Dear Weekend Jolter,
The "move fast and break things" mode of the tech titans has zipped from the West Coast to Washington at remarkable speed.
That's a proven formula for bumptious innovators aiming to disrupt a chosen sector. Whether it will prove effective — and, perhaps more importantly, not calamitous — with such a sprawling target as the federal government and everything it touches is another question entirely.
In one sense, Silicon Valley's culture of disruption — combined with Donald Trump's own affinity for boundary-pushing provocation — is the driving force of the start of the second Trump term. In another sense, the moment conjures the end of Fight Club, silhouettes of Trump and Elon Musk intimately set against a skyline of demolition.
"Donald Trump is pushing the envelope," Dan McLaughlin writes. Fact check: accurate. With respect to his multi-front fights with other nations, both friend and foe, Dan adds:
If you recall the George W. Bush presidency, one of the major arguments made by the Buchananite wing — now represented by Trump and JD Vance — was that Bush-era Republican foreign policy was fighting on too many foreign fronts simultaneously. Now, Trump is willing to do just that. The United States has the power to pick and win fights with China, Mexico, Canada, Panama, Denmark, and Colombia. But can we fight all of them at once?
We'll find out. Trump's rash actions, as in his first term, can be driven by legitimate underlying concerns. As the White House alleged in pursuing tariffs (and as Rich Lowry writes), the Mexican government and the drug cartels are shamefully intertwined. And Trump's bluster can yield positive results, and quickly, as seen this week with Panama.
Yet Trump is disconcertingly flippant about the potential fallout from his trade wars, to name one of his battles. And the decision to put Canada of all places on the menu made that entire episode look mercurial and baseless. Charles C. W. Cooke goes to 11 on the subject: "It wasn't diplomacy. It wasn't economic policy. It wasn't even hardball. It was caprice. By threatening Canada and Mexico as he did, Trump didn't teach the world a lesson in focused statecraft; he ran around naked in a diner waving his arms in the air, and decided after the fact to call the performance 'Art.'" Trump delayed the threatened tariffs on Canada and Mexico by a month after supposed concessions on border security; you can read Dominic Pino and MBD's dueling takes on whether it was all worth it. While the tariff tussle with China continues, the pressing question now is whether the North American Trade War is over as quickly as it started — or about to escalate into a confrontation that could drive up prices and, as Jeff Blehar writes, "fray nerves and weaken trust for the United States across the globe." To borrow Trump's words of assurance on whether tariffs will bring consumer pain: Maybe (and maybe not!).
The battles with allies and adversaries are but one part of Trump's fights on every front. His war on the federal bureaucracy expands by the day, and includes his attempted federal funding freeze (currently blocked in court), his DEI dismantlement, and the offer of "deferred resignation" to most of the federal workforce. According to the New York Times, Musk has "taken a keen interest in the federal government's real estate portfolio, managed by the General Services Administration, moving to terminate leases." The Wall Street Journal reports that administration officials are looking at executive actions to "dismantle the Education Department" and oust Health and Human Services workers.
Well known by now, and already under way, is the crackdown on USAID, where staffers were told not to show up on Monday as Musk lambasted the agency on X and vowed to shut it down. "USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die," Musk decreed.
Some context. As Jim Geraghty explains, sure, USAID funds plenty of nonsensical programs that could, and should, be cut (see David Zimmermann's piece). But it also funds programs ranging from school construction in Mali to an anesthesia system at a Jerusalem hospital to campaigns against sex trafficking and slavery overseas. "Shutting down USAID would throw a lot of metaphorical babies out with the bathwater," Jim writes. (By the way, don't try to reconcile Trump's drive to cut foreign aid with his vow to take over Gaza; that's how aneurysms happen.)
Of course, reforming USAID and killing it are two different things, and the plan reportedly is to merge USAID functions into State. Speaking in Central America, Secretary of State and now–Acting Administrator of USAID Marco Rubio criticized the agency as "unresponsive"; at the same time, he said "there are a lot of functions of USAID that are going to continue, that are going to be part of American foreign policy, but it has to be aligned with American foreign policy."
If so, the Trump administration may build back (better?) components of USAID, after a decent interval of chaos. The president will presumably aim to patch up relations with Mexico and Canada after blowing up the trade deal he struck in his previous term. The administration will eventually have to figure out whether it needs to rehire for, or redistribute responsibilities from, positions left vacant by "deferred resignations."
For now, as is usually the case with demolition, Trump is creating a lot of rubble.
NAME. RANK. LINK.
EDITORIALS
Common sense prevails: A Victory for Women Athletes
On the tariffs: Trump's Tariff Folly
On Pana-mania: Welcome News from Panama
ARTICLES
Philip Klein: Trump's Gaza Bombshell
Noah Rothman: Trump Plays a Dangerous Game with the Abraham Accords
Noah Rothman: Is the Democrats' Problem That They're Not Obnoxious Enough?
Dan McLaughlin: Birthright Citizenship: The Supreme Court Precedents Loom Large
Audrey Fahlberg: How Tulsi Gabbard Won over Skeptics with Help from Vance, Cotton, and a Lot of Phone Calls
Audrey Fahlberg: Democrats Struggle to Unite Behind a Coherent Anti-Trump Message
Ryan Mills: Trump Is Hell-Bent on Killing DEI — Not All Veteran Diversity Pros Disagree
Brittany Bernstein: Tennessee School Choice Advocates Celebrate a Legislative Win Decades in the Making
Brittany Bernstein: Amazon Lifts Years-Long Ban on Transgenderism Book in Response to Customer Feedback
Abigail Anthony: How I May Have Solved a Murder
John Kennedy: Work Requirements Would Improve Medicaid — and the Lives of Those on the Program
Kayla Bartsch: The Keffiyeh Kids Can't Stop, Won't Stop
James Lynch: Trump Administration Forms Task Force to Fight Antisemitism on College Campuses
Andrew McCarthy: The Stakes of Trump's Executive Branch Shake-Up
CAPITAL MATTERS
Daniel J. Pilla explains the stakes: Attention Must Be Paid: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Is Set to Expire
LIGHTS. CAMERA. REVIEW.
Armond White returns to the Emilia Pérez well: The Karla or Carlos Controversy Confounds Hollywood
Brian Allen has his doubts: Does New York Need a Climate Museum?
THESE EXCERPTS ARE TARIFF-EXEMPT
Where to even begin, with Trump's Gaza Strip comments? Phil Klein makes a valiant effort to unpack it all:
President Trump has developed a reputation for zigging when everybody else says it's time to zag. But when it comes to the plan he just outlined for Gaza, it's more like one side is zigging, another is zagging, and he just busted into the White House East Room and shouted "hippopotamus!"
It's hard to think of any other way to convey the sense in which Trump has upended decades of discussions about the Arab–Israeli conflict.
A few weeks ago, it seemed like it may have been one of Trump's many offhanded musings that would be quickly forgotten when he floated the possibility of moving the roughly 2 million Palestinians in Gaza to Egypt or Jordan. But today, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visiting, Trump raised the idea again. Many times, in fact. He explained that he believes that Palestinians would welcome the opportunity to leave the hellish Gaza, which is no longer habitable, to move to new communities that would be built in other countries with money that would be donated by wealthy states in the region. Even though Egypt and Jordan insist they won't welcome Gazans, Trump says they will.
But Trump saved his most unexpected proposal for Gaza until his evening joint press conference with Netanyahu.
"The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too," Trump declared. "We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site. Level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings. Level it out."
When asked directly, Trump signaled that he would be open to the presence of U.S. troops in the region if necessary.
Discussing the future of Gaza, he described it more like a real estate opportunity for the U.S., as he sees waterfront property with lots of potential just waiting for the right developer to come in and rebuild it. Asked who would live there, he described how it would be a sort of international zone where anybody would be free to live. . . .
We don't know what the ultimate play will be here. It's quite possible, as has happened in the past, that Trump is saying something outrageous to shake things up and freak everybody out, and then he will ultimately be open to pursuing more conventional ends. That said, we should be clear that Trump's plan for Gaza as he outlined it tonight is not going to happen.
Trump is getting closer to getting his cabinet. Audrey Fahlberg reports on the behind-the-scenes efforts that helped to advance Tulsi Gabbard's nomination:
Ahead of her Thursday confirmation hearing, Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation math didn't quite add up as a crucial pair of on-the-fence Republican senators continued to telegraph their concerns about her unorthodox national security views and fitness for the role of director of National Intelligence through the press. Gabbard's prospects improved on Monday when Susan Collins (R., Maine) came out in support of her nomination, leaving just one major roadblock to her ability to clear the Senate Intelligence panel's closed-door vote Tuesday afternoon — swing vote Todd Young (R., Ind.).
Enter Vice President JD Vance. The former Ohio senator made a critical decision to spend his weekend in constructive conversations with Young, a former Marine Corps Intelligence officer who left Gabbard's confirmation hearing feeling uneasy about her views on national security leaker Edward Snowden.
In Young's telling, the vice president was instrumental in helping the Indiana senator get written assurances from Gabbard — a former Hawaii congresswoman and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate — about her views on national security matters and whistleblowers. "Frankly, he seemed to be effective on his end in getting from me the sort of concessions that were required to get to a yes," added Young. "He delivered for me, and I'm grateful for that."
Vance's role in Gabbard's Senate confirmation process is an early sign that the vice president is emerging as a crucial liaison between the White House and his former Senate colleagues on matters of politics and policy. The White House was "very smart" to deploy Vance to Capitol Hill to serve as the administration's liaison on confirmation votes and upcoming legislation, says Senator Eric Schmitt (R., Mo.), a "close personal friend" of Vance. "Members of the Senate trust him."
The vice president's behind-the-scenes efforts in recent days are just one small part of a weeks-long coordinated campaign on behalf of Gabbard, whose path to confirmation looks increasingly likely after the Senate Intelligence panel voted along party lines on Tuesday to recommend her for a full floor vote. Another key player in the Gabbard confirmation has of course been Intelligence Chairman Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), who spent recent weeks in close touch with the White House and counseling them on persuasive and effective outreach to members. Cotton's team played a critical role in helping Gabbard draft her testimony, February 2 Newsweek op-ed, and response to senators' post-hearing questions for the record.
Ryan Mills chats with diversity consultants, who have some surprising views on Trump's war on DEI:
If in the end President Donald Trump managed to kill the diversity, equity, and inclusion field with a series of sweeping executive orders in the first hours of his new administration, diversity trainer James O. Rodgers has a simple response: "Great."
The Georgia-based consultant has been leading corporate diversity trainings for decades, with a focus on helping organizations build strong teams out of their increasingly diverse workforces. He calls what he does "diversity management," which was never intended empower one group over another or to pit alleged oppressors versus the oppressed.
"The work I did," he said, "was intended to benefit everybody."
But Rodgers contends that in recent years — particularly after George Floyd's killing in 2020 — his style of diversity work was "hijacked" by social-justice advocates who used similar language to push DEI programs aimed at benefiting certain minority groups over others.
"It's gotten to a place where it's naturally divisive," Rodgers told National Review. "My take is, the enemies of DEI are doing DEI a favor by getting rid of it."
Rodgers's perspective is likely out of step with most diversity and inclusion professionals who sprouted up and multiplied in government agencies, private companies, and DEI consulting firms in the wake of 2020's racial-justice protests and riots. But other diversity trainers and consultants who spoke with National Review agreed that DEI, as it has been interpreted and implemented in recent years, has been problematic and is in need of being reframed.
"A lot of what happened after George Floyd was not the things that we normally teach in our program," said Leah Smiley, president and founder of the Indiana-based Institute for Diversity Certification, which trains and certifies DEI professionals. She described some of the divisive language that DEI trainers used in recent years as "cringy" and said some practices, like instituting hiring quotas and hosting segregated trainings, were likely illegal.
"There were a lot of things that were going on that shouldn't have happened, and certainly some of the pushback is justified," Smiley acknowledged.
As a parting note, I'll simply strongly recommend you read Abigail Anthony's twisty, turny, really quite insane account of how she may have just solved a murder. Abigail can tee us up:
A landlord named Curtis Lind was fatally stabbed in Vallejo, Calif., on January 17, 2025. The Vallejo Police Department suggested that "anyone with information" should contact detective Daniel Callison by phone. I called three times to inquire about Maximilian Snyder, who I thought should be a person of interest. I never received a response. On Tuesday, January 28, I saw reports that Snyder had been arrested and charged with murder.
I'm in the U.K. working on my linguistics dissertation. Somehow, from thousands of miles away and with just my computer, I ended up identifying the same suspect as the detectives. How?
It started on Tuesday, January 21, as I performed the journalist's morning ritual of slogging through the news. I came across a story that said two people were involved in a shooting with a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Vermont during a "traffic stop" near the Canadian border. The agent and one suspect died. The FBI didn't identify either suspect by name; it only disclosed that the living suspect went to the hospital for treatment, and the deceased suspect was "a German national in the U.S. on a current visa." The FBI's statement included the following: "This investigation remains extremely active."
I became curious. If the investigation was "extremely active," why didn't the FBI disclose the names of the suspects and provide contact information for the authorities so that anyone with relevant information could be helpful? . . .
When I started reporting on the Vermont shooting, the draft was a simple news piece about verifying one suspect's social-media account, but the story led me somewhere else entirely. I didn't just go down the rabbit hole; I ended up at a chaotic tea party sitting beside former cult members and talking about murder.
CODA
Panama has now surfaced in the news just enough times to justify this, under the laws of Van Halen.
Thanks for reading — have a great weekend.
Megyn Kelly -> Pete Hegseth responds to 2017 rape accusation. 🔥 vol. 3, issue 13 | December 6, 2024 Quick Hits All the news you need in...
No comments:
Post a Comment