquake’: How Trump Could Decimate the Civil Service
Ian Ward – December 20, 2023
For the past two decades, Max Stier has distinguished himself as Washington’s foremost champion of the federal civil service, a quiet but influential voice in favor of practical reforms to make federal bureaucracy work better both for the people who serve in it and for the people that it serves. The Partnership for Public Service — the nonpartisan, nongovernmental organization that Stier helped found in 2001 and still runs today — works largely behind the scenes in Washington to grease the wheels of the bureaucracy, doing everything from crafting common sense proposals for modernizing government programs to hosting a much-beloved annual awards ceremony honoring the country’s top performing civil servants.
These days, though, Stier is increasingly preoccupied with what he sees as a fundamental threat to that work: former President Donald Trump’s sweeping proposal to convert thousands of career civil servants into political appointees if he wins a second term in the White House. That plan — which has won the support of powerful, Trump-aligned conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the America First Policy Institute — is modeled on an executive order from Trump’s first term that redesignated 20,000 civil servants in policy-related positions as “Schedule F” employees, thereby allowing them to be fired unilaterally by the president.
The Biden administration reversed the Trump administration’s order upon assuming office in 2021, but Trump has vowed to reinstitute an expanded version of the Schedule F order if he is reelected in 2024, converting as many as 50,000 civil servants into political appointees and stripping them of the career protections that they currently enjoy.
For Stier, Trump’s proposal is as ironic as it is dangerous. Although Trump and his allies have argued that their plan is necessary to vanquish the “deep state” that allegedly undermined Republican policy initiatives during Trump’s first term, Stier argues that a revamped order on Schedule F would in fact go a long way toward creating the sort of “deep state” that conservatives now rail against.
“If you were to convert a significant segment of that professional workforce into one that is being chosen by political fiat, then you end up in a system that is responsive to the political desires of the individual rather than the larger responsibilities to the Constitution and to law,” Stier said when I spoke to him recently. “You wind up with a workforce that is not only going to deliver poor service, but also that is going to be a tool for retribution and actions that are contrary to our democratic system.”
Even so, Stier cautioned, Americans should not underestimate the damage that the reforms would do to the federal government’s ability to deliver basic services in a timely and efficient manner. “At the end of the day, it’s intuitive,” he said. “If you are selecting people on the basis of their political persuasion or their loyalty as opposed to their expertise and their commitment to the public good, you’re going to wind up with less good service and more risk for the American people.”
The following has been edited for concision and clarity.
How seismic would the changes wrought by Trump’s proposal be? Is there any precedent for it?
It would be a very large earthquake. There is precedent, but it’s precedent from the 19th century. In effect, when you talk about implementing Schedule F, you’re talking about turning the clock back to the late 19th century, when our government operated under the spoils system. That all changed, importantly, when President [James] Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker [in 1881], resulting in the passage of the first piece of legislation that professionalized our government, the Pendleton Act.
Frankly, Schedule F is now used as a handle for a larger set of dramatic changes to our government, but they are entirely designed to — and will have the consequence of — making our government responsive to the will of the individual holder of the office of the president rather than the broader allegiance to our Constitution and the rule of law.
Is there evidence that a merit-based civil service — as opposed to a bureaucracy run according to the spoils system — actually makes the government more effective?
No question. One way to know that is to look at our peer countries across the world, and the reality is that every effective democracy on the planet today has a professionalized, merit-based civil service that is the core of their governmental function. If anything, we are an outlier in the numbers and the extent to which political appointees are [spread] throughout government institutions. We have 4,000 political appointments that are made by a president — and that is dramatically more than anybody else out there. So one direct piece of evidence is to look at our peers to see how capability and government performance are directly related to the professional capability of the other civil service. In our own country, the same is true. We have many instances in which organizations have foundered when they’ve had too many political appointees.
At the end of the day, it’s intuitive: If you are selecting people on the basis of their political persuasion or their loyalty as opposed to their expertise and their commitment to the public good, you’re going to wind up with less good service and more risk for the American people.
Do we know which career positions would likely be converted to appointed positions under a second Trump administration?
The best evidence we have so far is what was attempted at the back end of the last Trump administration. At that point, they were looking at converting effectively the entire Office of Management and Budget. For most people, that’s just another government acronym, but in fact, it’s the nerve center of the entire government and the office that really is responsible for coordinating and allocating all the resources of our government — and it’s one of the most capable and professionalized elements of our government.
If you converted just those positions alone, then all kinds of choices in government would be made not on the basis of what delivers the best service to the public, and not on the basis of choosing according to transparent criteria that match Congress’ objective desires. They would be entirely based on the political implications — and that is a worse world.
What about beyond OMB?
We don’t know what the full sweep would be, but it’s also true that you don’t have to convert all the positions to have a much larger impact. The chill that would exist for the larger workforce would be profound. For instance, we currently have a system that respects whistleblowers in order to make sure that if something illegal is occurring inside an agency, the individuals who raise them are actually protected. In a world with Schedule F, that would be incredibly hard to see that happening.
Which areas of the government stand to suffer the most under a return to the “spoils system,” as you called it? What would that look like in terms of the delivery of government services?
It depends a lot on how broad of a brush is ultimately wielded in making the changes. You can start from the most obvious, life-saving components of our government.
If you ask the public today if they want a professional government service, they say “yes” in very, very large majorities. So I think that the intuitive point is very strong. The challenge is that there’s a narrative that has been sold around this notion of a deep state, which is just wrong. Indeed, the proposals that are on the table would create a deep state, rather than the effective state that we all should be pursuing.
What do you mean?
I don’t think we have a deep state today. The vast bulk of career civil servants understand that their role is to execute the policy choices that our elected leaders make and that they have a responsibility to follow the law and to make sure their actions are consistent with the Constitution. But if you were to convert a significant segment of that professional workforce into one that is being chosen by political fiat, then you end up in a system that is responsive to the political desires of the individual rather than the larger responsibilities to the Constitution and to law.
You wind up with a workforce that is not only going to deliver poor service, but also that is going to be a tool for retribution and actions that are contrary to our democratic system.
The Biden administration has issued a rule that’s designed to limit the scope and efficacy of any subsequent Schedule F reforms by future administrations. How effective do you think that rule will be?
It’s an important effort and recognition that it would be wrong and damaging. At the end of the day, though, Congress speaking to this would be much more efficacious. I actually think that, even absent the rule or legislation, there would be real legal reasons to challenge the creation of something like Schedule F.
What would a legal challenge look like?
There are statutes that Congress passed that enshrined the merit principles, and one of the main principles is that employees should actually be hired on the basis of merit and not on the basis of politics. So I believe there would be credible and important legal questions that could be raised about those kinds of changes.
But again, I’m not suggesting that they necessarily win — and in the meantime, an awful lot of damage could happen. The very effort and attempt [to reimplement schedule F] would be incredibly damaging in and of itself, so people should not feel sanguine about the possibility that this couldn’t happen or could be delayed, because the harm is profound even in just attempting to do so.
Past administrations from both parties have struggled to fill the 4,000 appointed jobs that currently exist. Is it feasible for a future administration to fill somewhere in the ballpark of 50,000 appointed roles?
The biggest challenge in placing political appointees comes from the Senate confirmation process and all the delays and difficulties that are involved in actually nominating and getting the Senate to confirm them. That’s a deeply broken process. But none of these positions would require that. So I don’t believe that people should be heartened by the notion that they can convert them and it won’t matter because they won’t be able to fill those jobs. I don’t think that is either a true or adequate answer to the problem.
I imagine many people reading this will think, “Well, our government doesn’t work all that efficiently as it is, so what’s the problem with making it a little bit less efficient?” How do you answer that?
This is a difference in kind and not in degree. It’s not like, Yeah, we might just have a slightly less efficient government. No — we would actually have a government that fundamentally fails in its responsibilities to the American people. It would become an instrument of political achievement rather than an instrument of problem-solving and addressing critical issues for the public.
But I think the point is a very important one, because the American public should demand even better than they’re getting right now from our government. I believe that there actually are really good ways of improving the capability of the civil service that do not involve burning down our government. That’s fundamentally the choice that is here to be made. I don’t think it’s efficient to simply say that Schedule F is bad. You also have to offer a plan of attack on improving our government — and frankly, we have that. We have a whole roadmap of the changes that should take place. But the reality is that none of it should be viewed as an indictment of career public servants. It’s an indictment of the leadership over the years that has failed to modernize and invest in the systems of our government.
What does that roadmap look like?
To give one example, the pay system is based on a law from 1949 and it fundamentally hasn’t been modernized since then. That ought to be modernized, because it was built at an age in which our federal workforce was largely clerical, whereas today it’s largely professional. The system isn’t designed for market connectivity to get the technologists, the AI specialists and so on that are necessary to deliver the best services to the public.
There are changes that ought to take place in the way accountability is done in our government. You can actually fire federal employees — and many do leave because they’re threatened with being fired for performance issues — but the systems should be modernized and updated and simplified. There are lots of things that can be done that would actually improve the public service and that would result in better outcomes for the public, rather than blowing it up.
What happens to those reforms in a world with Schedule F? Is there a kind of dual-track future where you can do sensible civil service reform even with Schedule F in place, or are they completely crosswise with each other?
I think they’re crosswise because they come from different visions. One vision is a spoils system, and the other is a professional, capable and effective state. Those are very, very different visions, so I don’t think you can marry the two.
Ultimately, the Schedule F approach swamps the entire system. It cuts the legs out from the idea that we want people who are not only selected on the basis of their capabilities but also based on the fact that their loyalty is to the rule of law and our Constitution rather than to the individual [in power]. Again, we have way too many political appointees as it is, and it really is important for people to see that we are such an outlier in the world — in a bad way.
I suspect that some people on the right simply do not care if government efficiency suffers as a result of these reforms. In fact, that might be part of the goal. How do you think about appealing to people who might be thinking about it that way?
There’s an entirely legitimate and appropriate debate to be had about the role of our government. But there should be no debate about ensuring that, whatever the public actually desires the government to do, it’s done well and effectively. The vast majority of civil servants are focused on national security issues — on actually keeping us safe. I don’t think there are very many Americans who would dispute the value of that outcome or the need for an effective government to do it.
How aware are people in Washington of the potential consequences of these reforms? And how prepared do you think they are to deal with them?
I do not believe that the public has good insight into the nasty consequences that would come out of the proposals that are part of Project 2025. At the end of the day, if you look at the polling [about the public’s view of the civil service] it’s clear as can be: Americans actually want the people who are serving them to be chosen because they’re the most expert and capable — not because they’ve sworn loyalty to the person in the Oval Office.
Trump would install loyalists to reshape U.S. foreign policy. Diplomats gird for “doomsday”
Gram Slattery, Simon Lewis, Idrees Ali, Phil Stewart – December 18, 2023
Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Trump campaigns in Reno
WASHINGTON (Reuters) –Donald Trump in a second term would likely install loyalists in key positions in the Pentagon, State Department and CIA whose primary allegiance would be to him, allowing him more freedom than in his first presidency to enact isolationist policies and whims, nearly 20 current and former aides and diplomats said.
The result would enable Trump to make sweeping changes to the U.S. stance on issues ranging from the Ukraine war to trade with China, as well as to the federal institutions that implement – and sometimes constrain – foreign policy, the aides and diplomats said.
During his 2017-2021 term, Trump struggled to impose his sometimes impulsive and erratic vision on the U.S. national security establishment.
He often voiced frustration at top officials who slow-walked, shelved, or talked him out of some of his schemes. Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in his memoir that he twice raised objections to Trump’s suggestion of missile strikes on drug cartels in Mexico, the U.S.’s biggest trade partner. The former president has not commented.
“President Trump came to realize that personnel is policy,” said Robert O’Brien, Trump’s fourth and final national security adviser. “At the outset of his administration, there were a lot of people that were interested in implementing their own policies, not the president’s policies.”
Having more loyalists in place would allow Trump to advance his foreign policy priorities faster and more efficiently than he was able to when previously in office, the current and former aides said.
Among his proposals on the campaign trail this year, Trump has said he would deploy U.S. Special Forces against the Mexican cartels – something unlikely to get the blessing of the Mexican government.
If he returns to power again, Trump would waste little time cutting defense aid to Europe and further shrinking economic ties with China, the aides said.
O’Brien, who remains one of Trump’s top foreign policy advisers and speaks to him regularly, said imposing trade tariffs on NATO countries if they did not meet their commitments to spend at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense would likely be among the policies on the table during a second Trump term.
The Trump campaign declined to comment for this article.
Unlike in the lead-up to his 2016 election, Trump has cultivated a stable of people with whom he speaks regularly, and who have significant foreign policy experience and his personal trust, according to four people who converse with him.
Those advisers include John Ratcliffe, Trump’s last Director of National Intelligence, former U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, and Kash Patel, a former Trump staffer who held several positions in the intelligence and defense communities.
None of those people responded to interview requests.
While the specific policies of these informal advisers vary to some degree, most have been vocal defenders of Trump since he left office and have expressed concerns that America is paying too much to support both NATO and Ukraine.
“DOOMSDAY OPTION”
Trump has a commanding lead in the Republican presidential nomination race. If he becomes the Republican nominee and then defeats Democratic President Joe Biden next November, the world will likely see a much more emboldened Trump, more knowledgeable about how to wield power, both at home and abroad, the current and former aides said.
That prospect has foreign capitals scrambling for information on how a second Trump term would look. Trump himself has offered few clues about what kind of foreign policy he would pursue next time around, beyond broad claims like ending the Ukraine war in 24 hours.
Eight European diplomats interviewed by Reuters said there were doubts about whether Trump would honor Washington’s commitment to defend NATO allies and acute fears he would cut off aid to Ukraine amid its war with Russia.
One Northern European diplomat in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said he and his colleagues had kept talking to Trump aides even after the former president left the White House in 2021.
“The story from there was, ‘We were not prepared (to govern), and next time it has to be different,'” the diplomat said. “When they got into the Oval Office in 2017, they didn’t have any idea what the hell to do with it. But this won’t happen again.”
The diplomat, whose country is a NATO member, and one other diplomat in Washington said their missions have outlined in diplomatic cables to their home capitals a possible “doomsday option.”
In that hypothetical scenario, one of multiple post-election hypotheses these diplomats say they have described in cables, Trump makes good on pledges to dismantle elements of the bureaucracy and pursue political enemies to such a degree that America’s system of checks and balances is weakened.
“You have to explain to your capital. ‘Things might go rather well: the US keeps on rehabilitating herself’ (if Biden is re-elected),” said the diplomat, describing his mission’s view of American politics. “Then you have Trump, a mild version: a repetition of his first term with some aggressive overtones. And then you have the doomsday option.”
RETREAT FROM GLOBALISM
Michael Mulroy, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East under Trump, said the former president would likely appoint individuals who subscribed to his isolationist brand of foreign policy and were unlikely to confront him.
All U.S. presidents have the power to name political appointees to the most senior jobs in the federal bureaucracy, including the State Department, Pentagon and the CIA.
“I think it will be based primarily on loyalty to President Trump,” Mulroy said, “a firm belief in the kind of foreign policy that he believes in, which is much more focused on the United States, much less on a kind of globalist (policy).”
Trump clashed with his own appointees at the Pentagon on a number of issues in his first term, from a ban on transgender service members that he supported to his 2018 decision to pull U.S. troops from Syria.
When his first defense secretary, Jim Mattis, resigned in 2018, the former four-star general stated he had significant policy differences with Trump. While Mattis did not explicitly lay them out, he stressed in his resignation letter the need to maintain an ironclad bond with NATO and other allies, while keeping enemies, like Russia, at arms-length.
Ed McMullen, Trump’s former ambassador to Switzerland and now a campaign fund-raiser who is in contact with the former president, stressed that most foreign service personnel he knew served the president faithfully.
But, he said, Trump was aware of the need to avoid choosing disloyal or disobedient officials for top foreign policy posts in a second term.
“The president is very conscious that competency and loyalty are critical to the success of the (next) administration,” he said.
Outside of Trump’s top circle of advisers, a potential Trump administration plans to root out actors at lower levels of the national security community perceived to be “rogue,” according to Agenda47, his campaign’s official policy site.
Such a step would have little precedent in the United States, which has a non-partisan bureaucracy that serves whichever administration is in office.
Trump has said he plans to reinstate an executive order he issued in the final months of his first term, which was never fully implemented, that would allow him to more easily dismiss civil servants.
In a little-reported document published on Agenda47 earlier this year, Trump said he would establish a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” which would, among other functions, publish documents related to “Deep State” abuses of power. He would also create a separate “auditing” body meant to monitor intelligence gathering in real time.
“The State Department, Pentagon, and National Security Establishment will be a very different place by the end of my administration,” Trump said in a policy video earlier this year.
NATO PULLOUT? NEW TRADE WAR
During a second term, Trump has pledged to end China’s most favored trading nation status – a standing that generally lowers trade barriers between countries – and to push Europeans to increase their defense spending.
Whether Trump will continue vital U.S. support for Ukraine in its war with Russia is of particular importance to European diplomats in Washington trying to prepare, as is his continued commitment to NATO.
“There are rumors that he wants to take the US away from NATO or withdraw from Europe, of course it sounds worrying but … we are not in a panic,” said a diplomat from one Baltic state.
Despite worries about the future of NATO, several diplomats interviewed for this article said pressure from Trump during his first term did lead to increased defense spending.
John Bolton, Trump’s third national security adviser who has since become a vocal critic of the former president, told Reuters he believed Trump would withdraw from NATO.
Such a decision would be earth-shaking for European nations that have depended on the alliance’s collective security guarantee for nearly 75 years.
Three other former Trump administration officials, two of whom are still in contact with him, played down that possibility, with one saying it would likely not be worth the domestic political blowback.
At least one diplomat in Washington, Finnish Ambassador Mikko Hautala, has spoken to Trump directly more than once, according to two people with knowledge of the interactions, which were first reported by The New York Times.
Those discussions centered on the NATO accession process for Finland. Hautala wanted to make sure Trump had accurate information about what Finland brings to the alliance and how Finland joining benefits the U.S., one of the people said.
(Reporting by Gram Slattery, Simon Lewis, Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart; Additional reporting by Jonathan Landay, Arshad Mohammed and Steve Holland; editing by Ross Colvin, Don Durfee and Daniel Flynn)
