Heather Cox Richardson's Blog, page 51
January 28, 2025
January 27, 2025
January 27, 2025
Yesterday, President Donald Trump began a trade war with Colombia after that country’s president refused to permit two U.S. military airplanes full of deportees to land in Colombia. As Regina Garcia Cano and Astrid Suárez of the Associated Press pointed out, Colombia and the U.S. had an existing agreement for deportations under former president Joe Biden, and it accepted 475 deportation flights from 2020 to 2024, accepting 124 flights in 2024 alone. But the Biden administration used commercial and charter flights, while as national security analyst Juliette Kayyem noted, Trump used a military plane that arrived unannounced.
As Tim Naftali of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs explained: “If a foreign country tries to land its military planes—except in an emergency—without an existing agreement that is an infringement of sovereignty.” Colombia rejected the military planes without prior authorization and offered the use of its presidential plane instead.
Colombia also asked the U.S. to provide notice and decent treatment for its people, an issue that had been raised and resolved in 2023 after migrants arrived in hand and foot cuffs. Colombian president Gustavo Petro noted that the U.S. had committed that it would guarantee dignified conditions for the repatriation of migrants. The plane of migrants landed in Honduras, where Columbia sent its presidential plane to pick them up.
Trump announced that Colombia’s “denial of these flights has jeopardized the National Security and Public Safety of the United States,” and slapped a 25% tariff on products from Colombia, which include about $6 billion of crude petroleum, $1.8 billion of coffee, and $1.6 billion of cut flowers. In addition, he said, the U.S. would revoke the visas of all Colombian “Government Officials, and all Allies and Supporters.” He promptly deported Colombian staff members of the World Bank who were working for international diplomatic organizations in the U.S., and canceled visa appointments at Colombia’s U.S. Embassy.
Rather than backing down, President Petro threatened to levy a retaliatory tariff on U.S. products. Colombia imports 96.7% of the corn it feeds its livestock from the U.S., putting Colombia in the top five export markets for U.S. corn. According to a letter written by a bipartisan group of lawmakers eager to protect that trade, led by Senator Todd Young (R-IN), in 2003 the U.S. exported more than 4 million metric tons of corn to Colombia, which translated to $1.14 billion in sales. “American farmers cannot afford to lose such a vital export market,” the lawmakers wrote, “especially when access to the top U.S. corn export market, Mexico, is already at risk.”
By this morning the economic crisis appeared to be over, although U.S. visa restrictions apparently remain. With prior authorization and better treatment of migrants, Colombia is willing to accept the migrant flights. The White House declared victory, saying: “Today’s events make clear to the world that America is respected again. President Trump will continue to fiercely protect our nation's sovereignty, and he expects all other nations of the world to fully cooperate in accepting the deportation of their citizens illegally present in the United States.”
The administration’s handling of the situation with Colombia reveals that their power depends on convincing people to ignore reality and instead to believe in the fantasy world Trump dictates.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced yesterday morning that “[d]eportation flights have begun.” In fact, nothing is “beginning.” In 2024, Colombia accepted on average more than two U.S. flights of migrants a week. And, as immigration scholar Austin Kocher noted, “everyone on this deportation flight was arrested and detained by the Biden administration.”
Over the past four years, Trump and MAGA Republicans repeatedly insisted that Biden had maintained “open borders,” while in fact, what the administration did was to try to address a situation made worse by the coronavirus pandemic.
As Katie Tobin of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace explains, before the coronavirus pandemic, Venezuela, where the economy was particularly bad under rising authoritarian Nicolás Maduro, sent migrants abroad. By June 2022, 6 million Venezuelans had fled their country; by September 2024, that number was 7.7 million. South American governments welcomed the Venezuelan migrants and others, including Haitians fleeing their country’s political chaos.
But as economies collapsed after the coronavirus crisis, Tobin explains, migrant populations that had settled in South American countries were forced out. From 2019 to 2021, Colombia’s per capita gross domestic product fell 4.6%; Peru’s, 5.3%; Ecuador’s, 2.8%; Brazil’s, 11.7%; and Venezuela’s, 20%. As the U.S. economy grew by 8.38%, Canada’s grew by 13.1%, and Mexico’s dropped only by 0.7%, migrants headed north. In September 2021, when 15,000 Haitians who had originally migrated to Brazil arrived at the U.S. border with Mexico, countries throughout the hemisphere realized that they needed a new regional approach to migration.
After nine months of negotiations, 21 countries announced that they had created a new migration pact for the Western Hemisphere. It provided economic support for Latin American countries that were original destinations for migrants, expanded formal pathways for immigration, and increased border security across the region.
Canada and Mexico were the first countries to buy into the new agreement. The U.S. turned next to strong ally Colombia, which agreed in March 2022, after which Vice President Kamala Harris brought on board Caribbean countries. By June 10, when the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection was announced, twenty-one nations had signed on. U.N. observers were present to demonstrate their support.
The Biden administration insisted that countries begin immediate action, and they did. Tobin notes that Belize, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Peru have made sweeping new offers of legal status to hundreds of thousands of migrants already living in their countries, while Colombia has offered legal status to 2 million Venezuelans and Brazil has welcomed more than 500,000. Mexico and Guatemala have offered legal pathways to workers.
Canada, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Spain, and the U.S. launched a virtual platform to enable migrants to apply for admission remotely. When Mexico agreed to accept Venezuelans who had crossed into the U.S. unlawfully and at the same time the U.S. announced a legal pathway for 24,000 Venezuelans, border crossings dropped 90% within a week. Biden and Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador expanded that initiative to include Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans.
By 2023, border arrests had fallen by about half. Although Congress failed to pass a strong bipartisan measure to increase border security and fund immigration courts, arrests fell by half again after Biden in June 2024 issued a proclamation that barred migrants from being granted asylum when U.S. officials deemed the border was overwhelmed. By the end of Biden’s term, unlawful border crossings had plummeted to lows that hadn’t been seen since June 2020.
There are new challenges to managing migration as wars, climate change, and economic pressures push migrants out of various parts of Africa and out of China. Many of those migrants are finding their way to Latin America and from there to the U.S. The U.N. Refugee Agency estimates that 117 million people were displaced by the end of 2023.
Trump won election in part by vowing to shut down immigration, and as soon as he took office he canceled the CBP One app, the virtual platform that allowed migrants to apply for asylum. During the campaign, he vowed to deport those migrants he claimed were criminals, which many interpreted to mean he would only remove those who had committed violent crimes (which the U.S. has always done). But in his first term, Trump’s people considered anyone who entered the U.S. outside of immigration law to be a criminal, and this appears to be the definition his people are using now.
Daily deportation raids in which U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested a few hundred people in sweeps began almost as soon as Trump took office. Josh Campbell, Andy Rose, and Nick Valencia of CNN reported that the federal government has flooded the media with video and photos of agents in tactical gear, their vests bearing the words “Police ICE” and “Homeland Security” as they lead individuals in handcuffs. The journalists report that this is not an accident: agents were told to have their agency names clearly displayed for the press.
The presence of television talk show host Dr. Phil (McGraw) with an ICE team in Chicago reinforces the sense that these arrests are designed for the cameras. So does yesterday’s report by Nick Miroff and Maria Sacchetti of the Washington Post that Trump is disappointed with the sweeps so far and has directed officials to ramp up arrests aggressively, providing quotas for ICE field offices. Today, new secretary of defense Pete Hegseth said the department will “shift” to “the defense of the territorial integrity of the United States of America at the southern border.”
Yesterday’s spat with Colombia’s president enabled Trump to declare victory, but Colombia has been the top U.S. ally in Latin America, a close partner in combating drug trafficking and managing migration. That relationship, which has taken years of careful cultivation, is now threatened.
Will Freeman of the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy, posted: “I can’t think of many *worse* strategic blunders for the U.S., as it competes w/ China, than going nuclear against its oldest strategic ally & last big country in S. America where it enjoys a trade advantage…. Trump certainly expects that b[ecause] 1/3 of Colombian exports go to the U.S. Petro will be forced to back down. But Petro seems to welcome the fight & has already signaled wishes to deepen ties w/ China. Colombia will lose partnership on security it badly needs. Only China stands to gain from this.”
Indeed, China’s ambassador to Colombia promptly noted that “we are at the best moment of our diplomatic relations between China and Colombia, which are now 45 years old.”
Meanwhile, according to former ambassador Luis G. Moreno, the Trump administration has shut down 2,100 courses in the premier training facility for State Department foreign service officers, ostensibly because they are too associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion. Moreno adds: “Dismantling of a professional diplomatic corps is underway.”
—
Notes:
https://thehill.com/policy/international/5107874-colombia-petro-us-trump-tariffs-migrant-planes/
https://apnews.com/article/immigration-biden-trump-cbp-mayorkas-59f19e61a710f8c09e20cb265f042383
https://www.justia.com/immigration/deportation-removal/criminal-grounds-for-deportation/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/01/26/ice-arrests-raids-trump-quota/
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/27/politics/immigration-raids-federal-agents-uniform/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/26/politics/colombia-tariffs-trump-deportation-flights/index.html
https://newrepublic.com/post/190709/ice-arrest-quota-trump
https://www.newsweek.com/us-import-goods-colombia-oil-coffee-2021502
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/us/politics/hegseth-defense.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/23/trump-cbp-one-app-cancelled-mexico
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/trump-visas-colombia-world-bank.html
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/07/nx-s1-5032835/chinese-migrants-southern-border
X:
EricLDaugh/status/1883716323143766183
willgfreeman/status/1883625537261994458
timnaftali/status/1883599805081096636
ackocher/status/1883386233264689254
zhu_jingyang/status/1883610027568902589
juliettekayyem/status/1883630348426502310
Bluesky:
mcuban.bsky.social/post/3lgoyj6tfmk2k
January 26, 2025
January 26, 2025
On January 27, 1838, Abraham Lincoln rose before the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois, to make a speech. Just 28 years old, Lincoln had begun to practice law and had political ambitions. But he was worried that his generation might not preserve the republic that the founders had handed to it for transmission to yet another generation. He took as his topic for that January evening, “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.”
Lincoln saw trouble coming, but not from a foreign power, as other countries feared. The destruction of the United States, he warned, could come only from within. “If destruction be our lot,” he said, “we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
The trouble Lincoln perceived stemmed from the growing lawlessness in the country as men ignored the rule of law and acted on their passions, imposing their will on their neighbors through violence. He pointed specifically to two recent events: the 1836 lynching of free Black man Francis McIntosh in St. Louis, Missouri, and the 1837 murder of white abolitionist editor Elijah P. Lovejoy by a proslavery mob in Alton, Illinois.
But the problem of lawlessness was not limited to individual instances, he said. A public practice of ignoring the law eventually broke down all the guardrails designed to protect individuals, while lawbreakers, going unpunished, became convinced they were entitled to act without restraint. “Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane,” Lincoln said, “they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much as its total annihilation.”
The only way to guard against such destruction, Lincoln said, was to protect the rule of law on which the country was founded. “As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor…. Let reverence for the laws…become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.”
Lincoln was quick to clarify that he was not saying all laws were good. Indeed, he said, bad laws should be challenged and repealed. But the underlying structure of the rule of law, based in the Constitution, could not be abandoned without losing democracy.
Lincoln didn’t stop there. He warned that the very success of the American republic threatened its continuation. “[M]en of ambition and talents” could no longer make their name by building the nation—that glory had already been won. Their ambition could not be served simply by preserving what those before them had created, so they would achieve distinction through destruction.
For such a man, Lincoln said, “Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm; yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down.” With no dangerous foreign power to turn people’s passions against, people would turn from the project of “establishing and maintaining civil and religious liberty” and would instead turn against each other.
Lincoln reminded his audience that the torch of American democracy had been passed to them. The Founders had used their passions to create a system of laws, but the time for passion had passed, lest it tear the nation apart. The next generation must support democracy through “sober reason,” he said. He called for Americans to exercise “general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws.”
“Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’”
What became known as the Lyceum Address is one of the earliest speeches of Lincoln’s to have been preserved, and at the time it established him as a rising politician and political thinker. But his recognition, in a time of religious fervor and moral crusades, that the law must prevail over individual passions reverberates far beyond the specific crises of the 1830s.
—
Notes:
https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm
January 25, 2025
January 25, 2025
We have all earned a break for this week, but as some of you have heard me say, I write these letters with an eye to what a graduate student will need to know in 150 years. Two things from last night belong in the record of this time, not least because they illustrate President Donald Trump’s deliberate demonstration of dominance over Republican lawmakers.
Last night the Senate confirmed former Fox News Channel weekend host Pete Hegseth as the defense secretary of the United States of America. As Tom Bowman of NPR notes, since Congress created the position in 1947, in the wake of World War II, every person who has held it has come from a senior position in elected office, industry, or the military. Hegseth has been accused of financial mismanagement at the small nonprofits he directed, has demonstrated alcohol abuse, and paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a nondisclosure agreement. He has experience primarily on the Fox News Channel, where his attacks on “woke” caught Trump’s eye.
The secretary of defense oversees an organization of almost 3 million people and a budget of more than $800 billion, as well as advising the president and working with both allies and rivals around the globe to prevent war. It should go without saying that a candidate like Hegseth could never have been nominated, let alone confirmed, under any other president. But Republicans caved, even on this most vital position for the American people's safety.
The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker (R-MS), tried to spin Hegseth’s lack of relevant experience as a plus: “We must not underestimate the importance of having a top-shelf communicator as secretary of defense. Other than the president, no official plays a larger role in telling the men and women in uniform, the Congress and the public about the threats we face and the need for a peace-through-strength defense policy.”
Vice President J.D. Vance had to break a 50–50 tie to confirm Hegseth, as Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined all the Democrats and Independents in voting no. Hegseth was sworn in early this morning.
That timing mattered. As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow noted, as soon as Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), whose “yes” was secured only through an intense pressure campaign, had voted in favor, President Trump informed at least 15 independent inspectors general of U.S. government departments that they were fired, including, as David Nakamura, Lisa Rein, and Matt Viser of the Washington Post noted, those from “the departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration.” Most were Trump’s own appointees from his first term, put in when he purged the inspectors general more gradually after his first impeachment.
Project 2025 called for the removal of the inspectors general. Just a week ago Ernst and her fellow Iowa Republican senator Chuck Grassley co-founded a bipartisan caucus—the Inspector General Caucus—to support those inspectors general. Grassley told Politico in November that he intends to defend the inspectors general.
Congress passed a law in 1978 to create inspectors general in 12 government departments. According to Jen Kirby, who explained inspectors general for Vox in 2020, a movement to combat waste in government had been building for a while, and the fraud and misuse of offices in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon made it clear that such protections were necessary. Essentially, inspectors general are watchdogs, keeping Congress informed of what’s going on within departments.
Kirby notes that when he took office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan promptly fired all the inspectors general, claiming he wanted to appoint his own people. Congress members of both parties pushed back, and Reagan rehired at least five of those he had fired. George H.W. Bush also tried to fire the inspectors general but backed down when Congress backed up their protests that they must be independent.
In 2008, Congress expanded the law by creating the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. By 2010 that council covered 68 offices.
During his first term, in the wake of his first impeachment, Trump fired at least five inspectors general he considered disloyal to him, and in 2022, Congress amended the law to require any president who sought to get rid of an inspector general to “communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” Congress called the law the “Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022.”
The chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Hannibal “Mike” Ware, responded immediately to the information that Trump wanted to fire inspectors general. Ware recommended that Director of Presidential Personnel Sergio Gor, who had sent the email firing the inspectors general, “reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss” the inspectors general, because of the requirements of the 2022 law.
This evening, Nakamura, Rein, and Viser reported in the Washington Post that Democrats are outraged at the illegal firings and even some Republicans are expressing concern and have asked the White House for an explanation. For his part, Trump said, incorrectly, that firing inspectors general is “a very standard thing to do.” Several of the inspectors general Trump tried to fire are standing firm on the illegality of the order and plan to show up to work on Monday.
The framers of the Constitution designed impeachment to enable Congress to remove a chief executive who deliberately breaks the law, believing that the determination of senators to hold onto their own power would keep them from allowing a president to seize more than the Constitution had assigned him.
In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton tried to reassure those nervous about the centralization of power in the new Constitution that no man could ever become a dictator because unlike a king, “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
But the framers did not anticipate the rise of political parties. Partisanship would push politicians to put party over country and eventually would induce even senators to bow to a rogue president. MAGA Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told the Fox News Channel today that he is unconcerned about Trump’s breaking the law written just two years ago. “Well, sometimes inspector generals don't do the job that they are supposed to do. Some of them deserve to be fired, and the president is gonna make wise decisions on those.”
There is one more story you’ll be hearing more about from me going forward, but it is important enough to call out tonight because it indicates an important shift in American politics. In an Associated Press/NORC poll released yesterday, only 12% of those polled thought the president relying on billionaires for policy advice is a good thing. Even among Republicans, only 20% think it’s a good thing.
Since the very earliest days of the United States, class was a central lens through which Americans interpreted politics. And yet, in the 1960s, politicians began to focus on race and gender, and we talked very little about class. Now, with Trump embracing the world’s richest man, who invested more than $250 million in his election, and with Trump making it clear through the arrangement of the seating at his inauguration that he is elevating the interests of billionaires to the top of his agenda, class appears to be back on the table.
—
Notes:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/24/trump-fire-inspectors-general-federal-agencies/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/95th-congress/house-bill/8588
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/28/21265799/inspectors-general-trump-linick-atkinson
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/403
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/24/us/politics/trump-fires-inspectors-general.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/25/trump-inspectors-general-watchdogs-00191381
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/new-poll-recommends-eating-the-billionaires
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/24/trump-fire-inspectors-general-federal-agencies/
Bluesky:
macfarlanenews.bsky.social/post/3lgl4v3bzok2r
atrupar.com/post/3lgljigrlc32e
January 24, 2025
January 24, 2025
“NUTS!”
That was the official answer Brigadier General Anthony C. McAuliffe delivered to the four German soldiers sent on December 22, 1944, to urge him to surrender the town of Bastogne in the Belgian Ardennes.
In June 1944, on D-Day, the Allies had begun an invasion of northern Europe, and Allied soldiers had advanced against the German troops more quickly than anticipated. By December the Allied troops were stretched out along a 600-mile (1,000 km) front and were tired. General Dwight D. Eisenhower and his staff decided to hold the most fatigued troops in the easily defended Ardennes region over the Christmas to let them rest. To reinforce them, they sent inexperienced troops. The Allies anticipated little trouble.
So they were surprised on December 16, 1944, when the Germans launched more than 400,000 personnel, more than 1,400 tanks and armored vehicles, 2,600 pieces of artillery, and more than 1,000 combat aircraft directly at a 75-mile (120 km) stretch of the front in the Ardennes in an offensive designed to punch through the Allied lines.
And thus began the Battle of the Bulge.
This German counteroffensive moved forward fast, creating the bulge that gave the battle its name. But the German advance hit bottlenecks at Bastogne and other places, while isolated soldiers defended important crossroads and burned gasoline stocks to keep them out of German tanks. On December 22, 1944, as Allied troops were reeling, German soldiers brought to McAuliffe a demand that he surrender Bastogne.
“The fortune of war is changing,” their missive read. “This time the U.S.A. forces in and near Bastogne have been encircled by strong German armored units…. There is only one possibility to save the encircled U.S.A. troops from total annihilation: that is the honorable surrender of the encircled town…. If this proposal should be rejected one German Artillery Corps and six heavy A. A. Battalions are ready to annihilate the U.S.A. troops in and near Bastogne.”
It was that request that prompted McAuliffe’s “NUTS!” Members of his staff were more colorful when they had to explain to their German counterparts what McAuliffe’s slang meant. “Tell them to take a flying sh*t,” one said. Another explained: “You can go to hell.”
By the time of this exchange, British forces had already swung around to stop the Germans, Eisenhower had rushed reinforcements to the region, and the Allies were counterattacking. On December 26, General George S. Patton’s Third Army relieved Bastogne. The Allied counter offensive forced back the bulge the Germans had pushed into the Allied lines. By January 25, 1945, the Allies had restored the front to where it had been before the attack and the battle was over.
The Battle of the Bulge was the deadliest battle for U.S. forces in World War II. More than 700,000 soldiers fought for the Allies during the 41-day battle. The U.S. alone suffered some 75,000 casualties that took the lives of 19,000 men. The Germans lost 80,000 to 100,000 soldiers, too many for them ever to recover.
The Allied soldiers fighting in that bitter cold winter were fighting against fascism, a system of government that rejected the equality that defined democracy, instead maintaining that some men were better than others. German fascists under leader Adolf Hitler had taken that ideology to its logical end, insisting that an elite few must lead, taking a nation forward by directing the actions of the rest. They organized the people as if they were at war, ruthlessly suppressing all opposition and directing the economy so that business and politicians worked together to consolidate their power. Logically, that select group of leaders would elevate a single man, who would become an all-powerful dictator. To weld their followers into an efficient machine, fascists demonized opponents into an “other” that their followers could hate, dividing their population so they could control it.
In contrast to that system was democracy, based on the idea that all people should be treated equally before the law and should have a say in their government. That philosophy maintained that the government should work for ordinary people, rather than an elite few. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt inspired the American people to defend their democracy—however imperfectly they had constructed it in the years before the war—and when World War II was over, Americans and their allies tried to create a world that would forever secure democracy over fascism.
The 47 allied nations who had joined together to fight fascism came together in 1945, along with other nations, to create the United Nations to enable countries to solve their differences without war. In 1949 the United States, along with Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the U.K., created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a peacetime military alliance to stand firm against aggression, deterring it by declaring that an attack on one would be considered an attack on all.
At home, the government invested in ordinary Americans. In 1944, Congress passed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, more commonly known as the G.I. Bill, to fund higher education for some 7.8 million former military personnel. The law added to the American workforce some 450,000 engineers, 180,000 medical professionals, 360,000 teachers, 150,000 scientists, 243,000 accountants, 107,000 lawyers, and 36,000 clergymen.
In 1946 the Communicable Disease Center opened its doors as part of an initiative to stop the spread of malaria across the American South. Three years later, it had accomplished that goal and turned to others, combatting rabies and polio and, by 1960, influenza and tuberculosis, as well as smallpox, measles, and rubella. In the 1970s it was renamed the Center for Disease Control and took on the dangers of smoking and lead poisoning, and in the 1980s it became the Centers for Disease Control and took on AIDS and Lyme disease. In 1992, Congress added the words “and Prevention” to the organization’s title to show its inclusion of chronic diseases, workplace hazards, and so on.
Congress invested in the nation’s infrastructure with projects like the Interstate Highway System, funded by the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, which fueled the economy not just by providing jobs and tying together the states, but also by creating a market for new cars and for motels, diners, and gas stations along the new roads.
Americans also worked to put the racial segregation that had inspired Hitler behind them, using the federal government to level the playing field between white Americans, Black Americans, and people of color. As Chris Geidner wrote yesterday in Law Dork, that impulse had gained traction in 1941, when labor and civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph told President Franklin Delano Roosevelt that Black Americans weren’t being hired at the factories working in defense industries. He urged Roosevelt to issue an executive order requiring that factories that received federal contracts must hire Black workers.
As Geidner recounts, a week later, Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802, saying it was “the policy of the United States “to encourage full participation in the national defense program by all citizens of the United States, regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin, in the firm belief that the democratic way of life within the Nation can be defended successfully only with the help and support of all groups within its borders.“
After the war, President Harry Truman desegregated the armed forces in 1948, and as Black and Brown Americans claimed their right to be treated equally, Congress expanded recognition of those rights with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Shortly after Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, translating FDR’s 1941 measure into the needs of the peacetime country. “It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all qualified persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency.”
This democratic government was popular, but as the memory of the dangers of fascism faded, opponents began to insist that such a government was leading the United States to communism. Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, along with the deregulation of business and cuts to the social safety net, began to concentrate wealth at the top of society. As wealth moved upward, lawmakers chipped away at the postwar government that defended democracy.
And now, since the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Monday, the dismantling of that system is happening all at once.
The Guardian reported today that incoming Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ordered a halt to almost all foreign aid, with the exception of military assistance to Israel and Egypt. The Guardian notes that this order is likely unlawful, since Congress sets the budget and in 1974 declared it illegal for the president to impound funds. Still, a source foresaw the end of the global influence the U.S. has had since World War II, telling The Guardian: “Freezing these international investments will lead our international partners to seek other funding partners—likely US competitors and adversaries—to fill this hole and displace the United States’ influence the longer this unlawful impoundment continues.”
As Peter Baker of the New York Times notes, new president Donald Trump is trying to break NATO by demanding that members increase military spending to 5% of their nations' economies, although the U.S. currently spends about 3% of its GDP on defense. If we were to meet that requirement, Baker points out, the U.S. would have to increase its defense budget by $567 billion a year. Isabel van Brugen of Newsweek reports that an Italian news agency says that Trump intends to pull about 20,000 U.S. troops from Europe and wants Europe to pay to maintain the rest.
Trump has undertaken to dismantle the postwar democratic government at home, too. He has stopped the funding for repairing roads, bridges, airports, and ports that passed Congress in a bipartisan vote in 2022, as well as taken away funding for new solar manufacturing plants and other new systems to address climate change.
He has frozen all travel and communications at the Department of Health and Human Services, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. “We’ve never seen anything like this,” one researcher told Dan Diamond, Lena H. Sun, Carolyn Y. Johnson, and Mark Johnson of the Washington Post. “This is like a meteor just crashed into all of our cancer centers and research areas.”
And, of course, Trump has declared a war on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. In his revoking of LBJ’s Executive Order 11246, itself based on FDR’s Executive Order 8802, he explicitly rejected the principles for which the Americans fought in World War II.
January 25, 2025, marks eighty years since the end of the Battle of the Bulge.
The Germans never did take Bastogne.
—
Notes:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Bulge
https://unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov/2016/12/19/christmas-in-wartime-battle-of-the-bulge
https://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Explore/Monuments-and-Memorials/Battle-of-the-Bulge
https://www.history.army.mil/html/reference/bulge/index.html
https://www.army.mil/article/92856/the_story_of_the_nuts_reply
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/history-of-the-un/san-francisco-conference
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
Law DorkTrump ends federal contractor civil rights order with roots that go back to FDROn January 21, President Donald Trump revoked an executive order that has guided federal contractor nondiscrimination policy for nearly 60 years — and that has a history that reaches back nearly another 25 years…Read more2 days ago · 148 likes · 20 comments · Chris GeidnerGlenn C. Altschuler and Stuart M. Blumin, The GI Bill: A New Deal for
Veterans (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 52–87.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/24/foreign-aid-israel-egypt
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-us-troops-europe-nato-2019728
X:
joshtpm/status/1882505801430151577
January 23, 2025
January 23, 2025
Last night, in an interview with host Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel, President Donald Trump tried to explain away his blanket pardons for the January 6 rioters, calling the instances of violence against police officers “very minor incidents.”
In fact, as Brett Samuels of The Hill reported, about 600 of the rioters were accused of assaulting, resisting, or impeding police officers, and ten were convicted of sedition.
Ryan J. Reilly of NBC News explained that rioters wounded more than 140 officers with “firearms, stun guns, flagpoles, fire extinguishers, bike racks, batons, a metal whip, office furniture, pepper spray, bear spray, a tomahawk ax, a hatchet, a hockey stick, knuckle gloves, a baseball bat, a massive ‘Trump’ billboard, ‘Trump’ flags, a pitchfork, pieces of lumber, crutches and even an explosive device.”
Three federal judges have weighed in on the pardons after Trump’s appointees in the Department of Justice ordered them to dismiss pending cases against current January 6 defendants, an order that, as David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo noted, “flies in the face of decades of DOJ independence.”
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly summed up the judges’ outrage when she wrote: “Dismissal of charges, pardons after convictions, and commutations of sentences will not change the truth of what happened on January 6, 2021. What occurred that day is preserved for the future through thousands of contemporaneous videos, transcripts of trials, jury verdicts, and judicial opinions analyzing and recounting the evidence through a neutral lens. Those records are immutable and represent the truth, no matter how the events of January 6 are described by those charged or their allies.”
The leaders of two key paramilitary gangs who participated in the January 6 violence, Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys and Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers, are not helping Trump to put the pardons behind him. Now out of prison rather than serving his 22-year sentence, Tarrio called in to conspiracy-theorist Alex Jones’s Infowars within hours of his release to claim that he still commands the gang and that he plans retribution for those who put him behind bars. Tess Owen of WIRED reported that the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, which monitors online activity, saw a surge among Proud Boys’ channels after the pardons, as members discussed ways to advance Trump’s agenda.
Rhodes, who was sentenced to 18 years in prison, also wants revenge. On Wednesday, he was at the U.S. Capitol, where Michael Kunzelman and Lisa Mascaro of the Associated Press reported he met with at least one lawmaker and chatted with others.
Politico’s Charlie Mahtesian reported tonight that those January 6 rioters Trump pardoned are already talking about running for office. Mahtesian notes that in primaries where candidates need to prove they are truly MAGA, those who served time in prison for Trump will have sterling credentials.
Kunzelman and Mascaro also noted that, in an apparent attempt to divert attention from the pardons back to Trump’s contention that the bipartisan January 6 committee had been biased against him, on the same day that Rhodes was at the Capitol, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) revived a special committee to retrace the steps of the House committee that investigated the riot.
But that didn’t go terribly well, as Jacqueline Alemany of the Washington Post today reported an exclusive story revealing that last June an aide to Johnson advised the committee not to subpoena White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson out of concern that if it did, the sexually explicit texts Republican lawmakers had sent her might come to light. According to Alemany, “multiple colleagues had raised concerns with the speaker’s office about the potential for public disclosure of ‘sexual texts from members who were trying to engage in sexual favors’ with Hutchinson.” Instead, the committee accused former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) of talking to Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s lawyer present. Cheney called the report “defamatory” and a “malicious and cowardly assault on the truth.”
Apparently undaunted, Trump today issued pardons for nearly two dozen antiabortion activists convicted of violating the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, which the civil rights division of the Department of Justice explains “prohibits threats of force, obstruction and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive health care services.” Trump, who is due to speak tomorrow by video with the annual antiabortion March for Life, said it was a “great honor” to pardon the protesters.
Still, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico reported that one antiabortion activist, who wanted to remain anonymous because she fears retaliation from the administration, wondered why Trump hadn’t pardoned the antiabortion activists on Monday, as he did the January 6 rioters. “These pardons are fully in line with Trump’s agenda to oppose the weaponization of the government,” she told Ollstein. “So why he couldn’t have pardoned them along with the 1,500 on Day 1 is beyond me.”
It seems that for Trump and his extremist supporters, the federal government—which reflects the will of the majority—has been “weaponized” against a political minority that seeks to control the country.
To gain that control, Trump has assured his followers that the country is literally under attack and that the United States, which has the strongest military and the strongest economy in the world, is losing. On Monday, Trump—who persuaded congressional Republicans to kill a strong bipartisan measure to tighten the border and fund immigration courts so asylum-seekers could have quick hearings—declared that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States, although border crossings are lower now than they were at the end of his first administration. The order asked the heads of the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security to consider whether it was necessary to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which allows the president to deploy the military to suppress domestic insurrection.
Yesterday, acting secretary of defense Robert Salesses told reporters that the Department of Defense has ordered 1,500 active-duty military personnel along with air support and intelligence assets to the southern border of the United States, joining 2,500 active-duty military personnel already there, and that the military will provide flights for deportations led by the Department of Homeland Security. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump is directing “the Department of Defense to make homeland security a core mission of the agency.”
Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart of Reuters report that there have been informal discussions in the department about sending as many as 10,000 troops to the border, a discussion that raises the question of whether Mexico would feel obliged to respond in kind. And, according to Meg Kelly, Alex Horton, and Missy Ryan of the Washington Post, the Trump administration is trying to get rid of an office in the Pentagon that works to protect civilians in battlefield operations. The Civilian Protection Center of Excellence is housed within the Department of the Army and works to help the military limit unintended civilian deaths.
And yet the idea of using a strong military to defend America apparently does not extend to its leadership. Tara Copp of the Associated Press reported that Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, Fox News Channel weekend host Pete Hegseth, who has a history of financial mismanagement, alcohol abuse, and allegations of sexual assault, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he paid a woman $50,000 as part of a confidentiality agreement to maintain her silence after she accused him of sexual assault.
Today, both Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) said they could not support Hegseth’s nomination. They were the only two Republicans who refused to vote in favor of his nomination advancing to the full Senate today.
But they are not the only ones standing against Trump’s attempt to overturn traditional American values.
Today, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order to block Trump’s executive order that sought to end the birthright citizenship established in 1868 by the Fourteenth Amendment. Twenty-two states and two cities, as well as other parties, have sued over the executive order. Coughenour was responding to a suit brought by Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington.
Coughenour, who was appointed to the bench by Republican president Ronald Reagan in 1981, told Trump’s Department of Justice attorneys, “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order." When the lawyers told him they maintained the order was constitutional, Coughenour was aghast. "I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind. Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?"
Coughenour blocked the order until February 6, when he will hold a hearing to consider a preliminary injunction.
And after Trump announced he would withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), billionaire former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg yesterday announced that his philanthropic foundation will cover the financial contribution the U.S. will not. According to Zack Budryk of The Hill, it will also provide the agreement’s reporting requirements for emissions associated with climate change.
“[P]hilanthropy’s role in driving local, state, and private sector action is more crucial than ever—and we’re committed to leading the way,” Bloomberg said.
Finally, tonight, firefighters have begun to control the fires in Southern California. As of this evening, the Hughes fire is 36% contained, the Laguna fire is no longer expanding, the Palisades fire is 75% contained, and the Eaton fire is 95% contained. New fires have broken out, but rain is forecast for the weekend.
—
Notes:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5101875-donald-trump-sean-hannity-interview/
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25501164/ckk.pdf
https://www.wired.com/story/proud-boys-comeback-revenge/
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/us/politics/enrique-tarrio-stewart-rhodes.html
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-pardons-trump-2e2275ff164550de29c34de8d12886ab
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/23/cassidy-hutchinson-lawmakers-texts/
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/23/trump-pardons-abortion-clinic-protesters-00200292
https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-sex-assault-payment-trump-6674cc8cfee654c374725948e01ff666
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/01/23/trump-pentagon-civilian-deaths/
https://www.latimes.com/california/live/la-fire-updates-huges-eaton-palisades-red-flag-warning
https://www.justice.gov/crt/protecting-patients-and-health-care-providers
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-lisa-murkowski-unable-to-support-hegseth/
Heather Cox Richardson's Blog
- Heather Cox Richardson's profile
- 1301 followers
