Commenters are noting the sparse crowds at Donald Trump’s inauguration, with large empty swathes visible on the National Mall.
For comparison, here is what Obama’s inauguration looked like:
Commenters are noting the sparse crowds at Donald Trump’s inauguration, with large empty swathes visible on the National Mall.
For comparison, here is what Obama’s inauguration looked like:
This morning, Jesse Singal implored liberals to “fight for free speech” on college campuses in New York’s Daily Intelligencer. In the wake of Ann Coulter deciding not to give a speech at Berkeley, he argues, “Just because the most high-profile recent examples of campus speech getting shut down have affected the right doesn’t mean that would be the norm were free-speech norms and rules to crumble more completely.”
It is true that the recent discussion of free speech and censorship on college campuses has centered around high-profile, inflammatory conservatives, meaning many liberals might not be moved to their defense. It is also true that the left is not immune to censorship in the university. The example Singal uses to demonstrate this is Fordham University’s refusal to approve the club Students for Justice in Palestine, the founders of which filed a lawsuit against the university yesterday. Fordham’s Dean of Students rejected the club on the grounds that
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... is a topic that often leads to polarization rather than dialogue. The purpose of the organization as stated in the proposed club constitution points toward that polarization. Specifically, the call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israel presents a barrier to open dialogue and mutual learning and understanding.
Singal makes a nuanced argument about the subjectivity of what kind of speech should be protected or “what sort of speech is considered so harmful it should be suppressed.” He also notes that, in a university system, students are entirely at the political whims of administrators. But what is so interesting about the example of SJP at Fordham is that, by comparison, it shows the problems of claiming that Ann Coulter’s speech is being suppressed.
As Aaron Hanlon argued in the New Republic earlier this week, choosing not to host Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopoulos on campus is not a suppression of their free speech. Academia certainly has an important place in selecting and elevating certain voices to relevance in a broader culture, but let’s not forget that a college isn’t a town hall: it’s a particular community of people engaged in intersecting missions of education. Coulter is not a member of that community and she has no claims upon it. Campus life is curated, and none of us outside of it are guaranteed access to that platform. Aside from safety concerns, that doesn’t mean trying to cancel her appearance was necessarily the right decision—it very well may be true that students should challenge her views face-to-face—but doing so is still not a violation of her rights.
That cannot be said, however, of the Fordham case. As Singal notes, Fordham is a private university, and as such the question of free speech in this case relates not to the Constitution but the university’s own policies. But unlike Coulter, who has a regular platform on television and in publishing, the students of Fordham are truly limited by what their university will and will not allow as protected speech. Those students have been denied the opportunity to engage in the political action they find meaningful. They have been punished for peacefully protesting that decision. At Berkeley, the College Republicans who invited Ann Coulter to speak presumably retain their official club status and likely their budget.
House Republicans may or may not ultimately pass a regressive health care bill, but either way, they seem resigned to the fact that the only way they can succeed is to commit a mugging—rush a vote on a bill negotiated in private, before the Congressional Budget Office has issued an analysis of its effects on costs and coverage. To that end, they’ve passed a rule that will allow them to put a final bill directly on the floor anytime between now and Saturday.
Democrats can’t stop this directly, but they can make Republicans feel pain for tossing regular order out the window. To that end, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer announced Thursday that Republicans will risk shutting down their own government unless they run the health care bill through a more above-board process.
If Republicans announce their intention to bring their harmful TrumpCare bill to the House Floor tomorrow or Saturday, I will oppose a one-week Continuing Resolution and will advise House Democrats to oppose it as well. Republicans continue to struggle to find the votes to pass a bill that will kick 24 million Americans off their health coverage, allow discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions, and impose an age tax on older Americans. That’s why they are trying to jam it through the House before their Members can hear from the American people this weekend about their opposition to this horrible legislation.
If Republicans pursue this partisan path of forcing Americans to pay more for less and destabilizing our county’s health care system – without even knowing how much their bill will cost – Republicans should be prepared to pass a one-week Continuing Resolution on their own.
A sizable rump of House conservatives will sometimes vote against these stopgap bills, too, and if that were to happen this time, Republicans would be precipitating a government shutdown by announcing a rushed health care vote. But, of course, House conservatives might make an exception in this case, to counteract Hoyer’s threat. What would really give this squeeze play full force is if Senate Democrats backed up Hoyer’s threat with one of their own.
Today, Politico published a wide-ranging report on Trump’s first 100 days, based on interviews with senior officials and with Donald Trump himself. The piece is full of interesting tidbits that reveal the inner dynamics of the administration, which haven’t changed much over the last 100 days—i.e., they are completely insane.
On a whim, Trump insisted on talking to Politico reporters himself, to convince them that everything was fine, absolutely fine, with his administration. To prove this point, he forced Reince Priebus, Steve Bannon, and Jared Kushner to walk into the room like debutantes to show how just how well everyone is getting along. (They aren’t.)
Apparently, Trump has also been meeting with media goblin Matt Drudge for advice. And a White House official complained about how hard it is to govern, and how they have learned that having “the experience stuff” is actually helpful.
But the best bit comes when we learn that senior staffers are angry that they didn’t get enough credit for the Easter Egg Roll:
West Wing staffers have even fumed about news coverage of the Easter Egg Roll. First, it was that Trump’s White House wouldn’t be smart enough to pull it off. Then, it was that no one would be there. And after the Easter Egg Roll went off without a hitch, “no one wanted to give us any credit,” said one senior administration official.
For once, they are right. So you heard it here from me first: Congratulations Trump staffers for pulling off the Easter Egg Roll! You are all definitely qualified to run our country.
Wednesday was one of those days in the White House. The administration released a barrage of plans, figures, and tweets on every conceivable issue, suggesting that it’s just about ready to fight a war on eleven different fronts at the same time—and maybe start a real war too. This tweet, from HuffPo’s Sam Stein, sums up the day that was nicely:
By the end of the day, the White House had backed off its threat to leave NAFTA. It is still beating the drum of war on North Korea, but it seems to be doing so because it thinks it will help its negotiating position—war is not imminent. The pledge to cripple Obamacare has been around for a month, and still faces the same obstacles that have prevented Trump from making good on that pledge. The tax reform plan released by the administration doesn’t deserve to be called a “reform” or “plan”—it’s unlikely to pass because it explodes the deficit, is heavily tilted toward the rich, and, again, is so skeletal that the word “plan” is really too generous. Trump’s desire to break up the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has consistently ruled against his executive orders, is destructive but not realistic. It is the kind of bombastic, headline-grabbing, and ultimately not-at-all-serious statement that Trump believes will get him out of jams and, if he is lucky, project an image of a guy who is in charge.
It’s worth taking a moment to examine what would happen if the Trump administration did try to follow through with any of these plans. Pulling out of NAFTA without introducing a substitute would be an economic disaster and would likely result in a trade war with Mexico. War in North Korea would not only be unpopular, but also a global catastrophe that could very well result in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. If the White House were to pull the rug out from under Obamacare, it would face severe political consequences. Americans generally don’t like the few tangible things in Trump’s tax plan, but it’s not even remotely close to being a piece of legislation—and we all saw what happened the last time Republicans tried to pass an actual piece of legislation. The court-busting scheme would result in a constitutional crisis and months of bad press, all of which would cement the image of Donald Trump as a wannabe dictator.
The Trump administration’s midweek sprint left news organizations with whiplash. They had to report with straight faces all the new “developments” coming out of the White House. But there’s no indication that this is anything other than a load of bullshit. Trump’s bombast is self-evidently about narrative. His 100th day in office will be Saturday and this flurry of activity seems designed to simultaneously distract from negative assessments of his first 100 days and to show that the White House is a hive of activity. The Trump White House has insisted again and again that this is the most active first 100 days in presidential history (it isn’t), and this week’s veneer of frenetic activity proved that there’s just nothing there.
Today the Department of Homeland Security officially launched the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) office, thus fulfilling one of the more alarming clauses of an executive order that promised to track crimes committed by immigrants. VOICE appears to offer just two services: a hotline for victims of crimes committed by suspected immigrants, and automated updates about the status of an immigrant in custody. ICE tweeted that this was part of a “measured” approach to immigration enforcement, and that “it intends to expand the services VOICE offers in the future.” But what additional services would be required of an office that is hardly justified in the first place?
When Trump announced the establishment of VOICE in his first joint address to Congress in early March, it brought the most pernicious aspect of his anti-immigrant rhetoric from the campaign trail to government office, one that equated undocumented immigrants with “bad hombres,” rapists, and murderers. It doesn’t seem to matter that immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes or engage in domestic terrorist acts than U.S. citizens. To add further insult to injury, DHS Secretary John Kelly ordered that any department resources that might go to supporting undocumented immigrants should be re-routed to this office.
In an administration dogged by bungled and thwarted bills, with hundreds of vacancies yet to be filled and pet projects, like the border wall, indefinitely stalled, Trump desperately needs to show that his young presidency hasn’t been a total wash. Naturally, according to a DHS spokesperson, this is one of the top accomplishments of Trump’s first 100 days.
Axios’s Mike Allen rather nonchalantly passes along what should be a red-flags-everywhere disclosure from first daughter/business woman/conflict-of-interest-ridden White House adviser Ivanka Trump that she’s setting up a “massive fund” to “invest in women and girls.”
That this story pokes its head up as the political press scrutinizes the verb tense of every squirrelly Chelsea Clinton utterance about her future political ambitions, and debates the ethics of President Obama’s (admittedly poor) decision to accept a $400,000 Wall Street speaking fee, recalls the summer of 2016, when the media dynamic that ultimately allowed Donald Trump to become president took hold.
During the post-convention lull, the press strained hard to create the impression that Hillary Clinton had used (and would use) the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle for pay-to-play corruption, while Trump ran the most deviant and corrosive campaign in modern history and his far more well-documented corruption received relatively scant attention.
At the moment, Trump needs Congress to fund the government, which gives Democrats some leverage, at least in theory, to demand that Ivanka Trump’s fund be dismantled, or custody of it transferred to an outside charity with no White House or Trump family connections. The fact that Donald Trump, with media complicity, used the specter of pay-to-play corruption to abnormalize and disqualify Hillary Clinton should make the fact that Trump is now bringing the specter to life in his own White House a paralyzing scandal.
Trump is set to release his tax reform plan on Wednesday, a last-ditch effort to demonstrate momentum ahead of his 100th day in office this Saturday. But Politico reported on Wednesday that “the hastily written plan could wind up alienating critical Hill Republicans while offering little or nothing to entice Democrats.” Trump looks likely to offer his plan without a border tax or other means of actually funding his tax cuts, and sources close to House Speaker Paul Ryan are calling this a “magic unicorn” approach that won’t pass the House.
Trump keeps doing this. As former Mitt Romney adviser Lanhee Chen told Politico, the tax reform fight is shaping up to resemble the recent healthcare debacle, which was marked by Republican infighting and poor planning by the White House. (The latest on that, by the way, is a new GOP proposal that would gut Obamacare protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions but allow members of Congress to keep those protections.) Yet Trump’s rushed tax plan also looks a bit like his impulsive attempt to jam funding for a Mexico border wall into congressional budget negotiations this week. That swiftly backfired, resulted in a Trump retreat, and allowed Democrats to claim a minor victory.
More than a dozen of Trump’s top advisers and cabinet secretaries will launch a regional TV and radio tour on Wednesday, giving more than a hundred interviews to put a positive spin on the administration’s lack of accomplishment. Ultimately, though, they don’t have much to work with. Trump’s desperation to prove he’s had a productive 100 days is causing only further failures, a vicious cycle of insecurity and ignorance that likely won’t end well for America or the world.
Back when Republicans first introduced the American Health Care Act, they were circumspect enough not to exempt themselves from their own law. The Affordable Care Act took members of Congress and their aides out of the health benefit plan most federal employees enjoy and allowed them to purchase subsidized plans on the Washington, D.C. health benefits exchange instead. In their efforts to destroy Obamacare, I thought they might make a craven political error, and restore their own access to the federal employees health benefit plan, while subjecting the broader public to much worse insurance. Trumpcare for thee, but not for me.
To my surprise, they managed to avoid that mistake several weeks ago. But that only makes it harder to fathom why they’re attempting something at least as bad, and far more bizarre, today.
The health law expert, and Obamacare supporter, Timothy Jost, noticed that in the latest iteration of AHCA (aka zombie Trumpcare) Republicans are proposing to exempt themselves from their own efforts to gut pre-existing conditions protections. They want to allow states to waive protections that require plans to offer essential benefits (hospital stays, etc) and that prohibit plans from charging sick people higher premiums than healthy people—unless those plans happen to belong to members of Congress and their staffs.
The politics of this decision will be brutal, but the decision itself is also completely inscrutable. ACA rules require members and aides to buy their plans on D.C.’s small-business exchange. This provision only serves any practical purpose if you worry that the District of Columbia—one of the most liberal precincts in the country—will waive pre-existing conditions protections.
Maybe Republicans worry that the D.C. government would waive these protections to make Congress live with the consequences of its own dirty work, or as part of an escalating brinkmanship with Congress, which controls D.C.’s budget? But that would impose harsh collateral damage on a lot of poor and working class residents of the District. Maybe Republicans worry the D.C. government would seek a waiver for beneficiaries on the small-business exchange, or for Congress specifically? That would at least be congruent with the nature of this exemption. But it also means taking a huge political hit right now—when they’re trying to advance an already-unpopular bill—in order to shield themselves from far-off and entirely hypothetical complication.
Reestablishing congressional access to FEHBP would have been terrible politics, too, but at least it would have made sense, and had a certain pro-ACA-repeal consistency to it. What they’re doing here is more like cornering their own king in a game of chess to gain advantage on an imaginary third dimension.
On Tuesday a federal judge in California declared yet another Trump executive order—this one blocking federal funding for sanctuary cities—unconstitutional. As with the failed travel ban, two things sank the order: The first is that it was incompetently drawn up and the second is Donald Trump’s mouth. The judge in Santa Clara v. Trump cited Trump’s own words to bring the hammer down. The federal government has argued that the order is designed to encourage volunteer cooperation from sanctuary cities, but Trump said this: “I don’t want to defund anybody. I want to give them the money they need to properly operate as a city or a state. If they’re going to have sanctuary cities, we may have to do that. Certainly that would be a weapon.”
On Tuesday evening, the White House released an unhinged statement blasting the deal. “Once again, a single district judge—this time in San Francisco—has ignored Federal immigration law to set a new immigration policy for the entire country. This decision occurred in the same sanctuary city that released the 5-time deported illegal immigrant who gunned down innocent Kate Steinle in her father’s arms.” (The statement refers to Steinle multiple times—Steinle was also mentioned in Trump’s RNC speech.) “San Francisco, and cities like it, are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens, and those city officials who authored these policies have the blood of dead Americans on their hands.”
And on Wednesday morning, Trump himself got in on the action:
It’s hard to imagine something more destructive than the White House’s attempts to delegitimize the judge, especially following Jeff Sessions’s racist dismissal of a federal judge in Hawaii and Trump’s racist attacks on a federal judge in Indiana during the 2016 election. This is a statement designed to corrode trust in the judiciary branch by insisting that judges in certain (liberal, urban, diverse) places are somehow less authoritative.
But if the Trump administration is clocking the judiciary, it’s also punching itself in the face. The Trump administration is perpetuating a vicious circle—statements like these contribute to its poor performance in the courts, which leads to more destructive statements.
Trump’s own tweets betray either a deep ignorance of the judicial system or an attempt to launch a preemptive attack. The Ninth Circuit of Appeals is the next court that will hear the case—the judge who blocked the sanctuary city order does not sit on the Ninth Circuit. That court will likely rule that the order is unconstitutional—and Trump will almost certainly respond with another corrosive tirade.
Standing before the cameras at his afternoon press conference on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer touted “a bit of good news, not just for Democrats but for the country, that the president is easing off his demands for a [Mexico] border wall in the government funding bill.”
“Now, we Democrats have been opposed to including the wall in this bill since the beginning of the negotiations,” Schumer said. “There’s no plan to make Mexico pay for it, as the president promised it would. There’s no plan to resolve the eminent domain issues on the border. And the money is better used elsewhere; if the wall is $50 billion dollars, you could use that money to give just about every American broadband.”
As The New Republic’s Alex Shephard wrote Tuesday morning, Trump’s insistence that Congress pass a spending bill with border wall funding was ludicrous negotiating—“an absolute non-starter for Democrats and even some Republicans.” But Trump was bluffing. Now he’s backing down to avoid a highly symbolic government shutdown on his 100th day in office.
Liberals aren’t the only ones reaching this conclusion. “I’m not happy to have to pass this on,” Rush Limbaugh told his audience on Tuesday. “I’m very, very troubled to have to pass this on. And I want to say at the outset that I hope my interpretation is wrong, and I hope this is not the case. But it looks like, from here, right here, right now, it looks like President Trump is caving on his demand for a measly $1 billion in the budget for his wall on the border with Mexico.” Limbaugh added that “Democrats seem to have successfully used this stupid, silly threat of a government shutdown to get their way.”
This is an unearned victory for Democrats. All they had to do was stand aside and let Trump overplay his hand. But Schumer knows that Democrats must take what they can get, and run with it.