Anti-Trump Protests Break Out at State Capitols Across the Country
Hafiz Rashid – February 5, 2025
Thousands of Americans are protesting in cities across the United States Wednesday against Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s early attempts to overhaul the federal government.
The protests took place at state capitols across the country, organized online by a movement called 50501, referring to 50 protests in 50 states in one day. Demonstrators gathered in Michigan, Texas, Wisconsin, Indiana, Delaware, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, according to the r/50501 subreddit and the Associated Press.
In Philadelphia, protesters gathered outside of a federal courthouse holding signs that said “TRUMP + MUSK ARE NOT KINGS” and “RESIST.” In Madison, Wisconsin, demonstrators at the state Capitol held signs objecting to fascism, Elon Musk, and the conservative manifesto Project 2025. In Lansing, Michigan, about 500 people demonstrated outside the state Capitol denouncing Trump’s plans for Gaza, the rollback of transgender rights, and the federal government’s mass deportation efforts under Trump.
One of the organizers at Michigan’s protest only learned about the movement on Sunday night, and helped with coordinating speakers and safety protocols.
“I want to look back at this time and say that I did something and I didn’t just sit back,” Kelsey Brianne told the AP Monday night.
On social media, protesters used the hashtag #50501 to organize and document the protests. Videos were also posted by journalists and media outlets across the country showing local protests.
X screenshot Matthew Pearson @justmattphotoj: I’m outside the Georgia State Capitol where a crowd has gathered as part of the 50501 protests that went viral through Reddit. Protesters are chanting demands to shut down ICE and protect trans youth along with condemning Elon Musk’s role in the Trump admin. @wabenews (photos of the protests, including one sign that says “Elon Musk Is A Terrible President”More
Protest organizers describe the push as a “decentralized rapid response to the anti-democratic, destructive, and, in many cases, illegal actions being undertaken by the Trump administration and his plutocrats,” the “Build the Resistance” website states.
Kay Evert, an organizer involved in the movement, told USA TODAY the effort started as an idea posted on Reddit and several activist organizations hopped in to help consolidate, organize and promote the protests.
“We’re here trying to keep them going forward,” she said. “This is going to bring up so much …. no one can ignore this, right? We want to have that momentum continue on.”
A post in the 50501 subreddit Wednesday morning claims the movement has evolved in less than two weeks, amassed 72,000 participants, and planned 67 protests across 40 states.
The 50501 moderators also partnered with Political Revolution, a PAC and volunteer-only activist organization founded out of the conclusion of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign in 2016.
The 50501 movement and Political Revolution said in a joint press release they are calling for the removal or resignation of President Donald Trump, investigations into his administration appointees including Elon Musk, the repeal of “oppressive” executive orders and the restoration of diversity, equity and inclusion frameworks.
Evert said protests are also aimed at Project 2025, the conservative agenda that re-entered the public conversations as Democrats condemned some early Trump administration moves.
“Our goal is to unite the American people against our common enemy: the Trump administration, anyone involved in dismantling our democracy, and anyone who wishes to divide us by our differences instead of unite us by what makes us American,” the joint press release states.
Kinsey Crowley is a trending news reporter at USA TODAY.
‘Anti-Trumpers’ plan protests in every state on Wednesday. What’s happening in Georgia?
Vanessa Countryman, Savannah Morning News – February 4, 2025
A group calling themselves the “50501 Movement” are planning protests across the country, and in Georgia, on Wednesday, Feb. 5.
The group claims to be fighting “fascism” by protesting against President Donald Trump and his actions in office.
How many people are in the 50501 Movement?
U.S. President Donald Trump looks on as he signs an executive order in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S., January 31, 2025.
The movement has platforms, including a website and social media accounts, but the number of members is unclear. The Instagram account has nearly 7,000 followers and its official Bluesky account has over 10,000 followers.
Where are people protesting in Georgia against Trump?
The group is planning to hold protests mostly at each state’s capitol building. Georgia’s will be held at Centennial Park in Atlanta at 2 p.m., according the groups social media.
More groups are forming around the state, including in Augusta at the Richmond County Courthouse from 4 to 7 p.m.
Why are people protesting against Donald Trump?
They are protesting Project 2025 because they believe that the president is attempting to destroy freedoms and human rights.
What is Project 2025?
Project 2025 is a movement started by over 100 conservative organizations. This movement is intended to get rid of the so-called ‘Deep State’ and give the government back to the people, according to its website. Here is a list of some of its policy suggestions:
Secure the border, finish building the wall, and deport illegal aliens
De-weaponize the Federal Government by increasing accountability and oversight of the FBI and DOJ
Unleash American energy production to reduce energy prices
Cut the growth of government spending to reduce inflation
Make federal bureaucrats more accountable to the democratically elected President and Congress
Improve education by moving control and funding of education from DC bureaucrats directly to parents and state and local governments
Ban biological males from competing in women’s sports
Vanessa Countryman is the Trending Topics Reporter for the the Deep South Connect Team Georgia.
Tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China Could Start This Weekend
Eric Boehm – January 31, 2025
Photo by Lucas van Oort on Unsplash
Huge new tariffs on goods imported from Canada, China, and Mexico could begin as soon as this weekend.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at a Friday press conference that the Trump administration was prepared to impose a new 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico, along with a 10 percent tariff on imports from China. Aside from that statement, Leavitt offered few specifics and the White House has so far not released any further details about the new import taxes.
That leaves many unknowns, such as: Under what authority is President Donald Trump implementing those tariffs? Are there exceptions for certain goods, or are the tariffs being charged on all imports from the three countries? Do those tariffs apply on top of existing import duties—for example, is the new 10 percent tariff on goods from China imposed on top of the tariffs on many Chinese imports that Trump implemented during his first term—or in place of them? Will there be a process for certain companies and industries to seek relief from tariffs for goods that cannot be sourced in the United States, like tequila?
Adding to the confusion: Reuters reported earlier on Friday that those tariffs will be implemented on March 1. Leavitt called that report “false.”
Canada, China, and Mexico are the United States’ three largest trading partners. In 2023, the last full year for which data are available, the U.S. imported $475 billion of goods from Mexico, $426 billion from China, and $418 billion from Canada.
In her remarks to reporters, Leavitt said the new tariffs were being issued in response to the “illegal fentanyl that they have sourced and allowed to distribute into our country.” In an interview with CNBC on Friday, Trump’s trade advisor Peter Navarro also claimed that “fentanyl…that comes from China and Mexico” was the prime motivator for the new import taxes.
This makes very little sense. How will higher taxes on legal imports affect the flow of illegal drugs?
What the tariffs will do is raise prices for American businesses and consumers.
Though much uncertainly remains about how these tariffs will function, a full-fledged 25 percent tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico, plus a 10 percent tariff on all imports from China, would be a tax increase of $111 billion this year and would shrink the U.S. economy by 0.4 percent, according to estimates by the Tax Foundation.
“Several industries would experience severe disruption, including autos, oil & gas, and agriculture,” wrote Erica York, vice president of policy at the Tax Foundation, in a post on X shortly after Leavitt announced the new tariffs.
Auto manufacturers, which rely on supply chains that stretch across the whole of North America—thanks to free trade agreements—figure to be some of the hardest hit. “Steep tariffs on vehicles would not only raise prices north of the border and shock the Mexican auto sector and its workers. They would also cost jobs in the United States,” warned the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in December. “Because of the highly integrated value chains in the North American auto sector, a high share of US-origin parts are embedded in Mexico’s motor vehicle exports. US suppliers of these parts could soon be caught in the crossfire of Trump’s trade war.”
Fruit and vegetable imports from Mexico will be another victim. “If you put tariffs on Mexican fruits and vegetables, there’s no doubt about it, you’ll have inflation in the supermarket and you will have bare shelves,” Lance Jungmeyer, president of the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, toldThe Packer, a trade publication, in November. “Consumers will not be happy with that.”
Tariffs on crude oil imports from Canada will likely drive up prices at the gas pump. More than 50 percent of the crude oil imported to the U.S. comes from Canada, and analysts believe tariffs could cause prices to jump by 40 cents or even 70 cents per gallon. If those tariffs spiral into a broader trade war, energy companies are already warning about “volatility in crude oil prices, impacting refineries and downstream fuel markets, especially for gasoline and diesel.”
There are also unanswered questions about how the other countries might respond. “All three governments have promised to answer Mr. Trump’s levies with tariffs of their own on U.S. exports, including Florida orange juice, Tennessee whiskey and Kentucky peanut butter,” The New York Timesnotes.
Make no mistake, this is a trade war of choice being launched unilaterally by Trump. It is a foolish and self-destructive move, one that (in the case of tariffs on Canada and Mexico, at least) directly violates a trade deal Trump signed during his first term and hailed as “the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law. It’s the best agreement we’ve ever made.”
Tariffs are not a path to peace or prosperity, and igniting a trade war with America’s three largest trade partners is sure to have negative consequences no one can foresee at the moment.
“Sound fiscal policy and effective incentives to work, save and invest can increase economic growth, but the implementation of broad-based tariffs impedes that growth and in a full-blown trade war would overwhelm it,” warned economists Phil Gramm and Larry Summers, in a powerful op-ed published Friday in The Wall Street Journal. “We therefore urge Congress not to adopt the administration’s proposed tariffs and urge the president not to implement those tariffs by executive order.”
Congress should act immediately to block these tariffs, reassure America’s top trade partners and other allies, and revoke much of the president’s authority over trade.
Trump announced he will implement a 25 percent tariff on Canada and Mexico for all imported goods. China, meanwhile, will face face an additional 10 percent tariff. Trump says the additional charges are part of an effort to curtail “crime and drugs” coming into the U.S. and slow the number of illegal border crossings.
Though tariffs are designed to promote domestic production and purchasing by taxing imported goods, the increase in cost typically falls on consumers, not foreign governments. Numerous economic experts have warned that Trump’s tariffs on goods from those three countries could lead to price spikes and inflation – a concern shared by many voters who said they backed Trump.
The U.S. imports a host of goods from Canada, Mexico and China directly as well as supplies for products made in America. Here Here’s what resources, materials or products come from those countries:
Donald Trump has proposed tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada – which provide a host of goods to the U.S. such as toys, lumber and food (AFP via Getty Images)
Although the U.S. produces large quantities of crude oil every day, it makes more economic sense to import it. Crude oil produced in the U.S. is considered “light” compared to the “heavy” oil produced in Canada and the Middle East.
This means the U.S. relies on imports for “heavy” oil. Importing from Canada, which is close by and doesn’t require as much transportation as other countries such as those in the Middle East, makes it more accessible.
Gasoline is made from crude oil and price spikes in oil can lead to more pain at the pump.
Many experts say Trump’s threatened tariffs will lead to price increases (Getty Images)
“A 25% tariff on Canadian oil would have huge impacts to #gasprices in the Great Lakes, Midwest & Rockies, which are major markets where refiners process Canadian oil. You can’t simply process different oil overnight. It would take investments/years. More U.S. supply wouldn’t help,” warned gas price expert Patrick De Haan on X.
De Haan, an industry leader with GasBuddy.com, further warned that oil refineries in the U.S. have shrunken over the last four years – making it harder for the U.S. to increase its production in gasoline.
“Total impact to #gasprices in these areas could be 25-75c/gal, dependent on season and refining factors as well if tariffs go through,” De Haan added.
Motor vehicles and parts
Mexico is the largest exporter of vehicles, vehicle parts and vehicle accessories to the U.S. than any other country making up 27 percent of all imports from Mexico.
Importing auto parts abroad and then assembling them in the U.S. is a cheaper alternative than manufacturing and assembling domestically. Tariffs would increase the cost of most cars, though it’s not clear how much.
Patrick Anderson, chief executive of Anderson Economic Group, a consulting firm in Michigan, told the New York Times: “There is probably not a single assembly plant in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Texas that would not immediately be affected by a 25 percent tariff.”
Tariffs “would spell disaster for the U.S. auto industry,” analysts at Bernstein said in a note to investors, according to the Times. But, they added, they doubt Trump will follow through.
“Given the wide-ranging negative implications for industrial production in the U.S., we expect this is unlikely to happen in practice,” the Bernstein analysts said.
These include items such as television sets, smartphones, monitors, projects and more. All of them could see price increases if tariffs are imposed and passed on to consumers.
Mexico too is also a major producer of electronics not only in the U.S. but across the globe.
“Mexico has over 730 plants manufacturing audio and video, telecommunications, computer equipment, and related parts. It is the largest exporter of flat-screen TVs in the world, the third-largest exporter of computers, and the eighth-largest producer of electronics in the world,” consulting firm IVEMSA, according to PC Mag.
Experts are warning that many of electronics sold in America come from Mexico, Canada and China and could see price increases (AP)
Sugar
Among Mexico’s largest exports to the U.S. are sugar and sweeteners. The U.S. spends more than $700 million importing sugar directly from Mexico.
More than 445,000 metric tons of sugar were imported to U.S. ports from Mexico between October 2023 and September 2024.
Fresh vegetables and fruit
The U.S. spends more than $20 billion annually importing horticultural agricultural products from Canada and Mexico. Tomatoes, avocados, peppers, strawberries, lemons, limes, broccoli, cauliflower and so much more produce is imported into the U.S. from Mexico.
Canada supplies the U.S. with mushrooms, potatoes and more.
All of those items could see price increases with tariffs. That would hit American consumers hard as grocery prices have already risen by about 25 percent since 2020. Many voters used groceries as an example of how inflation impacted their day-to-day lives, so another price increase in food could be devastating to households.
Meat
Beef and beef products are often imported from Canada and Mexico and the amount imported has only risen over the last three years.
An analysis by Third Way found that the average cost of 3lbs of frozen beef in America is $26.67. A 10 percent tariff on all goods, with a 60 percent tariff on goods from China, would lead to a price jump for the same meat to $27.76.
Consumers have already seen grocery prices jump by 25 percent since 2020, but Trump’s proposed tariffs could lead to more price increases (AP)
Toys
China’s third largest export to the U.S. are toys, games and sports requisites because they are cheaper to manufacture overseas.
Though the idea of tariffs is to promote domestic production, the chief executive of Basic Fun, the maker of Fischer-Price and Care Bears, told The New York Post there is “no manufacturing base for toys in the U.S. anymore.”
The same analysis by Third Way estimated the cost of an average board game going from $14.87 to $17.85 under Trump’s tariffs.
Wood, plastics and other materials
All three countries provide the U.S. with an abundance of materials like wood, plastics, iron, textiles and more.
Some companies have already warned that tariffs on materials could lead to a spike increase, even for products assembled in America.
“People generally don’t understand how dependent the global economy is for those kinds of intermediate goods, raw materials, that we sort of take for granted,” Willy Shih, an economist at Harvard Business School, told PackagingDive.com.
“They need to understand where their exposures are,” he said. “A lot of times, it’ll be in surprising areas, because your exposure may be at your supplier level. Your tier two supplier may have exposure to tariffs and you may not know, but the first thing you got to do is understand all that.”
Trump Vowed to ‘Immediately’ Bring Down Egg Prices. His New Press Secretary Says Sudden Spike Is Biden’s Fault
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt is aiming to prevent her boss from falling into the same trap as Biden, whose early presidency was infamously remembered as an expensive era for eggs
Rachel Raposas – January 31, 2025
Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty; GettyWhite House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has been forced to address the sudden rise in egg prices
Donald Trump made a campaign promise to “immediately bring prices down” on his first day in office. Instead, egg prices have spiked.
During her first White House briefing, press secretary Karoline Leavitt blamed former President Joe Biden for hurting the egg supply and driving up costs.
Egg prices are expected to continue rising due to a bird flu outbreak, which Biden’s Department of Agriculture tried controlling early on by euthanizing infected chickens.
Egg prices have risen in the short time since President Donald Trump took office — despite his campaign promise to “immediately bring prices down, starting on day one” — leading White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt to begin mounting her boss’s defense.
In her first official White House press briefing on Tuesday, Leavitt, 27, blamed former President Joe Biden for rising costs with “everything” across the country right now — including eggs, which have started to increase in price and demand due to bird flu outbreaks among chicken flocks.
“There’s a lot of reporting out there that’s putting the onus on this White House for the increased cost of eggs,” Leavitt said. “I’d like to point out to each and every one of you that in 2024 when Joe Biden was in the Oval Office — or upstairs in the residence sleeping, I’m not so sure — egg prices increased 65 percent in this country.”
CNN previously noted that, while inflation plagued a significant chunk of Biden’s presidency due to factors like the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, wages in the United States had begun to outpace rising grocery prices in 2024. Any progress made on the cost of eggs was recently thwarted by the bird flu outbreak, which created supply issues and was not a direct fault of either president.
EyePress News/ShutterstockPresidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden debate on June 28, 2024
During the press conference, Leavitt claimed the spike in egg prices were due to the Biden administration’s “mass killing of more than 100 million chickens, which has led to a lack of chicken supply in this country, therefore a lack of egg supply, which is leading to the shortage.”
However, the “killings” are a standard practice for the Department of Agriculture — which the Trump administration is poised to continue — that’s intended to contain the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, or HPAI, colloquially known as the bird flu.
“There is no treatment for HPAI. The only way to stop the disease is to depopulate all affected and exposed poultry,” the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, part of the Department of Agriculture, writes on its website.
If chickens are not euthanized, the virus can continue its rapid spread and drive up costs even higher by affecting larger groups.
“Not to be the bearer of bad news, but we’re in this for a while,” Emily Metz, president and CEO of the American Egg Board, previously told CNN of egg shortages. “Until we have time without a detection, unfortunately this very, very tight egg supply is going to continue.”
In the 2024 election, the cost of groceries, gas and other necessary goods was a large force behind how citizens voted — and two thirds of the people who cited basic goods cost as the most important issue for them voted for Trump.
However, many of the policy changes Trump has since began implementing — including a push for increased domestic oil production, decreased Biden-era climate change initiatives and unprecedented tariffs on imported goods — will have either no effect on prices or will affect them adversely, an expert told CNN.
Trump Reveals When His Tariffs on Mexico and Canada Will Kick In
Emell Derra Adolphus – January 30, 2025
The Daily Beast/Getty
President Donald Trump affirmed on Thursday that imports from U.S. allies Mexico and Canada will be hit with a 25 percent tariff starting on Saturday.
Speaking to the press from the Oval Office, Trump said that his administration will follow through in announcing tariffs on America’s neighboring countries for “a number of reasons”—chiefly among them being an alleged influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, reported The Hill.
On his first day in office, Trump issued a proclamation declaring a state of emergency at America’s southern border.
Thirty-six hours later, the declaration enabled the Department of Defense to send 1,500 troops to the region to work on the placement of barriers and other related actions to deter illegal crossings. According to DOD report, the troops were on standby in Southern California to help combat the Los Angeles County wildfires.
“For the past four years, the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to enforce the border, resulting in a catastrophic immigration crisis for the United States,” declared Trump’s proclamation. However, when Congress was close to passing a bipartisan border security bill in 2024, Trump allegedly pressured Republican allies to kill the bill so he could continue hammering Democrats about border chaos during his campaign, reported CNN.
President Donald Trump talks with Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. / NICHOLAS KAMM / AFP via Getty Images
Trump also cited an influx of drugs, specifically fentanyl, crossing into the United States—as well as a trade deficit—as reason for implementing tariffs on Canada and Mexico.
“I’ll be putting the tariff of 25 percent on Canada and Mexico, and we will really have to do that because we have very big deficits with those countries,” he said. “Those tariffs may or may not rise with time.”
Mexico and Canada are major exporters of gas, food and automobiles to the U.S., with several U.S.-based automobile manufacturers shipping cars back and forth across America’s borders during the manufacturing process.
The president said that his administration has not yet decided on whether it would levy tariffs on oil imports, reported Reuters.
“We may or may not. We’re going to make that determination probably tonight,” said Trump. He added that this would partly depend on prices and on whether the two countries “treat us properly.”
Trump Decides Presser on D.C. Plane Crash Is Best Time for a Joke
Edith Olmsted – January 30, 2025
Donald Trump just will not take Wednesday night’s deadly aviation collision seriously.
While signing yet another batch of executive orders on Thursday, the president was asked whether he planned to visit the site of the deadly midair crash between a military helicopter and an American Airlines flight, which killed all 67 people on board the two aircraft.
“I have a plan to visit, not the site, because why don’t you tell me, what’s the site? The water?” Trump said. “You want me to go swimming?”
Trump followed up his flippant response by saying he planned to meet with some of the family members of those who had died in the crash.
The bodies of at least 28 people had been recovered from the Potomac River by Thursday evening, as recovery operations continued, according to the Associated Press.
Earlier on Thursday, Trump had suggested that the Biden administration’s diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring practices were to blame for the crash, specifically pointing to the Federal Aviation Administration’s practice of hiring people with “targeted disabilities.” The FAA published a report contradicting this outlandish and unserious claim, saying that staffing in the air traffic control tower was “not normal” on Wednesday night when the crash occurred.
It’s also worth noting that Trump went on television to speak about the crash hours before he had actually briefed on the incident. Meanwhile, National Transportation Safety Board member Todd Inman said Thursday it is too early to tell what exactly caused the crash.
Running the numbers: What if the US were to stop supporting Ukraine?
Elaine McCusker, opinion contributor January 30, 2025
Many Americans are understandably concerned about the cost of aid to Ukraine. But they are thinking about the issue the wrong way — we should be considering the cost of Ukraine losing.
Analysis conducted at the American Enterprise Institute has determined that Russia defeating Ukraine would cost American taxpayers an additional $808 billion over what the U.S. has planned to spend on defense in the next five years. This is about seven times more than all the aid appropriated to the Pentagon to help Ukraine since Russia’s 2022 invasion.
This estimate is based on a scenario in which the U.S. stops providing aid and the resulting Russian victory requires us to adapt our military capabilities, capacity and posture in order to maintain our security. The study then uses the Defense Futures Simulator to estimate the spending required to deter and, if necessary, defeat Russia in Europe, while also preventing further conflict by emboldened adversaries in the Pacific and the Middle East.
Without U.S. support, Russia would advance in 2025 as Kyiv runs out of weapons. By 2026, Ukraine would lose effective air defense, allowing Russia to conduct continuous large-scale bombings. Ukraine’s conventional forces would continue to courageously fight but would likely collapse by the end of that year, allowing Russia to seize Kyiv and then drive to the NATO border.
An emboldened Russia would reconstitute its combat units, use Ukraine’s resources to bolster its capabilities, station its forces along the NATO frontier, and be ready to attack beyond Ukraine by 2030.
The notion that America should disengage from Europe and save its forces and money misses the global nature of conflict. While Europe should certainly invest more in its own defense, history has violently shown us the dangers of thinking we can ignore our interests in any given region. Such regional conflict is a thing of the past. Nothing has made that more clear than China, North Korea and Iran’s support of Russia’s war effort.
In order to protect itself — nationally, militarily, economically — the U.S. must remain a global power and invest in the capabilities it needs to protect its partners and itself. A failure of American resolve in Europe will only motivate aggression and threaten our prosperity across the globe.
If Ukraine is allowed to fall, Washington will need a military that is larger, more capable, more responsive, and positioned in more locations. To deter or, if necessary, defeat Russia, the U.S. armed forces would need 14 new brigade combat teams, 18 more battle force ships, eight additional Marine Corps infantry battalions, 555 more Air Force aircraft, and 266,000 more uniform personnel for the increased force structure.
The U.S. would need to fortify its presence in Europe, including prepositioning air defenses, supplies and munitions. Efforts to diversify and expand the industrial base that supports our military would also need to move much more quickly than it does now to fulfill the high demands of modern warfare.
Although a conflict on the European continent would be primarily led by land forces under the cover of air forces, Washington would need to invest in naval capabilities as well. The U.S. Navy would have to discard its plans to shrink its overall number of ships, stabilize its carrier fleet at 12 and buy additional craft — submarines, destroyers, frigates, and logistics and support ships to keep the fleet at sea longer.
The U.S. will also have to maintain a higher state of readiness for home-stationed and deployed forces, which means additional training, improvements to facilities and stockpiles of spare parts. It will need more and better special operations forces, which are essential to intelligence gathering, shaping the battlefield and disrupting the enemy.
Given that Russia is an experienced space and cyber power, the U.S. will also need better architecture and command systems for both domains.
Instead, if America and its allies accelerate assistance, a victorious Ukraine would see Russia retreat behind its own borders with a defeated and diminished military, a struggling economy, weakened partnerships, and a healthy dose of domestic challenges.
Ukraine, in contrast, would be vibrant and free, with a thriving industrial base and a modern military. Washington would be able to scale down its deployments and capabilities in Europe. It would still maintain a presence there, but it would be able to dedicate more resources and attention to the Pacific.
Not only is the U.S. safer when it is engaged, but it also saves money. The U.S. is faced with numerous national challenges. Illegal immigration, financing the national debt and an increasingly unpredictable global security environment all compete for attention and resources. But the stakes are especially high in Ukraine.
Even putting aside the security and moral reasons for supporting a free Kyiv, which are immense, backing Ukraine is a financially sound decision for the United States.
Elaine McCusker is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. She previously served as the Pentagon’s acting undersecretary of defense (comptroller).
Granderson: Aiding Ukraine has been cheap. Caving to Russia would be far more costly
The Los Angeles Times – Opinion
LZ Granderson – November 22, 2024
Then-President Trump and Vladimir Putin of Russia walk together at a 2019 G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan. (Susan Walsh / Associated Press)
After 20 years and $2.3 trillion spent, after more than 100,000 American and Afghan lives lost, one would think our war in Afghanistan would be more of a reference point today. Yet, outside of a few jabs from conservatives regarding President Biden’s handling of the exit, the war was hardly brought up at all this election cycle — despite having ended just three years earlier.
A reminder of how fast society moves and perhaps a glimpse into the future.
When was the last time you heard someone mention Ukraine in casual conversation? Back in February 2022, when Russia invaded, there were vigils in our streets. Now, more than 1,000 days later, after Congress has approved $175 billion in aid, it’s likely to fade into distant memory. President-elect Donald Trump, who has repeatedly questioned funding Ukraine, has vowed to end the war quickly. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, said he would like to do so through “diplomatic means” next year.
While the average American probably hadn’t thought much about Ukraine before the 2022 invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been thinking about the country for more than 30 years.
“The breakup of the Soviet Union was the collapse of a historic Russia,” he said in a documentary that aired on Russia’s airwaves. Putin has also referred to his country’s 1991 fall as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.” For those keeping score at home, he’s ranking the end of the U.S.S.R. as worse than both world wars and the 20 years in Vietnam. “We lost 40% of the territory, production capacities and population. We became a different country. What had been built over a millennium was lost to a large extent.”
Make Russia Great Again may not lend itself to a pronounceable acronym, but it does clearly define Putin’s foreign policy agenda. It’s one predicated on a worldview that sees Ukraine as a rebellious commonwealth and not an independent democracy.
“Throwing off oppression” is a story we know well in this country. It’s a story we teach our children and base our exceptionalism on. It’s a story of freedom. But as we all know, freedom isn’t free.
Under the Biden administration, America was willing to help Ukraine pay to keep its freedom. The incoming Trump administration has signaled this will likely not continue. Other nations will go on to help Ukraine in its fight, but without America’s military and economic power, this coalition will struggle to hold together against Russia’s might.
The gamble in not providing aid to Ukraine is that should that country fall, it won’t satisfy Putin. His desire to restore his country’s glory has been burning for three decades. Why would he stop just as resistance crumbles?
The phrase “elections have consequences” isn’t just about domestic politics. There are consequences abroad as well. When most voters supported Trump’s candidacy, did they fully understand what walking away from Ukraine would mean?
As former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) told me: “Ukraine gave up its nukes, in exchange for peace. The fact that Russia is attacking now means that only nukes work as a deterrent, so you can expect nuclear proliferation throughout the world.”
As president, Trump was slow to respond after Russia fired on and captured Ukrainian vessels and sailors back in 2018. Based on that lukewarm response, and his comments about helping Ukraine, it does make one wonder if Trump has any “red line” for Putin, and if so, what it is and what he is prepared to do to defend it. Unfortunately, there weren’t many opportunities to have these conversations during this election cycle. If there had been, perhaps voters would have a better understanding about the money for Ukraine. According to Kinzinger, a member of the Air National Guard and an Air Force veteran who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, “the money spent on weapons is actually produced here in the United States and we send our old [weapons] to Ukraine. So, we’re actually building jobs and refreshing our own weapons.”
Normally the U.S. pays to have old weapons destroyed, Kinzinger said.
None of this rose above the noise that surrounded a campaign season saturated with misinformation. Trump’s pitch for isolationism, or his willingness to ignore Ukraine, apparently resonated with many voters. And given our habit of quickly moving on from talking about war, it’s doubtful many of us would even remember just how much supporting Ukraine cost us.
On the other hand, we might find abandoning Ukraine and caving to Russia has a far steeper cost — one that will be impossible for us to forget.
Trump makes moves to expand his power, sparking chaos and a possible constitutional crisis
Nicholas Riccardi – January 29, 2025
President Donald Trump arrives to speak at the 2025 House Republican Members Conference Dinner at Trump National Doral Miami in Doral, Fla., Monday, Jan. 27, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
Just a little over a week into his second term, President Donald Trump took steps to maximize his power, sparking chaos and what critics contend is a constitutional crisis as he challenges the separation of powers that have defined American government for more than 200 years.
The new administration’s most provocative move came this week, as it announced it would temporarily halt federal payments to ensure they complied with Trump’s orders barring diversity programs. The technical-sounding directive had enormous immediate impact before it was blocked by a federal judge, potentially pulling trillions of dollars from police departments, domestic violence shelters, nutrition services and disaster relief programs that rely on federal grants. The administration on Wednesday rescinded the order.
Though the Republican administration denied Medicaid was affected, it acknowledged the online portal allowing states to file for reimbursement from the program was shut down for part of Tuesday in what it insisted was an error.
Legal experts noted the president is explicitly forbidden from cutting off spending for programs that Congress has approved. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to appropriate money and requires the executive to pay it out. A 50-year-old law known as the Impoundment Control Act makes that explicit by prohibiting the president from halting payments on grants or other programs approved by Congress.
“The thing that prevents the president from being an absolute monarch is Congress controls the power of the purse strings,” said Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Georgetown University, adding that even a temporary freeze violates the law. “It’s what guarantees there’s a check on the presidency.”
Democrats and other critics said the move was blatantly unconstitutional.
“What happened last night is the most direct assault on the authority of Congress, I believe, in the history of the United States,” Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine, said Tuesday.
While some Republicans were critical, most were supportive.
“I think he is testing the limits of his power, and I don’t think any of us are surprised by it,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican who is close with Trump.
At first blush, the Trump administration appeared to be following the correct procedures in identifying potential spending cuts, and the Impoundment Control Act outlines a procedure for how they could become permanent, said Rachel Snyderman, a former official at the Office of Management and Budget who is now at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Congress must eventually sign off on any cuts the administration wants to make, Snyderman said, though she noted that no president since Bill Clinton, a Democrat, has been successful in getting that done. Congress did not act on $14 billion in impoundment cuts Trump proposed during his prior term, she said.
“We have to see what the next steps are,” Snyderman said.
The attempt to halt grants came after Trump, who during the campaign pledged to be “a dictator on day one,” has taken a number of provocative moves to challenge legal constraints on his power. He fired the inspectors general of his Cabinet agencies without giving Congress the warning required by law, declared that there is an immigrant “invasion” despite low numbers of border crossings, is requiring loyalty pledges from new hires, challenged the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship and is moving career staff out of key positions at the Department of Justice to ensure his loyalists control investigations and prosecutions.
On Tuesday evening, the new administration made its latest move, trying to prune the federal workforce by offering pay until the end of September for those who agree to resign by the end of next week.
The Trump actions have all led to a cascade of court challenges contending he has overstepped his constitutional bounds. A federal judge in Seattle has already put on hold Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship, calling it a blatant violation of the nation’s foundational legal document. On Tuesday, nonprofit groups persuaded a federal judge in Washington to put the administration’s spending freeze order on hold until a fuller hearing on Feb. 3.
Democratic attorneys general also rushed to court to block the order. New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, a Democrat, said the swiftness of the court action against Trump’s spending freeze demonstrates the “carelessness” of the order.
“My hope is that the president, working with Congress, can identify whatever his priorities are and can work through the normal constitutional order that is well established that limits the power of Democratic and Republican presidents,” he said.
The grant freeze — administration officials described it as a “pause” — fit with a long-sought goal of some Trump allies, including his nominee to run the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, to challenge the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act. They contend the president, as the person in charge of distributing funds, should be able to have some control over how the money goes out.
Though there’s little doubt the new administration wanted a court fight over its power to control spending, experts agree that this was likely not the way they hoped to present it.
“This is a really sloppy way of doing this,” said Bill Galston, of the Brookings Institution, adding that he thought it was an administration error. “This is just classic Trump. He believes it’s better to be fast and sloppy than slow and precise.”
In her first press conference, Trump’s new press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, on Tuesday urged organizations that need the grants to call the administration and show how their operations are “in line with the president’s agenda.”
“It’s incumbent on this administration to make sure, again, that every penny is accounted for,” Leavitt said.
Republican lawmakers largely took the freeze in stride.
“This isn’t a huge surprise to me,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota during the House Republican retreat at one of the president’s Florida golf resorts. “Clearly, Donald Trump campaigned in no small part on the idea that the Biden administration was putting out a lot of money that was not consistent with Donald Trump’s values.”
But Democrats and others were furious at the move, which seemed designed to undercut congressional authority.
“If President Trump wants to change our nation’s laws, he has the right to ask Congress to change them,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, said in a statement. “He does not have the right to violate the United States Constitution. He is not a king.”
Chafetz, of Georgetown University, said the lack of pushback from Republican members of Congress was especially alarming because the legislative branch is the one whose powers are most at risk in the latest power play.
Even if Trump loses the legal battle, Chafetz said, he and his followers might feel like they’ve won by pushing things to this extreme.
“Damaging the institutions they don’t like,” he said, “seems to be their whole theory of governance.”
Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Lisa Mascaro in Washington and Morgan Lee in Albuquerque, New Mexico, contributed to this report.