We, the People, must take back the political debate that’s afflicting the nation. Democratic victories in the 2026 and 2028 elections would change the government, but they wouldn’t solve the problem of governance in America. Chuck Schumer can’t save us anymore than Donald J. Trump. It’s up to us to save ourselves.

The United States has just entered its 250th anniversary year of independence. Beyond the superficial gilded glitz, glamour, and merch President Trump has planned, the anniversary offers an opportunity to reflect on what our forefathers, e.g., Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin, and foremothers, e.g., Abigail Adams, Phyllis Wheatley, Martha Washington, and Deborah Sampson, would think of today’s America. How true has it remained to their republican values and ideals?

It’s a dialogue the nation’s politicians should listen to rather than lead. Many of today’s government leaders foster the deepening divide between Americans by placing party above people and casting complex problems in binary terms, e.g., “woke” or “(un)woke”.

Years of polling confirm that a majority of Americans agree with David Brooks’ conclusion that “conventional parties and politicians, whose time horizon doesn’t stretch past the next election, are hapless” when it comes to doing what’s in the best interest of a pluralistic society.

Our forebears warned us of what could happen when tribal factions, e.g., political parties and religious groups, dominate the political landscape. They knew from experience the dangers of authoritarian regimes and how factions can undermine democratic foundations.

George Washington chose not to seek a third term – something he could have had for the asking. His antipathy towards the monarchic system and its trappings was strong – no gilding, no thrones. No more than two terms and no images of living presidents on coinage should be allowed. He understood that the peaceful transfer of power lies at the heart of democracy; and, It must be exercised to stay strong.

Washington’s examples have, for the most part, withstood the test of time. The image of only one living president, Calvin Coolidge, has ever been minted. It was a 50-cent piece featuring both Washington and Coolidge. The coin was issued in 1926 to mark the nation’s 150th anniversary. Washington would have thought it a trapping of would-be kings.

The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution, limiting a president to two terms, didn’t take effect until 1951. With the exception of Frank Delano Roosevelt, every president voluntarily followed Washington’s example.

As he was leaving office, Washington issued a Farewell Address: To the people of the United States. Washington’s missive was a warning that now seems prescient. For him, factionalism, e.g., geographic, political, religious, etc., was the greatest threat to the new nation.

The first president mistrusted political parties. An American Nostradamus, Washington anticipated today’s drift towards authoritarianism and how it could come about. The “alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension,” has led at different times to “horrid” consequences. (Emphasis added) It’s fair to say that the spirit of revenge is alive and well in Trump’s capital city.

Washington believed that despotism could take the form of one-party domination. Something he understood to be, at the very least, antithetical to the democratic principles on which the still young nation was founded.

Based on his experience and observations, he foresaw that “sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.” (Emphasis added) Washington would not approve of Trump stamping his name and face on everything from tickets to national parks to institutes of peace and the memorials to other presidents.

We, the People, are beginning to fear that Washington was right. Although the editors of the New York Times (NYT) conclude that the US is not (yet) a fully-fledged autocracy, they warn that, under Trump’s presidency, the slide towards authoritarianism is speeding up.

The NYT assessment is based on 12 “markers”, including limitations on free speech, usurping congressional power, using the presidency for personal gain, persecuting political opponents in the courts or through executive order, ignoring judicial opinions, and rewriting science and history to suit an autocrat’s narrative.

The New York Times editors’ opinion and the conclusions of the surveyed political scientists are shared by most of the American public. The Values Survey of the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that “increasing majorities of Americans view Trump as a ‘dangerous dictator’ rather than a strong leader.”

Trump’s “successes” have been the result of mob-like intimidation rather than moral persuasion, or good faith negotiation. Press the might of the world’s most powerful nation down on someone, and they are likely to bend a knee — or suffer its shattering. It’s assuming, of course, that he doesn’t just blow them up.

Although 85 percent of Republicans don’t (yet) see Trump as a dictator, 91 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of independents believe him an autocrat “whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.” (Emphasis added) The trend is not Trump’s friend.

The Democrats may retake control of either or both chambers of Congress in 2026 and the White House and Congress in 2028. It matters if they win as a rejection of Trump’s America First regime or because they finally find a way to connect with voters.

The problem for the Democrats is that nobody really likes them – at least as a party. It’s hardly clear they like themselves. Notwithstanding the party’s winning ways in this year’s off-year elections, e.g., gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey, NYC mayoral, and two utility commissioners in Georgia.

Sixty-eight percent of Americans believe the Democratic Party is “out of touch” with the concerns of everyday people. Voting Democratic can be nothing more than a rejection of Trump’s illiberal populism.

President Trump and the Republican Party are thought nearly as out of touch with the realities faced by ordinary people as the Democrats – 63 percent and 61 percent respectively. (See Figure 2)

During Biden’s four years in office, an average of 29 percent of Americans thought the country was going in the right direction, while 63 percent on average thought the wrong direction. Today, those numbers are only slightly changed, although Trump’s policies are the near opposites of Biden’s, e.g., clean energy, tariffs, the environment, and healthcare.

According to Gallup, only 15 percent of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing in October, which included the shutdown of the federal government due to the national legislature’s inability to keep the government open. During the Biden administration, Congress (two years of which were controlled by the Democrats) had an average approval rating of 23 percent. Since 2008, Congress’ rating has hovered around 20 percent.

The president makes no bones about his demand for unquestioned loyalty. Once his champion, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has gone from champ to chump, having lost Trump’s support because she backs extending the Obamacare subsidies her constituents need to afford health insurance and expects transparency on the Epstein files.

Trump saw Greene’s demands as disloyal (to him), and bad for party unity. Her constituents didn’t seem to fit into his thinking. Intimately familiar with Trump’s brand of vilification that he reserves for former friends and blue states, e.g., Jeff Sessions, Minnesota, and Illinois, Greene has chosen to resign from Congress rather than put herself and her district at the mercy of the president.

Christopher Lasch, “something of a populist icon,” who counted both Jimmy Carter and Steve Bannon as fans, wrote:

In The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, Lasch confirmed Washington’s fears that parties would come to be “dominated by rival elites committed to irreconcilable ideologies.” He accurately observed that a binary loyalty standard, e.g., Trump or no Trump, obscures “the views Americans have in common.”

Decades of polling confirm that a majority agree with David Brooks’ conclusion that “conventional parties and politicians, whose time horizon doesn’t stretch past the next election, are hapless” when it comes to doing what’s in the best interest of a pluralistic society.

The spirit of America has become the “Spirit of Revenge and Dissension” that Washington warned the infant nation would happen if the different interests couldn’t learn to compromise for the common weal, which is not to say splitting everything down the middle.

Lasch saw that ideological purity leads to symbolic issues replacing substantive ones on political agendas. But, worst of all, it has “distorted our view of the world and confronted us with a series of false choices: between feminism and the family, social reform and traditional values, racial justice and individual accountability.” Add to this a regulated or unregulated environment, partner or persecutor of traditional allies, religious freedom, or a state religion?

If history repeats itself, as it often does, the next Democratic administration will work diligently to swap out Trumpist policies for its own. However, as the surveys suggest, they will be largely trading one set of disapproved of policies and priorities for another.

The swing between hyperpartisan policies is not progress. It’s a sign of societal insanity to keep repeating the pattern in hopes of a better outcome, i.e., a government that a large majority of us actually approve of.

No recent poll was more worrisome (to me) than a New York Times/Siena College survey that found nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the country is “incapable of overcoming its deep divisions.” According to the poll:

Those results strongly suggest that most Americans see themselves as victims, without the wherewithal to do anything about it. It’s what wanna-be dictators want us to believe.

Today’s polarization once again suggests that the title of the “United States” is more aspirational than factual — much as it was at the nation’s founding and through years of civil war.

Fortunately, polarization is a problem that We, the People, are in the best position to resolve. Let’s make this, the 250th anniversary of America’s independence, a time to renew our collective commitment to the Constitution and each other through civil discourse.

Lead image credit: Washington at Verplanck by John Trumbull courtesy of Wikimedia.

On Day 1 of his second administration, President Trump signed an order declaring a national energy emergency. It was to be the start of a pattern that he has used, to great effectiveness, to centralize his power.

Trump declared more emergencies in the first 100 days of his second regime than any other president in the same period. A declaration of a national emergency unlocks a menu of 150 statutory powers that are available to the chief executive.

The National Emergencies Act (NEA) grants presidents extraordinary powers in response to what they consider “unusual and extraordinary threats.” Under the NEA and related emergency provisions of other legislation, the chief executive and his agencies can access funds and act without congressional authorization to address the emergency. However:

” Emergency powers are designed to let a president respond swiftly to sudden, unforeseen crises that Congress cannot act quickly or flexibly enough to address. Presidents can rely on these powers to create temporary fixes until the crisis passes or Congress has time to act.” (Emphasis added)

* E. Goitein, Brennan Center for Justice

It’s unlikely there will come a time in Trump’s second presidency when he’ll admit to a crisis passing. At least for the next year, there’s even less likelihood that the Republican Congress will challenge the president on his questionable emergencies or act to solve them itself.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “presidents declared about seven national emergencies per four-year term” since Reagan was first elected in 1981. Trump has issued nine national emergency orders and one “crime emergency” for Washington (a federal city).

The orders have covered everything from sanctioning the International Criminal Court over its issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Through a declared emergency, the president has attempted to coerce Brazil into dropping the prosecution of its former populist president for attempting a coup after he lost to its current president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in the last election.

Trump’s declaration of an energy emergency was specious. It came at a time when America was pumping and exporting oil and gas, and generating clean energy, at historic levels.

Trump is using his southern border emergency to militarize the border and forcefully implement immigration laws. The president has used both drugs and a trade imbalance as the driving forces behind tariffs. Trump used emergency declarations to push his agenda during his first term as well, including to fund his border wall after Congress refused to do so.

Both the frequency and the topics of Trump’s emergency declarations break with history. (There’s hardly any surprise there.) Previous declarations have followed the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 9/11 attacks. Emergency declarations have also been directed at North Korea (2008) and South Africa (1985) over apartheid.

The difference between the president and his predecessors in declaring a national emergency is basically a matter of propriety.

Mr. Trump chooses to use emergency declarations because they’re very hard to overturn. The law doesn’t define what constitutes an emergency. Even though many legal scholars consider Mr. Trump’s “concoction” of declarations a blatant power grab and an abuse of power, the courts are loathe to overturn NEA orders in general (not just in Trump’s case) because of their very nature. Who, more than a president, would know when the nation is facing an emergency?

Trump’s energy emergency declaration has been the basis for his gutting as many environmental and clean energy programs as he can – as fast as he can by using the energy emergency declaration in conjunction with executive orders, including: Unleashing American Energy (EO 14154); Protecting American Energy from State Overreach (EO 14260); and, Strengthening the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid (EO 14262)

Responding to the president’s orders, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced in March that the agency would be rolling back 31 energy and climate-related regulations in an effort to speed up the extraction and deployment of fossil fuels – America’s “trad” power source.

“Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen. We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down the cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the US, and more.”

*Lee Zeldin, Administrator EPA

In May, the Department of Energy issued two orders “directing a natural gas-fired power plant in Pennsylvania and a coal-fired power plant in Michigan, respectively, to stay online, just days before their planned retirement dates.” Unsurprisingly, nearly every presidential and agency order has been challenged in the courts.

It turns out that the president isn’t the only one using “emergencies” as a reason to act. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has taken up its use of the emergency docket – colloquially known as the shadow docket. The shadow docket allows the high court “to hear emergency applications, which typically involve requests that the Court temporarily lift lower court orders.”

The emergency docket has traditionally been used to address urgent requests, such as stays of execution or cases where irreparable harm will occur if the court doesn’t step in – at least temporarily. An emergency docket decision is very different from how it handles other cases.

Shadow docket decisions are distinguished from the merits docket by “limited briefing, no oral argument, and rulings with little or no analysis of the court’s reasoning.” (Shadow docket tracker here) The court is using the docket at a record rate.

“In its first 20 weeks, the second Trump administration made as many shadow docket applications — 19 — that the Biden administration made over four years.” In their combined 16 years in office, Presidents Bush and Obama made only eight requests for an emergency ruling. President Trump prevailed in most of the 19 requests. The six conservative justices on the high court continue to favor this president.

A New York Times survey of federal judges found discontent with the president’s shadow docket applications and the willingness of SCOTUS to approve them. The decisions have long-ranging consequences despite being (technically) temporary. They permit the president to dismantle the federal workforce, impound federal funds, and deport tens of thousands of immigrants.

In its interviews, the Times heard federal judges call the emergency orders “mystical,” “overly blunt,” incredibly demoralizing and troubling,” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.” Many of the jurists agreed that the courts “were in the middle of a ‘judicial crisis’ because of how decisions were being made.

One of the biggest knocks against shadow docket decisions is their lack of any guidance. When SCOTUS decides cases on the merit docket, full opinions inform lower court judges, attorneys, and the public of why a decision was made and which justices concurred or dissented. Precedent is at the heart of American jurisprudence.

The emergency docket adds an aura of secretiveness to the high court. Decisions behind closed doors can be reminiscent of the dreaded English Star Chamber, famous for its secretive rulings.

Trump has essentially taken a loophole in the usual balance between the executive and legislative branches and bored it into a tunnel-sized hole that he and his administration are using to impose the president’s America First agenda on the nation. The usual checks on presidential power – Congress and the courts – seem not to be there. It goes against the grain of democracy.

The stunning Democratic victories in the 2025 off-year elections in Virginia, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, and elsewhere, are only going to motivate Trump to become more aggressive in his unilateral actions in favor of fossil and nuclear fuels and in his continued condemnation of anything environmental or clean energy-related.

Trump has a very compliant Congress now, but may not after the 2026 midterms. A Democratic House will take Congress off the table for Mr. Trump. His recourse will be to step up efforts to bypass the courts and Congress before the end of his term in 2028.

In whom do we trust? God, I wish I knew, it certainly isn’t in each other. And, it’s most unfortunate, because trust is the secret sauce of a representative democracy. When the sauce turns toxic, it eats away at the underpinnings of the republic.

The drama playing out in Washington over the government shutdown is all the proof anyone needs of the tribal mistrust in our society. Strip away the demands for the extension of the Obamacare subsidies and undoing the cuts to Medicaid contained in Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), and it boils down to the Democrats not believing the word of Republican congressional leaders.

House Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Thune have indicated they’d be willing to discuss the healthcare issues with the Democrats, but only after they vote to support the short-term funding resolution. The Democrats are mistrustful of both the promise to undertake discussions and the likelihood that they would be undertaken in good faith.

In some respects, it’s hard to blame the Democrats for their suspicions. Even if the Republican congressional leaders were to keep their word about having a good-faith negotiation on the healthcare issues, President Trump has made it a habit of ignoring the will of Congress.

Since beginning his second term, the president has summarily chosen to ignore Congress on multiple occasions, including: a unilateral funding freeze at the beginning of his term; withholding foreign assistance; freezing infrastructure funds; and stopping grant payments. When he’s been unable to halt federal funding in its tracks, the administration has fired most of the personnel responsible for the administration of federal programs. The reduction in force of programs deemed “Democratic” continues through the current shuttering of the federal government.

As the federal government has turned feral under Trump’s administration, it has lost credibility in myriad ways. The single guidepost of this administration is that whatever Trump is thinking must be the thinking of the government. Anything that contradicts what the president says his agenda is is incinerated. This includes the findings of mainstream scientists and economists, anything considered unaesthetic to the president’s eye, e.g., windmills, solar panels, anything not gold-plated, or which might be defined as “woke”.

Trump’s overriding message to America is: It’s OK to hate and to lie. I do. He’s been flogging those notes since the escalator event – not the one at the UN, the other one – and is taking it to new depths during his second term.

Trump has made a habit of purging scientific and policy research that disagrees with his positions. He fires the inspectors general responsible for keeping federal agencies on the up-and-up and the ethicists charged with doing the same for political appointees and career professionals.

Trump and his administrators have filled critical advisory committees meant to be nonpartisan and science-based with loyalists willing to contort or simply dismiss the facts. The purges have made it easier for Health Secretary Kennedy to prevail in the debate about immunization and autism.

The Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group (CWG) consisted of four scientists and one economist who have all questioned the scientific consensus that climate change poses enormous threats to people and ecosystems and who sometimes framed global warming as beneficial. The CWG’s report was drafted to support a Trump administration effort to “stop regulating climate pollution.” The work of the group was the basis of EPA’s proposed rescission of the 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation of much of the agency’s air and water regulation this century.

The administration asks us not only to disbelieve science but our own eyes. Consider the video of fewer than a dozen – mostly reporters – and some guy in a chicken costume. The video was posted by a conservative influencer on X with the preface: “DHS Secretary Kristi Noem stares down army of Antifa.” (Emphasis added)

To be clear, I’m not saying the Democrats are without fault. President Biden’s pardoning of his son undermined his reputation and that of the presidency. Not everything the Democrats say means what they say it means.

I can say from experience that nearly all politicians and lobbyists – whatever their cause – shade the truth, i.e., lie, at one time or another. It’s only natural for advocates to offer as positive a case for their position as possible – at times crossing the line between fact and fiction. I include the climate and clean energy communities in this sweeping generalization.

What distinguishes Trump and his administration is the absence of any limits. Rather than ever admitting any error or bias, they double down on the lie. It’s never the fault of Trump or his minions. How long can you keep blaming former presidents?

Trump’s ad hominem attacks are meant to undermine the credibility of individuals and their institutions. Trump not only dictates the terms of engagement, but he also seeks to be the single “trusted” source of information.

Trump’s tribal politics are directed at all branches of government, along with the media and the military. He labels anything or anyone who disagrees with his casting of the truth as biased, fake, or unpatriotic. What is it that Samuel Johnson wrote?

A (Republican-appointed) federal judge recently began a ruling against the Trump administration, “with a scanned handwritten note he received. It read:

The answer to that question is trust in our democratic system. However, trust is a commodity becoming almost as scarce as the rare earth minerals needed to power the modern economy.

Trump will be out of office in a bit more than three years. But the mistrust he leaves behind has a long half-life. Rebuilding trust in the federal government will come neither easily nor quickly. Until it’s restored, America’s constitutional democracy will remain at risk.

Image: Courtesy of Easy Peasy AI

Venice has its pigeons and Capistrano its swallows. Flying over the White House and Capitol Hill these days are birds of a different feather – chickens. Part 1 of A Tale of Government Most Fowl focused primarily on Trump’s cluckers, e.g., tariffs, inflation, and governance, most associated with President Trump and Capitol Hill Republicans.

In Part 2, the discussion goes to the chickens coming to roost in the Democrats’ political coop and how the clean energy and environmental communities must rethink their messaging. Although all elections are important, some are more important than others. History will look back on the 2026 midterms as among the most momentous of the modern era.

From his first day back in power, President Trump has unleashed what can only be described as a holy war on Democrats of whatever persuasion, i.e., moderate, liberal, and socialist, as well as the mainstream media, government institutions, the Constitution, immigrants, and clean energy and the environment. In his “flooding the field” with over 200 executive orders – nearly all of which have been challenged in court – he has changed the nature of the presidency and the culture of federalism as it’s been practiced at least since FDR’s New Deal.

Given the scale of what Trump has wrought, the coming midterm elections will be a referendum on his policies and presidency. Whether voters will view the president’s America First agenda as the conservative counterpart to the New Deal or a raw deal is largely dependent upon the state of the economy between now and November 2026.

Based on history and current voter surveys, the president and his party are realistically facing the possible loss of the House in the next elections. The last time Trump was in office during a midterm (2018), the Democrats won a net total of 41 House seats. It was the Democrats’ “largest gain of House seats since the post-Watergate 1974 elections, when they picked up 49 seats.” Trump’s approval ratings in the run-up to that year’s balloting were nearly ten points higher than his current ratings.

As I referenced in Part 1, most economic and political analysts believe that the impact of Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) and his executive actions are only now showing up in the numbers, e.g., increasing inflation. They predict things will only worsen regarding the economy, the job market, and federal governance.

Henry Olsen has reported on a recent poll showing the GOP holding advantages over the Democrats of seven points on the economy, 13 points on immigration, and a whopping 22 points on crime. The article indicated that Republicans outperformed Democrats with Independents. (Note that Olsen isn’t speaking of Trump but of Republicans in general.)

A backlash vote could flip the House and even the Senate. Still, it shouldn’t be confused with actual support or as a setup for the 2028 presidential elections regarding either the Democrats or federal climate policy.

The Democrats have a critical problem when it comes to defining who they are, what they stand for, and what solutions they have to the multiple existential threats to the nation’s well-being. Whatever else voters think of Trump, they know where he stands on things. When it comes to the Democrats – not so much. Being against Trump is not enough.

One thing that Biden and Trump had in common as candidates was low poll numbers when it came to the country’s direction. “A year before the presidential election, three-quarters of Americans (76%) believe the country is headed in the wrong direction and the leading Democratic and Republican candidates are viewed broadly unfavorably, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll. Only 23% of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction.”

The overall numbers aren’t much different today. A September (2026) AP/NORC poll showed only 25 percent of those surveyed believed the country is heading in the right direction. For the president and the GOP, the most concerning survey results should be the 20 percent drop between June and September in the view of Republicans that the nation was on track for good things to come.

If the opinions of polls and pundits weren’t enough to indicate that voters may not be thrilled with how Trump has chosen to make good on his promises, there’s the concern expressed by the big man himself. The best examples are his rebranding of the OBBB as the Working Families Tax Cut Bill (WFTCB?) and his call to red states to gerrymander their congressional districts to give Repub-licans an advantage over the current maps. Neither is a sign of confidence.

It bears repeating that a Democratic win in 2026 could primarily be about backlash to Trump and only incidentally (if at all) about what the Democrats are pitching. It brings me to the topic of messaging.

The Democrats aren’t the only ones with a messaging problem. Efforts to counter Trump’s egregiously false claims about climate change and the reliability and cost of solar, wind, and energy efficiency with complex factual arguments have done little to expand the climate concerns of Americans.

A strong argument can be made that since 2018, American beliefs in human-caused climate change have decreased. Polls by Pew Research (2023), Monmouth University (2024), and Morning Consult (2025) have shown a drop of seven percent in the number of those who care “a great deal” about climate. Although the numbers of those concerned remain high, what has been clear for years is that climate change has never ranked high enough in voters’ minds to win congressional or presidential elections.

Voters in 2026 are going to be looking for answers to bread-and-butter issues. It will be up to the clean energy and environmental communities to help frame the debate in a manner that resonates with voters, particularly independents and conservative youth, and lays a bipartisan foundation on which to rebuild federal clean energy and environmental policies and programs.

The overarching reality of today’s politics is that Trump is dictating the terms of the debate – not only in the US but worldwide. In his recent speech to the UN General Assembly, the president paired immigration and clean energy, e.g., solar and wind, as the two greatest threats to national prosperity. Trump told the delegates their countries were going to hell –

The 2026 midterms will be a back-to-basics election in which the economy is everyone’s core concern – as in most elections. For the bloodletting of federal climate-related programs to slow – if not stop -- an almost exclusive link between clean energy, the environment and the economy must be made.

The road to the 2026 balloting offers an opportunity to reset the climate debate in terms of today’s political realities. The objective of the recast debate is straightforward – to turn clean energy and the environment into a populist economic issue.

The following are a few of my recommended “rules of the road” to the 2026 midterms.

· Replace reflexive opposition to President Trump with a positive vision.

· Stop preaching to the climate choir. It’s about converting the unbelievers.

· Offer constructive alternatives and question whether the administration has undertaken rational reform of the nation’s environmental and energy agencies.

· Make your message relatable to your audience.

Ø Watch your language – don’t get sucked into a debate about “the green new deal” or and giving up hamburgers. Find substitutes for words like “green” and “climate change”. Use words like resilience, hardening infrastructure, and rising temperatures.

Ø Leave cultural issues at the door – it’s all about the economy.

· Make it local – it’s what politics are about. If a new manufacturing facility were cancelled because of the administration’s positions on clean energy alternatives, and the rescission in the Inflation Reduction Act, relate it to the local economy. If federal funds for bicycle lanes or EV charging stations were withdrawn, talk it up. If a coal plant or mine in your community has been guilty of pollution, ask if they can be trusted to do what’s right without some regulation. If the administration broke the union that represents you and your neighbors, don’t be bashful in questioning the Republican commitment to working men and women.

· Employ the president’s mantra of “common sense” when commenting on Republican administrative reforms, e.g., it’s only common sense not to give fossil fuel companies and power producers a blank check on environmental protections. Is it sensible to cede vibrant overseas markets for electric vehicles and solar arrays to China? Technologies that were made in America first?

· Say it loud and say it often that it’s all about a healthy economy and a healthy environment – the nation’s, your community’s, and your family’s.

Ø Remind your audience that Republican policies are partially fueling the rising price of electricity, which is escalating at a rate of 5.5 percent – twice the inflation rate. Prices are expected to rise at least through 2026 by eleven to 14 percent – a rate that would outpace overall inflation by 29 percent.

Ø Identify solar and wind as the preferred sources of new electric generation. “The combination of solar and wind accounted for 90% of new US electrical generating capacity added in the first seven months of 2025.” July 2025 was the 23rd consecutive month in which solar has led among all new energy sources. Even fossil fuel states like Texas rely on clean energy technologies – notwithstanding the opposition of its Republican governor, attorney general, and legislature. They’re preferred for good reasons.

Ø Emphasize that building new utility-scale or on-site solar and wind projects is faster than any fossil fuel or nuclear-powered electric plant.

Ø Link clean energy and environmental stewardship to the agricultural economy and the price of food.

Ø Tell voters that clean energy is about good-paying blue-collar jobs.

Ø Reference that solar, wind, batteries, and other emerging new technologies have attracted trillions of dollars in private investments in new manufacturing facilities – a significant portion of which has been pulled back by investors who are nervous about the uncertainties of the market due to Trump’s actions and the wide partisan swings in US energy and environmental policy.

Ø Extending the life of existing coal plants doesn’t create new jobs. New technologies create new jobs.

I have no doubts that the nation will come to have buyer’s remorse over Trump’s decimating federal climate-related programs. It’s just common sense.

The easiest thing in Washington has always been to stop something. Starting something is another matter. Trump is not only wiping out Biden’s legacy. He’s attempting to turn back the clock to the 1950s and 1960s, when rivers caught fire. He talks about “traditional” energy sources. Why not go further back in time and use dried dung as the preferred energy source – what’s more traditional?

US energy and environmental policies have suffered from whiplash for decades. It’s only become more extreme in the Trump era. It’s bad for business and an inefficient way to go about the business of government. How much money is wasted starting up and shutting down programs?

Long after Trump leaves the White House, he will have left behind a very conservative Supreme Court. A court that increasingly ignores longstanding precedents and tells Congress it needs to be more specific in its use of legislative language. Members of Congress can barely stand being in the same room with each other. How are they going to agree on the details?

Politically, Democrats are carrying the climate burden on their backs. They’ve been doing it for a long time. There are strong supporters in the Republican ranks. Senators Murkowski (R-AK) and Collins (R-ME) immediately come to mind. However, those voices have largely been silenced in the Trump era, and perhaps marginalization is a better way to express them.

In such an evenly divided political environment, an electoral landslide is becoming a thing of the past. Moreover, there’s little likelihood that either party can hold power long enough to keep the whiplashes from happening. (That’s assuming no authoritarian takeovers.)

The current congressional stalemate over federal appropriations is ostensibly about maintaining Obamacare subsidies and restoring Medicaid cuts. But the problem is really more fundamental. The Democrats resent being asked to support a bill they were excluded from consulting on. Can’t blame them any more than you can blame Republicans when it happens to them.

What’s missing in Congress and between Democrats and Trump is trust. In the fight to keep the government open, Republicans have said they would work with Democrats on the matters of Medicaid reductions and the lapsing of the Obamacare subsidies. Back in the day, the offer would likely have been. accepted and the government kept open.

The ultimate answer to the whiplash problem — whether clean energy or healthcare programs — is bipartisanship, which seems a long way off. But it starts with better messaging.

Photo by Ozkan Guner on Unsplash

Venice has its pigeons and Capistrano its swallows. Flying over the White House and Capitol Hill these days are birds of a different feather – chickens. For the president and the GOP Congress, they’ll soon be coming home to roost.

Although all elections are important, some are more so than others. History will look back on the 2026 midterms as among the most momentous of the modern era. The reason for this can be summed up in three simple words: Donald John Trump.

The president so dominates the executive and legislative branches that the 2026 elections will be a referendum on his handling of the economy and the affairs of state. Trump claims to have won a popular mandate at the polls last November. It’s FAKE News.

Trump’s winning margin in 2024 was less than 1.5 percent of the popular vote. Although beating Harris by 16 percent in the Electoral College vote, it’s a flawed number in that it fails to reflect popular sentiment and how evenly divided the nation seems to be. The narrow majorities in both the House and Senate are further proof that America is split nearly in half between Trump supporters and everyone else.

If presidential elections are examples of regime change, then the electionof Donald J. Trump in 2024 is an example of radical culture change.

Trump doesn’t have a popular mandate. He has a license given him by the Republicans in Congress and the conservatives on the Supreme Court to do almost anything he wants. The Republican Senate has rubber-stamped its approval of what many believe to be the least competent and most ethically compromised cabinet since the Harding administration.

The House fiddles while the president impounds the monies Congress appropriates, guts agencies established by law, and stops projects that have attracted billions of dollars of private investment because he thinks wind turbines are ugly and coal “clean” and “beautiful”. (What if we were to gold plate the wind turbines, Mr. President?)

Without understanding what was actually being done, the Republicans in Congress hailed Elon Musk and his chainsaw for cutting government programs they oversee and are responsible for, because they contained words like climate, clean energy, environment, minority, vaccine, scientific or medical research, equity, and justice.

Government reform by a keyword search has predictably resulted in major gaps in the operation of federal agencies and the implementation of various programs and policies. Because weather and climate change are closely connected, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cut critical forecasting work. It suspended tracking programs at the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

What does it say when an administration fires the independent inspectors general of nearly every cabinet department and doesn’t replace them? What does it tell you about the relationship of an administration to the truth when the government attempts to overwrite history to conform to nationalistic myths or censors and removes scientific information from federal websites because it conflicts with the fancies of the president?

The first nine months of Trump’s 2^nd regime have turned the federal government feral.

The Department of Justice attacks any individual, group, or institution that deigns to disagree with the president and his worldview. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Trump has been able to wing his way out of most problems by crying FAKE NEWS, using misdirection, firing the messenger, or threatening to use the full might of the federal government to prosecute an opponent.

The consequences of Trumpian economics and government reforms are just now showing up in the economy. Given all that’s happened over the past eight months, it’s easy to forget that the impacts of many of Trump’s policy and program reforms, tariffs, and deportation programs are in the earliest stages of implementation.

Delays between implementation and impact are the result of various factors. In the case of rising prices, pre-tariff inventories and efforts by companies to “eat” the new import costs for as long as possible have tamped down pricing. However, companies are running out of options.

At some point, the truth catches up to all of us – Mr. Trump included.

A July survey by KPMG found that “83 percent of businesses expect to raise prices in the next six months, with nearly three quarters already passing on some of the costs.” According to the company: “The full impact on consumers is likely still to come.”

Two of Trump’s most vaunted accomplishments – tariffs and the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) are among the reasons the president’s approval ratings are trending south. According to the Pew Research Center, 61 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s tariff policies, while 38 percent approve. The disapproval number for OBBB is 46 percent, while 32 percent approve, with 23 percent being unsure. (See Figure 1)

A Washington Post/IPSOS poll released on September 18^th confirmed Pew’s earlier findings. Trump’s approval within Republican ranks was also shown to be dropping, especially among “younger Republican and GOP women.”

What could also prove problematic for Republicans in the 2026 congressional elections is the view of a majority of adult Americans (53 percent) that Trump “is making the federal government work worse, while only about half as many (27 percent) say he is making government better.” The numbers reflect lessening support for Trump’s handling of the federal bureaucracy.

Trump is underwater in terms of voter approval, even for his handling of immigration and crime. Both are issues he has traditionally scored high on. Although the surveys show predictable partisan splits, the loss of favorability amongst independent voters could prove the difference in 2026.

Trump’s response to the poll numbers is – as it always is – to blame the polls and the bias of organizations responsible for them. The president spares no one. In a recent interview on FOX News with Martha McCallum, he blamed FOX for bad polling.

There’s going to come a time when claims of FAKE NEWS and disingenuous pollsters will not outweigh the truth of weakening job markets, rising prices, and dysfunctional federal agencies.

The reasons behind Trump’s loss of support are real rather than theoretical. If younger Republicans lose faith in the president’s economic policies, it’s because recent graduates are being hit hardest by the softening labor market.

China’s reduced imports of US farm products are negatively impacting the nation’s agricultural economy. Not only are farmers unable to sell their soybeans, but they aren’t buying new combines, harvesters, and tractors. The loss of low-wage immigrant labor to harvest crops and pack meat means a rise in food prices.

Mr. Trump could fire every government statistician and replace them with MAGA acolytes, and it wouldn’t change the reality of rising prices and the increasing concerns of voters. Trump’s rebrand of his OBBB as the Working Families Tax Cut is unlikely to take voters’ minds off the fact that their dollar is buying less than it did a month ago, or that they’re paying more for health insurance, when they can afford it at all.

Trump and the GOP have other reasons to be anxious over the potential outcome of the 2026 elections. Historically, midterm elections are notoriously brutal to a sitting president’s party.

Known as the midterm curse, the party controlling the White House has lost an average of 28 seats in the House of Representatives and four seats in the Senate over the 22 off-year elections between 1934 and 2018. (The 2022 midterms did not follow the law of averages as the Democrats lost just six seats in the House while gaining one in the Senate.)

The generic congressional ballot shows Democrats with a lead over Republicans of between three and eight percent, indicating that partisanship is still a major factor in how Americans are likely to vote in 2026. The 2018 generic ballot showed a spread in favor of the Democrats of between seven and 13 percentage points.

The 2018 elections resulted in “a net total of 41 seats from the total number of seats they had won in the 2016 elections.” It was the Democrats’ “largest gain of House seats since the post-Watergate 1974 elections, when they picked up 49 seats.” Trump’s approval ratings at the time hovered around 50 percent.

Even factoring in red-state redistricting, the current numbers suggest that the Democrats have a reasonable chance of taking control of the House after the 2026 elections. The likelihood that the Dems will gain the net of four seats needed to flip the Senate is less.

If the overwhelming majority of economists and political analysts are right, the negative consequences of the president’s policies will only worsen between now and November 2026. If the past is prologue, then the midterm elections will return control of the House to Democrats. From an environmental perspective, Democratic control of the House is a net good thing.

Trump’s opposition to clean energy sources and environmental regulation is so virulent that it’s resulting in the administration working against itself. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has leveraged billions of dollars of private investments in red states – ironically, more in red than blue. One example is the recently raided, under-construction Hyundai battery plant in Georgia.

The White House has rebuffed efforts of red state Republicans to continue the programs. GOP proponents have partly argued that the administration could take credit for it. Trump had no problem taking credit for infrastructure projects contracted for by the Biden administration. Why not for the IRA? (I’ll have more to say about this in Part 2 of “A Government Most Fowl” as it concerns messaging.)

Nothing is more critical in terms of federal climate policy than slowing the administration’s cancellation of renewable energy programs and the unwinding of environmental regulations back to a time before Nixon.

The 2026 midterm elections are an opportunity to effectively slow the Trump administration’s onslaught against clean energy and the environment. In the run-up to the election, the clean energy and environmental communities must keep their collective eyes on the prize – a Democratic House majority.

If I were asked to suggest a phrase that best describes what the midterm election will be about, I’d put “back to basics” at the top of my list. Even in good times, elections are about the economy.

Contrary to what Trump says and demands his administration agree with, people are worried about inflation, jobs, and whether tariffs are worth their sacrifice. Seeing your utility bill go up five percent or more in a month isn’t FAKE NEWS. It’s a problem for the average family of four.

Part of people’s core concern is whether the government will be there for them in times of emergency – personal or societal. A majority of voters believe Trump isn’t the problem solver he claims to be. In fact, they’ll soon be wondering if he isn’t the problem giver.

Voters in 2026 are going to be looking for answers to bread-and-butter issues. It will be up to the clean energy and environmental communities to help frame the debate in a manner that resonates with voters, particularly independents and conservative youth and builds a foundation for the 2028 elections.

In Part 2 of “A Government Most Fowl”, I’ll discuss how the midterms run-up should be used to reset the clean energy and environment debates in response to today’s political realities. One is that Trump has set the terms of the debate, which means keeping it simple and less philosophical.

Lead image credit: J. Stronberg and AI

Overview: The role of state Attorneys General

When the dust of history finally settles on the Trump administration, it will be shown as one of the most litigated administrations in US history. Among the leaders of that litigation will be state attorneys general.

Over the next four years, their efforts will play a critical role in preventing the Trump administration from rolling back US energy and environmental policy to a time before the Nixon administration. In 2026, 30 state AG offices will be up for election. (See Figure 1)

If one were given a single wish in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, one would be wise to ask for the election of an AG candidate who understands and supports efforts to combat climate change.

The Trump administration – whether in consort with congressional Republicans or acting alone – will not stop its assault on the Biden and Obama climate legacies – unless ordered to by the courts. And, even then, it's not at all sure that the administration will comply before the damage is done.

It is difficult to give any credence to the notion that the Democrats can take back both the House and Senate next November, given today's political environment. Moreover –

The power(s) of state AGs

No one understands the power of state AGs better than Trump. Why else would the Department of Justice seek to preempt a state's right to sue oil companies for the damages it knowingly causes to the environment through the emission of greenhouse gases on much the same grounds that state AGs – Republican and Democrat – were successful in suing cigarette companies in the 1990s?

Why else, too, would the president attack white shoe law firms that often take on these sorts of challenges to congressional or presidential overreach on a pro bono basis? State attorneys general are much harder to intimidate, given that their bottom line is the health and welfare of their state's citizens, not annual revenues.

The use of litigation by AGs "as a policymaking tool gained prominence in the mid-1990s, when over 40 states—Republican and Democrat—initiated lawsuits against the tobacco industry. It ultimately resulted in a national settlement that included strict federal regulations on tobacco labeling and marketing, as well as financial relief for states." Since that time, AGs have successfully "changed the rules of the game for banks, brokerage firms, and pharmaceutical companies, along with countless other industries."

State AGs are part of the executive branch and popularly elected in forty-three states, while the governors of Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wyoming appoint their state's attorney general. Maine's legislature selects its state attorney general. In Tennessee, it's up to the state supreme court to choose the AG.

According to the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG): "The structure of the office and the duties of the attorney general vary ... and are defined in state constitutions, statutes, and court decisions in different degrees of detail and emphasis, although the individual functions and priorities of each AG's office vary by jurisdiction, there are a set of core tasks undertaken by the chief legal advisors in every state.

State AGs act as the public's advocates in child support enforcement, labor relations, consumer protections, antitrust, and utility regulation. They propose legislation and enforce federal and state environmental laws and regulations.

The independence of state AGs

Although part of the executive branch, AGs can be independent actors. In April, Pennsylvania was joined by 22 other states and the District of Columbia in challenging the Trump administration's abrupt cancellation of more than a half billion dollars in public health grants for Pennsylvanians for various services, e.g., immunizations and eldercare. Governor Shapiro appears on the plaintiff's list on behalf of the Commonwealth rather than Pennsylvania's AG, David Sunday, who is a Republican wanting to take a "less aggressive" approach toward President Trump" than his Democratic governor.

"Disputes between governors and attorneys general are fairly common and usually occur along partisan lines." In 2017, then Kentucky Attorney General (D) sued his Republican governor over an executive order on the structure and membership of three existing state educational boards.

The same year, Maine's Republican governor, Paul LePage, sued the state's Democratic Attorney General, Janet Mills. The issue in this case was Mills "allegedly obstructing his ability to participate in a lawsuit supporting President Donald Trump's (R) March 6, 2017 executive order impacting refugee admissions and immigrant and nonimmigrant travel.

Often, the AG's office is a stepping stone to bigger things. Jeff Sessions (R) became a US senator from Alabama and was appointed as Trump's first Attorney General. Scott Pruitt went from joining with and leading legal assaults on environmental regulations to becoming Trump's first EPA administrator—responsible for drafting and defending federal environmental policies.

State AGs have become president, vice president, and chief justice of the Supreme Court. With some regularity, state AGs move from the courtroom to the governor's mansion. Supporting AG candidates is an investment that keeps paying off. They take their environmental positions with them as they move up the political line.

The most litigated administration in US history

Even before President Trump took the oath of office for the second time, Democratic state attorneys general were standing at the courthouse door with dozens of petitions "asking judges to overturn executive actions. The dozens have since turned into a deluge on matters ranging from immigration, the environment, tariffs, guns, and the power to re-write the US Constitution.

The rise in AG activism is part and parcel of these profoundly partisan times. As much a consequence as a contributing factor to today's culture wars, their involvement is intended as a foil to presidential policymaking through executive orders.

Following the election of George W. Bush, a partisan pattern of multistate lawsuits challenging the policy actions of opposition presidents in the courts began to emerge. Over his two terms, the Bush administration was sued 76 times. Of those, 38 were led by Democratic AGs. The Obama administration encountered 80 multistate legal challenges -- 58 were Republican-led.

In Trump's first four years, the number of coordinated multistate suits by Democratic AGs burgeoned to160. The upward trend continued through President Biden's term when Republican AGs sought intervention by the courts on 60 occasions. The number of times Trump and his second administration is challenged in court is likely to records—given the depth and breadth of his promised deconstruction of the federal establishment.

State AGs on both sides of the aisle have enviable success rates when suing opposition presidents. The overall win rates were 75.8 percent during the Biden administration, 83 percent in contests between Democratic AGs and the Trump administration, and 63.5 percent during Obama's two terms.

As of May 21, 2025, the Trump administration has been sued nearly 250 times since taking office. The number grows daily, and so do the administration's losses in court. During its first term, many of the administration's losses in court were based on its failure to follow the Administrative Procedures Act, which controls much of how the executive branch goes about its business.

Hundreds of lawsuits – many brought by Democratic AGs – have been filed in the first four months of Trump 2.0. Before it's over, thousands more will be. (There are excellent trackers that follow all the lawsuits and are regularly updated. These include the New York Times,Lawfare, and AP News.)

In the final analysis, there are no more important elections in 2026 from an environmental perspective than the 30 state AGs running for office.

In Part 2 of the Can Democratic Attorneys General Save the Environment from Trump 2.0?, I’ll be going into greater detail on the “flood the zone” strategy the administration is following and its primary environmental and clean energy policy targets.

A note to readers: For more a more detailed discussion about the role of AGs over the past two decades see my article “AGs Getting Aggressive” published by the Environmental Law Institute’s Environmental Forum. (The above link allows readers to view without the paywall.)

Lead image credit: US Supreme Court photo courtesty of Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Congress is back from its two-week Easter break, and it has a lot of heavy lifting to do if it's to pass President Trump's America First agenda. The president's program bears a remarkable resemblance to the Project 2025 agenda orchestrated by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation—something he disavowed during the campaign.

Before leaving on the break, Congress managed to pass a budget resolution that Trump signed. It marked the first critical step in the passage of "The One Beautiful Bill," which the president and House Speaker Johnson are so fond of talking about. Still, the Senate has significant qualms in terms of parliamentary politics.

The resolution's passage was considered a major victory for the House speaker and the opening gambit of the budget reconciliation process. It had been thought that Johnson (R-LA) couldn't keep all his Republicans in line. With a 220 to 213 split between House Republicans and Democrats (with 2 vacancies), the speaker has a majority of only 3 with which to work. (Assuming a total of 433 votes cast.) Margins are so tight that Trump found it necessary to retract his nomination of Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY) as UN Ambassador.

Notwithstanding the passage of the budget resolution, getting from there to a final reconciliation bill is still a long way off, and significant differences among the Republicans in and between the chambers still exist. The way forward will be characterized by trickery – beginning with how the Senate chose to cost-account the resolution.

Rather than relying on actual budget numbers, the Senate conveniently decided that extending the president's 2017 tax credits for the wealthy wouldn't cost anything under a "current policy baseline." The gimmick was good enough to pass the resolution but is unlikely to satisfy Republican conservatives or moderates in either chamber when it comes time to pass the final legislation.

Moreover, the gimmickry isn't likely to satisfy the Senate Parliamentarian, who historically has had the last say in what can be included in a reconciliation bill. The budget reconciliation process allows the Senate to avoid filibusters and enact legislation with a simple majority. It takes a 60 vote super-majority to close a filibuster.

So far, House budget hawks have caved to the exhortations of the speaker. However, many promises have been made about budget reductions that are unlikely to be kept, given other promises made by the president.

Leading those promises was Trump’s pinky-swearing that Medicaid and Medicare benefits wouldn’t be reduced. However, “among the directed cuts [in the budget resolution] is an instruction to the Energy and Commerce Committee to reduce deficits by $880 billion over the 10-year budget window.”

Although the resolution doesn’t identify Medicaid or Medicare, a Congressional Budget Office report indicates that Medicaid and Medicare would likely need to be reduced by the projected $880 billion. With $581 billion from Medicaid and the remainder from Medicare. It would be the biggest cuts to those programs in history.

Medicare and Medicaid are the largest potential funding sources for Trump's tax extensions. They’re not the only possibilities. The House Energy and Commerce Committee will consider ways to claw back funds from the IRA and other Biden climate-related programs.

The state of the US economy will have a significant bearing on what members of Congress will be willing to do in terms of tax extensions for the wealthy and accepting the draconian cuts in agency budgets wrought by the DOGE cabal. Predictions of recession will pressure Congress to maintain social safety net programs, which are a priority for the Democrats and many Republicans.

The states with the highest proportion of poor are generally red. In West Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, arguably the reddest states in the Union, around 30 percent of their populations are on Medicaid and the additional 18 to 25 percent on Medicare.

Ironically, red states are also those that have benefitted most from the IRA. The president has indicated disdain for all three major Biden-era climate-related programs – the Inflation Reduction, infrastructure and jobs, and CHIPS and Science Acts.

All three acts are responsible for billions of private and public investments. Moreover, they are the types of projects the president says he wants – US-based and shovel-ready.

Whether these programs can garner the support needed to keep them in the final budget package is unclear. Even if the bulk of the programs, including tax credits, are included in the legislation, there’s a significant question about the federal government’s ability to disperse the funds.

Elon Musk’s hack job on key departments, including EPA and the Departments of Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, leaves gaping holes in the agency offices normally responsible for contracting and program implementation, including rulemaking.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, “more than 3,500 employees — about a fifth of the department — are expected to leave in the near future, E&E News reported this week. In addition to those accepting resignation offers, 280 staffers who work in the US EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights are on the chopping block.”

The DOE’s Loan Programs Office is anticipated to lose half its staff. These and other personnel cuts are as likely to hamper Trump’s efforts to support fossil and nuclear energy as much as they will for renewables, efficiency, and battery storage. Love it or hate it, governments need a functioning bureaucracy to implement congressional and presidential directives.

The nearness of the US to its allowed debt ceiling is also complicating things for Trump and Hill Republicans. The ceiling is expected to be reached within the next several months. Once there, the nation can no longer deficit spend. For some on Capitol Hill, that's how it should be. For others, raising the ceiling is critical to passing Trump's agenda. Under any circumstances, it creates tensions within and between Republicans in both the House and Senate.

As Republicans have shown no interest in working with the Democrats and chosen the reconciliation process, this a GOP-only show — not unlike the IRA, which was a Democratic-only affair.

The attack on Biden’s climate-related legacy exceeds the budgeting process. With Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, a series of joint House and Senate resolutions disapproving a final proposed regulation under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) are likely to be enacted.

The CRA has rarely been used (20 times since its enactment in 1996). A CRA resolution can be passed by a simple majority vote in both chambers and cannot be filibustered in the Senate. It's hardly been used because it requires one-party control of both the Hill and the White House.

What will prove a complicating matter should the next president be a Democrat wanting to reinstate the rule is that once a rule is disapproved under the CRA, “a rule may not be issued in ‘substantially the same form’ as the disapproved rule unless a subsequent law specifically authorizes it. The CRA does not define what would constitute a rule that is "substantially the same" as a nullified rule.” the statute prohibits judicial review of any "determination, finding, action, or omission under" the CRA.

Currently, the following CRA bills have been enrolled and will be voted on over the next several weeks:

• H.J. Res. 87: A resolution to undo an EPA waiver that allows California to require manufacturers to seek to increase sales of zero-emission trucks.

• H.J. Res. 88: A bill overturning California's Clean Air Act waiver, allowing the state to boost the electric vehicle industry and ban gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

• H.J. Res. 89: A bill aimed at undoing a state's regulation implementing nitrogen-oxide-engine-emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.

• H.J. Res. 78: A bill that would remove longfin smelt from the endangered species list.

• H.J. Res. 60: The resolution would undo a rule prohibiting off-road vehicles and ATVs on 24 miles of park roads in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

Trump’s tariffs and "flood the zone" on every imaginable strategy are losing him support. People are worried that his chaotic actions will tank the economy into recession. On the 100^th day of his second presidency, Trump will be trying to spin voter attention away from the economy, emphasizing instead how he's cut government and dealing with immigration. It may not prove an easy spin to pull off.

That’s it for this edition of The View from Washington.

Image of US Capitol Dome courtesy of Wikimedia

Trump seems absolutely convinced that he has other nations — friends and foes — over the proverbial barrel when it comes to tariff negotiations. Notwithstanding the flawed nature of his assumptions and methodologies, the tit-for-tat tariffs he keeps announcing (delaying and starting again) have seemingly brought other nations to the bargaining table. However, it doesn’t appear that any final agreements are in the offing.

Where Trump sees himself as a crack negotiator, leaders of other nations — particularly America’s closest allies — see him much the same way a New York shopkeeper might see a Mafioso trying to sell them “protection.” The president’s treatment of universities and law firms is in much the same vein.

Trump’s ham-handed thuggery shouldn’t be confused with skill. With the full weight of the federal government behind him, he’s in the driver’s seat. Even in the past, his “successful negotiations” generally happened because he beat down small business people with threats of ruining them, whether by not paying or taking them to court.

Being chased by the Trump administration and his MAGA-minded supporters in and out of Congress is hardly a walk in the park. Even the normally stoic Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski (R) has expressed fear.

“We are all afraid. We are in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here before.

And I’ll tell ya, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voicebecause retaliation is real. And that’s not right.”

· Senator Lisa Murkowski

Trump seems to have built his empire through the bankruptcy court. He’s long understood that the refusal to pay is a robust negotiating scheme. Not much has changed with how he does business — in a most Trump-centric manner.

As part of tariff negotiations, Trump is looking to increase US oil and gas (LNG) exports. Based on his recent promises and executive order, he’s also committed to bringing back the coal industry — despite its higher economic and environmental costs compared to gas and renewables (in most cases).

Something that the administration seems unwilling to accept is that renewables contributed almost 90 percent of new electrical power in 2024 — with solar being the primary source. Trump forces continue to imply that solar, wind, geothermal, and battery storage are Rube Goldberg inventions rather than as increasingly used and economically competitive power sources.

These technologies are major contributors to reliable electric service in the US and around the world. There are hundreds of billions of dollars being invested. Renewables provided thirty percent of Texas’ 2023 electrical needs. The reality is much different than the Lone Star State’s governor, attorney general, and Republican legislative leaders would have you believe.

If ever one doubted the economic and security implications of reliance on foreign energy sources, those doubts have been put to rest in the case of Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.

I continue to be amazed that throughout the entirety of Putin’s war on Ukraine, supplies of Russian oil and gas are being purchased by its enemies. I can’t imagine that the US or the UK would have bought steel from Hitler during WWII.

Economic, legal, and moral reasons exist for not trading with an enemy. Ukraine’s allies have been funding both the aggrieved and the aggressor since Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Yet, they have to have it. It’s the same as any pusher-junkie relationship.

Backed against the wall and ill-prepared for a cutoff in oil and gas supplies, Ukrainian allies are continuing to pay for both sides of the war. The situation is both absurd and understandable.

“Other countries will buy LNG from the US if they want to curry my favorand realize a reduction in the tariffs I’m charging them.”

Rather than a good faith negotiation between partners, Trump’s proffered price of $350 billion is more like an initial tithe. It’s at odds with what the European Union has proposed.

“We have offered zero-for-zero tariffs for industrial goods as we have successfully done with many other trading partners. Because Europe is always ready for a good deal.”

EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič has gone a step further, suggesting that the zero-for-zero deal could cover cars and all other industrial goods, such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, rubber, and plastic machinery.

Trump views things through a real estate agent’s eyes. For him, everything is transactional, which means everything is for sale. The only thing the parties need to decide is at what price. Being transactional by nature and teaching, the reality for Trump is binary — something much of MAGA America seems also to suffer from.

A two-dimensional president in a multi-dimensional world is likely to misjudge things.

It’s telling that Trump doesn’t seem to understand why Greenlanders aren’t amenable to selling their country or why Gazans wouldn’t want their land made into a Trump-branded resort — or why EU leaders would prefer not to be beholden to Trump’s America.

When it comes to others buying US LNG, Trump’s gaseous notions have several flaws. There’s the question of alternatives. Although the US is already the world’s largest LNG exporter, it’s not the only supplier. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), “the United States exported 11.9 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d).”

Also, according to EIA, “Australia and Qatar — the world’s two next-largest LNG exporters — have remained relatively stable over the last five years (2020–24); their exports have ranged from 10.2 Bcf/d to 10.7 Bcf/d” Russia and Malaysia are the fourth- and fifth-largest LNG exporters.

Europe’s LNG demand fell by 19 percent in 2024. Demand for US supplies dropped by nearly 18 percent. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), the decline was a combination of more renewables and demand reduction, including through increased efficiency. The possibility that Trump’s trade war will lead to a global economic slowdown — if not outright recession — will further dampen demand.

Interestingly, EU imports of LNG sourced from Russia increased by 18 percent. According to the Institute, France, Spain, and Belgium sourced the most.

In addition to other suppliers, the EU, Japan, and other nations, including the US, are deploying alternate technologies — especially solar, wind, and batteries. Although not a major purchaser, China has already canceled its orders for American LNG, preferring to get it from Russia.

Other national leaders — whether on the right or left — include renewables in their “all of the above” energy strategies. Although supporting fossil fuels and clean alternatives appears contradictory, it reflects the march towards more secure and less environmentally hazardous energy supplies. For most of the non-MAGA world, the desire is for a sustainable environment powered by clean energy sources.

Trump’s refusal to recognize the role of renewables is America’s loss — both environmentally and economically. Why the president and the MAGA-minded are so willing to let others lead the inevitable energy transition and reap its profits is for Trump to answer.

According to Ira Joseph, an analyst with Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy: “European countries do not want to sign long-term LNG contracts. There is now political risk associated with signing long-term deals with the US that maybe we didn’t have before.”

Joseph isn’t the only analyst questioning the willingness of EU countries to trade the US for Russia, given the growing mistrust of America’s friendship. Arne Lohman, head of research at Denmark’s Global Risk Management, states clearly that:

“We are going from one problematic dependency — on Russian pipeline gas — to another, on US LNG.”

Trump’s recent actions have called into question the meaning of friendship and trust. Governments and economies need both to flourish.

Much like the relationship between an addict and supplier, the only way out is ending the dependence. Real energy security comes with reducing reliance on foreign fossil fuels through efficiency, solar, wind, ground source heat pumps, and etc., which are available to all countries.

Image credit: by Chris LeBoutillier on Unsplash

Politics is context; in today's context, Washington is the last place climate activists should be showing up to plead their case. There's little to be gained by a direct assault on the GOP members of Congress. And Democrats, for the most part, are already fighting to keep the Trump administration from rolling US environmental policy back to the 1950s.

With few exceptions, Republicans on Capitol Hill are unwilling to challenge President Trump. What he says goes, and he says anything climate-related is "woke." Woke is simply a shorthand label for the "Them" to Trump's "We." More accurately, it's "Everyone else" to Trump's "Me."

Trump’s I-centric policies are proving unsettling on a global scale and across wide political divides. Even the most sycophantic senators like Ted Cruz (R-TX) are nervous about Trump's tariffs and the great possibility that they'll trigger a worldwide recession – without sparing the US. Cruz's concerns, and even those of Elon Musk (formerly known as the Co-President), do not seem to convince Trump that his policies are proving harmful on a global scale.

Trump not only works against the dreaded woke, but his emotion-based policies often work against his own stated goals and the interests of much of the MAGA base. Over 70 percent of rural Americans voted for the president in all three elections.

USAID buys (bought) about $2 billion in US agricultural projects a year. Musk's DOGE pack castrated those programs. According to DJ Rhinehart:

Trump is targeting IRA funding that connects rural communities to the internet and appears willing to sacrifice the livelihood of farmers by killing the international food programs of USAID and making them the targets of tariff retaliation by China and other global markets. Farmers are just now getting over the damage caused by Trump's 2018 Chinese tariffs.

Farmers aren't Trump's only friends suffering from his ill-thought policies. Here’s what an energy expert at the Atlantic Council think tank believes of Trump’s tariffs:

The tit-for-tat trade wars Trump is causing are nearly as troubling to his favored fossil fuel industry as it is to farmers and consumers. An oil industry expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Clayton Seigle, concludes: “Even though the oil companies probably got the best-case scenario in terms of energy commodities, steel is probably one of the biggest input costs for oil and gas production.”

Trump’s steel tariffs aren’t the only problem for the fossil fuel industry. Trump's recent tariffs and their impact on other countries, including their response, disrupt the supply chains needed to expand and strengthen the nation's power grid(s). The energy demands of data centers and cryptocurrencies are enormous. Bitcoin's electric consumption is comparable to Poland's.

Whether powered by fossil fuels or sustainable energy sources like solar and wind, the grid needs materials like transformers largely brought in from overseas. The tariffs and other Trump policies will raise the cost of electricity to consumers and delay needed additions and improvements.

The president's policies often conflict with each other. Battery manufacturing in red states is an example of onshoring and an industry critical to the utility and transportation sectors. Yet, Trump sees no incoherency in scrapping the IRA's programs and causing investments in US manufacturing and auto industry jobs.

Notwithstanding the UAW’s support of the tariffs, the industry is going to take a significant hit because of the inflationary pressures they place on foreign and domestic vehicles. Trump’s efforts to halt the buildout of the EV infrastructure are also in opposition to the strength and competitiveness of the US auto industry. Red flag warnings on the recessionary nature of Trump’s policies are not lost on Republican voters.

Senator Cruz’s concerns over the tariffs are actually about the 2026 election. He worries that the economic disruption and likely inflation will result in a Republican “bloodbath.”

Cruz is hardly the only Republican worried about 2026. However, where Cruz worries about voters, others on Capitol Hill worry more about what Trump might do to them -- should they deign to disagree.

With few exceptions, e.g., Senators Murkowski (R-AK) and Collins (R-ME), Republican fear of the president trumps most anything the climate community would have to say to them. Democrats are in too few numbers to prevail without Republican support – albeit fewer than a half-dozen votes in either chamber are all that’s needed if the Democrats stay unified.

The widespread impact of Trump’s incoherent and often conflicting policies is proving as harmful to much of his base as it is to the “opposition.” As unsettling as his policies are, they offer the climate communities an opportunity to take their message directly to Republican voters.

Trump has made everything about the economy. It’s what won him the election. Live by the economy, die by the economy has been at the center of every presidential election since before the start of the century. It’s the theme on which climate activists need to focus their arguments in support of environmental sustainability. However, those arguments need to be “de-woked” if they are to succeed.

With few exceptions, e.g., Senators Murkowski (R-AK) and Collins (R-ME), Republican fear of the president trumps most anything the climate community would have to say to them. Democrats are in too few numbers to prevail without Republican support – albeit fewer than a half-dozen votes in either chamber are all that’s needed if the Democrats stay unified.

Rather than directly appealing to Capitol Hill Republicans and the White House, environmental activists need to go through Republican voters – asking them to carry the message to their senators and representatives. A successful approach to the MAGA-minded requires casting arguments in populist terms – ENVIRONMENT IS THE ECONOMY – leaving for another day discussions on other climate-related issues.

In fact, I’d recommend not using the words “climate change” at all. Trump understands that the Arctic’s melting glaciers are opening sea lanes suited to Russian and Chinese submarines. He attributes it to the weather. So, talk about the weather and how the rising temperatures are impacting it.

The next few months in Congress will be about GOP efforts to pass the president’s “one big beautiful” bill enacting his America First Agenda. Many – if not all – of those debates about the final bill will be behind closed doors. Democrats need not apply.

In those closed-door discussions, the major decisions on things like clean energy tax credits and continued availability of IRA funds for the intended purpose will take place. If Republican senators and representatives don’t hear about the importance of these to Republican voters, what chance is there of their escaping the woke reaper?

My advice? Allow Trump's incoherency to speak for itself. Stay away from ad hominem and philosophical arguments.

Lead image courtesy of Pixabay

To describe Washington, DC, as anything other than a circus would be to do it an injustice. Mind you, it’s not just any circus. It’s a two-ring Roman Circus with President Trump as its master.

For those unfamiliar with the phrase, a Roman Circus is one in which leaders keep their populace occupied with shiny things, while they do the business of government unmolested by the masses. Unsurprisingly, it’s usually a nefarious business, and the diversion is designed to keep the masses from revolting by giving them “bread and circuses” (panem et circenses). The theory is attributed to the Roman poet Juvenal.

In Trumpworld, it’s not so much bread that the ringmaster offers as red meat to his most ardent MAGA supporters and bizarre claims on other people’s countries and trade wars with our closest allies to distract his detractors. In the meantime, Congress is working to keep the government open and the president happy.

In mid-March, a Republican-only Congress passed a Continuing Resolution keeping the government open for the rest of the current fiscal year (September 30, 2025). The passage was considered a significant victory for House Speaker Johnson (R-LA) and the White House. Johnson managed to get all but one of the House Republicans to support it. It was the only vote he could afford to lose without with such thin a majority. However, Johnson will find it more difficult to keep his members in line in the coming months.

It almost came down to the wire in the Senate. Minority Leader Schumer (D-NY) announced a couple of days before the deadline that he was voting for the House bill – unchanged. It meant the Democrats weren’t going to filibuster the bill in return for some concessions – any concessions.

Schumer had his reasons. However, the Democrats on and off Capitol Hill are experiencing significant blowback for going along with a bill that cut programs and services to lower-income Americans and multiple other priorities like climate-related programs and policies.

Congress has just been back a few days from its week-long break. The House and Senate continue to have different visions of how to pass the president's America First Agenda through a process that doesn’t permit a filibuster by the minority party. Significant differences exist between the majorities in both chambers regarding what should be in the bill or bills and in what order.

Until the Republicans can figure out what they’re doing, most things on the Hill are performative and about messaging. The Democrats still seem to be searching for the messaging mojo. There are clear divisions within the party between moderates and progressives.

Schumer’s capitulation has led to calls for him to step down from his Senate leadership position. Pressure for a changing of the guards was given a boost by the substantial adverse reaction to the Dems not even making an effort to get something out of the CR negotiations. The speaker didn't even ask the Ds to engage.

Senator Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) used the break to go out on their “On Fighting the Oligarchy Tour.” Although there’s debate in the Democratic ranks that “oligarchy” may not be the buzzword to convince voters, there’s no arguing the crowd sizes they encountered. They’re getting huge turnouts – in some cases, more than ever in their careers, e.g., 34K in Denver.

Democrats aren’t the only voters who are concerned with Trump’s onslaught of executive orders and the ways in which they’re being carried out. Republicans in Congress are being warned NOT to hold town hall meetings because of the anger, concern, and confusion over what’s going on in Capital City.

New executive orders are being issued and challenged in court almost daily. There are already well over 100 lawsuits against the administration for everything from re-writing the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution to summarily dismantling agencies and budgets over which the legislative branch normally has control.

A big question now is whether the administration will comply with judicial orders. Trump lost 90 percent of the legal challenges in his first administration. It appears that Trump 2.0 is off to an even worse start – notwithstanding the willingness of the Department of Justice to do his bidding. Every time a decision goes against the administration, Trump, Co-president Musk, and others cry “impeachment!”

It's gotten so bad that Chief Justice Roberts took to social media to suggest impeachment is not the remedy when you don’t agree with a ruling. Trump is also making moves against private law firms for representing challengers to his policies and actions. (See here for a more detailed discussion.)

Without a plan and agreement within the Republican conferences in both chambers, much of what will be going on in Congress is going to be white noise. However, the administration has declared an administrative war on Biden's climate-related legacy and US environmental policies back to Nixon's presidency.

Among the environmental targets in Trump’s sights are:

· Clean Power Plan 2.0: The rules, finalized by the Biden EPA, regulated existing coal-fired and new natural gas-fired power plants operating past 2039 and required them to control around 90% of their carbon pollution.

· Mercury and Air Toxic Standards: These rules, finalized under the Biden administration, strengthened emission standards for toxic metals by 67% and finalized a 70% reduction of mercury emissions for power plants.

· The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: This requires large greenhouse gas emission sources, fuel and gas suppliers, and other facilities to report their emissions of greenhouse gas emissions released in the production, transportation, and burning of fuels.

· EPA Vehicle Emission Standards: Under the Biden administration, the EPA finalized new emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles for model year 2027 to reduce air pollution.

· The Good Neighbor Plan: Finalized by the Biden EPA, this regulation looked to reduce ozone-forming emissions from power plants and similar facilities that would drift into other states.

· 2009 Endangerment Finding: It found that six greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) generated by human activity seen in the atmosphere threaten the public's health and welfare, allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

· EPA ALSO LOOKS TO REVISE WOTUS: The EPA will look to redefine “Waters of the United States,” a regulation that clarifies which bodies of water are subjected to federal oversight to comply with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v EPA.

(Source: Washington Examiner, Daily on Energy 3/11/2025)

There’s a long way to go before anything Trump 2.0 does is final. There are multiple lawsuits already being followed and prepared – especially by Democratic state attorneys general – challenging both the administration’s proposed actions and the process used to get there, e.g., the Administrative Procedures Act.

That’s it for this edition of The View from Washington.

Lead image: Photo by Becky Phan on Unsplash

Vengeance is mine, sayeth Donald J Trump! And, it is so!

If there were ever doubts about the power of the presidency, they’ve been settled by the election of Donald J Trump as the 47^th president of the US. It is truly astonishing what Trump has wrought in the first 80 days of his second administration – although “reign” might be a more appropriate word. At least, he would like to think so.

In less than 100 days, Trump’s managed to divide the “free world” against itself, discriminately rip apart pieces of the federal government that offend him, shift the budgets of NATO nations from butter to guns, lay claim to countries that don’t belong to him – asking them to give up their sovereignty (or else).

Wait, it's not the whole story. The US is now engaged in tariff wars with our closest allies, causing the markets to drop as a warning of a possible recession and for no other reason than to please the president.

Whims are not the only "promises made, promises kept" of the 47^th president – or as he likes to think – in the reign of Donald the First. I don’t doubt that he's agreed to become part of the British Commonwealth, believing he can become the next – dare I say – king of England. (Charles, watch your backside.)

Chaos is the currency of this administration – hoping that once they restore order, people will forget who created the problems in the first place. It’s a tried-and-true formula. It’s especially true when you have command of the military, a willing and dysfunctional legislature, and control of the courts.

Trump has managed two of those three truths in less than 100 days. Now, his gambit is to take over the courts – but not just the courts. He's making moves on the legal profession, hoping to prevent defendants from finding legal representation. As well, he and his cabal are looking to remove and replace judges whose decisions don't comport with Trump's opinion of himself.

Following Judge Boasberg’s order to stop deportations under the 200-year-old Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department would consider taking action against Boasberg.

Border Czar Tom Homan, who's yet to be confirmed, said: I don’t care what judges think. Trump's call to impeach Judge Boasberg was ominous enough to cause Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roberts to question the president’s words.

Secretary of Defense Hegseth, whose qualifications for the position include being a FOX News contributor and unabashed Trump loyalist, ordered the separation of all transgender military personnel from the services. The reason was his unfounded opinion that only heterosexuals are fit to defend the nation and democracy. He believes the same of LGBTQ+ members of the military.

As often happens, a federal judge had a different opinion of the situation. According to US District Court Judge Ana Reye:

Judge Reye’s words perfectly describe the forces driving the second Trump administration during its first 100 days. The Trump whirlwind is a political blitzkrieg against friends and foes alike.

The chaos and frenzy of these first days of the Trump 2.0 have seemingly sucked the air out of the congressional Democrats and traditional conservative Republicans. Appeasement, rather than opposition, is the watchword of these early days. Members of Congress are hardly alone in their reaction. Universities, corporations, and the leaders of other nations have followed suit.

It’s not hard to understand how the president and his minions are accomplishing their objectives. It’s through extortion and fear. The might of the US is not to be trifled with when Donald Trump’s in charge.

Of all the many threats to the democratic order, I see Trump's executive orders directed at private sector law firms and the capitulation of one of the most largest law offices in the world – Paul, Weiss – as perhaps the most ominous.

As reported, Trump “issued an executive order that suspended the firm's lawyers from holding security clearances, terminated any of its federal government contracts, and prevented its employees from entering federal government buildings on national security grounds.”

The firm capitulated rather than fight the order, promising to provide the White House with $40 million in pro bono legal services on issues dear to the president.

Trump’s attack on Paul, Weiss came just days after a federal judge in Washington “ruled that the nearly identical order against Perkins Coie was likely unconstitutional and issued a temporary restraining order blocking it from taking effect.”

Following his victory over Paul, Weiss, the president has gotten more aggressive in his efforts to undermine the judicial system. In a recent executive order, Trump stated:

It’s not surprising Trump is trying to limit the involvement of the courts in his business. However, impeachment of judges is a real long shot. Even if the House voted to impeach, the Senate would be very unlikely to agree.

A second, and perhaps the better plan, is to go after the lawyers. He's doing it by giving the attorney general license to make an example of somebodies. Who defines what's frivolous and when?

It’s the US Attorney General chosen for her loyalty to the president – some say rather than the US Constitution — that’s who. There's nothing subtle in the message or the means.

According to the New York Post, the Trump administration already faces over 100 lawsuits. Every time a new executive is issued, lawyers start lining up at the courthouse doors.

Ask yourselves this. If one of the largest, wealthiest, and best politically connected firms, with some of the brightest lawyers, couldn't withstand the attack, what chance do average lawyers representing progressive causes have? It's a question whose answer involves careful thought and preparation – ahead of time.

If all of this, by which I mean Trump 2.0, weren’t chilling enough for climate and other progressive causes weren’t enough, there’s the recent decision by a North Dakota jury that Greenpeace must pay $666 million and change “to a pipeline company in connection with protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline.”

The company, Energy Transfer, claimed defamation of character, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy, and other acts. (I wonder if the jury knew the biblical significance of the number 666?) The decision in the Greenpeace case is going to encourage fossil fuel companies to file similar suits in other states.

The moral of this story is not to stop being activists. There's already enough passivity on Capitol Hill. The message is straightforward — be careful because the administration could come after you from many directions. So, be prepared.

Strategize ahead of time about your vulnerabilities and do something about them. If you're hiring attorneys, consider how vulnerable they might be to Trumpian pressures.

Two Republican administrations have attacked me, so I speak from experience. And I learned two things from my encounters. First, being ultimately vindicated can be both expensive and of little consolation.

Second, and far more critical today, appeasing a bully only encourages the bully. You have to stand up to them. You might lose, but it's the only chance of winning.

Lead image credit:By Fra Angelico - The Yorck Project (2002) 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei (DVD-ROM), distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH. ISBN: 3936122202., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=147525

Of all the concerning things – and there have been many – reported during the first 75 (or so) days of Trump’s triumphal return to Washington, the following paragraph struck my constitutional nerve. If this were a movie, here’s the scene where ominous music plays in the background – dah, dum, duM, dUM, DUM!!

However, this is not a movie, and the frightening reality is that President Trump is beginning to detain and prosecute people for what they think and their conformity to what he thinks. Today, it's about demonstrating against Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people; tomorrow, it could be for thinking environmental regulation is a proper function of government.

The chill-inducing paragraph was reported in the Guardian:

"A White House official told the Free Press that Khalil, who was arrested without charge, poses a ‘threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States’ and the ‘allegation here is not that he was breaking the law.'" (Emphasis added)

The Khalil involved is Mahmoud Khalil. A former Columbia University student who grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria served as a lead negotiator for the Gaza solidarity encampment at the university last year, mediating between protesters and administrators. Khalil is married to a US citizen and holds a green card, making him a legal permanent resident entitled to the protections of the US Constitution, one of which is the right to counsel.

As told by Amy Goodman: “The government’s charging document says the Secretary of State Marco Rubio has determined that Khalil’s presence or activities in the United States would have, quote, ‘serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.’” (Emphasis added)

The actual foreign policy consequences have neither been explained nor hinted at (from what I can glean from the reports). Neither has Rubio offered any evidence that Khalil is pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, or even anti-American.

The secretary is quick – perhaps too quick – to point out that the case is not about free speech. According to Rubio:

On the contrary, Khalil has a right to be here. He's followed the rules and received a green card.

The State Department is accusing Khalil of having lied on his visa about his intent when he came into the country. The government is claiming he knew he was a Palestinian activist and should have disclosed that.

Mr. Khalil is being punished for a presumed intention. Presumed because there’s no evidence to support the government’s conclusion he’s affiliated in any way with Hamas. Based on the public accountings, the most Khalil seems guilty of is trespassing on university property.

Mr. Khalil is not said to be in contact with or under the control of a terrorist organization. Neither has he been charged with offering material support to any subversive group. Beyond expressing his opposition, e.g., by holding a banner and sitting in a university building as a protest, to Israel’s reducing Gaza and the West Bank to dust, how has anything Khalil done amounted to having “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States?”

A monthly public opinion survey by the Israel Democracy Institute’s Israeli Voice Index found that 48 percent of Israelis believe Netanyahu should resign immediately, and 24.5 percent believe he should step down following the end of the war in Gaza.

Khalil is a trial case by the Trump administration to test the bounds of both the Constitution and the presidency. The former Columbia student is being detained and deported under an 18^th-century law giving a president extraordinary power to repel a foreign invasion. The Alien Enemies Act was never intended for mass deportations. It has only been used three times since its enactment. It was the basis for the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII.

Although the law was upheld in 1944, the decision is not considered good law. Congress acknowledged the injustice of the internment camps in the passage of the Civil Liberties Act in 1988.

Trump’s basing mass deportations on AEA is not the only matter being tested in the early cases. The president is also testing whether or not he can ignore (at least certain) judicial decisions.

A federal judge has recently ruled that the use of the act to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was improper. As reported by Axios, two senior administration officials said:

The administration believes that US District Judge James Boasberg exceeded his authority in stopping the deportations. Judge Boasberg's order included a demand that any planes in the air be returned to the US. The administration says it didn't defy the order because the aircraft were over international waters. It also says that the judge's decision had no basis in law – although that's for the courts to decide.

Climate activists should not ignore Khalil's case. Trump's return to Washington is a vengeful one. He’s endeavoring to punish anyone in government or out involved in any way with the multiple lawsuits he faced during his four-year leave of absence from the White House.

As president, he’s gone so far as to write an executive order against private law firms. In one order Trump writes:

The law firms Trump targets have a connection to anyone who's opposed him in the past. He's even targeted the law firm defending former Department of Justice (DOJ) special prosecutor Jack Smith, who Attorney General Garland appointed to investigate Trump's various actions, e.g., retaining classified materials.

A president going after a private law firm is unheard of in the US. Legal experts are warning that such tactics are a clear and present danger to people attempting to obtain representation. My constitutional nerve wasn’t the only one shivering over Trump’s executive actions.

Once again, the administration seemed to ignore a judge’s decision. Days after being told by a judge that the attack on a law firm “appeared to violate the Constitution," Trump issued a similar memo on another law firm (bringing the total separate attacks to three).

Climate activists need to consider the possibility that Trump and his cabal will continue to find ways to prosecute “enemies” of the state – including climate advocates. It’s not as far-fetched as you may imagine.

Nearly every time he mentions climate science or references solar and wind, he speaks of them not as proven reliable and economically competitive but as the fancies of the far-left socialists and crooked Joe Biden. He uses clean energy and climate as a meme for what ails the nation throughout his four-year campaign to regain the White House. Trump’s energy emergency declaration even leaves out any mention of solar and wind.

The Musk-led "reform" of government has included decimating a critical number of science – especially climate-related – programs. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has suffered the loss of almost 2,000 employees and significant budget cuts. NOAA “monitors the oceans, the atmosphere where storms roam and space, and puts out hundreds of “products” daily. Those products generally save lives and money, experts say.” The US Weather Service is even on the chopping block.

The administration is doing more than just erasing programs and positions. It's wiping references to climate change from federal websites and publications. According to Grist, the administration began:

Trump is coming to define everything by its conformity to his priorities and agenda. People shouldn’t be fooled by the fact that some of the extra-judicial deportations likely included members of the violent Tren de Argua gang. However, even violent criminals are entitled to due process.

It starts with "some bad hombres," as Trump likes to say. But where does it end? What's to stop Trump from saying that under a national energy emergency, anyone who demonstrates in front of a federal building is guilty of an un-American activity in a time of danger? The courts?

I’m not suggesting that climate activists should be passive. My message is to be careful.

Image credit: American School of Asuncion Classroom/Author - Jorgecardonapy / Public Domainc

Actually, the brutish are already here and in control of the executive branch of a rapidly dwindling federal government. Note carefully that Congress, the federal government, we the people, and possibly the judiciary are the ones being dwindled by an aspirational authoritarian president. The indiscriminate hacking apart of federal agencies and programs duly passed by Congress violates the spirit and likely a good many letters of the US Constitution.

The president and his cabal (clearly) seem to think that Trump 2.0 is a "genital-grabbing-shooting-anyone-from-the middle-of 5^th-Avenue" moment all rolled into one. Believing these kinds of opportunities don’t come often, the MAGA-minded intend to take full advantage.

They’re even going global. How long they’ll be able to get away with their brand of thuggery is anyone’s guess.

The Oval Office scene involving Ukraine President Zelenskyy staged by Trump and JD Vance was a reprehensible way to treat an ally – especially since it’s his country being pounded into the ground by the aggressor Russia. It’s sad that only one Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), had the character and integrity to call the Oval Office treatment of the Ukrainian president what it was – sickening.

It’s important not to be totally taken in by what the co-presidents say they’ve done – “done” as in actually accomplished. Just because Trump signs an order or sends a message via Truth Social or X doesn’t mean a promise is kept. Nearly everything Trump has done through the daily disgorging of directives is being challenged in court by and on behalf of blue states and cities, as well as by tens of thousands of individuals and thousands of organizations who’ve been suddenly turned out by the dynamic duo – without as much as a fare thee well.

As reported by POLITICO and others, Trump announced at a second cabinet meeting that the decision of who to keep and fire is back in the hands of agency heads. The announcement is likely the result of internal pressure from top appointees who are finding it impossible to manage their own departments.

Experience strongly suggests that the way Musk has gone about reform will create massive inefficiencies because DOGE fired or chased out many of the only people who knew how to get things done. The batch firings, e.g., all employees still in their mandatory year or two probation period, swept away key links in the administrative chain.

Trump 2.0 should have learned from Trump 1.0 that you need competent bureaucrats to implement your policies. Just because you think someone was hired because of their skin color over a white person doesn’t mean they’re not the best one for the job or that their mission isn’t critical. These types of self-crippling mistakes, e.g., firing nuclear inspectors because they were still on probation, means there will be a lot of confusion and finger-pointing in Washington over the entirety of Trump’s second term. They would have done well to follow an old carpenter’s maxim – measure twice, cut once.

The busiest people in the new administration are going to be the lawyers defending flawed executive orders and failures to follow the Administrative Procedures Act.

Capitol Hill Republicans seem to have any inclination to temper either Trump's or his co-president Elon Musk’s enthusiasm for chainsawing their way through America’s government. In addition to being guilty of a poor understanding of how governments are required to work, the Trump 2.0 administration is shot through with possible conflicts of interest that will profit the individual as they weaken the belief in government.

Trump’s cabinet, along with the co-president, are still involved in companies that stand to benefit from agency decisions.

Musk’s possible conflicts are only the most obvious. For example, Musk is trying to convince Commerce Secretary Lutnick to ditch the Biden administration’s “Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program.”

The program is intended to provide under-served and rural areas with internet access. The $42.5 billion effort was passed as part of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) – one of the three major climate-related laws passed by Congress during the Biden presidency.

Without getting deep into the weeds of the situation, the conflict is that the alternative to the fiber optic option chosen by the Biden administration (BEAD) – for good reasons – is Musk’s Starlink (non-fiber) system. It was also discovered that there was an order for armored Tesla trucks to the tune of $400 million, which the administration now says it (maybe) won’t fulfill.

Ukraine’s Starlink connection – so critical to the country's resistance to Russian aggression – has been threatened by Musk on multiple occasions.

It's wise to remember that Musk is attempting to boost far-right European parties, e.g., AfD, with historic ties to Nazism.

Musk is hardly the only member of Trump 2.0 who might not pass a conflict-of-interest test. The administration's firing of all of the agency inspectors general or any position that might have oversight, e.g., an agency's general counsel or whistle-blower protectors, whose loyalty to Trump could be questioned, makes it appear as if the Trump 2.0 crew was up to something – or soon will be. (Just sayin’)

Trump 2.0, unlike any Republican administration since Richard Nixon, is even against high-risk, long-term research. It’s always been the fallback position of Republican administrations to show they weren’t total troglodytes – especially when it came to new energy technologies.

Although Trump 2.0 has shown a particular dislike for climate-related science, it is attacking most federally-funded scientific research. The National Institutes of Health have suffered devastating reductions in workforce and programming funds.

The disjointing of federal agencies and programs will be made worse – at least not improved – by the rush to be put back into the federal budget. In these situations, the piecemeal return of things is based on politics – whoever can be most effective in their lobbying strategies.

This kind of trial by ordeal further skews federal programming away from a balanced approach to governance.

Trump is more motivated by revenge than any deliberate and rational reform of the federal government. Lawyers assigned any duties as part of the investigation into Trump's dealings as president and private citizen have been purged – no matter that they were only doing the assigned tasks.

Everything is being cast in terms of consistency with “the policies and positions of the president," whatever they may be. Anyone who disagrees is swarmed on by the MAGA-minded, called a woke crazy socialist, virtually tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

Presidents are elected because of their proposed agendas. However, their obligation also involves carrying out the directives of a duly elected Congress as written into legislation and those enumerated in the US Constitution. Contrary to Trumpian governance theory, presidential powers are far from absolute.

The rudeness and arrogance of Trump’s administration is quite astonishing. Asked by a reporter why Trump decided to go with tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, press secretary Karoline Leavitt vehemently told the journalist it was really none of his business and being disrespectful.

Although illegal fentanyl use is a problem in the US, it’s not as easy to stop as Trump seems to imagine. According to the Congressional Research Service, “fentanyl’s potency enables TCOs [traffickers] to meet US demand with a relatively small amount of product (measured in terms of weight), raising challenges for interdictions.”

The amount of chemicals coming over the Canadian border is infinitesimal. Moreover, everything in the fentanyl supply chain, e.g., chemical components and pill-making machines, isn’t illegal to buy or sell.

The point, of course, is that fentanyl is just the excuse that Trump has chosen to use to do what he intends to do anyway. The belligerence of nearly the entire administration, e.g., Vance to Zelenskyy, may be getting them compliance and capitulation today, but things have a way of changing.

The less Trump intends to support European allies in peace and in war, the less reason these countries are going to have to buy all of the oil he hopes the US is willing to pump. The more federal policy turns against electric vehicles and clean energy technologies, the slower the uptake of rare earth minerals Trump hopes to mine -- whether from Greenland’s shores or Ukraine’s mountains.

It’s not always outside forces who bring down a failed leader. Often as not, it’s their hubris. It’s something of which this administration has an abundance. Messrs. Trump and Musk would know this if they valued history as much as themselves.

As a final note, libs aren’t the only one concerned about Trump and his administration’s brutishness particularly to friends and allies. Hal Brands, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute believes:

The brutish are here and it’s anyone’s guess if the US will be able to maintain the efficient operation of the federal government and have any true friends left in the international community during their reign.

Image credit: Grant Wood, "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere", huile sur isorel, 1931. (Wikimedia)

The tectonic truth is that Donald Trump and Elon Musk could stop their chainsaw rampage through the federal government, foreign alliances, and the US Constitution immediately, and it would take years to undo the cumulative damage they’ve already wrought to democracy, the federal government, and the reputation of the US as a reliable ally.

Then, there is the human cost. Lives are being cut short and made infinitely worse by the precipitous actions of the presidential duo and its administrative and congressional enablers.

With no warning, overseas aid recipients have been suddenly and cruelly denied food and medicines critical to even the meanest existence. With little or no warning, hundreds of thousands of federal workers are being let go and kicked on their way out the door – in the ovewhelming majority of cases, for having done what was asked of them.

Promises made, promises kept – Messrs. President?

With no warning, billions of dollars of “shovel-ready” Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) investments and infrastructure projects under the IIJA (Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act) have been stopped dead in their tracks. They are now mired in the uncertainties of today’s culture wars – risking the hundreds of billions of public and private investments already committed to new power and manufacturing projects, bridges, highways, other parts of the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, and the tens of thousands of new jobs that would be added to the economy by their completion.

Promises made, promises kept – Messrs. President?

Judging from Trump and company’s actions, it’s clear that for (presumably) thoughtful people, Trump's anguine advisors and Elon’s young Muskovites have remarkably little understanding of the interconnectedness of the world around them.

Consider artist Georges Seurat’s painting A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. The method of painting employed by the artist is called pointillism. As the name suggests, it involves a series of dots – jots of paint like the tiles of Byzantium that the mind’s eye blends into a coherent mosaic-like picture.

Hardly random, each dot of color is deliberately chosen and placed to the maximum effect – to shine light and cast shade. And, when the artist is done, each jot has joined another to create a painting of much greater import and stature.

Because of their haste and missed understanding, the Muskovites and Trumpsters are making mistakes. They are the kind of mistakes that kill people and threaten the security of the nation and the sustainability of the environment. The tag team of Don and Elon fired nuclear safety engineers and have canceled the lease on the only group monitoring and responding to leaks or other issues at the nation’s lone deep nuclear waste site in Carlsbad, New Mexico.

Promises made, promises kept – Messrs. President?

By algorithm, FAA personnel, who are or support air traffic controllers, have been fired. When there are daily reports of increasing plane crashes – including one on the White House’s doorstep – reductions in force seem ill-advised. They undermine the safety and welfare of the nation.

Muskovites and Trumpsters speak of truth, free speech, and their God-given and constitutional right not to wear a mask to limit the spread of contagion while banning books about a freckled little girl who doesn’t like being teased by classmates and limiting – in some cases criminalizing – a woman’s own healthcare decisions.

Trump has turned words like decency, equality, and integrity into accusations and grounds for dismissal from government positions – no matter how vital or well performed. He’s fired all the inspector generals at the agency and says his administration is the most transparent EVER!

Trump is crucifying America on an altar of lies, revenge, and the good opinion he has of himself and his buddy Elon – while the Trump-fearing members of a Republican Congress toady to him for fear of being primaried in their next election. Only one Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski (AK), has had the backbone and integrity to call Trump’s and Vance’s attack on Ukrainian President Zelensky what it was – sickening.

Trump’s deliberate disregard or intellectual incapacity to see the relationships among and between things guarantees systemic inefficiency, robbing the nation of the greater potential wealth possible when pieces work together as part of an integrated design.

Promises made, promises kept – Messrs. President?

Trump’s incessant talk about rare earth minerals and their value shows little understanding of their worth as part of 21^st-century energy technology. Unless the lump of lithium in your hand is put to some purpose, it’s just a rock.

How can Trump and his advisors fail to understand the value of lithium as a part of electric vehicles and large battery banks for standby electricity generated from solar and wind? Technologies, the commercial value of which he’s willing to cede to China and India.

Trump wants to sell the rare earth minerals but fails to grasp how and where they are used. More EVs, more batteries – what’s so hard to understand? But you have to be willing to look. Whatever else Musk is doing, it’s not increasing government efficiency or the value of the nation’s natural resources.

Promises made, promises kept, Messrs. President?

I would hardly call it good populist governance to fire nearly all of the staff of the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation responsible for administering more than $8 billion in programming to help people lower their energy bills – especially since Trump’s trade actions are likely to lead to higher energy costs for the average American.

Acting first and saying “oops” later is becoming a habit of the DOGE. According to Politico, “USAID has reinstated contracts for a Georgia company that makes peanut butter paste to keep malnourished children alive.” The CEO of the company that manufactures the product said he was “’thrilled’ to restart sending hundreds of thousands of boxes of the food aid that would have otherwise gone to waste.” Why not think more strategically in the first place?

And what of other programs – the type that bring money into the treasury, despite Trump believing that solar, wind and other clean energy alternatives are as feckless as many of his cabinet secretaries? The right’s culture warriors are fond of pointing to the failed company Solyndra as a poster child of the woke.

Promises made, promises kept, Messrs. President?

Indeed, the Solyndra deal didn't work out. However, the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office (LPO) has an enviable overall record when it comes to its support for clean energy projects. According to Representative Sean Casten (D-IL), the LPO has, to date, “made $34 billion of investments and collected nearly $5 billion in interest income ... the LPO has realized just 3% in losses but earned back five times that number just on the interest income from the remainder of the portfolio.” (Emphasis added)

No “greater good” can come out of the way Trump has allowed Musk and the DOGE pack to “reform” the federal government in hopes of improving its efficiency and effectiveness. As Dan Farber at Berkeley’s Legal Planet has written:

In Trump 1.0, someone always seemed to be around to temper Trump’s extreme desires. Someone able to get him to step back and see beyond his own point to the bigger picture. This time around, the cabinet is bare of possibilities.

The Muskovites are indeed at the gates, can the republic survive? In the end, it will take more than hope and Trump’s promises.

Image: Georges Seurat: A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte/Wikimedia Commons

The old bromide goes: If you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog. In today's Washington, the joke would be to buy a DOGE. Although more accurately, it would say, "If you want to buy a DOGE in DC, you must first buy a president.”

What’s the going price for a DOGE in Washington these days? Around $288 million, the amount Elon Musk gave to Trump's presidential campaign.

Like any new pet owner, Musk can’t stop talking about it and his training it to sniff out waste, fraud, and abuse within the executive branch of government. Listening to Musk, you'd think his pet had a discerning sniffer – able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Although an out-for-bloodhound born in the kennels of Mar-a-Lago, Musk’s DOGE isn't bred for discernment but deceit. Like its masters, it barks out lies and propaganda. DOGE claims it’s already saved taxpayers $55 billion. Yet, a review of the examples of savings posted on its online wall of receipts by New York Time reporters found the records riddled with accounting errors and little understanding of government contracting.

According to their review: “Some contracts the group claims credit for were double- or triple-counted. Another initially contained an error that inflated the totals by billions of dollars. In at least one instance, the group claimed an entire contract had been canceled when only part of the work had been halted.”

Other errors identified by Politico include contracts that haven’t been awarded, instances of listing the same contract multiple times, and agreements that seemingly haven’t been canceled, only stripped of offending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) language. In one case, the claim of $8 billion in savings was for an $8 million contract. As with many things Trump and Musk, errors and discrepancies were denied, and accusers vilified.

Government contracting isn’t the only thing DOGE has gotten wrong. As reported: “Three U.S. officials who spoke to The Associated Press said up to 350 employees at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) were abruptly laid off.” According to the AP, the job of some of those workers involved “reassembling warheads, one of the most sensitive jobs across the nuclear weapons enterprise, with the highest levels of clearance.”

Even in the case of the 350, the “official” Department of Energy position was that only “50 National Nuclear Security Administration staffers were let go, calling them ‘probationary employees’ who ‘held primarily administrative and clerical roles.’” It was demonstratively false.

A deputy division director at NNSA posted to LinkedIn that:

I doubt there’s anyone in Washington who could honestly say there aren’t problems with federal programming and a less-than-efficient bureaucracy. The problem with DOGE (and much of the intended actions of Trump’s newly elected agency leaders) is their lack of knowledge and discrimination in how they’re going about “reform.”

A perfect “tossing out babies with the bathwater” example is the wholesale firing of 220,000 government employees who haven’t finished their mandatory year (or two) probationary period – whether or not their work reviews were excellent or abysmal. Indiscriminate actions end up firing nuclear inspectors and will eventually be seen as massive government inefficiency. More to the point it will cost a lot in the long run to make things right.

The extra-government group headed by Musk does things by algorithm and keywords. It follows in the footsteps of Senate Republicans like Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz — the chair of the influential Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation – one of several Senate committees with power over energy and environmental programs.

The Texas senator, like the president, has a massive problem with DEI, arguing that many recent federal projects have been driven by “neo-Marxist class-warfare propaganda” and far-left ideologies.” To root out such programs, Republican Senate committee staff sought to identify National Science Foundation (NSF) projects that fit the senator's description. It surveyed 32,000 projects. (The committee report is titled “Division. Extremism. Ideology: How the Biden-Harris NSF Politicized Science”)

The staff used a method similar to what I use when initially reviewing massive pages of legislation for their impact on energy and environment programs – a keyword search. As reported by NOTUS, flag words included “gender,” “ethnicity” and “sexuality,” along with scores of associated terms — “female,” “women,” “interracial,” “heterosexual,” “LGBTQ,” as well as “Black,” “white,” “Hispanic,” or “Indigenous.”

Other key terms and phrases of the 699 used included diversity, equity, and inclusion. In the case of energy and the environment, justice, climate change, climate research, and clean energy made the list. Without offering a long list of problematic findings, here’s an example of what could happen.

As reported by NOTUS: “The largest grant on the list awarded more than $29 million to the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which contributes to the vast computing resources needed for artificial intelligence research.” It’s a key support to the AI work being done nationally by a lot of parties.

No one seems to know for sure why the project was flagged. According to the project director, a possible reason is: "One of the project's aims is to provide computing power to states that have historically received less funding for research and development — including many Republican-leaning states — as well as minority-serving institutions. The proposal also states that a lack of diversity contributes to ‘embedded biases and other systemic inequalities found in AI systems today.’” (Italics added)

Take these words out of context; the project appears to be driven by Cruz’ definition of a Woke-Marxist ideology. Having used keywords myself, I know they don't always catch things or the right things, and when you take words out of context, what you portray isn't always the truth – whether the mistake is honest or not. Critical research on biodiversity could easily be tainted by the charge of woke – whether the work is vital to the environment or not.

It’s not just projects using words like science and justice that are troubled by such sweeps. A children’s book by actress Julianne Moore about a little girl who hates her freckles has been targeted by the Trump administration for banning in 160 Pentagon schools. Why on the list? The review was ordered to root out books “potentially related to gender ideology or discriminatory equity ideology topics." (Note: no final decision has been made.)

The Musk-Trump putsch of the federal agencies – including ones like the NSF and USAID, which are supposed to be independent – includes that many of these reviews and firings are being announced on X, Musk’s platform, rather than government channels. Couple what DOGE is doing with murmurings from the president and others about ignoring the courts if they disagree and members of Congress who see no evil, and independence within government is gone.

The US constitutional system of checks and balances depends upon the collective actions of independent actors. Gather all the power into the office of the presidency, and you will have a constitutional crisis. It's no more complicated than that.

Reforms born out of deceit and ignorance won't lead to government efficiency. Who's to say that tomorrow Musk’s DOGE won’t put “president,” “trump,” "top," and "dog" on the flagged word list?

Sooner or later, either Trump’s or Musk’s egos won’t be able to fill the same space. Will it then be a "DOGE eat (top) dog” world or the other way round?

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…..

Image credit: By Dent, William, active 1741-1780, artist - Library of CongressCatalog, public domain.

Getting the attention of billionaires hacking away at the federal executive branch until there are only “little tidbits” left isn’t easy. Should you be a Democrat – Blue Dog conservative or raging progressive – don’t bother even trying. It wouldn’t end well. However, there are alternatives.

The Party of Trump (POT) is engaged in a bloodlust brought on by having won the popular vote by 1.47 percent. The Council on Foreign Relations notes that Trump's victory margin was “the fifth smallest of the thirty-two presidential races held since 1900.”

We shouldn’t be surprised by Trumpian talk stretching a few million votes out of 150 million or more into a mandate. Nor should we spend time arguing about it with him. What we should be is horrified about the way the president and Mr. Trump are going about executive branch reform.

After decades in Washington, I’ll be the first to say that there is fraud, waste, and abuse that could and should be addressed. It’s gone on for decades. Congress deserves a fair portion of the responsibility.

It seems everyone wants an airport in their district or some other way to feather their political beds. However, members might think about not obliging themselves so easily. Reform is necessary.

Yet, one would hope that the reform would be done rationally rather than as a vindictive-fueled rampage by a group of people who probably couldn’t pass a high school civics test or with any comprehension of history. The shrewdness (of the group) is the work of the world’s richest man who’s bought his way into Trump’s heart.

Don and Elon’s bromance may be hard to break – despite all the talk about the impossibility of two megalomaniacs occupying the same space. Trump worships money and the power and gold-plated bathroom fixtures it buys. I don’t even want to imagine what a love-lorn Donald Trump would do in the nation’s china shop.

At some point, the reality of the wreck Trump is wreaking may set in, and leaders in Congress may wake up to the damage being done to the economy and the federal government's ability to serve the needs of its people. It’s a lot harder to hire 250,000 competent government professionals than it was to dispense with the over 300,000 they got rid of.

I've been a bit surprised not to see more about consumers boycotting companies led by Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos, and others for their conversion and obedience to Trump. Although It appears now that there’s movement in that direction.

On a cold day in February, “people called for a boycott of Tesla” standing in front of a dealership in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The demonstrators called for using anything Tesla, including its charging stations.

The Michigan demonstrators that day only numbered 50, but they're part of an international effort to hit Musk in his piggy bank. It’s being reported that: “Tesla sales have plummeted across Europe amid fears owner Elon Musk's political affiliations are causing motorists to turn away from the electric vehicle brand.”

In Germany, Tesla sales dropped 60 percent year-on-year in January. Some attribute the precipitous decline to his December declaration supporting the far-right group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). AfD is “a political party that many Germans consider to be dangerously descended from Nazism.”

According to DW news, the group is classified as a “suspected” terrorist organization – with “a strong anti-immigrant focus.” Musk isn’t the only one attempting to normalize AfD. Vice President JD Vance met with the party’s leader on his recent trip to Germany. AfD is polling at 20 percent ahead of the February 23^rd general election.

I find Musk's sticking his nose and likely his pocketbook not just in US politics but in the affairs of other nations very disconcerting. Money in politics is nothing new, of course, but in the case of contemporary billionaires, we're talking really big bucks here.

Musk kicked in $288 million to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Big contributions make you think about them giving the giver reasonable access to the Oval Office. It appears in Musk’s case to have purchased a timeshare and license to do pretty much whatever he wants.

Should you think Musk is chain-sawing the federal government and snooping into the files of Social Security and the Treasury’s disbursements for free – he’s said to be taking no salary – and getting Dana Bash to call him Harry Bōlz on TV, think again. Consider the money he makes from the US government.

According to ABC News, Musk’s companies have entered into federal contracts worth billions of dollars. (See Figure 1/Source ABC News)

Recent reports of a potential $400 million purchase of armored Tesla trucks by the State Department caused enough consternation that the Trump administration put a hold on the negotiations. Transparency is a b*tch.

The real irony is Musk's hacking around federal agencies may, in fact, lead to increased reliance on the private companies of billionaires like himself. The demands on the federal government to get payments out and do the work directed it by Congress hasn’t stopped, even as tens of thousands of federal workers are fired or become part of the “Fork in the Road” program that promises to buy out employee contracts.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that Musk would help keep electric vehicle infrastructure and tax credits alive. But, according to the Executive Director of the EV Politics Project, Joe Sacks, Teslas aren't eligible for the same tax credits.

A Harris poll (shared with the Guardian) found that 40 percent of Americans “have shifted their spending over the last few months to align with their moral views.” Twenty-four percent of the respondents “have even stopped shopping at their favorite stores because of their politics.”

The political split is 50 percent Democrat to 41 percent Republican. Unsurprisingly, the data shows that consumers who identify as the party out of power are more likely to let their pocketbooks do the talking. They’re more motivated.

In the 1920s, Henry Ford’s “anti-Jewish campaign provoked protests and a boycott of Ford Motor automobiles.” Ford was a virulent anti-Semite. He “became a media mogul of sorts, forming the Dearborn Publishing Company and purchasing the sleepy Dearborn Independent weekly newspaper.”

He used the paper as a platform to publish “articles that would refer to Jews in every possible context as at the root of America and the world's ills.”

Musk isn’t the only tycoon who's decided to throw his lot in with President Trump and embrace his stances on everything from DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) to truth-telling. Zuckerberg announced an end to Meta's fact-checking – allowing false information and hate speech to populate the messages on Facebook and Instagram.

I admit to being one of the 250,000 who dropped their subscription to the Washington Post after its owner, Jeff Bezos, stopped the paper from endorsing Kamala Harris over President Trump. I'm also planning to give up my Prime account. Bezos benefits from billions of dollars in government contracting between his space company, Blue Origin, and AWS computing.

The campaign by conservatives against Bud Light over its relationship to Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer, caused the company’s North American revenue to nosedive “a staggering $1.4 billion in 2023, ‘primarily due to the volume decline of Bud Light,’ according to CNN, citing the brewer’s fourth-quarter earnings report.”

As a news junkie and someone who, for decades, has relied on the Washington Post (as well as other conservative and liberal publications) for information I use in my professional life, it wasn’t easy giving up my subscription. I’m finding it no easier to leave the Amazon infrastructure– I’m a creature of habit – and the company makes it easy.

Fortunately, there are alternatives to most of these things. Tesla is not the only electric vehicle manufacturer out there; any more than Amazon is the only place to buy pet food and watch movies. I have no illusions about what I can accomplish individually by not buying a Tesla or giving up my Prime membership.

In any event, offsetting the inconvenience of finding alternatives is the “high” I get from putting my money where my beliefs are. It’s the same pride I had in myself when I gave up smoking.

Image credit: micheile henderson and Unsplash

It's hard to know where to start when describing Washington these days. President Trump is taking a wrecking ball named Elon Musk to the federal government. It seems that money does talk, and big money talks loudest. Musk contributed at least $288 million to get Trump elected.

Hyperbole is impossible when discussing the seriousness of what's happening in Washington. When I speak of a wrecking ball to government, I mean federal agencies usurping the legislative branch's powers, with a strong possibility of ignoring decisions of the judicial branch.

The threat of disregarding the courts brings to mind the phrase "constitutional crisis." And, it's not just Trump who thinks the judicial decisions are optional – or worse, un-American. As reported in the Guardian: “On Capitol Hill, the House speaker, Mike Johnson, said that courts should take a ‘step back’ from the challenges. The Arizona congressman Eli Crane (R) declared that he was drafting articles of impeachment against the Manhattan-based US district judge Paul Engelmayer, who issued the injunction against Musk’s ‘department of government efficiency.'"

It gets worse. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) has called what Musk is doing unconstitutional. However, he feels "nobody should bellyache about that.” Then there’s the syllogism of Vice President Vance: According to the VP: "’If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general … how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.’"

I don't know what constitution these people are reading, but it's unlikely to be the one that has been the foundation of US democracy for nearly 250 years. Checks and balance means the branches are co-equal. You can't impeach a judge for making a decision you don't like. There are rules and ways to change and direct government – within the framework of the Constitution.

Beyond the outrage of the havoc Trump and his cabal are wreaking not just upon the federal government but upon the health and welfare of Americans and tens of millions of others around the world, is what he’s able to do – potentially do – to democracy.

It's easy to forget how fragile democracy is and that without the consent of the governed, it all goes away rapidly. It takes fewer people than you may imagine to simply say “no.” When the person saying it is the president of the US and no one checks him – that’s a constitutional crisis.

I make no secret of my opposition to what Trump stands for, but I recognize that he was duly elected.

I was around Washington in the Reagan years and saw what was then the most vigorous anti-government administration which I’d ever seen. The climate community went from Carter's welcoming to Reagan's belittling of clean energy technologies – a pattern of on-and-off administrations that has continued to this day. [Each time, a bit more extreme, I must say.]

Reagan’s anti-big government policies were nothing compared to what’s happening now. It’s always been that the three branches – no matter how grudgingly – have worked pretty much as the nation’s drafters of the US Constitution planned it.

It's a remarkable document – not for what it says about the law but the faith it has in people. In an interview, Vance was asked to comment on a statement he made in a conservative podcast when he “suggested that if Trump were re-elected he should ‘fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, [and] every civil servant in the administrative state … and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”

That's just it; the executive branch is the one that enforces judicial decisions. Nine justices have never gotten off the bench to enforce their judgments. How would they?

Vance believes the constitutional crisis occurs when “the elected president says, ‘I get to control the staff of my own government,’ and the Supreme Court steps in and says, ‘You’re not allowed to do that’ — like, that is the constitutional crisis.’” Whose constitution is he reading from, do you suppose?

Musk and the “so-called” Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are closing down duly legislated agencies, attempting to fire large percentages of agency personnel, e.g., 80+ percent of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and buying out the contracts of existing civil servants. In many cases, they intend to replace them with political appointees.

Trump has issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to "coordinate and consult [with DOGE] to cut jobs and limit hiring.” Also, according to the Order, each agency is to "undertake plans for large-scale reductions in force" and limits hiring to "essential positions" only. It should be noted that DOGE is often referred to as "so-called" because it's wholly a figment of the president's – it hasn't been established by legislation, nor is it clear the president has the power to create it. The courts are likely to decide that issue in the coming months.

Why are Republicans in Congress letting all this happen? Cowardice and convenience are my top two guesses. Rumblings by Republicans in the hallways suggest they're letting Musk do it so they'll avoid blame for any inconvenience his slashing and burning might cause while at the same time taking credit for ultimately reining him in.

How far they'll rein him in is another matter. It's not as if constituents – Democrats and Republicans – aren't contacting their members of Congress. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said the Senate phone lines were getting 1600 calls a minute, mainly because of what Musk was doing. However, E&E News reports that most – not all, e.g., Representative Don Bacon (R-NE) – Republicans on Capitol Hill “seem content to let Musk run free” and are “yawning” at constituent calls.

The cowardice comes into the equation as most in Congress are worried about falling out of favor with the president and being primaried. Musk responded to claims that he would fund challengers to GOP House members who didn't fall in line by saying, "How else? There is no other way."

Even if all the stop funding orders are lifted and major pieces of programs maintained, whether by Congress or the courts, the chaos has already caused a lot of damage. USAID's lifesaving and lifegiving programs and its considerable energy portfolio are all in limbo, if not on the chopping block. What of the people dependent on those programs who have been suddenly cut off?

USAID energy programs include the "Scaling Up Renewable Energy (SURE)" initiative that helps partner countries transition to clean energy; the "Clean Power Asia" program aimed at promoting low-emission power systems in the region; and the "Vocational Training and Education for Clean Energy (VOCTEC)" program that builds capacity for installing and maintaining off-grid solar systems in Pacific Island nations.

Red states could be hit worse than blue states when it comes to the billions of dollars of investments – public and private – being leveraged by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the bipartisan infrastructure bill. It's something that hasn't escaped notice by GOP members that it's their states and districts whose programs are being threatened – particularly rural programs.

Farm advocates believe that the president’s position on the IRA disproportionately harms farmers and rural economies by affecting funds for conservation initiatives, research grants, and assistance for small agricultural businesses.

A group of House Republicans is so concerned about USAID funding that they've "introduced legislation this week that aims to salvage a foreign aid program targeted for extinction by Mr. Trump as part of his effort to wipe out the USAID. The bill would transfer oversight of the Food for Peace program, which purchases crops at market price from American farmers and distributes them to hungry people abroad, from USAID to the Agriculture Department."

There is no action by the Biden administration that is to go unscathed. At the signing ceremony for the DOGE order, the commander-in-chief added plastic straws to his list of lefty crimes. “I’ve had them [paper straws] many times, and on occasion, they break, they explode.” Somebody needs to tell the president he sucks – too hard on paper straws. If he sipped rather than sucked, they wouldn't explode. They might also tell him that incandescent light bulbs he’s so fond of are no longer manufactured in the US. Will a 25 percent tariff be levied on them?

On Capitol Hill, the House and Senate Republican majorities remain at odds with each other over how to proceed using the reconciliation process to pass Trump's America First Agenda. The Senate has gotten frustrated enough with the House not being able to come up with a budget resolution acceptable to both chambers. They’ve yet to agree on one or two bills.

House Speaker Johnson continues to support a "one big beautiful bill," while the Senate believes in two bills. In the Senate’s version, the first would include the easy stuff like border security, immigration, and energy. The second bill would contain an extension of the president's 2017 tax credits and other tax issues.

It’s not at all clear that Republicans can rule. Neither is it clear that the Democrats can become an effective minority party. What’s a nation to do? It’s a topic for another day.

Lead image courtesy of Unsplash

Recent scientific data shows that global temperatures exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius (above pre-industrial levels) for the first time. Dr. James Hansen, the godfather of the modern-day climate movement, believes the global rise is already at 2.0 degrees Celsius.

Beyond this degree range, scientists predict that multi-billion-dollar weather-related disasters become commonplace, and the extinction of plant and animal species will speed up. The data shows something else as well.

The next four years will find the climate collective playing defense in the corridors of Congress and offense in the halls of justice to keep the Trump administration and the Republicans on Capitol Hill from completely dismantling federal clean energy, environmental, and other climate-related programs, e.g., scientific and health research, and policies, e.g., the Inflation Reduction Act.

But what of winning in the court of public opinion?

Defending against the second Trump administration running roughshod over duly enacted legislative programs and regulations is essential. But it shouldn't cloud the critical need for the climate collective to rethink its messaging.

It's hardly coincidental that both the climate collective and the Democratic Party are at a loss for how to convince the half of Americans who vote Republican to understand the causes, consequences, and culprits of Earth's heating. More importantly, what message will move them to action?

Jonathan Chait, writing in The Atlantic, believes that the Democratic Party “has largely ceded it to a collection of progressive activist groups.” Chait suggests these groups are funded by liberal donors but fail individually to have broad support. He highlights climate groups as prime examples.

Chait's complaint about the takeover by the collection of progressive interests is they don't reflect the priority of the larger population of voters. He supports his argument by referencing a recent New York Times poll that asked respondents two questions. What are your priorities? What do you think are the priorities of the Democrats?

Like two trains passing in the night, two very different sets of answers were given. Respondent priorities were “the economy, health care, immigration, taxes, and crime.” The perceived priorities of the Democratic Party were “abortion, LGBTQ policy, climate change, the state of democracy, and health care.”

Chait recognizes – I think accurately – that the priority of elected officials may be closer to those of respondent priorities but believes the perception of the party's priorities is correct. That the accomplishments of the officials weren't better communicated was a messaging failure.

Trump’s political genius is having defined the Democrats—whether conservative Blue Dog or socialist—as the establishment. It was a feat far more remarkable than getting doubters to admit that the 2020 election was stolen or that those who overran the US Capitol were everyday tourists out for a stroll.

How did big tech, fossil fuel interests, utilities, and insurance companies escape identification as leading lights of the establishment out to make a profit off the backs of average Americans? What has ExxonMobil done lately to lower gas prices?

Is there such a thing as too much profit—especially windfall profits from war? Can oil companies be directed to turn some of the billions in profits into lower prices at the gas pump? For that matter, what has Elon Musk done to help lower inflationary prices?

Trump is going to be found out as the alternative truth teller he is — not because of the inane things he says but because his promised economic benefits of tariffs and energy prices being halved within months of his taking office aren’t coming to bear.

When it comes to energy, why does Trump think more drilling is something the oil and gas companies want to do? The US is already the world’s largest oil and gas producer. Efforts to expand export facilities will take years. Trump believes that increasing supply will bring down prices.

But why would oil companies go along with it? Profit levels are at record highs. Why, too, would Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations continue to produce at current levels in the face of declining prices? Trump doesn't control the global market enough to force price drops based on supply.

The real growth is in the clean energy and storage markets. Trump's efforts to completely rescind the Inflation Reduction Act and impound federal dollars will result in significant pushback from red states profiting from the Democratic-only legislation.

The New York Times reports that Georgia State Representative Beth Camp (R) fears that the loss of IRA investments could destroy hundreds of jobs related to green manufacturing plants and the loss of billions in private investments. Camp is justifiably concerned that this could leave factories in Georgia “sitting empty.”

We are an angry nation. Trump is popular now, but when he doesn't produce, the anger is going to be directed at him and the Republican congressional majority. For all the touting of "promises made, promises kept" by press agents in these first weeks of his second administration, he has accomplished little except chaos and myriad court cases.

His inevitable “promises made, promises missed” are chances— not to say “gotcha’” and gloat – but to engage the half of the nation that has yet to see combatting climate change and increasing the resilience of communities to weather-related disasters as a national priority.

Democrats and the climate collective do themselves a disservice by failing to learn from Trump. The community has zero standing with Republicans – all of whom are not MAGA-minded. Although Trump's new mantra, "common sense," doesn't make much sense when applied to him, it reflects what voters seek.

So, what would Donald Trump do to convince his voters of the need for a low-carbon economy?

Those are words to advocate by.

Lead image screengrab courtesy of YouTube

Washington has left chaos behind; mayhem now rules the nation's capital. I've never seen anything like it in my many years in politics. Trump is cleaning house – or at least trying to – and it's unlikely to end well for the US economy or the environment. At the same time, it may set off a constitutional crisis. It’s something I don’t say lightly.

Trump seems bound and determined not just to shake up the system, but to tear it down – from the inside out. The theory behind his early efforts seems to be to create enough chaos and mayhem for voters to demand an authoritarian president who can restore order. The theory's weakness is that once chaos reaches a certain level, you can't control it – even though you were the one who started it.

Trump, as promised, signed dozens of executive orders on Day 1. Included in the batch was the order Unleashing American Energy (EO). By energy is meant coal, oil, and gas.

The EO starts this way: “America is blessed with an abundance of energy and natural resources that have historically powered our nation's economic prosperity. In recent years, burdensome and ideologically motivated regulations have impeded the development of these resources [fossil fuels], limited the generation of reliable and affordable electricity, reduced job creation, and inflicted high energy costs upon our citizens.” (Emphasis added)

The critical word in these sentences is “ideological.” It's a theme that's continued later in the order when it states in “Section 7. Terminating the Green New Deal.” (Emphasis added). By the Green New Deal is meant – minimally – two of the three historic pieces of legislation passed during Biden's administration. The three laws are the Democrat-only Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The somewhat bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act will also come to be lumped under the Green New Deal heading.

The Unleashing Order, and a separate order by the White House budget office (OMB), directed agencies to pause of all federal expenditures pending a review by agencies for the conformity of the funding to priorities and policies of the Trump administration. Before continuing the discussion, let's put these few pieces together.

The keywords are ideological and the Green New Deal. These are themes Trump intends to carry through his second term. No science needs to apply over the next four years. As if any more proof were needed of his intent, he's "fired" all of the members of agency science committees.

The EO also directs “the Administrator of the EPA... the heads of any other relevant agencies, shall submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings, “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).”

The finding followed the Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA. The narrow 5 to 4 decision held that EPA is obligated to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases if they were found to endanger society. Without the endangerment finding, “all the climate stuff goes away,” as one of Trump’s former advisers so eloquently stated.

Trump is purposefully going to test the bounds of presidential power. He's cowed most Capitol Hill Republicans – for the moment – and seems to have his sights on the courts now. One of his Day 1 orders tried to rescind the US Constitution's 14^th Amendment right to citizenship of anyone born in the US. Something that can't be done without amending the Constitution. It's a lengthy process that includes Congress and the states.

Just two weeks in office and President Trump has laid claim to Greenland, promised to take back the Panama Canal, is in the process of firing every government employee who was ever involved in any way with DEI, letting Elon Musk cancel the $43 billion United States Agency for International Development (USAID), offering the federal government’s 2.4 million employees a buyout, and just started what the Wall Street Journal called the “dumbest trade war in history.”

The courts stayed both the pause of federal funding and the birthright orders. Something that couldn't have surprised the president and his advisors. So, why do it?

Trump’s a tactical savant. I’ve got to give the devil his due. Beyond the performative value of the orders (his base is thrilled), the sheer number of actions has everyone – including “his” hill Republicans – so overwhelmed they don’t quite know where to start.

There are already myriad lawsuits against the administration over everything from illegally pausing expenditures to violating the Civil Service laws, with more on the way. As usual, it’s the lawyers who’ll profit.

Beyond the usual opposition patter and threatening filibusters in the Senate, there's not much they can do without the support of a few Republicans, which they're not likely to get – at least for a while.

However, things are not all roses for the president. At least seven hardcore conservatives in the House are unlikely to support any reconciliation bill, attempt to raise the debt ceiling, or fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year without some concessions.

On a handshake deal, Johnson promised his uber-right member that the next appropriation bills would trim $2.5 trillion off the deficit over the next decade. Currently, estimates are that Trump's agenda would add hundreds of billions of dollars. It's a huge difference, and the patience of the most conservative members of the House seems to be running out.

The president is going to encounter resistance to his axing the IRA, Infrastructure, and CHIPS Act programs. Billions of public and private funds for new factories and job programs have flowed into red states. They'll be hard-pressed to have those canceled. It should be interesting to see how they distinguish them from the "woke" ideological agenda.

GOP congressional leaders are still pondering their budget reconciliation strategy. They've yet to decide whether it's to be one bill or two and are still facing the dilemma of raising the debt ceiling, which needs to be done by June. Reconciliation is a procedure that allows a budget-related bill to pass on a simple majority vote in the Senate – avoiding a filibuster.

There are signs of rifts between the MAGA-minded and more establishment Republicans. It’s being reported by The Hill that: “Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is weighing a primary challenge to Sen. John Cornyn (R) in what could be the next high-profile proxy battle between the two competing wings of the state's GOP.”

To stop, Trump will require accommodations between establishment and moderate Republicans and Democrats. For now, expect the Democrats to be spectators, as Republicans have the wind at their backs.

Image of Capitol Dome courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol

This is the fifth in an occasional series on the transition from Biden to the incoming Trump administration—the early days.

The 119^th Congress has opened for business. Once President-elect Trump is sworn into office on January 20^th, the Republicans will control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Whether they have control over themselves is another matter.

The first test of Republican solidarity was the election of House Speaker. Although encountering turbulence, Speaker Johnson (R-LA) was re-elected on the first vote. Trump backed Johnson, but he’s on thin ice with some of the more conservative members of the GOP House conference. Although he still holds the gavel, his grip is less secure than in the 118th Congress.

Johnson’s troubles, however, are just beginning. House budget hawks are circling and have promised to act up if substantial cuts in federal spending are not made. They’ll have plenty of opportunity to make good on those threats over the next several months.

Johnson has the smallest House majority in almost a century to work with. At present, the vote margin is one. Even after vacancies are filled through special elections, the Republicans will only have 220 votes to the Democrats 215. For the GOP, that's two fewer than in the previous Congress.

Republican congressional leaders and the president-elect are trying to decide how best to act on Trump’s America First Agenda. Because of the slim majorities and the ability of Senate Democrats to filibuster legislation brought up for a vote in the normal course of business, Republicans are looking to use a procedure called Budget Reconciliation. It allows the passage of federal budget legislation by a simple majority vote.

Senate rules permit the filibusters. To close down a filibuster requires a super majority of 60 votes. Reconciliation was how the Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act.

There are complex rules about what can be included in a reconciliation package. The procedure is subject to the Byrd Rule, which "prevents reconciliation bills from becoming a way to pass policy changes that aren't related to the federal budget."

The interpreter of the reconciliation rules is the Senate Parliamentarian, a non-partisan position. The Parliamentarian's ruling is not law, although it generally determines what is in the ultimate legislation.

"The process begins when the House and Senate Budget Committees include instructions in the annual budget resolution. These instructions tell other committees to develop legislation that affects spending, revenues, or the debt limit. The legislation is then considered by the full House or Senate."

The process can take many months depending on the ability of the majority party to pass the resolution, get committee numbers, find enough votes in the House to pass it on to the Senate and for the Parliamentarian to pass judgment and for the Senate vote and send it on to the president.

The problem for the GOP is whether to package all of Trump’s America First Agenda—from border security to the extension of his 2017 tax credits—in one or two reconciliation bills. The president-elect has indicated his preference for one big, beautiful bill.

Speaker Johnson also favors a single bill. He reasons that a single bill would have something in it for everyone. Johnson believes that if everyone has something to gain, objections won't be raised for fear of losing.

Thune and most senators have a contrary view. They believe a loaded bill will trigger the most conservative members of the House and Senate to see the legislation as profligate spending because it's estimated that Trump's agenda would add significantly to the national debt—without substantial spending cuts in other areas, including Social Security and Medicare.

Because of the complexity and contentiousness of some of the spending proposals, a single bill could take 12 to 18 months to draft, get the Parliamentarian's approval, and receive final votes.

One thing congressional Republicans and the president-elect seem to agree on is the need to produce results quickly. To that end, the Senate majority leader proposes putting things most Republicans would support, e.g., border security and energy, into the first of two reconciliation bills.

The two-bill strategy would leave tax issues, including extending Trump's 2017 tax credits to a second bill—giving the conferences more time to work out their differences. Although under Republican control, the Senate has a more moderate disposition and sees value in bipartisanship. Whereas House conservatives believe cooperating with the Democrats is high treason and sufficient grounds to depose a House speaker.

As tricky as the budget reconciliation strategy will prove for Capitol Hill Republicans and the Trump White House, a March 14^th deadline to fund the government’s current operations is going to be an early test of Johnson’s leadership abilities and an opportunity for House conservatives—in particular—to show how serious they are about forcing trillion-dollar cuts in government spending.

Trump had hoped that the December budget resolution would have included raising the debt ceiling, as it would have allowed him to blame President Biden. The issue now has to be resolved on the Republican's watch. The ceiling is expected to be bumped up against around June of this year.

Without raising the debt ceiling or reducing spending, new programs—including extending Trump’s 2017 tax credits—won’t be able to be funded. Including the raise in any reconciliation bill will greatly complicate matters as there is a fair amount of opposition within the GOP ranks.

The president-elect clearly anticipates trouble on these matters from at least one Texas representative—Chip Roy (R-TX). Trump has recently expressed what he thinks of the leading House far-right conservative:

“[Representative] Chip Roy is just another ambitious guy, with no talent...I hope some talented challengers are getting ready in the Great State of Texas to go after Chip in the Primary. He won’t have a chance!”

The razor-thin House majority gives Roy and any two of the 30 or so members of the House Freedom Caucus a significant opportunity to cause chaos in the Republican ranks.

Caving to Roy and others means Johnson will likely lose the votes of the more moderate members of his conference. Yet, failing to get their votes means the speaker (and President Trump) will need Democratic votes to pass critical legislation like budget resolutions and raising the debt ceiling. Getting Democratic votes won’t come without making concessions, e.g., maintaining renewable energy programs at the Department of Energy.

Senate hearings on the president-elect’s cabinet nominees are beginning in earnest this second week of January. Hearings for the following key energy and environment decisionmakers will be occurring the week of January 12^th: Pam Bondiv (Justice); Sean Duffy (Transportation); Chris Wright (Energy); Russell Vought (Office of Management and Budget); Lee Zeldin (EPA); and Scott Bessent (Treasury).

Two other nominees of note confronting Senate questioners this week are Doug Burgum (Interior) and Pete Hegseth (Defense). Hegseth is one of Trump's most controversial cabinet nominees. Hegseth, a former FOX News presenter, faces serious questions about his character and experience.

It's rumored that there’s been a lessening of opposition to Hegseth's nomination. Trump continues to support him, and the nominee has softened some of his positions, e.g., opposition to women serving in combat positions.

Hegseth should be considered a bellwether of how disposed Republican senators are to giving Trump most of his nominees. It's fair to say many of the candidates aren’t at all qualified for the positions they've been nominated to hold. Loyalty—to Trump—is the key qualification. As to managerial capabilities, White House Chief of Staff Susie Weils said, "That's what staff are for." ." However, not all of his nominees are likely to make it—if not for substantive reasons, to show the world Republican senators aren’t all Trump’s pawns.

Even if Hegseth and a few of the other more controversial picks don’t make it, I expect GOP senators to go along with most of the others as a way to pre-appease Mr. Trump on legislative matters.

The tensions within and between congressional Republicans aren’t going away. In fact, they may just be heating up. With the Republicans controlling Congress and the White House, far-right conservatives are saying: “If not now, when?”

They feel they’ve been betrayed by Speakers Bohner (R-OH), Ryan (R-WI), McCarthy (R-CA), and now Johnson. Although they’ve fallen in line for the moment, I expect their patience will be exhausted before too long. There are a handful of far-right House conservatives like Roy and Thomas Massie (R-WV) who are either secure enough in their districts to withstand being primaried or who don’t care if they keep their seats if it means not trimming trillions from federal budgets and deficits.

Doug Burgum should have little trouble getting through the confirmation gauntlet. In addition to his nomination as Secretary of the Interior, he’ll chair the National Energy Council. The Council is newly established by the president-elect. It will include representatives from all executive branch agencies involved in energy permitting, production, generation, distribution, regulation, and transportation.

Trump has now indicated he will issue 100 executive orders on Day 1. Many of those orders will be rescinding most—if not all—of President Biden's climate-related orders. It should also be expected that dozens of joint resolutions disapproving regulations finalized during the last 60 legislative days of the previous (118^th) will be introduced and signed by Trump in the coming weeks. The disapproval authority is granted to the Congress under the Congressional Review Act.

Any doubts that energy and environmental issues were on Trump’s mind were erased last week during an impromptu press conference he held at Mar-a-Lago. Pretty much unbidden, he launched off against the “Green New Scam” and vowed to halt all offshore wind—he had previously urged the UK to scrap its North Sea windmills to expand North Sea drilling. He further blamed windmills for the death of whales, vowed to rescind an EV mandate that doesn’t exist, and declared war on any jurisdiction attempting to outlaw natural gas hookups in new construction. Efficiency measures like low-flow showerheads and clothes washers were also attacked.

President Biden's offshore drilling ban on 625 million acres appeared to trigger Trump's anti-renewables rant. He promised to reverse the ban immediately. However, it won't be possible as congressional action is required. (I should note that the oil sector didn’t seem particularly put out by the ban as it covers areas they hadn't planned to drill on—at least for the foreseeable future.)

And finally, under the category of it-takes-one-to-know-one, Steve Bannon has called Elon Musk ‘“racist” and a ‘truly evil guy’, pledging to ‘take this guy down’ and kick him out of the Maga movement.”

Welcome 2025!

Lead image of US Capitol courtesy of NASA