The Social World

Author: Jacob Heilbrunn

  • ‘Nuking’ the filibuster would only aid Democrats

    ‘Nuking’ the filibuster would only aid Democrats

    Donald Trump keeps going nuclear. First it was his demand on Thursday that the Pentagon resume nuclear testing. Now he’s declaring that the Senate must abolish the filibuster in toto. In a post on his social media site, Trump announced: “THE CHOICE IS CLEAR – INITIATE THE ‘NUCLEAR OPTION,’ GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER.”

    Are Republican senators seeking to duck and cover in the face of Trump’s exhortations? Not a chance. Rather, in an unusual turn of events, they are defying him.

    Senate majority leader John Thune issued a statement on Friday morning indicating that he has not altered his views about amending the filibuster. Meanwhile, Senator John Curtis of Utah posted on X Friday morning that the filibuster “forces us to find common ground.” He added, “Power changes hands, but principles shouldn’t. I’m a firm no on eliminating it.” The votes to abolish the filibuster don’t exist no matter how much Trump himself may complain about this procedure.

    There is an incongruity of interests between the White House and Capitol Hill. Now that he has basically precluded running for a third term, Trump has a different set of priorities than his Republican allies. He wants to rule, not govern. But polls indicate that the GOP continues to take on more water than Democrats over the government shutdown. At some point, Trump is going to have to dicker directly with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a fate that he presumably regards as only slightly less horrifying than the release of the Epstein Files.

    Republicans are worried about a future Democratic administration passing sweeping legislation that would fundamentally alter the American economy and political system. The Republican party may control all three branches of government, but it’s overreach under Trump is more than likely to result in a backlash in the midterm elections. By 2028, Trump, whose popularity ratings are currently sagging, could be one of the most unpopular presidents in American history. This is why House speaker Mike Johnson stated that while he understands Trump’s vexation over the government shutdown, the “safeguard in the Senate has always been the filibuster.”

    Trump’s impatience, however, is understandable. The notion that almost any legislation can be stymied because it requires a minimum of 60 senators to advance it is fundamentally undemocratic. Trump may well increase the pressure on Republicans in coming weeks as Americans become increasingly restive over the shutdown. Flight delays are bound to increase. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits are about to expire. Alaskans are stockpiling caribou and moose. And so on.

    If Trump were to prevail in overturning the filibuster, he would be doing Democrats an inadvertent solid. They could disclaim responsibility for the federal budget and point to the mounting healthcare costs that consumers are about to experience in the coming weeks. Above all, they would be positioned to enact their own sweeping reforms in the future. Say hello to statehood for Washington, DC and Puerto Rico and to sweeping firearms restrictions, among other things.

    For now, Republicans are in lockstep – against Trump. As Senate Republicans refuse to accede to Trump’s command, his lame duck stuck is coming more clearly into view. In seeking to eliminate the filibuster, he has not weakened the Democrats. Instead, he is exposing the limits of the Republican party’s fealty to him.

  • A rare earths deal is China’s gift to Trump

    A rare earths deal is China’s gift to Trump

    Donald Trump went nuclear. Before his meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping at an air base in South Korea, he ordered the Pentagon to test atomic weapons on an “equal basis” with China and Russia. Was Xi impressed?

    Probably not. While Russia expressed indignation, China did not permit itself to be distracted by Trump’s nuclear shenanigans. Instead, Beijing aimed to obtain economic concessions from a prideful Trump, which it did. From the outset, Xi sought to bring Trump down a peg, declaring that “both sides should consider the bigger picture and focus on the long-term benefits of cooperation, rather than falling into a vicious cycle of mutual retaliation.”

    Trump seems to have absorbed the lesson. He caved to Xi on a number of fronts, including dropping tariffs to 47 percent (still a staggering amount that is set to punish the American consumer) and dropping port fees on Chinese ships. In return, Xi promised to end his suspension of the export of rare earth minerals for a year and to purchase soybeans from America. How many? Trump said it would be “tremendous” amounts. But during Trump’s first term, China made similar vows and never followed through. The big payoff for Trump, however, was that he and Xi agreed to meet each other next year. According to Trump, “I’ll be going to China in April, and he’ll be coming here sometime after that, whether it’s in Florida, Palm Beach or Washington, DC.”

    For Trump, the prospect of a fresh visit to Asia seems to possess a new cachet. He received no presents from Xi, but was clearly impressed by the numerous gifts that were bestowed upon him in Malaysia, Japan and South Korea. The high point came at South Korea’s Gyeongju National Museum, where Trump received a replica of a tall golden crown that he was told “symbolizes the divine connection between the authority of the heavens and the sovereignty on Earth, as well as the strong leadership and authority of a leader.” Trump also received the Grand Order of Mugunghwa, a civil honor made of a laurel leaf medal. Trump was pleased, indicating that he would “like to wear it right now.”

    So much for No Kings. The truth is that Trump has long had a penchant for viewing himself in monarchical terms. Earlier this year, the White House posted on social media a fake TIME magazine cover of Trump wearing a golden crown with the headline “Long Live the King.” South Korea was simply following Disraeli’s famous adage: “Everyone likes flattery; and when you come to Royalty, you should lay it on with a trowel.” 

    When he returns to America, however, Trump will encounter a less gilded reception. His popularity ratings continue to sink, according to a new Economist poll – 39 percent of American approve of the President and 58 precent disapprove. And for all Trump’s nuclear muscle-flexing, the National Security Nuclear Administration would require about three years to resume nuclear testing and many of its employees are currently furloughed as a result of the government shutdown. With problems mounting at home, it’s small wonder that Trump enjoys cavorting abroad and collecting tribute.

  • So much for Trump’s peace push

    So much for Trump’s peace push

    Here we go again. Now that Russian president Vladimir Putin has resumed his bombardment of Ukraine, President Donald Trump is responding by sanctioning the oil giants Rosneft and Lukoil. So much for the vaunted peace push that Trump has been engaging in since he met with Putin in August in Alaska. 

    The atmosphere has turned distinctly frostier since they held their pow-wow. Budapest was supposed to be a reprise of the brief thaw that took place in August but Trump has got cold feet after the Kremlin indicated that it was in no mood to compromise over the actual boundaries between it and Ukraine. Instead, as foreign minister Sergey Lavrov indicated, Russia cannot rest content as long as what he called unrepentant Nazis were in charge in Kyiv. Putin and his camarilla, in other words, want a restoration of the old order, which is to say a pliant puppet state.

    Apart from his blatant military failure to conquer Ukraine (it was supposed to be a cakewalk, according to what turned out to be his non-intelligence services), the problem for Putin is that Kyiv is becoming more, not less, independent as the war continues. Zelensky has learned from his previous encounters with Trump not to overreact to his momentary ebullitions of rage, which are usually replaced by a weary resignation to geopolitical dictates. Those dictates are that he is no position to dictate a surrender because Europe, much to its own surprise, has become the chief source of weaponry for Ukraine. Exhibit A is Zelensky’s new push for 150 Gripen fighter jets from Sweden, which he is currently visiting. For Europe, the supply of weaponry to Ukraine bids fair to become a source of a kind of Keynesian stimulus program. It also has the not inconsiderable advantage of allowing the Ukrainians to wage the conflict with Russia that the peace-loving Europeans themselves dread. 

    Trump’s own attention to Ukraine is episodic. He was briefly reanimated by the prospect of earning a Nobel Peace Prize. With Putin balking at a real cease-fire, Trump has other projects to pursue, most notably demolishing the East Wing of the White House and replacing it with a pharaonic temple to himself in the form of a ballroom that can hold up 900 or more guests. Trump may well sell the naming rights to the gleaming golden hall unless he decides to affix his own to it. 

    The real loser in all of this is probably Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, who faces a stiff election challenge in April. Hosting Trump and Putin would have been a true feather in his cap. Instead, he will have to forego the fancy visit and continue the grinding prospect of serving as Putin’s wingman in the European Union, a status that has brought much obloquy and little profit, other than a dispensation when it comes to energy prices from Russia. 

    Given Trump’s volatility, however, it may only take another phone call from Putin to prompt Trump to ponder another summit meeting. For now, Putin is flexing his own muscles, ordering a nuclear drill in northwestern Russia. As he becomes exasperated with Trump’s failure to propitiate him, Putin’s new credo when it comes to atomic weapons may be “drill, baby, drill.” Let’s hope it remains at just that. 

  • Trump, the foreign policy president?

    Trump, the foreign policy president?

    President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine continued his excellent sartorial adventure at the White House, appearing in an elegantly cut black suit and shirt on Friday as he met with President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room. But while they may have helped avoid any emanations of wrath from his host, his habiliments did not appear to prompt Trump to approve the dispatch of Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv, a coveted item indeed. “We’d much rather not need Tomahawks,” Trump said. “We’d much rather get the war over. It could mean a big escalation. It could mean a lot of bad things could happen.” 

    Back to square one, in other words. In August, Trump had claimed that his summit meeting with President Vladimir Putin would lead to a breakthrough. It never happened. Instead, the Russian President made Trump look like a patsy. Now he’s trying to play the same game.  

    Trump acknowledged that Putin might be trying to string him along once more. Was he concerned? “Yeah, I am, but I’ve been played all my life by the best of them,” he said. “I’m pretty good at this stuff. I think that he wants to make a deal.” So far, his optimism has proven unwarranted. 

    For his part, Zelensky played his cards, the ones that Trump previously claimed he did not possess before reversing that judgment, very well. He did not provoke Trump. Instead, he said it was important to maintain pressure on Putin and ensure that Ukraine receives real security guarantees. Zelensky also held out the possibility of Ukrainian cooperation with America on advanced drone technology in exchange for long-range missiles. 

    The question for Trump is simple: does he want to up the pressure on Putin before he enters negotiations in Budapest? Or does he want to try and placate the Russian tyrant in the coming weeks? Trump’s very avidity for a deal is what has made him such a pliant object in the hands of Putin, a former KGB agent who has a shrewd understanding of his counterparts. Few, if any, American presidents have been able to come out ahead in dealing with him, whether it was Bush, Obama or Biden. Instead, Putin has outmaneuvered them while steadily increasing his reach and power, both at home and abroad. A bad hombre, to use Trump’s phrase. 

    The person that really seems to have incurred Trump’s ire is another dictator. “He doesn’t want to fuck with the US,” Trump announced during lunch with Zelensky. He was referring to Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro who has been a thorn in the side of Trump.  

    In what he regards as his sphere of influence, Trump wants to dictate the terms of surrender to pesky fellows like Maduro. Elsewhere, he wants to preside over ceasefires and peace agreements. The main thing is that Trump, and Trump alone, is at the center of events. 

    A summit in Budapest, where he is supposed to meet Putin, will once more allow Trump to seize the spotlight, at least for a few days. It may also provide a fillip to Trump’s ally, Hungarian president Viktor Orbán, who faces a tough election in April. The government shutdown in Washington may not have ended by then, but this prospect does not appear to trouble Trump unduly. He’s too busy becoming a foreign policy president to preoccupy himself with domestic matters.

  • Is Putin stringing Trump along with the promise of a Budapest summit?

    Is Putin stringing Trump along with the promise of a Budapest summit?

    Sorry, Volodymyr. There won’t be any Tomahawk missiles headed to Ukraine now that  President Vladimir Putin of Russia has talked on the phone with President Donald Trump, who called their session “very productive.”  

    What it will produce remains an open question. But it does seem to have resulted in a decision to hold an upcoming summit in Budapest. The bottom line: Putin has outflanked Ukrainian President Zelensky, who will meet at the White House with Trump tomorrow. 

    Trump is a transactional president and he has business that he wants to transact with Russia, including, but not limited to, a peace deal between it and Ukraine. If anything, Trump, intent on winning the Nobel Peace Prize that eluded him this year, appears to be on the verge of becoming a foreign-policy president. He’s hopscotching around the globe, trying to solve conflicts, wherever and whenever he can. Whether they are truly solved is another matter. For Trump the art of the deal is to secure one, no matter how precarious it may appear. Then move on to the next zone of conflict. 

    For Zelensky, Putin’s missive could not come at a worse time. Ukraine has been bathing in the warmer rays emanating from the Trump White House to it. Trump has repeatedly voiced his frustration with “Vladimir,” as he likes to call him, for refusing to end the war. Now Putin is once more dangling the bait of a ceasefire at the very moment that he is pounding Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in preparation for what looks to be a very cold winter indeed. 

    Zelensky had been hoping to persuade Trump to up his game and confront Russia more openly. Since the Alaska summit, Trump has approved further cooperation between American and Ukrainian intelligence services, ensuring that they receive better targeting information to hit Russian energy infrastructure. But acceding to Tomahawk missiles, which can reach deep into Russia, would have escalated the conflict, particularly with the Kremlin threatening that it would erase the barrier to the nuclear threshold. Anyone who doesn’t get a case of the collywobbles from confronting that prospect should head directly to the local cinema and watch the new and sparkling film, A House of Dynamite, which offers a timely reminder of the destruction that one warhead can deliver. 

    Here’s hoping that Trump can forge some kind of viable agreement between the two sides, one that could lead to further cooperation on the nuclear arms-control front, where most of the agreements forged during and after the Cold War lie in tatters. Putin’s track record, of course, should hardly inspire much confidence. A master of the tactical move, the Russian President may well have intervened simply to stymie Trump from delivering more potent weapons to Ukraine. 

    Zelensky will be on his best behavior in meeting in Washington with a president who is desperate to reach some kind of accommodation with Putin. Throughout, Zelensky would do well to make favorable noises about peace and allow Putin to once more emerge as the recalcitrant party. It is Putin, and Putin alone, who has steadily been saying nyet to ending the conflict in his mad desire to reestablish the Russian empire of yore.

  • Donald Trump’s finest hour

    Donald Trump’s finest hour

    This is Donald Trump’s finest hour. Speaking in the Knesset on Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called him Israel’s “greatest friend” and nominated him for the Israel Prize,” the nation’s “highest award.” Trump himself was greeted rapturously by the parliamentarians for securing a breakthrough peace deal in Gaza. Trump basked in the applause for his months-long diplomatic effort, declaring that “this is the historic dawn of a new Middle East.” But can one truly emerge? Or is this simply a temporary truce between the warring parties?

    Trump’s immediate accomplishment was to arrange for the release of the remaining 20 living Israeli hostages held by Hamas since its attack on October 7, 2023, when more than 1,200 Israelis were murdered. The plight of the hostages upended Israeli society, leading to weekly demonstrations against Netanyahu whom his detractors accused of needlessly prolonging the conflict to maintain his own hold on power. When Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff appeared in Tel Aviv’s Hostages Square, they were cheered by the crowd but a mere mention of Netanyahu’s name drew loud boos.

    Netanyahu is also in bad odor among Trump’s America First followers. They are construing the peace deal as a defeat for Netanyahu. On his show Real America’s Voice, Steve Bannon remarked, “This is a catastrophic defeat for the Israel America First crowd… because they overreached, pushed this greater Israel project, and it came crashing down around them.” Still, Trump called upon Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, to “give him a pardon” for the criminal allegations that he faces.

    Trump’s ambitions clearly exceed simply overseeing a deal between Israel and Hamas. He has fortified American relations with the Gulf States who played a pivotal role in nudging Hamas to accede to the agreement. Pilots from Qatar will soon be training in Idaho, a move that has triggered hysteria among some of Trump’s MAGA followers who see it as an opening wedge to introduce Sharia law into America. In his Knesset address, Trump vowed that the ceasefire deal would result in “a very exciting time for Israel and for the entire Middle East, because all across the Middle East, the forces of chaos, terror and ruin that have plagued the region for decades now stand weakened, isolated and totally defeated.”

    Well. The forces of disruption and hatred and violence will not be uprooted as easily as Trump’s exuberant language might suggest. His exuberance is understandable. It may even be understood as a form of exhortation. But Iran and its terrorist allies are unlikely to surrender their ambitions overnight. The isolation and defeat that Trump alluded to has not yet occurred. Rather, these malignant forces are working overtime to regroup. Already Hamas is seeking to reestablish control in the Gaza strip, which could easily lurch back into warfare. Nor do Iran’s nuclear ambitions do appear to be in a state of inanition.

    For now, Trump can revel in his accomplishment. But the first test of his vision of a new Middle East will come on Monday afternoon at the “Summit for Peace” in Egypt, where 20 world leaders are gathering, including Trump. Netanyahu, however, will not be in attendance.

  • Has Trump won peace – or a pause? 

    Has Trump won peace – or a pause? 

    Donald Trump is on a roll. He not only wrangled Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu into submission, but also the terrorist organization Hamas, which has apparently agreed to release all remaining hostages. The war in Gaza, which has claimed the lives of at least 67,000 Palestinians, looks to be coming to an end. On Thursday evening, Trump took a victory lap as Israel and Hamas, who have been negotiating in Egypt, assented to the first phase of his 20-point peace plan.

    “I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan. This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”

    They are indeed. A jubilant Trump has indicated that he is planning to visit Israel and Egypt. So far, so good. His push for peace and readiness to confront Netanyahu has been vindicated. Netanyahu himself called the agreement “a great day for Israel.” The cessation of hostilities after two years of combat may be a testament to exhaustion on all sides as much as anything else. But will the agreement bring something more substantial than a temporary ceasefire?

    Vexed questions remain. Among them: will Hamas disarm? How far will Israel withdraw from Gaza? And who will run the denuded area and supervise its reconstruction?

    For Netanyahu, an end to the conflict will pose significant risks. He has been able to dodge accountability for the grievous national security lapses that took place on October 7, when Hamas attacked and murdered numerous Israeli civilians. His rickety right-wing coalition partners, who harbor the dream of expelling the Palestinians, may also abandon Netanyahu over the agreement. Still, they would lose their privileges and prerogatives should they exit the coalition.

    The most likely prospect is that a special election will take place in advance of the one scheduled for October 2026. This would almost surely result in a new and more centrist government. The possibility of a grand coalition that excludes far-right figures such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich would seem to be very much in the offing. For one thing, opposition leader Yair Lapid has supported Netanyahu over the past week, declaring that the fate of the hostages trumps any quotidian political concerns. Lapid is also intent on creating a unity government after elections take place. After the turmoil that Israel has endured over the past several years, it might well be a winning message, though Netanyahu’s skill at pulling electoral rabbits out of a hat should never be discounted. 

    But these considerations remain in the future. The most pressing issue is what will transpire with the Gaza strip itself, which has been largely reduced to rubble by Israel. When Trump travels to the Middle East later this week, he will be seeking to ensure that the temporary ceasefire becomes a permanent one, rather than devolving into a fresh round of violence. Nothing would please him more to accomplish what his loathed predecessor Joe Biden could not. And then there is the small matter of the Nobel Peace Prize he covets.

  • Did Bibi miscalculate?

    In her new memoirs, 107 Days, Kamala Harris recounts that in July 2024 she had an important meeting about Israel and the Gaza Strip. Harris, who was running for the presidency, hoped to show that she could pressure Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu into reaching a ceasefire with Hamas. “Netanyahu’s hooded gaze and disengaged demeanors,” she writes, “made it clear to me that he was running out the clock.” His only goal was a temporary ceasefire and to undermine the Biden administration. “He wanted Trump in the seat opposite him,” Harris recalls. “Not Joe, not me. Netanyahu wanted the guy who would acquiesce to his every extreme proposal for the future of Gaza’s inhabitants and add his own plan for a land grab by his developer cronies.”

    But did Bibi miscalculate? Right now, Trump is pressuring him to stop bombing Gaza and to reach an accommodation with Hamas as the two sides negotiate in Egypt. On Truth Social, Trump declared, “I am told that the first phase should be completed this week, and I am asking everyone to move fast.” Trump was right. Speed is of the essence. The longer the negotiations last, the greater the chance of a hiccup.

    But for Netanyahu and his chums, Trump’s pressure could not be more unwelcome. The dream of expelling the Palestinians from the Gaza strip and even annexing the West Bank remains just that. For Netanyahu’s truculent coalition partners it is a cold dose of reality administered by an American president prepared to strong-arm his Israeli counterpart.

    Trump’s sudden embrace of a peace plan shouldn’t come as a big surprise. It is further testament to his unencumbered approach to foreign affairs, whether it’s Ukraine, NATO or the Middle East. “The heart wants what it wants,” Woody Allen once remarked. Something similar could be said about Trump. He wants what he wants. And he often gets it.

    Netanyahu should have been more perceptive. The Middle East was Trump’s proving ground in his first term, the region where he struck the Abraham Accords. Now Trump wants to build on them in the hopes, however evanescent, of securing a Nobel Peace Prize. To accomplish that goal, he has no compunctions about chastening Netanyahu and insisting upon an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

    How successful he will be remains an open question. Hamas is apparently demanding the release of some of its most sinister figures – terror chiefs Marwan Barghouti, Ahmad Saadat and Abdullah Barghouti.

    Will Hamas actually surrender its remaining hostages, not to mention its weaponry? Will it accede to an international board running Gaza? Its sanguinary record provides ample reason for doubts about its intentions, no matter what Trump and his vice president J.D. Vance may aver about the prospects for an agreement.

    Meanwhile, Israel is about to release further members of the Global Sumud Flotilla. Led by the activist Greta Thunberg, the flotilla had hoped to break the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. The convoy of 42 boats was intercepted by Israel and the prisoners are alleging inhuman conditions. They will be able to amplify their claims to a receptive western press when they are deported to Greece today.

    Their self-appointed mission, however, is likely to be overshadowed by the ongoing negotiations in Egypt. Even Iran has welcomed the termination of the conflict, though it was careful to stipulate that any agreement “does not negate the responsibility of governments and competent international institutions to pursue legal and judicial action against the crimes of the Zionist regime.” Zionist regime? Some things never change in the Middle East.

  • Trump has boxed in Netanyahu and Hamas

    Trump has boxed in Netanyahu and Hamas

    Hamas did not wait long to accede to Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan – or at least accept it with conditions. It didn’t really have a choice. The same can be said for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu who was forced to accept a deal that he never wanted in the first place. Give credit where it’s due: Trump boxed in both Netanyahu and Hamas. For Trump, the pending agreement is a big accomplishment. It may not win him a Nobel but the aim is noble.

    With his usual flair for the dramatic, Trump responded to Hamas’ offer to release the remaining hostages by declaring, “I believe they are ready for a lasting PEACE.” He stated that “the bombing of Gaza must stop immediately.” He added that the details are being worked out, but breathed optimism about the outcome.

    Netanyahu, who presides over a fractious right-wing coalition, has been intent on prolonging the war. The crafty prime minister may have preferred to continue pounding Hamas, but his very audacious moves have created the context for Trump’s peace plan. He neutered Hezbollah in Lebanon. He attacked Iran. Add in the ouster of the Assad regime in Syria and you have a far more propitious moment for an actual Middle East peace deal.

    The blunt fact is that with the horrific October 7, 2023 attack, Hamas ended up isolating itself. The terrorist organization believed that it could topple Israel. The reverse occurred. Hamas was forced to accept the Gaza agreement because the Arab world has largely united against it. In particular Egypt and Qatar have pushed for a resolution to the conflict, one that will preclude Israel going on from Gaza to annex the West Bank (something that Trump himself has vowed he will not allow to occur).

    The pressure is now on for Israel and Hamas to reach a lasting agreement. Hamas stated that it supports the release of “all Israeli prisoners, both living and dead, according to the exchange formula contained in President Trump’s proposal, provided the field conditions for the exchange are met. In this context, the movement affirms its readiness to immediately enter into negotiations through the mediators to discuss the details of this.” The key questions are how far Israel will withdraw from the Gaza strip and what role, if any, Hamas would play in a future government.

    Then there is the issue of who gets to run Gaza in the interim. Trump has tapped former British prime minister Tony Blair, who has his own injudicious record in the region, to serve as the head of a board of peace. Not surprisingly, Hamas is balking at the prospect of an interim governing body, but it is more than likely to have to surrender on this point.

    Might Blair work to transform the Gaza strip into a new Trump Riviera? Rumors of a manufacturing zone named after Elon Musk are percolating in Washington. This past February, Trump released an AI-generated video of him and Musk cavorting on a beach called “TRUMP GAZA.” Perhaps the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change will prove more influential than anyone had hitherto contemplated.

  • Who will blink first to end the government shutdown?

    Who will blink first to end the government shutdown?

    The surprising thing is not that the federal government has shut down. It would have been surprising if it did not. Each side thinks it has the cards and that it has put the other in a bad position. The result is that the budget feud could last for months, ending with a temporary armistice that satisfies no one.

    There is little incentive for either side to shut down the shutdown. Washington Post columnist Paul Kane notes that most Senators have little reason to compromise: “very few senators feel the political pressure that usually comes with calamitous events like a federal agency shutdown. Most sit in safe seats, many with reelection campaigns a distant concern.”

    Democrats are apparently reckoning that the suspension of health tax credits starting in December will cow Republican legislators into capitulating over the first shutdown since 2019. As the financier Steven Rattner points out in the New York Times, the GOP has effectively subverted ObamaCare by repealing the expensive tax breaks that prompted millions to enroll. Now some 20 million Americans face sharply higher premiums. According to Rattner, “Even upper-income Americans who buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchanges will be hurt by the repeal of this tax break. That’s because as coverage gets more expensive, healthier people drop their insurance first, forcing companies to raise premiums on their remaining customers to maintain profitability.” Democrats are wagering that enough Republican moderates will crack to ensure that they can reach a compromise to their liking.

    President Trump and his advisors, however, believe that they can traumatize Democrats. As Trump put it, in a shutdown “we can get rid of a lot of things we don’t want, and they would be Democrat things.” Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought has been preparing for that. This could be Vought’s finest hour, or, if you’re a fan of big government, the day of the jackal. “There are all manners of authorities to be able to keep this administration’s policy agenda moving forward,” Vought told Fox News, “and that includes reducing the size and scope of the federal government, and we will be looking for opportunities to do that.”

    Vought resembles someone who was crafted in a laboratory by the Claremont Institute to overthrow the New Deal. He’s drafted plans to terminate wide swaths of the so-called administrative state, starting with many of the federal employees who are currently on administrative leave. One such emailed me on Tuesday evening to report that they are “hearing that the Office of Personnel and Management has orders to start jettisoning the Ballastexistenzen, or ballast existences, at midnight” – a sardonic reference to the Nazi propaganda term for those deemed unfit, undesirable and unnecessary.

    The problems with the calculations of the Democrats might turn out to be twofold. The first is that Trump and his coterie exhibit little desire to keep the federal government humming. The reverse may be the case. Like a Romanov emperor, Trump wants to rule by ukase. If there are fewer federal employees around to obstruct his grand plans, so much the better. All Trump requires, so the thinking goes, is a functioning military and ICE. The rest can be cobbled together.

    The second problem that could confound Democrats is the question of whether they really can remain united as they are called upon cast vote after vote to on Republican legislation to reopen government, or whether they are the ones who will crack, as they face calls to stop behaving like an obstructionist faction. Already three members of the Democratic caucus voted for the Republican plan on Tuesday night – Senators John Fetterman, Catherine Cortez Masto and Angus King. Fetterman observed that a shutdown would be “the ideal for Project 2025”.

    Others remain undaunted. “They want us to blink first,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced on MSNBC. “We have to be the consequence.” No one should underestimate how consequential the shutdown may prove for Trump and his foes alike.