Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

A Well-oiled Machine

Published by digby on April 19, 2025

Wait, what?

Harvard University received an emailed letter from the Trump administration last Friday that included a series of demands about hiring, admissions and curriculum so onerous that school officials decided they had no choice but to take on the White House.

The university announced its intentions on Monday, setting off a tectonic battle between one of the country’s most prestigious universities and a U.S. president. Then, almost immediately, came a frantic call from a Trump official.

The April 11 letter from the White House’s task force on antisemitism, this official told Harvard, should not have been sent and was “unauthorized,” two people familiar with the matter said.

The letter was sent by the acting general counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services, Sean Keveney, according to three other people, who were briefed on the matter. Mr. Keveney is a member of the antisemitism task force.

It is unclear what prompted the letter to be sent last Friday. Its content was authentic, the three people said, but there were differing accounts inside the administration of how it had been mishandled. Some people at the White House believed it had been sent prematurely, according to the three people, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal discussions. Others in the administration thought it had been meant to be circulated among the task force members rather than sent to Harvard.

Aaaaand…

President Trump has replaced the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service after his appointment just days earlier set off a power struggle between Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the billionaire Elon Musk, five people with knowledge of the change said Friday.

Mr. Bessent’s deputy, Michael Faulkender, will be the new acting leader, replacing Gary Shapley, the Treasury Department confirmed on Friday. Mr. Faulkender will be the third acting leader of the agency this week.

Mr. Bessent had complained to Mr. Trump this week that Mr. Musk had done an end run around him to get Mr. Shapley installed as the interim head of the I.R.S., even though the tax collection agency reports to Mr. Bessent, the people familiar with the situation said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

The clash was the latest instance of Mr. Musk’s influence in the Trump administration that has alarmed top officials. It was also the latest upheaval at the tax agency, with much of its staff pushed out or quitting. Mr. Trump earlier this week called for the I.R.S. to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status after the school refused to impose sweeping changes demanded by the administration.

[…]

Mr. Shapley, a longtime I.R.S. agent, gained fame among conservatives after he claimed that the Justice Department had slow-walked its investigation into Hunter Biden’s taxes. Mr. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency pushed Mr. Shapley’s appointment through White House channels, but Mr. Bessent was not consulted or asked for his blessing, according to those with knowledge of the dynamic. Mr. Bessent then got Mr. Trump’s approval to unwind the decision within days, they said. Mr. Shapley had been working from the I.R.S. commissioner’s office as late as Friday morning.

How about the “I know nothing” Sgt Schultz routine?

Like clockwork:

On April 9, financial markets were going haywire. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wanted President Trump to put a pause on his aggressive global tariff plan. But there was a big obstacle: Peter Navarro, Trump’s tariff-loving trade adviser, who was constantly hovering around the Oval Office.

Navarro isn’t one to back down during policy debates and had stridently urged Trump to keep tariffs in place, even as corporate chieftains and other advisers urged him to relent. And Navarro had been regularly around the Oval Office since Trump’s “Liberation Day” event.

So that morning, when Navarro was scheduled to meet with economic adviser Kevin Hassett in a different part of the White House, Bessent and Lutnick made their move, according to multiple people familiar with the intervention. They rushed to the Oval Office to see Trump and propose a pause on some of the tariffs—without Navarro there to argue or push back. They knew they had a tight window. The meeting with Bessent and Lutnick wasn’t on Trump’s schedule.

The two men convinced Trump of the strategy to pause some of the tariffs and to announce it immediately to calm the markets. They stayed until Trump tapped out a Truth Social post, which surprised Navarro, according to one of the people familiar with the episode. Bessent and press secretary Karoline Leavitt almost immediately went to the cameras outside the White House to make a public announcement.

He’s not demented.

He’s got it all under control…

‘Member This?

Published by Tom Sullivan on April 19, 2025

That woman dragged out of an Idaho town hall?

Still image from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985). Clip.

Private security dragged Teresa Borrenpohl from a Republican town hall event on Feb. 22, allegedly for being disruptive. She was never charged. But the security goons just were:

COEUR d’ALENE — City prosecutors have filed criminal charges against six men involved in a chaotic legislative town hall, including the private security guards who dragged a Post Falls woman out of the Coeur d’Alene High School auditorium. 

Paul Trouette, Russell Dunne, Christofer Berg and Jesse Jones, all of whom are associated with the security firm Lear Asset Management, are charged with the misdemeanor crimes of battery and false imprisonment. The five men and Alex Trouette were also cited for security agent uniform violations and security agent duties violations. 

Post Falls resident Michael Keller is also charged with battery, a misdemeanor

Here’s the video from that night:

Kootenai County Sheriff Bob Norris approached Borrenpohl and told her to leave. When she refused, Norris tried to pull her from her seat. He then appeared to gesture to plainclothes security personnel, who dragged Borrenpohl out of the auditorium. 

Berg, Dunne, Jones and Paul Trouette “all put their hands on (Borrenpohl) against her will,” police said. Investigators identified Alex Trouette as an accessory because no footage showed him touching other people. 

Per The Coeur d’Alene Press, a Coeur d’Alene police report describes Sheriff Bob as threatening “to arrest a man who attended the town hall, ‘shoving’ the man toward the auditorium exit and pushing him against a wall in the hallway outside.”

Sheriff Bob is described as an “involved” party, but no charges have been filed.

In Idaho, false imprisonment is punishable by up to a year in jail and a maximum fine of $5,000, while misdemeanor battery carries a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

They might have just behaved themselves, but in Trump Country, nope.

* * * * *

Have you fought dictatorship today?

National Day of Action, Saturday, April 19 (TODAY; scroll for local events)
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense

Hubris Maximus

Published by Tom Sullivan on April 19, 2025

When moving fast and breaking things breaks people

Wreckage of Walter Huang’s Tesla after Autopilot crash in Mountain View, CA. (NTSB)

It’s a type, isn’t it? Overconfident, imperious, entitled, so drunk on wealth and power as to be bulletproof. How dare anyone question you, hold you accountable? How dare they insist you follow rules like other mortals?

We’re talking Elon Musk here. Whom did you think I meant?

The Washington Post presents an excerpt from an upcoming book on Musk: “Hubris Maximus: The Shattering of Elon Musk” by Faiz Siddiqui. The excerpt involves the investigation into a 2018 death involving Tesla’s Autopilot mode.

Walter Huang, a Tesla believer, trusted the tech in his recently purchased Tesla Model XP100D SUV a bit too much. When Autopilot followed a “faded and nearly obliterated” lane line into a space between lanes on U.S. 101 north of San Jose and into a concrete median on the off ramp to Route 85, Huang’s trust in Elon Musk cost him his life.

Robert Sumwalt and other National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators in Washington, DC called Musk as part of their investigation. They were stunned when the line went dead:

“He hung up on us.”

“Yeah, he did,” said Dennis Jones, a nearly forty-year veteran of the agency sitting across the table, also trying to process the ordeal.

Over twenty-seven contentious minutes on April 11, 2018, in Sumwalt’s later recollection, Elon Musk had fumed, protested, threatened to sue, and abruptly exited the conversation when safety investigators refused to bend to his will. It was a textbook example of Musk’s disregard for a public that had imbued him with godlike power — and his contempt for the safety establishment charged with ensuring he didn’t abuse it.

Fumed and threatened to sue at being questioned, did he?

Autopilot, Musk believed, would play a pivotal role in advancing traffic safety, ushering in a future where people no longer had to die on the road. Its very origins were tied to an internal meeting at Tesla where the subject of eradicating road deaths had gripped the engineering staff as one of them wrote out the annual number of yearly road deaths on a whiteboard. Already, major tech companies such as Google and Uber were envisioning populating the roads with self-driving fleets, but Tesla would be unique in pursuing autonomy through privately owned personal vehicles. And the company wanted to make it happen as quickly as possible.

Musk moved fast and broke things. Including Walter Huang.

Musk seemed to believe, Siddiqui, writes, “that even if some lives were lost in the process, those who opposed his vision of the future were roadblocks to progress.” So in pursuit of his “moral obligation” to eliminate highway deaths, “you’re going to get sued and blamed by a lot of people” when some people die. So be it.

We’d see the same zeal in Musk’s gutting regulatory agencies under Trump 2.0 with his DOGE initiative. And if people get hurt in this effort to reengineer the government standing in the way of his progress, so be it.

His position was that the processes established by society to prevent automotive calamities were ineffective or, worse, obstacles to this moral imperative. Musk had legions of admirers and online fanboys who validated this belief; his methods were the right ones, and his way was the only path forward. Who was the government to stand in the way? How could they possibly possess the requisite knowledge, technological know-how, and raw data to undermine him? What had they ever built?

Um, the highways on which his Teslas careen into barricades? And his car company with the help of a $465 million federal loan? Just sayin’.

“Sumwalt felt that Musk lumped all the DC suits together,” and could not distinguish between the NTSB and the different role of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). They were all there to get in his way.

Seeing his image tarnished, Musk began running interference on the investigation, releasing Tesla’s own data and version of events in an attempt to blame someone else (Huang). Not unlike his Oval Office pal did on Friday when kidnapping Abrego Garcia began blowing up in his orange face.

When the NTSB called Musk to confront him about blaming Huang and violating their investigation ground rules, things got unpleasant:

Sumwalt recalled him arguing: “You’re making a bad mistake. More people [will] die because of this, because of what you’re doing.”

Why, why your “due process” will keep violent rapists and murderers on our streets!

Sorry. That’s someone else. It’s a type.

The NTSB ultimately ruled that “system limitations” in Tesla’s Autopilot, plus “the driver’s lack of response due to distraction likely from a cell-phone game application and over-reliance on the Autopilot partial driving automation system” contributed to the deadly crash.

* * * * *

Have you fought dictatorship today?

National Day of Action, Saturday, April 19 (TODAY; scroll for local events)
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense

Friday Night Soother

Published by digby on April 18, 2025

There was a decent shaker in California this week, a 5.2 earthquake that was felt from San Diego to L.A. The Guardian reports on an interesting reaction at the San Diego zoo:

As the ground shook from a 5.2-magnitude earthquake, a herd of elephants at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park sprang into action to protect their young.

A video shot of their enclosure at the park on Monday morning shows the five African elephants standing around in the morning sun before the camera shakes and they run in different directions. Then the older elephants – Ndlula, Umngani, Khosi – scramble to encircle and shield the two seven-year-old calves, Zuli and Mkhaya, from any possible threats. They remain huddled for several minutes as the older elephants look outward, appearing to be at the ready, their ears spread and flapping – even after the rocking stopped.

The quake was felt from San Diego to Los Angeles, 120 miles (193km) away. It sent boulders tumbling on to rural roads in San Diego county and knocked items off store shelves in the tiny mountain town of Julian near the epicenter but caused no injuries or major damage. But it spooked the elephants. Once in a circle, “they sort of freeze as they gather information about where the danger is”, said Mindy Albright, a curator of mammals at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park.

Elephants are highly intelligent and social animals that have the ability to feel sound through their feet. When they perceive a threat, they often bunch together in an “alert circle”, typically with the young clustered in the center and the adults facing outward to defend the group.

In the video, one of the calves can be seen running for refuge between the adults, a group of matriarchs that all helped raise her. But the other calf, the only male, remained on the edge of the circle, wanting to show his courage and independence, Albright said. Meanwhile, the female elephant, Khosi, a teenager who helped raise him along with his biological mother, Ndlula, repeatedly tapped him on the back with her trunk, and even on the face, as if patting him to say “things are OK” and “stay back in the circle”.

Zuli is still a baby and is coddled as such, Albright said, but his role will change over the next few years as he becomes a bull and moves to join a bachelor group while the female elephants stay with the family unit for their entire lives. “It’s so great to see them doing the thing we all should be doing – that any parent does, which is protect their children,” Albright said.

I was reminded of this video which I saw a while back. Elephants are wonderful:

Young MAGAs Are Cool? Really?

Published by digby on April 18, 2025

I know this will shock you to learn this but it turns out that the shooting at Florida State University yesterday was a hardcore, fascist Trumper. Surprise:

Ikner, 20, was publicly identified as the shooter during a press conference on Thursday afternoon, in which it was also revealed he is the son of a sheriff’s deputy and had used her gun in his rampage…

Speaking to NBC after the shooting, a student who was once part of a ‘political round table’ with Ikner revealed he harbored white supremacist views. ‘Basically our only rule was no Nazis — colloquially speaking — and he espoused so much white supremacist rhetoric and far right rhetoric as well,’ Reid Seybold said.

Seybold was in a building right near where the shooting took place when he heard gunshots, and said he was ‘getting ready to die.’  

And Riley Pusins, who is part of another political discourse club on campus that Ikner would attend, had a similar experience with the suspect.Pusins said Ikner would attend meetings ‘almost every Thursday’ in which he would ‘go up to the line’ about what was acceptable discussions, but would often cross the line after the formal meeting ended.

The student said Ikner often advocated President Donald Trump’s agenda, promoted white supremacist values and made inappropriate comments, despite joining a nonpartisan group. Pusins said others in the group would describe Ikner as a ‘fascist.’  

[…]

Ikner had also recently mocked students on campus protesting the result of the 2024 presidential election. ‘These people are usually pretty entertaining, usually not for good reasons,’ Ikner said in his school magazine, where he was described as a political science major.

I’m so shocked to see this. The last I heard was that being a young Trumper is super cool:

Looking for Love in Trump Tower: “We’re Young, Hot, Successful, and Republican”

At a singles mixer in the president’s former residence, young conservatives say dating in New York no longer feels like a secret mission. “There’s a new city conservative that is not afraid anymore and openly MAGA,” says one attendee.

Psychopathic gun nuts are more than welcome.

“We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos.”

Published by digby on April 18, 2025

For those of you who haven’t read the full order from the 4th Circuit’s Harvey Wilkinson, it’s really worth reading.

Upon review of the government’s motion, the court denies the motion for an emergency stay pending appeal and for a writ of mandamus. The relief the government is requesting is both extraordinary and premature. While we fully respect the Executive’s robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision.

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right? 

The Supreme Court’s decision remains, as always, our guidepost. That decision rightly requires the lower federal courts to give “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Apr. 10, 2025); see also United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936). That would allow sensitive diplomatic negotiations to be removed from public view. It would recognize as well that the “facilitation” of Abrego Garcia’s return leaves the Executive Branch with options in the execution to which the courts in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision should extend a genuine deference. That decision struck a balance that does not permit lower courts to leave Article II by the wayside.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government “to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2. “Facilitate” is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. See Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2 (“[T]he Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”). The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art. We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive. Cf. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024); Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000). Thus, the government’s argument that all it must do is “remove any domestic barriers to [Abrego Garcia’s] return,” Mot. for Stay at 2 , is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court’s command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador..

“Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. “Facilitation” does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would “facilitate” foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood.

The government is obviously frustrated and displeased with the rulings of the court. Let one thing be clear. Court rulings are not above criticism. Criticism keeps us on our toes and helps us do a better job. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 , 24 (1958) (Frankfurter, J. , concurring) (“Criticism need not be stilled. Active obstruction or defiance is barred.”). Court rulings can overstep, and they can further intrude upon the prerogatives of other branches. Courts thus speak with the knowledge of their imperfections but also with a sense that they instill a fidelity to law that would be sorely missed in their absence.

“Energy in the [E]xecutive” is much to be respected. FEDERALIST NO. 70, at 423 (1789) (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). It can rescue government from its lassitude and recalibrate imbalances too long left unexamined. The knowledge that executive energy is a perishable quality understandably breeds impatience with the courts. Courts, in turn, are frequently attuned to caution and are often uneasy with the Executive Branch’s breakneck pace.

And the differences do not end there. The Executive is inherently focused upon ends; the Judiciary much more so upon means. Ends are bestowed on the Executive by electoral outcomes. Means are entrusted to all of government, but most especially to the Judiciary by the Constitution itself.

The Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?* And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” would lose its meaning. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3; see also id. art. II, § 1, cl. 8.

[* See, e.g., Michelle Stoddart, ‘Homegrowns are Next’: Trump Doubles Down on Sending American ‘Criminals’ to Foreign Prisons, ABC NEWS (Apr. 14, 2025, 6:04 PM); David Rutz, Trump Open to Sending Violent American Criminals to El Salvador Prisons, FOX NEWS (Apr. 15, 2025, 11:01 AM EDT).]

Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran governments disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia. See President Trump Participates in a Bilateral Meeting with the President of El Salvador, WHITE HOUSE (Apr. 14, 2025). We are told that neither government has the power to act. The result will be to leave matters generally and Abrego Garcia specifically in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.

The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort at mutual respect. The respect that courts must accord the Executive must be reciprocated by the Executive’s respect for the courts. Too often today this has not been the case, as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the Executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate.

It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower’s sage example. Putting his “personal opinions” aside, President Eisenhower honored his “inescapable” duty to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools “with all deliberate speed.” Address by the President of the United States, Delivered from his Office at the White House 1-2 (Sept. 24, 1957); 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). This great man expressed his unflagging belief that “[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts.” Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive’s own words, “[u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result.” Id.

Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.

It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

In sum, and for the reasons foregoing, we deny the motion for the stay pending appeal and the writ of mandamus in this case. It is so ordered.

Wilkinson has fed more clerks to the conservatives on the Supreme Court than any other judge. He has been revered as a top legal thinker in the conservative movement for decades and an inspiration to the conservatives on the Supreme Court since they were young lawyers. If they read that order and dismiss it we will know that they have now entirely severed themselves from their legal philosophy and are now acting solely as enforcers of the MAGA cult.

They should just refuse to take the case and let that order stand. But I doubt they’ll do that. In fact, even if they ultimately end up more or less agreeing with him, they will almost certainly delay any decision as long as they can in order to give Trump plenty of time to abduct as many people as he can and sent them to the gulag. That’s their M.O.

Don’t Let Him Mess With The Fed

Published by digby on April 18, 2025

Paul Krugman reminds us of the power of the Federal Reserve by taking us back to 1983 and 84 when the Fed’s actions ushered in “Morning in America” for which Ronald Reagan received the credit. The Fed is very powerful.

Imagine Trump having that power on top of everything else:

Over the past few days Trump has been demanding that the Fed cut interest rates and calling for the Fed chairman’s “termination.” It’s worth looking at what he posted on Truth Social to get a sense of how, to use the technical term, batshit crazy he is on this subject above.

And we really, really don’t want someone that crazy dictating monetary policy.

The reason we don’t want politicians in direct control of monetary policy is that it’s so easy to use. After all, what does it mean to “ease” monetary policy? It’s an incredibly frictionless process. Normally the Federal Open Market Committee tells the New York Fed to buy U.S. government debt from private banks, which it does with money conjured out of thin air. There’s no need to pass legislation, place bids with contractors, deal with any of the hassles usually associated with changes in government policy. Basically the Fed can create an economic boom with a phone call.

It’s obvious that this kind of power could be abused by an irresponsible leader who wants to preside over an economic boom and doesn’t want to hear about the risks. This isn’t a hypothetical scenario. Consider what happened in Turkey, whose Trump-like president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, recently arrested the leader of the opposition. When the global post-Covid inflation shock hit, Erdogan embraced crank economic theories. He forced Turkey’s central bank, its equivalent of the Fed, to cut interest rates in the belief, contrary to standard economics, that doing so would reduce, not increase inflation. You can see the results in the chart at the top of this post.

How can we guard against that kind of policy irresponsibility? After the stagflation of the 1970s many countries delegated monetary policy to technocrats at independent central banks. Can the technocrats get it wrong? Of course they can and often have. But they’re less likely to engage in wishful thinking and motivated reasoning than typical politicians, let alone politicians like Trump.

What makes Trump’s attempt to bully the Fed especially ominous is the fact that the Fed will soon have to cope with the stagflationary crisis Trump has created. Trump’s massive tariff increase will lead to a major inflationary shock:

Moreover, Trump has also created huge uncertainty by radically changing his policies every few days, which will depress spending and may well cause a recession:

Not incidentally, Trump has been able to pursue these destructive policies because U.S. law gives the president enormous discretionary power over tariffs. And now he wants the same kind of discretionary power over the Fed.

As a consequence of Trump’s destructive tariff regime, the Fed will soon face a dilemma. Should it raise interest rates to fight inflation, or should it cut rates to fight recession? It’s a really hard call, and it’s quite possible that Jay Powell will get it wrong. Trump has made Powell’s dilemma even worse with his attempted bullying, because a rate cut would be seen by many as a sign that Powell is giving in to avoid being fired.

But one thing we know for sure is that we don’t want Trump making that call.

Oh my God no.

Fear of market reaction — America is already facing a serious credibility problem, with the dollar falling even as interest rates rise — will probably restrain him, but he may not believe people telling him that taking over the Fed would cause the dollar to plunge while long-term interest rates soar as investors expect higher inflation.

As Krugman says, he’ll just say the numbers are fake. His cult will believe him but good luck with the rest of the country. I’m fairly sure that most Americans are quite aware of the price of eggs.

The Pushback

Published by digby on April 18, 2025

James Fallows has an excellent newsletter today discussing Trump’s successful “shock and awe” campaign that left the political establishment, indeed the whole country, reeling with the overwhelming number of atrocities committed in a short period of time. It’s a bracing recitation. But he notes that the resistance is forming among the institutions at long last and lists some of the examples:

The Big 10

Yes, that Big 10, the university conference that was once centered in the Midwest and now has some 18 members located coast to coast.

Three weeks ago, the faculty senate at Rutgers (which joined the Big 10 a decade ago) led the way with a resolution endorsing a “mutual defense compact” among allied universities. The idea is, essentially, NATO for higher ed, with the Trump team playing the role of Russia. An attack on one is an attack on all.

For the original NATO, the main goal was deterrence. For this Big 10-NATO, it’s about institutional survival too. Maybe Harvard can bear the financial cost of standing up to Trump. One by one, no Big 10 institution could dare. But together they can make a stand, and share the burdens of self-defense if the worst occurs. Each of them is stronger and braver, from knowing that none of them is alone.

Since then the idea has spread rapidly (as reported in the higher-ed press, and elsewhere including last night on Rachel Maddow). Faculty-senate endorsements range from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, to Indiana University at Bloomington, to UMass Amherst (not in the Big 10). That’s not the same as university presidents announcing this as official policy. But it’s an important start.

The state of California.

Yesterday the nation’s most populous and productive state officially filed a federal lawsuit to block Trump’s destructive tariffs, using the most basic argument against them. Namely, that Trump has no legal power to impose these taxes, as his own one-man wrecking crew for the world economy.

You can read all the details here1 The essence of California’s claim is found in the US Constitution, which plainly lays out that Congress, not the president, will be in charge of tariffs. As put in Article I, Section 8 (emphasis added):

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…[and] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.

We know that constitutional niceties are not Trump’s strong suit. In theory he also has no legal power to fire inspectors-general, to feed federal agencies into the wood chipper, to nullify trade agreements, or take other such steps. He has done what he wants, until someone has stopped him.

Now a state’s leadership has officially stood up. Given California’s scale and resources, this is the federal equivalent of Harvard saying No.

And, speaking of California lawsuits: A few hours ago Gavin Newsom announced that the state would also sue the Trump team for another wantonly cruel and destructive move, eliminating AmeriCorps. Here was the announcement from the governor’s office in Sacramento:

Governor Newsom responds to DOGE’s dismantling of AmeriCorps: ‘Middle finger to volunteers. We will sue’

That’s the spirit.

Two Republican campaign veterans.

I’m speaking of Karl Rove, from the GWB era, and Stuart Stevens, of the John McCain and Mitt Romney presidential campaigns (and now of the Lincoln Project).

Karl Rove has attacked Trump for years, and has kept underestimating his electoral strength. But his column today in the WSJ said what Trump fears more than being called cruel or dishonest: That his act has gotten old. The column’s headline was “America Gets Trump Fatigue.”

Rove has been wrong about Trump before. But maybe this time?

Stuart Stevens is a friend of Deb’s and mine, and is an accomplished writer. Today I saw one of his comments via the Lincoln Project:

This isn’t a battle of your choosing. But it is the battle for which you will always be judged. This is the moment you must show the world and history which side of the Edmund Pettis Bridge you are standing on.

Will that change anyone’s mind? I don’t know. But it’s worth noting in the moment.

One Republican judge:

A judge named J. Harvie Wilkinson III is now age 80. When he was still in his 30s, he was enough of a conservative rising-star that Ronald Reagan appointed him to the Fourth Circuit federal appeals court.2

All these decades later, Wilkinson is still on the Fourth Circuit. And today he issued a blistering condemnation of the Trump team’s refusal to bring Abrego Garcia back from El Salvador.

The PDF of his whole ruling is here. A sample:

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all.

The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

And

If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?

The time-capsule importance of this verdict is not just the clarity of the warning. It’s that it comes from J. Harvie Wilkinson III, as conservative a jurist as you are going to find.

For those not around during the Reagan era, it’s like hearing that Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined in condemning the Trump deportations. If the Trump DOJ has lost Wilkinson’s vote, its legal arguments are in trouble.

One Democratic senator:

Cory Booker shook things up with his 25-hour oration.

Chris Van Hollen of Maryland shook things up in these past two days.

What makes this truly interesting is this:

This is just part of the chronicle of this one day. Less than 90 days into this new era.

I would add this to that list:

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks is widely seen as a measured figure who frequently calls out anything radical or removed from the center — but that’s decidedly not the tone he struck in his latest article, calling for a “civic uprising” to defend American values against the assault of the Trump administration.

“Over the centuries, people built the sinews of civilization: Constitutions to restrain power, international alliances to promote peace, legal systems to peacefully settle disputes, scientific institutions to cure disease, news outlets to advance public understanding, charitable organizations to ease suffering, businesses to build wealth and spread prosperity, and universities to preserve, transmit and advance the glories of our way of life,” wrote Brooks. “These institutions make our lives sweet, loving and creative, rather than nasty, brutish and short.”

The Trump agenda, he continued, stands in opposition to all of that — pursuing only “power for its own sake” as it seeks to “make the earth a playground for ruthless men,” tearing down any institution or cultural values that get in the way of that. This is the mindset with which Trump has forced universities, law firms, and media companies to bend to his will.

All those things (except Booker) happened yesterday. It’s a good sign.

Oopsie

Published by digby on April 18, 2025

I’m sure you never believed it, except to the extent that he planned to turn Ukraine over to Putin. But Marco’s admission here might just be a little too on the nose even for the cultists.

Maybe. Probably not.

You’re Next

Published by Tom Sullivan on April 18, 2025

So many “adminstrative errors“

US citizen Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez. (Via CNN courtesy Sebastiana Pérez)

It’s the rapidity of our slide into autocracy that’s stultifying. But Trumpism was always going to come to this (NBC News):

A U.S.-born American citizen was being detained at the request of immigration authorities Thursday despite an advocate showing his U.S. birth certificate in court and a county judge finding no reason for him to be considered an “illegal alien” who illegally entered Florida.

Juan Carlos Lopez Gomez, 20, was arrested Thursday evening by Florida Highway Patrol and charged under a state immigration law that has been temporarily blocked since early this month. Details of Gomez-Lopez’s arrest and detention were first reported by the Florida Phoenix news site.

The county judge determined Gomez-Lopez’s birth certificate is authentic, but claimed no authority to interfere with an immigration case.

Nonetheless, he remains detained locally at ICE’s request, said Thomas Kennedy, a spokesperson at the Florida Immigrant Coalition who attended Thursday’s hearing.

You know, just another of those administrative errors for which the Trump 2.0 has a reputation. When they’re not writing due process and Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizure out of the Constitution.

NBC adds:

Lopez Gomez was in a vehicle with other passengers and was traveling to work from Georgia when they were stopped after entering Florida.

A sweeping immigration law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2023 makes it a state crime for an undocumented immigrant over age 18 to enter the state illegally.

That is, Lopez-Gomez, born or naturalized in the United States, was minding his own business when he was stopped, arrested, and thrown in jail, very likely for not looking American enough in the eyes of the Florida Highway Patrol. He was released this morning after spending the night in jail.

Citing Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland’s visit last night with the kidnapped Kilmar Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, Chris Geidner (a whole lotta Chrises this morning) writes that “Thursday was a day for seeing why standing up matters — and can make a difference.” A lot more of us are going to need to stand up.

Writing for a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Thursday, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee, called the Trump administration on the carpet for its misuse of power in the Abrego Garcia case:

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

Abrego Garcia is in the country illegally but has no criminal record, and was under a protective order against being deported to El Salvador. The Trump administration claims he is variously 1) a member of MS-13, 2) a terrorist, 3) a human trafficker, and 4) an abusive spouse. It’s loosed its right-wing influencers to flog all of it. They ignore the fact that, whatever the truth of the matter, Abrego Garcia had a constitutional right to have a court test those allegations before his kidnapping, deportation, and incarceration (at taxpayer expense) in what is essentially a Salvadoran concentration camp.

Wilkinson reflects on our mutual peril:

If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?∗ And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” would lose its meaning. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3; see also id. art. II, § 1, cl. 8.

The Executive’s obligation has already lost its meaning. Officials are already arresting and detaining American citizens. Trump 2.0 is already violating our Fourth Amendment rights. Trump has declared his intention to (illegally) revoke the birthright citizenship guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to people born in this country. Maybe even to Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez. Maybe even to you.

I can think of a few people who work in the West Wing who deserve having their birthright citizenship revoked more, if that’s where the Trump dictatorship is headed.

Update: Fuck you, Donny.

View on Threads

* * * * *

Have you fought dictatorship today?

National Day of Action, Saturday, April 19 (TOMORROW; scroll for local events)
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense