The surprising reasons why Big Oil may not want a second Trump term

The Washington Post

The surprising reasons why Big Oil may not want a second Trump term

Maxine Joselow, The Washington Post – March 26, 2024

Active pump jacks increase pressure to draw oil toward the surface at the South Belridge Oil Field on February 26, 2022, in unincorporated Kern County, California, approximately 141 miles (227 km) northwest of Los Angeles, California. – From rural areas of the eastern states where modern oil production began to cities in southern California where pumpjacks loom not far from homes, lax regulations and the petroleum industrys boom and busts cycles have left the US pockmarked with perhaps hundreds of thousands of oil wells that are unsealed and haven’t produced in decades. In a first, Washington is making a concerted effort to plug these wells by allocating $4.7 billion in federal infrastructure dollars to plug the wells in an effort to lessen the negative health and environmental impact of the disused wells. (Photo by Robyn BECK / AFP) (Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images) (ROBYN BECK via Getty Images)More

HOUSTON – As president, Donald Trump vowed to unleash American “energy dominance,” while on the campaign trail, he has summarized his energy policies with the slogan “drill, baby, drill.”

Yet a possible Trump victory in the 2024 election is not delighting oil and gas executives as much as one might expect, according to interviews with several industry leaders at a recent energy conference in Houston.

Fossil fuel firms have found a lot to like in President Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, which Trump has vowed to unravel. The law offers lucrative tax credits for companies to capture and store carbon dioxide – subsidies that several oil giants are eager to exploit, even as they pump record amounts of crude oil and post near-record profits.

In addition, Trump has championed an “America First” approach to trade policy that prioritizes steep tariffs on imported goods. The approach could hike the costs of building new pipelines and other energy infrastructure, and it could heighten anxieties about a global trade war.

Still, fossil fuel executives have slammed Biden’s decision to pause approvals of new liquefied natural gas exports. And during the GOP presidential primary, oil barons filled Trump’s campaign coffers far more than those of his competitors.

If a poll were conducted among energy executives about the 2024 election, the results “would be a little more balanced than people might expect,” Alan Armstrong, president and CEO of the gas pipeline company Williams, said in an interview at CERAWeek by S&P Global.

Armstrong said many fossil fuel executives feel the Biden administration has unfairly demonized their industry because of its role in causing climate change. But that’s a personal sentiment, not a professional one, he said.

“If you’re asking people personally, they’re probably tired of being told they’re bad people by the current administration,” Armstrong said. “But from a business objective standpoint, it would be a much more balanced perspective.”

Trump plans to gut the Inflation Reduction Act, including its generous tax credits for clean energy and electric vehicles, should he return to the White House, according to senior campaign officials and advisers to the former president.

Yet several oil industry executives have praised the Inflation Reduction Act – the IRA for short – for helping their companies pursue still-unproven green technologies such as carbon capture and clean hydrogen. The subsidy for carbon capture has especially benefited ExxonMobil, CEO Darren Woods acknowledged at CERAWeek.

“I was very supportive of the IRA – I am very supportive of the IRA – because as legislated the IRA focuses on carbon intensity and in theory is technology-agnostic,” Woods said. “They’re not trying to pick a particular technology.”

Vijay Swarup, Exxon’s senior director of climate strategy and technology, added that the IRA is “getting projects to advance.” Exxon has signed contracts to store the carbon captured from an ammonia plant and a steel plant in Louisiana, as well as a yet-to-be-built hydrogen plant in Texas, Swarup said in an interview.

Of course, Trump could not unilaterally repeal the IRA subsidies. He would need Congress to pass legislation, meaning Republicans would need to maintain control of the House and retake the Senate, in addition to clinching the White House.

In that scenario, Mike Sommers, president and chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, said the trade group would aggressively lobby against any proposals to scrap green subsidies that have helped the industry.

“I suspect that when there is an attempt to repeal the IRA – and there will be – it will end up looking more like a scalpel-like approach rather than a butcher knife,” Sommers said. “And we’ll advocate for the provisions that we support.”

While in the White House, Trump proclaimed himself a “Tariff Man” – and he has no intention of abandoning that self-appointed title if reelected.

Publicly, Trump has floated the idea of imposing a 10 percent tariff on every good coming into the United States. Privately, he has discussed with advisers the possibility of imposing a flat 60 percent tariff on all Chinese imports, The Washington Post previously reported.

At a rally in Ohio this month, Trump also pledged to slap a 100 percent tariff on Chinese vehicle imports – part of a broader tirade in which he warned of a “bloodbath” for the U.S. auto industry if he is not reelected.

Sommers said such proposals, which are widely viewed as likely to spark a global trade war, carry “risks” for his sector.

“Particularly for the products that are produced here in the United States, we need free trade for these goods to flow,” he said. “I think we are concerned about kind of a retrenchment to a more nationalistic approach on trade policy. So that’s one example of an area where we’re not going to be aligned with a potential President Trump.”

But Dan Eberhart, chief executive of the oil-field services company Canary and a Trump supporter, said he isn’t worried about the former president’s trade policies. He said any adverse impact of tariffs would be canceled out by other pro-fossil-fuel policies, such as more offshore oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico.

“In general, I don’t like protectionist policy,” Eberhart said. “But I really think that the Trump administration will be more pro-oil and gas than the Biden administration.”

The Trump campaign did not respond to specific questions for this story. In an emailed statement, spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said that “on day one, President Trump will unleash American Energy to lower inflation for all Americans, pay down debt, strengthen national security, and establish the United States as the manufacturing superpower of the world.”

The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Related Content

Abortions outside medical system increased sharply after Roe fell, study finds

Putting chaplains in public school is the latest battle in culture wars

Just three weapons will turn the Ukraine war back around. And the USA is back in the fight

The Telegraph – Opinion

Just three weapons will turn the Ukraine war back around. And the USA is back in the fight

David Axe – March 27, 2024

A Ukrainian artillery piece fires on Russian positions. Artillery, and supplies of artillery shells, have been crucial factors in the Ukrainian fighting
A Ukrainian artillery piece fires on Russian positions. Artillery, and supplies of artillery shells, have been crucial factors in the Ukrainian fighting – Bulent Kilic/AFP via Getty

Six months after blocking US president Joe Biden’s proposal to spend another $61 billion on aid to Ukraine, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson – who alone can schedule votes in the narrowly Republican-controlled legislative body – seems to have reversed his opposition to Ukraine’s war effort.

With retirements and special elections having reduced his majority to just two votes out of 438, and with a small contingent of far-right Republican extremists refusing to vote on any bill that has bipartisan support, Johnson increasingly relies on Democrats to enact budgets and other legislation.

And that means he answers more to the Democratic agenda than the Republican one. And strong support for Ukraine is a Democratic priority. The US House is on vacation until the first week of April. But once it reconvenes, Johnson will call a vote on fresh aid to Ukraine, according to some of his House colleagues.

With tens of billions of dollars in fresh funding, the US Defence Department could send a lot of weapons to Ukraine – and soon. Some could come straight from existing US stocks, with the new funding paying for newly-built weapons to replenish these stocks. Others could come from new commercial contracts brokered by the Pentagon.

It’s obvious what the priorities should be.

First and foremost, Ukraine needs artillery shells. For the first 18 months of Russia’s wider war on Ukraine, the United States was the main supplier of artillery ammo to Ukrainian batteries. In total, the Americans donated around two million shells. Half came straight from American magazine stockpiles. The other half, America quietly bought from South Korea.

These shells, along with additional ammo from other sources, kept Ukrainian guns blasting away at a rate of around 10,000 rounds a day for much of the war’s first year and a half. That was enough to match Russian batteries once the Russians burned through much of their ammo stockpile in the wider war’s first few weeks.

The Republican funding blockade, and the subsequent run down of US supplied munitions through the end of last year, cut by two-thirds the Ukrainians’ daily allotment of shells. In some of the darkest days of the war in February, as a pair of Russian field armies closed in on the Ukrainian stronghold in the eastern city of Avdiivka, Russian guns were firing five times as many rounds as Ukrainian guns were – and demolishing Ukrainian defence s without fear of return fire.

The US Army has been building a new shell factory in Texas to complement its existing factory in Pennsylvania. Soon, the Army should be capable of producing around 70,000 shells a month – a sixfold increase over its 2022 production rate.

There’s no reason most of the shells can’t go to Ukraine, once there’s funding to pay for each $5,000 round. Combined with shells from the European Union as well as a separate Czech initiative, urgent shipments of shells from the United States could give Ukraine an enduring artillery advantage for the first time in the wider war.

Once the shells are shipping, the Americans can address Ukraine’s second-greatest need: Patriot air-defence batteries and missiles for these batteries. The US-made Patriot is Ukraine’s best air-defence system. Its 90-mile-range missiles can reliably shoot down all but the fastest Russian missiles – and swat down Russian warplanes like flies.

When the Ukrainian air force shot down 13 Russian fighter-bombers in 13 days last month, it was apparently a mobile Patriot battery that did most of the shooting.

But Ukraine has just three Patriot batteries with around three dozen launchers – and lost a pair of those launchers in a devastating rocket ambush in early March. The batteries are spread thin. One normally protects Kyiv. Another protects Odesa, Ukraine’s strategic port on the Black Sea. The third battery apparently travels the front line in order to engage Russian jets.

Ideally, Ukraine would place a $1-billion Patriot battery in each of its half-dozen biggest cities and also assign one each to the eastern and southern fronts. And these batteries should be free to fire away at their fastest rate – meaning they’ll need a steady supply of missiles, each of which costs around $3 million.

Doubling or tripling Ukraine’s Patriot force could help the Ukrainians wrest back control of the air over the front line – and also reverse the disturbing trend toward bigger and bloodier Russian missile-strikes on Ukrainian cities.

Having replenished Ukraine’s artillery and air-defences, the United States should rescue one of the Ukrainian army’s best brigades. The 47th Mechanized Brigade is the main operator of American-made armoured vehicles, including M-1 Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley fighting vehicles.

The 69-ton M-1 and 42-ton M-2 – thickly armoured and armed with a 120-millimetre cannon and a 25-millimetre autocannon, respectively – are some of the best armoured vehicles in the world, and the 47th Brigade has put them to good use. Counterattacking Russian assault groups west of Avdiivka, the M-1 and M-2s have blunted Russia’s winter offensive – and minimized Ukraine’s territorial losses as its artillery supplies bottomed out.

But the Americans shipped just 31 M-1s and around 200 M-2s before Republicans cut off aid. Four of the M-1s and more than 30 of the M-2s have been destroyed and others damaged. The 47th Brigade is running out of vehicles.

The US Army has thousands of older M-1s and M-2s in storage. They’d need overhaul before going to war in Ukraine, but a billion dollars should be enough to pay for the work as well as expedited shipping.

Once Speaker of the House Johnson bends to Americans’ overwhelming support for a free Ukraine and finally brings aid to a vote, the Pentagon could speed hundreds of tanks and fighting vehicles to the Ukrainian army.

Jordan Klepper Unleashes Holy Hell On Trump With 1 Truly Burning Question

Huff Post

Jordan Klepper Unleashes Holy Hell On Trump With 1 Truly Burning Question

Ed Mazza – March 26, 2024

Jordan Klepper of “The Daily Show” on Tuesday mocked Donald Trump for his most desperate attempt yet to raise cash to pay for his mounting legal fees: by selling his own version of the Bible.

Trump earlier in the day released a video of himself holding the $60 “God Bless The USA Bible” as he insisted that the Bible is his favorite book and that he has “many” in his home.

“Many? Many? Many?” Klepper repeated in disbelief. “How does that thing not burst into flames immediately?”

Trump’s version of the book, done with country singer Lee Greenwood, contains the lyrics to Greenwood’s hit song “God Bless The USA” ― which is played at Trump rallies ― as well as the texts of the Pledge of Allegiance, the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

“Trump is mashing together the Bible and the Constitution like it’s a Pizza Hut-Taco Bell,” Klepper cracked. “I know people will say that you’re not supposed to mix the Bible and the Constitution, but what you have to understand is Trump has never read either of them.”

Klepper also predicted where this would lead.

“Trump getting into business with God can only mean one thing: God is gonna end up bankrupt and serving a three-month prison sentence for lying under oath,” he said.

See more in his Tuesday night “Daily Show” monologue:

Here’s who could be responsible for paying for the Baltimore bridge disaster

Business Insider

Here’s who could be responsible for paying for the Baltimore bridge disaster

Erin Snodgrass – March 26, 2024

The container ship that destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge has crashed beforeScroll back up to restore default view.

  • The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed after a container ship collided with it.
  • Several entities will likely be on the hook to foot the bill in the aftermath of the disaster.
  • The maritime insurance industry will be saddled with the highest costs.

The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed on Tuesday after a large container ship ran into it, leading to six presumed deaths and millions of dollars in possible damage.

It’s still too early to estimate the total economic impact of the disaster, but between the cost of rebuilding the decades-old bridge, compensating the victims’ families, and paying out damages for disruptions to the supply chain, the eventual cost of the disaster is expected to be significant.

Who will pay to rebuild the bridge?

President Joe Biden said on Tuesday the federal government should be responsible for paying to reconstruct the damaged Francis Scott Key Bridge.

“It is my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstructing that bridge, and I expect Congress to support my effort,” Biden said.

The bridge was built in the 1970s for about $60 million, but the cost of rebuilding it could be 10 times its original price tag, an engineering expert told Sky News. 

A picture of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland
The Francis Scott Key Bridge, named for Francis Scott Key, the author of the Star Spangled Banner.WilliamSherman via Getty Images

Baltimore is among the busiest ports in the nation, seeing more than a million shipping containers pass through each year. The collapse — which closed the port to all maritime and most road traffic until further notice — is already beginning to wreak havoc on the supply chain.

The cost of building the bridge back fast enough to offset diversions as much as possible could saddle the government with a more than $600 million bill, David MacKenzie, chair of engineering and architecture consultancy COWIfonden, told Sky News.

Who will pay for damages to the ship and its cargo?

The container ship, the Dali, is owned by a Singapore-based firm. The ship’s charterer, Maersk, confirmed to Business Insider that vessel company Synergy Group operates the ship.

However, the companies with cargo aboard the Dali will ultimately be responsible for the ship’s damages and cargo costs.

The Dali was carrying 330 containers, which now must be re-routed, according to Ryan Petersen, CEO of supply chain logistics company Flexport, which had two containers on the ship.

An ancient maritime law known as “general average” dictates that companies with even a single container aboard a ship have to split the damages pro rata based on the number of containers, ensuring all the stakeholders benefiting from the voyage are splitting the risk, Petersen said.

Drone footage shows aftermath of the Dali container ship's collision into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, on March 26, 2024.
Drone footage shows aftermath of the Dali container ship’s collision into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, on March 26, 2024.Anadolu Agency via Reuters

The principle dates back hundreds of years and was originally meant to ensure sailors on board a ship weren’t worried about specific cargo if a disaster required them to start throwing containers overboard, according to Petersen.

Who will pay for everything else?

The majority of the financial fallout is likely to lay primarily with the insurance industry, according to media reports.

Industry experts told FT that insurers could pay out losses for bridge damage, port disruption, and any loss of life.

The collapse could drive “one of the largest claims ever to hit the marine (re)insurance market,” John Miklus, president of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters, told Insurance Business.

He told the outlet that the loss of revenue from tolls while the bridge is being rebuilt will be expensive, as will any liability claims from deaths or injuries.

The Dali is covered by the Britannia Steam Ship Insurance Association Ltd., known as Britannia P&I Club, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Britannia did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider but told FT it was “working closely with the ship manager and relevant authorities to establish the facts and to help ensure that this situation is dealt with quickly and professionally.”

Britannia is one of 12 mutual insurers included in the International Group of P&I Clubs, which maintains more than $3 billion of reinsurance cover, sources familiar with the matter told Insurance Business.

Britannia itself is liable for the first $10 million in damages, both FT and Insurance Business reported. Whatever remains is dealt with by the wider mutual insurance group and Lloyd’s of London, a reinsurance market in the UK, according to FT.

Fast-food companies seeing low-income diners pare orders

Reuters

Fast-food companies seeing low-income diners pare orders

Waylon Cunningham – March 27, 2024

FILE PHOTO: McDonald's Corp. reports fourth quarter earnings
McDonald’s Corp. reports fourth quarter earnings
FILE PHOTO: A Wendy's sign and logo are shown at one of the company's restaurant in Encinitas, California
A Wendy’s sign and logo are shown at one of the company’s restaurant in Encinitas, California

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) – Runaway prices at U.S. fast-food joints and restaurants have made people skittish down the income ladder and executives at chains including McDonald’s and Wendy’s recently said they worry about losing business from those on the tightest budgets.

Roughly a quarter of low-income consumers, defined as those making less than $50,000 a year, said they were eating less fast food and about half said they were making fewer trips to fast-casual and full-service dining establishments, according to polling in February by Revenue Management Solutions, a consulting firm.

The rising price of food is contributing to budget-conscious diners cutting back.

Whether consumed at home or in a restaurant, food prices rose 20% from Jan. 2021 to Jan. 2024, the fastest jump on record. A recent census Household Pulse Survey showed half of people earning less than $35,000 a year had difficulty paying everyday expenses, and nearly 80% were moderately or “very” stressed by recent price increases.

Lauren Oxford, a musician who works part time at a bed-and-breakfast in Tennessee, said she used to stop by McDonald’s after running errands, treating herself to two double hamburgers, fries and a drink, for less than $5. As prices rose, she switched to smaller hamburgers and stopped getting the drink.

But after a year in which McDonald’s franchisees drove prices up about 10% according to the company’s executives, she’s going to McDonald’s less in general. “Now I don’t know if I can justify that.”

In the Fed’s most recent Beige Book compendium of anecdotal reports gathered from business and community contacts around the country, 7 of 12 regional Fed districts reported low-income consumers were changing spending habits in search of bargains, seeking more help from community groups, or struggling to access credit.

About one-third of Black American households, and 21% of white American households, earned less than $35,000 in 2022, according to the latest available U.S. census data.

For fast-food companies that often promote an image of affordability, low-income consumers are a significant portion of the customer base and a bellwether for longer-term trends. But they are typically the first to cut back spending and the last to come back.

But now, chains may be less likely to chase customers as hard as they have in the past because even with a drop in traffic, sales have remained consistent supported by increased prices.

Fast food companies aren’t “in a hurry to take traffic over profit the way they were a decade ago,” said Mike Lukianoff, CEO of SignalFlare.ai and a veteran consultant in the fast food industry.

For example back in 2008, Subway introduced its nationwide $5 footlong, which became the poster sandwich for the Great Recession. That spurred rivals to introduce extreme value deals for budget-conscious customers, such as “$5 Fill-Up Boxes” at Yum! Brands KFC.

In 2016, McDonald’s, after a prolonged slump in sales, introduced a bundle deal it called “McPick 2”, allowing customers to choose 2 items, like a McDouble, for $2. Within months, Wendy’s offered a four for $4 deal. Burger King offered five for $4. Pizza Hut had a $5 “flavor menu.”

APP-DRIVEN DISCOUNTS

Now, instead of across-the-board menu slashes and broad discounts, industry analysts say chains are being more selective, aiming them at specific demographics or limiting them to specific meal times or channels, such as its app or only through delivery.

McDonald’s executives told investors in February that it would rely on its existing “value menu” to appeal to low-income consumers who might be tempted to eat packaged food at home instead. CFO Ian Borden said affordability is core to the brand, and the company would continue “evolving” its value offerings.

“The battleground is certainly with that low-income consumer,” McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski told investors, referring to people making less than $45,000.

Wendy’s recently introduced a limited-time $1 burger — available only through its app. Its CFO Gunther Plosch told investors in February that among lower-income customers, their traffic is down but their share with the general market is unchanged.

For major fast-food companies, loyalty apps are the go-to strategy among major brands to increase retention and the average amount of money spent. The upside for chains, David Henkes, senior principal with Technomic said, is that they capture more transaction data and demographic data for the consumer, “which is a trade-off many are happy to do.”

For example, McDonald’s frequently offers in-app discounts, such as 20% off an order or free delivery with a large enough order.

Domino’s halved the minimum purchase price to get points in its loyalty program, to $5 from $10, its CEO told investors at a conference in January. It also reduced the number of purchases needed to get a free pizza to as few as two from six. “And so essentially, for this lower-income consumer, we’ve made the brand more accessible,” CEO Russell Weiner said.

To be sure, not every chain is seeing weakness among low-income customers. At Taco Bell, which sells a single taco for $1.40 at many of its stores in San Antonio, locations in low-income markets did better than other locations, Yum! CEO David Gibbs told investors in February.

McDonald’s still holds its appeal for Andreas Garay, a retail worker eating at a McDonald’s in westside San Antonio. He said he plans to keep his coffee-and-Big-Mac habit– even if prices continue going up.

(Reporting by Waylon Cunningham in San Antonio and Howard Schneider in Washington, D.C.; Editing by Anna Driver)

Mumbai becomes Asian capital with most billionaires, bumping Shanghai: Report

The Hill

Mumbai becomes Asian capital with most billionaires, bumping Shanghai: Report

Filip Timotija – March 27, 2024

The city of Mumbai has officially surpassed Shanghai as Asia’s capital with the most billionaires, according to a new Hurun Global Rich List 2024 report.

Mumbai, India’s financial powerhouse, now has 92 billionaires, closely edging out Beijing’s 91 and Shanghai with 87.

This year’s list marked Mumbai’s first time in the world’s top three, according to the report.

Globally, the Big Apple still leads the way. New York City has the most billionaires with 119. London was second with 97. Beijing, which was ranked first last year, dropped to fourth place.

China has the most billionaires out of any country with 814, although it lost 155 of them. The U.S. was second with 800 billionaires. India was third with 271.

“Wealth creation in China has gone through deep changes these last few years, with the wealth of billionaires from real estate and renewables down,” the research firm said in the report.

“Whilst as many as 40% of the Hurun Global Rich List from the high water mark two years ago have lost their billionaires status, China has added a 120 new faces to the list. Despite the large drop in the number of billionaires, China still has more known billionaires than the US.”

Zhong Shanshan, chair of bottled water giant Nongfu Spring, kept his spot as the richest person in China.

Globally, the number of billionaires increased — now at 3,279 billionaires, up 167 from last year, according to the report.

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) has helped generate new ultra-wealthy individuals.

“AI has been the major driver for wealth growth, generating over half of all the new wealth this year,” the research firm said. “The billionaires behind Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Oracle and Meta have seen significant surges in their wealth as investors bet on the value generated by AI.”

India’s Income Inequality Is Now Worse Than Under British Rule, New Report Says


Time

India’s Income Inequality Is Now Worse Than Under British Rule, New Report Says

Astha Rajvanshi – March 27, 2024

A fisherman colony alongside commercial buildings in the Indian city of Mumbai, now Asia’s billionaire capital. Credit – Dhiraj Singh—Bloomberg/Getty Images

new study from the World Inequality Lab finds that the present-day golden era of Indian billionaires has produced soaring income inequality in India—now among the highest in the world and starker than in the U.S., Brazil, and South Africa. The gap between India’s rich and poor is now so wide that by some measures, the distribution of income in India was more equitable under British colonial rule than it is now, according to the group of economists who co-authored the study, including the renowned French economist Thomas Piketty.

The current total number of billionaires in India is peaking at 271, with 94 new billionaires added in 2023 alone, according to Hurun Research Institute’s 2024 global rich list published Tuesday. That’s more new billionaires than in any country other than the U.S., with a collective wealth that amounts to nearly $1 trillion—or 7% of the world’s total wealth. A handful of Indian tycoons, such as Mukesh Ambani, Gautam Adani, and Sajjan Jindal, are now mingling in the same circles as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, some of the world’s richest people.

“The Billionaire Raj headed by India’s modern bourgeoisie is now more unequal than the British Raj headed by the colonialist forces,” the authors write.

The observation is particularly stark when considering India is now hailed as an 8% GDP growth economy, according to Barclays Research, with some projecting that India is poised to surpass Japan and Germany to become the world’s third-largest economy by 2027.

But the authors of the World Inequality Lab study reached this conclusion by tracking how much of India’s total income, as well as wealth, is held by the country’s top 1%. While income refers to the sum of earnings, interest on savings, investments and other sources, wealth (or net worth) is the total value of assets owned by an individual or group. The authors combined national income accounts, wealth aggregates, tax tabulations, rich lists, and surveys on income, consumption, and wealth to present the study’s findings.

Read More: Why India’s Next Election Will Last 44 Days

For income, the economists looked at annual tax tabulations released by both the British and Indian governments since 1922. They found that even during the highest recorded period of inequality in India, which occurred during the inter-war colonial period from the 1930s until India’s independence in 1947, the top 1% held around 20 to 21% of the country’s national income. Today, the 1% holds 22.6% of the country’s income.

Similarly, the economists also tracked the dynamics of wealth inequality, beginning in 1961, when the Indian government first began conducting large-scale household surveys on wealth, debt and assets. By combining this research with information from the Forbes Billionaire Index, the authors found that India’s top 1% had access to a staggering 40.1% of national wealth.

Because the number of Indian billionaires shot up from one in 1991 to 162 in 2022, the total net wealth of these individuals over this period as a share of India’s net national income “boomed from under 1% in 1991 to a whopping 25% in 2022,” the authors said.

The report also found that the rise in inequality had been particularly pronounced since the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party first came to power in 2014. Over the last decade, major political and economic reforms have led to “an authoritarian government with centralization of decision-making power, coupled with a growing nexus between big business and government,” the report states. This, they say, was likely to “facilitate disproportionate influence” on society and government.

They added that average Indians, and not just the Indian elite, could still stand to gain from globalization if the government made more public investments in health, education, and nutrition. Moreover, a “super tax” of 2% on the net wealth of the 167 wealthiest Indian families in 2022-23 would result in 0.5% of national income in revenues, and “create valuable fiscal space to facilitate such investments,” the authors argued.

Until the government makes such investments, however, the authors caution against the possibility of India’s slide toward plutocracy. The country was once a role model among post-colonial nations for upholding the integrity of various key institutions, the authors say, and they point out that even the standard of economic data in India to study inequality has declined recently.

“If only for this reason, income and wealth inequality in India must be closely tracked and challenged,” the authors say.

The Unimaginable Horror of a Trump Restoration

Slate

The Unimaginable Horror of a Trump Restoration

David Faris – March 26, 2024

It is an overcast, unseasonably warm morning on Wednesday, Nov. 6, and the world has woken up in shock as Donald Trump has emerged as the winner of the U.S. presidential election. America’s cities are once again full of mute, stunned liberals avoiding eye contact with one another on the morning commute, as the grim reality of what Trump might do with this power begins to set in. At his victory speech just after 2 a.m., when the networks called Wisconsin, and thus the election for him, Trump took the stage and declared, “Judgment Day is coming for America’s enemies, and no Marxist, Harvard leftist, gender-radical, illegal, or criminal thug in our great country will be safe come January.” And in some ways that bleak morning might represent the high point of the next four—or 40—years, given what Trump and his allies have in store for us.

This is a worst-case scenario. But it’s far from impossible. A Trump restoration is in the works—and it should feel like an existential threat to everyone who cares about liberal democracy and the incomplete but tangible social, racial, and economic progress that has been made since the New Deal era.

And yet, President Joe Biden’s manifest flaws are dangerously obscuring the scale of the threat of a second Trump term. There is no sense in denying it: Biden looks and sounds very old, and his speaking style, never particularly inspirational, has deteriorated to the point that he is a clear political liability. While he brought what passes for his A-game to the State of the Union, he will need to sustain that level of energy and coherence through an eight-month-long slog to the election to improve his chances of winning.

His decision to run for a second term has not only jeopardized his many achievements but put the very existence of U.S. democracy at much more serious risk. His administration’s staunch support of Israel, a defensible posture in the aftermath of the unconscionable Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, has become a genuinely baffling study in Biden’s inability to pivot or use America’s considerable leverage to do the right thing. The White House hasn’t settled on a winning strategy to address the lingering consequences of post-pandemic inflation, preferring to boast about the very real low unemployment numbers and robust GDP growth that simply have not moved the needle politically. And the Biden administration has remained curiously inert in the face of growing public frustration with the migrant crisis, preferring to blame Congress for refusing to fix it.

Nevertheless, allowing Donald Trump and his friends to plunge our country into a dystopian nightmare of authoritarianism will not help anyone in Gaza, in the grocery store, or at the border. It will worsen, not rectify, America’s history of writing blank checks to far-right governments in Israel. It will not lead to humane policy options for asylum-seekers but instead deliver them into the hands of morally bankrupt demagogues. Electing Trump would merely add more considerable suffering and trauma to theirs, and deprive us all of the ability to do anything about it.

Much has been made of the far-right Project 2025—a blueprint for radically restructuring and reorienting executive-branch policymaking, created by a network of right-wing think tanks and pressure groups—and its terrifying implications for U.S. democracy. But that document concerns only the threats Trump’s reelection poses to executive-branch agencies (and contains many unresolvable contradictions between dismantling and wielding the “administrative state”). Myriad public dangers emanating from the Trump and GOP legislative agenda, as well as the possibility of an even harder-right Supreme Court, are getting far less attention. That needs to change.

Let’s start with the court. That Sonia Sotomayor, who will turn 70 this year, is still sitting on the Supreme Court means that Democrats have yet to grasp how strategic retirements work in the new hyperpartisan political order. Unlike Democrats, who still seem to view a Supreme Court seat as a personal sinecure bestowed upon the righteous for a lifetime of achievement, the leaders of the far-right judicial movement understand the stakes and will place enormous pressure on the oldest Republican appointees to retire under a second Trump term. Clarence Thomas, who has been on the court since 1991, turns 76 this year, and Samuel Alito turns 74. Even John Roberts, who would turn 70 just after Trump’s inauguration, might go.

Think about it this way: If Republicans replace this trio with three early-middle-age ideologues like Amy Coney Barrett, the court will be in the GOP’s hands until everyone reading this article is dead or nearing retirement. If Trump gets to replace Sotomayor, who suffers from a health problem (Type 1 diabetes) that significantly reduces life expectancy, the far right would have an unassailable 7–2 majority with which to remake American society for a generation.

Very little that liberals or progressives care about is likely to survive another 20 or 30 years of reactionary control of the Supreme Court. Although much of the focus has justifiably been on Dobbs, and the looming threat to Obergefellbirth control, and IVF, a conservative supermajority would also likely gut a century of jurisprudence around taken-for-granted features of the American political and economic order, including bargaining rights for organized labor, the constitutionality of federal programs like Social Security and Medicare, and—it nearly goes without saying—the Affordable Care Act. We will effectively return to the early 20th century’s Lochner era, when the Supreme Court repeatedly struck down worker protections and rights for more than 30 years until FDR threatened it with court packing.

Sure, “Vote for Biden so the conservative supermajority can’t get younger and larger” is tough to fit on a bumper sticker, and no one in the party from Biden on down seems to have the stomach for the necessary escalation or a political vision for the court that can be communicated to voters. But unless you want to spend the rest of your lives watching Brett Kavanaugh and his friends upend your lives one right and benefit at a time, you have to hold the line here.

SCOTUS is, of course, also right now at the very center of Trump’s threat to American democracy. The court’s galling decision to repeatedly delay Trump’s trial for the 2020 post-election coup attempt and the Jan. 6 insurrection means that he probably won’t face justice until after he could conceivably win reelection. Most concerningly, this off-the-rails Supreme Court has bafflingly decided to take up the question of a president’s absolute immunity after Trump’s team argued that he should be free from any consequences of anything he did as president. Though cooler heads may in the end prevail over the Thomas-Alito wing, the fact that this is up for debate at all is incredibly alarming.

Much has been made of reports that Trump plans to deploy the military to quell post-election protests under the Insurrection Act. But a Trump unchained from any conceivable repercussions for his decisions in his office is a far worse threat than just that. Imagine for a moment what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor: First of all, the effort to hold him accountable for trying to overthrow the American system of government would be over—instantly. Even more problematically, what conceivable limits would there be on a President Trump beginning in 2025 if SCOTUS has just ruled that his efforts to perpetrate a coup in broad daylight were well within the ambit of his presidential authority?

Who or what exactly would stop Trump from, say, creating a new security apparatus, abducting leftists and political enemies—as he has pledged—and dropping them out of helicopters over the Pacific like the Latin American dictators the far right still worships once did? He could order the hits, then preemptively pardon the people who carry out his orders. That might seem melodramatic and far-fetched. But if the Supreme Court grants him immunity as president, no one could touch him for it legally. And if Republicans simultaneously controlled both chambers of Congress, there would be no impeachment option either. We’ve learned the hard way, far too many times, that a critical mass of elected Republicans will do Trump’s bidding no matter how grotesque his actions.

Maybe he’ll stop short of creating an American Stasi. But a president who is unbound by the law could order the DOJ to gin up investigations of leading journalists, prominent Democrats, professors, activists, and nonprofit leaders. Independent media outlets could be “acquired” by allies or buried under lawsuits and government harassment, as they have been in Trump’s favorite quasi-authoritarian regime in Hungary. Troops could be deployed to garrison blue cities, to not only find and deport immigrants but also chill and repress any dissident fervor that develops in the aftermath of his takeover. He would say he’s merely fighting crime, “illegals,” and election fraud, but Trump could conceivably place the cities he fears and despises, where his political adversaries wield most of their power and influence, under what amounts to an open-ended military occupation.

It gets worse. If Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, he is highly likely to do so while bringing Republican control of the House and Senate with him. With Mitch McConnell out of the way as party leader, there is a very good chance that the new GOP Senate leadership will nuke the filibuster and govern with a simple majority. And that means that the toxic, vengeful politics of Texas and Florida will go national. Trump showed time and again during his first term that he was not just willing but eager to subcontract his domestic policymaking to the right-wing think tanks that write most state-level legislation for Republicans. National Republicans no longer pretend to have a written or informal platform, but Trump has a campaign website with policy plans called “Agenda 47” that can be read alongside Project 2025, as well as the actual policy record of state Republicans, to give us a pretty clear sense of what they have planned.

Trump continues to spin and deflect, but under unified Republican control, Congress could obviously try to pass a national abortion ban, and he would sign it. House Republicans are already gunning for a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care, and electing a Republican trifecta this November will mean that, practically speaking, it could soon be either illegal or impossible to be transgender in the United States. The proof is in the hundreds of red-state anti-trans bills introduced and the dozens passed just since 2023, including Florida’s ban on gender reassignment surgery for minors, which also gives the state the right to kidnap children from parents who pursue gender-affirming care. Agenda 47 claims that the Trump administration will “investigate Big Pharma and the big hospital networks to determine whether they have deliberately covered up horrific long-term side-effects of ‘sex transitions’ in order to get rich at the expense of vulnerable patients.” As Masha Gessen once said, “Believe the autocrat.”

The enemies list doesn’t stop there. Trump’s promised militarized mass-deportation effort could be just the beginning of the crackdown on both legal and illegal immigration; we could also see an effort to end birthright citizenship, a move that, if it succeeds, would result in millions being suddenly stripped of their status as Americans. You will find this not in Project 2025 but in Trump’s online platform and the ugly words that frequently spill out of his mouth, like in May 2023, when he posted a video in which he argued, “I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship.” Whether you believe the “going forward” part of that promise is up to you.

And get ready for a flurry of moves against the remaining redoubts of liberalism and democracy, particularly in secondary and higher education. Radicalized Republicans in Congress will try to bar federal loans and grants from being used at any universities with policies that support inclusion and diversity. This is not speculation: Rep. Dan Crenshaw introduced a bill in the House last year to prevent public funds from being used at schools with DEI policies, based on existing Texas legislation.

They won’t stop there. Republicans would eventually try to block funding for schools with any kind of race or gender studies programs, as the state of Florida tried to do last year, and before long every syllabus in the country could be scrutinized for evidence of anti-patriotic crimes, until anyone who isn’t a right-wing ideologue is driven from the academy altogether. Trump’s Agenda 47 promises to establish a new national “American Academy” by “by taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments”—i.e., strip-mining them for cash. A Trump administration, in other words, would effectively end American higher education as we know it.

That’s to say nothing of how, under GOP rule, every public school librarian and schoolteacher in America could suddenly find themselves under siege by cranks and culture warriors like their counterparts today in Texas and Florida. Agenda 47 threatens to create a new “credentialing body” that would “certify teachers who embrace patriotic values,” to eliminate teacher tenure, and to rescind funding “for any school or program pushing Critical Race Theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content.” And like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Trump would surely relish the opportunity to sign legislation banning public school teachers from going on strike.

This radical agenda would surely be accompanied by an assault on Democrats’ ability to ever win another free and fair election. Congress would pursue a national voter ID law, a ban on ballot harvesting, harsh new restrictions on mail-in balloting, the elimination of same-day voter registration, and new ways to purge Democrats from voter lists—all plans that are already in the “American Confidence in Elections Act,” which has been introduced in the House. What’s left of the Voting Rights Act would be set aside or perhaps repealed. Maniacs exercising their “constitutional carry” rights would patrol outside polling stations across the country with AR-15s, and Democratic voters would be subjected to endless legal challenges. Any Democratic effort to retake a chamber of Congress in 2026 or win the presidency in 2028 would have to run through President Trump’s formidable election conspiracy machine, the army of aspiring petty autocrats who will be put in charge of the nation’s election machinery, and the elected leaders who will come under enormous pressure not to turn power over to Democrats should those Democrats win.

At that point, the vaunted separation of powers that some analysts still cling to as our last great hope won’t be of much help. With as many as seven Trump judges on the Supreme Court and a federal judiciary that will once again be stocked with his allies and true believers, even many of the brazenly unconstitutional orders and laws that are in the works will have a good chance of standing up in court. And all the while, demoralized Democrats will be pointing fingers at one another for their catastrophic loss, which—knowing Dems—could easily be pinned on Biden’s more progressive policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, whose historic climate provisions would also be reversed almost immediately. Efforts to highlight the contributions of his age and Gaza policies to this disaster would run straight into the same narrative-makers who pinned the disappointing scale of Democrats’ 2020 victory on progressive activists chanting “Defund the Police” rather than on Biden’s overcautious campaign and reliance on appealing to disenchanted Republicans.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the America that a second Trump term would create might be an almost unrecognizable realm of economic insecurity, political persecution, racist hatred, and gender tyranny, a Christian nationalist hellscape that would be virtually impossible to dismantle once it is put into place.

Joe Biden may not be the ideal man standing between us and this horror show, but he is a seasoned politician with a strong track record and a plenty competent team. (Plus, he’s all there is unless he decides to step aside.) He and every Democrat in the White House and Congress must do everything they can to shift the focus from Biden’s age and unpopularity to Trump’s very public laundry list of malevolent plans, and national media organizations must continue to do the relatively easy work of telling readers and viewers about Trump’s reactionary agenda. Readers may be completely burned out on learning about Trump’s crimes, but the alternative—that Trump gets into office and perpetrates more of them—is truly unthinkable.

Trump and J.D. Vance embrace populist economics. That’s bad for Americans.

USA Today – Opinion

Trump and J.D. Vance embrace populist economics. That’s bad for Americans.

James Davis – March 26, 2024

Republicans are excited to run against Bidenomics in the 2024 election. So why are some of the loudest GOP members bear-hugging the lie at the heart of Bidenomics?

The populist wing of the Republican Party is increasingly enamored with the idea that Washington, D.C., should control the economy − that politicians and bureaucrats are smart enough to govern the everyday decisions of more than 330 million Americans and job creators.

That view is clear in rising GOP support for everything from tariffs, which former President Donald Trump has proposed, to bailouts to the federal rejection of business decisions. These Republicans are embracing the very government control that has caused millions of Americans to fall behind under President Joe Biden.

Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, a leading Republican populist, is a case in point. The senator recently declared that Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan – one of the key architects of Bidenomics − is “one of the few people in the Biden administration that I think is doing a pretty good job.”

Under Khan’s leadership, the FTC has blocked numerous business mergers. Vance apparently likes that, saying it helps build “a competitive marketplace” that “allows consumers to have the right choices” and doesn’t ignore “all the other things that really matter.”

Former President Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio.
Former President Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio.
FTC’s aggressiveness is hurting American consumers

Yet, far from empowering consumers and increasing competition, the FTC’s actions have done considerable damage to Americans, with worse on the way.

The FTC’s move in February to block the merger between Kroger and Albertsons is the latest proof. The grocery store chains proposed the partnership not to limit competition, but to stay competitive against the likes of Amazon and Walmart. Without a merger, Kroger and Albertsons are more likely to lay off workers, increase automation and raise prices, none of which benefits consumers or workers.

Back off, FTC. Suing to stop Kroger-Albertsons merger exemplifies bumbling bureaucracy.

Nor would it help consumers if grocery chains go out of business and other companies gain market share − the real road to fewer options and higher prices. The true threat to competition isn’t two grocery chains becoming one, but rather two becoming zero, which is more likely after the FTC’s intervention.

Does the prospect of shuttered stores and lost jobs really deserve populist praise? How about the FTC’s attempt to prevent victory in America’s war on cancer? That’s what happened when the commission sued to block the merger of Illumina and Grail in 2021.

The biotech companies saw a chance to transform cancer testing, empowering far more Americans to learn whether they have cancer far earlier. The key to stopping cancer is early detection, which saves lives as well as money on costly end-stage cancer treatments.

The merger posed no threat to consumers or competition because Illumina and Grail don’t compete. They operate in different parts of the health care supply chain, and by joining, they could achieve greater efficiency, which leads to lower prices and faster development.

No matter: After two years of fighting the FTC, Illumina and Grail separated. The FTC put populist demands ahead of people’s health.

The same story has played out over and over under Khan’s leadership of the FTC. It sued Amazon for promoting its own products and pressuring its competitors − the nature of competition − yet the commission is threatening popular features like two-day shipping and rock-bottom prices that customers love.

It’s investigating a financial firm’s acquisition of Subway, threatening a deal that could help the low-margin business grow its store footprint and serve more customers.

FTC lost lawsuits against Meta and Microsoft

And the FTC has lost lawsuits against mergers by Microsoft and Meta after failing to show how competition or customers would be hurt. The agency is trying to micromanage the most dynamic economy on earth, forcing companies to defend commonsense business decisions in court instead of serving customers and strengthening society.

That’s the real problem − the belief that government has the genius to direct the economy. That misguided view is at the heart of both Bidenomics and Republican populism, as Vance’s comments make clear.

When Vance says that people should have “the right choices” and that markets should focus on what “really matters,” he isn’t just second-guessing private decisions by companies and customers. He’s saying bureaucrats like Khan and politicians like him should substitute their will for the combined wisdom of the American people.

US wants to ban TikTok, but First Amendment demands stronger case on national security

Republicans have already gone too far down that road, and not just Vance. The party of opportunity is substituting economic freedom for government control, economic fairness for taxpayer subsidies and belief in Americans’ individual choices for central planning.

Bidenomics shows where that road leads − fading optimism, and rising fear that our best days are behind us. If more and more Republicans think that approach is correct, then Americans are right to fear for our country’s future.

James Davis is founder and president of Touchdown Strategies, a Virginia-based communications firm.

Column: Trump wants to round up over a million undocumented migrants from California. Here’s how he might do it

Los Angeles Times

Column: Trump wants to round up over a million undocumented migrants from California. Here’s how he might do it

Doyle McManus – March 25, 2024

Former President Donald Trump speaks during a visit to an unfinished section of border wall with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, in Pharr, Texas, Wednesday, June 30, 2021. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
Former President Trump speaks near a section of border wall in Texas in 2021. His plans for a prospective second term include using National Guard troops in mass deportation operations to seize undocumented migrants, transport them to camps in Texas and expel them. (Associated Press )

Former President Trump has focused relentlessly on illegal immigration as a centerpiece of his campaign for the White House, just as when he first ran in 2016.

“They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” he has said of undocumented migrants, using language redolent of the racist doctrines of Adolf Hitler.

He promises to launch “the biggest domestic deportation campaign in American history” on Day One of his new presidency.

His chief immigration advisor, Santa Monica-born Stephen Miller, has spelled out what that would mean: Trump would assemble “a giant force” including National Guard troops to seize undocumented migrants, transport them to camps in Texas and expel them.

“A very conservative estimate would say about 10 million,” Miller told pro-Trump talk show host Charlie Kirk.

If “unfriendly states” — like California — don’t want to cooperate, Miller said, Trump could order Guard units from red states like Texas to cross their borders to enforce the law.

Read more: Column: Trump has big plans for California if he wins a second term. Fasten your seatbelts

The operation would be “as daring and ambitious … as building the Panama Canal,” Miller promised.

That’s a pretty bloodless way to describe a process that would uproot thousands of families, separate children from their parents and disrupt communities. But before we get to that, a preliminary question:

If he wins in Novembercould Trump really do that?

From a legal standpoint, the answer is yes.

If Trump invokes the Insurrection Act and declares that the National Guard is needed to enforce federal immigration law, he could send Texas troops into California whether Gov. Gavin Newsom agrees or not, legal scholars said.

“We normally don’t want the military enforcing the law inside the country; law enforcement is supposed to be provided by police forces that are local — and locally accountable,” said William Banks, an emeritus professor of law at Syracuse University. “But the Insurrection Act gives the president sweeping authority. You could drive a lot of trucks through that law.”

Newsom would presumably file a lawsuit against Trump to try to block the move, but it would almost certainly fail.

Read more: Column: Biden says America is ‘coming back.’ Trump says we’re ‘in hell.’ Are they talking about the same nation?

“No state has ever sued successfully to stop a deployment of the Guard under the Insurrection Act,” warned Joseph Nunn of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

There are also practical concerns. Most National Guard units are neither trained nor equipped for law enforcement missions.

“Tracking down undocumented migrants is complicated and time-consuming,” Nunn noted. “You need people who know how to do it, like ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents.

“The Guard would resist that kind of mission mightily,” added Banks. “They hate this kind of stuff. They would be better suited to patrol the border — to stand next to the wall, the fence or the river and discourage people from coming across.”

So if Trump listens to his generals — not a sure thing — he’d be more likely to use Guard units to bolster weak spots on the border and manage those newly built transit camps for deportees.

Read more: Column: Trumponomics? He would impose the equivalent of a huge tax hike

That would free up ICE agents for raids on Central Valley farms and Los Angeles sweatshops — which is what immigration agents did in earlier crackdowns, including the offensively named Operation Wetback, which expelled more than a million Mexican migrants (and some U.S. citizens) in 1954.

So legally, there may not be that much California can do. But the fallout in a state home to an estimated 1.9 million undocumented people — roughly 5% of the population — would be difficult to imagine.

The human impact of uprooting most or all of these California residents would be gigantic. Many undocumented migrants are members of families that include legal residents and U.S. citizens, including children.

Many are deeply rooted in their communities; more than two-thirds have lived in the state longer than 10 years, according to one estimate.

“When you harm the undocumented, you harm U.S. citizens too,” said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles.

Read more: Column: Will ‘double haters’ determine the outcome of the 2024 presidential election?

“I’ve seen families devastated by the deportation of their loved ones. I’ve seen families, when the father is deported, go right into economic ruin,” Salas said. “The trauma for children, especially small children, is enormous.”

The economic impact of mass deportations would be huge, too. An estimated 1.5 million California workers, more than 7% of the state’s workforce, are undocumented. About half work in agriculture, construction, hospitality and retail, industries that already suffer from severe labor shortages.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell said this month that the growth of immigrants in the workforce had strengthened economic growth. “It’s just arithmetic,” said Powell, a Trump appointee. “If you add a couple of million people to an economy … there will be more output.” Abruptly subtracting a million or more would have the opposite effect.

Trump advisors aren’t planning to stop at removing undocumented people from the country.

Miller wants to go after some people in the country legally too.

He has proposed expanding the criteria for deportation to include people with valid visas “whose views, attitudes and beliefs make them ineligible to stay” in the eyes of the new Trump administration.

Read more: Column: Trump wanted to pull the U.S. out of NATO. In a second term, he’s more likely to try

“The obvious example here would be all of the Hamas supporters who are rallying across the country,” he said.

An immigration task force organized by the conservative Heritage Foundation and led by a former Trump administration official proposed blocking Federal Emergency Management Agency grants to state and local agencies that refuse to cooperate with ICE enforcement operations, a standard that would presumably disqualify most or all California agencies.

The task force also proposed denying federal loans and grants to students at universities that allow undocumented migrants to pay in-state tuition, a rule that would affect UC and the Cal State systems.

It adds up to a recipe for a major collision with California, the state most out of step with Trump’s determination to rid the country of undocumented migrants.

None of this constitutes a defense of the Biden administration’s policies, which have failed to deter thousands of migrants from crossing the border and applying for asylum on often-dubious grounds.

Read more: California poll reveals how minor candidates could throw 2024 presidential race to Trump

But it’s worth remembering that only a few weeks ago, Trump ordered Republicans in Congress to kill a bipartisan bill that would have increased funding for immigration enforcement and raised the bar for asylum claims — because, as he admitted, he didn’t want to allow President Biden to appear as if he was fixing the problem.

When Trump was first elected in 2016, I wrote that on immigration policy, “His bark may prove worse than his bite.”

I was wrong. He turned out to be dead serious.

Trump’s promises of mass deportations and detention camps should be taken seriously — and literally, too.

“If he says he’s going to do it, believe him,” Salas said.