We begin today with Timothy Snyder writing for El Pais in English about who the tacky shoe salesman identifies as "the enemy" and it's effects on the military.
The enemy was identified in Trump’s comparison of Americans seizing undocumented migrants in 2025 with the courage previous generations demonstrated fighting in the Revolutionary War, the two world wars, Korea, or Vietnam. Charging a trench or jumping from a plane is of course very different from ganging up on a graduate student or bullying a middle-aged seamstress. But here we see Trump’s purpose: preparing American soldiers to view themselves as heroes when they participate in domestic operations against unarmed people, including US citizens.
In his speech, Trump portrayed himself as more than a president. He repeatedly mocked his predecessor (“You think this crowd would have showed up for Biden?”), summoning soldiers to defy the fundamental idea that their service is to the Constitution, not to a person. Such unprecedented personalization of the presidency suggests that Trump’s authority rests on something besides an election, something like individual charisma, or even divine right. Soldiers should follow Trump because he is Trump.
Most Americans imagine that the U.S. Army is here to defend us, not to attack us. But Trump used the occasion to goad soldiers into heckling their fellow Americans, to join him in taunting journalists, a critical check on tyranny who, like protesters, are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Trump was teaching soldiers that society does not matter, and that law does not matter. Only he matters, and he “loves” soldiers so much, “We’re giving you an across-the-board raise.” This is the way a dictator speaks to a palace guard or a paramilitary.
Still trying to figure out how to get story hyperlinks into excerpted text on my phone.
Allan Little of BBC News looks at Trump's effectiveness at using of the "Madman Theory" of foreign policy.
A pattern is emerging: The most predictable thing about Trump is his unpredictability. He changes his mind. He contradicts himself. He is inconsistent. [...]
It is changing the shape of the world.
Political scientists call this the Madman Theory, in which a world leader seeks to persuade his adversary that he is temperamentally capable of anything, to extract concessions. Used successfully it can be a form of coercion and Trump believes it is paying dividends, getting the US's allies where he wants them.
But is it an approach that can work against enemies? And could its flaw be that rather than being a sleight of hand designed to fool adversaries, it is in fact based on well established and clearly documented character traits, with the effect that his behaviour becomes easier to predict?
Alan Z. Rozenshtein of Lawfare looks at the legality and possible ramifications of Trump attempting to use the "TikTok" law to circumvent Congress.
First, in some of the letters, the Justice Department purports to be “irrevocably relinquishing any claims” against the companies for violating PAFACAA during the non-enforcement periods declared by President Trump. As I’ve written before, such promises of non-enforcement are on shaky legal ground and represent a risky bet for the companies relying on them. A future administration would likely not be bound by these pronouncements, regardless of the Justice Department's assertion of its "plenary authority" over PAFACAA to enter into such settlements.
But the primary, and more constitutionally audacious, argument advanced in the letters is a claim of sweeping Article II power. According to Bondi, the president determined that an “abrupt shutdown” of TikTok would “interfere with the execution of the President’s constitutional duties to take care of the national security and foreign affairs of the United States.” On this basis, the attorney general “concluded that [PAFACAA] is properly read not to infringe upon such core Presidential national security and foreign affairs powers.” [...]
This argument conveniently ignores that Congress has its own significant, constitutionally enumerated powers in the realm of foreign affairs. The authority to enact PAFACAA falls squarely within Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” a core legislative function under Article I. The logic of Bondi’s letters suggests that this power exists only at the sufferance of the president. Whenever a president finds a congressional commercial regulation to be an obstacle to his foreign policy goals, he can, by this reasoning, simply ignore it. Today it’s a social media app; tomorrow it could be any number of sanctions, trade, or immigration provisions that a president unilaterally decides to ignore based on some generic assertion of foreign affairs authority.
Michael Scherer of The Atlantic says that it's now Google CEO Sundar Pichai's turn to capitulate to the Trump regime.
Now it may be Pichai’s turn. Lawyers for President Trump and Pichai have begun “productive discussions” about the next steps of the case against YouTube, “with additional discussions anticipated in the near future,” according to briefs filed in a San Francisco federal court shortly after Memorial Day that appear to have escaped public notice. The parties have asked the judge to give them until September 2 to come to an agreement on a path forward.
The fact that the talks are happening at all says more about Trump’s remarkable use of presidential power than his legal prowess or the merits of his case. In 2022, a federal district court dismissed Trump’s case against X after concluding that Trump had failed to “plausibly allege” that Twitter’s decision to ban his account was directed by the government. Trump’s case against YouTube was put on hold while Trump appealed the X case to the Ninth Circuit, which appeared likely to rule against Trump again. [...]
The whole situation is head-spinning: Trump has shown that he can successfully use the powers of his elected office to threaten private companies into settling civil suits even when the cases are based on the allegation that those same companies broke the law by caving to the demands of politicians like him.
Finally today, Anne Applebaum of The Atlantic examines Trump's continuing alignment with Russia and what the cost may be to Ukrainians.
The invasion of Ukraine does not merely continue. It accelerates. Almost every night, the Russians destroy more of Ukraine from the air: apartment buildings, factories, infrastructure, and people. On the ground, Ukraine’s top commander has said that the Russians are preparing a new summer offensive, with 695,000 troops spread across the front line.
Russian soldiers also continue to be wounded or killed at extraordinary rates, with between 35,000 and 45,000 casualties every month, while billions of dollars’ worth of Russian equipment are destroyed every week by Ukrainian drones. The Russian economy suffers from high inflation and is heading for a recession. But Putin is not looking for a cease-fire, and he does not want to negotiate. Why? Because he believes that he can win. Thanks to the actions of the U.S. government, he still thinks that he can conquer all of Ukraine.
Everyone have the best possible day that you can!
